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

Pattern of disruptive page moves

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

---

There have been several requests at WP:RM today to revert new undiscussed page moves performed by User:Gryffindor. Because of this, I have looked further into Gryffindor’s recent edit history, and documented some of what I found at WP:RMTR. There is also evidence of a large number of objections that have been lodged at User talk:Gryffindor; the pattern of editing has continued unabated. Since the start of the year, User:Gryffindor has engaged in the following sorts of behavior related to page moves:

• 1) Undiscussed moves when the title had been established by a previous Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion, such as seen at Talk:Sobieski family from 2014 followed by this.
• 2) Edits specifically designed to prevent reversion of undiscussed moves, such as the repeated removal of the R-from-move template. An example is here. Here is another. Note that there are no edit summaries for the empty edits. This appears to be part of a long-term pattern of performing such empty edits after page moves.
• 3) Note that the move itself shown in example 2 would not normally be out of process as a bold move, but the editor has previously taken part in significant discussions on "House of X" articles and knows that this sort of edit represents a controversial move that should be discussed through WP:RM, as shown in the instructions at WP:RMCM. In fact, administrator User:PBS specifically warned User:Gryffindor against both 2 and 3 in 2017, as can be seen here.
• 4) Re-moving articles after the original bold moves have been reverted, such as here and here (the last of these is from December 2017). The second move sometimes happens much later and is not immediately caught by the editors who objected the first time, so it seems that some of these moves have been successful. For example, the article that was at House of Arenberg from its creation in 2007 to 2017 now remains at Arenberg family with no evidence of move discussions as of April 10:

• 11:41, September 17, 2017‎ Gryffindor (Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family over redirect: non-sovereign family, restore encyclopedic naming format)
• 09:21, August 24, 2017‎ PBS (PBS moved page Arenberg family to House of Arenberg: revert contriversial move)
• 08:22, August 24, 2017‎ Gryffindor (Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family over redirect: non-sovereign family)
• 03:27, March 11, 2017‎ PBS (PBS moved page Arenberg family to House of Arenberg over redirect: rv contriversial move not following the WP:RM)
• 10:38, March 9, 2017‎ Domdeparis (Domdeparis moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family: In English "House of" is reserved for Royal dynasties see House of)

Each of these four actions is strongly deprecated and would normally garner some sort of a warning for the editor who engaged in them. Today, it seems that the moves continued after posts by User:Bermicourt objecting to them; see User talk:Gryffindor#Moving "House of Foo" to "Foo family" and User talk:Gryffindor#Please stop moving "House of" articles without a discussion and consensus!. Gryffindor also edited later in the day, but did not respond to these concerns.

It would be inaccurate to state that this is the first time such problems have arisen surrounding moves by Gryffindor. Being as charitable as possible, there are previous ANI discussions of Gryffindor's unilateral moves from at least 2007, 2010, and 2012. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive254#Gryffindor out of control (apologies for the section name), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648#Unilateral page moving against consensus, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#A possible problem with undiscussed moves. There are others I’ve chosen not to include here. Given those discussions and the talk page, it’s clear that Gryffindor knows these moves are out of process and has a long-term tendency to proceed anyway.

I have nothing against User:Gryffindor, do not have an opinion about the titling of the "House of X" articles, and have had few interactions with Gryffindor in the past. I also attempt to avoid drama. But this needs to be handled somehow, is creating more work and stress for many editors, and I am under the impression that previous complaints have resulted in no action because Gryffindor either temporarily avoided this sort of behavior or did not respond to questions about it. I therefore think it is appropriate that there be a discussion here to gauge community consensus on how to prevent the sort of disruption I have documented here from continuing to happen in the future, up to and including placing limits on the ability of Gryffindor to perform undiscussed moves. Dekimasuよ! 08:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The WP:RMTR thread is reproduced below:

Dekimasuよ! 08:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think the answer to this is fairly simple. All of the "House of..." moves should be reverted, and Gryffindor warned to only go through the RM process to move these, otherwise sanctions may be applied. Note: not all of Gryffindor's moves appear to be wrong; the "X (noble family)" -> "X family" ones appear to be logical. Also colour me seriously unimpressed that Gryffindor is an admin who has previously appeared at ANI for doing exactly the same thing over other's objections. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• (EC) I do not mean to imply that all (or any) of the moves is wrong aside from being deliberately out of process. However, as mentioned above, Gryffindor has been warned in the past on this specific point, and has continued: see [1], [2] and elsewhere on the talk page, so I believe that at a minimum the conditions for and scope of any sanctions should be made explicit. Dekimasuよ! 09:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Seems that repeated warnings over a very long time have been pretty ineffective. How about a ban on any page-move-related edit or admin action? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• This certainly looks like a deja vu. I remmeber I had to warn Gryffindor off for exactly the same kind of misconduct (using admin tools for controversial moves against consensus, plus using the dirty trick of redirect-scorching) back in 2007; see here and here. I never crossed path with him since, but if he has continued the same pattern over all these years, that's pretty bad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Gryffindor has replied to the WP:RMTR thread here, and I responded here. Another editor since asked that discussion not continue at WP:RMTR, so I have removed the thread. In the reply, Gryffindor wrote that "I think you are confusing edits from an editor that you disagree with, and activities as a sysop. See this editing guideline WP:BB for further information. Concerning the discussion you mentioned earlier on "House of X", feel free to comment in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#House_of." This misinterprets my objections to the moves; I responded with "If this is directed at me, please rest assured that I do not particularly disagree with the edits themselves (I have no opinion on the titling of these articles) and I am not primarily concerned with whether or not these are admin activities. The moves would be problematic whether performed by an admin or not, because they are being performed without discussion despite being known to be disputed by other editors." To expand upon this, the reply shows that Gryffindor is aware of ongoing disagreement with respect to the titles of these pages, but is pursuing the moves as "being bold." This is already advised against by WP:RMCM; at the same time, Gryffindor been short-circuiting the WP:BRD process that is necessary for the proper application of WP:BB by preventing reversion and repeating the "bold" moves after reversion without engaging in WP:RM discussion. Gryffindor has also posted new replies to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#House of stating editorial reasons for the moves, but has not there touched upon any rationale for the process by which they have been carried out. Dekimasuよ! 00:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Vote of no confidence in Gryffindor as an admin

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

---

Gryffindor (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was promoted in 2006 and apart from a couple of block actions in 2006, has used his administrator rights primarily in the service of his campaign of undiscussed moves, usually deleting pages to make way for these moves. As evidenced above, many all of these moves have ended up being reverted over the years or have had concerns raised that have gone unanswered. WP:Communication is required, and this user has not answered direct messages on his talk page, has not responded here, and ignored discussions on other pages that he was surely notified of that were concerned about his moves. Its my opinion that his abilities as an admin will only lead to further conflicts with very little benefit to the project. I suspect that his ability to delete pages to perform moves gives him the impression that he can do so without following the consensus process. Removing that ability will surely force him to begin interacting with the project again. Failure to do this will likely result in him going silent for some time, and then returning again to the same pattern. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• It's a bit early for this. Page moves against consensus are only kind of abuse of tools, and they are tools that we also give to non-admins. Also, this thread has been open less than 24 hours and Gryffindor should be given a reasonable chance to respond. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Gryffindor has actually used admin tools to move some of the pages, as in some cases the targets were not simply redirects. I can't see an example where's he's edit-warred over one of those, though, and he hasn't used the tools since concerns were raised on his talkpage (although he has carried on moving pages and not replied to the concerns). Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Having said that, Gryffindor hasn't used admin tools at all apart from in page moves for a very long time. He hasn't blocked anyone since 2006 and has only made one protection that wasn't page-move related since 2007 as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• That's my point - he became an admin in 2006, has used his admin rights for almost NO tangible benefit to the project, and in fact only uses them in pursuit of his undiscussed page moves. We have to weigh the costs and benefits here - This user would probably not even be able to retain "page mover" rights based on his actions (WP:PMRR), so why are we letting him keep the keys to the kingdom? --Netoholic @ 02:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• ArbCom is the only body that can desysop. I'd also be hesitant to see a case request here. I'm also probably more cautious on moves than most (since I work the RM desk semi-regularly), and I don't see this as needing the committee. I'd suggest just a community reminder to use the RM process. If they kept not using it, then we'd have an issue. While the community can issue sanctions against administrators short of a desysop, it would likely result in an inevitable ArbCom case (high-profile disputes amongst administrators being within ArbCom's explicit remit), and I don't see this at that level yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • After seeing this has come up in the past and the lack of response here, it appears a case may be necessary. @Gryffindor: if I may be so bold as to suggest that it might just make sense to take a trip over to WP:BN, link to this discussion, and say you resign and won't seek resysop without an RfA? That would save the community a fair amount of drama and time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) What Tony said. See also: WP:DESYSOP. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Ivanvector; I'm not opposed to this procedurally as it would simply lead to an ARBCOM case. A TBAN on moving pages other than through the RM process might be a better idea if action is necessary. Regardless, more discussion (and an opportunity for Gryffindor to respond) is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

