Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:TheMagnificentist

Seems that User:TheMagnificentist acts against consensuses changing on his own en mass categories "X music groups" to "X musicians" even in cases where article is about a band/group/musical project.[1][2][3][4] He also removed the content of a number of categories: [5], [6], [7], [8], +many other, and a lot of related categories becames empty (e.g. Category:English electronic music groups). Thousands of changes done with AWB - and in a number of pages he made by several consecutive edits,[9] replacing by one category at a time; isn't this a bot task? The summary used is misleading ("clean up", ORLY?). This looks to me like an abuse using mass-editing tools.

Sample of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/TheMagnificentist&offset=20170627110319&limit=500&target=TheMagnificentist

Being controversial, their edits should be rollbacked. --XXN, 11:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Notified TheMagnificentist about this discussion. I think this is controversial categorisation as well and should be discussed first before such wide-reaching changes are implemented by AWB or any other automated tool. Ss112 12:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, he also emptied categories outside of the WP:CFD process and outright blanked them--I have no clue what the purpose would be of that. I thought that he was trying to change instances of "synthpop" to "synth-pop" since the article was moved but no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I came across one of his edits here when CNBLUE was moved from Category:Electronic rock musical groups to Category:Electronic rock musicians. Not only was the execution messy (the latter is still categorized under a "rock music groups" parent category), it appears these edits were made unilaterally without any prior discussion. I agree that his edits should be reverted and I strongly advise him to suggest any changes to the current category scheme by properly listing them at WP:CFD. ℯxplicit 05:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I was only attempting to combine categories of "X music groups" with "X musicians". I apologize for unilaterally doing this myself without consensus, but it was done per WP:BOLD. I thought it was uncontroversial because many of the categories weren't sorted properly. It was a huge mess and many articles in 'electronic music' had redundant categories. Some had both "X music groups" and "X musicians". I intially planned on cleaning up categories of electronic music because many of its subcategories had little articles so I thought merging them with bigger categories would make things neater. I blanked some of them because they had no pages and I wanted to request speedy after 7 days to have them deleted so that the redundant categories (X groups) wouldn't confuse other editors. I removed or changed categories of "X groups" to "X musicians" per consistency with similar pages.

The edit summary "Clean up" was default and I didn't change it, assuming AWB would update it per my edits. When this ANI report was posted, I wasn't done with the categories yet, which was why the parent categories are still there.

If it is decided that my edits to the categories should be reverted, I am willing to do it myself and undo them all because per guideline, I am responsible for the edits I make via AWB. - TheMagnificentist 06:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: Please make note of this WP:AWBRULES when every time you're using AWB, if you think that categories should be request an speedy deletion, you need to via the WP:TALK page to make the new section first, by discussion an consensus with other editors to make an collaboratively decision on that, and should not be blank it like this in anyway, hopefully you'll acknowledgement on that, regards. SA 13 Bro (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III."
This section was about to be archived without an action taken. I can't understand the indifference to this case.
Bad administrative work... XXN, 10:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

...and again this section is about to be archived. XXN, 11:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging BrownHairedGirl - seems that you are an admin intersted in the categorization correctness. What do you think about this? XXN, 11:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@XXN: This looks outrageous to me. It's effectively a mass merger of categories without consensus, and it should be mass rollbacked unless the editor commits to self-reverting it all.

TheMagnificentist claims to have been acting per WP:BOLD, but it appears that they haven't read WP:BOLD properly. See especially WP:BOLD#Be_careful and WP:BOLD#Non-article_namespaces. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll start self-reverting the category edits. - TheMagnificentist 12:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, TheMagnificentist. That's the right thing to do when there isn't a consensus for such widespread changes.

If you think you can make a good case for categorising solo musicians and bands together (at least to some extent), then why not open an WP:RFC on the issue? That way you can find out where consensus lies, before engaging in lots of controversial edits.

Personally, I don't think the idea is a runner ... but I haven't yet heard your reasoning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I just think smaller categories mislead readers from finding the right category. They might want to see a whole list of musicians including music groups, but since there's separate categories for that, they might not find it. I have reverted most of my category edits, just some minor cleanups remaining. - TheMagnificentist 14:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: We already have a guideline about that: WP:SMALLCAT.
If you see categories which you reckon should be merged per WP:SMALLCAT, then you could nominate them for merger at WP:CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparent IDLI removal of G5 Speedy Delete request

Several days ago, I nominated a file for deletion [10] based on another sock block of an indeffed user. Before his indef, the user had been topic banned from uploading files. It occurred to me today that because the file had been uploaded by a sock of an indeffed user, WP:G5 would apply. I noted this at the deletion discussion [11] after putting a G5 CSD notice at the file page. It was promptly removed by an editor [12] who had stated at the deletion discussion that he felt the file should be kept [13]. His rationale for removing the CSD tag in the edit summary was "regardless of the violation this file is properly sourced and has a valid fair use so I think deleting would just be a waste of time".

I went to that editor's talk page and asked him to self-revert [14]. He refused [15] [16]. It should be pointed out that this editor ignored the procedure for dealing with a speedy delete tag and did not even attempt to discuss his dissent at the file's talk page.

Could an admin intervene, please? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

First, I'm happy to see you ask instead of reverting, WV. Question: let's say the file is speedy deleted, and 2 seconds later Salavat re-uploads it with his own fair use rationale. You wouldn't believe the file should be speedy deleted then, right? Because G5 no longer applied? So, since Salavat has added his own fair use rationale, the current situation is functionally indistinguishable from this theoretical situation. So let's save some time and energy, pretend it did happen that way, not make Salavat jump thru pointless hoops, and move on with our lives. Getting annoyed that a file MaranoFan unloaded is actually potentially useful is playing right into MaranoFan's hands. Don't be his puppet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Of course I didn't revert, Floquenbeam. Why would I?

(2) If Salavat uploaded it after it were speedy deleted, that wouldn't be an issue because Salavat isn't indeffed due to sockpuppetry (and other things) and doesn't have a topic ban against uploading files.

(3) It's not the file that's the issue, it's the violation of policy (violating the topic ban and block evasion).

(4) G5 exists for the very reason(s) I requested a speedy delete (block evasion chief among them), does it not?

(5) If we keep everything or anything in opposition to the reason why G5 exists, then G5 is useless and, as policy, should no longer exist.

(6) MF's articles created as Beachey were deleted by Bbb23 because of block evasion. Why shouldn't the file be deleted for the same reason?

(7) This is about the principle as well as getting a serial sockmaster to understand that if they create articles, edit articles, and upload files via a sock account, it will be a complete waste of time because after they are once again caught, everything they did will be removed. That's a deterrent to future socking ideation and activity. Isn't that part of the reason why G5 as policy is in place?

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)...so, in order to make a point to a banned user, you should waste a good users time? Anmccaff (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Waste" of time? Two minutes? Sorry, I don't see an issue or any alleged waste. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There mere existence of a thread at ANI takes up a full hour of editor time, just for the eyeballs of 500 people to pass over the thread even if they don't stop. If there's any reasoning by which an ANI thread can be avoided, it should always be applied. EEng 19:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If chastising needs to happen here - which you appear to be doing, EEng - it seems to me that the person who needs to be chastised is the now-serial-sockmaster MaranoFan, not those who bring the fallout from his socking to noticeboards so it can be dealt with according to policy. Of course, that then brings me back full circle to the reason why G5 exits: to assist in deterring the indeffed sockmaster from socking again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)For what it's worth, in the future, I'd think a removal of the quick-kill tag by an established user looks an awful lot like a substantial edit[s] by others in some cases. Anmccaff (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• The key thing here, to me, is WP:BURO. The policies about reverting or deleting contributions from blocked or banned users exist to enable quick cleanup and response to further disruption, as well as the deterrent value. They allow the quick removal of bad content, but they don't force the removal of good content. They also cover scenarios where good content might get reverted or deleted as part of a mass cleanup (mass deletion of new pages, or mass rollback); so that the mere existence of some good content in a sea of bad does not inhibit rapid cleanup of the bad. To me, the G5 nomination is not wrong or inappropriate, but it's something that any user in good standing can remove if they see value in the content (the restriction on removing a CSD tag only applies to the creator of the page (and their obvious / confirmed socks)). Similarly any reverted edits which a user in good standing decides were actually constructive can be reinstated (I encounter this occasionally when reverting vandalism, where I revert an edit because the majority of the user's other edits have been clearly bad, then someone in good standing and with subject knowledge reinstates it). Such decisions are probably best made by well established users, best avoided by new or inexperienced users, and should always have a clear explanation in the edit summary (and talk if more detail is needed). Murph9000 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A good explanation. I don't agree totally, but a good and rational explanation nonetheless. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Uncollapse for a gigantic wall of text about... something

Hang around here long enough and you'll notice the same editors and admins that can't and won't wait to revert, delete and block at the drop of a hat even before an edit is completed when its THEIR IDEA can't be convinced to do the same even when someone goes out of their way to do it the RIGHT WAY and tries to get a "consensus". Why? They don't take orders from anybody because they're above that and least of all from anybody who doesn't have their "rank" or "time in service" or edit counts and all the other meaningless "stats" they think makes them more equal than others and that apparently give them...gasp...some OWNERSHIP here. And if you snoop around here long enough and particularly in talk pages and you realize that a lot of these editors and admins have the luxury of being able to edit at "work" and at home and that many of them are "educators" with access to a wide range of computers, public and private Wi-Fi networks, various public and private email systems, multiple smart phones, multiple tablets, multiple IPs that in countries like the U.S. can be in another state and seem far apart geographically but literally be only a couple miles from each other and that many of them are uber-nerd computer geeks with access to resources and know-how the rest of us can't imagine AND that there are all kinds of little cliques and cults on here; you might start wondering just how often when an editor or admin that normally can't wait to shut down some "vandal" not only refuses to do so when asked even with they're not SPECIFICALLY ASKED, they come up with a LAUNDRY LIST of reasons why they shouldn't. Like "it's not worth the time". Of course they have plenty of time to post that it's not worth the time and others have plenty of time to give examples and hypotheticals that "prove" it wouldn't be worth the time. And they have plenty of time to troll around admin noticeboards and apparently investigate and respond. But no time to send a nastygram and block threat and revert or protect anything. When you throw the "policies" and "rules" in some long-time editor/admin's face or rather they step in front of what you're throwing out for anyone to catch and let themselves get hit in the face AND you have links to the diffs and all those things that "good" editors use to try to create a "consensus", they're PROTECTING SOMEONE rather than protecting the project. Start snooping around user talk pages for the editors and admins that patrol and block and revert and threaten endlessly and do little or nothing else and just kind of keep track of what names show up over and over and how a lot of them seem to spend a hell of a lot of time on OTHER EDITORS AND ADMIN'S TALK PAGES RESPONDING TO MESSAGES THAT OBVIOUSLY WEREN'T INTENDED FOR THEM and you just might go all conspiracy theorist and start thinking that there could be a relatively small core group of editors/admins here with a bunch of different usernames and accounts who technically wouldn't be "sockpuppets" by the "official" definition because according to Wiki:SP a "sockpuppet account" is created by someone who has been BLOCKED. So if they have several accounts and haven't ever been blocked on any of them they can't really be sockpuppets, can they? Factor in how many of them seem to think they have a duty to let everyone know when they WON'T BE ON WIKIPEDIA and WHY as if they're calling in sick to work or something and have a responsibility to do so and how super-important Wikipedia suddenly doesn't matter at ALL for days or weeks because they have something going on in their "real life" that's going to keep them away and look at the times where people have left messages on their talk pages they've either ignored completely or responded to and then deleted their responses or where they respond with "I don't have time to respond right now and won't have time for hours" (or days in some cases) and all of a sudden its like they have mutliple personalities. That's not your imagination. They do. Literally. Or at least they try to. But they slip up from time to time when good old "muscle memory" takes over and they log in as their "alter ego" when they get home from work or to wherever they're picking up public Wi-Fi or whatever little tricks they're using to log in from different IPs as different people, but they head straight to the talk page for the character they were last logged in as to see if they've gotten any messages from cronies and maybe they get distracted or get angry if somebody gets in their shit about something and they forget who they are and respond to a message sent to their other character on that talk page when they least expected it and from a total stranger to boot. And of course they're the same ones that endlessly preach to IP editors to "sign your comments" because that way they get notifications if they have that IP on a watchlist of some kind or have articles that IP edits or visits a lot on a watchlist, etc. Basically they want to see everything that IP does and says but what they NEVER do with IP editors is personally encourage them to sign up for an account. Why? Because that makes it a lot harder for them to cyberstalk strangers AND it makes that editor more "legit". Especially if that editor happens to use a real email address for a real account they actually use instead of some free account they created just to make another "character" and account and because that person is probably NOT doing what they're doing. Which is be a sneaky little bitch with multiple accounts at least one of which is probably the one they use at their go government-employee job at a library or college or high school where they're getting paid and compensated damned well to pretty much be full-time Wikipedia editor/admins about 8 hours a day 5 days a week while someone else like a grad student or assistant teacher or library aid is doing their actual work. Then they go home how and change identities and fuck with more people as yet another "respected Wikipedian" and they report when they won't be on Wikipedia because during those hours or days they're somewhere else posing as yet ANOTHER one of their characters or are at some super-secret little get-together plotting and scheming with their other cronies they know in the "real world". So when they not only refuse to block or support blocking someone or at least warning them or trying to engage with them using the excuse "it's not worth the time" and then yet another supposedly dedicated Wikipedian comes along and explains WHY the first person who responded to say they weren't going to do anything is right to not do anything and explains why, it's pretty freaking obvious they don't want to block that account because its somebody's alternate account. And even though it would be really easy to issue a very short block or have another crony or even use another character to remove it within a few minutes or hours, there's one big problem when it comes to blocking accounts. There are constantly updated pages of current blocks, former blocks etc etc etc with all the info about who blocked them, why etc and if you know your way around a little bit, you can find THE IP the "user name" is just a substitute for. And there are some legit, honest and hard-core Wikipedians who really hate the way some power-tripping clowns try to run this place and they REALLY detest hypocrites and people who are here for personal gain rather than "build an encyclopedia". And clearly anyone that is running multiple accounts and is in cahoots with other sneaks isn't doing it because they're "building an encyclopedia". The fact that they literally never contribute ANYTHING and spend ALL of their time deleting, blocking and reverting and the only "content" they put on Wikipedia is their OPINIONS and CRITICISM, at least other than the little bit of time they put into sticking up for their cronies and covering their asses and their OWN ASSES by NOT doing what they do in heartbeat day in and day out, they're getting some kind of benefits from their presence here besides a warm fuzzy feeling about "building an encyclopedia. Like I said, there are some die-hard Wikipedia cops here who don't give a shit how popular or respected or admired or "civil" an editor is, if they suspect that editor is running multiple accounts, has some COI or is just plain up to something, they'll block them AND they'll start using all kinds of other tools to look for patterns in their activity, see what users just happen to log in say within minutes to a few hours after they log off on a regular basis, etc and they'll sniff them out. Hell, I know very little about how the whole internet thing works as far as IPs and ISPs and all of that goes and I know damned good and well you can live in one state and have an account with an ISP several states away for your home internet, work in another town and even in another state and have internet access THERE through your job but also take home your laptop and be using your home internet access but be VPNed through work so regardless of where you happen to be it'll be your employer's IP or IP range for THAT internet access and then have a smart phone and internet access through your personal cell service, do the same thing with a work phone and even use "prepaid" internet access with a Straight Talk account and pretty much sit at home and be logged on to Wikipedia as 4 or 5 different editors at once and even if somebody was suspicious for some reason and started digging all they'd find is 4 or 5 different IPs in at least three different states. But the thing is that even a lot of longtime Wikipedia editors and even some of those running multiple accounts don't know that just because you have an account doesn't mean your IP ceases to exist, and some of them no doubt are using IPs that will traced back to within a handful of miles of each other and if one is say a university or library and another is a private account AND they're frequently logged on within minutes or a few hours of each other but never simultaneously, that's a big red flag. Anytime you see the normally nasty or at the very least smug, condescending and generally snotty "dedicated" Wikipedians who are all by the book and know the policies and rules chapter and verse and will spend what has to be hours putting their OPINIONS on here if it keeps someone else from becoming more "powerful" by opposing an admin request or whatever and that's who they are 99% of the time and ALL they do or at least all they CLAIM to do is the thankless, tireless and endless work of fighting vandalism, hunting sockpuppets or notifying new editors of everything they're doing wrong immediately and never have any time or interest in any of the suggested activities or discussions they get notifications for on their talk pages, but yet once in a while have plenty of time to answer messages sent to other editors or to defend other editors in clear violation of multiple polices and even do a little scolding or at least sermonizing to an editor who reports that person, it's a safe freaking bet they didn't suddenly become human beings. They're covering someone's ass or their own ass and don't want to block that editor because blocks draw attention from the people they don't want even knowing they exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.139 (talk • contribs) Have you tried decaf? EEng 19:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Holy shit. -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Is there anything that needs doing here? EEng 01:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding trivia to multiple articles

Do we need to know how many Facebook followers a professional sports team has per Houndground (talk · contribs)? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This board is not for content disputes like that. You should discuss the matter with the user on the relevant article talk page or WikiProject talk page, and if that fails to settle the issue, move to the dispute resolution procedures available. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm not going to take this to each individual article talk page. no one is disputing the accuracy of the content, but this is not what Wikipedia articles are for. I've brought it here as a user competency issue. Feel free to remove it if you think it's inappropriate. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you should take it to each individual page; as I indicated, it could be discussed at the relevant WikiProject or even just one article talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No, regardless of the fact that this is the wrong venue, this is pointless and unmaintainable trivia; I've reverted all the examples I can find, and left a warning on the user's page. If you find any more sporting club articles with references to "number of Facebook likes", feel free to remove them as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, a number of this user's edits are completely incompetent (i.e. [17]). Definitely worth keeping an eye on. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I was initially concerned over the rate of editing. Mass addition at such a rate would IMO be a problem (although they should be asked to stop before being brought to ANI). But looking more closely it's not so simple. Some of their edits are simply adding Facebook follower numbers. Others are updating those numbers (perhaps added by them before, I don't know). Yet other seem to be changing stadium capacities or other figures, generally without sources not that the figures generally have sources. Occasionally they have added not very good sources [18] [19]. (They've generally sourced the follower numbers to the Facebook page albeit sometimes the mobile variant.) Other times they've added various details. While not as concerning as if they were solely adding Facebook follower figures, IMO the speed of editing is a problem considering the questionable quality and they probably should be blocked if they don't slow down after being given a warning. (Which I'll do so.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh I forgot [20]. Technically true but it really needs a source and either attribution or explaination. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

One final point, the changing existing Facebook figures got me thinking. I explored this example Karachi United where it seems it was added here [21] by Special:Contributions/Fussbolfan. This editor was never blocked and has not edited since Houndground started but it's still concerning considering there are multiple warnings on their userpage. I've asked for clarification on their connection and mentioned this ANI case. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

To add my two cents, I am very concerned about this editor which clearly shows lack of competency and no attempts to talk. The editor has been mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and editors there have expressed concerns but without any response. Qed237 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite, Nil Einne and Qed237 for following up. Admittedly, this was not my preferred venue, but the editor was on a roll and I sought a quick response just to slow them down and revert at least some of the edits, a number of which were made at protected articles. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This reply: [22]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on what they said there, I've tried to explain again why they need to slow down and also directed them to the teahouse. I've also asked again for clarification on their connection to the old account, as the comment "I only use this account now" seems to imply an old account, but not clearly stating so or which one. The comment suggests perhaps there is hope. Maybe direct mentoring would be particularly beneficial if anyone is willing to volunteer. If not it's on them to read and seek help. Considering how long it took them to say anything in response, it's probably only a faint hope so no major loss either way. (Especially if the other account is them and the timing strongly suggests it is; with only a single comment on talk pages before that I can find [23] discounting a semiprotected edit request.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As a quick update, Houndground has confirmed editing using the previous account and place a declaration on their user page as I suggested so there's IMO not longer any direct concerns about the 2 accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There might no longer be a concern regarding the two account but I am very concerned about the competence. Qed237 (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Houndground once again created bogus article and I am now unfortunately ready to suggest a block. What do you think @331dot, Black Kite, and Nil Einne: who have participated in this discussion? Qed237 (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Slow edit war over multiple pags

