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

Please review Light2021's behaviour at AfD

Last year we had this discussion at AN/I. Please review that discussion, and then consider the same user's behaviour towards Cunard at this AfD. Personally, I think Light2021 is in need of further support and direction from our admin corps; your mileage may vary.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only applaud your delicacy of phrasing, S Marshall  ;) — fortunavelut luna 17:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, and this discussion is another example.—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall: This thread appears to be disappearing into irrelevance, so let me revive it. I have seen Light2021 nominate a great deal of CSDs, some of which don't meet the criteria, and a lot of AfDs for not particularly significant companies. While many of the AfDs appear to close as desired, some don't, and a lot of the debates see a three-way Mexican standoff between Light2021, Cunard and SwisterTwister in the discussion. Light2021's standard of English is not great, and he does seem to be a "one trick pony" on a mission to delete all the articles on Wikipedia he doesn't like. I know he's been blocked before, so I'll keep an eye on his CSD logging, and if he makes too many mistakes I think we should revive this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion, S Marshall (talk · contribs).

I know he's been blocked before, so I'll keep an eye on his CSD logging, and if he makes too many mistakes I think we should revive this. – Ritchie333 (talk · contribs), I have posted my observations of Light2021's actions below.

The close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 says, "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here".

Cunard (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Previous blocks

1. In April 2016, Light2021 was blocked multiple times by Randykitty (talk · contribs) and Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing, personal attacks, vandalism, and abusing multiple accounts.
2. Light2021 was blocked for one month in November 2016 by Kudpung (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021.
3. Light2021 was most recently blocked for two months by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) on 31 January 2017 for "disruptive behavior" and "WP:CIR issues".

Personal attacks and uncollegial hostility

1. Against Timtempleton (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote on 3 July 2017 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi: "Was just going through your profile. Several times you have found in the category of Paid editor. complete violation of Wikipedia, and clears your intention on writing about this individual without having any of the coverage proof. As there are none."

   Timtempleton replied: "I did not create this article, nor did I add any promotional information, so I'm not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that I'm somehow a paid editor. It's obviously clear that the deletion discussion is not going to be anything but a no consensus close at worst. Go with consensus and please stop making baseless accusations."

2. Against SL93 (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoneMinder, "You must be joking about such sources". SL93 responded, "Can you do me a favor and stop being so combative?"
3. Against SoWhy (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote:

   Do you seriously ignore Delete vote discussion or its not visible to you at all? you ignored major consensus on Delete. These are only two incident I am citing, You are an Admin I guess. You are only Keeping these articles with baseless notability and no authentic media is present for them except the Online blog people write on daily basis.

   Or you must be Keep admins here. Nothing against it, but just going through your decision and find it little biased. You are an admin and know better than me. Just my observations. Thanks!

4. Regarding Light2021's hostility against my posts, this has happened multiple times in addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination) and casting aspersions against me was a concern raised in November 2016 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021. I generally avoid replying to Light2021's comments to me at AfDs because of the hostility.

Canvassing

Kudpung (talk · contribs) warned Light2021 not to canvass on 20 January 2017:

Hi, you have been warned about not respecting policies and you have also been blocked several times. You will not get your own way by canvassing. Please note that any further abuse of editing privileges may result in an extended block, and without the necessity of a discussion at ANI.

Here are recent instances of canvassing:

1. 37signals was renamed to Basecamp (company). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company) (2nd nomination), Light2021 pinged users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals who had supported deletion (as well as several other editors that I don't know how he found). But Light2021 did not ping users who had supported retention at either Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company). Light2021 did not understand why the canvassing was wrong after this discussion with Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) on his talk page.

   He also canvassed here, pinging editors, many of whom had no involvement in the article or AfD. One of the editors was a user he had given a "No Spam Barnstar" to. Light2021 wrote, "I need your help to know how we can make Wikipedia better. I am asking here as this article is going toward No consensus or Keep by baseless Press coverage."

2. At Talk:Keith Ferrazzi, Light2021 pinged users who largely had supported deletion at Light2021's AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Bradberry. Light2021 wrote, "Need your suggestions on This one. Complete promotional articles getting protected and just going for No-consensus. Not even a single coverage is found on Notable media. Editing is clear Paid." The pinged editors later participated at Light2021's AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi.

Reverting AfD closes

1. Light2021 reverted Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airside (company) as "speedy keep".
2. Light2021 reverted Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans as "speedy keep".

Tag bombing

Light2021 frequently tag bombs articles. Here are several examples:

1. Basecamp (company) (added eight maintenance tags)
2. Forever (website) (added {{BLP sources}} to an article about a website)
3. Sri Krishna Sweets (added {{One source}} to an article that has multiple sources)
4. Leonard Abramson (added {{One source}} to an article that has multiple sources)

Declined speedy deletions

The declined speedy deletions below are all between 28 June 2017 and 15 July 2017.

1. Light2021 added a speedy tag to Crowdspring two minutes after he nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination). The speedy was declined by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs).
2. Light2021 added a {{db-corp}} speedy tag to Show-Score. The speedy was declined by Atlantic306 (talk · contribs) because "has rs coverage Broadway World, ABC".
3. Light2021 added a {{db-corp}} speedy tag to Ask Ziggy. The speedy was declined by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) because there was a clear consensus to keep in 2013 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ask Ziggy Inc..
4. Light2021 added a speedy tag to Airside (company). The speedy was declined by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), who wrote, "BAFTA nominated?!!!!!"
5. Light2021 added a {{db-spam}} tag to 10,000ft. The speedy was declined by GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), who wrote, "Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional".
6. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Thad Ackel was declined here.
7. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Sarkis Acopian was declined here ("decline A7, 'There he designed and manufactured the first ever solar radio' is enough")
8. Light2021's {{db-a7}} tag for Peter Barnes (entrepreneur) was declined here ("decline A7, has sources, try PROD / AfD").
9. Light2021's {{db-corp}} tag for Picaboo was declined here ("decline A7, name dropped in the WSJ").
10. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g1}} tags for Astro Studios were declined here ("decline A7, linked to notable products, trim puffery and unreferenced content").
11. Light2021's {{db-g11}} tag for Core77 was declined here ("speedy deletion declined since the entire article was not outright promotional; removed one peacock word").
12. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g11}} tags for Stanley Foster Reed was declined here ("Decline speedy delete, founder of a magazine and journal with articles is a claim to sginificance and not unambiguous promotion")
13. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Gamil Design was declined here ("Not quite G11, but could use a lot less 'product info'.").
14. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for 23 Envelope was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid")
15. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Vaughan Oliver was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid").
16. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Rick Poynor was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid").
17. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for 75B was declined here ("Decline speedy, don't really see blatant spam here. File at AfD if desired.")
18. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for RKS Design was declined here.
19. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Ravi Sawhney was declined here.
20. Light2021's {{db-repost}} tag for FlipKey was declined here ("you can not request a speedy deletion after you just started an AFD for this. It was also recreated three years ago and things have been added").
21. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for DragonLord Enterprises, Inc. was declined here.
22. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g11}} tags for AlchemyAPI were declined here ("'As of February 2014, it claims to have clients in 36 countries and process over 3 billion documents a month.' seems notable to me.).
23. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Active Collab was declined here ("Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional").
24. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Agnantty was declined here ("Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional").
25. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for JForce was declined here ("Decline CSD. Not purely promotional.").
26. Light2021's {{db-web}} tag for Mental literacy was declined here ("not in the appropriate class of topics for A7").
27. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for MindMapper was declined here ("Decline CSD. Not purely promotional.")

Cunard (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I close a lot of AfDs within WP:DSI and in the process I go through most of the listed AfDs in detail, even if I'm don't close them or consider closing them and I've found Light2021's behavior at AfDs to be perplexing to say the least. On one article with a few independent sources they'll !vote delete and then on another with almost no sourcing they go on to !vote keep and question the credibility of the other participants. This is clearly a case of not showing the level of understanding of our policies, guidelines, and processes or something more fishy. An indefinite topic ban from any deletion process seems to be in order. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have a ton to add other than that the one speedy deletion by Light2021 that I declined in the list above was not the only one. See [1], [2], [3]. I do appreciate that they later took the articles I declined to speedy delete to AfD. There are lots of articles that should probably be deleted but that don't meet the CSD; though Light2021 should have known not to nominate these three for speedy deletion, they were correct to take them to AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence presented, I feel that a temporary topic-ban from deletion-related processes would be in Light2021's best interests. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, can we go with Spaceman Spiff's "indefinite topic ban" rather than Power's "temporary topic ban" and expand "deletion-related processes" to "processes related to content removal"? Would be nice to restrict the tag bombing and inappropriate merge nominations as well.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I support your expanded proposal, S Marshall, which will address the disruptive editing. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• The editor's comments to me at the ZoneMinder AfD were frustrating. First, his response had to do with him thinking that I said that the self-published book showed notability (I didn't). Then, of course, the editor said that the sources that I was referring to do not show notability and asked if we were creating a directory. He is very combative in AfDs and it seems like he wants the last word. Magazines like Infoworld do show notability for tech and such sources definitely do not count as spam as the editor told me. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My Version

I understand all the above concerns, I have nothing but one thing to say. Judge me after April 2017 Events. Above you have mentioned 27

articles, but isn't it little biased where you missed how many were deleted, and many of them from 27 articles are on AfD and they will do their course. I do understand its a human nature to like or dislike someone, here its clearly a case where facts are presented selectively. Cunard is an admin, its good, but the way he makes and Keep argument with lengthy copy-paste job, does not look mature. second his Keep arguments gets less than 50% results, means he might be wrong also, but I am also not perfect 100%, I am getting closed to with my Afd. Whatever community decides, be independent, unbiased, and check the behavior after April 2017. I have not abused anyone, it is very normal to ask questions, some people get offended when they have been asked about their behavior or decision. It is also fine. Thanks. I am just making my part. Its obvious all Past arguments/ blocked will be brought again and again and again. It is irrelevant to judge the present by past! In the above discussion, its more about my past than present, where I am getting better. Admin makes so many mistake, I am also learning.

• As for fair investigation. Cunard comes to every AfD with copy paste job by making a Keep Vote, without even analysing the sources are exatly Press coverage or Corporate Spam. Isn't being Personal from Cunard ends, here also he selectively and cunningly mentioned sources as if I am the one holds all the fault. Now he will say, I am making comment against him. He has all the power being an Admin.

Be fair, and don't bite if you don't like someone. Light2021 (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Deliberate attempt to prove my selection wrong. These are selective and biased admins who just want to keep any kind of Spam just for the sake of being into war field. in his talk page, he commented on me, and made a perception about me. No body questioned such admins.

Here is the such example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlipKey (2nd nomination) . On what ground he kept one paragraph articles? Just to prove my AfD wrong, and many such cases. No doubt by such Corrupt and biased admins we are screwed and compromised as a Wikipedia. Now he will have an option to Ban me. for speaking the blunt truth. That is correct, such articles are protected not by Paid editors but by such admins who are corrupt in doing their work. Speaking strongly will be deleted or banned by such Admins. Good Luck!

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans nominated by me, kept by admin, generally he relist all my article when delete is in majority till he gets many votes. here he kept it for no reason. later got deleted thankfully. my selection are not wrong, Non-consensus does not mean a bad nominations. It was definitely doubtful one. I am making over 95% good AfD (From last 200 only/latest). Not bad for making This wikipedia spam free, right? Light2021 (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment We are getting out of the realms of disruption and into competence is required here.

• User:Cunard is not an admin.
• " Cunard comes to every AfD with copy paste job by making a Keep Vote, without even analysing the sources" Actually, even if I don't agree with him, Cunard is one of the few AfD regulars that does analyse the sources. So this is nonsense as well.
• "These are selective and biased admins who just want to keep any kind of Spam just for the sake of being into war field." and "No doubt by such Corrupt and biased admins we are screwed and compromised as a Wikipedia". Apparently this means "they didn't agree with my opinion".
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans was kept because you didn't provide a valid deletion rationale. Not for any other reason. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ironically, sometimes I agree with Light2021, and there are too many editors willing to spam low-quality keep votes to any old promotional garbage that a paid editor wants to throw up, but there are limits to behaviour, and Light2021 has crossed them. Agree with the topic ban mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• On my behavior to straight forwardness, you are also simply stating what you feel like, as we all are free to say what we have to say. Shall we also judge your behavior on similar ground. Neither I have abused anyone here, but every-time this Ban, Ban and Ban comes in as if I am doing some non-sense here. My analysis are not random, they are Spam filled in Wikipedia. From the previous Ban I have learnt a lot, and I never went ahead to any of the contributors here, Yes, I can ask questions as we all do, as you did, and the language you used its simple and straight. Thats how people express. And I have never said everyone is corrupt here. There are many Senior admins Who agrees to me sometime and sometime do not, it does not mean I am just misbehaving, I accept their point as well. Every time this Ban will not be any good to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia will seriously become a PR Host/ another Blog where Paid editors known very well how to maintain these articles. Proudly I am just one of them who are tirelessly working on making Wikipedia Spam free. Other are just making money keeping just nonsense here.

• Can you state me Only one example after April 2017, where I have misbehaved with any one the contributors or discussed in any harsh manner? Simply Ban is not an option. people learn here. It is simply an attack and nothing else. i have learnt a lot. I don't just nominate articles I do not like. Its the global companies or products. It is baseless accusations and Ban is not right where I can learn things. and my AfD are not wrong, it is over 95% accurate (From last 200 only/latest), if you count No - consensus. As we all know how to make articles as No-consensus. By paid media or some contributors works for this.
• On Cunard detail analysis. What happen to KISS Logic? can't he just give the link so people can read going on the source, unnecessary making an discussion so lengthy that it repels the contributors, as it seems so authentic, whereas it simply copy-paste the Press coverage from the Blog, sometimes its from Good media, but most of the times its just Copy-paste, where in my opinion I doubt he even reads them. He just open the link, Copy whatever he gets and paste on Discussion. How come its a good analysis? His Keep votes gets No-Consensus where he gets the majority of success. Its not substantial ground for analysis. Eventually articles are kept even by means of No-Consensus. Light2021 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Request your advise and guidance on repeated Ban on me. How it is justify on my time and contribution here? How I can contribute fighting this Biased opinion on me? They drag me personally, makes a case like I am guilty, ignoring all my works, every one express here, when they express blunt, its acceptable when I do, they makes an Ban issue? I have never abused anyone after April 2017. Please analyse my behaviour after this time, as above discussion is misleading by quoting Past examples. Need Opinions and Pinging senior contributor here. Just for note they agree and disagree with me several times, but they teach me good things, and do not just become attacking me. DGG, David Gerard, K.e.coffman, SwisterTwister, Lemongirl942, Grayfell, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,Bejnar, Jimfbleak, Lankiveil , RHaworth, Brianhe, GorillaWarfare Light2021 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• One Suggestion from all of you. As I understand this discussion and Ban thing, these people have problem with my Language, but My selections are not bad for Wikipedia. I can just nominate AfD/ Speedy, participate in Votes. And I will not counter present my points, I will be as details on AfD as it should be. That way I can avoid the feeling for these people who got hurt by words. and that way we can make it work. Just my suggestions. you can track my activities, I will never make or ask any question of a any kind, I am doing simple task to contribute to Wikipedia. If that allows and accepted by everyone. I am happy to do that. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Light2021's recent and long term AfD stats are running better than 75% for exact match and even better for effective match. He votes Delete a lot and nominates a lot of pages. An analysis of his own noms shows a very good success rate as well. [4]. User:Cunard votes Keep an awful lot, nominates few pages, and is running around 72% match to the exact result. [[5]. The two editors evidently have very different approches to AfD and deletion. It looks like Cunard is trying to disable a pro deletion editor that does not fit their inclusionist viewpoint. I don't find Light2021's highlighted comments especially uncivil and have had far worse things said to me with no action taken against the editors who said it. Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Light2021, let me make a blunt but polite observation. There are two problems that I see. 1. You get blinded by what you think is "right", and get sloppy with your rationales when voting and nominating deletions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans is a perfect example. It is insufficient to be right, you have to provide a policy based rationale to prove it. and 2. You don't know when to shut up. I don't say this to be mean, and in in my youth I also did not know when to shut up. Sometimes I still don't. But you really get off track and stick your foot in your mouth too much. As far as Cunard's habit of posting long, detailed "keep" votes, it is unusual, but when Cunard posts something, you know it is honest to the sources and is the best available material. He gives you something to either change your mind or it gives you something to refute, so he's kind of doing you a favor, even if you find it annoying. In a nutshell, sometimes you act like a jerk. You should stop doing that. I could easily call for a tban, but my singular opinion is that you need to voluntarily step away from deletions for a month and do some soul searching about how you communicate with others. If you don't modify this behavior soon, I would be forced to support sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Another last chance to change? Last time I checked, this user had exhausted several of his last chances, and got into escalating block territory. And now he's quite some way up the escalator. Do Wikipedians ever run out of last chances?—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just one voice. Unless he says something below my comment to convince me he has had an epiphany, I wouldn't be that difficult to persuade. In the end, however, it is always my hope to rehabilitate rather than swing the ban hammer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

* Just as you stated clearly the concern with my behavior. It is not with my AfD selections but how I write to them/ contributors. I Understand. I can change it, as I am quite good with your blunt observations. Yes! I might need to shut up, and that is what I should do for next 30-45 days (or probably more). 1. I will only nominated with giving Detail rationale to it for AfD. 2. I will not counter any of the contributors, no matter what they write, or how they write (To avoid any of the language or behavior problem). 3. I will only vote with my opinion, will not get on anyone's opinions. 4. That way I can be respectful to the community, as I am unknown to all, as they are to me. Nothing is personal here. I am happy to contribute with my rationale, right or wrong, its community work, and not individuals choice. I hope my points are clear. and you all are observing me, if by mistake I deviate from my promise, you have the rights. thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't stop another admin from taking action here, understand that. And understand that you are probably going to be under a microscope for a while. I think you have a lot to offer, it just gets drowned out with rushed replies that are more centered on emotion than fact. If you can do all that you say, everyone is better off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nearly echo Dennis Brown.While there are enough negatives about his/her contribs.--(specifically blatant canvassing along with ridiculous two-word nom statements--both of which seemed to flow unabated.), the sole reason I am opposing a Tban is that his/her work has not entirely shifted to a net-negative zone.I am inclined to offer a last-chance.And Light2021 will probably do well to abide by the self-imposed restrictions.And above all, please improve your communication skills, know how to bluntly accept a mistake(For one, I didn't even slightly buy your arguments rel. to ignorance of canvassing policies at your talk!) and cease to act like a jerk.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• "Last chances"
  
  I agree with S Marshall (talk · contribs) that "this user had exhausted several of his last chances":
  1. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 31 hours for disruptive editing.
  2. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts. A number of sockpuppets were also blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light2021/Archive.
  3. April 2016: Boing! said Zebedee blocked Light2021 indefinitely for persistent vandalism.
  4. June 2016: Ohnoitsjamie unblocked Light2021 and wrote, "Given the exchange below, it's reasonable to give you another chance, though I would like to note some concerns."
  5. November 2016: At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, Kudpung wrote in the close, "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here".
  6. January 2017: Ohnoitsjamie blocked Light2021 for disruptive editing.
  At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, when there was strong support for a block, Light2021 wrote in November 2016, "I understand that the problem is that I have not respected the community and other members of the community" and "I will respect consensus decisions". These are broken promises. Light2021 also wrote:

  I will follow as advised by people here with pure heart. Even after that if I fail to my commitment and assurance made here. I will never ask for forgiveness. and I must leave my contribution on WP without wasting community time on discussions about me. Community time is more important than me.

  
  Continued canvassing
  
  In the November 2016 topic ban discussion, Light2021 canvassed seven editors.

  In this very ANI discussion about a topic ban, Light2021 canvassed 13 editors. This is despite Kudpung's 20 January 2017 warning to Light2021 to stop canvassing. This is also despite my post in this ANI discussion about Light2021's canvassing.
  
  Continued misunderstanding of speedy deletion
  
  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamil Design, Light2021 wrote, "Speedy Delete Blatant Promotions" even though Light2021's earlier {{db-spam}} tag was declined by Seraphimblade. Light2021 still does not understand the criteria for speedy deletion. An article is not eligible for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} once an admin has declined the speedy.

  Cunard (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Note It has been deleted by AfD Process. It was not a bad nominations again. I do understand what I am doing, just for clarifications. Light2021 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cunard:--Well, I personally felt the ban-hammer to be a little heavy.Anyway, the speedy delete option is viable and I fail to see any policy violation in the quoted !vote.Many of the frequenters at AfD replicate the same behaviour at AfDs(incl. me) of subjects having a declined CSD.And I am unable to contribute on his relative knowledge/application of CSD without the log.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Light2021's support in the AfD for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} even after Seraphimblade declined the speedy deletion reflects a continued misunderstanding of the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. As Seraphimblade has said in the November 2016 discussion, "And I'm not exactly well known for being lenient on spam, promotion, and CVs, so if I think your G11 requests are out of order, there's probably a problem."

Cunard (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

G11 is an area where there is a wider range of interpretation. Voting to Speedy per G11 after a decline only means that someone disagrees with the Admin's decline. I just had an MfD where an Admin declined a G11 and all three people that voted expressed surprise it was declined as G11. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC). Note the decline said "Not quite G11, but could use a lot less product info" so it is very unfair to say that Light2021 misunderstands CSD's based on that decline. You should know better Cunard - your examples are undermining your case here. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• The problem is not Light2021's !votes. I think he's erratic but he's entitled to his opinion and his !votes. This thread is about aggressiveness, his highly personalised targeting of Cunard, his tag-bombing and his canvassing.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that the key problem is not the votes--G11 especially is tricky to interpret, and the interpretation is often disputed. The standard for whether we delete or fix spam is similarly controversial. In practice I don't think Light is any more extreme on his side than some editors are on the other (but it must be admitted that I have a position myself which is fairly to similar Light's view of things) But I would consider it a COI to try to block someone who often opposed me at AfD. The key problem at this point is the canvassing. If that were to stop completely, I think that would be enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not particularly active at AfD, though I agree with DGG that the most concerning behaviour is the canvassing there. The other issues raised about the way he contributes in deletion discussions I think can be overlooked - I'm not convinced of how much trouble he's really causing but I'll leave that to people who are more involved at AfD. What I can comment on is my experience with him at CSD, and a lot of what he does there seems similarly erratic and unpredictable. He nominates a lot of articles for CSD, particularly for G11, which is a difficult criterion to interpret and everyone's view will differ, but his nominations are very hit-and-miss. In addition to the list compiled by Cunard above I have declined G11 nominations of his on these three occasions. He has a particular habit of nominating articles which have been in existence for several years have been edited by many contributors. He digs up a lot of promotional articles which probably should be deleted, but floods the queue with a large proportion of poor nominations too. I'm not sure any of this really rises to disruption, but altogether it does give me the impression that he doesn't really know what he's doing and his edits probably need watching closely, but I'm really not sure the good parts of his editing justify this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• "altogether it does give me the impression that he doesn't really know what he's doing and his edits probably need watching closely, but I'm really not sure the good parts of his editing justify this." – well said. Many of the same concerns here were mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 and the same disruptive editing continues to happen eight months later.

  Cunard (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Cunard you seem to be throwing up every allegation you can think of in hopes something sticks. You evidently don't like Light2021's views on deleteion. Suck it up and try policy at AfD instead of trying to railroad an editor you don't agree wity. User:Light2021 make sure you turn on your CSD log under twinkle preferences. That will help you refute the alleged CSD mistakes. We all get CSD declines, the question is are they a big percentage or not. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I support topic-banning Light2021 from deletion processes because of their pattern of inadequate application of policies and guidelines related to deletions. They create a lot of unnecessary work for other editors in reviewing deletion nominations, as well as risking unnecessary deletion of many articles, which is not good for Wikipedia. In their contributions to AfD in the past few days during this ANI discussion, I see inadequate application of WP:BEFORE combined with rapidly nominating many articles for deletion. I went through several of their recent AfD nominations where the nomination reason was based on lack of notability and sources, and I saw sufficient sources to support a keep vote for six: Qwikcilver, Wrike, Mavenlink, Rightware, Eckovation, Paymentwall. I couldn't find sufficient sources for three, but I did find additional sources that weren't noted in the nomination: Olympusat, PurpleTrail, FusionForge. I didn't review all their recent AfD nominations, but out of those ones, it's not a good ratio. (For the record, XfD Stats for Dreamyshade says 80.8%.) Dreamyshade (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from deletion process, per WP:CIR. Despite numerous cautions and blocks, Light2021's deletion rationales rarely make much sense. Sure there is a problem with business promotion on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of other Wikipedians working on the issue that have a much better grasp of deletion policies and who are capable of constructing cogent (and coherent) arguments. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• I have just had to decline another G11 nomination, again for an article that has been edited by several contributors since 2011. I think that, if he is not sensible enough to keep a low profile and reign in his nominations whilst an ANI discussion is ongoing, it is highly unlikely that Light2021 is going to be able to edit in this area in a constructive way. At this point I would strongly support a topic ban from the deletion process. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose he is doing a good service with no one presenting evidence his nominations are regularly outside policy. NO we don't have enough users working on removing SPAM and we should not be removing a deducted SPAM fighter. That G11 decline was borderline and the page is in fact SPAM. Had the page been newer with fewer editors it would be an easy G11. Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The editor has had numerous chances to adjust and fix their mistakes but instead they continue with the wrong CSDs, AFDs etc etc so an indef topic ban is the only answer, Temporary won't work because they'll just go back to how they were and we'll all be here again. –Davey2010^Talk 16:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, support block the next time they canvass. As has been pointed out above, their G11 tagging is not that far off the mark especially since the standard is so variable and neither is their AfD !votes. We should not be clubbing the opposition, even if I disagree sometimes with them. I am equally supportive of the position that the editor should be summarily blocked again if he continues to make personal attacks. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban- this editor's value doing useful spam fighting work significantly outweighs their semi-regular misfires. Reyk _YO! 17:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban - despite being warned and making promises to the contrary, he continues to attack and tag bomb articles. Strike 1 was changing my discussion title in the talk page to accuse me of being a paid editor. Strike two was tag bombing the article. Strike three was canvassing, which resulted in two delete votes. Srike four was just adding new tags [[6]] despite being warned here. There are other critical editors like DGG, SwisterTwister and K.e. Coffman, but they are all civil and non-disruptive. Here's where he badgers DGG for doing an afd delete closure - a rare one where Light actually wanted to keep the article. [[7]] He's making it unpleasant for the rest of us and needs to stop. He can't help himself and will need to be banned to stop. 18:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}
  • Just for note: You (others to check his claims) can go through the discussion made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi. I am sure my AfD was justified as still not convincing with No-consensus was a bad nomination. Reason for his disappointment with me. He has been questioned for being a paid editor for the way he made his contributions (Undisclosed paid editing revisited). On his talk page. or like this article NJFX, questioned for being promotional. and many such cases. I don not want to add into this ANI. Nothing to say more.Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC) thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • And this continues to make my point. Those of you saying that his toxic behavior is worth it because he rapidly identifies and deletes so much bad content, ask yourselves if the site is better because of him. How many editors will he drive away? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      • These attacks are continuing here. Here is an excerpt from Light2021's longer post:

        I think eventually this pathetic Paid Keep army will win the race, and Wikipedia will become another PR host and eventually a threat to biggest notable source of knowledge. These contributors make the reputation participating on random discussions so it will look neutral, and get paid for their work with all corporate spams. No doubt some of the admins are also involved. This dirt can not just come from users alone. Do not want to name any admins here. This is corruption of high level.