* Oppose desysop as I don't think we're at that level ... they're not exactly communicative which is an issue however they've not exactly abused their tools, However I would support a topic ban from all page moves - If they want an article moved they know where to go. –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Arbcom - My apologies I thought this was a one off but apparently not[3][4] - All admins should know move-warring isn't on and they should obviously discuss instead of reverting/moving, Their response below is pretty bad .... I would support taking this to Arbcom or the appropriate venue. –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Gryffindor's other contributions and cannot offer much of an opinion on whether his admin credentials should be revoked. I'm sure he's done fine work elsewhere, which makes the nitpicky and easily fixed nature of this complaint all the more frustrating. I do believe that Gryffindor should immediately stop making any moves, should not make moves on Wikimedia Commons, and if he refuses, should have his admin (and page-mover) credentials revoked for this reason. It's a silly and minor thing, but his persistent refusal to engage in the WP:RM process and flagrant "gaming the system" by poisoning the resulting redirect so his moves can't easily be reverted does not speak to a spirit of collaboration. He has an opinion on article titling, that's great, file a requested move like anyone else and don't use technical tricks to force the impetus on others to clean up his mess. Even when he has been reverted, it's unreliable anyway, because he's repeatedly moved the same article before, and simply waits a year to see if people have stopped paying attention. This is conduct unbecoming of any editor, admin or not. SnowFire (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Upgrade to Support removal of admin privileges. Gryffindor's responses, both here and in the thread at the Royalty Wikiproject, show he is wholly oblivious to the concerns being raised here. If he can't be bothered to address legitimate concerns about communication and moving style, acting as if this is only a content dispute where he imperiously sets the article titling rules himself, then I have no confidence in him as an admin. SnowFire (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• I know ARBCOM is the only venue that can desysop, but I support it. We have far too much of a gap between standards of new admins and old admins, and I think both reducing new admin standard and increase current admin standard (which'll help with the former) is the way to go. His behaviour is far below of that you'd expect from any admin, and has extended over years. Consistent poor judgement (move-warring etc), and repeated failure to communicate and respond to concerns per WP:ADMINACCT is what I'd say as the rationale. If he was a page mover, he'd have been stripped of the right for even a very small fraction of the moves like the ones he does. I think probably the only reason there isn't a problem elsewhere is because he doesn't use his tools much outside of perhaps deleting pages in page moves (his deletion log of <1000 entries is 90% related to page moves) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• I support a vote of no confidence. Communication is required, especially from admins. It's also baffling that they have not responded here, despite continuing to edit after they were alerted to this discussion. @Gryffindor: please let us have your views on the comments here. If Gryffindor continues to ignore the discussion on this board, we may want to consider moving it to WP:RFAR, the venue that can desysop. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC).
• I also support this, since Gryffindor has clearly felt it beneath him to respond here, despite having edited since. That's seriously sub-par for an admin. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment has anyone actually checked to see if the sources in the pages that Gryffindor has moved support the article name house of? I'll give you one exemple House of Soterius von Sachsenheim I checked out the sources and not a single one of them uses "house of". The main opposition to the blanket moves of non ruling families from House of to family was because that went against WP:COMMONNAME. this does not need any kind of concensus if the sources support that the common name is not House of. Common name states "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." There are several authorative source that points towards House of being commonly used for ruling dynasties notably a royal one an important family, especially a royal one House of is used for an individual royal house, that is, a ruling family of a monarchy these 2 sources suggest that at least for the Cambridge dictionry and the Library of Congress calling a noble family that wasn't a royal family could be considered ambiguous. If there are few or no sources that use this term I cannot see how these page moves are in any way contradictory to Common name. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sure many of his moves are correct (and for example, House_of_Schwarzburg has sources calling it exactly that). But whether his moves are right or not is irrelevant here. The point is that if you're making mass BOLD moves and other people are disputing them, you need a consensus - via RM or talkpage - to make that move stick. For the examples where Gryffindor is correct, then a Requested Move should be no problem. Given that similar problems stretch back over ten years as pointed out above, there is clearly an issue here. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• If you are talking about Heraldica.org this is a hobby blog written by an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and not a recognised authority on the subject I believe. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• And what are the arguments opposing the moves? No one has suggested that the moves go against policy because the policy that should be considered is WP:COMMONNAME and I don't believe that this has been brought up when addressing the different articles. If there are no sources attesting to this article title does one have to go through RM? Dom from Paris (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• (ECx2) To concur with Black Kite, I'll reiterate that this is a question of conduct rather than content, and the current discussion does not preclude the moves (which Domdeparis has previously stated his support of) from taking place. I also note that Wikipedia:Article titles makes frequent reference to the importance of consensus in determining titles, including in the sections labeled WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:TITLECHANGES. There is no need to be discussing individual sources here. The question you raised last–"what are the arguments opposing the moves?"–is what is to be discussed in a move request before moving the pages again. Dekimasuよ! 15:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• • Comment @Domdeparis: I'm afraid the situation has moved on from the pagemoves themselves; what's happening at the moment is very much in the realm of WP:ADMINACCT. Specifically, their lack (total) of communication. Incidentally, if anyone thinks this is a one-off, I draw your attention to this discusion on G's own talkpage—from August last year—about exactly the same issue, and in which—again—they did not take part, even with a colleague. They were still doing the same thing in November—and again ignored the request to slow down and discuss. Communication is probably the fundamental requirement of an admin—per WP:VOLUNTEER, they can do as much or as little anywher here they choose: but no-one gets a free pass on ignoring the concerns of the community. Regarding the content dispute itself, incidentally, as someone pointed out above, an editor disagreeing with a move is an indication that is likely to be contentious: per WP:RM/CM: if someone could reasonably disagree with the move, then the discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. Again, this is something that an admin of their tenure should be fully conversant of, especially in regard to the fact that it is such a significant portion of their editing. Which is another illustration of the same behaviour: that of ignoring concerns and refusing discussion. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment when there are no sources that attest to the article title being as it could one really be called reasonable when opposing the move? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