Not sure why User:Rockypedia and User:Synthwave.94 are having the oddest edit war I have seen in a longtime. Seems to be about vertical or horizontal reference style over multiple articles ....as seen here or here Both making sure not the revert 3 times in 24 hours.....gaming the system? Can we get someone to take a look....see if we can get the edit war ended...lock pages involved..or whatever. Not suggesting blocks....just a resolution to this behind the scenes problem that has zero effect for our readers. --Moxy (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll just move the affected refs away using {{reflist|refs=...}} syntax. May or may not end the war. —Guanaco 06:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. [24][25][26] I think that's all of them. —Guanaco 06:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's going to help; part of this edit war is over citation style. Anyway, in this post, DrKay already warned them a week ago that they would get blocked if they didn't stop edit warring. Because I'm a pushover, I'll give each yet another warning. And then I'll block them if they continue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, here's a synopsis: I added valid sources to three particular pages that are on Synthwave's watchlist (and mine). I happen to use the vertical format of the <ref> style for my cites. Synthwave doesn't like vertical format; he likes horizontal. He made no substantive changes to my cites, but insists on changing the format to horizontal. I reverted those changes and started discussions, per CYCLE. He insisted on continuing to make his changes to the formats, without consensus that his changes were valid. I don't change any editor's cites that are horizontal to vertical format; I only ask for the same courtesy in return, as I often revisit cites that I've added, especially pages on my watchlist. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation. I'm happy that an admin has taken action and told both of us "leave it alone" - that's exactly what I've been asking of Synthwave the entire time. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars... /thread. TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The revision history for "Money for Nothing" shows that Rockypedia first started adding vertical formatting on 3 February 2016‎, with an edit war ending on 25 March 2016 (after a first discussion). Rockypedia then resumed this behaviour on 20 and 21 October 2016‎, and started making other controversial changes since 4 May 2017‎ (I don't even understand why) and haven't stopped ever since. They also started adding vertical formatting in the articles for "Rock the Casbah" and "99 Luftballons" one week ago. In all cases the changes were not discussed at all (in fact I didn't have any other choice than to explain why these changes were not acceptable and not even discussed in the first place !). I recently started another discussion here, where numerous editors confirmed Rockypedia should NOT use a vertical formatting in articles with a consistent horizontal formatting. In other words, Rockypedia should stop reverting my clean up edits that were intended to restore a consistent citation format in all three articles. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO unless it's specifically excepted, CITEVAR (which does not only apply to the way a page renders, e.g. gathered named refs in the references section vs. as they appear) certainly applies. The point of it is to maintain article stability, but also to resolve these disputes so they don't find their way to ANI. Lame edit war, sure, but dismissing the dispute as such just invites it to recur (and I've seen this dispute in particular come up several times before). What matters is precedent on the page, and edit warring over a preferred wikitext style against that precedent is disruptive. i.e. This sort of dispute is exactly why we have CITEVAR. That said, I appreciate there's some disagreement on the matter, and in this case both editors were guilty of edit warring. So while I don't agree with waving off this sort of dispute as a matter as trivial, it seems resolved enough for the purposes of ANI. Let it continue at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, trivial in the sense that both editors should have let the thing go a long time ago, regardless of which way it went, and yet still trivial enough that they're both still here, when looking at the page histories, anyone who happened across it would have been well within their rights to hand out stern warnings, and any admin would have been too to hand out blocks all around if they'd ignored them. TimothyJosephWood 00:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ardnashee2014 block evasion?

Just looking for some other admin's views. I've come across User:Ardnashee2014 who has been removing references from articles without any commentary. Fine, that can be dealt with. The reason here is I checked their userpage and came across this comment "This is my third Wikipedia account as I can't remember the password to my first one and my second was blocked. 'Nuff said. (drops mic)." Should we just be blocking this account for block evasion straight off? Thoughts? Canterbury Tail talk 19:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think people are welcome to a fresh start (assuming they are editing constructively). It's worth running by a checkuser though. -- John Reaves 19:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming I found his other account (just searched for his name on user pages), it looks like his blocked account (Ardnashee School and College) was done for a username vio, so they're probably ok. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Judging by the contributions yes they're the same editor. Okay, I'll just keep an eye on them for the reference deletion and see if we can sort that. Their other edits are good, just no summaries (I'll drop them a line) and randomly deleting references. Canterbury Tail talk 22:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• User is clearly engaging in rampant vandalism. Removing citations or content without the least bit of explanation. I have just now given them a final warning; if they do it again, I'm all for blocking. Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ugh, we have a whole set of them: Education Program:Hanyang University/Audience and Media Strategy (Spring 2017). Some haven't edited yet, but Markx121993 (talk · contribs) is doing the exact same thing as Ardnashee2014 (talk · contribs): massive removal of citations: [27]. I've given him a final warning as well. Piotrus, can you please help deal with this group? I ask because they are from Hanyang University, and your doppelganger account is Hanyangprofessor2, which is on the student list and is editing on the same articles as some of the students. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: As far as I know not a single student from that course has chosen to do a Wikipedia assignment. The accounts from Dlwjd9393 to Feel940 were created on April 17, during the day I was showing students Wikipedia and how to enroll in the course. All other accounts - User:Laru0004 and User:Weatherseal india and above - were created or enrolled afterward, and have no connection with the course. I am not sure who Laru0004 is (the list should be chronological, but that one enrolled in June). All others are sama vandal/newbie accounts; I've noticed there are always people (new accounts) enrolling in random courses - maybe some of them think Wikipedia is some sort of open MOOC, maybe some think it will help them bypass vandal checks, maybe there is some vandal bot/soft somewhere doing this, but a fact remains that seeing that User X is enrolled in Course Y doesn't necessarily mean they have any real connection to the course. Anyone can click the enroll button, and the 'token/password' feature is broken (I reported it last year, but Education namespace extension seems abandoned, so no-one is fixing it, so we cannot lock courses with student passwords, so the problem will continue in the foreseeable future). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks by Pyxis Solitary

After my last comment on the matter, I was done and ready to move on; however, they've now accused IJBall and myself of being sockpuppets of each other. With no evidence to back up their claims, they are making personal attacks, and that is simply not tolerable. I've never interacted with this user until they showed up to IJBall's talk page in a negative manner not assuming good faith, and based on their response to that, they think it's okay to automatically assume bad faith. From what I've seen, however, they have serious battleground behavior, and if anyone disagrees with them, they basically get all hostile toward them on top of assuming bad faith. This is not the kind of user Wikipedia should have, and they need to change their behavior. As IJBall seems to have interacted with them more, he'll be able to provide some more background. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Amaury, please provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs. Don't just haul someone to ANI just because you got your feathers ruffled, or someone got their feathers ruffled and took it out on you or someone else. If you come here, you need to make a cogent case with a sufficient number of diffs proving a lengthy pattern, and your own behavior will be looked at as well. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to be passive-aggressive. I provided a link to a discussion where this stems from above. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I was quite direct, not passive-aggressive in the least. I requested diffs, which you have still not provided. You had merely provided a link to the sort of wiki-squabble which occurs hundreds if not thousands of times a day on talkpages all across Wikipedia; in this case, a two-against-one squabble. Please provide a sufficient number of specific diffs proving a lengthy pattern. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I provided a link to a discussion containing everything without having to sift through links rather than individual diffs as that's just as useful. Sorry that didn't seem to meet your standards. In any case, [28], [29], and [30]. Hostility, condescending, and personal attacks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Re "List of Wynonna Earp episodes" discussion in editor's talk page:

I contacted an editor in his talk page regarding deletions of sourced content. You injected yourself into the discussion between us. This was not a discussion in an article's talk page. You misused WP:AGF, WP:COMMONSENSE , WP:LETITGO, WP:DROPTHESTICK, and WP:BATTLEGROUND as weapons, attempting to intimidate me. What you should have done is mind your own business and stayed out of it. And yes, I do think the 'knight in shining armour' persona is suspect. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

So if I'm not mistaken, this is what kicked the whole thing off? Really? Yintan  08:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That was the first deletion of sourced content. This was the second. After this, I wrote my message in the editor's talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why IJBall insists on having a citation in the column header when the episodes are already cited in the column's cells. If there's a WP:MOS reason for this I'm not aware of it. Now there are citations in both, which seems like overkill to me, especially since it's the same source. Also, all other cites in the article are in the cells, where cites in tables usually are, and not in the headers. Amaury's accusation that Pyxis Solitary has a battleground mentality is far fetched in my humble opinion. Pyxis Solitary's initial messages are polite and to the point. That her replies became pointier I can understand, reading the two-against-one thread linked above, but suggesting sock puppetry is going too far. But so is taking this to AN/I. Again, all in my humble opinion. For what that is worth. Kind regards, Yintan  09:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Pyxis, if you keep making personal attacks by making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, you can easily find yourself in trouble, and I suggest you cool it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yintan, I don't know if you just skimmed the discussion on IJBall's talk page linked to above, but you seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't the MOS, the issue is WP:BURDEN and WP:CRYSTAL. IJBall removed an unsourced air date from the aforementioned article. Pyxis then re-added the air date with a source and came to IJBall's talk page to complain because IJBall should have just attached the source himself rather than removing it and accused IJBall of unproductive editing. That's not how it works. Per WP:BURDEN above, it is not the responsibility of other editors to try and read other editors' minds and take care of what they should have done by finding and attaching the sources themselves, it is the responsibility of the editors who add the information to properly source it if they don't want it removed, provided it's relevant for the article, of course. And yes, currently, the episodes are sourced in the cells; however, when there's an episode guide available, it's much more beneficial to make the episode guide a column source rather than individually source each episode. Although that's beside the point. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

On another note, it's worth noting that IJBall is currently busy with something and is in an area where his access to Internet is spotty. If an administrator really needs to get a hold of him, they should email him as he may or may not respond to this discussion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so much missing the point as trying to say I honestly don't see what all your fuss is about. And trust me, I've read that Talk page. A few times even because at first I thought I was missing something MAJOR. I didn't. It's just about the citing of a source and one Talk page message that isn't even unpolite or threatening. I think your advice to Pyxis Solitary to cool it is fine but I suggest you and IJBall cool it too. "Battleground"? "Personal attacks"? Come on. Or take this to WP:3 perhaps? Yintan  18:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"IJBall removed an unsourced air date from the aforementioned article." Nope. The air date was sourced. The source was attached to the title of the episodes. The first time, he deleted ALL the source because in his opinion:

• "a source better than Epguides is needed".

Where in MOS:TV does it say that epguides is not an acceptable source for episode titles and air dates? Wikipedia also has a {{epguides}} template for it.

The second time he deleted the air date because the source (Variety) was not next to the air date -- but it was attached to the episode title. Are episode tables now going to contain TWO identical citations? One for the episode title and one for the air date?

Amaury, do Wikipedia and its editors a favor by not twisting facts to support your accusations. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If you notice what Amaury said to me in the (IJBall) talk page discussion:

• "showing up here with an unnecessary attitude", "You are not the boss of me who can tell what I can and cannot do. Cool it with the attitude and aggression", "Use some WP:COMMONSENSE here", "It is not the responsibility of the other editor to read your brain"

... exactly who was the one that resorted to "battleground behavior", "personal attacks", and "hostil[ity]"?

So what do Admins do with an editor that tries to use an ANI against another editor with false accusations of "serious battleground behavior", and slanders that editor as "not the kind of user Wikipedia should have"? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment to avoid archiving. Not resolved. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Magioladitis high speed editing

User:Magioladitis has been continuously editing at a high speed by performing magic word replacement edits (ISBN) from his editor account. This is continuing despite complaints that he is flooding watchlists. Editor User:Justlettersandnumbers has complained on his talk page multiple times, yet this action continues. The most recent conversation is here: Special:PermaLink/788254672#ISBN_replacement. This is despite knowing this is a task better suited to be run under a bot account (and is open for discussion here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54) that will specifically avoid flooding recent changes and watchlists. The edits appear to be designed to just avoid the restrictions in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis - so I'm bringing this here for administrator and community review instead of the AE. I think I'm too close to this issues personally so will not be making any blocks/etc and would appreciate review by uninvovled parties. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 11:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux the things I am doing right now are not even done by bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Example. I fixed Magic Bot's edit. No bots fix hidden tabs right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux what is my speed exactly. Do you have numbers? Whch restriction is realated to that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

General disruptive editing by flooding watchlists and recent changes by making insubstative (in my opinion) edits without a bot flag. As I said in the introduction above, I'm a bit too close to this and am leaving it open that these edits are not consider insubstantive by a consensus of others and that the rate is acceptable. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Check my edit rate again please. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux See that in most of my today's edits Magic Bot failed to fix the ISBN error and that PrimeBOT stopped 4 days ago. Moreover, Yobot would not ix those case neither since I ve been tild to use the same regex with Magic Bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Note also that there are less than 100 pages left in mainspace right now and that Magic Bot stopped 30 minutes ago exactly because they can't fix the rest. The cases contain hidden tabs or the ISBNs are in places not fixed by the bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux The main complain was not about the high speed but it is worth to do something like that by normal account since it is done by bots. My arguments are: a) ot all of these edits are done by bots. b) It enables finding edge cases (e.g. example of ISBN fix not related to the bot task) c) There is a workaround for watchlists d) If Yobot does it with general fixes it could save me time by checking edits instead of making them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, I just think that it is not appropriate. Thus leaving this open for some feedback. I would like to request you cease this activity for at least 12 hours unless this discussion shows significant support for your continued activity prior to then. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux OK. 63 pages left. You can ask the bot owners to modify their code to fix thee 63 pages if it is worth. Opening an ANI for that and relating to the ArbCom case it is intresting though. Recall, that I have not worked on fixing ISBNs for 4 days waiting for the BRFA approval. Today, I worked mainly with pages unfixed by the bots. So I did not exactly resume the past work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis, your edit rate is 13 edits per minute. If you're not running an unauthorised bot on your main account, you should consider entering the World's Fastest Typist contest. ‑ Iridescent 12:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent I use AWB to load the pages which provides list of pages. After saving it proceeds to the next page. Please check WP:AWB for Wikipedia's most popular tool. Thse edit rates were neever a problem afaik. Recall this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

At 13 edits a minute (4.6 seconds a page), an editor is not checking the page to examine their edits before pressing "save changes". We're back here again, only six days (?) after the last ANI episode - this really needs to stop. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 I am checking only the changes not the entire page. Are you going to ask the same from every AWB editor? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As you see I have a lot of follow up edits. This is exactly because I check the page. Not many AWB editors can claim this. What was the last ANI about? Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have indeed asked Magioladitis on several occasions to stop making these edits, at the very least until the two bots that are working on the same (important) change have finished their respective runs. Unlike bot edits, which can be hidden with a single click, these semi-automated are swamping my watchlist. Perhaps I am unreasonable, but I don't feel that I should be obliged to install a script just to hide the edits of one user. I know and never doubt that Magioladitis wants to improve our encyclopaedia; I'm perplexed and disappointed at his disregard of the concerns of others when he does so without consideration. It'd probably be good if we had a guideline to prevent editors from using semi-automated tools to make edits that have already been approved as automated bot tasks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers PrimeBOT has not edited for 4 days and the last edits I did were not done by Magic Bots neither. Still, I provided some workarounds to avoid any disruption. One was to get approval to use my bot account (I could even use this in manual mode if asked) and the second was the script trick that was recently advertised as a solution by others. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Note once more that I stayed away from this task for 6 days after I was asked, I seeked bot approval and that today I mainly fixed pages that remained unfixed by the bots. Another example. I also did a bunch of follow-up edits to improve exisitng fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that thanks to me and not only me this list was reduced. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• The problem I see here is that the BAG and other bot-related admins are so involved in dealing with Magioladitis' nonsense that none of us can feasibly take action without appearing involved. Mag is blatantly throwing policy in our faces, toeing the line of his ArbCom restrictions and ignoring simple requests from other editors to just slow down a bit. He is constantly pestering BAG to get approval for tasks that aren't vital (that link is to his ISBN fixer, which as stated is exactly the same as the others). At some point there won't be any uninvolved admins who are familiar with the case to actually do something about it.

I'm not saying that Magioladitis doesn't do good work (he does), I'm just saying that we're getting to a point where he's barely listening to anyone, barely following the rules, and annoying many people in the process. I obviously can't speak for the rest of the bot-running admins but I'm certainly getting tired of this shit. If an editor can't be collaborative and insists on "his way or the highway" something needs to be done. It probably won't happen in this case, but I have a feeling it will be happening soon unless he changes his ways. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't recall commenting about Magioladitis's editing before (other than formatting this section earlier), but I have gathered something from reading the various complaints over time. Magioladitis, you seem to think that whatever it is that you're working on at the moment needs to be fixed right now. (See PrimeBOT stopped 4 days ago[31], there are less than 100 pages left in mainspace right now and that Magic Bot stopped 30 minutes ago[32], I stayed away from this task for 6 days after I was asked[33] above.) Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any of these edits as being particularly urgent, and Wikipedia is not under a deadline. Why not just wait for consensus for your edits, or for a bot task to be approved, or to at least slow the editing rate and reduce the number of articles touched to something reasonable? Why the hurry? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • DoRD There would be no hurry is we plan a strategy to make the edits with a clear plan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I have to be honest here - I have no idea what you're trying to say with your reply. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
      • DoRD I do not edit faster than I used to edit. In fact, I edit less. Moreover, we have two bunhces of my edits discussesed here a) The edits of 6 days ago which the bots were already doing but without other fixes. and b) Today's fixes where the bots were not doing because they were uncovered cases. For example, tabs inside ISBNS causing the ISBN to break. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Primefac makes a good case for filing another ArbCom case, since the community continues to struggle with this disruption. These edits violate AWB Rule of Use #3, in my opinion, as they are extremely minor. More importantly, editors have objected and consensus has not been obtained before continuing. I predicted we'd be back at that venue within three months. It appears to have taken four. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• If my eidt are extremelly minor imagine the edits done by the bots. And don't ignore the fact that I did edits not done by the bots.