        AfDs participants like TimTempleton and me are not part of a "pathetic Paid Keep army". We are volunteer editors.

        Cunard (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow you read and twist everything he says in the worst possible light. There is no personal attack there. He is commenting on the state of paid editing that is introducing unrelenting spam here. Many editors share these concerns. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • Sorry, If I am too blunt and direct. This is humiliations of my work and contributions. I Must speak clearly here. I have to write this. I have to defend my dignity as a contributor also whether he likes me or not. Here is the the complete thought, which has been selectively presented with Quote. Seems like a disturbance to someone. I have never used Cunard or anyone's name. Why they are so much bothered if they are just contributors here? and why making Personal attack? As far as I can see this ANI is dedicated to Cunard where from my past contributions to present he has given so much work. He covered 70-80% of this ANI. I do not understand his problems with me personally, there are several people who disagree to me, but I also accept my part, No one is doing or making such ridiculous attacks as he is doing. I also disagree or agree with people. I am not making such attacks as I have been accused of. Deliberately going on every AfD I have done, making irrelevant lengthy commentary just for the sake of it. Evidently clear by other contributors also, he does not know what he is copying or pasting or from which source? where I can be wrong, but this is way beyond anything and personal attack. One Good Question to ask, has he ever ever made a Delete comment on any of my AfD, he claims to my AfD are so bad, the results and works shows otherwise though. if they are so neutral and great contributors, isn't they be neutral on participation? others agree to me and disagree to me. but these are the one, no matter how bad is article, they will go Keep, or No-consensus to every contribution I made. isn't that personal attack?

          I am shutting myself down completely. But just for note on updates on my contributions. I am not paranoid but something is definitely going on making a personal attack on Every AfD I have done (not in terms of language, but deliberate keep votes/ discussions to justify anything by any means just because I am involved, they definitely not like me much), No-consensus is also a Keep, these people can do anything. I do not want to tag anyone here as it would be wrong. But It is evidently clear, sometime with 2 votes they close the discussion with Keep, they do not care to relist them. many times they relist the delete driven AfD, till they get their army and lengthy piece of Copy-Paste into AfD to mislead it, and they close by no-consensus. They know good how to keep an articles with using Wikipedia Policies only. Its just I am helpless as their army is bigger than my thoughts and they drag me and attack me and I can not do anything to justify. and letting this Wikipedia doomed with such people. I think eventually this pathetic Paid Keep army will win the race, and Wikipedia will become another PR host and eventually a threat to biggest notable source of knowledge. These contributors make the reputation participating on random discussions so it will look neutral, and get paid for their work with all corporate spams. No doubt some of the admins are also involved. This dirt can not just come from users alone. Do not want to name any admins here. This is corruption of high level. But what we can do ? We have limited platform to justify or make an appeal, these people knows well and how to use them. and they will blame on my language or counting numbers of something. They are afraid that their shop is going to shut down by contributors like me. It is just a wake up call, where we really want to go with Wikipedia? As such people are definitely in abundance to exploit this platform by any means. i am glad they got a real hit with my work.

          Light2021 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support T-ban, rapidly moving into Indef territory with the PA immediately above. John from Idegon (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no PA - there is selective quoting and a false allegation of a personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• As the person who started this thread, in a change from my previous position I think I would now oppose a blanket indefinite topic ban from AfD. That's too strong, I feel, and we do need people who'll nominate spam articles at AfD. The problems here are about excessive zeal and needlessly personalising disputes, but I do feel this is someone who's basically here to improve the encyclopaedia. A sensible and proportionate remedy would consist of a parcel of less drastic measures. I've reflected some more and I would suggest (1) no pinging people or posting directly on their talk page to attract their attention to deletion discussions; (2) no G11s; (3) no speedy deletion nominations on articles about corporations (but PROD and AfD are permitted); (4) a positive requirement to provide intelligible rationales when nominating for deletion; and (5) a one-way interaction ban with Cunard, appeal at AN/I permitted after six months of good behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Site ban as per implied expectation of Light  Light has reported an intent to disrupt Wikipedia until banned, by writing (grammar and capitalization errors in original), "As such people are definitely in abundance to exploit this platform by any means. i am glad they got a real hit with my work."  Note that I am an involved party here as I have recently identified and reverted Light's personal attack, by the use of tag bombing, on multiple content contributors at diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Indef. block At this point, I don't see the editor's behavior improving. If the load of blocks didn't work, I don't see how this editor can restrain from violating a T-ban. This is just a simple case of WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. There's a current discussion at WP:NCORP#How to raise NCORP standards? which discusses similar concerns as expressed by Light21 and many others at company AfD. The more I learn about paid editing, the more prevalent the problem seems to be. Some editors subsequently banned for undisclosed paid editing and / or misuse of multiple accounts have been known to participate at WP:AFC -- ouch. WP:ARTSPAM is an on-going problem, unfortunately, and banning a contributor in this area seems counterproductive. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• K.e.coffman is part of Light's tag bombing team.  See this diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with that edit? Rentier (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• i have read this long thread and looked at many of the diffs. About the deletion nominations, Legacypac's comment above, here, is dead on point. That data are very relevant and they are not bad.

That said, Light2021 is way too passionate - the excited comments, the canvassing, the accusations against people who take different perspectives (and I do see a lot of personal attacks). This is a case where the passion that drives people to contribute (wherever there passion leads them) comes back to bite them, and everybody else. Mostly them. Their block log is as long as my arm -- 12 blocks since April 2016!

Folks here are torn because Light2021's passion is very much about Wikipedia being a high quality source of knowledge (I disagree very strongly with comments that claim that Light2021 is NOTHERE). Light2021 is very much on-mission, in this regard. very much.

But an essential part of being a WP editor is learning how to work in a community, and we all do that primarily by focusing on the content issues - on sources, policies, and guidelines. Light2021 is too personalized and plays wikipolitics too much, which is what all the canvassing is about. They apologize and say they will change, and they don't.

Their last block was 2 months. I am going to recommend a repeat two month block, the same as the last one (they have stayed unblocked since January, which is great for them), and the reason pretty much comes down to WP:FOC and WP:CIVIL.

Light2021 the meat of this case is that you are too passionate and focus too much on attacking other people and trying to "win" by socking and canvassing. Calling people's attention to issues with deletion nominations of various kinds is fine, and once you get people's attention, you need to just make the best arguments you can based on sources and the policies and guidelines; good arguments are what persuade people. The rest is noise, and it hurts you and the community. If you don't learn during this block, you can expect me to !vote for indef if we have to revisit these issues. I say that unhappily, because your eye for finding and nominating promotional pages is great, in my view. But people who cannot adapt to working in a community, cannot stay.

And about your long note above - the conspiracy theorizing is very unhelpful. You are in trouble because of your own behavior. Focus on that. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• • A appreciate your views and opinion about my work. I want to work on community as every good contributors. I will go ahead and implement what you suggested. But there are few things I beg to differ, First, I learnt a lot after the blocking by few people, that I should be humble presenting my views. But the case here is very different, the major part of this AN/I dedicated to my past block behavior and twisted facts, this should not be done, focus should be made on my present behavior after April, the people who Supported this have no substantial claims that I misbehaved in a way I must have done in past. People are misbehaving and more uncivil and attacking than I am. I have to defend myself, Can't just be shut because I am part of AN/I. They humiliated me like anything. I have been Accused of Canvassing and Socking, I am nowhere using socking. Please give single example of Socking after April. This is wrong accusation. Canvasing means tagging people in my Talk page to learn more, or in AFD. I understood and It will not be repeated anywhere in future, I accepted this part and suggestions. there are few handful group of people, not all, I can go further and name them also. Who will come to my AfD deliberately, Canvassing the discussion, go ahead and ask their Group to come to my AFd, make a lengthy unnecessary commenting and distract the whole Discussion. They will attack me personally, or in group, these people and their behavior has been avoided, just because I have history of Block and I am here on AN/I. This whole discussion made a ridicule of my work and nothing else, people above made 70% commentary to do what? neutral contribution or highest degree of personal attack with baseless accusations, and ridiculously protecting and commenting on CSD where it is a matter of 100% Spam. I know What I am doing, and they also know how to protect themselves by getting rid of people like me. I am defensive as I can not allow such people to degrade my work. You also have views but you are explaining me something that I can learn about, and there are many others who make me learn and disagree to me. But these group of People, NOT EVEN A SINGLE AFD WITH DELETE vote has been found? Why? If they are so great and know how to behave ? Why not go with Delete vote on my work sometimes? Just because it is my work? Their shop is on fire? Check the Cunard Talk Page. How one admin commented and asking him to participate on my AFD, as I have been accused of Canvassing, so what we call that if not canvassing going to Talk page and ask to comment on my AFD? Why such Bias? When they do it, its policy, I do its misbehavior and canvassing? These people are making mockery of my work and twisting policies of Wikipedia for their personal gain and nothing else. They do canvassing, participate on each and every AfD I do with Keep vote without checking anything. Ignored all rules, just citing GNC selective policies. Nothing notable media, no global coverage. I am surprised how come they just Relist sometime till they get some Keep votes and just make No-consensus, eventually they win and trying to prove my work random or bad nominations, where No-Consensus is also a good work. These are the people, paid editors, they have been accused many times for writing bad articles, promotional, non-notable contributions. Check their talk page. It is evidently clear what they are doing, and why they are so much afraid of me. They are very strategic, where they make CASE STUDY of how they saved one article from deletion by making it NO_CONSENSUS. My concerns are Genuine. But I learnt that I should not be Canvassing, I should make detail remark on AfD. I am not participating on AfD after I said on my Talk page. I will work on what you said and in community with better behavior. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Propose Close

No one has proven Light2012 is off policy on CSD or AfD - in fact he is pretty accurate. He's turned on his CSD log so in the future there will be no debate on that. A whole lot of inaccurate attacks against him have been made here. He does have some behavioral issues but his post just above goes a long way to show he understands that. The humiliation here is enough for now. A Tban lacks sufficent support. This should be closed with no action against Light2021 but he needs to take the advice given here to heart. I'd strongly suggest he nominates pages and lets the discussion run. No arguing with others, no pinging others, no commenting on others. Just make the case at nomination time and forget about that AfD. Go on to identify the next deletable junk because that is what Light2021 is good at.

User:Cunard on the other hand is leveling unfair attacks on Light2021 and I see no remorse just additional unfair accusations. It streaches my good faith in his fairness or reliability. If we see any more of this behavior sanctions should be imposed. Cunard should stay away from commenting on Light2021 in any way which will really reduce the drama. Legacypac (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Note  Two edits have modified the previous sentence, with the 2nd a quiet edit that appears to be a disregard of WP:TPO.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Saying that Cunard is levelling unfair attacks on Light is exactly the wrong way around. This thread contains links to numerous examples of Light badgering and making direct, personal attacks on Cunard in AfDs, starting with the very first post by me. To the best of my knowledge, this thread is the only place where Cunard has responded. I would object to any close that doesn't contain a behavioural remedy defending Cunard from Light2021's inappropriate personalisation of content disputes.

Light2021 has promised to change his behaviour before, of course. I can only admire your exceptional ability to assume good faith in the face of all the evidence. At minimum I also expect other behavioural remedies that prevent him from canvassing, using G11, using any CSDs on corporations or products, or making incoherent or unintelligible AfD noms. Where we agree is that it's not needful to block him.—S Marshall T/C 14:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not convinced, but I can support your willingness to try.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:AnimeDisneylover95 repeatedly edit warring and refusal to get the point and conform to general consensus

This user apparently has his own ideas regarding contributing to VA articles, but for whatever reason, he insists that every additional voice credit be added in their filmographies, even though the general consensus in WP:anime suggests otherwise. The user also apparently can't stay calm in expressing his own stance, as evidenced in the discussion linked above (in WP:anime) and here. The way this user is behaving is very concerning and may prove a threat to the prosperity of WP:anime, so I suggest that he be sanctioned or be imposed some sort of editing restriction within the project. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Express your stance below (should User:AnimeDisneylover95 be sanctioned/imposed an editing restriction?):

• Impose T-ban in WP:anime and WP:BLP: Reasons are noted above. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Prince you just had your own T-ban lifted 4 days ago... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal my TBan (unarchived for admin closure). I know it is unrelated but you are already entangled into a dispute with an editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

As you've already noted, that's unrelated to the issue at hand. The restriction is gone, so it doesn't apply here (even if it wasn't, that still wouldn't affect how I report other users, as my T-ban was deletion processes, not WP:anime or WP:BLP). Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It just bothers me is all considering some of your past comments towards IPs and the like. Here is a recent example: [8]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't directed at an IP user, and the incident with another IP user was a long time ago, and it has already been resolved. Anyway, the focus isn't me, but User:AnimeDisneylover95. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

When you bring a report here the focus is on both parties involved. The closing admin is going to look at the conduct of both sides. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• No action - Sk8erPrince should be admonished for the pre-mature close of a discussion. Going forward this should be worked out via other venues such as Mediation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• No action per Knowledgekid97. —JJB^ers 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• No action per Knowledgekid87. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Imposing interaction ban with Sk8erPrince and User:AnimeDisneylover95

• Impose two way interaction ban permanently: I have no interest in interacting with this user, and seeing as he can't stay calm when interacting with me (and doesn't conform to logic), nothing good will ever come out of any discussion between him and I, so I'd rather just avoid any interaction with him altogether. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95, but not in reverse. —JJB^ers 02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95. I had hoped that mediation would be a way out for Prince but it looks like he has no interest in the likes of dispute resolution. The edit summaries are also just too much for me, these snide remarks have got to stop. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95. I don't know what Sk8erPrince's issues are but he can't seen to stop trying to being unnecessarily aggressive. I'm very close to recommending a block because he won't leave AnimeDisneylover95 alone. --Tarage (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Considering Sk8erPrince's history of interactions with other users (he was given a six-month ban from nominating articles for deletion last year), and considering his attitude in the previous discussions, I agree that some kind of interaction ban is needed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  The way I see it working is Prince would be allowed to report User:AnimeDisneylover95 in the case of harassment on ADL's side. This would make it so Prince isn't a potential sitting duck. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. IBans have no correlation with harassment, so just because I won't be allowed to interact with said user in the future, that doesn't mean I can't report them. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice for other editors to weigh in here but if you are okay with a one way IBAN then I see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what an IBAN means. Reporting a user who you have a one-way IBAN with is an instablock. 204.148.13.62 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN - described in the above votes. Although I also believe his behavior deserves more sanctions. Hey Sk8erPrince I'm very disappointed to see you re-implemented the list of deleted pages you apparently deleted (even though you aren't an admin). As I recall, you removed them during the appeal of your tban to prove you have changed. I guess that was far from the truth.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree that Prince is on a very thin rope here, I would not object to something like a block if these kinds of things continue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN Everyone can move on then. --Adam in MO Talk 01:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBANThis seems to be the best solution in view of the findings above. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I am having troubled issues with an user by the name of Sk8erPrince, This user has snapped at me by all accounts all over an issue that has been going on for years since 2015, when it comes to additional voices on voice actors all thanks to a "consensus" from WP:anime just today. I have been careful when I put in information, as they need to be cited with a source otherwise it will be rejected and I have been citing pages and actor's confirmation of the particular character they play with reliable sources, resumes, everything made by a voice actor, ever since 2015. Yet, I still encounter the same arguments that they still continue to "beat a dead horse on by users such as Sk8erPrince regarding "additional voices are unecessary" "Notable roles for voice actors are ONLY allowed", the "reliable sources do not help much" etc, etc...,etc..... I reverted most of the edits to have it back to it's original format today, but Sk8er replied with this message: "Remove additional voices, per consensus in WP:anime. Go on, keep reverting my edits and obstruct the progress of this project. I'll see you in ANI." I refuse to reach an agreement and I'm just conflicted that he's threatening me to report me to you, I'm just frustrated!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A few corrections: One, I am not an admin. Two, I went ahead and reported you; it's no threat (look right above you). This isn't a joke, bud. You aren't upholding the spirit of Wikipedia (in the sense that it operates on consensus), so there is definitely a need to impose a sanction on you (besides the fact that you aren't keeping a level head as an editor). If you think I'm a problem, you might as well think everyone that was involved in that discussion is a problem as well. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Why would I also report everyone else if their views/opinions are a lot different than yours, as they said the additional voices are allowed if "notable" or cited with "source"!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

'If "notable" or cited with "source".... [with the prioritization of named roles]'. Please don't just read the parts you like; read the whole thing. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that Sk8erPrince opened an RFC, closed it himself, and is now trying to enforce it on another user. Opening one is fine, that's the proper way to go about content disputes like this. But you shouldn't have been the one to close it. I also have issues with the fact that you called out a specific user in your RFC. There was no need for that. This feels like wikilawyering. --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The RFC was open for less than a day. What the hell are you doing closing it that quickly? --Tarage (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I felt like the user in question was raging too much, and it wouldn't be beneficial to keep the discussion going. However, I agree with Knowledge that the discussion should be opened longer. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Do not be the one to close it. That is horrible form. Let someone else close it. --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)\

That's perfectly reasonable. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Christ the more I read about this the more it seems like Sk8erPrince is WAY out of line. You are being horribly aggressive here where it isn't needed. Calm the hell down and stop attacking other editors. It was a mistake on your part to bring this report. --Tarage (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am noting that the "consensus" on WT:ANIME Sk8erPrince is referring to is from a discussion that is less than 24 hours old and involves only five editors other than himself casting a !vote in a straw poll that affects a large number of biographical articles. Much of AnimeDisneylover's comments were made before most of the "consensus" had weighed in. At the time, Sk8terPrince also tried to prematurely close the discussion at WT:ANIME after the discussion went for less that 24 hours(oldid). While it is like that the trend of the discussion is going to continue as is, Sk8terPrince's assessment is premature and is misrepresenting the order of things. AnimeDisneylover, it seems to me, made only two undos during the course of the discussion (Kyle Herbert,Cassandra Lee), and while it's probably wise that touching anything on any VA articles should not be done by either party during this discussion, I very much want to attempt to give a fuller illustration of the situation, because I'm quite alarmed at how fast Sk8terPrince dragged AnimeDisneylover here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the non-biased assessment. It's accurate. Closing the discussion prematurely was my fault; I'm sorry. I'll wait until someone else closes it. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issues, I just feel bewildered to see this issue continue to being brought back up and whether or not reliable sources (e.g. articles, end credits of a movie, show & video games, resumes, and convention bios) are necessary for these voice actors?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are always needed for verification in VA BLPs. The issue here is whether or not the inclusion of additional voices is necessary. That's the whole point of the discussion here; to settle content disputes like this. When the discussion is over, there is no more room for argument. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please stop arguing with every post he makes? You made your point, there's a talk page discussion that now has many eyes on it. You are still being overly aggressive to the point where I'm starting to wonder if perhaps you need a break. --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Considering both users have had a history of actions like this, I agree with the above statement that some kind of action (either a temporary interaction ban or meditation) is in order here. I agree with some of Sk8erPrince's points but his attitude above and in the WT:ANIME discussion has a lot to be desired. As for the discussion itself, while I agree that closing the discussion (and by the proposer no less) was premature to say the least, given its nature and how many articles are to be affected, a discussion in a wider venue (i.e. in a different WikiProject's talk page or even at the Village Pump) might be necessary. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection with an interaction ban with User:AnimeDisneylover95 (preferably permanently), seeing as he clearly hates me. I, for one, would not like to be on the receiving end of his uncontrolled outbursts. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry I outbursted myself but honestly their is no reason to act in the same situation at me, especially in regards to a 2 year old issue that continues to be brought back up over and over again from not only you but also to anyone that continues to have this conflict.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I continue to have concerns about Sk8erPrince, in light of their continued edit warring without using the talk page even though that was requested by an administrator and failure to cease making edits regarding notability while the RFC is still open. This is not collaborative behavior. --Tarage (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaving the Sailor Moon article alone for now, unless unsourced info pop up. I have no intention to edit war; but I don't appreciate the fact that my edits are repeatedly reverted without a valid reason. Seeing as another editor has explained why the tags are relevant, I have no reason to take any further action. However, I must clarify that I made a mistake in John's article regarding the edit summary - it wasn't a notable issue, but an issue regarding RS (IMDB is NOT RS; that's a known fact). Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Ad Orientem who was the one who initiated the protection. --Tarage (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. If additional protection is required or someone is engaging in nakedly disruptive editing let me know. That said, I'm not going to jump into this dispute for a variety of reasons, chief among them that I am not familiar with the subject or genre so there would be CIR issues. And beyond that, it looks like there is a (gasp!) fairly constructive discussion going on above and I don't want to rock any boats. But if something comes up that obviously requires admin action, or a strong consensus favoring some sort of action that requires the tools develops, just ping me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel this can be closed so we can all move on, I am not seeing any additional input and everyone seems to be on the same page regarding the I-BAN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Implement the IBAN for Sk8erPrince, and close this. Agreeing. —JJB^ers 20:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, before moving on I want to object to the one-sided position left behind regarding the closed discussion.  Calling the action "horrible" is a pejorative, not a policy statement.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy and IDHT

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

---

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

Added convenience links. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Jojhnjoy has been ignoring consensus and edit warring over formatting changes to articles about German cars, in order to supposedly match German style, and follow some crackpot version of SI units. Specifically, changing engine speed values from rpm to min-1 or /min, omitting the word "revolutions". Other deviations from MOS:UNITS and WP:CARUNITS include replacing cc with cm³ (cm<sup>3</sup>), and removing the commas from numbers. Data given by sources in hp, bhp, or kW is changed to PS, as if that's "more German", even though PS was officially obsolete in 1972. Examples: [9][10][11][12][13] This kind of thing is not an urgent problem, but over time one should expect WikiGnomes to eventually come along and fix it, changing cm³ to cc, adding commas in numbers, and using rpm, not min^-1 or /min. One should not revert editors who are making small tweaks that bring an article closer to the MOS and WP:AUTOCONV.

An intractable discussion ensued with User:1292simon at Talk:BMW 5 Series (E28), which was carried over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#rpm or min-1?. The editors at the Automobile Project were unanimous in this: MOS:UNITS says we prefer rpm, and we should prefer typical English language number formatting and abbreviations. Extensive reasons for why we should use consistent, recognizable formatting and units were discussed, as well as the harm that these units could mislead some readers. Jojhnjoy made absolutely clear he would not listen to consensus, no matter if seven, eight, nine or more editors all told him he was wrong. He swears MOS:UNITS says the opposite of what it says, ignores one editor after another who tell him he is misreading it.

I requested admin closure of this discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, because even though it was not a formal RfC, the completely one-sided consensus, and the fact that Jojhnjoy was adamant that he wouldn't stop, made me think that if an Admin officially declared the blatantly obvious outcome, per WP:SNOW, Jojhnjoy might relent. Admin User:Deryck Chan declined my request because the discussion had not been properly set up for closure, and told to me come here to AN/I instead. Fair enough.

Jojhnjoy went back to reverting today, on the false grounds that my formatting changes intruded factual errors. The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source. Even if Jojhnjoy's accusation is correct, he should have only fixed any data errors, and not reverted all of formatting which he knows is supported by very strong consensus.

Rather than begin again with a formal RfC where the same 8 editors are forced come back and !vote all over again that Jojhnjoy is quite wrong about MOS:UNITS, I took Deryck Chan's suggestion and came here to request a block of Jojhnjoy.

This is not an isolated case. A similar pattern is apparent at Template talk:Convert#Kilopondmetres per second, where User:Kendall-K1 warned others against engaging, pointing to Template_talk:Convert/Archive_May_2017#Kilopondmetre where several editors commented on Jojhnjoy's inability to drop the stick, WP:POINT and above all WP:IDHT.

The most succinct way to put it is that Jojhnjoy does not recognize that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where one must at some point drop the stick when consensus is overwhelming. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is a simple reason for my recent revert: Dennis Bratland added false information to the BMW E12 article. The BMW E12 is a German vehicle from the 1970s. Back in that period, technical units were used and to have accurate information in the article, these technical units given in the sources are essential. That's why I added them. Dennis Bratland changed these figures, for instance, he changed the torque figure 14.5 kp·m to 143 N·m. (He did it with all torque figures for the German models in that arcticle.) That is wrong, the source 12, page 89 and 90 which the torque information is based on, doesn't match Dennis' edit. Since he claims that he checked the source carefully, I cannot assume good faith anymore. I wrote in the edit summary: Please refrain from distorting valid information. The sources don't match your edits. If you need an explanation, feel free to ask. I also offer help with German sources on my user page: If you need help with anything from Germany or Austria, especially vehicles, engines or sources in German, feel free to ping me on the corresponding talk page. Dennis neither asked for my help nor left a note on the talk page of the article. The only thing left I can assume here is that he wants to add false information on purpose.

• Apparently, Dennis Bratland seems to dislike some units. For instance, he considers min⁻¹ nonsense (also here), ignoring all arugments and sticks to cc even though he knows that cc must not be used, in discussions we head he read the SI brochure (and that's why I guess that knows about that): It is not permissible to use abbreviations for unit symbols or unit names, such as (...) cc (for either cm³ or cubic centimetre) (...). The use of the correct symbols for SI units, and for units in general, as listed in earlier chapters of this Brochure, is mandatory. In this way ambiguities and is understandings in thevalues of quantities are avoided. This is strong evidence that using cm³ makes articles easier to understand. For me it hardly appears that he really wants to improve intelligibility anymore.

• Above, Dennis wrote: Data given by sources in hp, bhp, or kW is changed to PS, as if that's "more German", even though PS was officially obsolete in 1972. This is just wrong in several ways. 1. I always stick to the data given by sources, however, I work on articles on German historical vehicles mostly (I even mention this on my user page) and therefore the sources I use (which are in German) usually give data in PS. German sources never give data in bhp or hp. I cannot change something that was never written in the sources. 2. I just use the original data given by the source and put that into the Template:Convert as explained. When sources give information in kW or hp, I use them instead of PS. Claiming I would prefer PS over other units is just wrong, since I prefer the most accurate data. 3. Even if Dennis Bratland does not know that technical units were the official units by law until 1978, he should look that up before claiming something which is wrong. I even explained that several times, he should be able to check this. But he does not. Instead he claims "PS was officially obsolete in 1972". That is not true: Bundesgesetzblatt, April 13, 1973: Bis 31. Dezember 1977 dürfen außer den gesetzlichen Maßeinheiten noch folgende Maßeinheiten verwendet werden: (...) d) das Kilopondmeter (kpm) (...) f) das Kilopondmeter je Sekunde (kpm/s oder kpm·s⁻¹) = 9,80665 Watt; g) die Pferdestärke (PS) = 75 Kilopondmeter je Sekunde = 735,49875 Watt.(...) In English: "Until December 31, 1977 the following units may be used besides statutory units." 4. Dennis Bratland gave five examples ([14][15][16][17][18]) which he claims would prove that I change the data given by the sources to PS. The first example is the Porsche Carrera GT. Someone confused PS with hp and I corrected wrong information. The second example is the BMW E12. The source actually gives data in PS in that case. The third example is the Mercedes-Benz L3000. I did not change any data since there was none, I added data which again is given by the sources in PS. Fourth example: Volkswagen Typ 3. Again, I did not change any data since there was none, I added data which again is given by the sources in PS. Fifth example: The BMW E28. The sources give data in kW. And I used kW.