AN/I not the place to discuss content, unfortunately. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have responded in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. I will also comment here in this section if this is required. Gryffindor (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: I'd like to know why it took you so long to respond here? Paul August ☎ 16:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support a vote of no confidence. To be honest, I have had little confidence in Gryffindor as an admin since October 2014 when this CCI was opened (how many other admins do we have with an open CCI?). The undiscussed moves appear to have been happening for many years (this one in 2010 was made after a (very mild) objection on his/her talk-page). Page moves can be made without discussion if, and only if, they are uncontroversial or could reasonably be believed to be so. Boldly moving a page is OK, but making moves without discussion after you've been made aware that others are opposed to them is a misuse of the function; if often repeated, it is at best WP:DISRUPTIVE. It is absolutely not acceptable behaviour for an admin. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support the OP's vote, and the resultant move to RFAR. I was, per my remark above, probably just going to comment; but Paul August's question made we wonder. The communication problem, it appears, is actually far worse than it appeared. Notwithstanding Wellington et al.'s advice, the figures are not good. For example, Gryffindor has made 102 edits to own talk page since 2005 (half of which are just archivings)—and has not replied to anyone since July last year. Likewise, off their own page, the list of their last fifty edits to others' talk pages also takes us back nine months. This is poor communication from anyone, but particularly from an editor in possession of advanced permissions who has been granted those permissions by the community on the expectation that they will be accountable to the community. So, I am forced to support this measure. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  @User:Serial Number 54129 Just because an editor does not comment on their talk page does not mean that they are not communicating. Gryffindor replies in the same style that I do. On the talk page of the person who comments on my talk page page. see here). If you look at last August (2017) you will see the exchange between Gryffindor and myself which I edited into the start of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#House of showing it as a split conversation -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, PBS, I know (to clarify: Yes, I agree). The problem, as I see it, is that G. doesn't—on his or others' talk pages. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 18:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I also support a vote of no confidence from reviewing the above and strongly suggest an Abcom case to deal with this matter. Jusdafax (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I have no opinion on Gryffindor as an admin as Gryffindor has not blatantly used admin tools in his/her move wars. If for example Gryffindor had used admin tools rather than a second edit to lock page moves then I would voice an opinion. However I think that theses most recent moves, given the history of this issue, coupled with the additional evidence of the contributor copyright investigation shows a lack of judgement. @user:Moonriddengirl and user:Wizardman has Gryffindor carried out a "proper re-edit on them" (17 October 2014) that Gryffindor stated (s)he would do to fix the copyright issues? -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Topic ban from moves

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

---

Proposing an indefinite topic ban on moving pages

• Support I don't see how a "community reminder" will help where numerous complaints from experienced editors haven't - he still hasn't acknowledged any issue. Per his response here, he still doesn't seem to understand that his moves are disruptive, and WP:BOLD isn't applicable to potentially controversial page moves nor is it a justification to repeatedly move-war etc etc. Nor is it a justification for editing the redirect to make reverting back impossible except for admins and page movers.

Indefinite, because this has been an issue for 10 years per threads linked by Future Perfect at Sunrise (see this and this links provided, and the ANI from 2007 linked above), and I think he needs to come and appeal with an explanation of his understanding of when to use the RM process and how he'll do better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Minimal necessity. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• I don't agree. Moving articles of a category to an established format makes sense so that there is order. However if this is seen as disruptive by a majority of users involved, then I will desist obviously, as I have done so in the past. I have received many thanks from other users for taking the initiative and moving articles. And there are cases where this can be met with criticism, that is true as well. Gryffindor (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are responding with in talking about categories. What I and people want to minimally know is: do you understand WP:RMCM, specifically that any any controversial or potentially controversial move should be taken to WP:RM? In this specific case you'd nominate the pages en masse, and if the consensus is there, the moves will be done in a week or two. As far as I can see, your desistment doesn't seem to last, considering the recurrence of these ANI threads, and of move-warring. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Striking that first bit, see you are talking about WP:CONSISTENCY within a category - which is an argument to make in a WP:RM, but not a reason to unilaterally mass move pages Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, not one person's "system" so that "there is order." You're not the boss, your comment on the Royalty talk page was just that - a comment, not an actual statement of Wikipedia policy. Which means cleaning up your own mess and reverting your undiscussed moves yourself rather than making others do it for you. You can achieve all of what you are currently doing if you simply file Requested Moves at a reasonable (not breakneck) pace. Where you have a point, people will support your move and it'll be moved; where you can't find consensus, it won't be. The end. Everyone will be happy. SnowFire (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above - Enough is enough. –Davey2010^Talk 17:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per comments above, also support extending this restriction to Commons as well (example: [5]) (EDIT: [6] , better link). SnowFire (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• We don't have the authority to impose a topic ban on another project.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Based on the link, I assume he meant "Categories", not "Commons". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Power~enwiki: / @Bbb23:: Nah, I meant Commons - wrong link above, sorry, I edited in the correct one. And I realize that we may have to jump through some more hoops to get it done on Commons, but I believe it should be done (although a voluntary handing over the bit would work too). SnowFire (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• We here don't have to jump through any hoops; but if there are any experienced WC users and / or admins watching, then they will doubtless do what they see fit... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Having raised this issue back in August last year on user talk:Gryffindor and having initiated a centralised discussion that showed clearly that there is no consensus for the mass moves that Gryffindor had made to "House of" articels, and is still attempting to make without recourse to the use of WP:RM. Such moves without scrutiny of sources using the RM process are disruptive and need to be stopped. -- PBS (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support, at a minimum, and also that this topic ban be extended such that he may not close any WP:RM move requests, and that this ban may be extended to include submission of WP:RMs if he ends up trying to flood that page with requests. -- Netoholic @ 01:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Support the former, I don't see how the latter would work, if that indeed happens we can discuss something along the line of a topic ban from moves Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The edits were done in WP:GOODFAITH. I am trying to help the project, not hurt it. My goal was and is to bring order to naming formats of articles where I thought it makes sense. Since this is mentioned, in the discussion on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#House_of, in the category of German families I saw that four to five different naming formats existed. Yet no steps were taken as far as I could see to address that situation and therefore I thought it would be best if I take the initiative. But I understand that this can be seen as controversial. I have also been thanked on a number of occasions for taking the initiative and moving articles. So I apologize if this has come across as an abuse of the tools or has the appearance of improper use. I understand that a number of users are upset, and I am handing in my resignation. I wish you continued success in your edits to make this project better. Gryffindor (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban; sufficient unto the day, etc. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Gryffindor has voluntarily resigned adminship, and permanently it seems; I think a topic ban is no longer needed at this point. Their approach to page moving were inappropriate back in 2007, and far more inappropriate today; but they were done in reasonable good faith, and their grave errors in failure to understand the proper page moving process have been sufficiently pointed out in this discussion, and I must say a recurrance is quite unlikely. Alex Shih (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  @user:Alex Shih I fail to see how you justify opposing this ban as it has nothing to do with whether Gryffindor is or is not an administrator as administrator tools have nothing to do with this issue, and I would like you to explain your opposition in more detail so that we can try to reach a consensus. To make good faith bold moves and then have it reverted is acceptable behaviour. However making bold moves and having them reverted and making them again breaches WP:RMUM and is clearly an act of bad faith. First move by Gryffindor "13:22, 24 August 2017 Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family" After the conversation on 24 August 2017 (see collapse box below) Gryffindor made a bad faith move "16:41, 17 September 2017 Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family" specifically against WP:RMUM which says "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves."