• As a side note, 13 edits per minute seems like a lot, but it's actually pretty doable with AWB when not making too many changes. The problem is the repeated edits after being asked to stop, which places the burden on the editor to obtain consensus, not the actual rate of the edits, in my opinion. Editing against consensus is serious on its own. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• The edits have consensus since they wre approved to be done by bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• There is no consensus to do them without a bot flag as an exception to AWB Rules of Use #3. You had many editors come to you on your talk page disagreeing with the edits, which is a sign you should stop until the edits are discussed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• You again seem to ignore the fact that the last bunch of edits was not exactly posisble for a bot but it needed some human attention. So also seem to ignore the fact that both bots have failed to fix those pages. I see a pattern here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: My problem with the sorts of ridiculously unimportant and unnecessary edits Magdiolatis does, is that when I check my watchlist it fills up with these edits and I have to check every single article affected to see if the useless edit is hiding a substantive edit that I missed since the last time I checked my watchlist. This becomes singularly unfeasable when one has a lot of articles on one's watchlist and they are all being bombarded with useless edits. And no, I'm not going to remove bot edits or AWB edits from my watchlist (especially since numerous people sneak in substantive edits with AWB). Softlavender (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Softlavender You have a point. Note that the page would have been edited by a bot anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Does this not immediately break "5.3.5 Magioladitis restricted" about doing edits that do not visually affect the rendered code? (A spot check of the changes by adding the ISBN template shows no difference that I can immediately see in the rendered page). This would a clear one month block per the ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Masem It does change the output. The new edit creates a link to ISBN. :) No block. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• There are three very easy fixes for this. Restrict Mag to only making semi or fully automated edits on his bot account - no AWB editing on his main - so anything he wants to do on a mass scale has to be a bot-request. Ban him from any semi or fully automated editing completely. Or ban him from checkwiki-based editing. Any option is completely manageable and easy to spot when violated. The problem with his existing restrictions is the overabundance of good faith on those imposing them that he would stick to them and not try and wriggle around them. It has been clear for a long while that Mag is not interested in what others think when he thinks these trivial things have to be fixed right now, and will attempt to work around both the spirit and the letter of any restriction placed. So the only options left are restrictions which have zero leeway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Only in death does duty end But today the edits needed human attention. As I said Magic Bots failed to fix these pages and I have not edited for this task for 6 days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • BU Rob13 That's why I stopped 6 days ago and resumed today to cover different cases after the bots stopped fixing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• You know something Magioladitis? Your arguments seem to be the same sort of thing we see when people write unblock requests like "I only reverted three times within 24 hours" or "my edits were right so everyone else was vandalising". I have little time for people who try to wikilawyer their way out of disrupting other editors because the letter of the law said it was okay. I propose a last chance - next time you are caught doing rapid-fire edits without clear and obvious evidence you are thinking what you are doing, you should be blocked. Who agrees? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ritchie333 OK so you support that the edits could be done by main account but not at that edit rate (13-15 epm). I say this is a support to the task afterall. Fianlly, Magioladitis (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • So let summarise: There was a 6 days period of no edits from my side. The edits of the phase 1 and phase 2 were not the same. Ther was a consensus for both phases to be done. Phase 1 was done by bots. Phase 2 was not. I participated semi-manually in both phases while I also seeked bot approval. I also replied immediatelly to fellow editor who complained proposing a workaround. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment:Totally agree with what Softlavender says above. My watchlist has been filled with edit notifications with the message "Replace magic links with templates per local RfC and MediaWiki Rfc" and I have no idea what this even means but I have to check every single article to see if something important was changed to the article before that which I have missed. It has been very irritating.Smeat75 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
      • And it is still happening,by the way. Seems to be something about adding brackets to ISBN numbers but I wish it would stop.Smeat75 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Smeat75 You obviosuly refer to the bot edits (PrimeBot, Magic links bot) because I have a different edit summary. Moreover, I am aware of the problem and this is the reason I proposed that the bots cause minimum disruption. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Maybe it was not clear that I was not planning to do the bot task via my account. Today, I have loaded a list of pages with approx. 2,000 pages. The ISBNs fixes are much more. I even have proposed to another bot owner to take over the task but encouraged them to perform general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm going to throw this out there, because I think it's worth at least considering at this point. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm at wit's end. Ritchie333 quite generously proposed a last chance, which Magioladitis has already been given many times over in various past discussions. The response to this was some severe WP:IDHT which involved twisting Ritchie's words into being support of the task. At this point, the repeated issues are a giant timesink for the community, and very little value is being added anywhere.

I'd also like to note that Magioladitis continued this editing even after the ANI thread began, which doesn't give me great hope for the future.

I propose Magioladitis be blocked for one month for disruptive editing and violations of AWB rules of use #3 (failing to seek consensus when the task was challenged multiple times). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 Can you please explain Bgwhite to me and if you finally found his email and emailed him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about with me emailing him? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 I ve striken this out. We will sort out probably some other time. I am here to encourge people editing Wikipedia. I hope you are too.-- Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support proposed block, there have been indeed many last chances. Capitals00 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Capitals00 Do you propose to block Rob for mishandling th Bgwhite case? I don't understand. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bu Rob13 said "I propose Magioladitis be blocked for one month", I agreed with the "proposed block". Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 OK. I misread. It's difficult to cope with Rob because he keeps commenting after all my comments. I have said that propabbly he seeks to harass me probably due to the discussions during th ArbCom case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

When somebody proposes a sanction in good faith to reduce disruption on the project, do you think it's a good idea to insult them and throw around unfounded accusations of harassment? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Apologies for that but I try to understand why when other edit in faster rates, when other tasks could be done by bots, when I have explained thoughouly my position I am still the target of attention by a certain person. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 My proposals for group edits by bots aim to reduce disruption on the project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I have even provided links where one of the two bots edited and then I edited fixing the bot's edit. This is a proof not all pages could have been fixed by the two bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block, but.... The edits were made in good faith, but the real problem here is again concerns of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with some kind of rush that those edits need to be done right now otherwise the end is upon us. Consider for a second that you are not singled out for your edits because you are Magioladitis and there's a witch hunt against you, but rather because you repeatedly make either low-value (or at-first-glance low-value edits) in a WP:MEATBOT-like manner, when better alternatives don't seem to have been considered. On a go-foward basis, when anyone objects to any semi-automated edit you make, get consensus for those edits, either at WP:BOTN, or at the very least check with WP:BAG to give you the thumbs up on resuming the task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose 30 day block While I think something should be done, I don't think this is the right solution. I'm not sure what the best remedy is but I'd be leaning much more towards a semi-automated restriction for 30days than an outright block. I brought this here because I see this activity as being disruptive to our volunteers not directly disruptive to our readers (or I would have blocked myself). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux the disruptive part is the edit rate or that this task could be done by bots? Recall, I proved that that the bots were not fixing all the pages I was fixing. I alos proved that my edits were actually fixing the visual outcome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose 30 day block, but Support 7 day block - nothing else seems to be having an effect on the editor's behaviour, but 30 days seems excessive. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 Please read WP:NOPUNISH -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block, support 30-day AWB ban. Xoasflux has it best, I think; Mag needs to do things through the proper channels, in the right manner, and if that means kicking them off AWB for a month, so be it. Primefac (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The 30 day block proposal tells a lot of how some people approach things. We are here to build and not destroy. Thanks for opposing it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block he simply doesn't get it but a 30 day block is not the solution. My watchlist has been spammed by his edits however and I had thought to myself that surely this was banned under his ArbCom case, but it appears not. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block-_Continual failure to adhere to community expectations but a 30 day block is not the solution.I was too inclined to supp.(in view of the ARBCOM case) but regrettably there is no such point.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I don't believe a block is the solution, but at this point I do think something has to be done. Following on from what Xaosflux and Primefac have said above, I propose a one-month total ban on use of AWB and any similar semi-automated tool for Magioladitis on his main ("Magioladitis") account. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I would have suggested three months, but have gone with what has already been mentioned above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support three-month ban; one-month is too short; should be at least three months in my opinion. We really need to see if Magioladitis is here to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite AWB ban Temporary AWB ban would be good if this was first complaint but like others said, that there have been many threads on ANI about his use of AWB. Capitals00 (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 Do you know there was an ArbCom very recently about my edits? Also note that:

a) all the changes I did change the visual outcome

b) they were not done by the exisiting bots (I provided diffs).

c) I have requested approval to do this task by bot since March 25, 2017.

d) The task is considered useful and since MW will remove magic links support soon there is a (loose?) deadline.

Magioladitis (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a serious problem with the BRFAs for Magioladitis at this point. Given conduct issues that have required BAG comment, every BAG member is either involved (so can't handle the BRFA) or not planning to go anywhere near it to avoid getting dragged into the behavioral issues. I don't know how to resolve that. We can't force any BAG member to handle specific BRFAs, but it also isn't fair to implement a de facto ban on operating bots by virtue of having no willing BAG member to review the BRFAs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 has a point. We need to form a policy that will halde these things instead of relying on BAG's activity. Especially, when a member was recused from all CHECKWIKI tasks wheher they are proposed by me or not which shows the CHECKWIKI problem is not limited to me. Also note taht the edits in question are connected to CHECKWIKI but are not actually part of it. It's also worth to note that BU Rob13 hesitated to approve this task as a bot task. It's also wirth to not that there is an open BRA from 4 months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support one month ban On the plus side, Magioladitis is making good faith edits to articles nobody else particularly wants to do. On the other hand, the amount of disruption and insistence on refuting every single point of disagreement is taking time away from numerous editors that would be better spent improving the encyclopedia. Find another editor to make the ISBN fixes. A one-month ban will do for now, if disruption re-occurs, the next ban will be longer. (Extra advice to Magioladitis - if you reply to this, disagreeing with it or otherwise refuting it in detail, you'll just strengthen my support for this ban, so I would advise you not to). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban on AWB editing from main account. Three months or less. I hate this solution because it's incredibly shitty to say a dev can't use their own tool, but what other choice is there? I still think a shorter term block could get the message through more clearly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • • BU Rob13 if you support the ban please remove the block threat nonsense. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban on AWB from any account, to avoid evasion. Like Rob, still think a shorter term block would be more appropriate. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Hchc2009: I think this may go to far - there are approved tasks (and some being considered) for Magioladitis' bot (Yobot) that are not causing this disruption (flooding of watchlists and recent changes) - primarily because they are being done from a bot account. That is useful, desirable activity and I wouldn't want to stymie it. Of course, if the bot goes off-task bot blocking is an immediate option. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Xaos, I think we need to probably draw a line under this behaviour once and for all - if we're not going to impose a block, implementing the sanction on all of his accounts would seem a reasonable precaution. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 Which rule did I break exactly? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)*2 Support one-month ban--Community expectations exceed the bounds of good-faith. And add to this constant bludgeoning which does not even seem to be well-thought before posting.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Between the edits I did 7 days ago and the edits I did yesterday, do you see any difference or not? Do think I did an effort to adjust my editing or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not going to evaluate all of those; in general (and only my opinion not intended as a policy or guidelines measurement): I think you needlessly make massive amounts of minor edits (e.g. look at this edit you made during this whole debate about disruptive bulk editing - how did that improve the article? It looks like you are just executing blind bot task under your editor account again...) that have little if any improvement for our readers in a manner that floods watchlists and recent changes (disrupting our volunteers). However, when you channel your efforts to well defined and community supported bot tasks, you contributions are much more positive. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Here is the thing again.

a) This edit is WP:CHECKWIKI error 61. It's marked as one of the errors that change the visual outcome. I would like Headbomb to comment on that. I face the same problem here again and again. Some people thing these edits are not useful and some other thing they are.

b) I changed the visual outcome.

c) I used a clear edit summary.

d) I followed all the rules given to me from the ArbCom. As I recall i was written that my edits in gerenal are not the problem.

e) My edit is not "cosmetic".

f) It does not fall in the WP:COSMETICBOT neither.

g) I have been doing for 6-7 years and

h) I have a BRFA waiting 4 months Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 34.

i) It edit rate is ~4-5 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Did you even look at the edit I just pointed out (Special:Diff/788465565)? You took a bad sentence (ending with .<ref link>:) and left it bad when you were done (changing it to .:<ref link>). Why you though moving that colon around is baffling - and doesn't explain how you made this better for readers. The fact that you say want to do this with a BRFA, but will just floodperform it as your editor account instead of waiting for approval is part of the problem being discussed above. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But, did you actually look at the edit to Blue mud dauber? You changed the end of a sentence from full stop then reference then colon to full stop then colon then reference. The result has gone from a bad visual outcome to a still-bad visual outcome. Actually looking at the edit, it is clear that the colon should be removed. Earlier in the thread, you said your edits couldn't be done by bot as they needed human attention / input... yet you still did them at 13 edits per minute? Either you are checking each edit, in which case 13 per minute is too fast and you didn't actually fix the blue mud dauber case, or you aren't and the edits are essentially unsupervised bot-type edits. Have I missed something? EdChem (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And now you have "fixed" the error by removing the full stop, and the text still doesn't make sense. EdChem (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux, EdChem OK I missed the dot but I can detect these very easily in a second run. Much easier than the before. I usually make a run with AWB and then use WPCleaner to fix those that remained unfixed or the controversial cases. These are very tricky for the eye. I have not seen the dot. Right now I am on 4-5 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

EdChem OK I did a mistake using normal broswer now and I fixed it after your comment. You could help though. Thanks anyway for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I was helping, fixing the referencing. I note you added a title to a bare url, which was good, but I did a little more – adding the url for the full text of the journal article, recognising the second ref was a dead-link and a mangled reference to a book, and finding the third is a source on which we have a WP page, with a recent update and publisher available. I also noted that the Chalybion californicum in the title is italicised. Regards, EdChem (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk)

• Support ban of up to three months. Maybe it will fix things, maybe it won't, but this whole nonsense of splitting hairs (it's like telling the officer "I was only doing 1 mph over the speed limit, not 11!") is getting silly. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Primefac Per ArbCom I have only restictions on makng edits that do no change the visual outcome. Maybe you consult ArbCom before suggesting anything that affects pages? Moreover, the edit rate argument was not the only one. Please read the entire text. --- Magioladitis (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Primefac denied to make general fixes with their bot and even stopped their bot 4 days ago. It's also worth to know that Primefak was the open to close the discussion on COSMETICBOT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Primefac From your comments I get the idea that you would agree with a bot doing ISBN fixes + general fixes and that you would stop you bot in favour of that bot. Right? -- Magioladitis (talk)
    • First off, ArbCom isn't the end-all, be-all of sanctions. Community sanctions also exist.

    Second off, who gives a flying fuck what I'm doing with my bot (which, for the record, is currently running). This isn't about me. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

    • Comment Xaosflux, you see that Rob describes as one of the locus of the problem that the BRFA process is very slow. Recall that I was instructed to re-submit all my bot tasks which are 70-80 different tasks and till now only two have been approved. In one of them Primefak asked me why bother fill out a BRFa and not keep doing manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Do not speak for me. That has little to do with why we're here. We're here due to persistent behavioral problems. Separately, we have the problem that your behavior and attitude has been so toxic that every BAG member is either recused or doesn't want to go near your BRFAs. That is a problem - a separate problem. BRFA is getting faster for all but you because you've chased out most BAG members who would have otherwise worked on your tasks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
      • BU Rob13 it's obvious you are not pollite to me right now. Still, I am trying to find a "procedular solution" to these conflicts because you deribe behavioural problems but these should not be the issue if the policis were well defined. Wikipedia has many conflicts from time to time. So, please before talking for toxic attidute see how many people left the project from time to time. I try to cooperate here to prevend these things from re-occuring. My apologies to the community if this becomes tiring. I hope we see parts of this discussion reflecting to policies and guide. Wikipedia is not only n encyclopedia, it is a living community that works for the greater good. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not impolite; I'm tired. I've tried explaining basic things to you every which way and nothing seems to help. I'm at wit's end. You aren't going to find "Magioladitis may not make magic link edits semi-automatically at high speeds when people ask him to stop" in a policy or guideline. That's not how they work. Instead, you'll find WP:CONSENSUS, which describes how we make decisions on the wiki. You'll find the AWB rules of use, which say you must stop and seek explicit consensus if your edits are challenged. It's up to you to put those together and come to the conclusion that when a bunch of people complain about your editing you must adjust. Not just for a few days. Not just on one very narrow group of edits. You must take the repeated community discussions about your editing and adjust holistically to meet community norms (or at least know when you should ask before doing something!). You are expected to be able to do that. If you fail to do that and someone points it out, that's not impolite. It's necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Primefac sure community sanctions but after an ArbCom that decided that the problem is the edits taht do not change the visual outcome. The rest was the agenda pushed by Rob but it did not make it to the final decision. I did exactly as I was told. I started re-submitting tasks, I ask for permission to do the ones that do not change the visual outcome and keep doing the one I was doing. You can even compare my edit rates per month. Moreover, as you see I did some edits semi-manually but I have asked for permission to use a bot 4 months ago. I was olaso the one to encourage more people to use bots to fix that issue as soon as possible.- Magioladitis (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Primefac I tend to see the problems as "community problems". So I seeked hekp for the task to you because you are a good bot owner. That's why I mention you. You rejected my proposal but I did not 100% understood why. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
      • BU Rob13 do you think I should have stopped ny attempt to fix ISBNs because I was asked in my talk page by 1 or 2 editors? how would you handle this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I would have sought consensus to continue and stopped in the meantime. In fact, doing that one thing would solve almost every issue the community had had with your editing over the past multiple years. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef AWB ban on any non-bot account per my above comments. At a minimum 3-6 months would be required given the extensive history and timewasting for others involved here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban form AWB - I lean at least three months, but could be persuaded to support more. As to why Magioladitis is so insistant on running these sorts of runs, I suspect the answer lies in in his comment a bit earlier of "Primefac denied to make general fixes with their bot". My guess is Magioladitis is determined to get general fixes/checkwiki fixes done and the ISBN fixes are just a means to the end. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support AWB ban, per all of the above concerns, and the multiple times this user has been brought to ANI for related issues. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support AWB ban and a ban on all automated and bulk semiautomated editing on his main account. I'd consider three months a minimum, and would be inclined to say that it should be permanent. If the ban is short, then from the evidence of every single past incident he'll just sit it out and immediately go back to being disruptive the instant it expires. Any sanction needs to be strong enough to make both "Wikipedia can get along fine without what you've been doing" and "if you continue to do what you've done in the past you're not welcome here" utterly unambiguous. If Magioladitis hadn't been an admin, he'd at the very least have been stripped of the AWB permission and almost certainly be community banned from the project by now; he should be counting himself lucky that he hasn't been community banned, not constantly trying to argue that the problem is everybody else, not him. ‑ Iridescent 16:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Iridescent: I'm not going to go there because I really don't want to get involved in another case, but this all does beg the question whether the adminship question should be referred back to ArbCom. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @BU Rob13, with my "former arb" hat on, I'd say not at the moment, since he's not technically misusing admin tools and if they started desysopping for "bringing the admin corps into disrepute" he'd be about number 200 in line. Assuming a "no AWB" sanction passes and he continues to use it, that will be admin abuse since he wouldn't have access to the tool were it not for the fact that admins are auto-approved. (As a WP:PERM veteran, I can say unequivocally that if I saw someone with his competence issues using AWB I'd remove the bit in a heartbeat, so his continued use of the tool is purely an artefact of his legacy admin status.) ‑ Iridescent 20:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Although, Iridsecent, our policy states that admins are expected to have "the trust and confidence of the community" - I'd argue that this is simply no longer the case here. Would anyone reallly trust this particular admin's ability to assess consensus, for example? Hchc2009 (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Iridescent: Community recognises that my edits are done in good faith and they actually improve the project. Recall, that the edits actually helped in finishing a project asked both by the ommunity and by WMF devs. There are diagreements in the way the edits are done but not for the edits themselves. I have not edited on the specific task 2 days now and already pinged BAG members to get bot approval.-- Magioladitis (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but someone else will come along to do the same thing with much less drama, and therefore much more net benefit to the project. I well remember your editwarring to keep {nobots} out of an article, because you were just determined that your bot must roam freely, no matter what others thought. EEng 01:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Good faith" is not the same as "good". For example, a newbie could write an article like "Joe Schmoe is a politician. He is hoping to be selected as the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate for the forthcoming Lymeswold Police and Crime Commissioner election." and it could still get deleted, even though we might still AGF on the creator. Frankly, Magioladitis, I cannot think of a single edit you have ever made that has increased my knowledge or impacted on my understanding of a topic, and if you got run over by the metaphorical bus tomorrow, the impact on Wikipedia's quality would be about zero. So I advise you to stop badgering people with an attitude like you are the best Wikipedia editor in the world and we should all bow down and be grateful for your presence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal insult

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attitude_Era&diff=prev&oldid=788319559

oh and that guy was wrong, his link doesn't say it clearly at all, but that isn't why I'm posting this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but the problem is that you don't see when this was posted in its current layout unless you archive it. https://web.archive.org/web/20150901161859/http://www.wwe.com/inside/industrynews/7706710 Nickag989^talk 20:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk about the article on the article page. That is not what this report is about. You insulted me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did, but not on purpose. :P Nickag989^talk 20:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Nickag989 has already been warned several times for this single occurrence, so let's just close this topic and move on. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

problem is that he doesn't accept his actions. "Yes I did, but not on purpose." did he accidentally slip and hit the I key followed by D, I, O and finally T? no respect for others, no respect for rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)That's one problem, yeah. The other is that you've raised the problem here, got a couple admin and adminoid eyeballs on it, got the fellow (quite properly) warned; next time it comes up, all you, or anyone else ,has to do is post a diff to it and a diff to this section at ANI. In the meantime, give the fellow a chance to improve himself, or the rope to hang himself, whatever his druthers. Drop it for now, though. Anmccaff (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this a persistent pattern of abusive incivility? If it is, then please provide diffs to establish that. If it isn't then... well... it's not the answer you're looking for, but if you stick around here long enough, you'll realize that most everyone eventually loses their cool over something. I've been called a Nazi, Klan member, ISIS sympathizer... you name it. Can't get your feelings that tied up in it. We're here to build an encyclopedia; we're not here to build a social network of folks who all love each other. TimothyJosephWood 20:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

as long as I know what the standards are and what is and isn't acceptable, then I'm sure it's fine. I now know that calling people idiots is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not alright. But we have a longstanding thing here where we don't sanction people as punishment; we only sanction people if it is to prevent damage to the project. If there is a pattern of this kind of behavior, then sanctions will prevent that pattern from continuing. If it was a one time lapse in good judgement, then sanctioning the editor actually hurts the encyclopedia, because it doesn't prevent any imminent harm, and it actively prevents someone from improving it. You and I aren't important, and neither are our hurt feelings. The only thing that's really important is the encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

124.106.141.235, he already has been warned and has apologized to you. I don't know what more you're hoping for. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I was once suspended for 5 days for calling someone an "idiot" just as the OP is complaining about. However, standards have fallen dramatically in the intervening years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow! You've been blocked more times than I have! EEng 01:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Contentious behavior on Trans woman by Colonial Overlord

Colonial Overlord has been arguing for weeks on the Trans woman talk page that Wikipedia should not be referring to trans women as women in the lede of that article, stating that this is a "POV" issue that Wikipedia should not be taking a side on (1, 2). Multiple editors have countered their arguments but they are dismissing those arguments. They have suggested that other editors who disagree with them might be doing so because we are "LGBT movement activists" (3). They restored their preferred wording to the lede without consensus to do so (4).