• Yes, I did not use commata in some cases. That is a bad habit though and I don't forget commata on purpose. As far as I know, for four-digit numbers, commata are not necessary. And as you can see here, I try using dots and commata correctly. I also use min-1 or /min since there is nothing wrong with them. We had an endless discussion about that, let me sum up my key points: The sources use minutes, some technical and scientific literature does, minutes are understood by everyone, according to SI, frequency may be displayed in base units (s-1) and minutes may be used with SI which makes min-1 totally acceptable. Also, min-1 and /min are the same. When sources give frequency in rpm, there is nothing wrong with using that. However, in this case the sources do not and changing something which is not wrong to something Dennis prefers does not add anything useful to an article. Since I consider ignoring useful changes to an article bad, I re-added some of Dennis' contribution.

• Also, in earlier discussions I said that MOS:UNITS does not mention rpm for rotational frequency. Dennis wrote: He swears MOS:UNITS says the opposite of what it says, ignores one editor after another who tell him he is misreading it. Now it is very easy to claim that I am misreading it since it was changed in the meantime. Before, it said nothing about rotational frequency and still there is no rule that prohibits displaying rotational frequency using time units.

• The problem in general here could be described as a nescire ad non esse: If I don't know something, it does not exist. I suggested that the Kilopondmetre would be added to the Template:Convert. In the discussion, several other authors did not seem to understand it and ignored easy mathematical and physical principles completely. For instance, that kp·m and m·kp are mathematically the same, (2 × 3 and 3 × 2 equals 6 always) and that force is not mass, (you cannot say this car has a mass of 1000 metres or 1000 seconds or 1000 Newtons. It must be 1000 kilograms.)

• Dennis Bratland should not assume that I don't recognize that this is a collaborative project. The consensus might be overwhelming in this case. But does ignoring physical principles, valid sources and inventing facts and rules to create a killer arugment help the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia? This project has approximately 120,000 active users. Ten of them don't like minutes for frequency. I accept personal opinions. But I don't accept that Dennis Bratlands wants me to get blocked from editing just because I don't agree with his personal opinion.

• I definitely don't want to harm the Wikipedia and you could possibly tell that since I created a lot of articles, some are even 1:1 translations of German Good Articles. I am also a so-called mentor for new users in the German Wikipedia. I hope that I pointed out well enough why Dennis' accusations are unfounded. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles seems clear that RPM is preferred over min⁻¹, and yet here [19] we have an edit by Jojhnjoy that was made after that consensus was reached and that goes against consensus. There appear to have been more than adequate warnings made. I also find it troubling that two different users have asked Jojhnjoy to stay off their talk pages: User talk:Jojhnjoy#Off my talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Dennis Bratland said he read the source carefully (The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source). Reading the source carefully means that you check the technical data section. Therefore I assume that he knows that the information he added is false. I don't want to accuse Dennis of vandalism, but you could hardly say that adding false information after checking the sources carefully was not on purpose. Kendall-K1, this is the aspect you completely ignore. Now tell me, what would you choose? Reverting this edit, even though ten authors think minutes should not be used though they are not wrong or leaving wrong information in the article? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC) This is about disruptive editing, not a content dispute. I don't care if you want to change one of the statistics of one car from 125 to 130 or whatever. If your edit had changed only {{cvt|125|kW}} to {{cvt|130|kW}}, you would be well justified by the bold, revert, discuss cycle that we use to build this encyclopedia. But you made a wholesale revert using this 125 vs 130 quibble as an excuse to return to your pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style Power at 1/min 70 PS (130 kW) at 5800 Torque at 1/min 23.8 kp·m (233.5 N·m) at 4000", for the entire table. A dozen 8 other editors wasted an appalling amount of time trying to make you accept the fact that consensus is that this contradicts the MOS, and it's considered harmful, and that zero editors agree that there is any benefit whatsoever to this incongruous formatting. That is why we are here. That is what this is about. Nobody else wants to hear you go on and on about 125 vs 130 kW. You have gone on the attack with snide edit summaries like "Please refrain from distorting valid information." Followed on this page with "I cannot assume good faith anymore" and "Dennis neither asked for my help nor left a note on the talk page of the article. The only thing left I can assume here is that he wants to add false information on purpose." These statements are hostile, violate the AGF and civility policies, and express an absolute disregard for the unanimous chorus of other editors, many of them engineers, many in the automotive field, and all skilled Wikipedia editors, who have said 'no, Jojhnjoy, you are the one who has got it wrong.' Maybe I did get a fact wrong (I admit to doing so all the time) but don't attack me. Convince all those other editors. Or realize you tried to convince them all, and failed spectacularly, and must now stop (or give Wikipedia:Dispute resolution a try). And then you follow that with another snide, arrogant attack, now targeting 1292simon, "Since you obviously need help...". You dismiss editors who maintain Template:Convert, "several other authors did not seem to understand it". If you're right that every single other editor at Wikipedia is a stubborn ignoramus, then what possible good can you do here? If you are utterly unwilling to even consider that the real problem might be your attitude, then what can you accomplish here? Jojhnjoy should be blocked from editing for disruptive editing, specifically WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Nothing anyone says gets through to this guy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC) There is no excuse for adding false information to an article on purpose. If you don't care about the sources, I cannot help you but tell you that I consider such editing behaviour disruptive. Desperately trying to create a reason to get me blocked from editing does not help. I dislike your word choice "pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style" for something which is completely common and even used in the article's source. In my opinion, it just expresses that you don't want it since you dislike it. Reverting an edit that contains false information added on purpose completely is acceptable. The comment in the edit summary is neither a snide comment nor an attack. "Please" and a "help-offer" should indicate it. My edit summary was meant to be firm with you but still polite. Maybe you could help me: When you add false information on purpose to trigger a revert you could abuse to start this discussion in which you want me to get blocked from editing, what should I assume? Good faith? Please excuse me, but I don't think so and I guess that this could be comprehenisble to other authors. 1292simon just reverted my edit even though I pointed out that the information you added was false. That leaves me two options. Either, he ignores the sources or doesn't understand them. Assuming good faith would mean assuming that he doesn't understand them. Therefore I decided to explain it. Ignoring physics means that one does not understand. Otherwise I cannot explain it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I did not "add false information on purpose". The source said 125 kW. I wrote "125 kW". Simple. And even if I did deliberately change 130 to 125 for no good reason, even if I'm a terrible person, a vandal who hates truth and only edits Wikipedia because I'm evil at heart, so what? I'm only one person. Surely you've dealt with vandals before. How can I, a lone "vandal" vex you so? Just revert me 3 times, report me to the WP:AIV noticeboard, and get me blocked. Simple. The reason that is absurd is that I'm not one terrible editor. Every single other editor who has looked at this issue has told you you are wrong. That's what this is about. Deal with that problem, and stop worrying about how diabolical my intentions are. You ask this question: "does ignoring physical principles, valid sources and inventing facts and rules to create a killer argument help the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia?" The answer is found at WP:TRUTH. You believe with all your heart that you are right. We get that. What if a crazy person who believes 2+2=3 behaved as you behave? How would Wikipedia solve that? If eight editors tell him that 2+2=4, and he still believes that he alone knows the TRUTH, what then? If he is willing to back down and bow to consensus, and then either go edit some other topic not involving adding two and two, or else patiently bide his time while methodically following the steps at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, then even an editor who believes 2+2=3 can remain in good standing. Or turn it around. Let's say you're the only editor who knows 2+2=4, and evil Dennis Bratland, and everybody else says 2+2=3. What can you do? If you persist in disruptive editing, Dennis and all the other lunatics will get you blocked from editing. Evil wins. But if you admit that at the moment, consensus is 2+2=3, then you get to edit another day. You can use the process to seek other opinions, and eventually convince ONE editor that 2+2=4. Or, to drop the metaphor, convince one editor that you're right about how we should use SI units. Convincing only one editor isn't enough, but it's a start. Way better than you're doing now. If you still, even after all this, still sit here and won't admit that you have failed to gain consensus, and admit you must drop the stick until you have, patiently, taken the next step at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, and instead you keep attacking me (i.e. WP:NOTTHEM), then I can't see how you won't be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Let's check the source, page 89 and 90. For understanding, it is important to know that technical units were the official units until 1978 and the conversion made by BMW is wrong. I already mentioned that before. Source information: 528: 165 DIN-PS // 23.8 mkp 525: 155 DIN-PS // 21.5 mkp 520i 130 DIN-PS // 18.1 mkp 520: 115 DIN-PS // 16.5 mkp 518: 90 DIN-PS // 14.5 mkp Let's see what I wrote in the article: (I had to convert this manually since the template:convert lacks a function to convert kilopondmetres to other units) 528: 165 PS // 23.8 kp·m (233.5 N·m) 525: 155 PS // 21.5 kp·m (211 N·m) 520i 130 PS // 18.1 kp·m (177.5 N·m) 520: 115 PS // 16.5 kp·m (162 N·m) 518: 90 PS // 14.5 kp·m (142 N·m) And now Dennis' edit: The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source. — Dennis Bratland 528: 238 N·m 525: 215 N·m 520i 181 N·m 520: 165 N·m Also worth mentioning is that you changed 115 PS to 85 kW which makes the template display 114 hp. However, 115 PS rather equal 113 hp. 518: 143 N·m. I withdraw the accusation that you added false information on purpose. Though, then it means that you don't understand the source, possibly because of → a nescire ad non esse. If you need an explanation, feel free to ask. You did not ask yet. I even offered help on the according talk page. Instead, you consider it a snide, arrogant attack. You accused me of something and want me to get blocked because of that. You commented three times on this page and three times you desperately mention that I should get blocked from editing. In my inital comment on this entire thing I explained why your accusations are unfounded in fact. Since you did not try to explain that any further, I don't see a reason why I should get blocked from editing. I also understand that your "dozen authors" were a metaphorical figure. Note, ″evil Dennis Bratland″, I don't hold any grudge. I suppose we should correct the wrong figures in the BMW E12 article and ask more users about the displacement and rotational frequency using WP:RFC. Also, I guess we now have a good reason for adding the kilopondmetre to the template:convert. I suggest that we both refrain from changing rotational frequency and displacement in each others articles and let more users comment on the question whether common German figures should be used for German vehicles or not. In conclusion I hope that you would withdraw your proposal that I shoud get blocked from editing and that you mark this incident as solved. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I've wrapped the last part of this in {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} because this is far too long a thread for anyone at AN/I to read. Please reply above {{Collapse bottom}}. I know English isn't your native language, but from what I can tell, you are quite fluent. Yet you seem ignore what is said to you over and over. I keep saying I don't care if you change the data, yet you keep repeating your arguments for why the this or that statistic should be be changed. Change it! Let's try this. Please answer the following questions, only with a yes or no answer. Below your answers, you may write several paragraphs of rhetoric if you wish, but please begin with only yes/no answers. If you think the question is unfair, a false dilemma, or whatever kind of fallacy, then by all means, answer "unfair" instead of "yes" or "no". But that's it. Yes, no, or unfair. Do you agree that a dispute over 125 kW (170 PS; 168 hp) vs 121 kW (165 PS; 162 hp) is a content dispute? Do you agree that I don't object to you changing 121 kW to 125 kW? Do you agree I don't object to you changing 238 N⋅m (176 lbf⋅ft) to 233.5 N⋅m (172.2 lbf⋅ft)? Or even 233.5 N⋅m (23.81 kg⋅m; 172.2 lb⋅ft)? Do you agree that I wouldn't even object to skipping {{Convert}}, and just doing the conversion by hand, writing 233.5 N·m (23.8 kp·m) @ 4,000 rpm? Because it's the formatting, not the data, that we are taking issue with? Does that explain why I pay no attention to your offers to "help"? Do you think Trekphiler, 1292simon, or I, or any participant in this dispute, would have a strong objection to you changing the data in BMW 5 Series (E12), as long as you kept the typical format xxx kW (xxx hp) @ 5,800 rpm xxx N·m (xxx lbf·ft) @ 4,000 rpm? Do you agree that this AN/I discussion is not a content dispute? If I am the one guilty of bringing a content dispute to AN/I, i.e. the wrong forum, shouldn't you argue only that I'm guilty using the wrong forum, but not argue about the content itself? Do you agree that WP:Disruptive editing is not about content, it is about editor behavior? Do you know what I am referring to when I repeatedly use IDHT, or point to WP:IDHT? Do you know why your suggestion to add kilopondmetre to {{Convert}} was rejected/ignored at least twice, and no participant voiced support for adding it? Do you understand what the editors in these diffs were saying? [20][21][22]? Do you agree that they were telling you that you are not listening at all? If you do not have "links to articles in which this conversion is used, the output is unclear, and a change to the template would make the output more clear", are you justified in returning to Template talk:Convert and asking, again, to add kilopondmetre? Do you agree that your arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, Talk:BMW 5 Series (E12), and Template talk:Convert, regardless of whether or not they were true, were totally unsuccessful? If a new editor has posted a dozen or more times, writing hundreds of words, yet won no support at all, would you, as a mentor, advise them to keep reverting and keep arguing, simply because they believe they're right? Or would you advise this editor stop, and to try something else, such as the options at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE? If there were an RfC resulting in a change to WP:UNITS that said we should use min-1 or /min instead of rpm on German-related topics, do you think I should accept it, even if I disagree? Have my comments so far told you that I would follow the MOS, even if I believe I'm right? After all this, do you intend to keep posting links to sources about PS, SI units, DIN standards, and BMW 528 cars? Or will you focus instead on the behavior problem you are accused of, "Failure or refusal to "get the point"? Can you recall any time in the past when you believed you were right, but later realized you were not? Do you wish you had handled that situation differently? Do you think those times when you were in error are all in the past, and will never occur again? I know these questions are hectoring, but I've tried everything else. Several others have tried everything else. Why not try this? Answer these yes or no (or unfair) questions, and see if that gets us anywhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Well, thank you for saying I am quite fluent. Off-topic question: Would you agree that my level of English is near-native? 1. Yes, I know what a content dispute is. Germanic languages have compound words 2. Yes, I am aware and that disappoints me to be honest since you should object to anyone changing information based on sources to something the sources don't cover. 3. Yes, you technically repeat the second question. Though I would want say that we should display the original information given in the source to avoid confusion. Therefore I would choose neither 238 N⋅m (176 lbf⋅ft) nor 235.8 N⋅m (173.9 lbf⋅ft) but 23.8 kp·m and 90 PS (66 kW). 4. Yes of course. 5. No, it does not since you apparently ignore valid information in favour of formatting. Something I don't support. Correct information with bad formatting is better than well formatted false information. 6. No, I don't think that correcting wrong information would result in any objection. That's why I don't understand that you re-added false information even though you said you would have checked the source carefully. 7. Yes of course I know this is page not meant for laying out content disputes. But why do you do it then?. 8. Unfair question. You were the one who told me not to fork discussions away from other participants. What would you have said if I would not have said anything here? Don't you think that not replying would have increased the chance that my account would have been blocked from editing? Don't you think that I have the right to say something to your accusations? 9. Yes, of course I am aware. However, which rule is more important? WP:NOR or WP:IDHT? 10. Yes, actually I can read. I am a mentor for new users in the German Wikipedia and therefore know the German rules quite well. The rules here differ, something I would consider a big point is WP:NOR. In the German Wikipedia, nobody would object to edits such as these since refraining from false information saves this project and has a higher value than formatting. 11. No. Honestly not. There are several good reasons for adding it but I assume the problem is a nescire ad non esse. If I don't something, it does not exist. And the objection to physical principles is something that made me abandon the adding-attempt. 12. Yes, I understand what they are saying though they don't seem to understand my point. The problem is that the kilopondmetre is not really in use though it is necessary. A lot of sources provide a wrong conversion, for instance, this one. To ensure that articles contain correct information, it is mandatory to have the source information in the article and converting that to Newtonmetres. I cannot provide links to articles for that. 13. Yes of course, they were not understanding though. It's like telling "every German source has min−1" and getting a reply "I never heard of this nonsense". The reply doesn't make the statement unproved and therefore I ignore it. 14. Unfair question, see 12. Also, kp·m·s−1 ≠ kp·m 15. Yes, the problem is: a nescire ad non esse. 16. Yes, if they have good reasons, of course. See WP:IGNORE. But keep in mind: I am not a new user. 17. No, I would not since I believe that someone who has valid arguments that are based on sources has a right to add and improve content. Even if it is against a popular opinion of several other authors. I support authors with unconventional valid arugments and sources to give them a lobby. 18. Yes of course. And even if this would result in rpm, I would accept it. Currently though, we lack a rule since it has never been an issue. Usually, native speakers of Germanic languages know English on a high level; though this level is usually not sufficient for contributing to the English Wikipedia. Trust me, 95 % of native German speakers are uncapable of contributing to the German Wikipedia since they don't know their own language well enough. Though they could read and understand both English and German language articles. Maybe I am the first one who is able to mention that min−1 is common and that's why it hasn't been an issue for so long. 19. This is not a yes-or-no-question. 20. Unfair question. I will keep posting links to the evidence that prove that the information I add is valid and based on a reliable source. 21. Unfair question. An accuse doesn't require any change in behaviour. 22. Yes of course, everbody can. 23. Depends on what you mean. Since some of your prior questions were based on each other, I assume this question is based on 22. Answer: Depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 24. No, of course not. I do not possess divination powers. Do you? I hope that my answers help you but to be honest, do you still wish that I get blocked from editing? Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Sorry for all the badgering. Like I said, I thought it was time to try a different approach. Your answers speak for themselves, so I won't try to pick them apart an further. To answer your first question, it's unlikely a native speaker would make the mistake of thinking #19 "Have my comments so far told you that I would follow the MOS, even if I believe I'm right?" is not a yes-or-no question. I think the subordinate clause at the end threw you. There are numerous other examples. Still, quite fluent. Perhaps you're a native English speaker putting on a fake persona. Who cares? Behavior is what matters. To answer your last question, yes, I think an indef block is required, and it is because of your repeated play-acting that you don't understand what is said to you. Even beyond the actual misunderstandings, the evidence is compelling that you are misconstruing others' words in bad faith. You first show you got it, then later pretend you don't got it. You're messing with people. And your repeated affirmations that you won't used any of the usual dispute resolution tools, and instead will keep up what you've done, reverting when you know consensus is against you, and these overlong debates where you reject every single word others say, and don't understand the need to compromise and accede consensus, even when you know consensus is "wrong". Topics lke Abortion or Global warming or Art are battlegrounds with editors who are utterly committed to their incompatible beliefs. The ones who agree to put that aside and go along with consensus until they are able to get consensus to change are still here. The ones, like you, who think believing you're right is enough to ignore consensus have been blocked, and will go on being blocked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Topic ban We all have better things to do than to repeatedly shout down Johnjoy's unlistening ear over this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban – But what topic? Anything related to rpm? Cars? Units? The big problem here is that it's impossible to have a discussion with Jojhnjoy. I don't know how to fix that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Warning and perhaps topic ban While this is an editors who doesn't get it I don't think he means to be acting in bad faith. I would suggest a stern warning and maybe a short topic ban if the user doesn't agree to drop it. I think this is generally an editor who is working good faith but simply isn't listening to the group consensus. The topic bad would be adding/changing unit types on any article. Springee (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to shout down my unlistening ear over this since I already said I would refrain from changing rpm to /min. If you would read and understand the first sencentence on my user page you would possibly notice that a topic ban would equal a complete ban in this case. Also, User:Kendall-K1, I don't remember that you ever tried discussing with me. You once asked a question and since the answer was not what you expected you immediately resigned. I don't understand how you would even want to judge me. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Indef block. I have evidence in the form of diffs to support a block. Jojhnjoy is unrepentant, and his intellectual dishonesty continues right up to his last post above. Accusing Kendall-K1 of being unwilling to discuss is dishonest, and the discussion at Talk:Convert shows several others were very patient and indulgent with Jojhnjoy, and he didn't listen to a word. Kendall-K1 had no duty to keep up the charade. Anyone who has read the entire discussion at the Autos Project, and the above comments, has no need for me to walk you through it as I do below. This reply to my questions above says it all: "would you advise this editor stop, and to try something else, such as the options at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE?"

  Jojhnjoy: "No, I would not since I believe that someone who has valid arguments that are based on sources has a right to add and improve content. Even if it is against a popular opinion of several other authors. I support authors with unconventional valid arugments and sources to give them a lobby." No to moderated discussion, no to third opinions, no to RfCs, no to any of the noticeboards, no to mediation. None of it. Jojhnjoy sees no problem with the way he has dealt with this dispute so far, and going forward, he will handle future disputes exactly the same.

  If you haven't already read it all, here are the diffs that show this ongoing dishonesty, and bad faith:

 Disagree. I consider your "evidence" weak and unfounded. Jojhnjoy is unrepentant, and his intellectual dishonesty (...) is a personal attack on another user. Would an administrator please delete that? I did not accuse Kendall-K1 of being unwilling to discuss. I said: I don't remember that you ever tried discussing with me. You once asked a question and since the answer was not what you expected you immediately resigned. I don't understand how you would even want to judge me. This does not mean "Kendall-K1 is unwilling to discuss". One would please remove Dennis Bratlands wrong accusation. My reply to Bratlands question does not say it all. He apparently ignores the key point: someone who has valid arguments that are based on sources. He ignores that I am a mentor for new users and that it is my job to support unconventional but valid opinions to prevent new users from resigning from this project when old users tell them their suggestions are bad. I recommend a temporary block of Dennis Bratland to prevent him from continuing with his demand for my block based on false and unfounded accusations, including the accusations that I would handle future conflicts exactly the same, that I would be edit warring and having bad faith, calling me "unrepentant and intellectually dishonest". Though, I do not consider a block necessary if Dennis Bratland just stops. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

I was the first to speak sympathetically about min-1, calling it "obscure but not unheard of", and saying we should have an explanation of it on some article. Later, 1292simon agrees Agree I pointed specifically to where Jojhnjoy was misrepresenting MOS:UNITS.  Disagree My key point was that MOS:UNITS says "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units [and] non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI (...)". Since minutes are SI-compatible, min−1 is acceptable. That's how I would understand that. Dennis Bratland does not point specifically to where I am misreading it. First, he says "nope" to my statement that I asked an American who understood it. To me this seems as if he would want to deny that. Second, he says all automotive car media use rpm, which is not true (or a lie). Third, "common style guides recommend rpm". Well, okay, but DIN 1301 is no a guideline but a norm and says something different. Okay. Fourth: He claims that BIPM has never heard of this nonsense. There he calls it nonsense, (for the record, this will be important for 16.), and it is not true. It says that time units could be used for frequency (s−1 for instance) and since minutes are acceptable, they can be used too. It also explains that units may be combined and that is common. It does not specifically say that frequency can be expressed in minutes, however it indicates it and it is very common in science, so this assumption cannot be wrong. Instead, Bratland claims real SI would be Herz. (It is not a typo since he did it again.) Fifth: He says, we have zero sources telling us to stop using rpm. Yes, that is true. But I wanted to point out that we don't have sources telling us to stop using minutes either. (Or one would consinder the style guidelines a source though then DIN 1301 has to be considered too. Still no result. Also, the MOS:STYLE does not say "minutes must not be used for frequency". I pointed that out later. So his claim he would have pointed out to where I am misreading MOS:STYLE is wrong. Later still, I repeated that I'm OK with min-1, but we should follow the MOS and avoid confusing readers  Disagree Dennis Bratland does not say he is OK with min−1. He says he has added a photograph of an airplane gauge cluster to the discussion. Then he said from what he could tell, some German car manufacturers use it on non-German markets when they are trying to be different. This is an accusation. From what I can tell, it is normal and does not mean that they are trying to be different. I live in a "non-German market" and German car manufacturers are not trying to be different here by using min−1 since it is normal. Then he says that some manufacturers don't use it and that English sources usually use rpm. I mostly agree, however, I read a lot of scientific literature and there you would find min−1 mostly. So it is not true completely. The consensus or opinion in the English Wikipedia is to use rpm. But again: Where is the rule that tells me that I must use it too? Bratland says that there is nothing wrong with min−1 but that it is not how they do it. I would not prevent other authors from using rpm on their articles since there is nothing wrong with that either. Here is Jojhnjoy's argument for why we don't need to say x,xxx r/min or x,xxx r min-1, and can omit the r. Nobody believes him. Agree Nobody believes me. But that does not mean that I am wrong. For believing that you cannot omit "r" in this case, you must ignore scientific literature, the SI brochure, DIN 1301 and hundrets of European vehicle manuals and technical data sheets. Again, Jojhnjoy misinterprets MOS:UNITS as if it said we must use SI exclusively, somehow only reading the first half of the sentence "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)." We have already quoted this, and pointed out the misreading.  Disagree I did not say that they must use SI exclusively. I said: 'I am not anti American'. Then: Please stop forcing units on topics where they don't belong. That does not mean 'they must use SI exclusively'. After that: Everybody uses and understands SI units. Well it is partly true. Seconds for instance. And in science, even Americans use millimetres. So that statement is not false entirely. Then I said that the argument that readers would not understand "/min" is absurd and not reasonable. I think that is true. And yes, MOS:UNITS encurages me to use minutes with German vehicles. Still. Yet Another editor repeats that Jojhnjoy is misreading MOS:UNITS  Disagree He does not say that I am misreading it. He says that there is no much sense in this discussion and that this is the English Wikipedia, not a specialist one and that min−1 would lead to confusion. This makes sense to me, thats why I said one could use /min instead. But then this user says that "MOS:UNITS covers the case of rpm being the sensible choice", but they ignore that MOS:UNITS said "angular speed" back then, not rotational frequency. Also, it is the last part of the sentence and the first part says "the primary units chosen will be SI (...)" In reply, he tortures the meaning of the phrase "angular speed" to claim that the MOS is excluding the rotation of car engines. It makes no sense. What else could it be referring to? We don't use rpm to describe the rotation of planets or satellites, or the roll rate of an aircraft in flight.  Disagree (I ignore that your sentence lacks some sense since I undestand what you want to say): I did not want to claim that MOS:UNITS excludes the "rotation[al frequency] of car engines". I said that does neither mean rotational frequency for cars nor that one must not use minutes. It did not say "It means that rpm must not be used". It's hard to follow what makes sense for you but since rpm is not used in the technical and scientific literature I read, I don't know how Americans use it. I don't even know when and why they use in³, cuin, ci, cu, cin and cc for displacement and how the rule works. For me only in³ seems like displacement since the other lack the exponent 3. So I cannot say anything to the last part of the sentence, whether it makes sense or not. A different edtior rejects the argument for excluding r or revolutions, saying it must be x,xxx r/min, at least, not just x,xxx /min. The math error was reading r as a variable rather than a unit. Agree , I understand that r can be interpreted as a unit and I know that this "unit" refers to "revolutions", but I would expect that people who claim being engineers know what auxiliary units are. "revolutions" is an auxiliary unit. And those should be avoided when possible. Yet another editor clearly says Jojhnjoy is misreading MOS:UNITS.  Disagree. This author says that his kids would not understand mathematics even though they can read. Well, fair enough. But does that really mean that my point is wrong? Then he quotes the MoS but does not say that I am misreading it. Then he says that "his experience is that for reliable sources for motor vehicles rpm is the conventional choice." Okay, I understand that. And he reminds me that sources wouldn't be engineering texts. Okay, I understand that too. But in the conventional sources for this specific vehicle /min is used. Here is a disingenuous argument that others cannot claim to have seen r/min on European car dashboards, because it is original research without a citation, while Jojhnjoy allows himself to repeatedly claim that "everyone" easily understands min-1, without citing any evidence at all, and ignoring every request to cite such evidence. Claims the right to assume it at his whim.  Disagree. My point was that on German vehicle dashboards, r/min is not used. And claiming that r/min is common is original research. Doubting original research is desired. I could give arguments why this is wrong, instead I decided to post images of German dashboards. None of them showed r/min. Some of these photos were even taken by myself. Also worth mentioning is that a lot of German vehicles don't have a gauge that shows the rotational frequency of the crankshaft. (example) I hope that you know the difference between assuming and claiming? "European cars have r/min on their dashboards" is a claim. "I assume that 1/min is widely understood" is an assumption. Now one more different editor says "Power at 1/min" and "Torque at 1/min" makes no sense, and it needs to include the unit, r or revolutions. Agree , he said that, but that does not mean I have to believe it. Later, I post that "'1000 /min" is just gibberish'", agreeing with the previous editors who say there must be an r between 1000 and /min. Why do we keep having to belabor this stupid point? Everyone is sick of it. Agree , you said that, but that does not mean I have to have the same opinion. Also, a there is lot of evidence that proves that it is not gibberish. Jojhnjoy makes a disingenuous argument that we must define "evidence" before asking for evidence that rpm is widely understood and /min or min-1 is less common, without himself giving any definition of evidence when he asked for it earlier. It's all silly and dishonest, because all of us know what a citation of a fact looks like.  Disagree. A fact looks like this: In the English Wikipedia, for rotational frequency, minutes must not be used. or In the English language, minutes must not be used. Not I never heard of that, media say, style guidelines say, etc. Of course I could cite sources that use /min or min−1, scientific sources, engineering handbooks, technical datasheets, DIN, SI, etc. but that would not be evidence for the point that minutes are allowed. In spite of all this pettifogging, I oblige, and cite a number of authoritative sources that say rpm is preferred, and is therefore widely understood, and in which /min and min-1 is conspicuously absent.  Disagree Yes, in your sources minutes are absent. But that does not mean that they don't exist. I could cite sources in which rpm is absent. But why would I do that? Citing sources that don't use minutes don't automatically say they are false and must not be used. He repolies that these citations are "original research", while posting "I asked an American, she understood 1/min" as if that's not original research? It's not funny. It's blatant dishonesty. OK, it's kind of funny, but it's the kind of funny that gets you indef'd if you don't cut it out. Agree Yes, since your sources don't prove the point. When I say that I asked my fried who knew /min, it does not mean that everybody understands it. I never said that. If you really think that it would get anybody blocked from editing, well... no comment on that one. Jojhnjoy replies with the accusation we're still seeing, "you consider min−1 'nonsense'", after I said twice that min−1 is a convention that is fine if that's your convention. I had clearly said that what I consider "gibberish" and "nonsense" is using this or any thing else, /min or "per minute" without the r or the word revolutions. Several others had already said this clearly. Why is Jojhnjoy speaking as if he doesn't realize that? He's setting up a straw man, as if multiple others hadn't already clarified that.  Disagree You said "BIPM never heard of this nonsense." (Remmeber point 2. "for the record"?) Is there anything wrong with saying that you consider it nonsense? Would you say "I don't consider it nonsense but it is"? I know what a convention is, but the opinions of eight other authors don't make a convention automatically. That's at least how I would say it. In my reply, I say exactly that. If Jojhnjoy missed it the first or second or third or fourth time, he can't miss it now.  Disagree I never missed it. I just didn't agree this was a convention. Jojhnjoy replies directly to this last point. He posts "55 kW at 5800/min is no nonsense. Stop acting like you never saw that, since it appears in so many books and technical data sheets". He is specifically addressing my complaint that the r or revolutions is what's missing, and raging that it isn't necessary. He's admitting he knows what our objection is. Took long enough.  Disagree While the first part is true, I worte "55 kW at 5800/min is no nonsense. Stop acting like you never saw that, since it appears in so many books and technical data sheets", it means that I ask Dennis Bratland to stop acting like he never saw that. It does not mean that I address your complaint about the r, I address your acting in general since you would not want to accept my opinion but keep loading your rpm "evidence" on me even though I already mentioned that I know that Americans use it. However, Dennis Bratland called it "nonsense" and "pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style". That's something, I don't have to put up with. Later Jojhnjoy posts that he is adamant that he will ignore consensus. This alone is blockable, if you really mean it, and he has doubled down enough times to show us he means it.  Disagree I just cite myself: This is my personal opinion and a recommendation. It does not imply that I would ignore consensus. It does not mean that I would vandalize. Demanding an indefinte block of another user just because they don't share the same opinion is unacceptable. Therefore I wish that an administrator stops Dennis Bratland at this point since I cannot see any contribution towards a solution anymore, I feel that the only thing left here is Dennis Bratlands desperate attempt to get me blocked from editing indefinitely and that really makes me feel uncomfortable. This brings us to the AN/I report, and Jojhnjoy is right back repeating the accusation "Apparently, Dennis Bratland seems to dislike some units. For instance, he considers min−1 nonsense (also here)". In spite of all the above, he is back to pretending he doesn't understand that my only objection to x,xxxx r/min or x,xxx r min-1 is that it's not English convention, not that it's invalid. He is back to pretending that what I called "nonsense" and "gibberish" was omitting the r. He refers to the very long thread on this exact thing, and pretends he won that argument, simply because he believes himself, ignoring his total failure to get even one of eight editors to agree. This same diff says that his woeful misreading of MOS:UNITS was excusable because "it was changed in the meantime." A half dozen editors lectured him on MOS:UNITS, and they were clearly referring to the same version that said angular speed, not rotational speed. The change is irrelevant, and Jojhnjoy knows this because a half dozen editors told him so. In spite of all this, he goes on pretending otherwise.  Disagree You call it "nonsense" and "pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style". I consider that an expression of disgust. Therefore saying that you dislike it is plausible. I accpet the opinions of other authors, but that does not mean I have to agree with them. Therefore I failed getting anyone to agree. However, I don't consider it necessary, therefore there is no failure. Also, I never misread MOS:UNITS, the recent change of MOS:UNITS could have given the impression that I did. I just wanted to clarify that. I don't go on pretending..