Split talk page conversations August 2017

User talk:Gryffindor Talk:PBS Do not move articles that start "House of" without using an WP:RM as such move are often controversial see a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29#House of -- PBS (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Also do not edit the resultant redirect, like for some of the recent moves that you made because to do so stops an editor easily reverting you moves and so such edits are disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC) the term "House of" in English as a general rule only applies to ruling and sovereign dynasties, not some noble family. Otherwise any family could call themselves "House of" and where would we end with that? Thank you for your understanding. Gryffindor (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Whether or not "House of" is correct or incorrect is not something to be decided by a rule. It is something to be decided by consensus on the talk page, and if a move is to be made then use WP:RM. It is much more complicated for continental European families as everyone and his dog held sovereign rights over their territory at one time or another before the founding of the modern national states. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC) I respectfully disagree, see WP:BOLD. Within the Holy Roman Empire by law no one was sovereign except the emperor himself. The same applies to Kings of England, France, etc. and their dynasties. Therefore we have House of Windsor, or do you want to propose we rename Category:Wellesley family to "House of Wellesley"? Giving everyone (including their dog as you said) a "House of" format is out of bounds and needs to be corrected. Gryffindor (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC) I am not proposing anything. I am not claiming right of wrong. I am suggesting that instead of moving hundreds of articles because you "know" that that are incorrectly named that you get consensus for the moves. How do yo know that the rule you are enforcing is correct in all cases? -- PBS (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Lets look at an example. Here is a link a source of one of the pages you moved House of Arenberg. Why did you move it? -- PBS (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC) He ors she, claims that he wants to change everything like the English model of nobility, in my vieuw, not correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolus (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Can we please keep the conversation on your talk page, Gryffindor? thank you--Carolus (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Again, if these are families that were not ruling, hereditary dynasties of a sovereign and independent country, they are not a "House of", as opposed to the Windsors, Romanovs, Medici, Bourbons, etc. I already gave the example with the Wellesley family. On what basis are you arguing in favour of using it? Gryffindor (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Saw your first comment so there was no need to reiterate with "Again, if these are families that were not ruling...", what is the source that you draw this conclusion and let's look at the practical example I have given with House of Arenberg and the use of the term by the Arenberg Foundation. What is you source that says this usage is incorrect? -- PBS (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PBS (talk • contribs) 10:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Best to just cut this one off at the pass. Jtrainor (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'd just say that I still stand with supporting the topic ban; regardless of deadminship or the good faith he does it in - I don't doubt that - I don't think he's understood it still, and I think this would prevent disruption. Making him do RMs would be better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban: Even a non-admin can move-rename many pages, which could cause much confusing wp:DE disruption. Also ban wp:RM usage, and ban their asking other users to move pages, as puppets. After 11+ years of dodgey moves, it is beyond time for self-control and needs topic ban. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how banning the way you're supposed to do it - starting a WP:RM discussion - is helpful or necessary. He should be encouraged to use community processes such as WP:RM Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. My original intention in bringing this issue to the attention of editors here was to encourage the use of WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 01:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment it has been two days since some expressed a new opinion (and not just a comment), can an uninvolved administrator please close this section. -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

Disruptive editing on pages under DS:Eastern Europe

The concerned pages being Collaboration in German-occupied Poland and Jan Grabowski (historian)

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

Repeatedly removing the protected template ([7][8]), despite warnings by multiple users on talk page ([9]), and despite the fact there is no valid reason one could want to remove it.

Refusal to participate in talk page discussion (despite multiple reverts on the article in the last two days, last interventions on the talk page date to the 8th and 7th April and are either mostly unrelated to the edit warring, ([10]), or simple WP:PAs which do not seek to build consensus ([11])).

Reinstating ([12]) material which has been superseeded by talk page consensus.

Generally unfriendly/non-collaborative behaviour on talk page/in edit summaries, ex. (Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)/Archive_3#Another_false_edit_summary, Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)/Archive_2#You_can't_be_serious)

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

Reinstating disputed material and going against talk page consensus, ([13])

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, repeating the same (inaccurate) statement multiple times (also, at multiple places), once, twice, thrice, even four times.

• François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• All of the above

Long-term edit warring on the first of the above mentioned pages, and the ensuing discussions on the talk page seem to be of a rather toxic kind.

I am unsure if all three are aware of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions, but this is clearly a case where there is an extended dispute and users do not seem inclined to participate in a calmer talk page discussion. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors given ANI notice on talk page (as far as possible). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing the protected template was an accident which I meant to remedy but then got busy. I've put it back. As for the rest of this complaint, it's of the ye ol' "why won't they let me push my POV in peace" . The claims by the IP are false or spurious (false claims of consensus, false description of edits, etc.). And anyway, how does a brand new IP know about DS in this topic area or have all this knowledge about Wikipedia policies. WP:DUCK and WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, despite the above claim, the IP did not notify me and I just noticed this myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It also appears that this posting is mostly motivated by the IP being annoyed by the fact they can't jump in to edit war because the page has been semi'd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't have notified you because your talk page is protected. Stop the WP:PA. If you think I'm a sock, WP:SPI is the place to go (and then you'd need a stronger agreement than just "he agrees with somebody else") 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the IP contributor does have a significant edit history under that address. If they are a long-term editor, they should know that no editor is subject to more frivolous ANI/ANEW reports than Volunteer Marek. As Collaboration in German-occupied Poland is semi-protected and the editors cited in this report don't agree with each other, I think that allowing normal editing to proceed and/or referring this to WP:DRN is all that is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

My error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, the editing of the IP 198.xxx -- which geolocates to Montreal -- goes back to 12:04 1 January 2018, exactly 4 seconds into the new year in that time zone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 17:04 - 5 hours = 12:04, which is noon, midnight would be 00:04. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC) You are correct, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment a long-term edit warring[14] by François Robere and consistent reinstalling opposed material[15] against talk page consensus[16] by François Robere is the only case that I find feasible on this record.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:F819:1151:10F3:7BC6 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: — 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:F819:1151:10F3:7BC6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - first edit, directly here, appears to be linked to other IPs which edited target pages. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Note: — mistaken ----> I have been editing various articles before for a quite time, my IP keeps changing daily at the place where I dwell, that's why.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D01E:3C0D:91FA:2E5F (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • The IP editor has identified as User:GizzyCatBella [17], and should be added to the list of warring users.
  • I support now, as I have before, placing some sort of restriction on the entire page. Personal sanctions may also be due in some cases.
  • I did not reinstate disputed material despite talk page consensus, and I've only restored material after exhaustive discussion [18][19][20][21][22]. I never deleted objectionable material that was well sourced [23][24], nor did I push my POV against the consensus [25][26]. I've assumed good faith and tried to stay civil for as long as possible despite frequent hostile behaviors by others [27][28][29][30]. Two users in particular - Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella have developed a penchant for reverting my edits; sometimes en masse, usually without discussion, and often regardless of what the sources actually say [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] (and they've done the same with others [42][43][44]). Their continuous disregard for sources and discussion meant that at some point I started adding quotes to every single source I thought they'll challenge (this section, for example, is extremely well sourced, but was quickly reverted along with several other changes [45]); and instead of asking them for clarifications on the talk page - which they'll ignore - I started asking directly in the article using tags [46][47][48][49] (which they then removed [50][51][52]). Finally, seeing as many of their changes were going unnoticed by the other editors - lost in the general "flux" of edits (~30/day) - I started reviewing their changes on the talk page, highlighting where they were pushing a POV or not following RS [53][54][55][56].