The editor is now impugning my integrity based on my user page, suggesting that ""representation" is a higher priority for Funcrunch than truth and verifiability."(5) Funcrunch (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, my pronoun is "they", as stated on my user page (Colonial Overlord referred to me as "he or she", I will give the benefit of the doubt that they did not see that userbox. I'm referring to them as "they" as I do not know their gender or chosen pronouns). Funcrunch (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have tried engaging in rational discussion with Funcrunch, who has ignored almost all of my arguments and then declared that "editors are not required to engage with you to your specific satisfaction" when I pointed that out. Funcrunch is now refusing to discuss the issue at all, despite continuing to revert my edits. Oh, and the edits in question were not a restoration of my preferred wording but compromise wording that multiple editors in the discussion expressed acceptance of, and which nobody (including Funcrunch) has made any argument against.

When I originally raised my objections to the wording, several editors immediately accused me of having a "POV mindset" and "a fringe POV push" without any evidence at all. Now I'm getting reported for pointing out that Funcrunch does not seem to be impartial on this issue, using evidence from Funcrunch's own user page. That seems a bit much.

And finally, accusing me of making a personal attack by calling someone "he OR she"? Seriously? That is really grasping at straws. Colonial Overlord (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: (after (edit conflict)) This section was removed by 71.198.247.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the edit summary "rv troll". I have restored it. A quick look at the IP's talk page shows blocks and warnings, including for disruption here at ANI. If an admin wants to take some action, I think that that would be appropriate. EdChem (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) I have some doubts whether this is ANI-worthy at this point, but since we're here I'll say that Colonial Overlord's questioning of Funcrunch's impartiality is unwarranted and their unwillingness to disengage—even after this thread was opened—is troubling. At the very least, their comments suggest a lack of understanding of consensus. Lack of understanding is not a cardinal sin per se, but refusal to accept consensus and move on is a problem. We're definitely in dead horse territory now. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm... This looks a lot like a content dispute. CO has only ever edited the article twice that I see, and if For all I know, all of you could be LGBT movement activists is the high-point of incivility in the discussion, then that's... just fairly lame. It would be arguable that every member of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism (note: both userboxes I myself have sported for years) are a type of activist in their own way, and I think most people in those projects would probably consider it a compliment. While respecting pronoun preference or a universal neutral pronoun may be considered good form in mostly anonymous polite company, not doing so isn't a gross violation of CIVIL, unless maybe the pronoun someone reaches for is "it", in which case you may have a good case for clear "intent to offend" there.

They've been given all the DS warnings that are applicable. Copy/paste both versions of the lead and open an RfC. Then buckle down and present sources in favor of the side you prefer. Neither of those requires use of administrator tools or the extensive input of experienced uninvolved editors. TimothyJosephWood 17:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not accuse CO of incivility or personal attack when noting my pronoun preference; I specifically said "I will give the benefit of the doubt that they did not see that userbox" (with reference to "singular they"). I decided to post at ANI after the """representation" is a higher priority for Funcrunch than truth and verifiability" statement. I also suggested some time ago that CO start an RfC, but they refused. Funcrunch (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel like this is the second or third time this has come up in about a week, but a talk page is to an edit war what an RfC is to an exhausting talk page discussion. The onus is generally on one side to start the discussion, but that doesn't absolve the other of doing so if they fail to. It generally takes about as much or less time than an ANI thread, it usually results in some clear outcome either way (even if you or I may think it's a forgone conclusion), and it establishes a lasting consensus that usually needs another RfC to overturn. In other words, it's better than an ANI thread in basically every way. TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you're saying, but when one user is the only user who keeps arguing for something that the consensus is already clearly against, don't you think it's asking a bit much to suggest that the other users start an RfC to accommodate that one user? In any event, various RfCs on transgender-related topics have been unpleasantly contentious (sometimes more so than the average ANI thread), and I wouldn't be inclined to begin one unless I thought it was absolutely necessary. And, given that one user's unwillingness to accept regular old consensus, what assurance would we have that they'd accept RfC-based consensus? It sounds like a potential waste of time. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A public relations business is not a consensus, no matter how many admins and WMF staff you have on payroll. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

After there is an RfC with a solid consensus, and they refuse to accept it, then come to ANI. At that point you've done WP:DR and the user has refused to let DR do what it does and settle the issue. At that point it becomes behavioral.

And anyway, the argument seems to be substantive on its face (i.e., not God hates fags™, therefore lead), and given the nature of the topic, it's reasonable that the argument will come up repeatedly, and so it will be useful to have an RfC to point to and say "consensus". That's the part that makes it not a waste of time.

Let's face it, trans in 2017 is probably somewhere around where gay was in 1987, and the argument that Wikipedia here is getting slightly ahead of the arc of the moral universe (bending toward justice as it does) is not a completely unreasonable one. Open it up, let the chips fall where they may, and go back to building an encyclopedia. Even if this thread somehow ended in a decisive block, we'd probably be back here within a year anyway. TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason I have been reluctant to start a RfC is because the ones I have seen are usually just treated like votes, with people simply declaring their opinion, often without providing any reasons, and almost never engaging with the reasons provided by others, ignorant of the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy. But the talk page discussion in this case has been like that as well, with all but one or two editors refusing to engage in rational argument and just declaring their opinions. So if you think I should start a RfC I will do so, but what I should do to get editors to engage in rigorous rational argument instead of just declaring their opinions? Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the thing: you're not entitled to decide what is rational argument and what is opinion, and you're not entitled to say that peoples' opinions don't matter. A neutral, uninvolved, experienced editor (usually an administrator) will close the RFC after it has run its course and determine where consensus lies, based upon both the number of supports or opposes and their policy-based arguments. You're correct that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but neither is it a debate club. The personal belief that someone's argument is invalid does not render that argument invalid, and nobody is required to "engage" in "rigorous rational argument." Sometimes, people are just not going to agree with you, and if the consensus disagrees with you, you can either edit in accordance with that consensus or stop editing that topic area. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Allright...well I'll admit I wasn't aware RfCs were resolved by a neutral administrator taking the strength of arguments into account. That seems reasonable then I suppose. Regarding rational argument, it might be subjective whether a given argument is sound or not, but it isn't subjective whether someone is attempting to engage in rational argument or not: the difference between "I think your argument fails because x" and "nah I disagree". If things just came down to weight of personal opinions that would allow organised activist movements to skew the result. Colonial Overlord (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Funcrunch and I have clashed at times over what our motives might be; this section is the main example. But I have found Funcrunch to be a solid editor; they have grown as an editor and understand our rules. Funcrunch doesn't always agree with our rules, but Funcrunch does understand them and abide by them, as they have done in this case. Although I've noted that LGBT editors should be mindful of WP:Activism, questioning an editor's motives in this regard can inflame a situation. I did start off with obvious suspicion of Colonial Overlord, which perhaps was not the best route to go. It can be argued that Colonial Overlord is, however, being WP:Tendentious at the moment and should take a step back and reevaluate. Others have suggested an RfC; he can take that route. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: IP account 71.198.247.231 (contributions • talk) has posted on my user talk page objecting to my description of their removal of this ANI section as trolling as disruptive. I have declined to strike my comment, and noted that I believe the IP is possibly editing inconsistently with the policy on sock puppetry, as well as casting aspersions and disrespecting gender self-identification. I have suggested that the IP editor is risking another block. The thread can be read at user talk:EdChem#ANI. EdChem (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

With comments like "disrespecting gender self-identification" and this [34] it is clear that EdChem is not here to build an encyclopedia.71.198.247.231 (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Number of article space edits by EdChem ~ 7300. Number of article space edits by IP 71.198.247.231 = 0. And I'm not here to build an encyclopaedia? Why don't you go back to your main account, and perhaps count yourself lucky not to have been blocked (again)? EdChem (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The anon has a point. Using the term "deadnaming" is as inappropriate as the action, if not more so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: How is mentioning or using the term deadnaming remotely inappropriate? I may be misreading, but it looks like you are suggesting that using a single term is somehow worse than harassment of trans folks... EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Using the pejorative term "deadnaming", to refer to an editor editing in good faith, is worse than the activity which some trans consider "harassment". Use of the term is a violation of WP:NPA, even if it were accurate. Using it to refer to off-wiki activities may be acceptable—I wouldn't think so, but I've been wrong before. (As I've noted before, the only trans(s) I know refer to themselves before transition by their former name and pronoun. In one instance, he was offended by a reference to his former self as "him".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to derail the purpose of my ANI report further with this discussion, but you seem to have some peculiar notions about what deadnaming is and why it is harmful to trans people. Deadnaming is deliberately calling a trans person by their pre-transition name, and can cause serious distress. I am trans and know many trans people and it is definitely considered harassment if done deliberately (and without explicit consent). However I have not accused anyone of doing this here, nor has anyone else that I can see, and I don't know why the subject is even coming up as it has nothing to do with my report. Funcrunch (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Funcrunch, Arthur Rubin is referring to my comment on my talk page to Colonial Overlord that noted that deadnaming and deliberate gender misidentification is inconsistent with the BLP policy whether directed at an article subject or an editor. I did not state that Colonial Overlord had engaged in deadnaming, though I do see denying that trans women are women is in the same territory of denial of transgender identity as deadnaming. Further, Arthur Rubin is supporting the IP's claim that I am not here to build an encyclopaedia and claiming that I have violated the prohibition against making personal attacks. I don't want to derail your thread, but I don't think what I said to Colonial Overlord constituted a personal attack, and I would prefer it if Arthur Rubin struck that comment and the suggestion that I am not here to build an encyclopaedia. EdChem (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I had only seen the term "deadnaming" used as a pejorative, but I see there is an credible alternative definition, and EdChem doesn't seem to be using it in the pejorative sense. Hence, I withdraw my comment. If someone wants to hat this subthread, I have no objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Continued battleground mentality of Joefromrandb

Joefromrandb has been blocked twice on June this year for battleground and incivility. Today he reverted the redirect, done by the AFD closing user[35] and after that when he got reverted on the article, he reverted the entire AFD closure[36] and again reverted the redirect.[37] His edit summaries on two of those edits are indeed not civil.

Why he didn't opened a request on WP:AN instead, or consult the AFD closing user on their talk page? I am also not seeing if he ever edited the article[38] or the AFD[39], I am that's why wondering if he is doing this just for starting a fight.

Other than that, I am seeing that one other user[40] also complained on his talk page regarding his edit warring on The pot calling the kettle black, and here's his response to it.[41] Capitals00 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment by closer--Hi all, I'm the one who closed the AFD. While I am indeed not an admin, I have closed many AFDs over the years as a NAC. I weighed the arguments of those in the discussion who opined that the content of the article, for numerous reasons, did not warrant it's own article and that the content in the article at present was troublesome, specifically, had serious issues with neutrality, and the quality of sources. Some opined that some of the content in the article should be included in the target article suggested, and recommended a selective merge. Weighing all these comments, I closed the AFD as a redirect, recommending the selective merge suggested by some be done from the history. If my closure is disagreed with on the basis that my assessment of the consensus is incorrect, then I accept that (it has been some time since I have closed an AFD). I'm not overly phased either way. I assessed the consensus of the discussion as I saw it and closed accordingly. If an admin believes it should be overturned, so be it. Steven Crossin 17:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--The AFD page being on my watchlist and observing the seq. of edits; I warned the editor moments before the ANI thread was opened.I am of no-opinion as to the continued behaviour of the user.And this is prob. suitable for WP:AN.IMHO, the AfD was well-closed!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There is going to be unanimous support for the AFD closure anyway, but given two recent blocks hardly 3 weeks ago for same kind of conduct (I have now mentioned on my original post), there is clear problem with the conduct of the user. Capitals00 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've had my differences with Joe in the past, but in his defense, I don't think that was an appropriate NAC. That AfD should have been closed by an admin. Joe probably went a little too far with his reverting, but this isn't as cut–and–dried as the OP claims. Also, contrary to what the OP says, in my opinion Joe's revert edit summaries were not uncivil. Lepricavark (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"ridiculous non-admin supervote"[42] is not civil. Capitals00 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The word "ridiculous" may be pushing the boundaries of civility, but he only used that word in one of his edit summaries, not two. At the very least, you are overstating the incivility. Lepricavark (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Ridiculous non-admin supervote" is also not INCIVIL. The non-admin is true and the supervote is true. On whether it is ridiculous, honest people may differ. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is uncivil and also nonsensical because closure was entirely policy based, there is no "supervote" since the closing user has no contributions on the article or any related article. Joe sure attempted to WP:GAME the system there, but it just doesn't work all time. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: it is uncivil to use the term "ridiculous", but it is ok to use the term "nonsensical". Do I understand you correctly? Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That appears to be the gist of it. I find the complaint to be specious. (Whoops, I guess I just did it, didn't I?) Carrite (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Just like you wrongfully found closure to be a supervote? Enough people seem to be agreeing though that he caused disruption, including you on your previous comment. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Enough people seem to be agreeing that Joe's behavior was really not all that bad. Mind you, these are people with far more experience and clue than you have. You're starting to display some WP:IDHT behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You shall be banished to the stocks for your criticism of this frivolous complaint... oops. Lepricavark (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Capitals00 is the one trying to game the system–excuse me; WP:GAME the system, with this report, chock full of psychological projection and passive aggression. At least he or she realizes it doesn't work all the time. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me remind you that you are on a thin ice here with your apparent WP:CIR issues. People are agreeing that you are being disruptive. Whether you take message from ANI complaints or not, we all know, but it will be treated as caution anyway. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

He's not on as thin of ice as you seem to think he is. Frankly, you are in no position to be making CIR accusations, which could be perceived as uncivil and inflammatory. Lepricavark (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about some other guy then, not the one who had 2 blocks for battleground mentality last month and multiple users are still highlighting the evident disruption after the block. Capitals00 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What about the multiple users who strongly agree that a block is not warranted at this time? Lepricavark (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor— I don't know if it's proper for me to bring "evidence" here, but I saw this editor unilaterally revert another close without discussion just two days ago: Special:Diff/788018906. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: indef block

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

---

Joefromrandb has been blocked 8 times in less than 5 years, for his continued incivility and continued battleground conduct. And yet, his behavior continues to worsen rather than improving. His hostility and disruptiveness have in my opinion crossed into net negative, and he has reached the point of a WP:CIR block for his inability to work collaboratively with others. I therefore propose an indef block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator. Softlavender (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Apart from all that I have already said above, comments like these[43][44] that not only distracts users from discussing content but also misrepresents the position of next editors are a part of WP:BATTLE. Capitals00 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as noted above, I've had my differences with Joe. What has happened here, however, does not warrant an indef block. Lepricavark (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: It seems you haven't checked his recent edit history or seen the other diffs I provided. Anyway, I can provide a few more here. He was blocked for a week for calling people a troll[45], he came off from a 1 week block on 21 June and started calling people a troll again and again,[46][47][48] while violating 3RR.[49][50][51] Capitals00 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

My position is that none of these recent incidents, individually or collectively, rise to the level of an indef block. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, you may want to strike your allegation that I "broke 3RR", because it's demonstrably false. I'll AGF that you just made a mistake, and will strike it out with all due expediency. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes you had violated 3RR, I am assuming that you are going by definition of "4 reverts in 24 hours", but edit warring is not limited with that. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

According to the diffs you have provided, he did not violate 3RR. Playing fast and loose with the truth is not going to help you. Lepricavark (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

We are not basing the proposal on "what has happened here". We are basing it on nearly five years of ever-increasing hostility, warring, incivility, vulgarity, disruption, trolling, vandalism, and a blatant unconcern and disregard for behavioral norms or Wikipedia guidelines/policies, and an apparent attitude that he can do what he likes without consequence. He has clearly crossed into net negative. If you want more evidence, that can be provided. Softlavender (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What you are describing is the makings of an ArbCom case. You are ignoring the actual (minor) complaint in favor of a death penalty based on matters not in evidence. ArbCom is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Its not minor when disruption is long term. Look the entire complaint as well as diffs provided by me and other editors regarding Joe's conduct. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support, although I'm not sure I have the right, being an 'injured party' and not an administrator. Looking at the pattern of blocks, the majority were in 2013 and only renewed this year. The sarcasm displayed on the user's talk page certainly indicates that a one week ban is not regarded as anything more than a negligible slap on the wrist. However, I'd be inclined to suggest a shorter block as a counterproposal and only proceeding to indef if there is a resumption of such behaviour after that. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I invite everyone to have a look at Talk:The pot calling the kettle black, where this user suggested, among other things, that I "confine myself to the Simple English Wikipedia". My response to him or her was quite restrained. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - block. Reverting the close of a non-administrator ain't a firing offense. Why non-administrators are permitted to close AfDs is a mystery and they are definitely NOT supposed to be closing controversial AfDs. As Joe notes, doing so is a form of supervoting. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No, he didn't got blocked so many times just for reverting an AFD closure and only once, but instead for WP:CIR issues, it is more than apparent that since after coming off his 24 hour and a one week block last month he is carrying out same conduct on multiple occasions. You can start an RFC on Wikipedia_talk:Closing discussions if you don't agree with the rules of closing discussions. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No ANI complaint is complete without a straw man. I actually DO agree with the rules of closing discussions, hence my opposition to the close. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you had agreed with the rules of closing discussion you would be challenging it on WP:AN rather than edit warring over the close. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Indef is asking too much for fighting against a contentious close. While I don't think the close was completely unreasonable, I agree with Carrite that controversial AFDs should be left to admins, and generally are, which tends to prevent some of these issues. The authority for this is listed [52] here, not on some talk page. That doesn't excuse Joefromrandb behavior, but an admin closer is typically better equipped to deal with problems that arise from controversial closes, via having the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as well. While I stand by the way I closed the AFD, as weighing the arguments in the AFD this is the consensus I found (and if an admin disagrees with the outcome, I am perfectly happy for them to revert my close - I'm human, and I don't claim to be all-knowing). I didn't think much of the comment of the user who reverted the close and don't think it justifies an indef. While I disagree that purely because I am not an administrator, it makes my closure a supervote, I realise everyone may not see it this way. I saw an old AFD. I reviewed it and found a consensus, and closed it. Some disagree. That's fine by me. I'm not really that active here anymore. But I don't think any blocks are needed. here. Steven Crossin 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think his total contribution (as of say the past year) has crossed into net-negative territory. Ethanbas ^(talk) 21:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. See his talk for reasons, yes, over years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - Sorry but indef is IMHO overkill, I also agree with Carrite, Dennis and Gerda - The AFD shouldn't of been closed by a non-admin, That being said I don't agree with how Joe did things (He should've gone to DRV) but all that being said there wasn't any uncivil or snarky remarks and personally I'm not seeing any battleground mentality so blocking as a whole would be rather pointless and this ANI thread as a whole is pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that Deletion Review is the correct way to address these things; Joe did things incorrectly. Are you getting this, Joe? Carrite (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review? Not WP:DRV but WP:AN, article was not deleted. Capitals00 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Go read the instructions for how Deletion review works before correcting the veteran editor. Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review is for deletion discussions and not for those articles that can be accessed through the history by any user, WP:AN is for that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say that on WP:DELREV? Maybe it's there, but I don't see it. Lepricavark (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-deleting deletion discussions supports what I am saying. Capitals00 (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. DELREV provides a list of instances in which it can be used. The very first bullet point states the following: if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Lepricavark (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Either way this discussion is now irrelevant because a request has been already opened on WP:AN. Capitals00 (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Quite a convenient way to avoid admitting that you are wrong. You've been wrong quite a few times in this thread. Hopefully you have learned something from this experience (i.e. don't make reckless CIR comments, don't accuse someone else of incivility while being uncivil yourself, etc.). Lepricavark (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you point out? I am not blocked for incivility or warned, that when there are people who have a share of same complaints. Actually what you called an "essay" is representing the usual standard. Find me some requests on WP:DRV that concerned a Afd discussion that resulted in redirect? WP:AN is for that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The page calls itself an essay. That's not merely my personal opinion. And I'm not going to find anything for you. I'm not sure what your second sentence was supposed to mean, but your claim that I "had a hard time learning English" was certainly more uncivil than Joefromrandb's edit summaries that you were complaining about. Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, now I am. The close clearly ran afoul of both deletion policy and NAC guidelines, but I'll save the details for deletion review. I was reverted at the article in question by User:Razer2115, who suggested "deletion review, reopening the AfD, or ANI". I chose suggestion number-two. It's truly comical how Capitals00 is playing the role of the injured party here, when he or she was at the very least, my counterpart in this edit/revert-war. That's the kind of shit that I truly can't stand. Thank you, Carrite, for explaining this. I learned something here, despite the best efforts of some of the drama-seekers. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It is something that you didn't learned just few hours ago from sure user called Razer2115. Without looking at your prior history of disruption, I would say that you are aware too that this is not the only AFD, like other user noted. You had reverted another NAC hardly 2 days ago.[53] You seem to be developing a habit of reverting NACs. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It was hard enough to understand your points back when you were still using English. Lepricavark (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you had a hard time learning English. But that's really not what we are discussing here. Capitals00 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol. And I suppose you think that was a civil comment. Lepricavark (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Things weren't done as well as they could have been, but even the closer isn't unhappy about being reverted - and I don't think any block is called for here, certainly not an indefinite one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose--Checking his contribs., somehow this user don't like the idea of WP:NAC(albeit, even on RFC's!) but as many have observed, his net contributions are yet to veer into the negative.An indef is thus an over-kill.Winged Blades ^Godric 02:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- per Carrite, above. This is a classic case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut which is hugely perdicable when one bears in mind this particular nominator. I dread to think what Softlavender would've done with the bit, something that they so desperately crave. Cassianto^Talk 09:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- per Zeb, above. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a severe case of overuse of a sledgehammer here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