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I added my comments on these points. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I checked Dennis Bratlands block log. To me, this seems like Dennis Bratland was blocked for demanding the block of another user. Unfortunately, the block log does not tell exactly why he was blocked, though it seems like he had violated an interaction ban. The link links to this page, Bratland says: He (Spacecowboy420) is supposed to be blocked immediately without warning if he posts about me, my edits, or responds to me anywhere on Wikipedia. I am afraid that my assumption is not wrong. Therefore I would like to ask Floquenbeam for a short statement on this to ensure that Dennis Bratland was not blocked for demanding the block of another user. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis was blocked for repeatedly asking for a block of someone with whom they had an interaction ban. This is quite clear from the unambiguous wording of the block log; I don't understand Jojhnjoy's confusion. It is obviously not against policy to demand a block of another user (although "demanding" is unwise 99% of the time), why would I have blocked simply for that? Anyway, I'm replying here because I was pinged, but I have not read the rest of this thread, and do not plan to be involved with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that reply, I didn't know what an interaction ban was since interaction is not limited to persons; the phraseology of Wikipedia terms is misleading sometimes and I never heard of an interaction ban before. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Please drop it. It's clear you don't understand what happened, but so what? You don't need to understand it. It isn't relevant. I am more than willing to stipulate that I am indeed the worst if it makes you happy. But, as WP:NOTTHEM tells you, no matter how awful I am, it doesn't help you much. Yes, personal attacks or not assuming good faith are not allowed almost anywhere but noticeboards like this one. AN/I is the place where editors make accusations. I'm not going to be blocked for that, especially when multiple editors support my evidence. A plausible WP:BOOMERANG argument might be that my edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles were the real cause of Jojnjoy's alleged disruptive editing. You could try to argue that, but none of the disinterested third parties who were there agreed. And I was never present at Template talk:Convert, so if I'm to blame for that, I have superpowers. I will admit that my proposal for an indef block has gained no traction at all, not even one editor is considering it. So I won't bring it up again unless I have a substantially new and more compelling argument, which I doubt. I persuaded no one and so I give up. A topic ban has a lot of support. I predict that a topic ban saying "Jojhnjoy can't change unit conversions or formatting" will be followed by Jojhnjoy changing rpm to /min or or bhp to PS or whatever he likes, and then saying the topic ban doesn't say I can't do that! Because past behavior is an indicator of future behavior. Jojhnjoy looks at the same text you're looking at and tells you with a straight face it doesn't say what you can plainly see that it does say, and he never, ever backs down from that. We shall see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I explained why I would not harm this project and Dennis Bratland ignores it. He considers this edit a reason for an indefinite block. I said there I still recommend refraining from adding cc and rpm in German topic articles (...). This is my personal opinion and a recommendation. It does not imply that I would ignore consensus. It does not mean that I would vandalize. Demanding an indefinte block of another user just because they don't share the same opinion is unacceptable. Therefore I wish that an administrator stops Dennis Bratland at this point since I cannot see any contribution towards a solution anymore, I feel that the only thing left here is Dennis Bratlands desperate attempt to get me blocked from editing indefinitely and that really makes me feel uncomfortable. What am I supposed to do? I don't agree with the consensus but that does not mean I don't accept it, also, I mentioned that I would refrain from changing rpm and still, Dennis Bratland does not stop demanding an indefinite block. If he keeps this threat of an indefinite block alive by demanding it over and over again, ignoring everything good I say and do, focussing on all my mistakes and harassing me with questions just to have another reason for adding accusations over and over to this AN/I no matter whether they might be false or right, I consider it harassment. As long as nobody stops Dennis Bratland, I don't see an option for myself and I will surrender, this means I would not want to contribute to this project anymore. Despite the outcome of this, I shall go now and not return for a while. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Topic ban - There are multiple instances identified above, where the editor has shown no respect towards other editors and blatantly disregarded Wikipedia policy. This goes completely beyond any difference of opinion regarding article content. Even the response above this shows no appreciation, let alone remorse, that policy breaches have been committed. Instead, the user believes it is a personal vendetta, so he launches an attack on the creator of this ANI. Past behaviour indicates that these are deliberate strategies, not naive mistakes. I think a topic ban is the only option in this case to stop this unwanted behaviour. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - If the consensus is for topic ban I would suggest the scope of the ban be changes to unit conversions, not contributions to for example automotive articles. I think a warning would be sufficient. If the editor says he is going to abide by consensus going forward I think that should be sufficient. I think an indefinite block is unreasonably punitive given this is an editor who is trying to make things better. A warning, if heeded, should be sufficient. @Jojhnjoy: this means you need to acknowledge that group consensus needs to accepted. If the consensus is units should be pound*feet for torque vs N*m so be it (don't change the units). However, if you feel that the current source is wrong (ie, regardless of the unit conversion, the value conflicts with a second source) then bring it up at the talk page and let people decide which source is better. I think if you agree to do those two things this a waring should be fine and this ANI can be closed. Springee (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Springee. I said earlier, that I would refrain from editing in a way that doesn't match consensus. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Also, thank you, 79.71.19.76 for correcting mistakes, this entire thing is extremeley exhausting, I guess that explains it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

From the comments above it seems like a topic ban is the popular option. I suggest Jojhnjoy be prohibited from adding or changing any unit names or conversions to articles. He has agreed to stop editing against consensus. My main concern now is that I'm not sure he is able to discern when consensus has been reached. For example, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles the consensus seems clear to me and to everyone else, but not to Jojhnjoy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Stopped editing articles maybe, but the stick is still in action over here today: User talk:1292simon#Volume

Support any block or tban up to public flogging. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Is that up to and including? Because we haven't been doing enough of that recently at ANI, and morale has dropped as a consequence. EEng 01:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my support for public flogging here, as the psychic horse medium tells me that the stick is now completely worn out.Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Support At least a topic ban. The user is still "arguing" incoherently about "units" at other user talk pages. This isn't going to go away unless prevented. -- Begoon 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support WP:TBAN – as nominator. Given the recent talk page activity, it looks like a full topic ban, including talk pages, will be required. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also support a temporary block, now that Jojhnjoy has violated the proposed tban even while the discussion is ongoing. I still think an indef block is not required, but we seem to be headed in that direction. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot violate a topic ban that was just proposed but not imposed. Supporting a temporary block because of that does not make any sense to me. Rather seems like creating block arguments out of thin air. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose... but. Again I think Jojhnoy is editing in good faith but I agree he's not listening. This is the English language Wikipedia and 'cc' is a common term in the context in question across the English speaking automotive topics. It would really be a good idea to just avoid discussions of units and unit labels before a TBAN is imposed. My opposition is getting weaker because the stick is still in the hand.Springee (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Just for your info: 1292simon changed cubic centimetres to "cc". I asked them "Why do you change cm³ to cc?" This is a legitimate question since I have never heard of this cc. I looked up the SI brochure and linked, that one must not use cc for cubic centimetres. 1292simon linked this in his reply: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific units, however, it says "cubic centimetre: cm³". Also, it says "cubic centimeter (U.S.): cc | Non-SI symbol used for certain engine displacements". So this means that it should be used for topics related to the United States for certain engine displacements. It does not mean that one should change cm³ which is totally okay and SI compliant in topics not related to the United States for engine displacement to something different. No rule, no consensus. They changed it in almost all articles I created (none of them related to an American topic) but refrained from changing other articles, I don't know why. That's why I asked. It was followed by a question by Andy Dingley: "Didn't you get a topic ban or something?" What is this? What do I have to think here? That one is allowed to edit all articles I created just because they dislike something I used that is covered by both Wikipedia rules and article sources? Without a consensus? In the German Wikipedia, such behaviour is considered disruptive. Maybe, the rules here are different. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You've never heard of "cc"? To refresh your memory, you brought up the subject of "cc" here: Template talk:Convert/Archive May 2017#Cubic centimetres. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you know what the difference between seeing and hearing is? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer, I'm compelled to point out another word: "listening". I don't see where you've ever done that at all, and it seems to me that doing that could have avoided most of this. Try listening, is my recommendation. -- Begoon 14:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, what is the reason for spending more than one hour on changing cm³ to cc in articles of a sepcific user knowing that they wouldn't like it even though neither style guidelines nor rules nor consensus justify it? If you explain it, I shall listen. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

What Andy said, obviously. There is literally nothing anyone can say to this guy that makes any impression. He has read these words 50 times: "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic." He will sit here until the cows come home denying the words say what the say. You can't fix that. You can't work around it. That is an insurmountable obstacle to editing. But I'm with you guys, whatever you want to try. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well why does the first part of the sentence exist then? I understand that it wouldn't be wrong using cc, however, cm³ isn't wrong either. So what is the reason for spending so much time on changing all these from cm³ to cc? Could you explain it? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Read WP:COMPETENCE. If misunderstanding English is going to cause this level of disruption, then you cannot edit in Wikipedia.

2. You were told by EIGHT (and counting) native English speakers that you were misreading it. We all make mistakes, and misunderstaning the MOS is normally not a problem, because normally editors listen to consensus. If your English is not perfect, then don't die on that hill. Don't defend to the death your opinion about a language you clearly do not fully understand.

3. How many times did you promise you wouldn't change units? How many times in the last 24 hours alone? Yet you went right ahead and started changing units. Hello?

#4 is a doozy. It's the wall of text from hell. You were warned. Seriously. Don't click show. You'll thank me later

4. Finally. You asked the English/Computer Science major to parse a sentence for you. Let's parse away. Parse like the wind! Let's parse In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera). In essence, the sentence says "X is Y". That's it. Simple! <SUBJECT> EQUALS <NOUN>. What is X, the <SUBJECT>? The subject is "units". What is the key adjective that identifies X, the "units"? "Primary". Primary means first in order, of chief rank or importance. The MOS is flexible and tolerates other units. Using units that are not the primary units is not an emergency, but it's an issue. It's something that is fixed by WikiGnomes. New additions to wikipedia might not conform to the MOS, but over time, editors work to make small changes which tend to progress closer to the MOS. So if Editor 1 changes a non-primary unit to THE primary unit (there can be only one, that is what primary means), then Editor 2 should not revert. Especially when he has been TOLD NOT TO, and PROMISED not to. Great! Now, we ask, what is Y, the <NOUN>? Y is a list of three possibilities, separated by commas and the conjunction "or". Remember, primary means only one of these applies. It isn't free choice. The three things are 1) SI units, 2) officially accepted non-SI units or 3) "other units" described as "conventional". Now here, your mistake is thinking that since SI is on this list of 3 options, then SI can be the primary unit. You simply get to pick any one of these three, and edit war with anybody who changes it. But is that so? No. If could be the primary unit SI for any topic, then this entire sentence is pointless. It need only say, "always use SI". Or "use whatever you want". Or not even exist. It doesn't mean that. Under what circumstances must the primary unit be the second item, or the third? The inherent logic of a sentence "there exists one widget such that either no conditions are fulfilled, some conditions are fulfilled, or even more conditions are fulfilled" is that if the topic falls into the scenario with the most strict conditions, then it must be that option. This must be so because otherwise, why even have these three options? Option 3, "conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" is the most restrictive of the three. Reliable sources are not just any blog or tweet or livejournal. They are a high bar to meet. And there must be multiple such discussions, and they must agree with each other. If every other article in Motor Trend or The Motor wavered between cm3, and cc, then there is no convention. It's high bar to meet, to have the situation (which we indeed have) where easily 95% of all English language motor vehicle publications use cc. And it's a high bar to meet for all these discussions to not only use cc almost all the time, but to all be about a single topic: motor vehicles, or (an even higher bar) internal combustion engines. Wait! You say, what about German sources? See WP:NOENG. Non-English sources are acceptable, but English sources are preferred. It matters not that the English and non-English sources don't share a convention for engine displacement; it is enough that the convention exists in English. Am I sure? Yes, I'm sure. If this were not the case, then the third possibility could never happen. There's like 7,000 languages. No unit convention could exist that they all agree on. Might as well not even have this MOS rule. We must assume the MOS was not written by imbeciles. So we have found ourselves in this narrowly-defined situation, where we pass all the stringent conditions of the most restrictive of the 3 choices for the thing I call Y, or <NOUN>. If we didn't meet all these conditions, then we would fall through the sieve to the more accommodating choice 2. Here the only condition is that your topic can make use of one of a short list of unofficial but accepted non-SI units. Like minutes, or AUs. This is a broad category, but still, it is a bar that must be met. If the topic were the height of basketball hoops, no unofficial SI unit exists. The nearest miss is AUs, but that is absurd. So if you can't meet that bar, then you fall through to the broadest category of the three: SI. No conditions at all. There need be no conventions used by reliable sources, it ban be any topic, and SI has a unit for everything. You do not pick one of these three on a whim. That would be a pointless MOS rule. The rule is clear, there is only one primary unit, and there is only one logical way of choosing which unit to use that treats the rule with any respect at all. If you don't follow this algorithm, starting with the most narrowly-defined of the three options, then you make a mockery of the rule. It is interesting that this is instinctive to English speakers. It never would have occurred to me that other languages don't have this kind of implied logic. Just as few native English speakers are aware there is a rigid rule for the order of adjectives, and most couldn't tell you what that rule is. But put the phrase "yellow old favorite dirty t-shirt" in front of any English speaker, and they will instinctively rearrange it to read "favorite dirty old yellow t-shirt". They don't even know they're doing it. This parsing of the sentence In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera). is HIDEOUS and nobody should have to read such a thing, let alone write it. That is why you should simply listen to others. Listen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

:::::Dennis, thank your for this long explanation, however, I understand it. As you said, or is a conjunction. That means that in this case basically we got 3 options. And now I just want to cite you: ″Option 3, "conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" is the most restrictive of the three.″ → So you just said it is the most strict of these. But is it? Which is the option we should apply? I don't think that these options really allow telling which one is the "right". I could argue that "using SI or using units allowed with SI" is based on each other and therefore these two options support each other and make the option 1 an option you would rather choose. How is it defined? Where is the rule? How is someone who does not know about eight other readers opinions supposed to read it? Imagine someone would use normal SI-units and would really read MOS:UNITS and Specific units, I guess that they would never expect other authors to object cubic centimetres. If there is a strong consensus, why don't the rules express it? Why don't the rules tell that one must stick to cc? ″Reliable sources are not just any blog or tweet or livejournal. They are a high bar to meet.″ → I agree. ″And there must be multiple such discussions, and they must agree with each other.″ → Where should these discussions take place? In Wikipedia? In science? ″If every other article in Motor Trend or The Motor wavered between cm3, and cc, then there is no convention.″ → So, what is your definition of a convention? Convention = All the books you read use cc? ″It's high bar to meet, to have the situation (which we indeed have) where easily 95% of all English language motor vehicle publications use cc.″ Your expression of these "95%" show me that you might be overconfident. You are much more wrong than you would expect. Do you think that I would believe you if you keep using arguments based on imaginations? Of course it could be a rethorical figure but in my opinion rethorical figures at such points are arguemnt boosters that would rather make me ask myself: "Does Dennis really want to convince me?" It is obviously not true that 95% use this cc. I read scientific puclications (about automotive engineering) a lot and I have never encountered it. (BMW does not use either by the way.) Actually, the first place I found it was Wikipedia and it surprised me that it means cm3. Since I have seen British engines before, I thought the common form of displacement was in3, even the name indicates that (6.354; 354 in3 = 5801 cm3 which is the exact displacement of this thing.) ″Wait! You say, what about German sources? See WP:NOENG. Non-English sources are acceptable, but English sources are preferred.″ → I understand that, but do you ignore that I cited an English language source that did not even tell it is not permitted to use cc but also that not using cc avoids confusion (and therefore makes things easier to understand)? Wikipedia rules suggest that you could use both. So I decided to go with the SI-permitted way. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

"I understand it". No you, don't. Everyone is telling you that You're not listening. "If there is a strong consensus, why don't the rules express it?" It does express it. It is perfectly clear to everyone except you. The reason I'm so confident that there is consensus amount reliable automotive sources that everyone except you says so. We don't need an exact count of the number of times sources have used cm3 because everyone except you agrees it's not even close. It doesn't matter if it's 95% or 99% or 83%. What matters is, it's overwhelming. I could go on saying the same thing to every one of your repetitive arguments. Everyone except you rejected the sources you cited. Nobody except you is asking for "convention" to be defined. Could you be the lone editor who sees the TRUTH? Maybe. After all, as Carl Sagan said, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Perhaps you are the lone voice of reason. But everyone thinks you're the metaphorical Bozo the Clown in this. The MOS could have errors, and it could be edited to be more clear. But it will never be perfect. There will always be some editors who don't understand it, whether due tho their own language issues, or the flaws in the wording of the MOS. The solution to that problem is not for one editor to go on a crusade. The solution is, always, to use the normal consensus process, which means listen to other editors. Nobody is attacking you for misunderstanding MOS:UNITS. That is forgivable, and easily solved. Your behavior is being criticized because you won't listen, won't back down, and won't recognize that all of the arguments you're making about SI units and conventions and so on were considered and then were rejected. You lost. You are, in the words of WP:IDHT "sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. " That is disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The latest cubic centimetres issue shows no respect for consensus (not to mention a request to stay off my Talk page), since the topic was already covered [23]. His claim that I made the changes "in articles of a sepcific user knowing that they wouldn't like it" shows both WP:OWN issues and a lack of WP:FAITH (I made the changes because I believe they make the articles easier to understand- whether Jojhnjoy agrees with this or not).

  I am so sick of lengthy arguments with this guy about obscure units, when he just does not listen to anyone. His strategies of victory by attrition and raising the same issue in different locations are a significant waste of other editors time. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Well I gave you strong evidence that your edits would not make the article easier to understand, also, even harder to understand and you ignored it. You linked to a discussion but you completely ignored the context. My proposal back then was that the template:convert would automatically change cc to cm3 since I thought this was something like ccm (something weird only few people know about for something very common usually expressed differently.) So there is no consensus that we should replace something common with something that usually must not be used. The rules for units indicate that cc could be used for certain engine displacements related to "American displacements". But on the other hand, the first thing the rule mentions is: cubic centimetre: cm3. I guess there is nothing wrong with using it and yet you change it even though there is no consensus. Also, very interesting that all the articles you changed were either created or edited by me. And worth mentioning too is that you did not change cm3 to cc in hundreds of articles I did not edit once. (Search for "cm3" in the Wikipedia search, I cannot link it here.) I think this is too obvious for coincidence. You messed up several things, for instance, you increased the displacement of the Trabant 601 by the factor 10. Such edits could be anything, but you did not increase the article quality. You made it worse (most likely not intentionally) but to me it seems like you just wanted to change it. Not to improve the quality. By the way, I did not waste more than one hour on changing cm3 to cc: 12:42 ... [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] ... 13:45. Well, if you don't want me to discuss, I shall refrain from editing your talk page. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC) the first thing the rule mentions is: cubic centimetre: cm3: I designed that table so I'll tell you why cm3 is first, and that is that it's the most common way overall of expressing cubic centimeters, and therefore putting it first is the most logical presentation. It doesn't mean cm3 is preferred over cc in every particular context. EEng 01:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I know that, but also, it does not mean that cc is preferred over cm3. It expresses that both could be used but cc is rather American I guess? ("cubic centimeter (U.S.): cc)" --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC) You implied that the format of the table implies that cm3 is somehow preferred; I told you it doesn't. That's all. EEng 17:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Jojhnjoy, your accusation "You made it worse (most likely not intentionally) but to me it seems like you just wanted to change it. Not to improve the quality" is hurtful, and violates WP:FAITH. As for your question about why I chose those particular articles, I am happy to explain. The main purpose of my work was to implement the change from min-1 to rpm, as per consensus at Wikiproject Automobiles. Yes, I figured that articles you have edited would be a good place to look for min-1s to change, so that's where I started. Nothing personal. Then, while I was editing those articles, I noticed the cm3 and decided to change them. You might disagree whether this is an improvement (although I suggest you are own your own there), but that was my motive for the changes. Yes, I also there was the odd article along the way with no rpm change, but rpm was the main purpose. Sorry for the typo in the Trabant article. But it says a lot that you went on the attack about an innocent mistake, when you could have just fixed it instead... 1292simon (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Well, an edit that makes a correct information wrong makes an article worse. That is a fact. Also, I wrote most likely not intentionally. To me it seems like... For instance, you also ignored commata mistakes, etc. and not only once. That made me write: you just wanted to change it. Not to improve the quality. But doesn't that opinion make sense? I did not write that you don't want to improve the quality. I wrote it seems like that to me in this case. Do you understand why? I understand the rpm change and don't question it. "Yes, I figured that articles you have edited would be a good place to look" → There is no coincidence, as I guessed. "I noticed the cm3 and decided to change them. You might disagree whether this is an improvement (...), but that was my motive for the changes." You changed them since you noticed them. Interesting. Well I contacted you on your talk page and you replied with a rule that suggests that you could use it for certain (especially American) displacements but didn't tell me that cm3 was wrong. What do I have to expect here? Imagine I had corrected that typo myself, since some users really think that I could violate a ban that was just propsed but not imposed, I have to fear more such comments and therefore I shall refrain from changing anything. This entire thing is completely unpredictable but I don't want an administrator to agree with such opinions; the easiest way is just not generating them. That's why I didn't correct it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC) My comment about you violating the proposed ban was not intended for you and I don't expect you to understand it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Definitely a strong case of IDHT and refusing to listen to others. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. This is crazy IDHT. EEng 17:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to make this clear: I would not change my opinion but accept other opinions and I shall refrain from changing units (which I wouldn't do anyway). Feel free to change whatever I write to something more right as long as the information itself is not getting distorted, (make 73.5 kW out of 100 PS but not 74.5 kW for instance). I will ignore everything but the latter. But please, don't think about changing "bonnet" to "hood" or "boot" to "trunk"... --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Way too late, and you should save your attempts at humor for elsewhere. You can ask for a review of your topic ban after a year, if you've shown in the meantime that you can behave yourself. EEng 01:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion — In response to several obstinate, disruptive posts, broaden the TBAN to prohibit Jojhnjoy from any article or talk page edit related to switching terminology, conventions, word choice, phrasing, or units to anything other than those considered conventional in English-language reliable sources. His IDHT editing isn't limited to edit warring over using German unit conventions. He won't drop pointless debates for en.wikipedia.org to bend over backwards to save ESL readers the trouble of looking up an English term the don't recognize. He is still welcome to submit proposals to add Denglisch to the list of national varieties of English, or eliminate en.wikipedia.org's various rules that give precedence to English over other languages. But don't debate it elsewhere. Accessibility is nice, but Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia explicitly seeks to accommodate ESL readers, en.wikipedia.org does not. In all cases where Jojhnjoy is unsure about this, he is required to either just drop it or go ask at the talk page of this AN/I report's closing Admin. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

You consider my opinion disruptive even though I explained it? Even though the first thing I wrote was that I would not want to remove any such figures? Before that, I wrote "For the sake of comparability, I do not recommend adding real wheel power output to articles." Do you know what a recommendation is? I also wrote: ″I would support external tests that test the engine power according to DIN 70020 or SAE or whatever standard.″ You tell something about English-language reliable sources? You safely ignored the most reliable English language source for min–1 and cm3 (SI-Brochure). You accuse me of edit-warring? Prove it! You cannot, since you lied. Wait, who started the pointless debate? Ah! Dennis Bratland did. Very interesting that you close a discussion even though there were only two main participants, one being me and one being you. The result is your opinion. You ignored my objection and the reasons for my objection. There is no clear result. You just claim this is the result. Well, if you think so. Also, I did not use caps lock and the word fuck excessively. I did not critcize the other discussion participants but the point. I tried behaving politely and discussing factually. ″YOU DON'T NEED TO KEEP FUCKING REMINDING US THAT OTHER LANGUAGES HAVE OTHER FUCKING WORDS FOR THINGS. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A DIFFERENT FUCKING LANGUAGE." – Dennis Bratland Well, Dennis Bratland, I explained it: ″only native English speakers would know what it means since the word horsepower translates to what the unit symbol PS is used for, lacking approxiamtely 10.25 W. (This is a different story though.)″ Do I go on about your misunderstanding? No. So pointing out that English is not my first language is not relevant. I suggest that you stop with anything like that. I shall just ask two questions: Who is behaving properly? And whose behaviour is disruptive? Someone who discusses politely and factually and explains their standpoint in a way that should be comprehensible? Or someone that does not cite sources properly, criticizes other discussion participants inappropriately since they disagree on the own opinion and are non-English rather than criticizing their points, uses the word fuck in caps, accuses other discussion participants of having a "thick head" and considers a discussion resolved even though 50 % of the other main discussion participants disagree? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC) I stand by what I said. Your response right here is further evidence that the TBAN needs to prohibit all of kinds reverts or talk page badgering related to word choice, unit choice, or terminology, construed broadly. You should be allowed to ask once (and only once) what a term means, or what the correct term or unit is, but you must accept the answer you get, and not debate it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Do you think that lying increases your credibility? I consider that weak. Lying to get somebody blocked from editing. And you still stand by what you said? ″His IDHT editing isn't limited to edit warring over using German unit conventions.″ (– Dennis Bratland) ″You accuse me of edit-warring? Prove it! You cannot, since you lied.″ (– Jojhnjoy) ″I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.″ (– Dennis Bratland) ″Dennis was blocked for repeatedly asking for a block of someone with whom they had an interaction ban″ (– Floquenbeam) --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC) You don't understand what an interaction ban is. Hence your inane comments about it. The proof of what I say is right here in your own posts. I respect the ability of my fellow editors to read your posts and judge for themselves. Your inability to respect anybody else is the point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban per above and retaliatory filing at #Dennis Bratland and WP:NPA below. Experience at Template talk:Convert shows that two-way communication is not possible. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we close this?