I've done my best to discuss, persuade, source, consult other users and involve the general Wiki community, but seeing as there's no way to force a "warring" editor to concede or even discuss an issue, it's just as well this was referred here. Good luck to all of us! François Robere (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Important note to the evaluating administrator - Please consider examining also Icewhiz who is consistently edit warring on both articles. As an example, I'm showing just few of the recent cases completed by the user in question ( the latest revert is as current as today)[57][58][59][60] There are plenty more examples straightforward to spot, please take a peak at edit history on both articles. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D01E:3C0D:91FA:2E5F (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  Besides the article talk page (where this is discussed in a number of sections), please see - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba where this addition sourced to wpolityce (a Polish internet portal) coverage of the Polish ambassador's to Switzerland's remarks (in Wikipedia's voice for WWII/Holocaust history!) is discussed. Besides the RS issue, there are also BLP issues to say a notable historian is mistaken or erroneous in Wikipedia's voice (based on an ambassador's Facebook post), OR issues, and NPOV issues. The content added about Grabowski is a shocking BLP and NPOV violation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  Also relevant - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella.Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The IP has self identified GizzyCatBella ‎(after someone bothered to ask on one of the IP's talk pages).Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A bit difficult to ask when it changes so often (as might be seen in the SPI) - François I believe did ask however (not via the changing IP TP - edit summaries or on article talk). Filing ANI [61] or AN/EW[62] shouldn't be done without identifying one's self. Nor should one reply at ANI - [63] " Response to Note: — mistaken ----> I have been editing various articles before for a quite time, my IP keeps changing daily at the place where I dwell, that's why." in response to a query on one's identity, without disclosing said identity.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I was able to ask them (and get a response), now in all the tooing and throwing I might have missed where any other users asked them if they were GizzyCatBella. Perhaps you could provide the diff?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

François asked them to identify and got to talk - here. In any event - filing at AN/EW and AN/I, and then replying this way to a SPA tag - is not cool as a logged out IP (without at least saying who you are). Nor is making massive reversions to an article you were previously editing, or commenting on the talk page (without identifying one's self) on topic areas you previously discussed logged in.Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Really, an edit summery? Is that really good enough? Also I am having trouble finding where not logging in forbids you from participating in certain activities.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The onus is not on other editors to ask about sockpuppets - and connecting the dots on this edit warring IP was not so simple. As for policy posting to ANI and ANEW as a sock is a clear WP:BADSOCK "Editing project space" violation (and note that they were asked here - and did not disclose, rather responding how this is a dynamic IP). Editing the talk page of a page you have been engaged in would be a "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" violation as would be the 2 major revert a day (on 6 days of editing) on the mainspace page (previously edited via the account) in terms of "Circumventing policies" (all the more so given the edit warring report against Francois by the IP on the same page!), And of course WP:SCRUTINY. Note that the SPI report was not a secret - I place it here after the IP reported me as an IP to ANI. Francois placed it at the edit warring report by the IP - AN/EW diff with sockpuppet report - the IP chose to respond only after you told them it was in their best interests to do so and after stronger behavioral evidence was produced at the SPI.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Really, an edit summery? Is that really good enough? It isn't, but as IP editors don't have talk pages it had to suffice. François Robere (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: Unrelated to the whole dispute thing, but actually, what IPs don't have is user pages, they do have talk pages (otherwise, tell me what this page is). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It's magic, and I'll deny ever being there. It wasn't me.

(but also, if you've a dynamic IP that changes 1-2 times a day, then that's useless too) François Robere (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

How to answer this without being sarcastic?Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, feel free. François Robere (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It is an article that has provoked strong reactions and edit warring form a number of editors. I am not sure that sanctions against all the involved edds (and it should be all or none, as I am not sure any of them are any ore innocent of POV edit warring). Rather some form of editing restriction on the page (such as no edits to article space, unless agreement is reached on talk pages) applied to all editors.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Fully protected Collaboration in German-occupied Poland for a week, and removed the disputed section. (I personally have no opinion regarding whether that section should remain in the article.) Use this time to come to a consensus on the scope of the article, and whether or not the disputed content should be included in it. In the future, when there is a dispute about newly-added content, discuss it and come to a consensus rather than edit warring. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note to the evaluating administrator from Poeticbent. The article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland as it stands, with one-week page protection, is an absolute horror of intentionally misrepresented facts, deleted references found inconvenient by the POV pushers, and preposterous accusations in a campaign of Holocaust-related hate mongering, lies, and slander. — François Robere (who made 139 edits to this page) and Icewhiz are a WP:TAG TEAM coordinating their actions in several pages in the area of WP:ARBEE case final binding. Their edits are made usually minutes apart from each other especially in relation to World War II collaboration recently. The problem with WP:ARBEE is that it has not been updated for years, and nobody gives a flying finger for what it says. Considering the sheer volume of edit warring, POV pushing, and bad faith, it would probably take several days to prepare a new case, with a new list of participants, going well beyond the limited scope of this one report. Nothing is going to get resolved otherwise. Poeticbent talk 17:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• We are an awfully ineffective tag team seeing that my interaction with Francois has been limited to 10 edits in one article (on different content), and 1 (3 consecutive) edits on another. I have supported his efforts to introduce solid academic sourcing to the topic area on the talk page. Some other editors might want to examine their POV editing in Holocaust related victim blaming - which has been commented on externally to Wikipedia Wikipedia Continues the Crime and the Silence of Polish Participation in the Murder of Jews, Jewish Press referring to this version of the page. Interestingly - the Polish Wikipedia is more balanced than the English Wikipedia on much of this content - and the problem on enwiki is quite wide.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz edits are so toxic and so full of thinly-veiled lies that no discussion is ever going to resolve anything. – Revelations about erroneous research at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are being replaced by him with accolades for the researcher. Why? Because there's a campaign going on elsewhere. Do you see what I mean? Poeticbent talk 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba - using an internet portal's coverage of a diplomat's facebook is quite a shocking source for ww2 history and BLP content.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, Poetic, your comments aren't exactly savoury either [64]. Second, your suggestion of "tag teaming" is idiotic. Third, GizzyCatBella made 160 edits and Nihil novi 152, and you don't seem to hold a grudge them. Fourth, if you want to argue "NPOV" you'd better have the sources to show it. Fifth, if you want to argue about "Jan Grabowski's accolades", I'd start not with some Polish ambassador or another, but with this list of "who's who" in WWII, Holocaust and Jewish studies. François Robere (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Poeticbent Of course it's the WP:WRONGVERSION. I personally also think there is content which should be removed too. The only way to get to it is to get on the talk page and let cool heads (and reliable sources) prevail. However, so far this has been frustrated because of a revert cycle on the article and because of everybody being rather uncompromising (if not outright hostile) on the talk page.

Strongly support proposal by Slatersteven, I would also (either alternatively or additionally) propose 1RR 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest setting the article back to its Creation, and forbid any editing there without consensus. Only when (and if) consensus is achieved can an edit be made.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would strongly support the proposal by Slatersteven. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm, protecting the article is one thing, but then making edits through protection User:Scottywong? Even if you're correct in your edit summary (and I don't think you are), that's a straight up abuse of administrative tools.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

wp:brd.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Poeticbent talk 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

What does that have to do with an administrator putting a page under full protection then reverting to their own preferred version (and this isn't a "vandalism" issue, but rather a content dispute)? User:Scottywong please explain your actions here. Or self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Process Edit, Get Reverted, Discus. What happened Edit, Get Reverted, Revert back Get Reverted, Discus, Revert back. What the admin did was to set the page back to where it would have been if proper procedure had been followed.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a question of BRD. This is a question of an administrator - @Scottywong:, I'm pinging you for the THIRD TIME, please respond - abusing his administrative tools by fully protecting the page then making edits to restore his preferred version through protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(and no, he didn't "set page back to where it would have been". In case, that wasn't his call to make, once he protected the page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Before you scream "admin abuse" too loudly, I suggest you go and read the protection policy, in particular the part starting at WP:PREFER. Admins have discretion to protect a version other than the current one, because the current version contains policy-violating content or because protecting the most recent version "rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision." GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Before you go lecturing others about policy and instructing them to read it, you might want to actually read it yourself. Here's what it says:

"administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people." - this wasn't vandalism, defamation, or poor quality coverage of BLP. It was a straight up content dispute.

Then it says "Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". User:Scottwong, who still hasn't bothered to reply, made edits which were controversial AFTER he used his admin tools to protect the page. That's a pretty clear cut abuse of admin tools. Admins have no right to get WP:INVOLVED in content disputes AND to simultaneously use their admin tools to enforce their own preferred version. This has been standard practice on Wikipedia for years, if not decades. Seeing as how you've consistently displayed a staggeringly profound ignorance of Wikipedia policy in the past (as evidenced by the fact that every time you make a comment at WP:AE, no other admins agree with you), your position here is unsurprising.