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

AFD review requested

Hi all. Just letting you know I have self-requested that my close be reviewed and either overturned or endorsed - here. Thanks. Steven Crossin 02:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Amalek

I am having a bit of a problem with our Amalek article. Specifically, multiple editors keep re-inserting claims such as the claim that The Book of numbers (5th century BCE) talks about Adolph Hitler. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What the BLEEEP!? I know I'm going to regret this, but I will have a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a serious understatement of what's going on here. Not a lie, but a big understatement. Guy Macon, in a single edit, removed about 70% of the article, with the reference to Hitler being only one small part of what he's removed. Here's a diff: [54]. All at once Guy removed (1) the claim that the Old Testament is accepted by Jews and Christians, (2) a reference to a traditional rabbinic folk etymology for Amalek, (3) link formatting around the word "nomadic," (4) some well-sourced material on whether any Amalekite sites have been found by archaeologists, (5) a bunch of material on Jewish reception history of the Amalek concept, (6) material on the relationship of Haman to the Amalekites and the effect of this association on Jewish tradition, (7) information on the three mitzvot out of the traditional 613 that refer to Amalek, (8) ethical questions concerning the destruction of Amalekites in Jewish law, (9) material relating to the (mistaken) identification of Amalekites with Armenians, (10) use of the Amelekite metaphor in responses to the holocaust, (11) a paragraph of original research trying to tie biblical verses to Hitler, (12) invocations of Amalek by anti-Zionist Haredim, (13) material on Meir Kahane's interpretation of Amalek, (14) Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments relating Iran to Amalek, (15) a paragraph which discusses whether Arabs have any relation to Amalek, (16) two paragraphs on traditional Islamic views on the Amalekites, (17) a paragraph on the invocation of the name Amalek during the crusades, (18) a "see also" link to the concept of Herem, (19) a "see also" link on Judaism and violence, (20) a "see also" link on Rohl's New Chronology, (21) a selection of external links, including one sourced to Princeton.

Meanwhile, I've removed the unsourced material about Hitler. It should be no surprise why Guy Macon is facing some pushback. Certainly, I'm sure Guy Macon can point here and there in his massive list of removals to some things that should be removed. My suggestion would be that we start by removing things that clearly ought to be removed, rather than just gutting the majority of the article at once.Alephb (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. This looks like a content dispute, albeit a serious one.I see a number of issues here including that parts of the article have a distinctly ESSAYish tone. All of which said I think this belongs on the article talk page where it can be discussed by people who are (hopefully) better informed on the subject than I am. I am going to ping some of the relevant wiki-projects and see if we can round up some people with a little expertise. This being a weekend it's possible that we may not get a ton of participation right off the bat. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Back to the talk page we go. Alephb (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have dropped requests for comment on WP:CHRISTIANITY and WP:JUDAISM. I see a similar request has already been posted at WP:BIBLE. Beyond that I am not seeing anything that is especially urgent so lets see how the talk page discussion develops. Also I really don't think there is anything here that is actionable on an admin level so I am going to suggest we close this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'll note that this editor's contribs of June 4 look every bit of gaming the system towards 500/30 requirement. Add a bunch of lines in and then strip them all back out again in less than two minutes to fluff the edit count and get the ball rolling. Certainly not a new editor, either.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That does look fishy. I would be interested to see if User:Arielle JS A has any kind of plausible explanation for that. Alephb (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• What looks fishy is the edit history of Arielle JS A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The first dozen or so edits are obviously to get by the autoconfirm, the first edit was to blue link. This isn't a new user. I am guessing Berean Hunter and I are on the same page here. Gaming the system alone is enough to strip the ext bit or just block as a sock of "someone". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes and would be fine with a detailed discussion on the talk page, hopefully leading to consensus. What I object to is the reverting without discussion. The reverts reinserted a bunch of dubious material. including the claims that "According to the Old Testament, the Amalekites were a nomadic, or seminomadic people" when the Bible passages cited say nothing about them being nomadic.[55] Or re-inserting a claim from an unreliable source that Muslims are Amalekites while ignoring a claim in the same source that Protestants and Catholics are Amalekites.[56] Again, these are content disputes that are best handled on the article talk page, but when faced with editors who revert while refusing to discuss, we have a behavioral problem, as so here we are. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that, as far as I can tell, there's only two editors who have reverted Guy Macon's mass deletion, and I am one of them, the expression "editors who revert while refusing to discuss" looks like it's intended to include myself. I'd like to take this opportunity to deny that charge. I haven't at any point refused to discuss. I've reverted a total of one time so far in this whole dust-up, and I'm more than willing to discuss any edit I've made to Amalek, and I'm doing so over on the talk page, where I'd be more than happy to continue the conversation. Alephb (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Watch out for unexamined assumptions, like here: "Many nomadic groups from the Arabian desert, apparently including Amalekites, have collectively been termed "Arab(s)". While considerable knowledge about nomadic Arabs have been recovered..." Arabs are simply people who speak Arabic, and there's no indication what language the Amalakites spoke. Nor are all Arabs nomads and camel-herders, most are farmers and always have been. (I blame Hollywood).PiCo (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, Hollywood may have its share of blame to take, but whoever wrote Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Isaiah talked about a group of people they called Arabim fighting with the Judahites and living in tents in the wilderness. I don't think we know what language the Arabim spoke. The overlap with the modern word "Arab" is unfortunate, but there are scholarly sources that use "Arab" for it ([57], [58]). The ambiguity is bad on its own, but given the state of politics today it's even more unfortunate. Alephb (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So far as I know (and I'm no expert), the modern word Arab comes from an Arabic 3-letter root meaning something like utter, speak, and so on, implying that the defining characteristic of an Arab is one who speaks (intelligibly, for another Arab). Movement, pace Bruce Chatwin who didn't know what he was talking about, is not the defining characteristic. But that's modern Arabs, of whom I know very little, despite living in Morocco for 3 years; about Hebrew Arabim I know utterly nothing. What's the trilateral root in Hebrew? (Neither of those two books comes up for me, by the way). PiCo (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ayin-R-B. I had just always assumed the two were connected. It's not very scientific, but the Arabs I've known always sounded to me like they were putting an ayin in front of the term "Arab." It sounds pharyngeal. But I've never been to Morocco, so you may have me beat there. Alephb (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure why the books aren't coming up for you. They're still coming up fine for me. Who can describe the mysteries of Google? Alephb (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter and Dennis Brown are correct. Arielle JS A is a  Confirmed sock of Delotrooladoo (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested topic ban due to longterm disruptive editing and edit warring

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

---

User:Xenophrenic has been edit warring for a long time in relation to the Category:Persecution by atheists

The user originally attempted to get it deleted via an RFC discussion which ended in no consensus.

When the editor didn't get his way he preceded to remove every member of the category (see his edits in February). He has been banned for this. Look at his block log as well.

In certain cases he has consistently been removing cats from a page over a period of one year.

In conclusion Xenophrenic has been consistently edit warring in this area for a lomg period of time and still has not learned his lesson. I am asking that he be banned from making edits in the area of Religion and Atheism or at the very least on edits related to the area of persecution and religion.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I closed that CfD that you linked above, and I closed it with caveats. As I said at the time, I was very, very, close to closing it as Delete, because it needs work and as it stood was WP:OR. Your last diff shows your edit being reverted by a third party with an edit summary referring to the caveats in that CfD. And I note that no-one has posted to the talk page of that article for over a year. So I don't see that this complaint has any merit - it looks to me like you trying to get someone who disagrees with you removed from that area of editing. Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Black Kite already clarified some of this above) - There was a CfD, not an RfC, which ended as "No consensus - with caveats". The closing comments were:

The result of the discussion was: No consensus - with caveats. I came very close to closing this as Delete. I cannot see that any of the Keep votes have given any compelling reasons why the category should stay "as-is". Indeed, the majority of the Keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy. There is something of a consensus for keeping a similar category, but not named as such. The suggestion of Category:Religious persecution by secular governments given below is, I suggest, a good one. I suggest all editors who have commented here work towards moving this category to something approaching that one, because as given, the current title is frankly original research. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In the CfD, the category's creator (Jobas, now blocked) and Eliko007 (an SPA with substantial overlap with Jobas) were the most vocal proponents of keeping, and following the CfD they continued to add it to categories. Xenophrenic engaged with them on multiple venues and both Jobas and Xenophrenic were blocked for edit warring for a time. Xenophrenic was blocked for edit warring generally, I believe, not specifically for removing the category as Apollo mentions (also, Apollo is just off a block for edit warring himself and on 1RR).

There has been little appetite to actually discuss the future of the category, apparently in order to pretend the outcome was keep (or simply delete?).

Johnuniq opened a thread about inclusion criteria at Category talk:Persecution by atheists, which saw no participation other than me. I opened a thread at Wikiproject Atheism, which went nowhere except Tryptofish saying the current name is bad. John Carter opened a thread at WikiProject Religion, with the intent, I think, of assessing other possible wording. It drew more participation, but Jobas continued to push back against the alternative wording and it ultimately didn't go anywhere.

Though the premise of this thread omits important dimensions of the dispute, I don't think there's much to be done at ANI.

What needs to happen is just this: the category stays depopulated, because it is OR and there was no consensus to keep "as-is", until which time as an alternative name with clear inclusion criteria can be agreed upon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Also, someone saying "look at his block log" (3 blocks in the last 6 years) when they themselves have this block log (4 blocks this year alone) is ... astonishing. I would suggest this is closed before Apollo finds themselves on the wrong end of an native Australian throwing weapon, which I'm very close to deploying myself. Black Kite (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: You think continually removing content for about a year is complient with wiki policy? You also think that editing something an editor was told not to edit after being banned is compliment also? Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• He's not removing content, he's removing categories, and he's doing so compliant with the close of that CfD, as you know. Given that it turns out that the main supporters of keeping that category were an editor now indefblocked for sockpuppetry, and a SPA which may well have been related to that editor as well, with hindsight I would definitely have closed the CfD as delete. Perhaps someone should re-file the CfD given what has happened since. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: No this was BEFORE the cfd. Look at the date of the cfd and look at the date he made those edits over nearly a period of a year. Also look at his edit summaries he said "per talk" not "per CFD" so in his mind that was not what he was doing.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You're certainly not going to find anyone to sanction an editor for edits that were made in the distant past, so as I suggested above, this should probably be closed. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite:About two months ago is the "distant past"? Why does two months matter?Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban for Xenophrenic. He is an unreasonable person given to edit warring.Knox490 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I'm responding here because I got a notification from being mentioned. I used to be very active in editing this topic area, but have largely (and temporarily) stepped away from it in recent months, because enough is enough. Basically this looks like a content dispute with some mutual ill-temper overlaid. I haven't followed every to-and-fro, but I've been in some recent talk (on some related list pages) in which I found Apollo The Logician to be annoyingly certain that he knows The Truth^TM, so I'm inclined to regard the complaint here as coming from unclean hands. And as for that "persecution by" category, it has long been a vehicle for anti-atheism POV-pushing (all those nasty atheists persecuting people!), so I'm inclined to believe that Xenophrenic has been trying to push back against the POV-pushing while feeling outnumbered, which is not of course an excuse for edit warring. Anyway, this is not for ANI, but it could end up at ArbCom if the parties don't deal with it at other venues. For now, if there are 3RR concerns, WP:EWN is that-a-way. And if there are content or category concerns, and not enough editors to reach a consensus, open another CfD or RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban for Xenophrenic: This user has been editing tendentiously on topics relating to atheism/religion, going through several articles in a short time and excising any information pertaining to state atheism in the USSR and the associated persecution of the religious that is associated with it. This has been going on for months now and is wearing down productive editors. Look, for example, at this discussion, where Xenophrenic was blocked a week for edit warring, specifically removing relevant categories from a bunch of articles. In other articles, he removes entire sections in order to censor information that might not support his worldview. This is another example where he removed an original quote from the article simply because it mentioned the militant atheism of the Soviet Union (his repeated reverts were against consensus on the talk page). desmay (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Thank Xenophrenic for trying to stem the blatant original research evident in Apollo The Logician's astonishing diff where Apollo cherry picks a quote that does not mention atheism, then adds a conclusion in Wikipedia's voice that "Thus, it is clear that Polish nationalists linked their struggle against the Soviet Union with a struggle against atheism." No wonder Xenophrenic has been exasperated when trying to deal with that kind of nonsense. The underlying issue is seen in lots of articles where a small group of editors are adding categories that allege persecution by atheists (example) as if atheism was the motivating force. However, the person in that article was persecuted by a communist government that, like other dictatorial regimes, wanted to eliminate all opposition. People were persecuted for opposing the government. It was not a case of atheists looking for religious figures to persecute. Any claim of persecution by atheists must be supported with a reliable source clearly stating that view. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Even if you agree with his edits even you have to admit that his methods (extreme edit warring) should not be tolerated.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but are you aware that competence is required? The issue is nothing to do with whether I "agree with his edits". The point is that you added extreme original research to an article. Then, rather than thanking Xenophrenic for correcting the issue, you complained at ANI. It is true that, as I mentioned, there is a small group of editors who take every opportunity to label articles as persecution by atheists without any regard for the fact that the labels are not supported with reliable secondary sources. The solution would be to topic ban each of them, although the most extreme offender is now indeffed. The aim at Wikipedia is to develop an encyclopedia—it's not supposed to be a playpen where each side of an issue is allowed a certain number of reverts of the other side. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Continued LTA

Here are several of the IPs below but the /16 range is high traffic LTA, a continuation of global LTA

• 83.28.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) Annual rangeblock is needed because of: (most recent vandalism) Special:Contributions/83.28.180.93 Special:Contributions/83.28.189.68 Special:Contributions/83.28.192.72 Special:Contributions/83.28.193.149 Special:Contributions/83.28.193.217 Special:Contributions/83.28.61.132 Special:Contributions/83.28.192.236 Special:Contributions/83.28.193.84 current bimonthly pattern, it is the same as w:m:Global block of Orange ranges (2015). I suspect that he will be popping out of more IPs soon.

Masti seems to have some experience with this IP range. We should range block it. It does seem troublesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.162.112.37 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty tired of dealing with this, but an IP editor on open proxies is faking my signature in this thread and reverting my edits. I'm tempted to just close this as further trolling, but I'm going to leave it open in case this request is legit. Just be aware that this thread is apparently drawing trolls. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary Targeting by a User

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. User:Cordless Larry has been targeting a lot of my articles and some of them I could understand, but under the Bahamian British page he lost the bid for speedy deletion of the page and persisted on targeting my page. There are a lot of pages that existed that are similar that remain on Wikipedia. So when I made the page I thought it was fine. Upon his persistence of targeting my page I asked him why is other pages like the Antiguans and Barbudans in the United Kingdom still in existence? He has clearly shown a strong desire to delete my page. He responded that the deletion of my page has nothing to do with other pages. So the fact that he has no desire to remove these other pages but has dedicated himself to deleting my page. I believe this user is unnecessarily abusing his power and is targeting me intentionally. He also made a statement about Bahamian British should be under African Caribbean British which is ignorant as all Bahamian British people are not Black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreateBahamas (talk • contribs) 20:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's unlikely you're being targeted. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia. We can't deal with them all at once. That means some of them are going to receive more attention than others. New pages tend to receive more scrutiny than older ones, and volunteers may simply go down a chronological or alphabetical list rather than prioritize them based on subjective criteria. If an editor sees that you've created one potentially inappropriate page, they may also scrutinize other pages made. The best way to avoid deletion is by clearly establishing notability when the article is created. If you find this tedious, there are alternatives, such as articles for creation or creating drafts in user-space. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As explained at User talk:CreateBahamas#Nomination of Bahamian British for deletion, I nominated the article for speedy deletion under WP:G4. DGG declined that nomination, as the deletion discussion was back in 2008, so I took the article to AfD. That's hardly "targeting a lot of [CreateBahamas's] articles". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@CreateBahamas: You are relatively new to Wikipedia so may be unfamiliar with how some of our processes work. There are several ways an article can be nominated for deletion in some way some more "bureaucratic" than others. If a reviewer season article that they think ought to be deleted, it makes sense to start with the easiest applicable and least bureaucratic option, which in this case was the speedy deletion option. The reviewing administrator decided the article didn't meet the criteria so decline the nomination. In some cases, a declination of a speedy nomination might be construed as an implicit support for retention of the article although that's rarely the case. It is more usually a simple statement that this particular reason for deletion doesn't apply. However, in this particular situation the declination of the nomination specifically noted that if the article were to be deleted it should go through AFD, our more bureaucratic option. The editor who nominated it for speedy deletion followed that recommendation and nominated it at AFD. This is a perfectly normal sequence of events which happens many many times. I don't see any indication of any targeting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I do see the indication of Targeting because clearly he hasn't take interest in deleting other content that fit the same criteria in which he chose to delete my page even when brought to his attention. My question is, will all the other articles that exist on Wikipedia like Aruba Americans, and many others also be deleted? Or is it that it is only my page that will be deleted while the rest remain. You people don't make any sense, if there is something wrong with my page why are others like it still up on Wikipedia. That to me is targeting! If it isn't then I have no idea what is.CreateBahamas (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well as long as the rest gets deleted also then I am okay, but don't delete my page when there are many others like it on Wikipedia that doesn't make any sense to me. Because if it is that big of a deal then the rest would have already been gone. I saw Macedonians in the United Kingdom under 3000 people and remains in existence if one would want me to write a page along those lines mentioning the History of Bahamians in the United Kingdom then I can. But this is why I feel targeted, Bahamian British was originally deleted in 2008 and gets targeted for deletion again when I make it, while these other group of people remains. If you don't see bias then I think there is a serious problem with this community. CreateBahamas (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:CreateBahamas I get that you feel targeted because you don't know the bigger picture. There are over 5 million mainspace pages at Wikipedia and tens of thousands more in Draft and Userspace plus other places. Many volunteer editors work to delete pages every day but there are hundreds more unacceptable pages added daily. There is no way we can keep up or get to everything. I'm just one editor who personally nominated over 2400 pages User:Legacypac/CSD_log for speedy deletion last month, plus sent a few hundred pages through deletion discussion processes. Just today I worked with and got consent from another editor to delete almost 1000 pages in one go! User:Cordless Larry is definitely not targeting you, he is just following Wikipedia guidelines. If we did not have guidelines we would have pages on 50 million random people, every one that thought about starting a band, millions of local businesses and so on. Legacypac (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that, and that is not the issue I have, the issue I have is I brought it to the editors attention and nothing has been done to the pages I mentioned yet. He took the time to go out his way to get mines down, then why not go after the others I brought to your attention. That is my stance on it and my opinion will not change. Let the page get deleted I just wanted that to be understood. Thank you for your time. CreateBahamas (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is under any obligation to delete the other pages. The situation has been explained to you several times now. If you want to nominate the other pages for deletion, go ahead. Otherwise, I suggest you drop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I nominated Bahamian British for deletion because it was on my watchlist from back in 2008 when it was first deleted, so I was alerted to its recreation, CreateBahamas. I nominate these types of articles for deletion reasonably regularly, but I only have so much time to dedicate to this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand now, I didn't know the history of it and I didn't feel like you explained to me properly why this was up for deletion and not the rest. But now I got a better understanding as to why this particular page was chosen and that is all I really wanted to know. CreateBahamas (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Apollo The Logician and The Troubles