The proposal is for a topic ban on unit names and conversions. We have four five in favor of the proposal, two in favor of any sanction up to but not including flogging, and one opposed. How do we get an admin to penetrate the smokescreen and actually implement the ban? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

+1 Kendall-K1, this is a good attempt to solve this. I shall refrain from editing unit names and conversions. Further, I shall not add, modify, change or correct any units in existing articles. Whenever I find mistakes, I will mention that on the corresponding talk page and cite reliable sources. When I create a new article and have to add units, I will just cite the source word for word and perform no conversion at all. Any objection? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• And now Jojhnjoy has decided to advertise his tonedeafness even more widely -- #Dennis_Bratland_and_WP:NPA. At this point I think we need to just consider a very long block, period. Why are we wasting our time on this guy? EEng 01:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wasting our time seems to be Jojhnjoy's specialty. Just take a look at the length of this ANI report and contemplate how much editor time went in to it. I tried to find some way we could keep him around. He really did make some useful contributions. And he came so close to getting off with just the tban. I will now support any sanction anyone wants to impose, up to and including indef block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm not completely happy with this close. What is an 'article related to "units" and "measurements"'? I think what's meant is that J must not add or change units or conversions in any article. I wouldn't fuss but with this guy we can't have any wiggle room. EEng 17:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User_talk:Jojhnjoy#Topic_banned --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If your point is that you're already wikilawyering your topic ban, you've made it abundantly. Surprise! EEng 17:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Im not very proud of this close either, did anyone bother to specify the duration of the Tban? I can only assume indefinitely based on the amount of complaints and Jojhnjoy's disruptive history. My advice to everyone is not to dwell on it. I've been explaining the details of the Tban to Jojhnjoy. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not to seem unappreciative, but I think someone more experienced needs to handle this. EEng 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm with EEng here. This was not a good close for a discussion about such a tendentious user who would obviously wikilawyer it to death. Mind you, that leads me to ask whether any "topic ban" would be sufficient here. I'm thinking, as demonstrated by the reaction, it wouldn't. Begoon 17:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban for edits related to units ...

Original section heading by proposer: "Proposing topic ban for edits related to units, conversions, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, mopeds, motorscooters, trains, planes, space vehicles, elevators, escalators, monorails, moving sidewalks, or engines or propulsion systems of any kind or description, whether already invented or predicted only in science fiction, as well as the physics and chemistry they rely on." Over-long section heading redacted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that (as seen in the link so kindly provided above by J himself) J lost no time in wikilawyering the topic ban, I'm going to take the opportunity to propose a broader one as described in my section heading just above. After six months of showing he can participate usefully in the project in other topic areas, he can appeal for a modification of the ban -- maybe start with motorscooters. EEng 18:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Added later: Give that J has opened yet another ANI thread just now (#Jojhnjoy_.232) I would fully support a site ban/indefinite block. This guy just doesn't get it. EEng 18:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Though it could probably be a bit more succinct. Something along the lines of Any edits related to units of measure of any kind, vehicles or any modes of transportation, engines or propulsion systems of any kind or description, whether already invented or predicted only in science fiction. Conversions can't be an issue if they can't edit units at all. Capeo (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• No The user is too disruptive to edit here collaboratively. Anyway, you missed Space elevator. There could be unanticipated units, or discussion of such there. Site Ban. -- Begoon 18:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I notice this was amended while I was typing my support. The new close has the same issue. TB's aren't about pages, they're about edits. Edits on ANY page pertaining to the TB. Using the word pages will lead to further confusion and lawyering. Capeo (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support also open to revisiting the public flogging proposal. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. It could be time, now. -- Begoon 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Due to behaviour since the original ANI was launched, I think a wider ban is warranted. 1292simon (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the ridiculously verbose section heading. Out of respect for the OP's length of service I will refrain from editing it per WP:TPO bullet 11. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Turns out the National Rifle Association is right: bullets keep the peace. EEng 05:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per the follow-up thread here, he's agreed to drop it. If he does, this is ludicrously long to expect any editor to remember. If he doesn't, a full site-ban is the appropriate response. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support – EEng and Begoon are right that my proposal was too vague. I don't have a lot of experience with ANI, and none with topic bans. I was just doing my best to move this discussion along. As I said earlier, I will now support any sanction up to and including indef block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you were too vague, and if I did, I'm sorry. It's hard formulating restrictions short of site bans when dealing with such disruptive users. That you would try is to your credit. -- Begoon 14:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support but... I don't think anybody said it is disruptive when Jojhnjoy creates new articles, or translates articles into English, or adds entirely new content to exiting articles, on any topic, even if his additions dodn't comply with the MOS. Editing policy supports adding new, albeit flawed, content, to be improved later. The problems only started when he changed old content that was consistent with the MOS, and reverted edits that tweaked his additions to match the MOS. And the debate. So much debate. Not allowing him to add new content related to units or measurement is excessive and punitive. OTOH, it will effectively end the disruption if he is banned from changing anything that is formatted correctly and uses the units the MOS recommends, on any article, on any topic. It's changing the 'good' to the 'meh' that is the problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's why this is a TBAN, not a block. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I guess what I've been envisioning is a novel kind of sanction that doesn't meet the definition of a TBAN and would be difficult to enforce. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing by GetSomeUtah ‎

GetSomeUtah has been engaged in Tendentious editing and deleted "Iranian" from the profiles of many Iranian-Swedish individuals without giving sufficient reasons. Discussions with him does not prevented these disruptive edits. Examples of his disruptive behavior is provided in the following: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] Nochyyy (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'm surprised that I was not given the courtesy of a heads up on my talk page as required when flagging these incidents on the noticeboard. Regardless of that, I have noted elsewhere that I have been trying to restore changes that a seeming over-eager IP editor made without any explanation. Nochyyy (talk) seems bent on reverting pretty much all my edits on every topic that have nothing to with Iranians, including the Mayor of Provo, Utah, and Bozeman, Montana, of all topics. I fail to see what is disruptive about my edit there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_R._Curtis&diff=prev&oldid=791949972. Indeed, Nochyyy's reversions seem somewhat trivial.

− −

Is this what admins do? I'm confused. I'm always happy to discuss substance, but having Nochyyy file complaints and not inform me strikes me as an odd way to build confidence and trust in resolving issues.

− −

It has also been obvious in my contribution log since my interactions with David Eppstein that I have ceased and desisted on all things Iranian. Please...for those who want to turn all things Swedish into "Iranian-Swedish," please have it, and I will not stand in your way. I have demonstrated that. If admins feel I am not contributing to Wikipedia, then say so, and I will leave. But don't set people up to watch and revert everything I do and then label it "disruptive editing" or, as Eppstein does, just revert without any comment in the entry at all. Best regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted some of your other arbitrary edits, here[65] you removed cited information without any convincing explanations. You claim that people who have born and raised in Iran and have Iranian names and now reside in Sweden are not "Iranian" without giving any reason, that shows you do your edits based on your personal bias not based on facts. By the way other users warned about your disruptive edits. Nochyyy (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

NB @GetSomeUtah: Notice was provided before you posted here, although, in your defense, it was posted out of chronological order, so you may have missed it. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nochyyy: I have only looked at the first edit you reverted. I see an article about an individual born in Sweden who was characterized as Iranian-Swedish, but without a reliable source. What was wrong with that edit?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Family name is iranian and there are several sources indicating he is Iranian [66][67][68]. If a page does not include a source, "a citation needed" remark is sufficient. Nochyyy (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Do we have guidelines on the use of hyphenated nationalities?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You opened this by giving examples of edits without reasons. The edit I looked at contained a reason. Perhaps it can be sourced. Let's not debate whether there are adequate sources, that's a content dispute which belongs elsewhere, let's narrowly discuss your claim that the edit was wrong because it did not have a reason. It did. (I would like to know more about our guidelines in this area was I haven't spent much time with the issue but I see that it is often contentious.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nochyyy: David Eppstein expressed some concern with these types of edits here And pointed out a potential misunderstanding here. If your multiple examples are in chronological order, all of them precede the admonition by Eppstein. In my opinion this issue should be closed and only raised if the behavior continues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Take this example [69], the reason is "If he fled Iran and has adopted a Swedish identity and citizenship, he is no longer Iranian", so whenever somebody fled their country and go to exile, they no longer citizens of their homeland? This one [70] she came to Sweden when she was 17, and before that she was living in Iran according to the page, suddenly she is not Iranian any more? almost all these people have been born in Iran, had Iranian parents, some of them active in Iranian affairs, just because they reside in Sweden, they are not Iranian any more? Black people in USA after centuries still called Afro-Americans. These edits are completely biased, GetSomeUtah still defends her behaviour and just claims that only one of his edits was wrong Nochyyy (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This is ANI - It is not a place to debate content this is a place to discuss editor actions. You claimed that an editor made changes without giving sufficient reasons. The first one I looked at gave a sufficient reason. I subsequently noted that all of the examples occurred prior to an editor urging them to stop and they have. Why are we here?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:This was a large scale tendentious behavior that disrupted many pages, there should be some consequences for this kind of behavior. He did that for several days and never even used talk page, just deleted contents.Nochyyy (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Just as an aside, but some people in this debate may have overlooked that per MOS:BLPLEAD, the lead sentence should routinely include the subject's nationality, not their ethnicity. So, unless the person in question actually maintains a double citizenship, ethnic Iranian heritage should in most cases be irrelevant for the lead sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In most cases, these people were born and raised in Iran, so they are citizens of Iran. Nochyyy (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggest Boomerrang if OP doesn't drop this

This was resolved (albeit spmewhat poorly) before it was brought here, yet OP os still insisting on some kind of sanction, which would only be punitive at this point. On top of that edits like this constitute blatant hounding. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked other edits of GetSomeUtah ‎and in this case, he deleted some sentences for arbitrary reasons. Nochyyy (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of boomerang action. The additions of links to Swedish Iranians such as [71] borders on linkspam and is done by an IP editor. Nochyyy's diffs clearly show that GetSomeUtah is in the right for reverting here. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The guy was born in Iran and is its citizen, how including Iranian-swedish in his profile is a linkspam? Just because it is done by IP editor, it should be reverted?Nochyyy (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're not going to drop it, is that correct? That boomerang is only inches away from you at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw my complaint. Nochyyy (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for diff(s)

Arthur Rubin, an admin, has accused me of "lying" (and/or "misstatements" etc) on half a dozen or more occasions, along with stating that I'm incapable of understanding basic English a couple of times. This relates to the curious case of the legitimacy of the official Wikipedia guideline status of WP:RY. [72] [73], [74], [75], [76]. He has then accused me of redacting the claim I made which he found so outrageous. In all cases, I have asked at least eleven times for diffs of the "lies" and the subsequent "redaction". [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] Rubin has stated that he will only present diffs in a formal setting, so this is it, simply a request for him to provide the diff(s) of my "outright lies" and the diff(s) of my "redaction" of said outright lies. I had hoped it wouldn't need a trip to the drama board to sort this out but apparently not. Other editors appear to have made direct and overt statements calling the status of this guideline into question, yet they have not been subject to similar accusations from Rubin. Now I know this is going to spiral out of all control, because this is Wikipedia, this is ANI and I'm TRM, but I'd like, just for once, to focus on the matter at hand please. Other corollary issues which I'm sure will be brought up to divert from this should be placed in their own section. This thread needs to focus on whether this is appropriate behaviour from an admin since such unfounded accusations easily constitute personal attacks and since so many unresolved requests for evidence easily constitute a failure of WP:ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• As a reminder for anyone who wants to look into this. WP:NPA is policy and defines as personal attacks (amongst other things) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Indeed. I'd like to see this complaint addressed on its merits alone, without the usual "spiral[ling] out of all control" - if at all possible. -- Begoon 12:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Going even further, I'd suggest that other commenters hold back until Arthur Rubin has had a chance to present his response. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some of these go back to the beginning of July and might be considered stale at this time, the most recent diff were from July 19th, Arthur Rubin;s been editing as of yesterday. I would still like to hear his side, however, considering all of the diffs are fairly old, unless there's some pretty damning evidence, I'd move to close this as punative.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC) KV, it's a continual mystery to me why you make this kind of post when you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. You used to have a sanction against doing so, I think. Has it expired? If so, please point me to where you were permitted to behave like this again so that I can properly object. Begoon 15:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Did you actually read the complaint? The diffs are showing repeated requests from TRM for Arthur Rubin to provide the evidence required, they're not "stale". Honestly, I agree with Begoon - don't comment here if you don't understand what the issue is. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @KoshVorlon: The fact that they "go back to the beginning of July" is perhaps suggestive of establishing a pattern, rather than being stale! — fortunavelut luna 10:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Too many edit conflicts. I'll reply when I have some time at home, in about 21 hours. Diffs will also show that I told him I could only generate the diff links when I'm on my desktop, that I considered his talk page and ANI the only appropriate place to put them, and that I offered to give him the diffs on his talk page, but he had previously "banned" me from his tall page, and refused to "allow" me to post the list on his talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I will also provide diffs which show that he considers any editor who disagrees with him WP:BULLYing, and that his demand for my not using his talk page was caused by my giving him credit for pointing out problems, and posting requests to fix them in the proper venues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I had a longer reply, but I had edit conflicts, and I cannot easily recover it on my desktop. I also attempted to redact TRM's identity from the complaint, but I further alleged that the misstatements require an admin close for an RfC in Talk:2017; further redaction would make my request for an admin close meaningless. I shouldn't have named TRM as the liar in that venue, but having done so, further redaction is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the point is that you refused to supply links for the past week or two yet continued to promote this "outright lying" campaign at most venues you could. You didn't need a "formal location" for such diffs, any location you chose to repeat the personal attacks would have been fine. You have certainly been able to respond quicker, and per ADMINACCT, you have failed in that duty. Per NPA, you have also repeatedly attacked me at various venues across Wikipedia with your accusations of (a) me "lying" and (b) me "redacting the lie" while (c) allowing a number of other editors to apparently say the things you accused me of without any recourse. How odd. And yes, as I noted, you'll be attempting to divert scrutiny over your failure of admin duties by providing other spin, do that in another thread because this is simply about your refusal to supply evidence to support the many personal attacks you have made despite multiple requests, per NPA and ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. You have had weeks to get this information together, yet you abjectly refuse. That's not good enough. With your selected attacks on me across multiple venues without evidence, you should resign your mop immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

More nonsense. Your personal attacks against me are quite relevant as to why I didn't redact complaints about your editing, which I posted in the wrong venue. I am willing to apologize for posting them to the wrong venue; however, absurd statements being made about the content and status of WP:RY at Talk:2017 require an admin close of the RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Who said anything about personal attacks on you? The only issue being dealt with here is your refusal to supply diffs for weeks and weeks despite you using every venue across Wikpiedia to personally attack me. I'm not interested in your "redactions", I'm interested in your evidence that I "lied" and your evidence that "I redacted that lie" and your reasoning for not supplying this evidence for at least two weeks and your abuse of your position. Now then, I don't care about RY, I don't care about "venues", I care about NPA and ADMINACCT. Address those issues please, and stop trying to obfuscate the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, a couple of things about the ability (or lack of) to post "diffs". Firstly, I tried it tonight, while walking, with a three-year-old iPhone, and copied a diff to my sandbox in around thirty seconds. Secondly, I recommended to you that you seek technical help with accumulating and posting diffs, from someone with the capability to do it in a timely fashion. Thirdly, it would have been so simple to just say "your lie is found at page X with date/timestamp Y". Yet, despite your position as an admin, your requirements per ADMINACCT, your obligation per NPA, you refused to do any of these for more than two weeks, so here we are, wondering why you should be an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• OK, it's time to stop this thread, before it does indeed "spiral out of control". I strongly suggest that comments stop until Arthur Rubin posts his response, as he has above said he will do sometime tomorrow. At that point, either his response will show that he has or has not any evidence for his comments about TRM. At that point, we can continue forwards. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Sure, so Rubin has had two weeks to post a response and refused to do so. I just wanted others to know that I had given him many, many options on how to proceed before we ended up at the drama boards. Yet again, it needs to be assessed in the context of his position as an admin. And now we wait while he gets to pick when and how he wants to continue. Bravo. 20:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs)

• That's fine - if he doesn't post a response tomorrow, then the situation can also continue forwards. But there is nothing to be gained from a continual back-and-forth between the two of you with no useful outcome, frustrating as it might be for you. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think the point has been missed. It's clear from Rubin's edit history that he has been online here every single day since my first request to provide evidence to substantiate his personal attack. He didn't, he hasn't, he's repeated the same attacks across Wikpiedia. It's now actually too late to apologise, redact etc, what we're examining here is his abuse of position, NPA violations and ADMINACCT fail. That needs nothing more from him. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this incident involves an admin refusing to even acknowledge their behaviour - there's a clear case to be made for removal of the admin tools. Possibly via arbcom if need be, but nobody here wants that. As such, I would like to make the following proposal... Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, then! I'll start putting together a case - I'll wait 48 hours before filing to allow for response - They've already had weeks so I feel that I'm being generous here... Twitbookspacetube 04:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to comment on my close, Twitbookspacetube, I strongly believe community-based desysopping should exist in order to ensure adminship isn't such a big deal. It's been repeatedly proposed and shot down, though, so meh. As it stands, a discussion on desysopping wouldn't be actioned by the beauracrats or stewards, so it's not possible. (This is not a comment on the specifics of this case; I haven't read anything about them.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Also by way of observation -- if you do put together a case to bring to ArbCom, they're very unlikely to take it up unless you show a history of misconduct or abuse of the admin tools. I think that a single instance would have to be particularly egregious before it qualifies as the basis for a desysopping case. (In fact, I'm not sure if I've ever seen them take a case brought to them based on a single instance -- as opposed to when they themselves react to a instance of misbehavior, and desysop on their own initiative.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

30+ hours since this was filed and no sign of any appropriate response from Arthur Rubin. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, he said he will respond in about 21 hours, 25 hours ago. I've been also waiting for the input though. Alex Shih^Talk 19:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been waiting three weeks for the input. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

But Alex why did it require multiple requests by TRM and an ANI report to compel Arthur Rubin to provide diffs? He is not a few hours tardy; he's missed the mark for two or three weeks now. As a person who edits almost exclusively on a mobile device, I find his smartphone excuse unconvincing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I seem to be running a fever. My next edits anywhere on Wikipedia under any of my accounts will be a personal status update or the diffs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nudging this thread to prevent premature archiving. Of course, the discussion over why it would take three weeks for an admin to provide evidence to substantiate the various personal attacks can continue regardless, the diffs themselves are, by now, almost irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Nudging again, to ensure thread stays on notice board. Once again, regardless of any diffs that Rubin might supply, the case of him not supplying them to support his various personal attacks despite nearly a dozen requests to do so can surely be discussed without his presence. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well sure, it can, and it should. Sadly, all you can really get here is "Arthur has done wrong, and is reminded not to do wrong again", and a record that you tried to resolve the dispute, so that arbitration requests don't get rejected as premature. That truly sucks, and I sympathise. For the record, though, I do think the failure to provide the requested diffs, after repeated requests, is a breach of WP:ADMINACCT. -- Begoon 11:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the community's acknowledgement that the admin offered unfounded personal attacks over a span of weeks and yet refused to supply any evidence, contrary to ADMINACCT and NPA, can be established right away. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with this being regretful, and sets a dangerous precedent for ADMINACCT. Hopefully the case will have a proper closure soon. Alex Shih^Talk 18:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Nudging the thread once again to ensure it is addressed properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

TRM, I started to place a DNAU on this thread yesterday but found someone else already has. It will not be archived and no one should manually archive this either. You won't have to nudge it and we will expect the response from AR per WP:ADMINACCT.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the note about the archiving. However, what is important is to allow the community to decide as to whether this behaviour is commensurate with an admin, regardless of whether or not Arbcom wish to do anything (which, because it's about TRM, is highly doubtful). A resounding community endorsement of the infractions would go a long way to giving Arbcom the wakeup call they need as they continue to defend and coddle admins who routinely abuse their position with impunity. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed removal of admin tools from Arthur Rubin

This is not permissible under current policy. If you want administrator access to be reviewed, file a case request with the Arbitration Committee. ~ Rob13Talk 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Due to conduct unbecoming of an Administrator including, but not limited to, violations of WP:NPA and WP:ADMINACCT, Arthur Rubin is to have their tools removed. If they resign due to this proposal, it will be considered to be 'Under a cloud' and they will have to go through another successful RfA to regain the tools. Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Support As proposer Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose Neutral comment In principle, I totally agree that this should be a thing that's available to the community at all times - the ability to reach consensus and desysopp a user. Unfortunately, this is not going to go anywhere; there are no community policies or guidelines that make this allowed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

ARBCOM case

As instructed above, I have waited 48 hours after my last comment here, then filed a case at arbcom which can be found here. Twitbookspacetube 05:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Same Admin has made many serious accusations against me and refused to provide any evidence. He even pulled a user right without evidence. Worst Admin here. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not that you'd reflexively dive on a bandwagon, of course... -- Begoon 19:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well Rubin did instigate an involved block a few weeks ago and accused a good faith editor of being a vandal, so it's pretty clear that my experience is not unique. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

IP edits at ccTLD articles

• Evidence is at User:Johnuniq/ccTLD because I suspect more attention will be needed in the future.

An individual using slowly changing IPs has been disruptively editing multiple articles for at least a couple of months. They add dubious or blatantly false factoids often with {{citation needed}} tags. The edit summaries could be interpreted as trolling. At enwiki, most edits focus on ccTLD articles. The problem is cross-wiki, although different topics get more attention at other Wikipedias.

There are a couple of difficulties regarding this case. First, very few editors watch the ccTLD articles, and second, the topic is esoteric so general editors may not recognize the absurdity of the changes. Whereas many of the edits are obviously poor quality, a general editor may think the IP is making a good-faith effort. Reviewing the evidence page above should dispel that thought.