Finally, the way you phrase your comment - "Before you scream "admin abuse" too loudly" - is obnoxious and disingenuous. I'm not screaming anything and it's shitty of you to try to portray my comment in that way. I am simply pointing out, as is my right, and correctly, that the admin in question abused his tools. Which he did. So unless you think that ANY criticism of admins is always "screaming" then you need to quiet down and keep your mouth closed. Last thing we need is one incompetent admin protecting another incompetent admin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Care to tone down the personal attacks? I quoted the piece of the policy between those two quotes that you conveniently skipped over - how about interacting with it instead of just ignoring the policy that doesn't suit you? GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

How about you don't describe my comments as "screaming"? And you're the one who actually "skipped over" the relevant parts of the policy and cherry picked the part which maybe, kind of, sort of, with a big ol' stretch and some help from creative interpretation can be used to justify an admin making controversial content edits through full page protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems you missed the word "before" in my comment. But you know, cheery pick the part which maybe, kind of, sort of, with a big ol' stretch and some help from creative interpretation can be used to justify... what exactly? Are comments on content personal attacks now? Not last I checked. GoldenRing (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"It seems you missed the word "before" in my comment." - oh yes, that makes all the difference and makes your incivility ok. Riiggght.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the pot calls the kettle black. If you want to be able to cry incivility, you need to tone down your response to disagreement. At any rate, since it's now been explained to you repeatedly that policy allows what Scotty did, perhaps you might withdraw some of the above personal attacks? Both on him and me. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Already mentioned above, WP:WRONGVERSION is clearly what has happened here... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No, "wrong version" would've been if Scottywong had protected a... well, wrong version. This is different. He protected the page then went back and made controversial edits himself. It would've been one thing if he had protected a particular version which I don't happen to agree with. But here he is taking sides in a content dispute which means he's not WP:UNINVOLVED and as such has no business using his admin tools (which includes protecting the page).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, would you have been happier if I reverted your edit warring before protecting the page? By the way, I specifically noted in my brief comments above that I had no opinion on whether or not the disputed section remains in the article. I haven't even read that section completely. All I saw was that a section was added, its existence was disputed by multiple editors, and then an edit war ensued instead of a discussion. In these cases, the long-standing version of the article should remain in place while the discussion is happening. So, I reverted to the long-standing version of the article and fully protected the page to prevent editors like you from continuing the edit war. You really have a terrible attitude, and it's no wonder you get into so many conflicts. You should make an attempt to be more calm, polite, and collaborative. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 23:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that topic bans may be the only solution to some of the battleground mentality here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break no. 1

In regards to whether this diff by Scottwong to remove a contentious section is valid, consider that the section has, for sourcing: 1) a CN tag , 2) a Tripod.com user-generated content site as a reference, and 3) a site that is tagged as having failed verification this month. Add that it is clearly is controversial, and its removal by Scottwong as the protecting admin, as outlined in WP:PREFER, seems fully appropriate. --Masem (t) 15:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact is, whether the protecting admin acted correctly or not in regards to policy, arguing over it doesn't really solve the underlying issue about the dispute on those pages (which are a problem of WP:BATTLEGROUND and won't go away even if all currently involved editors were blocked and never came back - they'd simply be replaced by new people arguing over it). I doubt the issue can be decisively resolved, but if people stop arguing about each other that would help. That of course is a lot to ask of some people so we should go ahead with the WP:1RR (which would help enforce the usual "if somebody disagrees and reverts your removal/addition, discuss immediately") and stricter consensus requirements. The solution could be the same as on other "heavily politicized" topics, for example the American Politics AE:

Extended content

What do you think of this proposal? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

1RR would do the article good. The "consensus required" bit, would take it no where - just allow stonewalling.Icewhiz (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And now in real time (from this). François Robere (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Identical twins? Or a bad joke at everyone's expense?

• How is is possible that two accounts editing only minutes apart from each other, for weeks already (!): François Robere and Icewhiz – wikihounding others in the same process discussions, participating in the same prolonged edit wars with extreme bias ... deleting the same references, inserting into articles the same anonymous attack webpages, harassing a woman to a breaking point hand in hand, and (most importantly), making an absolute mockery of WP:BATTLE policy in tandem, can go on like this, and nobody could (or would) do anything about it? Any ideas? Poeticbent talk 20:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  It would seem that using respected academic sources, e.g. Grabowski on the Blue Police is biased or even "frightened by the scale of histeria" per Poeticbent, who on the otherhand in a shocking feat BLP/NPOV/OR uses fringey coverage (a right wing internet portal) of a Polish diplomat's Faebook post to assert a historian math was "wrong". "harassing a woman to a breaking point" seems to be related to a SPI case with quite a bit of merit, while Poeticbent chose to open at least 2 meritless SPI cases recently SPI from March 2018 (opened in conjunction with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination) of an article Poeticbent heavily contributed to, which contained shocking misuse of sources and outright blood libel in Wikipedia's voice - see Sandstein's comments here), and another SPI from 28 Jan 2018. And what we had in mainspace in Massacre_of_Brzostowica_Mała is not a unique example of the contributions here. The other accusations above have little merit - a cursory examination of Francois's edits and mine show that we actually interact very little. If at all, there is tag teaming from the other side of the aisle here. We should do WWII and Holocaust history justice by relying on mainstream academic sources - and revisionst screeds should never be presented in Wikipedia's voice (if at all, but if presented - attributed and balanced with other views).Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz, I'm trying to wrap my head around the grammar of "in a shocking feat BLP/NPOV/OR uses fringey coverage (a right wing internet portal) of a Polish diplomat's Faebook post to assert a historian math was "wrong"" and its incorporation into that sentence. Nor am I sure about what you seem to describe as fringey coverage by a portal of a Facebook post there--is it this? What you can fault is the lack of proper ascription: "The problem with Grabowski's arithmetic is that Polonsky was misquoted to begin with..." should be properly ascribed and contextualized, of course: we can't have this stuff in Wikipedia's voice. But this thing, it seems to me, is symptomatic of the discussion--not enough specifics, plenty of accusations. Surely this matter can be discussed on the talk page, and the status of wpolityce.pl assessed at WP:RSN, instead of becoming ammo here at ANI. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Sorry for the bad grammar. I want to note I did not bring this to ANI (and I was actually reported here for objecting to this content - by the IP in the thread above). I did take this to the talk page and RSN (in both ONUS was not met for inclusion of this), though in retrospect it should have gone to NPOVn or BLPn. I should have said that using an internet portal's coverage of a facebook post by a diplomat is not appropriate per RS/BLP policy to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that a historian's math is wrong. It is also probably UNDUE even if it were attributed, and there are OR issues as well in some bits not sourced to the diplomat's Facebook post. I find it shocking this content would be used for a WWII history article (in which sources of better quality are not lacking).Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Editor interaction from Jan 2018, with actual smoke - [65], or (3 editor limit) [66].Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Technically, we do not discriminate against intelectual deficiencies here in Wikipedia, but Icewhiz now adding User:Poeticbent as suspect to that miserable WP:GANG attack on a woman in a screwy duologue with François Robere (a classic WP:MEAT double-act) reverting and lying in tandem for weeks if not months already, is a sign of serious emotional instability somewhere. I have already said, WP:ARBEE is practically dead; however, WP:Requests for arbitration is absolutely necessary here; the question is only when. Poeticbent talk 14:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The non-piped version of "WP:GANG attack on a woman" is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella. Poeticbent was added to the report on the basis of quite a bit of evidence, most notably a 46.7% (128 of 274) intersection rate (on mostly very low traffic articles) between articles GizzyCatBella edited and articles previously edited by Poeticbent. GCB first edited on 9/2015 (in a non-newbie fashion), stopped at 12/2015 and then went dormant until 2/2018, coming back with the following user page gender correction. There is additional evidence - however the correct forum is the SPI case.Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