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

---

@Apollo The Logician made a vicious comment, to wit "west Brits", towards me (see here). This deprecatory (albeit inaccurate as I am a US citizen who holds only one passport, and have never been, nor do I ever intend to go, to any part of Ireland) comment, raises the question of whether Apollo should be sanctioned. Apollo's attempts to link the Irish Republican Army with the American revolutionaries and other historic groups fails because the Irish Republican Army was an internationally recognised terrorist group, and hence their offensive and retaliatory activities (by their own description: defense, offense and retaliation) are necessarily terroristic in nature. I also would point out that the notion that "terrorism" can only be used when applied to civilian targets/victims is absurd. Whether Allied soldiers in Malmedy or American Marines in Beirut (1981), or the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings or countless other examples throughout history, terrorism and crimes against humanity most assuredly exist regardless of whether the victims are civilians or lawful regular troops. (Take a gander at the Geneva Convention or rulings from The Hague one of these days.) The "One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter" is an example of moral relativism and most certainly should not become a guidepost for Wikipedia editors. In the event I did, with great regret, revert my last edit lest I unintentionally violate 1RR (see [63]). Quis separabit? 21:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It was not "vicious" at all. Inappropriate? Probably but vicious is over exaggerating. It is a term that has a meaning and I thought it applied in the circumstance. If this user is so upset about this then I will remove it and apologise for any offence caused.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That is nonsense. The term West Brit and the viciousness and ugliness it represents (see D.P. Moran) are intolerable. If I were to refer to Apollo as a "Fenian" or an "'RA supporter" or a "Taig", I would be sanctioned. Quis separabit? 21:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Fenian etc are sectarian, anti-catholic terms which is completely different. The term west Brit was used by a presidential candidate during the 2011 presidential election for God's sake.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you know what "Fenian" even means Apollo? It has nothing to do with religion but stating that the person derogatorily is a member or supporter of the Fenian Brotherhood (though that has obviously been forgot about over the past century). Just like Taig arose out the fact at one time Taig was one of the most common Irish forenames around and became a moniker for anyone Irish just like Paddy and Mickey did afterwards due to the one time predominance of the names Michael and Patrick amongst the Irish. You argue so many points that you seem to have little knowledge about. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Fenian was originally used to refer to supporters of the IRB/the Fenian Brotherhood/Clan Na Gael. Why are you bringing this up? What does Fenian mean in the modern context then?Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK its mildly provocative and its definitely commenting on the editor not focusing on content,, but not in the league of 'Proddy Dog' or "Fenian Bastard' or any number if other epithets. So I think you are over reacting. That said Apollo The Logician has a problem with his general comments and this is yet another example of what is a pattern over a long period of time. I note that s/he is, continuing to revert even after a recent block (keeping to the letter but not the spirt of the law) and is one of those editors who need constant monitoring. There is a balance between making a valuable contribution and creating more trouble than you are worth and Apollo The Logician is walking the edge of that boundary at the moment, and s/he hasn't deleted the term yet. Probably not worth more than a close and few admins keeping an eye out. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have done nothing that could be desribed as edit warring or disruptive so I don't know what you are talking about.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Noting that I gave him a DS alert on The Troubles last month. Doug Weller talk 05:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It didn't take long for Apollo to jump right in and perform highly subjective edits in the Troubles arena, one of which was recently raised here at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#1970_RUC_booby-trap_bombing, which follows on Apollo's campaign to remove terrorist categories from attacks committed by Irish republicans (whilst never once doing the same for attacks by loyalists). POV pushing again as before. At least they are (even if under duress) discussing it on the talk page rather than via revert edit-summaries, though as usual with little consistency in their arguments from one article to the next. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians (which loyalists did) is terrorism that is why.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, attacks on civilians (which Irish nationalists did) is terrorism. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Can you give an example?Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you don't believe or agree, that the IRA committed terrorism in the past, then there's certainly a problem here. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

He wants examples of IRA terrorism. The murders of Ross McWhirter and others comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Woah. @Apollo The Logician, are you claiming that Irish nationalists never committed terrorist attacks on civilians? Because competence is required here, you know. Please explain that comment. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite:In my personal opinion the IRA never intentionaly killed civilians that were not "informers". Obviously there were cases were the IRA accidentally killed civilians but I stress they that they were accidental.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Apollo The Logician: -- "but I stress they that they were accidental": are you in a personal position to know? It largely depends upon the definition of "civilian" and the circumstances of the actions -- Mullaghmore; Birmingham bombing which was never officially acknowledged; Bayardo Pub bombing; napalm bombing of La Mon restaurant at Gransha in which a dozen Protestant civilians were burned alive; bombing of restaurants and shopping malls; killings of judges, politicians, retired security personnel, Mullaghmore, etc. -- all unintentional certainly (see my following comment on this thread). Quis separabit? 19:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  @Apollo The Logician, @Baseball Bugs, @GoodDay, @Black Kite, @Mabuska, et alia: This (I.R.A. Apologizes for Civilian Deaths in Its 30-Year Campaign) should be self-explanatory, even for Apollo, although the IRA's definition of what constitutes a civilian is a tad ungenerous and unclear. Does it include the victims of Brighton, Tynan Abbey, the Mountbatten entourage at Mullaghmore, Christopher Ewart-Biggs and Judith Cook (British diplomat and his secretary), judges, politicians, etc, etc, etc?? Apollo is peddling nonsense. He/she reminds me a little of @Vintagekits. Just sayin' is all. also, let's not forget that Apollo got involved because of @DagosNavy's contributions, which I reverted. The world gets smaller. Quis separabit? 19:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have quite a bit of evidence that Apollo is more likely the indef banned sockpuppet Lapsed Pacifist/Gob Lofa... Mabuska ^(talk) 20:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the Tullyvallen Orange Hall or Darkly Gospel Hall massacres by the IRA weren't targeting innocent civilians or where accidental? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Those were by rogue IRA members who acted without the attacks being sanctioned, the IRA have condemned similar terrorist attacks by rogue IRA members.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah according to the IRA who no doubt were trying to cover up the blatant sectarian nature of the attacks by blaming "rogues", just like claiming someone like Jean McConville amongst others was an informer to justify murdering innocents. Like what about the murder of Edgar Graham? A civilian (even if a unionist politician but none the less) who the IRA didn't blame on rogues. You have proved why you are unfit to edit in this sensitive topic area and I would propose that Apollo if anything should be indef topic-banned from Troubles and Northern Ireland related articles. They edit in a few other topic areas so it shouldn't stop them contributing something positive to Wikipedia. Even you Apollo should appreciate that that would better than eventually ending up blocked again and again and again, which will no doubt keep happening. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

'Even if you disagree with me here there is no need to ban me as the vast majority of my edits would not be problematic. For example look at the Ireland section of the "Articles I have created" section on my user page. These are all positive contributions to "Troubles and Northern Ireland". I also find it ironic that a Ian Paisley fanboy would say that about me. I have never been banned for "Northern Ireland" related edits. That is a flat out lie.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No-one lied because no-one said you have ever been banned from Northern Ireland edits. Instead you have been banned several times from editing Wikipedia as a whole! Using the term positive concerning your edits is ambiguous and not always true and does not give you a blank cheque to go on the way you are elsewhere with your blatantly skewed republican POV pushing. Gob Lofa made many positive (if inconsequential just like some of yours) edits but like you still POV pushed and adopted the same demeanor as you yourself have, which was also similar to Lapsed Pacifist. Those two editors are indef-blocked from this site, and considering the fact you and Gob Lofa share an amazingly shared list of edited articles including obscure ones to do with outer space, only makes one wonder are you Gob Lofa, aka Lapsed Pacifist??? Shall we go ahead an file a SPI now or later? The evidence has been building for a while... Mabuska ^(talk) 21:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What obscure edits regarding outer space? Listen pal, either put up or shut up. You have been threatening to "file a SPI" numerous times regarding my supposed similarities to multiple users. If you believe I am a socj account then just report me and shut up about it.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Link rot template bombing

Could someone take a look at the recent edits from Special:Contributions/207.35.33.162? Is that really useful? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I've left a note on their page about creating an account and using something like reFill to address bare URLs. Some of their earlier edits don't seem bot-like to me, but that kind of tagging is unhelpful and not appropriate. Feel free to ping me or another admin if another slew like this pops up and we can block the account. Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:I JethroBT. And thank you for adding a much more polite note than I could manage. Yes, an odd mixture there of what seem to be careless novices and careless experienced editors. I guess it's possible to run a bot from an anon IP address like that? It's all gone quiet now, but still a bit worrying. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated attacks and communication issues with DrStrauss

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

---

I accept the close was in good faith, but I am unarchiving, because I think more discussion is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(There is nothing in this report by SwisterTwister that is actionable here, I'm closing this before it results in SwisterTwister being sanctioned. I would caution ST most strongly to remember this is a collaborative environment, we expect them to respond to questions and also to be more patient with newer users (to avoid becoming overbearing and intimidating towards such new users). DrStrauss should also be reminded to be more thorough checking for copyright violations, and also reminded that with this being a collaborative project, rapid archiving of talk page posts doesn't always make things run smoothly. Nick (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)}})

All current relevancy is here. I recently asked DrStrauss why he wasn't tagging Drafts as by WP:G11 when there was either clear copyvio or promo, as shown here (yet the only comment offered for this is: "I did not remove our conversation, I archived it. "Removing" suggests the attempt to evade criticism. It wasn't immediate either, you had more than enough time to respond" (as shown by the link, I commented with a question and was never attended to); while he responded and ensure he would check, he maintained G11 was not applicable to Drafts, yet this is countered by what WP:G11 itself says "applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION" therefore keeping advertising even if Draftspace is not negotiable. In fact, following my comments earlier today at this thread, I actually found one review from this morning with both G11 and G12 considerations, Draft:Chef Sarah Stegner (see this). I made it clear to DrStrauss that I was asking in good faith about these concerns and why not consider tagging them for G11 speedy, or at least or in addition to offering the author user an explanation of why our policies won't accept advertising and if they were compliant with our Legal Terms of Use WP:Paid. Also of note, recently, this template is a concern to anyone who may then want to ask about their Draft or perhaps even offer COI disclosure. As exhibitant at his talk page history, it's also clear he isn't well-managing the flow of users needing help intake, see this one and the following with the templated summary: "New system". None of this is hardly exemplary of how an AfC reviewer should work, regardless of differences including when still allowing such copyvio at Draft:Chef Sarah Stegner to stay or at least take appropriate actions. Also, adding to this recent string of concerns, is the cookie-cutter style of "I'll look soon" instead of either notifying someone else to step instead or offering a better explanation, see this. Linked earlier but adding here again for convenience is the specific response here where I asked, only to receive I really don't want to get into an argument and it's clear that you're following my contributions and while you're perfectly within your rights to do so I respectfully ask that you refrain from doing so. I don't mind criticism as long as it's constructive. We all make mistakes from time to time. You've made your points, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It is the community's appropriate concern to know when a user who is both listed at NPP and AfC, is either not taking the responsibility but worse to shrug off when a user twice asked how Draft:Fab Lab Tulsa, Draft:SharingXchange, Draft:Hicare, Draft:Ask Apollo, Draft:Days for Girls International, Draft:Terence Tan and Draft:Pixhug (including ones within this previous morning, there may actually be others in their contribs logs since they've reviewing hundreds and hundreds both on and after my comment dates). Also, this is a response ("messages...clearly ignore the editnotice") given after a user asks about clarification in an edit. Another example of incommunication is here where a user advises them not to remove a maintenance template, and also shown at here with the twice asked question: "Why do you keep removing the template?" (happened in February 2017). Examining all of this, it shows that there's a gap of communication and even, in their AfC Drafts, which show a daily string of are either quick one words, not nearly sufficient enough to show the author the necessary information. In all fairness, I asked for DrStrauss to remove the latest attacks and to say something differently, but there was no response. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• It looks a lot like you've decided to pick on and bully DrStrauss. I also note this behaviour (and far worse) has been considered acceptable by SwisterTwister for several years now. Nick (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• SwisterTwister Can you please provide the exact attacks and also the source for which you claim there is a copyright violation in a draft?. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Fucking bullshit. In fact, you are bullying DrStrauss and inciting him to make comments that are snarky at worst. Stop, before you get blocked. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure what DrS did wrong? They've all been declined. None of them indexed by Google. Telling someone to back off usually means 'back off' Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Both of you do good work at AfC. Yes G11 applies to drafts but as a matter of practice few reviewers immediately CSD tag as promotion for deletion on AfC drafts (that would cut way down on resubmits though). We have an entire category of declined for promotion AfC pages. Since the system only allows us to pick 1 reason to decline, I assume most of us pick the most obvious reason and don't look much further. I suggest withdrawing this ANi and going to the AfC talk page so we can work out better approaches as a team. ANi is going to be painful for all involved. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac I'd normally be inclined to agree with you however this is a continued case of WP:HOUNDING and an editor casting aspersions and ironically, refusing to communicate when questioned about such complaints they have made. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, I dunno, hounding is kind of hard to prove here and editors can say any lies they want at ANi without being held to account. Let's see if a little wider discussion over at AfC can sort this out before the proposals and voting starts. The AfC que is smaller than it's been in a long time in large part thanks to these two editors. Legacypac (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, claiming personal attacks is quite egregious here, as is implying that there was a failure to identify a copyvio and that an editor somehow erred in their "duty" to do so with no substantiation of it (and an obvious ignorance of the direct question being asked all the while claiming that DS is failing to communicate.) There's also quite a bit of history here for the creator of this thread.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I sincerely would've welcomed and accepted a solution at his talk page before this had there not been a bold and unsubstantiated attack after 2 threads, and I still would've welcomed one despite the quoted link above, "Walk away". Since my initial questions earlier today, there was ample time to respond or amend any comments. As for the hounding, I can personally say I've never interacted with this user before at all aside from coincidental encounters at AfC, and I've never even posted at their talk page at all before these events. Had there ever been one instance of following this user, I certainly would've made it relevant in my statement above along with everything else there. I would've welcomed an intervention anywhere else before ANI but given the issues outside of AfC, it was not restricted to AfC itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @SwisterTwister:So can you please answer the questions you've been asked directly in relation to this? 1.) What is the source for the copyvio you claim and 2.) What are the personal attacks, specifically (either the text or diffs)?CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• This is not the first time "advertising concerns" have been mentioned to this user, here. There's also the noticeable biting a user asking a question, here. They're not extensive ones, but they're still relevant. Starting since January as a new account and into July now, that's more than enough time to accustomize where and which areas G11 can apply especially once getting into the 2 fundamental areas they would be used: NPP and AfC, or by any chance, ask someone before making any edits to the pertaining article. At the same time, an applied "Not a dictionary" speedy was used, so it asks the question why WP:CSD wasn't properly inspected before making edits. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• @SwisterTwister: you've been asked questions directly several times here. If you do not answer any of the questions you've been asked, I intend to block you for disruptive editing. This is a collaborative project, we expect you to actually collaborate, not ignore people or bully and intimidate others. Nick (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• My answer to that is in the second paragraph in my statement shown above, where I link both the original links and URL. Even at the user talk page, I gave the specific page. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SwisterTwister I must be blind because I don't see in any paragraph or response where you have included the source for the copyvio you claimed here or any personal attacks. Would you mind replying here specifically with these answers, to diffs of the supposed attack (not a generic section link) and to the source for the copyvio. Thanks, much appreciated. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• I meant second sentence and as for the attacks, I've repeatedly noted them throughout of the statement. I made my statement as clear as possible, offering both diffs in past and present form, so I'm not seeing the need of asking me if the evidence all given there. Please don't ping me again since I'm currently aware of the thread. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • • Chrissymad, the sources are in the edit summaries Primefac and I removed on Draft:Chef Sarah Stegner. I'm not commenting on the situation as a whole, but there was copyvio and close-paraphrasing present. One of the sites had a clear copyright mark on it, and the others do not have a clear release into a compatible license. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is anWP:INVOLVED close given the person's statements at the talk page. Also, because this is not alone involving copyvio, but the repeated ignored questions I asked at the talk page amounting to other recent concerns by users, TonyBallioni and StAnselm. Closing this with a clear involvement is unacceptable without currently uninvolved people to suggest solutions. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It's an obvious close. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

My involvement is as an uninvolved administrator trying to get you to modify your behaviour today, as it has been previously. I've no prior involvement in dealing with you or DrStrauss (no blocks or discretionary sanctions) and I've no prior involvement in the Articles for Creation process. Nick (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• There were clear personal attacks at me by the DrStrauss at the user talk page and that warrants an ANI, not simply an advisement since I had asked them to retract said attacks. Refusing to is a violation of a pillar WP:Civility. Stating that I will be blocked because of starting an ANI is an involvement as by WP:Involved. In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to....it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards" Before this close, I was amending this by citing the conversation at User talk:DrStrauss#Advertising. SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So provide the diffs of the attacks. Apologies if you've provided them before, but to those of us just arriving to this matter, it would be very helpful. Your reluctance to do so is puzzling. I would, however, echo Nick's advice in the closing statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also point out - I did not and as far as I can tell, nobody else has stated that you will be "blocked because of starting an ANI". I have warned you that failure to answer the questions put to you in the section above is something I will block you for, as I consider repeated failures to answer questions concerning the allegations you are making to be disruptive editing. You've been around long enough, you know the drill, making accusations without providing any evidence to back-up those accusations has always been block-worthy. Nick (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• In addition to what I added to my last statement above, see where I edited this one split minute before the close, therefore inappropriate. A request for an uninvolved close from someone still

threatening to block me, is not unreasonable. Also because the user stated they were involved because of a past dispute involving me, it's equally inappropriate. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are not providing diffs for these alleged attacks. I'm extending the close template; you can consider me taking over or endorsing the close that Nick placed, if that helps with your concerns about involvement (which I do not agree with). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reopened, and comment:

• We do extend considerable tolerance for promotionalism to drafts, under the assumption that drafts are in Draft space in order to be improved, and that the editor is acting in good faith & trying to follow our rules & is willing to improve them. But that does not mean unlimited tolerance--something so promotional that it could not reasonably be fixed is better marked G11. So it's a matter of judgement, and opinions can reasonably differ. My own view is that the Draft:Ask Apollo was a clear and unmistakable G11 advertisement for that hospital chain's patient information service, that it has no independent notability and no conceivable place in an encyclopedia, and could at most be included as a single sentence in the main article; I doubt even a redirect would be appropriate. The references are entirely to blatant PR and advertorials. It is presumably a copy of their own promotion, possibly adapted for WP, either by their own PR staff or an incompetent paid editor. RHaworth clearly felt the same way, for he has deleted it. Draft:Days for Girls International is a clearly promotional article, with references written in a manner which obscure their origin. It shows no knowledge of WP, for it mixes in links just to their web site, with a number of mere mentions, some general articles on the problem that do not mention the organization, and a very few that might tend to show notability . that I have noticed this is a number of similar articles, and I consequently consider it rather likely to be a paid article, or at best a paid adaption of their publicity. Since it seems very possible that the organization is notable , an article could probably be written. Very little of the article would be conceivably be usable. I would not advise rewriting it, but starting over, and I would prefer deletion to remove the promotionalism from even the history. It is therefore in my opinion a clear candidate for speedy, though not as obviously so as the other article. I consider Dr.M made a misjudgment in not nominating them both for deletion, but I would not consider these as inexcusable errors.