I will alert the IPs that have been active in the last three weeks about this report: 81.135.204.201 (talk · contribs) + 86.134.240.162 (talk · contribs) + 86.174.198.166 (talk · contribs). Let's see what happens, but if disruption continues, I recommend deciding that the individual is effectively banned so their edits can be rolled back without tedious explanations, and new IPs blocked. Target articles may need temporary semi-protection. Any thoughts on action regarding other Wikipedias? Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The ccTLD articles being hit seem to be those of small, mainly African, ccTLDs with low numbers of domains (<100K). Some of these smaller ccTLDs are run out of local university computer departments and are very small operations. The Canadian ccTLD registry published a list of the top TLDs in its 2016 report ( https://cira.ca/factbook/domain-industry-data-and-canadian-Internet-trends/domain-name-industry ) and the German ccTLD registry publishes an updated top ten list of TLDs ( https://www.denic.de/en/know-how/statistics/international-domain-statistics/ ). The largest ccTLD is the Chinese ccTLD, .cn, with approximately 20 million domains. While it is a bit of an esoteric subject, the ccTLD registries tend to watch their markets closely and a ccTLD with 69 million registrations would not go unnoticed. The .com TLD has 127 million domains and .net only has about 15 million domains. Wikipedia may also be used as a reference site by people working with spam filters and the addition of non-existent subdomains and registry links to some of these ccTLD articles can cause problems. The subdomains are generally listed on the ccTLD registry sites as part of their policy documents. The IP edits kept adding spurious subdomains to some of the ccTLD articles. The IPs seem be associated with an ISP range and they are dynamic and change every few weeks or so. It may be necessary for the ccTLD articles to be semi-protected so that only confirmed users can edit them. Jmccormac (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The identified problematic editing is still continuing from 81.135.204.201 (talk · contribs), mainly on .ng today, despite being asked to stop whilst this is discussed. Gricehead (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Folks, this needs attention! Sorry it's drama-free but a quick look at User:Johnuniq/ccTLD should be sufficient to show there is a real problem that needs a community approach. This discussion does not need to finish with a sanction, but there does need to be a demonstrable consensus that the IP should be strongly rejected—reverts escalating to WP:RBI would be my recommendation, with semi-protection as needed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: I agree this is a problem, and however I can help I will - do you have any suggestions? Is there a credible pattern to the types of edits that might benefit from an edit filter? Or are we looking at long-term semi-protection of the articles (something which won't sit well with a lot of people)? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Helping would involve monitoring the related changes link in my evidence page and reverting the IP. I think all their edits should be reverted, as if they were banned. That is the only way to (eventually) persuade them to have fun elsewhere, per WP:DENY. That's why I want this ANI report to reach a strong conclusion. Some way of searching for their trolling edit summaries would be useful to detect activity in other articles (commentsearch?). An edit filter could help by detecting many of the nonsense summaries, but it would be pretty easy for the user to change that strategy. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• I threw a block at the most recent one--fat lot of good that will do. I assume a rangeblock would have too much collateral damage, since the net seems to be wide; then again, perhaps a few focused rangeblocks might help. I have no problem with long-term semi-protection, but it would be nice if some smarter person did that, doing all those articles in a batch. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been checking to see how many semiprotections might be required. From the table at the bottom of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 there are 249 country codes. But the abuse documented in User:Johnuniq/ccTLD does not extend to all of them. I'd be willing to semiprotect the 60 TLD articles itemized in User:Johnuniq/ccTLD#Overview. That would be a start. If you look at the edit history of .bi you will see the nonsensical edit summaries "RUNTIME ERROR' and 'INTERNAL SERVER ERROR' left by the IP 81.135.204.201 (talk · contribs). Most of the documented abuse consists of inserting bad numbers in the articles. Semiprotection has the downside of excluding any good-faith IPs, but the frequency of good IP edits to these articles appears low. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • As for doing the whole lot at once, cascading protection would likely be the best idea? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Nope, because that doesn't work with semi-protection any more :( -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd also support a ban to make it a little easier to block. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• A ban wouldn't hurt, though the changes by this IP editor probably qualify as vandalism. If you read the analysis at User:Johnuniq/ccTLD#Outline of problem, it is hard to assign any good-faith interpretation to this pattern of edits. The IP is adding nonsensical dates, bad edit summaries and fake statistics. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Halimah Yacob

Sections merged. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

== Evasion of user block ==

Reid62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for one week, and is editing pages such as Halimah Yacob and Adnan Saidi using the logged out IP 202.156.181.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --202.172.56.4 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Reid62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely, but there is a new user Rachel Lucy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with similar behaviour that might be a sockpuppet. --YewGotUp (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

== Continuos vandalism on [[Halimah Yacob]] page ==

202.172.56.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing Halimah Yacob page together with this IP 118.189.63.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) countless times. Suspected sock-puppetry. They also engaged in edit warring. Please investigate. Thank you. -- 202.156.181.76 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. This looks like a WP:BOOMERANG if I ever saw one. OP has serious WP:NPOV issues, not to mention making threats he cannot back up, i.e. WP:BLUDGEON, like here. John from Idegon (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Per a 3RR complaint the article on Halimah Yacob has been semiprotected for two months. This is enough for the moment to save the article from a non-stop war. Other admins may see a need for some blocks, and if so they should go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit makes 202.156.181.76 look like a sock of Reid62, but I'm not 100% sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

== Continuos re-vandalism on [[Halimah Yacob]] page ==

Newly-created user YewGotUp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is re-vandalizing Halimah Yacob page together with this IP 118.189.63.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 202.172.56.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) countless of times. Obviously sock-puppetry. Seems liked the edit warring continues. Please investigate the users and blocked them and locked the page up with a golden lock. Sick of this wars. Revert the page to Sue's last edit. Thank you. — 202.156.181.76 (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

IP seems to be scoring own goal. Jane Dawson (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Damien Moore

• Damien Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Earlier today I noticed that sourced material from this BLP had been removed by an IP. I restored it and left a message on that IP's talk page. Given that this a statement about the sexuality of a politician I did check if this person had made any public comment about this. He has [88], so I added this too. The IP left a message on my talk page which I responded to, explaining why I had restored the material. The IP continues to remove the material and has now made a legal threat [89]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Drchriswilliams: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Firstly, I don't believe this is a direct legal threat (though it's thin ice, and deserves attention). Secondly I don't believe that source refers to Damien Moore as being openly gay, and would prefer it if a second reliable source could be found to confirm or deny the statement. As it stands, and given this is a BLP I'm going to revert the edit until a second source can be provided. This isn't anything against you, it's solely to calm the situation down a little so that we can move forward in improving the article. What do you think? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As I was typing this, multiple sources have been provided - I have reverted the IP, and protected the page. Apologies for the above (struck) comment -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's ok, I was in agreement with your approach to play things safe with a BLP and not add claims without an adequate source. There were several sites published content using material from the same journalist/interview on the same day (12 June)- on another site [90] the article describes Moore as "openly-gay". Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Has anyone contacted his office?

As someone with property in his constituency I've been following this guy in the news for a while. He's about as "openly gay" as an MP might be expected to be, short of camping it up on Little Britain. There is no secret of this in local press coverage, either by him in interviews, or in comment pieces. This should stay, but we should talk to his office first. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for the further confirmation, my initial reaction was based on the fact this is a BLP and I wanted to ensure this could be added with plenty of references. It's now been added, and the page protected. Do you believe contacting his office is still necessary, given how well it is publicised? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, sort of. We should see exactly what the problem is, but it could just prolong and complicate matters further. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned given the IPs involved are legitimately Parliament-based, however on the other hand given the references available which do directly describe him as openly gay I would be hard pressed to see that statement removed.. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The IPs WHOIS lists them as coming from that building. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The IP self-identified as "work[ing] for Damien Moore",[91] so I have advised them of COI and paid-editing guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting for someone to contact me on the following number: [redacted]. This is the number of the office of Damien Moore. He is not openly gay, the Pink News article referencing his being gay is inaccurate and unsolicited. The Southport Visitor article also cited as a source makes no mention of him being openly gay. I am sure that even you people would agree that Mr Moore would know better than anyone if he is openly gay or not and I can assure you, he is NOT!194.60.38.227 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Relevant quote from the cited Southport Visitor: "Mr Moore, who has quit his job as a manager with supermarket giants ASDA to concentrate on his new parliamentary career, said his sexuality had not been an issue in the campaign. 'I would never deny being gay if asked, but I never flaunt it. The issue was not raised either in this campaign or the one in 2015. In fact I was never asked.'"[92] —C.Fred (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

C.Fred Logically to most of us that's somewhat of a confirmation but at the same time it's plausible deniability. He's not actually confirming it there imo and I'd say the two sources are rather lackluster as far as reliability goes. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: By what means do you infer that they are not reliable? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Two local papers reporting the equivalent of a quick sound clip with little context doesn't exactly make for the most RS as it pertains to making a broad statements about a living person's sexuality where they haven't explicitly identified as much. I just think we should be erring on the side of caution re: BLPs. Someone saying "I wouldn't deny it" is not, in my opinion an affirmation. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I share Chrissy's concern about QLocal. I can't find a masthead to see who their editorial staff are.

As for PinkNews, that is on the one hand the strongest source, because the author is an academic researcher. However, there's nothing in the article to corroborate Professor Reynolds' claim about Moore's sexuality. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The IP has stated that they are going to ask for an amendment to that QLocal source. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)This appears to be more a semantic question in real life than a behavioral one on Wikipedia; The subject seems to be using one end of the phrase's meaning, and some of the journalists another. To look at an analogous case, it is trivially easy to find examples of cites claiming that a certain recently paroled person is a "murderer", yet he was famously acquitted of that charge. Now, Wiki wouldn't print that, but that's more a question of protecting Jimbo's ricebowl than of accuracy or common decency - which should both be part of what the BLP restrictions are about. Anmccaff (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the content in question given the dispute - BLP articles should not contain controversial material, and until some further references are provided (and a consensus formed on the inclusion) I think it's best that we don't have this statement. We can always re-add it. This isn't an admin action, though I would ask interested editors to discuss before reverting per where we are in the WP:BRD cycle -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I endorse this decision. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree that no admin action is needed at this time related to the article. Situation best handled by discussion at article talk. If any further intervention is necessary, BLP/N is probably the better venue.

I think the IP is transparent enough that no action is needed related to WP:PAID. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to summarise the issues at Talk:Damien_Moore#Content_dispute, and would encourage interested editors to address the issues there -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I find it worrying that the person claiming to be at his office has not left a name. I find it strange that the y costently say "openly gay" perhaps they think he is just "gay" and that the openly menas somthing other than just admitting it. I did call the number given and never got through, thoughit a real number at HoC and his office.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Heads-up on heavy sockfarm/COI/paid editing activity.

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Undisclosed_paid_editing_sockfarm. Several sockfarms seem to have recently created about a hundred promotional articles. Some have been matched to ads for Wikipedia editing on Upwork. (For a sense of that problem, see [93].) Over at WP:COIN, articles are being tagged and deletions proposed. No need for admin action yet, but that may happen. Because of the large number of articles, I'm using PROD heavily.[94]. Anyone can remove a PROD, but often, the paid-by-the-job paid editors, having been paid, don't. John Nagle (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland and WP:NPA

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

---

Dennis Bratland insults me. I don't consider his behaviour acceptable anymore. I clearly expressed that I don't like that. It is enough. Please stop, Dennis Bratland. Unfortunately, I don't see any other way than reporting him here.

• He claims I have been edit-warring even though it is a lie. Possibly to get me blocked from editing, at least he desires that. Even though he knows it is wrong, he wants to stand by what he said, that is why I accuse him of lying.

• (″His IDHT editing isn't limited to edit warring over using German unit conventions″)
• (″User:Jojhnjoy has been (...) edit warring (...)″)
• (″I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.″)
• (″I stand by what I said″)

• He says I am inable to respect other persons.

• (″Your inability to respect anybody else is the point.″)

Further stuff to take into account:

Extended content

He keeps referring to my ability to speak German and I feel like he talks disparagingly about it, also, he acts like I would not know English sufficiently. For instance: ″He is still welcome to submit a proposals to add Denglisch to the list of national varieties of English″) (″I said you are stereotyping Germans. (...) When you see phrase that strikes you as odd, consider that you have just met an English idiom, and you should spend a half second googling it before going off on a tangent because you misunderstood″) (″I know English isn't your native language″) (This could be seen as a vague point, however, I feel insulted. Also, he is just assuming that English isn't my native language even though it sort of is.) He says that my comments are inane even though I explained that I am confused by his block log saying intentional violation of interaction ban, after very clear warning. (″You don't understand what an interaction ban is. Hence your inane comments about it.″) (I asked a question about that here, I linked the reply to my question.) He compares me to Bozo the Clown. (″ "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Perhaps you are the lone voice of reason. But everyone thinks you're the metaphorical Bozo the Clown in this.″) (Not exactly an infamous person, though somebody to make fun of). He accuses me of not being here to build an encyclopedia but troll blatantly. He says my opinion and objection are "disingenuous time wasting bullshit". (″I have no more patience left for this disingenuous time wasting bullshit. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. This is blatant trolling, or what we call 'disruptive editing'. I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.″) He keeps accusing me of editing disruptively even though there is serious doubt. (″This is (...) what we call 'disruptive editing'″) (″obstinate, disruptive posts″) (″That is disruptive editing″) (″Jojhnjoy should be blocked from editing for disruptive editing″ He chooses condescending words to describe what I do and which opinions I have. (″crackpot version of SI units.″) (″pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style″) (″cut the crap″) He cites me and writes: (″Nobody gives a rusty flying fuck″) (″Please stop this bullshit″) He "yells" at me: (″THIS IS ENGLISH FUCKING WIKIPEDIA GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD. YOU DON'T NEED TO KEEP FUCKING REMINDING US THAT OTHER LANGUAGES HAVE OTHER FUCKING WORDS FOR THINGS. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A DIFFERENT FUCKING LANGUAGE.″) He calls me unrepentant and accuses me of intellectual dishonesty: (″Jojhnjoy is unrepentant, and his intellectual dishonesty continues right up to his last post above″) He justifies his behaviour. (″Some people never listen until you yell at them. Probably won't work but it's worth one try.″) Even though he knows that I feel uncomfortable with that: (″I feel that the only thing left here is Dennis Bratlands desperate attempt to get me blocked from editing indefinitely and that really makes me feel uncomfortable.″)

--Jojhnjoy (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy, this is a really, really, really super-ultra totally bad idea. Suggest you withdraw this while you can. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

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

This guy really, really, REALLY likes the 5th Iranian president

• Farzad Khorasani (talk · contribs)

As near as I can tell, most (if not all) of Khorasani's edits on Wikipedia have been to add pics of Mohammad Khatami to articles. I cleaned up a few clearly inappropriate instances (where other editors had not already done so), but left a huge mass of Iran-topics alone (where the pics may or may not still be lending undue gravitas); suggest someone more familiar with those subjects remove as necessary. Dropped a note on his TP.--Froglich (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice

User:A35821361 has created biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice, the highest elected governing body of the Baha'i Faith. Several editors (User:Smkolins, User:Onel5969, User:Dragfyre) have found the biographies to generally lack notability from reliable sources and the content created by User:A35821361 to be poorly sourced about living persons. The great majority of third party sources used in the biographies do not mention the individuals being biographied and are tangential to the subject, much of it original research. Substantial information about the individuals is not supported by any references at all. It is fairly trivial to show that the content was not meeting policies. I pared down the biographies to sources that actually mention the subject beyond just a name (which left many biographies with just one paragraph) and described the details of my edits on talk pages (see list below). User:A35821361 has been edit warring and restoring the poorly or unsourced material.

Full disclosure, User:A35821361 is a former adherent of the Baha'i Faith who left and is dedicating efforts to bring to light information he feels could be damaging, thus the desire to make pages about people in leadership. Myself and User:Dragfyre and User:Smkolins are Baha'is, though not associated with the leadership. User:A35821361 left an edit in his sandbox that links to an attack page blog that mirrors much of the data A35821361 has put into the biographies (without using the blog as a source).

I wrote on his talk page about it in May 2017, Dragfyre warned him 11 July 2017, and I warned him again 27 July 2017. I told him here that I posted on this noticeboard.

As User:A35821361 has not addressed concerns in any meaningful way, the policies involved are pretty straightforward, and it has turned into edit warring, I'm bringing it here for a resolution. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Living Persons

• Gustavo Correa - created by User:A35821361 12 June 2017. Edited by me 20 July 2017 along with talk page description of the changes. A35821361 restored the objectionable content four times [95][96][97][98] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics. And 2 more times this revert [99] after commenting below.

• Farzam Arbab - created by User:A35821361 12 June 2017. Edited by me 24 July 2017 along with talk page description of the changes 3 days later. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 3 times [100][101][102] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics. And 2 more times [103] [104] after commenting below.

• Douglas Martin (Bahá'í) - created by User:A35821361 19 September 2016. I redirected the article 20 July 2017 because it was sourced from a discussion board. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 3 times [105][106][107] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics. User:Onel5969 nominated for AFD.

• Stephen Hall (Bahá'í) - created by User:A35821361 31 May 2017. I nominated it for deletion, which ended in keeping. Afterwards I edited the content 26 June 2017 to make it clear which sources actually mention Stephen Hall. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 9 times [108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116] while User:Smkolins and I tried to discuss with him on the talk page in detail, pointing out that sources in his version don't even mention the person or are speculative.

• Stephen Birkland - created by User:A35821361 30 May 2017. This page looked largely like an attack by sourcing most content from a few former Baha'is that didn't like him and went on to post about him in online forums. In the absence of reliable sources, the attacks created undue weight to what normally wouldn't be notable. After significant discussion and warnings, even today he reverted to the page that highlights an attack on a living person without using third party reliable sources.[117]

• Paul Lample - created by User:A35821361 1 June 2017. Edited by me 2 June 2017 and further 20 July 2017 along with talk page description of the changes. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 2 times [118][119] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics.

• Payman Mohajer - created by User:A35821361 12 June 2017. Edited by me 20 July 2017. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 2 times [120][121].

• Kiser Barnes - created by User:A35821361 6 July 2017. The article was redirected by User:Smkolins 6 July 2017 using edit comments. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 2 times [122][123].

• Glenford Eckleton Mitchell - stub was redirected by User:Dragfyre 11 July 2017 due to lack of notability. A3 restored content 2 times [124][125]. User:Onel5969 nominated for AFD.

Deceased

• David Ruhe - created by User:A35821361 4 July 2017. User:Onel5969 redirected the article 4 July 2017 due to lack of notability. A35821361 reversed the redirect 2 times [126][127]. User:Onel5969 nominated for AFD.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I became tangentially aware of some of these articles only through NPP, which I try to help out with from time to time. I found no issue with creating redirects of these articles to the Universal House of Justice article, but there is clearly not nearly enough independent coverage of the 3 or 4 I looked at to warrant a standalone article. The lack of understanding of notability guidelines by the other editor (A35821361), is a bit discouraging. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I contend that the articles noted above do, in fact, meet the minimum requisite for notability guidelines, as some of the individuals covered have lead successful careers in academia, business, or the arts or have founded NGOs that have received awards. Covering that material in their respective Wikipedia articles is not tangential. Contrary to the assertion that I am "dedicating efforts to bring to light information he feels could be damaging", I am presenting objective, unbiased information that is well sourced from third-party references.

Broadening the discussion a bit, while I contend that the articles of Universal House of Justice members do meet notability guidelines, most of the biographies of Bahá'í individuals on Wikipedia do not meet any semblance of notability. For example, today, July 29, happens to be the death anniversary of Adelbert Mühlschlegel. Besides his being a member of the German National Spiritual Assembly, there is nothing notable about him and the article about his life is only three sentences, with two Bahá'í sources listed. To take another example, Thornton Chase was an insurance salesman who was the first American convert to remain in the Bahá'í Faith, with no other notable accomplishments. His article is nothing more than a summary of one book written about him by a Bahá'í author.

Wikipedia is far richer and more useful a resource when articles of prominent, notable individuals that are, in fact, well sourced from third-party references are allowed to exist.

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think that's what people have been trying to get across to you: The articles you've been creating have not been "articles of prominent, notable individuals that are, in fact, well sourced from third-party references". They have been articles on people who, by and large, are only notable due to their membership, past or present, on an Institution which already has a perfectly good article which could use some concentrated effort to bring it up to, say, at least B-class, and for whom you have provided no references that can be used to prove that they are notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. When asked directly to provide sources that can be used to provide notability, i.e. sources that are not primary sources, all you've done is restated the same points you've been making the whole time (i.e. these people are notable, all sources are valid, my contributions are objective and unbiased), without either indicating that you understand what Wikipedia's policy on notability is, or offering so much as a shred of evidence that your edits are in compliance with that policy . It's great that you've managed to find some sources for these articles, and that you've put a lot of effort into writing them. What you don't seem to understand is that Wikipedia doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. This is not a personal blog where we can post anything we want. There are specific policies we have to comply with when submitting content, policies that have been pointed out to you again and again, without you explaining how your edits conform to them—or even indicating that you have, in fact, read those policies. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Another thing: You mentioned the fact that many biographies of individual Bahá'ís are poorly sourced and do not indicate the notability of their subjects. This is, in fact, true, and it is something that editors who want to improve the coverage of the Bahá'í Faith on Wikipedia have to struggle with. So why, when people have indicated to you that it's impossible to establish the notability of these individuals based on the sources you've provided, have you been engaging in edit warring with other editors rather than trying to search out better sources? Why, indeed, were you blocked for 36 hours for breaking 3RR on Bahá'í Faith when you could have immediately sought to talk things out with people? What's your motivation here: Making a point, or establishing consensus? If it were the latter, don't you think we'd be seeing different behaviour from you over these conflicts? I'd be happy to work with you to improve every single one of these biographies. Somehow, your actions so far don't give me the confidence that you're ready to collaborate in that way. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing, 3RR violation and legal threats on UK Mail article

An IP, 80.195.114.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and an account, MillieCoutts, have been engaging, most likely, in undisclosed paid editing after a warning, and have also made a borderline legal threat to Jim1138, and have also violated the three-revert rule on UK Mail, the article interesting question (see its history). Please intervene. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I should add that the legal threat was made about 3 months ago, but was not acted upon. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The legal threat is old, but the 3RR is new = blocked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 -- what about the account? They have continued to edit after the paid editing notice. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have taken a look, and the text that was being repeatedly removed and restored wasn't very good, so I have tried to create a more accurate and neutral version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll be giving them the benefit of the doubt at this stage given the timeline, but happy to revisit if they continue without addressing the notice now some time has passed. And thanks for doing that, Jonathan A Jones. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• User has removed it again. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 12:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Twice. I've given them a 3RR warning. --bonadea contributions talk 12:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• And I think User:Canterbury Tail probably needs to read up on WP:OUTING; Name not Dave managed to steer clear of it, all right, but you didn't. I have contacted WP:OVERSIGHT for you. — fortunavelut luna 12:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I removed it after going over it again. Canterbury Tail talk 15:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Added to my user page for another way of getting my username wrong))) ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 12:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've protected the article as the COI editors don't seem to be taking the hint. Number 57 12:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Marc Short

There is something bad going on at Marc Short (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), an article about a Trump White House official. A bunch of unconfirmed accounts have been battling there for the last 3 days. Some of those edits appear to be legit, so I'm hesitant to request semi-prot. It may come as no surprise that two IPs geolocate to the DC area. Perhaps someone should take a look. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And FYI I have also reported one of the accounts to WP:UAA. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats and personal attacks by WillyBova

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

---

I've been discussing an issue with this editor on Carrie Brownstein, where they assert that referring to a person by their surname, as per MOS:SURNAME, is insulting, anti-Italian, anti-semitic and poor grammar (which is ironic considering the user's obvious difficulties with English) and that my revert of their edit back to the MOS-version is vandalism. The full conversation is at Talk:Carrie Brownstein#Surname.

WillyBova has been uncivil from the start, but I've tried to AGF and discuss the issue with them. Unfortunately, they have now escalated into a full legal threat [128]. The edit was made by an IP but is clearly the same editor. The diff leads to a wall of text, so here's the legal threat part of it:

"Please, Give up up the Ghost and undo your edit, or this discussion will go on Forever till the Supreme Court decides the issue as You have Now Slandered Me. In addition You have admitted I was correct, Revert your edit or this process continues until a Court of Law concludes the issue."

On checking WillyBova's edit history I also found a threat to arrest Mudwater [129], I think in response to this revert Mudwater made of their edit. That edit could be construed as a joke in extremely poor taste, but I doubt it was intended that way given this user's editing history. They have also falsely accused me and another editor of vandalism [130] [131] and continued [132] to do so even when I pointed them to WP:NOTVAND, clearly explained that we had a content dispute [133] , and asked them repeatedly to be civil.

WillyBova's editing history shows issues with WP:COMPETENCE as far as their grasp of English goes and an inability to compromise. Please could an administrator look over this case and decide if a block is warranted. I've been as patient as I can, but there's no indication that WillyBova is open to compromise or discussion and I don't feel like being their punching bag. Marianna251TALK 18:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

They've now issued yet another legal threat, which includes a threat to legally out me. Marianna251TALK 18:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for making legal threats. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you. Marianna251TALK 18:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks NRP, you beat me to it. Even if they rescind the legal threat, there is a severe WP:CIR issue here as well it would appear. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, since it included legal threats, I've collapsed the discussion on Talk:Carrie Brownstein per WP:TALKNO. If that wasn't appropriate, feel free to revert/ask me to change. Marianna251TALK 19:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me, they have also requested an unblock, which I have declined. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I've also deleted their userpage since it was a copyvio of [134]. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A third untenable unblock request appears to have been made, perhaps talk page access may need to be revoked at some point? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is over until and unless something very unlikely occurs i.e. this guy gets unblocked someday. Close. EEng 22:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Jojhnjoy #2

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

---

Alex Shih just topic banned me: ″Jojhnjoy (talk · contribs) is hereby indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to automobile and units of measurement, based on the consensus of this community discussion.″ While it is consensus to topic ban me from units, it is not consensus to topic ban me from automobile topics. Therefore, this inclusion of automoible in the topic ban is arbitrariness. Also, the discussion was already closed and I mentioned that I would accept a topic ban from units several times. Of course one can misread several posts, especially in long discussions. However, that must not happen when applying a topic ban. And checking my contributions as well as my user page would show that I usually edit automobile articles only. This means applying an arbitrary automobile topic ban almost equals an indef block in my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhnjoy (talk • contribs)