So, wait, do I have this straight? One side is saying that Icewhiz and François Robere are a tag team/meatpuppets/sockpuppets, and the other side is saying the Volunteer Marek, MyMoloboaccount, Poeticbent and GizzyCatBella are a tag team/meatpuppets/sockpuppets? Is it not possible that there are simply two main opposing stances, and that all of these editors simply share those stances with the others in their supposed team? If these editors cannot come to some agreements, and aoluntarily stop their BATTLEGROUND behavior, perhaps they should all be topic banned from the problematic articles, for, say, six months, allowing other editors, with perhaps less vested positions, to work on them? And perhaps impose 1RR as well, so that the new editors don't fall into the same patterns. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Usually in these situations it actually comes down to one editor who's going around causing most of the trouble and pulling others in with them. Such a person has the unfortunate effect of radicalizing those who normally would be amenable to compromise and reasoned discourse. On both sides. Such an editor usually takes a radical, uncompromising stance and does so in the way which really antagonizes the opposite side, in what is essentially a form of ethnic trolling ("let me come into an article about your country and shit all over it, oh, you don't like it, why, you are obviously A NATTIONALISSSSTTTT!!!!"). And they're also usually good at making those on their site less reasonable - particularly those who are quite impressionable.

In this case that editor is Icewhiz. And this isn't the only topic area where they've been up to this kind of stuff (the other area is Israeli-Palestinian topic, where it's my understanding they've been a similar pain in the ass, and where they have also managed to poison the atmosphere and reopen past arguments, just as the topic area was quieting down). The editor who could be reasonable but got pulled in and radicalized by Icewhiz is Francois Robere. They've made some comments which indicate that they may be capable of compromise but their actual edits to the article itself are simply provocative and tendentious and it appears that this is because they've started following Icewhiz's lead (I'm not saying they're in touch off-wiki, this kind of thing could happen organically). And the editor on the other side who's stance became hardened in response to the action of these two is GrizzlyBella or whatever her name is. You remove Icewhiz from this topic area, I promise it will quiet down and rest of the editors will find a way to work together.

One example of how Icewhiz has managed to spread bad faith all around, is his repeated calls to out right ban sources on the basis of their ethnicity (no Polish sources allowed on articles that have to do with Polish history!!!!!) Or they're broad comments about Poland and Poles which employ stereotypes or sweeping generalizations. This is a guy who should've been topic banned form this topic months ago - and I said it back then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

VM has been reverting well sourced information, avoiding TP discussion (and edit warring against consensus), and introduced/supported some really poorly sourced information both about BLPs and contentious subjects - for instance calling out an admin User:Scottywong above (after edit warring about this in the article) who removed information on responsibility for a mass massacre after protecting the article that was sourcedto a Tripod blog post (edit warred in by VM a few times, including the latest - here). Insisting in high quality academic sources without bias issues (e.g. opposing Facebook posts, blog posts, sources with documented censorship issues, supporting balanced use of multiple viewpoints (not attempting to exclude Polish sources - but to balance them with non-Polish sources when other viewpoints are present in them on a contentious subject), or objection to the use of sources that were called out by the SPLC/HopeNotHate/others (and covered in RS) for their various activities and that have been involved in far right politics) is not trolling. VM's stmt above of "let me come into an article about your country and shit all over it" demonstrates a clear ownership (is Poland "his"?) and bias problem (how is reflecting mainline Holocaust scholarship, sourced to high quality sources, in relevant articles - "shit"?) - that in this case has manifested itself in edit warring (much more than any I might be said to be involved in), OR, NPOV, and BLP issues e.g. here (against TP and RSN discussions - which were participated more widely than he states). VM's stance in general has been to object to material well accepted by mainstream Holocaust historians, relying on rather fringe sources while severely attacking well respected BLP historiansIcewhiz (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a nice fantasy land you live in there Icewhiz. Seriously, can you point to one topic area where you've been active that you have not immediately caused a ton of trouble? How many articles have had to be fully protected because of edit wars you started? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Very few actually - I do not edit-war as frequently (or at all) as some WP:KETTLE editor making this assertion (who seem to engage in blanket reverts across multiple topic areas - flipping the article back to their preferred state 1-2 times a day - even on BLP questionable edits - or on sanctioned 1RR topics - e.g. White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) - [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] (some of which are justified - and probably are OK on 1RR with the IP exemption - but still rather edgy)) - I typically will open a RfC (or bow out) when in dispute. Frankly - in ARBPIA things are much more collaborative - revert cycles are limited to a day or two (and that under 1RR) - prior to things getting hammered out on the talk page or via constructive (e.g. editing the addition or adding coutner-balancing information). 1RR would do this particular topic area good.Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This is another one of your typical disingenuous and bad faithed tactics where you attempt to falsely smear another editor just to "win" a content dispute. This kind of behavior is despicable. You're wrong - whatever reverts I made on that article were fully justified and with consensus, and yeah, most of them were reverts of disruptive IP editors. The fact that you try to bring this completely irrelevant bullshit up in this discussion sort of exemplifies your WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE approach to editing (whatever you claim about how great your behavior over at ARBPIA is).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I beg to differ. In this case, both sides seem to be rather uncompromising, and trying to shift the blame on others is simply an attention to shift it away from oneself. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz and François Robere are not sockpuppets of each other. Regarding meatpuppetry, I'll note that Icewhiz and François actually only intersect on this one very narrow topic area, and both have otherwise long and non-intersecting histories on the site, so that also seems unlikely. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Even on that very narrow topic area - our intersection is narrow. Francois hasn't been involved in other articles (he's been doing quite a bit of in-depth editing to the collaboration article (starting with the Poland section in Collaboration with the Axis Powers and then the created Collaboration in German-occupied Poland) - but hasn't edited all that much outside of that article (he did comment on the talk on Blue Police). I conversely - haven't edited the collaboration article all that much (IIRC I got into it in a RfC on the Axis article (on the British section) - and then participated a bit on the talk, as well as adding specific tidbits that I had knowledge of from other articles - but my editing on the article itself has actually been limited to approx. 2 paragraphs)). Francois wasn't involved at all in Jan Grabowski (historian) (which I edited/expanded very heavily) or in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination) (a rather ugly article and ugly AfD - which was close in terms of headcount, though far from close in terms of policy (notability, as well as serious RS/NPOV issues)) - calling two editors who intersect on essentially one article (parent and off-shoot) and even there a not so large intersection.... a tag team / meatpuppets ?! This seems to be solely based on WP:IDONTLIKE of well-sourced content.Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually if we look at how all this came about, then we just need to follow your edits temporally - you start at one article, cause trouble, edit war, it ends up being fully protected. You then move on to another article on a related topic and do exactly the same thing, until that article gets fully protected. You then move on to a third article and do the same. By the time that one gets fully protected, the full protection on the first one has expired, so you go back and restart your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on the first one. Rinse, repeat, etc. etc. etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