I have not yet checked for copyvio. Perhaps ST can help by specifying.

AfC will obviously lead to disagreements more frequently than other processes, because of the unfinished state of the drafts, and the lack of clarity about our standards. It's all the more important to avoid personalities. I only mention names here because it's necessary for the discussion. I am checking other aspects of Dr.S's reviewing, and I noticed that he had declined an article for not having the standard form of the headings and using bold face inappropriately (see my comment on his user talk). I consider this a much less excusable error, for it is in clear violation of our reviewing standards, not just a question of interpretation. I can only assume this is due to not g=paying sufficient attention to them. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Since this has been reopened can we please get a clear and concise response including specific diffs (not just links to sections) of the personal attacks? There is great irony about this whole thing being about unsubstantiated attacks and communication issues. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• To answer the copyvio question, I'll say it was two of the ones I listed as part of the others: Draft:Fab Lab Tulsa, Draft:SharingXchange, I mentioned these 2 in my first attempt to speak to DrStrauss about Drafts (in the "Copyvio") thread I linked in my statement. SwisterTwister talk 02:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide specific diffs of the personal attacks you've claimed above? I believe this is now the third time I've asked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That would be here. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have not examined this discussion but there is nothing in that diff which is a personal attack. If you are still claiming that attacks have occurred, please provide several diffs with brief quotes showing attacks, or one diff with a blatant attack bordering on harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether it's an attack or not, it's clear violation of WP:Civility as there was no attempt to acknowledge the concerns given, and why the pages weren't being tagged as G11 or in the other given, G12. Even without a personal attack, I opened this with the general concerns of their recent contributions overall. I do still mean it when I say I wouldn't have opened an ANI if there had simply been a better response or, importantly, no mention of whatever other irrelevance there was about other things, and stick to the questions I asked. This is why I pertained it as an attack, because there was the claim I was "beating a dead horse", when that was never the case at all. Both times I opened a thread, was because they were either answered with a "Yes, I'll check" and that ultimately didn't happen or the second, they were shrugged off. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Words are important (and so is correct indentation, by the way). Anyone starting an ANI report with "Unsubstantiated attacks" in the heading needs to do much better than offer that diff. Are you going to replace "Unsubstantiated attacks" with "Minor disagreement concerning tone of discussion"? If you do not know what an attack or an uncivil comment looks like, please get some advice before assuming the worst. The diff you presented shows no attack and no incivility. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Johnuniq, except for words are important. Rather, words are critical on this page, in particular words like "personal attack" and "incivility". Misuse of WP:STICK, even if true, is hardly PA or incivility. Remarkably poor performance by a 9-year editor, imo. If there is any real case here, it's obscured by the bullshit and I'm not inclined to try to sort that out. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have nothing further to say because other users have said exactly what I think, apart from a request that once this discussion is over I respectfully ask SwisterTwister to leave no further messages on my talk page, now or in future, which is within my rights according to this guideline. I'm now logging out of Wikipedia and taking the dog for a walk. DrStrauss talk 07:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I'm leaving until this is all over. DrStrauss talk 13:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• When I kindly ask for genuine questions and answers are needed, the last solution is talk page banning because it will not help. As for reviewing, Draft:Vivala is yet another G11 case. As part of the AfC acceptance of users, one of the things clearly must be known is how to handle advertising. If not for the user talk page there was no other place than the AfC help desk which would not have helped regarding the policy-based concerns. SwisterTwister talk 14:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Kindly ask? Really? Anyways, what you are saying isn't relevant to the title of "unsubstantiated attacks and communication issues". For the last time, can you provide evidence? Or... is it impossible to provide evidence because there is none? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on quite long enough, if you have a problem with DrStrauss reviewing drafts, then you need to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants and ask that his username be removed from the AFC participants list. Your initial complaint concerning personal attacks (and communication issues) has been investigated by several administrators (and editors) and no problem concerning personal attacks could be found. There were some issues highlighted by DGG and myself concerning DrStrauss communication, such as the premature archiving of talk page posts and leaving incorrect advice when reviewing Draft articles, but those are relatively minor communication failures, given DrStrauss is a relatively new user with around six months tenure. These are issues we would generally expect to see in most new users and which we expect to have to deal with by way of processes such mentoring or just giving a few words of friendly advice.
DrStrauss is quite within his rights to ask you not to post on his talk page and I think, in light of the behaviour you've displayed towards DrStrauss over the last 24 hours here, I would suggest giving DrStrauss the widest of wide berths would be eminently sensible behaviour on your part.
DGG has (correctly) highlighted areas where DrStrauss could use guidance (particularly in what should be tagged with G11 for deletion) but that's a learning process, we will work together to help DrStrauss get their (already very good) accuracy rate up to an even higher standard when it comes to reviewing drafts, helping them if they're unsure whether or not an article should be speedily deleted, whether it should be rejected, or whether it should be approved.
DrStrauss has done nothing which requires the attention of administrators here, the claims concerning personal attacks were determined following investigation to be unfounded, and the relatively minor issues which have been identified do not require either administrator action or indeed any form of sanction, what is needed is the AFC community to give DrStrauss help when he needs it and encouragement when he doesn't. I would therefore like to ask SwisterTwister to finally recognise their initial report concerning a personal attack was unfounded, to apologise to DrStrauss (and the community) for this thread, to accept they will not post on DrStrauss talk page and to return to productive work in the AFC area. Nick (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm staggered by this ANI. Yes, DrStrauss made some mistakes that they need to improve on - they're new and it happens, but I see no evidence offered whatsoever that constitutes an "unsubstantiated attack" or an attack of any kind. Considering ST has been warned numerous times for "communication issues", it's quite a glass house he's building. I strongly support a close with a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:CIVILITY, with a strong admonishment. Waggie (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I'd like to point out one thing regarding this whole G11 issue that I think needs to be discussed before this is inevitably closed. It is my understanding through reading policies, guidelines, discussions and interactions with people who I often disagree with when it comes to speedy deletion, like SoWhy and Ritchie333, that other than attack pages and blatantly obvious copyvio, no editor is required in AfC or elsewhere to tag anything for speedy if they do not feel or have doubts about it meeting that criteria. I for one never thought I'd be on this side of that argument and I'm pretty sure everyone here knows my affinity for CSD tagging, but I find it inappropriate to also chide an editor for not tagging G11, especially when they did not move it to main space and declined it for advertisement. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Again, I opened this because of multiple concerns and, within the last few hpurs, there's been another, Ben Judd has considerable copypaste of this. Had this been closed last night, there would've still been risk, and this newest one is actually in mainspace. I also saw a need from the community's attention given there had not only been several Drafts untagged but the sheer number, we couldn't know which were overlooked. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty active in deletion and AfC but I've never understood we should be CSD G11 tagging pages in AfC. How about the 1245 pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as an advertisement from the last 6 months? Should we bulk delete them G11 now because in mainspace or userspace the same reviewers would have almost always G11 tagged these pages. The existence of these 1245 pages suggests DrStrauss and myself are not the only people not G11 tagging Drafts at AfC. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

DrStrauss did not accept Ben Judd from AfC. He simply nominated it for deletion. Unlike when accepting a draft, there's no requirement to copyvio check every article you touch (even if you're nominating it for deletion). While it would have been nice for DrStrauss to catch this, there's no fault here with Ben Judd, whatsoever. Waggie (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Legacypac, Chrissymad, and Waggie: precisely, that's what's puzzling be about this whole issue. Why is SwisterTwister taking exception to the way I handle drafts when what I am doing is the standard process for most reviewers and indeed overlooks other such actions by other reviewers, example. DrStrauss talk 18:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Speculation serves no useful purpose here. This all boils down to the fact that ST has not been able to support his position that G11's are required for the drafts in question or that you made "unsubstantiated attacks". I do think it's worthwhile to collaborate regarding your reviewing (though I think, overall, you do a fairly good job of it), but nothing you have done even remotely warrants administrator attention. As pointed out above, the appropriate venue for such a discussion is over at the relevant AfC talk page. I still support a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:INCIVILITY (with an admonishment). ST knows perfectly well that the standard for G11 is higher in draftspace, and that we're not required to copyvio check if we're not reviewing or patrolling. There are likely hundreds of drafts that I would have tagged G11 in a heartbeat, had they been in mainspace, but didn't because there was the chance for improvement. Waggie (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I was concerned because you made unsubstantiated claims that I singled or hounded you when nothing occurred beyond 2 threads, one of which was unresponded to and instead archived. My priorities here are too ensure advertising and copyvio are removed, and I'll remind any other user, as my contributions show a handful of such today. In fact in the last week alone, I've reminded others. However has still not been a policy offering how we do not in fact speedy tag Drafts as a whole, simply because other users aren't taking the initiative. I had asked for you to remove those comments as they are uncivil and were irrelevant, thus becoming personal. For example, this thread is still relevant because you ensured you were going check for copyvio and yet there was another at Ben Judd today. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: the community's consensus appears to be against you on both of those issues. You're the only person who considers what I said to be a personal attack. While there is some disagreement, experienced reviewers have said that G11-ing drafts isn't a "duty" and declining them per adv is fine. That's why we have the option. DrStrauss talk 18:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I get that ST is annoyed at being accused of missing copyvio before, but this reminds me of Matt 18:21-35. Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

And the difference between me and SwisterTwister is that I don't bring copyvios into the mainspace. But that's all water under the bridge. DrStrauss talk 19:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• I highly take WP:Criteria for speedy deletion, WP:Deletion policy and WP:What Wikipedia is not seriously, so even if that means having to personally G11 or G12 something, I will since these are policies, so it is our duty to recognize what's best for an encyclopedia. Anyone could start an RfC to sort out the accepts and unaccepts of applying speedy but that would mean changing policies we've had since WP began over 10 years ago. Also, I am still wondering why the copyvio at Ben Judd was in fact not removed, since that should've been an instant accompanyment of G11, had the latter been added. Once again, I would agree to closing but with the condition of actually applying speedy and there being no objections to a new thread if it happens again. As before, merely stating that others have not tagged them even though they later were, is not a convincing defense to why we should allow no taggings. As long as we have the 3 said policies discouraging advertising, there are no exceptions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks from ContraVentum

First and foremost, before diving into the problem, I would like to say that @Abequinn14: has recommended that we take this situation to the Administrators' noticeboard. [64] Due to user:ContraVentum clear WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior that has currently led him to receive a 48 hour block, in which he violated WP:1RR which is enforced for any articles related to the Syrian Civil War.

Now with that out of the way, the problem began on June 21 at the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article where user:ContraVenum falsely claims that a consensus was reached for WP:QUESTIONABLE sources and information on a Template that he and his friends created to replace the info box which was a clear violation of WP:T3 (An admin had taken down the template for WP:T3 violation) . [65] He then continues his stubborn behavior of not wanting to take this issue to the talk page and reverts my edit [66] claiming that he updated the info box, [67] in order to avoid at that time a WP:1RR. I then go and ask him in one of the edit summaries to lets take this to the Talk Page in order for us to avoid an unnecessary edit war. [68] In which, an administrator monitoring the situation increases the page protection to only administrator use for the next 7 days. [69] Which was perfect for us to hash out this issue, but he was no where to be found during that timespan. An as soon as the 7 days administrator protection wore off he goes and does three reverts in a span of 24 hours [70] [71] [72]. During that time he starts a new topic of discussion calling it (CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything) which was a clear personal attack in order to tarnish my good name. Even though he did all of this I participated in the discussion and debate until he clearly started to belittle, and degrade me as a person.[73] [74] I went and reported his behavior and clear violation of WP:1RR to user:Bbb23 in which he agreed that it was deserving of a block for 48 hours. [75] An now in this span of his 48 hour block another administrator has already acknowledged that the title of the topic of discussion he created (CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything) was a clear personal attack against me and had nothing to do with the topic of discussion and changes the title too (Usability of sources like criticalthreats.org) . [76] Now, I'm hoping as his block ends that he can be blocked from editing indefinitely from this topic as he as not provided anything better or beneficial to the article and for the last month he has vandalized the info box with biased inaccurate sources and has shown no effort in cooperating with other editors. Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Skip your personal attacks on me and get to the core issue / the actual dispute in this long edit war. The matter is that Chilicheese22 has been mass deleting reliable sources, essentially reducing the article from this version [77] to this version [78], i.e. among other things most drastically deleting a whole separate warring faction in the infobox, even though summarizing the reliable sources would require having to list said faction. There even exists a separate article with references itself about the Southern Transitional Council, which CC22 is very insisting on removing from the infobox. I have never got an actual rational explanation from CC22 about what is wrong with the sources used, for instance sources such as criticalthreats.org and alaraby.co.uk, and yes, even The Guardian. The furthest I've come with him in getting an actual explanation is him stating that all sources "are at best WP:QUESTIONABLE". Then I try to make him account for why the sources are as bad as he claims them to be (see talk here), but I'm met with a slurry of ad hominem and guilt by association argumentation, meanwhile CC22 never actually makes a rationale for every single source he has deleted (see the talk again). This is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and obstructing the consensus process by CC22 repeatedly reverting every insert that I do, never substantiating his actions, and laying the burden of accounting for the use of every WP:RS onto me, in order to evade explaining rationally what is his problem with stated sources. CC22, you could as well delete 100% of the article and then ask me to type a full rationale for every single one of the 319 refs of the article as to permit using them - but of course Wikipedia doesn't work this way. You must account for your drastical deletions to the article.

So, for the admins reading this, please consider the mass deletions in the article. Essentially, I'm annoyed that Chilicheese22 is doing these deletions, while never offering an actual explanation of why every source is bad as he claims them all to be. If CC22 is unable to account for his claims, I want CC22 to stop the deletions, and if he does not, I would like sanctions placed onto him. These are my wishes. --ContraVentum (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly what I thought you choose not to comment on what I said because all I have stated were the facts and the truth. I have no idea what you were reading, but I was not attacking you, simply explaining your deceiving actions. Now as for your WP:QUESTIONABLE sources, how about you tell the actual truth, you were adding sources like worldbulletin.net to add belligerents onto the info box which made politically and militarily no sense. An if you bothered to read my comments on the talk page I clearly took apart your argument. [79] [80] (i.e. Eritrea supporting the Houthis when it has a military base to train UAE backed forces in Yemen [81]) Which if you bothered to read the link from an actual reliable sources that I placed clearly contradicts your "theory" of Eritrea supporting the Houthis. Now as for the Southern Transitional Council you continue to be deceiving and making it seem like this is a complete new faction that has just entered the war in Yemen. When in reality it has always been the Southern Movement which has been a KEY Hadi ally in Yemen. Not only that, but you go as far as putting it in a new belligerent section as if it controls land when all the real evidence you need is its not a reflection of the Yemeni Civil War map. An if you bothered to look at the Map there are only three sides in the war ( Houthi & Allies, Hadi & Allies, & AQAP). Furthermore, you make it seem like that you are the one that had brought these sources when in reality you are trying to use sources that are currently there in order to add this new section. An that's what you have failed to explain, it has nothing to do with the 319 references in the article. That's why I am asking for you to give an explanation and if you can't I am asking for you to be banned from editing this topic, as you have vandalized and disruptively edited this page. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... Abequinn14 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Basically I asked you Chilicheese22 now and have been asking you 1000 times... why should criticalthreats.org, alaraby.co.uk, the Guardian etc. be deleted? I'm simply summarizing those sources, period. Regardless of what you believe I might have of "agendas". By your massive deletions in the infobox, you're denying the existence of the 1) Southern Transitional Council, 2) the al-Hizam Brigade, 3) the Hadhrami Elite Forces, 4) the recent split between Southern Movement and Hadi government, 5) the existence of the Hadramout Tribal Council, 6) the support of the Hadi Government by 6a) Egypt, 6b) Somalia, 6c) Djibouti and 6d) Eritrea, and 7) the support of the STC by UAE. This is all well-sourced information. CARE to elaborate on a reasonable motive of such deletions?? No you don't. Instead you're filling me and everybody else with horseshit in diarrhoea-mode. It's ridiculous you're wasting my time arguing endlessly about this. I convince myself that you must be taking the piss on me, dragging me through long-standing edit wars and now the immense Wikipedia bureaucracy in my attempts to save the article from your damaging actions. So you can just keep the article brutalized by your erasures, a shame for the Yemeni Civil War article but I don't have further desire to discuss with complete morons in order to make consensus/compromises. --ContraVentum (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

For admins: Please close this thread. I've got no intentions to further discuss this topic, nor contribute to articles regarding Yemen topics. So a kind of self-imposed topic ban. If this is the kind of trash people one has to deal with, then this is not a place for me. Chilicheese22 can keep his way, and everybody will be happy, yay.. --ContraVentum (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you clearly live in your own little world and refuse to read my comments I've bolded the important stuff since I know your such a "busy person" and "I don't want to waste your time". Anyways, if for once your a man of your word then I call on a admin @Abequinn14: @EdJohnston: to implement a topic ban on you, since it won't make any difference because you already said, and I quote "I've got no intentions to further discuss this topic,contribute to articles regarding Yemen topics. So a kind of self-imposed topic ban." Furthermore, you don't have the best of records for keeping your word and this isn't your first time having a meltdown and disappearing for a couple of weeks before returning in order to avoid sanctions. As you can see this was another meltdown you had a couple months back and returned a few weeks later. [82] Chilicheese22 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

wew, what do you know of keeping promises? You're honorless scum. Talk to my hand. Yours sincerely, --ContraVentum (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4FamibkUH4 --ContraVentum (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

:::: Also I am calling for an indefinite block and sanctions to be placed on User:contravenum until he apologizes for calling me "a trash human" "an absolute degenerate" and "a piece of filth" on my Talk Page [83] Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

good boy. nice that WP has a model pupil like you. I mean, how would WP survive without your divine contributions?!? --ContraVentum (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked User:ContraVentum 48 hours for personal attacks for 'trash human' and 'piece of filth'. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel like this account (User:ContraVentum) just does not much more than just harass. It's just a troll, just rebutting his useless edits with harassment. An indef block is needed. Abequinn14 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Abequinn14: Totally agree, couldn't have said better myself and he is just adding more evidence against himself through his talk page. Anyone that opposes should just go and check his talk page [84]. Honestly he is continuing to expose himself Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Please do not do anything to encourage accusations of WP:ADMINSHOP, Chilicheese22- edits like [85], [86], and [87] step close to it, to say the least. At least while this discussion is in progress. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 15:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Ok, I have one question how is this [88] WP:ADMINSHOP when I was just asking a question. An the other two I apologize for (Even though this one was more of me questioning the length of the block [89] I apologize for this one if any offence was takin) as you could see it was in the heat of the moment when I was being insulted. Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

'Please do not do anything to encourage accusations' is the point. — fortunavelut luna 15:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Understood and appreciate that. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: indef block & Topic Ban

ContraVenum (This includes his other account 176.23.1.95 admits this is his account here [90]) has shown the inability to work with others and has shown his true colors when not being able to reach a consensus with people that defer with his opinion. He has received his second 48 hour block in a week and I am proposing that he receives an indefinite block until he can prove to us that he has changed, by apologizing to me for his derogatory terms and promising that when adding large amounts of information he will take it first to the talk page. Also, since he has proved that has not done anything beneficial to articles related to the Syrian Civil War (i.e. Yemeni Civil War) he can never be allowed to edit them.