Way too many words. Dennis Brown - 2¢
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Further, Alex Shih ignored my AN/I report of Dennis Bratland: Dennis Bratland accused me of edit-warring and also used this as an argument to get me topic banned. (I was never edit-warring.) He did not just accuse me of edit-warring but tell the untruth on purpose about my editing behaviour. Further, the same user told I am unable to respect anybody else. ″What is considered to be a personal attack?″ ″Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.″ (Dennis Bratlands accusations are not only lacking evidence, he also told the untruth on purpose and clearly said he would stand by what he said.) ″Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases (...) directed against another editor (...)″ (are a personal attack.) ("Your inability to respect anybody else (...)" is both defamatory and derogatory. This is not an expression of a thought, this is a claim. And claiming that another user is unable to respect anybody else is not acceptable. It is an accusation about my personal behaviour and it lacks evidence. Extended content He claims I have been edit-warring even though it is a lie. Possibly to get me blocked from editing, at least he desires that. Even though he knows it is wrong, he wants to stand by what he said, that is why I accuse him of lying. (″His IDHT editing isn't limited to edit warring over using German unit conventions″) (″User:Jojhnjoy has been (...) edit warring (...)″) (″I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.″) (″I stand by what I said″) He says I am inable to respect other persons. (″Your inability to respect anybody else is the point.″) The reason for ignoring personal attacks on me was: This is a diversion from the current discussion. I decided to ask Alex Shih on their talk page about this. I admit, it was cynical, but that was meant as a form of expression. I did not get a reply even though Alex Shih was active at that time. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC) And you would like what to happen? -- Begoon 19:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC) 1. That the topic ban would be applied to units and measurements only, not to also to "automobile" since the consensus does not include automobile, and 2. That somebody tells Dennis Bratland that it is fine to have a different opinion than another user but that it is not allowed to personally attack and yell at this user. (I would like them to change their tone and mode of expression). --Jojhnjoy (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Suggestion Jojhnjoy, take a break from this topic for two weeks then come back and ask. I agree that Dennis Bratland was way over the line with the profanity laden comment posted 20:00 July 27th (in one of the hidden blocks of the original thread) but when you look at the reactions of the other editors its clear he was doing that out of frustration. That frustration was shown by other editors as well. The core problem is you didn't show that you were listening to the concerns of others. Because this is a first offense I think the tban is overly broad and should have an expiration date but it reflects community frustration. To the community I suggest keeping things as is for 2-4 weeks then change it to a narrow ban, no changes of units in articles, talk page suggestions are OK but if editors feel badgering is occurring then implement the broad tban (ie the current ban). That tban would then stand until appealed or for 6 months. I'm suggesting this because I think the edits were intended in good faith and the fundamental problem was a failure to listen to the community. Springee (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Sounds good. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Wait, what? Springee, what are you saying? Jojhnjoy, is under an indefinite TB by community consensus on the first close with a year before appeal, if I remember correctly. Appealing before then is breaching their TB. The second close was questionable as "automobiles" was only a tiny part of the suggested extension of the TB and a consensus hadn't yet formed so it was not a good close. The "fundamental problem" you describe encompasses no shortage of time. There were a few editors that thought the pattern of IDHT warranted an indef block. And how are talk page suggestions okay? It's a TB. Any edit, anywhere, is a breach of a TB. All of your advice is just leading to a Jojhnjoy #3 and I wouldn't be shocked if an indef is the result. Capeo (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC) If my advice was against rules my apologies and it should not be followed in that case. I'm not sure what you mean by two closes. I only recall reading one but I haven't followed this too closely. I think the sanction comes across as punitive vs protecting Wikipedia. In looking at the original dispute I saw an editor changing units to what he thought were better while arguing against consensus. In a case like this I think a warning/short term band/block makes sense. I don't see why a broad topic ban makes sense in this case nor why an indef ban is warranted. To me that comes across as punitive vs protecting Wikipedia. If the material contributed by Jojhnjoy is otherwise good then why prevent him from contributing in an area where it's going to be hard to avoid adding some units of measure. I have not interacted with this editor on any article I'm aware of so I may not be fully aware of the history here and I'm assuming this wasn't typical of his other editor interactions. Springee (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC) In general, I am shocked by the procedure in this Wiki regarding bans. Bans must be protective, their punitive aspect is not desired. The question: What or whom would you want to protect and from what would you want to protect it/them? Did I edit-war? No, but Dennis Bratland lied about that several times (1) (2) just to get me banned. Did I change certain parts of articles just to make them fit what I desire without improving anything else? No. Whenever I added something, I made sure that it is an improvement. I did not just change because I preferred certain things. Did I ignore sources and change what the sources say? No. In fact, I used the source information without "converting" or interpreting anything on my own, for instance, I use kilopondmetres whenever sources use them too since expressing the actual source information is more accurate than converting that to something else. I think it is important to have the source information in the article. Did I behave disruptively on talk pages? No. Just see this talk page here. I have an opinion, I don't agree with Dennis Bratland. Is disagreeing with Dennis Bratland against Wikipedia rules? Just read for yourselves, but I think one could hardly believe that my discussion behaviour on that talk page is disruptive. Maybe I am stubborn and avoid being over-friendly. Though this is completely neutral. But what would you do if the first thing the other person does is making a demand of you? Telling them how nice they are? I have an opinion and why would I change it without useful arguments? Well, let's see what I did. I created several articles from scratch. Some of them are even translations of German good articles. I don't have 10,000+ edits, but I hope that it is clear that my contributions show that I am someone who adds real content to this Wiki. I stick to what the sources tell, I do not modify it. And if that's SI or SI compatible, it is not wrong. Maybe some authors dislike cubic centimetres, so what? I expressed several times that I would let them use whatever they want when they create articles since their way of expressing the same sizes is not wrong either, especially for American topics. But my opinion is that I don't like their volume and forcing that on German topic articles is what I consider elevating their conventions over those of another country. I even cited a source that tells that their way of expressing volume leads to confusion. Okay, well, they ignored it. And now? I know that I cannot change their opinion. But why would I do that? If they think they should change cubic centimetres to their volume, I let them do that, but changing just for the sake of changing is considered bad behaviour, at least in the German language Wikipedia. I did not see any improvement in their changes, that's why I don't consider such edits useful. But that is just my opinion. Who am I that I could justify that? What if I am wrong? Though, what is the problem with accepting my opinion? Just because I have an opinion, it does not mean I would want to change several things. Though, whenever a source says "Größtes Drehmoment / bei Drehzahl 1/min kp·m 21.9 / 4000" (P. 160, section 6-07) I shall write that in an article because that's citing the source. When they think they should change it, well, they could, I would not revert that as long as they don't distort the information like Dennis Bratland did (even after checking the source carefully), though I don't consider that good edits, avoiding ungood edits is what I prefer. They may feel free to dislike or even hate it as much as they want, I don't care! The source says it and I will cite the source. Dennis Bratlands attempt to create doubt regarding the sources here failed. But what happened? As far as I can tell, I did not deal significant damage to this Wikipedia, I just drove some users extremely mad since I would not want to agree with their opinion. I did not vandalize. It's their right to be mad but unloading pure hatress, as Dennis Bratland did, is what I consider disruptive. Protecting other users, regardless of what they are being accused of or what they actually did is even more important than WP:NOR. Making accusations based on feelings, telling the untruth on purpose, (=lying) to get another user banned, demanding excessive bans / an indef block over and over and over, not letting any opportunity for telling me slip by, supporting public flogging (even though I know this is sarcasm, it is extremely inappropriate) and closing discussions with a result just one person supports is not accpetable. Yet some users just want a punishment. They support it and a normal user topic bans me??? Not even an administrator? I haven't seen suggestions that would protect the Wikipedia, everything I have seen just looks like ′throwing stones at me′. And then one, lone user suggests a wider ban, there wasn't even any comment on that yet and an administrator immediately bans me from editing automobile articles? No discussion? Especially in my case, where the ban would prevent me from contributing entirely, it is important, that the ban is ultima ratio and is imposed only after careful consideration. Imposing such a ban which is obviously extremely exaggerated and bears no relation to the "damage" I caused does not make any sense considering what I said. Further, why was the ban even imposed? Because some users demanded / suggested / supported that. An administrator should take that into consideration, however, it is the administrators responsibility to determine, whether a ban would protect the Wikipedia or a protection could be guaranteed without any ban. Simply imposing an extreme ban that prevents a user from contributing entirely even though this users contributions are usually good and aren't causing extreme damage to this project just because less than a dozen other users demand this ban is wrong. I know that reading long texts can be exhausting, however, this is a ban that prevents an author from contributing entirely. And why? Just because some other users want it. One just cannot impose an ban like that! That is gross negligence. If you really think that I should get blocked from editing indefinitely, please--Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC) You haven't got the hang of this "shutting the hell up" thing yet, have you? Never mind. It'll come to you eventually. -- Begoon 15:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've contacted Alex Shih on his user page. All this other stuff is just wasting time and space, TLDR. You could have just asked him to explain on this talk page but under WP:ADMINACCT asking how he got to "automobile" and appealing the decision is a reasonable one. But for god's sake, keep it concise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I asked Shih on their talk page regarding a different thing and didn't get a reply (I asked cynically, but still) even though this user was active and banned me, so why would I keep expecting replies? That's why I didn't ask. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The current consensus, although it hasn't been closed yet, is "Proposing topic ban for edits related to units, conversions, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, mopeds, motorscooters, trains, planes, space vehicles, elevators, escalators, monorails, moving sidewalks, or engines or propulsion systems of any kind or description, whether already invented or predicted only in science fiction, as well as the physics and chemistry they rely on." So "automobile and units of measurement" is actually quite generous and I'm not sure why Jojhnjoy doesn't want to accept it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis Brown, for collapsing the wall of text and notifying me about this discussion. And Jojhnjoy, I apologize for not responding to your message left on my talk page. Whether or not it was cynical in nature as you mentioned is not of my concern, I simply did not know what response you wished me to address, and I felt the statement I made in the previous closure of your second AN/I report addressed some of the concerns that you have mentioned, in which I feel voluntary two-way interaction ban with Dennis Bratland is a viable solution. As for the including automobile in the topic ban, from I read in the rather extensive discussion, I feel the community has gone beyond units of measurement, rather it was beginning to focus on tendentious editing in the areas in which you have been heavily involved. I believe this is evident as my re-closure was done concurrently with the current proposal.

Wikipedia is not compulsory, and I find myself agreeing with what Springee has proposed to you, because consensus can change after some time away. When the time comes, you can contact me on my talk page again and I will be willing to propose amendment to your topic ban if you can provide a strong case of addressing the concerns by then. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 17:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih, I apologize for the way I asked the question, it was most definitely asked in a wrong way. I understand that you did not know how to reply. Also, I understand that the re-closure was done concurrently with the current proposal, I didn't recognize that yet. Also, thank you for that offer.

I hope that you understand that I consider this entire ban completely exaggerated. Bans should protect this project. I think this ban is a punishment and does not serve any other purpose than getting rid of me.

Dennis Bratland lies about edit-warring (1) (2) to get me banned and harasses (1) me. I asked Dennis Bratland to prove their statement about "my edit-warring" and also told them that they cannot since they lied. The response was "I stand by what I said." I consider it extremely disruptive. Lying to get another user banned and not apologizing for the lie, further, standing by the lie. In the German language Wikipedia Dennis Bratland would most likely get blocked for such behaviour. With my question on your talk page, I wanted to address it.

Andy Dingley even talks about public flogging (1) 2) (it is sarcasm but inapropriate). And nobody cares. Again, in the German language Wikipedia, Andy Dingley would get blocked for such behaviour.

I know, rules are different here, but would you really want to ignore it? And how is it not against WP:NPA?

I know that I didn't behave properly at certain points either. But is that a reason to ignore personal attacks? Or is that even a personal attack? Maybe I am misreading WP:NPA. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• If I am objectively reviewing the close, considering the closed and not closed (which might have been an oversight) portions of the discussion, I have to say that the close was consistent with the discussion and I find no fault in Alex's read of consensus nor in applying policy against it. This doesn't speak to the merits of the case, as we can only review the close here, not "retry" the case, or take a second bite at the apple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Well then, if that's the case, then I am banned from editing in the topic field I have in the Wikipedia because seven other users wish so. I cannot change that.

What about the edit-warring lie, the public flogging and my inability to respect anybody else? No comment on that? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Jojhnjoy, I understand, and I personally don't necessary agree completely with the current proposal, but my opinion is irrelevant. In regards to the public flogging remarks, I feel that perhaps majority of the editors here will agree it was a reference to this metaphor, which was directed more on the situation rather than on you as a contributor. Have you read about the drop the stick essay?

Anyway, I have spoke to EEng about merging the current proposal with the current closure, and I will speak to Andy Dingley and Dennis Bratland individually sometime about your concerns, but as for now, would you be kind to walk away from the whole discussion so that we can avoid imposing a sanction? Because I believe you do have a lot to offer in other places like WikiProject Germany for now. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 18:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible you think I accused you of violating WP:3RR? That is not the same as edit warring. Many editors, including me, were 'edit warring' in the general sense, i.e. making more than one edit that undoes another editor's work. Nobody violated 3RR. The relevance of edit warring to this case is edit warring against obvious and overwhelming consensus. Combined with way to many talk posts that showed a failure to listen. I don't mean to debate every AGF and civility issue raised, but maybe it helps to note that edit warring and 3RR are not the same. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've seen this anyway. I am against a restriction of this TBAN to just automotive articles, strongly against a TBAN that extended to anything involving automotive articles. I think the TBAN should be, as is justified by past behaviour, to against changing units or dimensions in any way, in any articles. I'm not against changing the value of a dimension (i.e. "length 3m" to "length 5m"), just the units to express them. This should include (for clarity) any change in such units, including {{convert}} etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Retired?

Jojhnjoy says he's retired, so unless he pops up again I don't think any further discussion is needed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• We've heard that one before. If he's retired, then enacting the TBAN makes zero difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm just trying to say that we shouldn't waste any more time on this guy unless absolutely necessary. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Retiring for a day to six months is the oldest diversionary tactic in the book, and I sure as hell don't want to start over from the beginning if he reappears. Someone make a close with whatever form of Tban is supported by the current state of the discussion, record it wherever those get recorded, and then we're done. EEng 23:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting Jojhnjoy would employ diversionary tactics? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I am suggesting it, and don't call me Shirley. EEng 01:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the wording of current ban to broaden the scope per the discussion in the proposal. I think it's fair to ask an uninvolved editor to close this discussion now. Many thanks, Alex Shih^Talk 04:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

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

List of Subaru engines

At List of Subaru engines there appears to a problem with some false information about certain Subaru engines floating around the Internet, which keep being added to the article by drive-by IPs. The IPs don't appear to be vandals, just people who add things they read somewhere on the internet without sources. This has been going on for years. What would be the best solution? An edit filter for certain engine numbers? PC protection? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hidden comments or edit notices? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Just protect it and be done with it. --Tarage (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that indefinite semiprotection or full protection will be acceptable to most admins, and clearly temporary semiprotection or full protection will not be effective for a problem hat has been going on for seven years. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Guy, if there's a particular hoax engine that keeps getting re-added, why not take Jo-Jo's approach and add a commented-out explanation in the relevant subsection? A Train^talk 18:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Need some admin eyes on a few Afds

Hello all. I've been closing Afds and came across the following Afds related to the music group Phase, which seem to have the same editors+ips (at least two who seem SPAs) commenting on the same things, and in some cases, literally with the same words (copy paste moves of their comments); and voting keep multiple times in the same Afd. At least one of the editors MusicPatrol has been warned about attacking other editors who voted delete. Premeditated Chaos has also commented on obvious SPAs in one of their closures. But the mass of keep voters (apparent SPAs) is there in many Afds. The Afds are as follows:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Point of You
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wait (Phase album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Consequence
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amethyst (Phase song)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phase (band)

I'm pinging TParis and Premeditated Chaos who closed two of the Afds, JamesBWatson, Bearian, Amberrock, Night of the Big Wind, SubRE and TenPoundHammer who have left significant comments within these Afds, and Asouko and MusicPatrol who seem to be the main keep protagonists (I'm separately notifying these two on their talk page too). I wanted to request for some admin eyes to check the validity of some of the !votes. Thanks. Lourdes 01:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

(Pinging JamesBWatson and TenPoundHammer again as I messed up the pinging earlier. Thanks. Lourdes 01:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC))

Looking back at the contribs of both Asouko and MusicPatrol, I'm starting to think they might be the same person. There's this complete and utter focus on Phase as a band with very few edits elsewhere, language/grammar issues with each, and a worrying tendency for both to go running to music-focused editors asking for "expert" help preserving the Phase-related articles.

If you look at MusicPatrol's early contribs they're all copy-pasted tag bombs and baseless CSD tags on other bands. The tag-bombs MusicPatrol adds were identical to a set of tags that were placed on the Phase article when it was nominated for deletion in 2012, both in what tags were used and the order they were put in. All that was changed was the date: Original vs. MusicPatrol bombs: [135] [136] [137] (there are more at the bottom of MusicPatrol's contribs page, and more that are visible to admins in their deleted contributions). And yet MusicPatrol never edited the Phase article until 2017, so how did they find that specific tag pile to copy/paste if they weren't keeping an eye on the page? I'm thinking the MusicPatrol account was created as a bad hand to Asouko's good hand, as some kind of POINT-making tit-for-tat exercise ("if our band gets tagged so does everyone's"). They did a little more of that behavior when they initially returned in 2017 as well.

As an aside, MusicPatrol didn't participate in the original AfD for Phase, but a user called User:Hibaghanem did. Hibaghanem also only ever edited Phase-related content and did participate in the Phase AfD, complaining that Phase wasn't any worse than a bunch of other bands, many of whom were among those tag bombed by MusicPatrol as noted above. Hibaghanem's first edit is to add Phase to the discography of Duncan Patterson ([138]), and Asouko's second edit (after creating Phase's article) is to wikilink that addition to point to Phase (band) ([139]). Later, Hibaghanem nearly blanks MusicPatrol's talk page, removing a huge amount of "speedy-declined" template messages. Then Hibaghanem leaves a message that complains about MusicPatrol's tagging of the now-deleted Black Winter page, which Asouka had edited but Hibaghanem never had. While that's not proof positive of anything prohibited, the behavior of all three accounts strikes me as massively sketchy at least. Hibaghanem is stale now though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

{moved from User talk:PMC. Lourdes 01:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC))

I see you've raised concerns about me... I appeared on wikipedia to correct what I thought of being dodgy in here, pretty much like SubRE done but after admins talked me into correcting articles I have done so. I crossed Phase as I was browsing Anathema's page and then checked Asouko's edits and logged in and tried and revert the edits unsuccessfully. And it ended up being some sort of Vendeta. I don't know what's wrong in that really. MusicPatrol (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Also I noticed you've done a great job Reading all the logs and that which I had done the first three days of the thing my self, it appears that Hibaghanem was a photographer from Syria and the account being not used makes sense, Syria being a warzone. All the edits she's done where changed by Colonieschris. About Asouko I don't think being protective over an article you've created, and SubRE can be proved useful for wikipedia if he is reading the guidelines before he is waiting anything. But that's just me again. MusicPatrol (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What raises my eyebrows is that you showed up, supposedly as a brand new user, and no more than 10 minutes after you registered your account, you started tag bombing other bands with the exact same tag combo (even in the same order!) as had been placed on the Phase (band) page. That's extremely unusual behavior for new editors. Most n00bs will copyedit here or there, add in little factoids, or maybe try to create a new article. But turning up out of nowhere and slapping piles of maintenance tags and CSD tags on a slew of articles all in a row? It's unusual to the point of absurdity.

Both you and Asouko have extremely similar writing patterns, with grammar and spelling errors and overuse of ellipses, you have the same obsessive interest in a select few articles, you have the same tendency to go running to other music-focused editors asking for "expert" help. You guys are not passing the duck test in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Certainly enough for an SPI, imo. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I one learns from observation... go and check SubRE's behaviour and you will notice how he did clumsy edits and then started changing the patterns copying other editors' behaviour after being told... I've been using wikipedia for ages before I stepped in... Anyhow I don't see why I should even be defending my self on that, it feels a bit silly if you are asking me... You can go ahead and do whatever you feel it's proper. You were appointed as an admin after all! what I couldn't take was trying to talk somebody into not doing something I was told not to do either and it all kicked off from there. I trust you will do what's best for wikipedia, I might as well carry on adf-ing pages after that if that's the correct way to go after allMusicPatrol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

And thank God we did ask for admins to see these else nobody would see the logs. The whole argument seems like an Ad Hominem rather that checking the facts you are attacking me personally. Let me know if there's any chance to send you my phone number privately and talk, because arguing on line doesn't itch any scratch for me MusicPatrol (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it might be procedurally appropriate, but I'll request DoRD (if they agree) to check the said Afds for any socks. Thanks. Lourdes 18:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

How to handel abuse from editors and admins?

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

---

I am extremely cautious as to even put up this topic, but I feel it's a topic that needs to be covered and answered. This is not an argument as I am not outing anyone, and certainly not writing the usernames of anyone. I've ran across some complaints from various different people stating editors and admins where violating many rules on here and it was claimed as "target harassment" usually I would shrug it off and move on, but after receiving several emails regarding this I decided to look into it. To my surprise, I have uncovered several editors and admins have indeed been abusing their rights. From blocking, denies for AFC that met the requirements, unnecessary comments, using the checkuser to place tags on users that certainly were incorrect tags, protecting articles, and names for unclear reasons, and lastly finding these editors and admins dragging these people's names through the mud via social media. When some of these admins are yet In this Committee and there is undeniable proof of all stated above, what is a user supposed to do? Other than going through wiki legal, and filling a lawsuit, why can't any of this not be handled in a civilized way? Why is this even a subjected that has to posted here? This is not something that should be going on inside of Wikipedia, we all have been here long enough to know better. I purpose an updated version of this whole issue. To avoid further complications related to this subject.FIGHTER KD 02:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any public evidence on the wiki to back this up? Otherwise, these are all allegations that have no merit. You also might want to be careful with making legal threats as they can have a chilling effect. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your user page claims that you edited back in 2011, yet your edit history only goes back a few days. What was your previous account? Also what do you mean an 'updated version'? --Tarage (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing here for this board to act on. Suggest a rapid close with a suggestion to take non specific whining to User talk:Jimbo where it belongs. John from Idegon (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoa stop and everyone calm down. I was in no way stating legal threats, I was pointing out the routes that people choose to go through instead of here or straight to the source. Not in any way threating anyone! I do apologize if anyone found my this as a threat, or whining. I was merly attempting to show people the proper route that's it! Also as I stated on my talk page "just because my username is different then it was in 2011 does not mean that I did not join in 2011. I don't have the slightest clue what my username was that long ago, I don't even remember what all I did yesterday much less 6 years ago! So I had to start from scratch!" I truly apologize for anyone thinking I had melicous intent. There's no need to get offensive and state I'm whining. I'm acting in good faith so please refrain from assuming something different. Thank you FIGHTER KD 05:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTER KD (talk • contribs)

Unless you actually bring proof, you are wasting your time. We are not going to change everything because you are upset. --Tarage (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Sock

• FIGHTER KD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mkdw, would you be able to tell us if this is Waffen77 or Krisdegioia? For reference, these comments and although it might not be necessarily clear from edits here on en.wiki, it becomes very clear that it is one of the above with these edits.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNCIVIL behavior from Sk8erPrince

I am here to report the WP:UNCIVIL behavior from Sk8erPrince, aimed mainly at IPs and new editors. My report will also discuss a lesser issue of Prince's obsession with listing AfDs.

Despite three queries asking Prince to tone down his behavior ([140], [141], [142]), which I'll point out were blanked without discussion, Prince has been making edits that, while mostly constructive, are concluded with uncivil edit summaries directed at new editors and IPs: [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149] (you get my point).

On another note, Prince's tban from AfDs was recently lifted. One issue arising from that ban was Prince's habit of listing his "successful" (deleted) articles on his userpage, even though we have a tool that does the same thing. Legacypac wisely removed the list [150] but Prince reinstated it [151] and began expanding on it again [152]. A part of the reason Prince's ban was lifted was because editors believed his outlook on AfDs had improved -- AfDs are a fundamental piece of Wikipedia, not a point system.

I believe this ANI discussion should focus on a possible block for Prince's incivility and the reinstatement of his tban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm just going to make this simple and quick.

• 1) I don't appreciate editors vandalizing or messing up the content on Wikipedia, even if they are good faith edits (doesn't help that a lot of them are here to vandalize the encyclopedia/unfamiliar with existing guidelines). WP:CIR is a guideline on Wikipedia, after all. I don't deserve to be blocked if I'm constantly fixing their errors and improving the encyclopedia as a whole (you noted that I have been making constructive edits as well). Also, the IBan discussion involving myself above hasn't even been closed yet, so to start another discussion about me at this point is pretty premature.
• 2) With or without the AFD Tban, there is no guideline nor is there any restriction that prevents me from making my own AFD list. Why is that a problem? The previous Tban was imposed on me because of behavioral problems. As you can see in my new AFDs since the lift (see figure 1, 2 and 3), there isn't a single instance in which I was actually uncivil in Tban discussions. The condition for lifting the ban is that I don't repeat the same issues (attitude, mass nominations, etc.) from before, which I clearly haven't. Also, the new AFD list I've made allows me to monitor if previously deleted pages have been recreated. Makes it easy for me, you know? Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'll make this even simpler and quicker: your topic ban should never have been lifted, something I believe even those who !voted in support of lifting it should see now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't speak for everyone else. Let them speak for themselves. Repeated uncivility in AFDs would lead to my Tban being reinstated (come on, don't act like you know the conditions of the Tban repeal better than I do). As I am guilty of no such thing, there is no valid reason to reinstate it. Period. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll speak for myself as someone who did not take part in the community discussions that implemented and then removed your TBAN. First off, WP:CIR is not a guideline, as you assert. It's an WP:ESSAY. It's still a principle I happen to agree with, but the reason it has never been elevated to the status of guideline is specifically because of the subjectivity involved and the fact that it would create too many problems from being leveraged by another class of disruptive editor (those who are prone to WP:BITE and WP:OWN or who are just plain overly hostile to countervailing opinions in general) to try to freeze out discussion. In other words, its not a policy because if it were, you actually would be able to cite it here as an excuse for being short an incivil with other editors. But it's not, and you can't.

In a similar vein, you seem to be confused about the meaning of WP:Vandalism on this project, because such activity can never be good-faith editing. Your usage there seems to suggest you aren't fully versed in what the term means on this project and that you include certain types of edits you just don't agree with, regardless of whether they represent a concerted bad-faith effort to disrupt. Lastly, if you had a TBAN from participating in AfD discussions, then yes, it would pretty much certainly extend to making lists of AfD's whose outcomes you agree or disagree with.