• Support, as nominator. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support, it should prevent his useless edits. Abequinn14 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Way too extreme for a single uncivil remark. I haven't read the above (multiple!) walls of text, and I doubt any admins will, but I did see the bit about how this indef block proposal was made specifically because CV is refusing to apologize for calling the OP "a trash human". Present evidence of long-term disruption, in a form people are likely to read, or present a more reasonable proposal. Making a single WP:DICK comment normally results in a short block, which User:EdJohnston had already administered before Abequinn's !vote above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Opposition withdrawn If LP is one of the honorless scum, then I can guess I probably would be too. I still have no intention of reading the above wall of bold text, so I don't know whether I want to explicitly support either of these proposals, but I will point out that a TBAN is redundant if an indef block is also in place, assuming he is blocked for the same behaviour that led to the TBAN. Yes, bans are harder to repeal than blocks, but he wouldn't be unblocked unless he convinced an admin that the disruption would not continue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No one would never think of you as "honorless scum" but does "Absolutely degenerate" fit? (just kidding of course) Credit for insult creativity... but ya, he ain't here to build anything useful. The TBAN would only apply if he gets the block lifted, which seems unlikely. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been compared to Hitler because my view of the Book of Genesis is more in-line with that of the Jewish Publication Society and Christine Hayes than that of some Christians in the American Deep South. And I'm pretty sure some bona fide neo-Nazis have called me "degenerate scum" before. (I helped crack some Nazi dog-whistle codes back during the upsurge in fascism on English Wikipedia last fall, and it wouldn't surprise me if they talked about me that way on their off-wiki fora.) A lot of the time people just seem to be building on standard epithets rather than coming up with anything new, honestly. I mean, the same user who compared me to Hitler has also called me a bunch of homophobic epithets, but you would think with their obsession with sex they could come up with something more interesting than "fag". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as one of the "honorless scum" Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Reading through the editor's rant on his talk page was enough for me to conclude they are not here to build an encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting vandal move

A vandalising editor who is about to be blocked moved a Pakistani politican's page (Chaudhry Abdul Rehman Khan) to a new name (probably the editor's) which was then appropriated by changing the content. Please revert the move. Jupitus Smart 09:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to the correct title, I've deleted the individual revisions of the page with the 'new' promotional content for being potential copyright violations, I've move protected Chaudhry Abdul Rehman Khan indefinitely, I've created a redirect from Abdul Rehman Chaudhry to Chaudhry Abdul Rehman Khan and have protected that indefinitely so any promotional accounts will not be able to move pages (or create pages) at that title without first speaking to an administrator, and I've blocked the Infohub.pk (talk · contribs) account indefinitely for being a promotional only account which breaches our username rules. If I've missed anything, please let me know. Nick (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Temporary move protection should be enough, as the page wasn't moved from that title until 17 June; a move may still be needed as the current title doesn't match the source. Abdul Rehman Chaudhry is a misleading redirect if they are different people. Peter James (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

1970 RUC booby-trap bombing

There is disagreement on the inclusion of Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1970 in the article 1970 RUC booby-trap bombing. As this article is subject to active Arbcom remedies and 1RR, I'd like to get wider input. Issues: Do attacks targeting police/security forces constitute terrorism? Do booby-trap car-bombs constitute targeted attacks? Do categories need to be reliable sourced before they can be included? Thanks, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"Do categories need to be reliable sourced before they can be included?" This seems like a no-brainer. Like any other contentious content it should be sourced, categories should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other contenious content when it comes to RSs.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• This isn't about content or sourcing (the whole article would need to go if that were the problem), it's about POV-pushing by a long-running anti-GB editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Massive WP:FAKEARTICLE. User edit-warring to remove "noindex" and "userpage" codes, and add "index" code

User:Emijrp/All Human Knowledge is a 300,000-byte fake article that Emijrp (talk · contribs) is hosting on his Wikipedia account. He is editing warring to add and retain an __INDEX__ magic word so that the article will show up on Google, and to remove the {{userpage}} and {{noindex}} codes for the same reason. He has already breached 3RR even after warnings and explanations. The page needs to be deleted, per WP:NOTWEBHOST, and because he clearly has no intention of stopping his efforts to keep it Google-indexed. We can't babysit either him or the page, so it's time for it to go (or him to go). Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The deletion was discarded a few hours ago. emijrp (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

3RR rule doesn't apply. Page is in my own user space. emijrp (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

4IM warning issued. Patient Zero^talk 12:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hate to jump in here, but AFAICT, the article should be allowed to remain. 3RR clearly says A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. I would go ahead and say that includes UP/TP as project pages. I don't believe the index and UP codes should be removed, though. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Although there is an exception for userpages, it says "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." and he's not. That's the issue. See WP:FAKEARTICLE which makes it clear such pages should be noindexed. It's a worthy thing to be doing but I don't think it belongs here, certainly not in his userspace. He is very insistent that the page should be indexed, saying " I want search engines index this page." @L3X1: do you mean that it should be noindexed? Doug Weller talk 12:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I see my mistake now. Google shouldn't be indexing userpages. Perhaps MfD should be user L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• No matter how many warnings are given, this user is still going to surreptitiously enable indexing on the page, and we can't babysit the massive page or the editor. And even if he didn't, the fake article violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:FAKEARTICLE, and WP:NOTPROMOTION. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, U5 doesn't apply to someone who has made 36k edits over 12 years. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 742) I was about to decline the U5 request but I see that Drmies added it, so instead I'll just note here that I think U5 does not apply. I don't know what Emijrp is up to but it does appear obviously intended to contribute to the project. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sure he does. I'm just not sure that something in userspace is the best way to go about it, or that he should think he can ignore our guidelines. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ivanvector: go ahead and decline. Admins should follow the correct procedures too. Right Drmies? --99of9 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Softlavender:, please explain your reinstatement of the speedy by reverting my edit, calling it "incorrect". I simply made clear that the u5 speedy deletion criteria ("where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace") are obviously not met. You need to justify more than that to justify such a rude reversion. I see above you pointed to WP:FAKEARTICLE but even there it says "inappropriate content created by non-genuine contributors should be tagged with {{db-u5}}.", which again, does not apply to genuine contributors, even if you believe the content is inappropriate. Make a proper deletion request. --99of9 (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• The restoration of Drmies' U5 was my error, because when I checked the user's contributions I accidentally clicked a recent edit he made which was by his bot Emijrpbot, which is 100% userspace edits [91]. When I discovered my error a few minutes later I was going to revert my revert but I had already made several reverts and didn't want to breach 3RR on a technicality. Softlavender (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 97) I have declined U5 (sorry Drmies), full-protected the page due to the massive edit warring from all sides, and listed the page at MfD for further discussion about whether to delete the page or not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• delete This is neither an encyclopedia article, nor a draft for producing them. It is outside the scope of WP, and the scope of WP user pages. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is a long essay - and not even a good essay. It makes no real narrative structure and it relies instead for its bulk on massive factoid tables. If the author wants to host it, then web hosting is cheap. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Subject it to MfD. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, I consider the earlier part a valid article, and am willing to move it to mainspace or at least draft space, and I seen o reason why it should not be indexed. The longer list part is not absurd in WP space; Tables of the progress of WP in various fields is excellent use of WP space, and we have a number of them in various places, though not quite as large. . But I'm certainly willing to move it to my user space if there's any question. (the discussion at MfD seems to agree ). DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • And I am wiling to move it back to userspace as a user essay instead of a valid article in that case. Something like "Wikidata singularity will occur in 2040s, in the same date range of technological singularity.[7] It will be the first time in history that all human knowledge is stored in a machine-readable format and ready to be consumed, understood and used by computers or any device." (from the lead) is nonsense which doesn't belong in the mainspace at all. " In this project, we attempt to study how many articles are needed to cover the sum of all human knowledge." (also from the lead) clearly indicates why this shouldn't be moved. The comparison of Wikidata with "all topics in this category" is extreme navelgazing, and shows (as does the whole essay) a profound misunderstanding of the difference between "knowledge" and "having some key facts". Your definition of "excellent use of WP space" is rather bizarre it seems, but your claim that parts of it belong in the mainspace is the most problematic. Fram (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Page is at MfD for those who wish to comment. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Uyghurology moving page without consensus

After I opened a move request for a page this user created, Tahir imin to Tahir Imin per MOS:CAPS, the user immediately moved the page. No consensus is reached in the current move request and the user continues to move the page without consensus, even after my first reversion of the move.

Page where incident took place
Talk page where move request is reaching consensus
Diff of first move
Diff of my undo
Diff of second move

No other moves were made since this occurrence. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 18:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and link to the user: Uyghurology (talk · contribs). jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 18:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I closed the move discussion. Nothing needs to be done here. You requested the move, the only significant contributor agreed and moved it. ~ GB fan 19:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I missed it earlier, but you warned them about moving the article "against naming conventions or consensus". There was no consensus against moving it and they moved it line with naming conventions. ~ GB fan 19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning removed. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 19:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Scores of possibly frivolous redirects

I've dropped a note to Comeondowntothe (talk · contribs), and would welcome feedback on their edits. Strikes me as unusual when a new account makes a lot of rapid creations, the mass of which which looks frivolous to me. Further thoughts appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Neelix returns? Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

They are all deleted. I don't think it is Neelix. These don't have the same feel as what Neelix did, they are just differences in capitalization. ~ GB fan 19:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the redirects and posted a warning to the user's talk page. It is just conceivable it may be a good faith new editor who didn't realise that what he or she was doing was unhelpful, so I tried to assume good faith as far as I felt I reasonably could when writing the warning. However, if similar editing continues, we will have to consider whether a different approach may be needed. "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought, humorously, of Neelix, too. But without the, er, titillation. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

His mounds of redirects were such a bust! EEng 19:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I see someone has been keeping abreast of the situation. Blackmane (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How long do you plan on milking this? EEng 00:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Boobies. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't froget to watch for thousands of amphibian redirects. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not as willing to assume good faith here. We've been seeing more of this lately, people gaming the system to bypass the 30/500 restrictions. I would bet next months lunch money that is the case. Often, it is a sock of a recently blocked editor we are dealing with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dennis, since there are other warning signs besides the useless redirects. The user's other edits are exclusively to their own userpage, and are classic 30/500 gaming. Comeondowntothe, if I'm wrong, and there's some point to your flock of tiny userpage edits, feel free to explain what it is. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC).

I've blocked as a sock. I don't know of whom, but the userspace edits are a classic sign of gaming their way to autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed. It's very clear what's going on. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I too thought it was a sockpuppet of someone. I was also virtually sure that the editing had some underhanded purpose to it, but I didn't know what purpose. However, as soon as I saw Dennis Brown's comment about the 30/500 restrictions I realised that was obviously it. I can't think why I didn't think of that immediately, since, as both Bishonen and BU Rob13 say, the edits are classic signs of that, and I have seen it often enough before. If anyone's interested, I have now declined an unblock request for the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Complaint about User:Eric and edits on page Philippe Noiret

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

---

Following a minor edit for clarification on the page Philippe Noiret (please see the revision history), User:Eric has engaged in a diatribe against myself, one which quickly escalated from a couple of reverts to outright personal insults. No doubt, I responded in like, but I would like to request a) my edit remains for reasons of language, b) this user is blocked from interacting with me, due to his being the instigator of a very uncivil exchange. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoldorinElf (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@NoldorinElf: Could you please point to a specific reversion that you feel is diatribe ? Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

FlightTime, I feel that the interaction in its entirety could be considered as much. (Perhaps "diatribe" is too strong a word, depending on one's interpretation, but it was certainly very rude and unprovoked!) It begins with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_Noiret&oldid=788792300 and continues on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eric#Reversing_edits. (I wanted to prevent things escalating by beginning a discussion on his talk page, but then things really got going.) Noldorin (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

NoldorinElf, I'm not sure it's a good idea to open an ANI thread against someone 17 minutes after calling them a "supercilious prick" [92]. EEng 02:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It was not rude or unprovoked. You opened up the conversation by questioning their language and literary skills, which is the last recommended stance to ever take in a content dispute. Eric, though apparently agitated from your rude attack, provided you with a far less snarky reply that stayed on his talk page and kept it relatively private. You only upped the ante by attacking their intelligence and pursuing personal attacks only further. Eric only responded (accurately) by saying he was giving you the opportunity to reel yourself in with a more civil demeanor and not make a mockery of yourself with the personal attacks. You responded by calling him a "supercilious prick", on top of everything else. Before you are blocked, I would like you to read Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you having a laugh? It was very clearly provocative, and far more sarky than anything I wrote. I responded only in like. Noldorin (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NoldorinElf: After skimming through Eric's talk page who, has been nothing but cordial with you and in one of your responses you say I doubt someone as pig-headed as you will show humility now, but I've clearly demonstrated your usage of the word is inappropriate insofar as it is archaic You're the one the is being insulting and making personal attacks. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@NoldorinElf: Yes, after reading further, you're the one that needs to be block from interacting. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing but cordial? Oh, how you may me laugh. My insults were in response to his insults, and nothing more, that much is quite evident to anyone with their head screwed on. I eagerly await the block/ban! Noldorin (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll echo the observation that the OP is the one who is out of line. This is a content dispute (and the OP is wrong in that matter as well) that turned personal after the OP left a comment on Eric's talk page that began with these words: English may or may not be your first language, but please show some humility when reverting changes in any case. As you can see, it was not Eric who made this a personal matter. Eric has done nothing worthy of sanction while the OP has been rude, condescending, and uncivil... and also completely wrong in the content dispute. I will leave it to others to determine whether this OP is the type of person capable of contributing productively to a collaborative project. Lepricavark (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

---

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. But since you don't care to explain any of your rationale, you can go to hell. I eagerly await my account being blocked by "people" such as you. Indeed, I shall consider it a badge of honour! Noldorin (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Well done Eric, for getting all your similarly braindead friends involved. A grand bunch of keyboard warriors, you are! In real life, you weaklings would all be cowering in fear, of course. Noldorin (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

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

FlotillaFlotsam on List of video game emulators‎

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

---

This is one of very few instances I even ask for administrator input. I think this here is the correct way but please excuse me if I should've gone somewhere else first.

I'm asking for help regarding the conduct of FlotillaFlotsam on List of video game emulators‎. This is a dispute regarding notability of several entries within a stand-alone list or to be more precise: how to decide what rule/guideline to apply. WP:LISTN says: “The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.”

Given that FlotillaFlotsam’s removals of entries has rather major impact and the quoted sentence allows both notable-only entries as well as a more relaxed policy, I sought to find out what other editors think to build consensus and even offered a compromise – which he dismissed. It’s not like he didn’t post on the talk page but I get the vibe of his style of discussion being "I’m right and everybody must follow my lead". I tried once again to find common ground for which there was no direct reply.

Reverts have been made by a number of editors in both directions. For example Chrissymad seems to support FlotillaFlotsam but my request to participate in that discussion was ignored. RickSanchez01 seems to oppose FlotillaFlotsam’s stance but also did not participate in the discussion. LordKaiser00 does occasionally participate but seems to fall in the middle.

As I repeatedly said on that Talk Page, my personal opinion is that I even agree with some (though not all) of the removals, so it is not even much about content, but behavior. I want to seek consensus beforehand rather than "shoot first, ask later".

He claims to do research and only remove entries that have no sources for notability, yet on several occasions it took me a mere 30 or so seconds to google a source for notability (one example is RockNES), leading me to the impression that his removals are more based on gut feeling or personal preference rather than actual research.

To once again come back to WP:LISTN: Is the editor’s discretion kind of like veto power, i.e. a single editor can demand to forbid non-notable entries? Or is it meant that the usual policy of consensus-building is in place? I’d like to think that I act in accordance with WP:CAUTIOUS in the regard that I’d like to discuss such a matter first. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this conversation, at this point I think this dispute can only be solved through arbitration. Before I go into the argument itself, I'd like to address one of the concerns you have.

RE: "He claims to do research and only remove entries that have no sources for notability, yet on several occasions it took me a mere 30 or so seconds to google a source for notability", I try to adhere as closely as possible to WP:GNG when searching for sources. Articles that are nothing more than release notes could be construed as a press release or advertising, which would be undesirable for a citation. I did see the source you added to RockNES while searching for myself, but I was worried it would fall under a press release as it's little more than release notes copied from the emulator's readme.

Regarding the dispute, I agree that in most cases, the individual entries in a list don't need to be notable to be included. However, List of video game emulators is a dynamic list, and there are many thousands of video game emulators. Without enforcing notability guidelines on a per-entry basis (as WP:LISTN permits in cases such as these), this list runs the very serious risk of becoming unmanageably large, and of limited encyclopedic value.

We've had an exhaustive discussion on the article's talk page, and neither me nor KAMiKAZOW have changed our stances or reached a middle ground; I would be very happy if third parties could chime in on this issue. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Has this dispute been raised at [{WP:DRN|the dispute resolution board]]? This looks more like a content dispute than a behavioural one. Arbitration is the last port of call after all other avenues have been exhausted. Blackmane (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The OP has failed to distinguish between notability (which is not required for individual entries in a list) and verifiability (which is required for everything on Wikipedia). This is a glaring example of this misunderstanding -- just because you remember reading something in a magazine twenty years ago does not make it sourced or verifiable. Human memory is a messy thing (ask Bart Ehrman) and something you think you read in the 1990s is not appropriate for Wikipedia unless you can dig up the original source and check it again. FF made this same mistake on the talk page, but he is a new user and can be forgiven for accidentally writing "notability" when he clearly means "verifiability". There is no requirement for reliable sources to be available online, but no diffs were provided of FF saying otherwise so that is irrelevant. In fact, all three diffs the OP provided were of comments by him directed at FF. On top of that, this seems to be a content dispute. I say this thread should just be closed before the OP invites a boomerang on himself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Abusive posts from User:2601:581:302:FB9B:FCDD:57CA:D49F:9439

This talk page edit (which I have reverted) was abusive of another editor and was made shortly after the expiry of a previous block for harassing other users. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. IP blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Henson

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

---

Can someone please intervene. An article creator doesn't like it that I have nominated his or her article for deletion (fair enough), and has now

• twice removed the AfD template[93][94], one of these after they had been warned not to do this on their user talk page[95]
• moved his "keep" above the nomination[96]
• Archived the AfD[97]
• Archived it again[98]
• Added weird templates[99]
• Removed my reply at the AfD[100]
• Added another weird claim about me[101]
• Removed the AfD template a third time (second restoration wasn't by me, by the way)[102]

Providing some guidance and clue to this newbie would be appreciated. Fram (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Blocked the user as they're being disruptive, and edit conflicted with MrHumanPersonGuy trying to restore the AfD to a readable state -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's hope they can discuss things more constructively after the 12 hour block has expired. Fram (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

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

CIR issues with User:Tonton Bernardo

Tonton Bernardo (talk · contribs) cast a dubious, semi-intelligible RfA !vote that engendered a reasonable amount of criticism. Joefromrandb left a very gracious post on TB's talk page and was met with the following response. TB also went to the RfA page itself to throw this semi-literate tantrum. While the user claims an intention of leaving Wikipedia, I suspect we can't really trust such an irrational individual to keep his word. I therefore recommend blocking this user indefinitely to prevent future childish disruption. Lepricavark (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to make sure, is this a community ban or just an indefinite block?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree here. Maybe ban from RfA, but this user should be allowed to continue contributing content. If it spreads over to that though, then that might be something that should be looked at. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)