Taking the evidence presented above (including the past sanction history) and combining it with your comments here, my impression is that the competency issues probably hinge more around you than the other editors you are interacting with, in general. In particular, you seem to have a strong confirmation bias that has prevented you from taking on the advice of the community, and from deriving the lesson that your ban could have imparted for you (WP:IDHT). I'm not going to !vote for you to be indeffed, because the incivility (insofar as what has been presented here so far) don't seem to rise to that level--not for me anyway, and I take WP:C very seriously. But I'm tempted to support the reimplementation of the TBAN, insofar as it seems this is an area you continue to have problematic perspective on (but there, I need to look into the edits a little more closely before supporting). Snow ^{let's rap} 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Formal proposal

Indef block and restoration of topic ban (for whatever time in the future he gets unblocked). We've already had, I think, three threads on this editor, which began almost immediately after the lifting of the TBan. I really don't think we need this person here, he's a net negative to the project. Let's nip this in the bud, not wait for three or four more threads, because you know they'll be coming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm certainly not a net negative to any project on Wikipedia. My contributions in improving articles (and reverting bad edits) clearly outweighs any "sassy" edit summary I make to uninformed editors. I restructure entire pages with improved sources in my areas of interest; how does that possibly make me a net negative? Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously you would oppose this, and you are much more than sassy. You told a newcomer who asked a question "I don't give a goddamn about your weeabooism. Piss off". That's not sassy -- that's being a jerk.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit, that wasn't the nicest thing to say. However, you cannot deny the fact that said user smeared my talk page with an unjustified complaint (it was also poorly written), and going as far as to insult Funimation for using "stupid" names. And you described their complaint as merely just a question, and nothing about it is confrontative? That hardly seems fair to me. There's also the fact that some inexperienced editors incorrectly inserted tables on articles that I rectified (see figures 1 and 2). I mean, those are obviously examples of screw ups, and those revisions are in no way applicable for any encyclopedic standard. Telling them that they should learn how to insert tables properly without screwing up is in NO WAY an act of incivility. Also, improper usage of specific terms such as "whitewashing" and "vandalism" (if anything, I am an ANTI-vandal) towards me is unacceptable when I am clearly not in either category. Honestly, you're pinning all the blame on me, when those users I sassed off are just as guilty if you look at the whole picture. A lot of it is merely reactive; I'm not targeting on any specific group. If anything, perhaps I am way too passionate about improving articles and following guidelines and policies that it made me get a bit upset when I see other users not following them. Perhaps going on a Wikibreak is just what I need to cool off a little while. Anyway, there's still no doubt that all my contributions do not amount to being a net negative myself. There's one last thing to note: Of course, without a doubt, you and Ken would want to set up a sanction for me - both of you opposed my Tban appeal, and when neither of you got your way, you nitpick every little detail in an attempt to get me in trouble, even regarding policies and conditions that I clearly did NOT violate (yes, I'm referring to the conditions of my Tban appeal). I don't deserve any of this. Any user that takes a look at my list of contributions could obviously see I devote myself to my areas of interest to ensure articles are within encyclopedic standards, and that is the most valid reason to oppose this proposal when the only thing that needs improvement is less sassier edit summaries (which I am capable of doing). Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Prince, your reply sealed the deal for me. As an vandal fighter, a part of the job is not to emulate the behavior of aforementioned vandal. By insulting or belittling newcomers, you provoke bad behavior. Worst still, some of the IPs or newcomers could have been editing in good faith and you scared them away. Experienced editors asked you to be more civil; you completely blew them off. You claim you'll change now that the issue has been brought to ANI. Where was this eagerness before the thread? And you think it's Ken and I's objective to have you blocked? Oi, please, your victim card is denied.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"and you think it's Ken and I's objective to have you blocked?" If that isn't your objective, you wouldn't vote to support the proposal. There is no "victim card" being played here; it's pretty obvious that you've been stalking me. Again, I really don't deserve to take all the blame. I might need some assistance in bettering myself, but what could a block possibly achieve? It's almost as if you are suggesting that their unconstructive edits are of higher value than my own rectifications. I've always had a strong eagerness to improve articles that are within my areas of interest, and I would appreciate it if you don't blow off my contributions over inexperienced editors that don't know better. Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Accusing me of stalking you, are you? Probably not the brightest move but feel free to keep digging yourself deeper. I'll let other editors weigh-in now; I'm not going to contribute to this back and forth squabble.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - If they didn't get it the last time they were dragged here, and don't show signs of any change now, it may be time to move to break out the cluehammer. Twitbookspacetube 07:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I wanted this done the last time we did this song and dance, which was what, a week ago? Christ. This is a classic case of not getting it even after narrowly escaping sanctions. --Tarage (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support that he reinstated the deleted page list I removed shows he is clueless. I've tried to help him and defend him but it's evident some time away is required. So sad. Legacypac (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - A number of the provided above diffs are of zero concern. This diff (diff 174 above), singled for being the most egregious example, has absolutely jack all to do with incivility by Sk8terprince. Indeed, it's the IP being inflammatory that is, or should be, the subject of that particular diff. Diffs 171 and 172 are Bite-y but not uncivil; case in point, the second of those two diffs is a comment about the content not the contributor. The material is garbage, not the editor. Sk8terprince should obviously be expected to be civil towards other editors, but indeffing them is just punitive. Especially considering their clean block log. I expect a more serious behavioural issue to be presented to me for such a strict measure. Note, however, that my patience is starting to wear thin. It's just that this time, I'm completely dissatisfied with the crime/punishment scale and the weight of the provided evidence. I'm also quite annoyed that their choice to list articles they've sent to AfD and had deleted is this convtroversial that it needs to be relitigated each time at AN/I. I list all the AfD's I've participated in, opened, or closed, on my own userpage for record keeping purposes. I list my vote and the outcome. I reference them on occassion if I see similar articles pop up. There is no problem with this. I don't care if it is a point scoring exercise in Sk8terPrince's case unless it's actually disrupting the AfD process itself, I don't care. It's getting to be obnoxiousness relitigating this (the AfD list I mean) every single time. I will say, however, that if this keeps continuing down this course, at some point, I will find myself supporting an indef. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Tarage. -- Begoon 12:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support In addition to the attacks on other editors, Prince has also been blanking his talk-page when editors have been trying to reach out to help. [153], [154] This gives an indication that Prince simply does not care or does not understand that he is at fault here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support "The condition for lifting the ban is that I don't repeat the same issues (attitude, mass nominations, etc.) from before, which I clearly haven't." - actually, the main problem displayed in the diffs provided in the OP, as well as in Sk8erPrince's responses above, is his attitude. That the problematic comments have not been in AfD discussions is beside the point. This is another rude ES comment, to another fairly new and very eager editor whose grasp of English is not perfect. Dismissing the rudeness (actually a borderline personal attack against a brand-new user who asked a simple question, albeit a little badly phrased) here as "sassy", and saying that edit summaries like this is "in NO WAY an act of incivility", shows that he does not understand how his comments come across. And that means this is unlikely to change - he's had several chances to do so, with several previous ANI threads addressing behavioural/attitude problems, including one currently on this page. --bonadea contributions talk 20:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose to indef. My thoughts converge with Mr rnddude's on this one; Sk8erPrince clearly has issues with collaboration and I can well imagine being presented with enough evidence to support a block, but the evidence provided in this complaint (and which I've thus far found with a little extra digging) does not constitute grounds for such a broad sanction as an indef. It's an interesting position for me to be in, insofar as I am often flabbergasted at the kinds of violations of WP:C which do not get met with sanctions here, in recent times. Nevertheless, if one "piss off" is the worst of the evidence presented here, I think a short-term block is the most I can support, until I see further evidence. I may support the reimplementation of the topic ban, after I've looked into that second issue more. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at Sk8erPrince edit history I see lots of reverts accompanied with few edits to Talk pages or UserTalk pages. This to me is indicative of not getting the WP:CON nature of decisions making on Wikipedia. Plenty of folks have suggested using Talk pages to Sk8erPrince to build consensus and he just deletes their comments from his UserTalk page. I'd also say that one thing about This diff that is troubling in addition to the rude comment is that Sk8erPrince implies in his summary that he is knowingly deleting sourced material ("Most of the previous info is unsourced..." Most, but not all.) Looking at the other diffs, there are examples of material deleted with sources, but perhaps that was accidental. Overall, the only way I see to resolve this problem is Sk8erPrince engaging in conversation on Talk pages and being guided by WP:CON. If that isn't something Sk8erPrince is willing to do, they are WP:NOTHERE Klaun (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sincere request for guidance and support

I would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia in my areas of interest, but I am finding it difficult to contain my own irritation when other editors make unconstructive edits on pages that I am watching. Any specific methods that I could incorporate to help me better contribute to the encyclopedia is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If you can't control your own behavior or lack the maturity to do so then Wikipedia is not for you. --Tarage (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There are two types of new editors my friend, those who commit vandalism, and those who try to help out but make mistakes.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am pretty conflicted as to what I should be doing right now, so I might as well take a temporary leave and reflect upon my actions. Two weeks of leave might be a good start, but it might be a bit longer. During this period, I will not make any edits. Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It is FAR too late for that. This ANI thread will run with or without you, and I highly suspect if you do cease editing, you may find that when you come back you still won't be able to. --Tarage (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Also for the love of god work out how to use an archive system on your talk page. Deleting every single post is by far the most obnoxious way to try to piece together how many warnings you have received. --Tarage (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Guidance: You need a lot more than 4,000 edits before you can be that abusive when addressing other editors. Be patient, give it time, and before you know it your abuse will be seen as virtuous defense of the encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's very droll Mandruss, but not terribly helpful. A Train^talk 17:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No its not very helpful but sadly has grains of truth to it. Hopefully the majority of us are past this kind of stuff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I generally try not to comment upon these kinds of more generalized observations in an ANI, but I have to agree; enforcement of WP:C has hit an all time low in the last couple of years. The absolutely caustic, incivil, and hostile things that some established editors routinely get away with (a few of them as their basic, every day modus operandum) makes my head spin. I keep waiting for the situation to snap back in the other direction, but with the broader social climate being what it is, and our admin corps just barely starting to recover from the attrition that hurt it in recent years, I'm not holding my breath. Still, if anyone ever hosts a community discussion on the matter, I'd appreciate being notified. To bring this back to the nominal topic of the thread though, Sk8er isn't on the same plane as our worst offenders. Don't get me wrong, I see plenty of evidence of WP:IDHT and general issues with collaboration, but none of the diffs listed in this complaint rise to the level of justifying an indef, imo. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Mentoring

Has anyone suggested this? It might at as a constraint whilst allowing for profitable contributions to be made? — fortunavelut luna 15:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Its a good idea but I feel that Prince has been given way too many chances. The thing that bothers me the most is that he doesn't appear to understand what he is doing wrong or the effect it is having with editors here. He acts like "okay, I will go away for 2 weeks and when I come back all will be forgotten". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth

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

---

(former nac) I commented multiple times here, but I don't think that makes me involved. Unidentified humor was misinterpreted as serious, resulting in this complaint. The misunderstanding has been cleared up, PeterTheFourth has agreed that the comment was a bad idea, and the entire thread has been removed as inappropriate for a BLP talk page. I think we're done. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)}}

PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) has determined it's okay to continue to propose a certain twist of semantics as grounds for a discussion at Talk:Steve Bannon...as seen here. It has the appearances of a bombastic BLP violation on the talkpage. Now edit warring over the issue of discussion. Its a twist of semantics, and PeterTheFourth knows that the person being quoted was not saying what PeterTheFourth is implying.--MONGO 04:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"I'm Not Steve Bannon, I'm Not Trying to Suck My Own Cock." - Anthony Scaramucci. [155] [156] [157] [158] [159]

So it's now Mongo's mission to get me permanently banned for referencing this? Jeeze. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You're playing a semantics game.--MONGO 04:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Mongo, can you provide diffs of what had actually been said/ implied, etc, just that that link above is the page history generally. #vague! ;) — fortunavelut luna 04:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

[160]. This sort of thing is not how we "build" a neutral encyclopedia and not the first time by any means we have seen this user attempt to smear our BLPs by mischaracterizing the quotes.--MONGO 04:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the original comment I made, and here's where Mongo 'made it his mission to get me permabanned'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you see the the complex source I posted? Headline: "New White House Communications Director: Steve Bannon Is ‘Trying to Suck His Own C**k’". Is it really that bad that you see it as your mission to permanently ban somebody having a little bit of levity about this? (edit conflict) PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Funny that if it were said about a certain GamerGate programmer now running for Congress, you'd not only be calling for blocks, but for oversight and a clear lack of levity (it's been done and it's sophomoric and shouldn't be in the encyclopedia but you know that and you should redact your comments). . --2600:8800:1300:489:75BA:8FE2:25C:7499 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeterIV, that diff says nothing aboutpermabans, or missions. In any case, this is a storm on a tea cup, lots of knickers on a twist, and ultimately a content dispute. As ye both do know. Whether Scaramucci or Bannon autofelate on an irregular basis may well be encyclopedia-worthy; but it's not ANI worthy :) The talk page discussion is still embryonic, and not even related to the article yet (which hasn't been edited for, what, three or four days?). Get ye back there now, lads. — fortunavelut luna 05:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It may well be encyclopedia-worthy? How preposterous. In the bombastic manner (tabloidish, nonencyclopedic) in which peterthegreat is misusing the talkpage in a smear campaign this falls under the discretionary sanctions applicable to that BLP and others like it. This is exactly what BLP is about...do no harm...and exactly what is in violation in the manner it is voiced and discussed there.--MONGO 05:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I'm an idiot! Here's the correct diff for the permaban comment. (edit conflict) PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Mooch's obscene comments about Bannon and Priebus would be fair game for Mooch's own article, given the publicity it generated. But it doesn't belong in the articles of his targets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

PTF, you didn't identify it as levity, and Wikipedia editors, as a group, are well known for making comments that would be hilarious except for the fact that they are completely serious. Don't expect people to see the wink. Vulgar levity on BLP talk pages is best avoided altogther. Article talk is not a locker room. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You're completely right. It's more than a little irksome that I make a joking response to something and now somebody with a prior history with me is a) threatening to try to get me permabanned and b) has a friend of his now deleting my comments. On the other hand, I shouldn't be making these joking responses in the first place- no matter how farcical the political climate can get, that's no excuse for discussing its coverage in such joking terms. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, so allow the removal, ignore the permaban threat which was made without knowledge of the tongue in your cheek, chalk it up to experience, and move the hell on. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Deal. Besides, I'd be cutting past 3RR, and even I'm not stupid enough to cross the red line. Thanks for the clear advice. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Now it's been restored...here by petertheforth's accomplice. This needs administrator intervention.--MONGO 15:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That is what they do, time and time again. It's how the walled gardens etc are created. Until some admin is prepared to stick their neck out, this sort of thing will just keep happening. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That stuff on the talk page, in addition to being garbage, is also a BLP violation. Anyone who puts it back should be put on the shelf for a good stretch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Annnnd...removed again. But I'm not closing this again, apparently there is some drama potential left. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Any way you could restore the thread but not the apparently offending comment? I asked the question, semi-seriously, because I thought Scaramucci's crude outburst raises questions about the extent to which White House officials ought to be considered reliable sources for articles about other White House officials, given the degree to which they seem to sometimes be willing to defame each other. This is different than mere gossip between malicious parties, since one of the parties is an official spokesperson for the White House, where Bannon works. He may well have to make statements about Bannon in the future. Should they be considered reliable? Seems like an open question to me. I think that's something that's possible to talk about without defaming the subject of the page.68.80.130.184 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your question was "Are claims by the White House comms director about Bannon considered a reliable source for Wikipedia?" The answer is that they are a reliable source for what Scaramucci said, and nothing more. His comments have no other use in Wikipedia, and don't belong in articles about his verbal targets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You could always broach the issue at WP:RSN (where it will not be so attached to the present drama) if you think it's a worthwhile point of discussion. But if I am going to be honest, I don't think much will come of it; we rarely use WP:PRIMARY sources themselves to reference claims made in WP:BLPs, but at the same time, we aren't going to dismiss WP:Secondary sources which do, since it would involve WP:Orginal research for us to try to supplant the internal processes of our secondary sources with our own fact checking/evaluation of the claims found in the primary sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I can see the argument that Bannon's alleged autofellation isn't encyclopaedic in his own article, but this is merely a talk page comment. Why is this being deleted from the talk page? The comments are quite clearly reported on Anthony Scaramucci, and around the world in the international press; if the BLP is violated by mentioning it on a talk page, then it's violated by mentioning it on Anthony Scaramucci. It certainly isn't a major BLP violation then. However, I find User:MONGO's threat on User:PeterTheFourth (diff) quite disturbing. MONGO said You pull another major BLP violation like this one and I'll make it my mission to see you permabanned. Surely this statement is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:THREATEN? Nfitz (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including talk page. Read the policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• It is understandable that an editor could not resist poking others regarding Scaramucci's colorful language. However, people still seem to be wondering whether it is OK to discuss sucking cocks. No, it's not. Doing so is an admission of an inability to understand hyperbole, and is either prurience or trolling. My recommendation would be topic ban anyone who continues that line. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Edit war by MBlaze Lightning

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

---

Indian nationalist pov pusher whose focus on wikipedia is making articles about indian army @MBlaze Lightning who had been blocked in the past for socking and edit warring, breaking 1RR is edit warring again. Mblaze removed sourced content. When I reverted it pointing out the content was sourced Mblaze edit warred and falsely claimed the information is not verifiable in the sources. he has edit warred by reverting four times. This is violation of 3RR and is not the first time they did this. Seems like this user dies not learnt after being blocked multiple times. Should be given a longer block this time.119.160.97.6 (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

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

iPad 4rd Gen Vandalism

This page I was looking at for info today has obviously been vandalized by someone.

IPad_(4th_generation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifea (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Leifea: The vandalism was did by IP 2602:306:37fd:4b90:8585:7462:d425:ab48, and have been reverted by User:StarryGrandma. Future vandalizing in persistently should report at WP:AIV. SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Page protected for six hours. This will be more than enough time to encourage whomever to move on :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Persistent WP:UNCIVIL by MalikShabbaz

Experienced user, yet ignores calls for WP:CIVIL, constant mockery and WP:NPA. He has been asked to stopped twice, yet not only did he persist in uncivil commentary, he also mocks the editors calling for WP:CIVIL. I don't see how this will stop voluntarily.

Uncivil commentary only from June-July 2017 that I came across: [161][162][163][164][165]

He has been warned about it by myself and by another editor, having responded with further attacks: [166][167]

I decided to just ignore it as recommendation suggests, but every time I bump into the editor on talk pages he is again insisting on uncivil commentary.[168][169][170] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturnalia0 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at a lot of those diffs and not seeing really "uncivil" behavior toward other editors. This diff, for example... It's hard for them to analyze figments of your imagination, though is, at best, mild snark. This one, The Wall Street Journal's editorial section printed a screed by a blogger for the Weekly Standard, and they share a dislike for the SPLC?!? I'm so shocked you could knock me over with a feather... like, really? If that's "uncivil" you might as well ban half of Wikipedia.}} This diff isn't even by Malik Shabazz, it's by User:Edaham. I don't see anything actionable here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

not sure why I was mentioned here. Anything wrong? I had a look and a post has been referenced here in which I re-reverted the removal of a piece of text on a talk page which had been removed previously in order to get rid of it again. It was trolling. Forum members generally upheld and supported both the removal and the curt tone I took when deleting it. Edaham (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Edaham (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

He was pretty uncivil towards me (see link 176). Calling my assertion of NPOV "stupid", "somebody gets his nose out of joint" (what does that even mean?), "the whims of the Fox News crowd" (casting aspersions). He should focus on discussing the topic at hand, not the editors.Terrorist96 (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Saturn and Terrorist96 are only here because MalikShabazz doesn't appreciate their POV pushing at a discussion about black supremacy. The issue has been analyzed and agreed upon numerous times but these two editors want to change consensus without RS. I propose a boomerang if this is not closed promptly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Would people please make sure the first diff shows a problem. The first link above shows nothing—why should editors have to click every link and work out whether this complaint has any substance? Nevertheless, I looked at a couple of other links and they also were fine. Please don't template an editor about mild commentary they made nine days earlier. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think this is egregious enough to warrant action, but T96 is correct that Malik was less than perfectly civil in that NPOVN thread. No matter how frustrated, editors should argue the point, not their opposition--especially if they are just meeting them and the contributor is showing every indication of acting in good faith. And though I don't want to get into the weeds of the content issue here, but I agree that it is exceptionally odd that any article on any form of racial supremacist ideology would not contain reference to racism. That does seem to conflict with a very straightforward reading of terms that can be sourced into the article, whether the specific word "racist" can be robustly sourced itself.

But if the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on that article is to keep the term out due to the WP:WEIGHT of sourcing, so be it. But the editors who insist on that standard do not get to then belly-ache when it becomes something that must be periodically re-explained. If the issue gets revived by a new editor "every two months, like clockwork" then maybe it is a consequence of the article not meeting common expectations of what an encyclopedic entry on the topic would include, and not just a case of racists or inexperienced editors trying to insert POV. Regardless, editors on that page, like any other, are required to show courtesy, even when they have to revisit an issue repeatedly because of some idiosyncrasy of the topic or content. Work on any particular article is WP:NOTMANDATORY and the editors there can take a break from the talk page any time they like. However, so long as they remain to protect their stance on the best approach to the content, they are required to WP:Assume good faith and avoid WP:Personal attacks, even minor ones. Also, as I recall, this is not the first time Malik has ended up at ANI over accusations of incivility.

So, to summarize, nothing that raises near the level of actionable, but I think Malik could stand to remember that firm adherence to WP:NPA is not at all conditional on how right he perceives himself to be on the content issue. I saw nothing in T96's comments which suggested he deserved to be on the receiving end of Malik's ire; his arguments seem to be advanced in good faith. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Conversely to a previous thread, my thoughts converge with SnowRap's on this one. I agree with GracefulSlick's reading that this thread has come about due to the content dispute on the Black Supremacy article and that this thread warrants no action. That said, referring to the opposition and their argument as the Fox New's crowd is, to borrow Malik Shabazz's on words, is just stupid and certainly non-productive.

• On the actual content matter itself; I too find it odd that an article about racial supremacy makes no mention of racism. That said, I think the defintion of words that Terrorist96 has given has come back to bite them. A letter of the law reading of the definition of the term racism would suggest that supremacy as a belief itself is not racist. Note, racism necessitates an act of prejudice, discrimination, or antangonism on the basis of the belief that one's own race is superior. This describes the act(ions) itself as racist(m), but, not the beliefs. Now, you could hold a month long philosophical exercise on whether a person could hold such beliefs without ever acting on them, but, this is no the time nor the place. The fact that the article belongs to a series on discrimination would indicate that it is racist/m. But all of that is pertinent for the article itself and not this thread. A small part of this that may be relevant is that the repeated nature of this discussion does indeed, as SnowRap points out, suggest that the article does not meet standards of quality for such an article.

• In essence, Malik has been sharp at moments and would do well to dull the blade. There is obviously no need for combative counterpoductive responses. The arguments by Saturnalia and Terrorist96 do appear to be made in good faith. Therefore, it should be expected that you treat the editors in good faith.
  There is also absolutely no need to start biting at Saturnalia for bringing this here either. It can be dealt with, without the user of administrative tools. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... "You cannot be as stupid as you sound." Still think there's nothing actionable?Terrorist96 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and block me if you think it's wrong to call out an obvious troll on his trolling. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Malik, really, it's better not to respond at all to provocations like "It's just been white-washed (lol) from the article". First, by doing so you are giving this fine gentleman exactly what he wants. Second, by not responding you're making it easier for others to distinguish whose conduct merits concern. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

MalikShabbaz was a bit snarky likely due to T96 wasting editors’ time. Suggest that T96 strike his comment: Black separatists are black supremacists by definition along with the white-wash accusation; and withdraw this filing. I wouldn’t waste a minnow on this. Objective3000 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Na. I broke no rules and provided two sources for my statement as well. It's not my fault the user got "triggered" by my post. I would also like to point out that this user has been blocked twice in the past for incivility.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Five or six days in over a decade and 99,000 posts. Your white-wash accusation is more serious. Friendly suggestion: you shouldn’t push this. Objective3000 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

So my personal opinion that an article has been white-washed is worse than direct attacks (calling me stupid)? Got it. :| -Terrorist96 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sammycanter82

Sammycanter82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[171] Editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia, contributions are exclusively nonsense e.g. [172]. Requesting a protective block to stop the disruption. WCM_email 12:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed as vandalism-only account.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We do need an admin for simple wikipedia because now he's adding garbage over there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 14:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please view Shady59's behavior at C. Ronaldo

Could someone please view the behavior of user Shady59 at the page of C. Ronaldo. There has been a thorough discussion about a particular sentence in the article and the majority disagreed with him. Still he's trying to push his opinion by constantly reverting the changes that have been made. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Majority disagreed? When did that happen? The experienced users have the same opinion as me where as some relatively new accounts created during the start of the discussions are the ones who disagreed. Max Eisenhardt is trying to push his POV whereas others are stating as per citations. Shady59 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, stop lying! We requested an RfC on the talk page and after 30 days by far the most people who commented on this issue thought it was completely inappropriate to refer to C.Ronaldo as 'the greatest footballer of all time'. You simply don't have any sources that state he's the greatest of all time. And stop accusing me of POV, while you're the one who's constantly trying to push his own POV agenda. Also, stop this nonsense about 'experienced' users'. It's simply about the arguments you give and the majority (which happens to include a lot of experienced users) don't agree with you. Stop vandalizing the page! Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Most people who commented? Majority of experienced editors with around 100,000 edits agreed to keep the statement, whereas you & some new user accounts disagreed. I wouldn't even mind to go as far as thinking there could be sock puppets involved. Shady59 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This is laughable! The most experienced users? What the hell are you talking about? I'm not experienced enough so my opinion doesn't count? Also, there are plenty of experienced users who are against you and your POV, and you now this very well. We already summed them up at the talk page: 'the amount of users who are not in favor of the current introduction: scope_creep, Pincrete, Icewhiz, Collect, O'Flannery, Prayer for the wild at heart, Nabla, Erik0609 and myself. So stop this ridiculous behavior. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've full protected the article and removed the sentence to the talk page so the editors may work towards achieving consensus. This is still a content dispute and the edit-warring has been halted. Go work it out. No further admin action necessary at this time.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Hillingdon UK to stop the Frenchie vandal

At Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Frenchie vandal you can see that some IP6 addresses from Hillingdon are being used by the vandal. I would like to see a rangeblock set for 2A02:C7D:14EC:9300:xxx if possible. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that these are all block-evading IPs, as Special:Contributions/79.78.129.41 is blocked for six months. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Six-month hardblock for the /64 range.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Also noting the range contribs and that the earliest IP in that range began editing on March 10 here and that every single edit within that range since that time has been him which is why I chose the lengthy block time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

BedrockPerson and biblical people infoboxes

As odd as this sounds, we have a user, User:BedrockPerson, who has a repeated pattern, over one year old, to add and re-add unsourced material to infoboxes about biblical characters. He/she has repeatedly used edit summaries in a misleading way while doing so. The user's insistence that this unsourced material stays in articles has created a fair deal of work for other editors has has become disruptive, despite attempts by other editors to discuss the problem.

He/she has been warned about misleading edit summaries [173] by User:IgnorantArmies on 13 December 2016, and about disruptive editing by the same user on the same day [174]. I also warned the user about misleading edit summaries on 19 June 2017 [175]. Myself and User:Dougweller spoke to him/her on 16 May 2017 about the addition of unsourced material in infoboxes [176] [177]. He/she continued adding unsourced material to infoboxes, and I warned him/her again on 20 July 2017 [178]. After an editing conflict involving sourcing and infoboxes on July 28-30, [179] the page David was protected. The user immediately moved on to Ish-bosheth (today) and continued the disruptive pattern of behavior [180].

There are also numerous cases of warnings about edit-warring and disruptive behavior on his/her Talk Page as well, by User:Ian.thomson, User:Doug Weller, User:Jytdog, User:Debresser, User:El_C, and others. The user is most recently off a 7-day block, the latest in a series of escalating blocks imposed for edit-warring, abusing multiple accounts, and personal attacks, and has returned immediately to the old pattern of behavior.

Here's a list of examples of addition of unsourced material to infoboxes. This is not a complete list -- it contains many of the clearer cases. An asterisk after a diff marks an edit inappropriately disguised with a "minor edit" selection or other misleading edit summary, which is also an ongoing problem that he's/she's been warned about. In addition to the warnings posted above, if you click on cases below where BedrockPerson has made multiple edits in a day, you will often find other users trying to explain the WP:RS and WP:INFOBOX-related norms here at Wikipedia either in the preceding or following edit.

30 July 2017, Ish-bosheth: [181] David: [182], [183]*. 28 July 2017, David: [184], [185]. 20 July 2017: Warning about uncited additions to infobox. [186]. 20 July 2017, Habakkuk: [187]. 19 July 2017, Habakkuk: [188]. 19 July 2017, Samuel: [189]. 2 July 2017, Jezebel: [190]. 16 May 2017, Abimelech (Judges): [191]. 16 May 2017, Abdon (Judges): [192]*. 16 May 2017, Ehud: [193], [194]*. 16 May 2017, Ibzan: [195]. 16 May 2017, Jair: [196]. 16 May 2017, Jephthah: [197]. 16 May 2017, Othniel: [198]. 16 May 2017, Samson: [199]*. 16 May 2017, Shamgar: [200]. 16 May 2017, Tola (biblical figure): [201]. 6 March 2017, Abdon (Judges): [202]. 6 March 2017, Abimelech (Judges): [203]. 6 March 2017, Elon: [204], [205]. 6 March 2017, Ibzan: [206]. 6 March 2017, Jair: [207]. 6 March 2017, Jephthah: [208]. 6 March 2017, Othniel: [209]. 6 March 2017, Samson: [210]. 6 March 2017, Shamgar: [211]. 6 March 2017, Tola (biblical figure): [212]. 22 April 2017, Moses: [213]. 11 April 2017, Isaac: [214], [215]*. 6 January 2017, Ishmael: [216]. 4 January 2017, Joshua: [217]. 27 December 2016, Isaac: [218], [219], [220], [221]*. 27 December 2016, Jacob: [222], [223], [224]. 26 December 2016, Jacob: [225]. 21 November 2016, Abraham: [226]. 25 July 2016, Abraham: [227]. 21 July 2016, Kenan: [228] Alephb (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a significant and long-term problem. The core issue here is WP:ADVOCACY for a point of view that treats the Bible as history.

The content issue, is that the Bible is not a history book. Mainstream Ancient Near East (ANE) historians are not sure that many of these people existed, and to the extent that ANE historians find good reason from extra-biblical evidence to support arguments that many of these ~might~ have existed; dates for when they may have lived are vague with big error bars, and adding dates of death or birth etc to infoboxes, which are where we present uncomplicated facts, is way out of bounds.

The behavioral issue presented here is Bedrockperson's consistent and long term edit warring and lack of engagement with the literature overall, instead presenting only prooftexts or cherrypicking scholarship from religiously motivated sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. But, for the sake of simplicity, I limited the list above to cases where BedrockPerson added material with no sourcing whatsoever. Cases of inappropriate and slanted use of sources also exist, but I limited the list in my last paragraph to the open-and-shut practice of adding dates without any sources at all. Alephb (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I'd link all I've tried to do in terms of getting consensus and defending myself but I am without effort. I simply don't care. At this point you two are beating the corpse of a husk you tore bereft of its life long ago. BedrockPerson (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)