VM if Icewhiz truly does show a pattern of tendentious editing, diffs are required to verify that. I don't see much of a point for both sides to fling accusations at each other without at least backing them up with evidence. Icewhiz has kinda done so, but I do not believe his three diffs paint the whole picture just yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Grace, you're right, and the diffs can certainly be provided, but assembling the diffs requires some time since it means digging through several different article's histories and finding the right ones. This is especially time consuming when someone reverts and comments as much as Icewhiz. So give me a bit of time and I'll be happy to provide them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The "whole picture" would show that Icewhiz is an editor with the patience, fortitude and knowledge to wade into contentious topics. He regularly clashes with TheGracefulSlick on terrorism- crime- and Palestine- related subjects, notably at AfD. Slick and he see the world differently (full disclosure: I generally agree with Icewhiz on the notability these topics, and in our attitude towards revisionist history.) This particular clash has to do with a a strong wave of publication of ultra-nationalist and Holocaust minimizing literature in Poland, featuring POV journalism, Historical revisionism and pseudo-scholarship making assertions that Western historian overstate the Holocaust. And attempting to replace a complex period in the 1930s and 1940s (including bloody post-war strife) during which Poles were at once victimized by Nazis and Soviets and were themselves were mass murderers and oppressors of Jews, with a monochrome picture of heroic, honourable, but badly oppressed and murdered Poles. History is messy, but Icewhiz's work in this area (I have dipped my toe in once or twice, but lack Icewhiz's courage and tenacity, and tend to shy away from these revisionist Poland articles,) has been a visible effort to keep articles accurate and balanced. It does not appear to be an area in which Slick (who primarily edits on pop music) has has much interest or expertise.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory if you took the time to read my comment, you would realize I was defending Icewhiz; he shouldn't be accused of things without diffs. If you took the time to read this thread overall, you would realize I am not involved in this "clash". If you took even a little more time, you would also realize I have contributed to other things besides music, especially in the past year. Perhaps you should think things through before trying to get in a cheap shot? You just look foolish when you fail to evaluate your surroundings.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if Francois and Icewhiz is the same individual, but I have to admit that this thought came to my mind a few times in the past. Both are operating in a very similar manner. Both tend to leave lengthy, often misleading commentaries followed by a list of references, green color quotation text, etc. Among other things, there are similarities in the methods of arguing, clear anti-Polish bias and always uncompromised position.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4DDB:5808:7286:8AA5 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"Qui s'excuse s'accuse" - would you oppose sockpuppetry investigation Icewhiz?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4DDB:5808:7286:8AA5 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI IP, I am an SPI clerk. If you open that investigation I will close it immediately, absent some amazing evidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say I will open the case Someguy1221; I just asked if they would oppose it. If I was mistrusted, I would ask for investigation myself to prove everyone wrong instead of writing lengthy essays. Simple as that. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B5B2:3206:743D:B94A (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That reads dangerously like "I am not sure, so can we have one just to prove they are not", and that is fishing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by fishing? That I'm suggesting it? No, I'm just telling what I would have done in such situation.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B5B2:3206:743D:B94A (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is this looks like you are saying that "if you are innocent you would ask for an investigation to clear your name, nudge nudge, wink wink". Thus it really does read like you do not have enough evidence to start an SPI, but want to imply it is needed in the hope someone else turns up evidence. No one has to (or should have to) prove their innocence, either you straight up accuse someone or accept there is no case and drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately it doesn't really matter what the IP would have done. Per Wikipedia:CheckUser, checkusers are not allowed to perform 'innocence checks' on the English wikipedia. So such a request would be denied. (This also incidentally means that whatever the IP would have done, an experience user would not make such a request since regardless of their personal experience and beliefs, they should know they are asking for something which is not allowed.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the point about VM's (et all) socking is to show just how ridiculous the Accusation is against Icewhiz and Frank is. The issue of tendentious editing is different, and I seem to recall having been here before over Icewhiz, but I am pretty sure VM has been brought up before the beak as well.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what this comment is trying to say. If you're claiming that I'm sock puppeting, well, that's silly. If you're claiming that I accused anyone of socking that is also false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Look!! Protection on article removed and Icewhiz goes for it right away ---> boom! [77] This is what VM was talking about in his comment (quote VM under). And this is happening as we speak! 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B5B2:3206:743D:B94A (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually if we look at how all this came about, then we just need to follow your edits temporally - you start at one article, cause trouble, edit war, it ends up being fully protected. You then move on to another article on a related topic and do exactly the same thing, until that article gets fully protected. You then move on to a third article and do the same. By the time that one gets fully protected, the full protection on the first one has expired, so you go back and restart your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on the first one. Rinse, repeat, etc. etc. etc

Protection was actually removed on 9 April (the protection template lingered). The edits were done per consensus, pre-edit, at a 12 day discussion - Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)#Dariusz Stola's review - restoring content that was removed by mistake in this diff by @198.84.253.202: - TP - "But yes, sorry for the removal and of course it should go back in". The TP discussion was open for 12 days - and showed overall support for restoration of the content (all 4 reviews were removed by mistake by 198.84.253.202, and all of them by noted historians and/or in a respected journal) - if this demonstrates anything - it is VM coming in and blanket-reverting (with a mildly incivil edit summary) an edit done congruent with talk-page consensus - without bothering with participating in the talk page discussion during the protection (and commenting today on the TP only after he blanket reverted an edit done in accordance with the discussion).Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the editor interaction utility is of limited usefulness (e.g. comparison of me and Icewhiz [78]). 3+ editors is harder to shake off, but the fact is that in a BATTLEGROUND situation, when two editors are online simultaneously, you often get rapid back/forth debate. Throw in another few editors and suddenly you've got two (or more!) different camps that look like they're tag teaming, but actually haven't even met and live in different countries. Given the number of users, it's inevitable that some will interact in this manner across multiple pages - especially within the topics of interest to those editors. I'd ask that any accusations of sock/meating cease, or an SPI is opened in the case of convinving evidence. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Caution, I got into a SPI twice based on this level of evidence: 17 March, 28 Jan. ;-).Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A late entry to this discussion:

• I find the proposition amusing. I've checked the intersection of edits between Icewhiz and myself and it's quite small, and I can't point to any particular linguistic or behavioral trait that would suggest we are are own person. I wouldn't recommend an SPI of (/against) us, but speaking as myself I could hardly care less.
• As for those who suggested "unwillingness to compromise" (@Volunteer Marek, @198.84.253.202:), I just want to point to this, which has a list of diffs demonstrating my "unwillingness" to compromise and discuss; as well as this, which shows the general trajectory these discussions took, as well as other editors' (notably VM and Bella) contentious, poorly-sourced, and "IDONTLIKEIT" edits.
• @Someguy1221: I'll note that Icewhiz and François actually only intersect on this one very narrow topic area, and both have otherwise long and non-intersecting histories on the site I hope you found my long, non-intersecting edit history interesting. I try to appeal to my readers.
• @Icewhiz: he's been doing quite a bit of in-depth editing to the collaboration article Thanks for the comment. However, what struck me here is just how shallow some of the work done by others is. Bella has repeatedly misrepresented or even mis-cited sources, and most of her discourse when faced with sources that clearly contradicting her took the form of short exclamations in "all caps". A lot of the work was just fact checking or source checking - some reading, granted, but nothing that comes close to academic work. I came to the conclusion she was canvassing for sources - skimming to find statements that satisfied her, without actually reading the source. It's a human tendency everyone should all be aware and wary of, but when it's done with such dedication... there's something sad about it. François Robere (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A reminder to admins

These articles are under discretionary sanctions, which are intended to be used to stop just the kind of disruptive behavior we see here. Would an admin kindly do something here under DS:EE? I'd suggest topic bans for all the editors involved, but, whatever it is, please do something, that's why we have discretionary sanctions in the first place. This AN/I discussion is not helping anything, and is, in fact, hardening positions and fraying tempers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

We have WP:AE for that. Proposals to use nuclear option by handling out random topic bans just because "it looks very contentious" are never productive. Anyone is free to file a WP:AE report with specific allegations supported by diffs against specific editors for specific violations of policies or discretionary sanctions. I might do that myself when I get a bit more time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

All (or mostly) very true, but the purpose of DS is to allow admins to be more proactive in those subject areas, and I was suggesting that doing so would be appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish. François Robere (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The admins do not seem to care about this issue, so I guess it should be closed. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've put in place some editing restrictions on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. [79] And Volunteer Marek is right in that proposals for topic bans should be made at WP:AE. Things get too messy here if there are two or more sides with no blatant signs of misbehavior (just like what was happening before we had discretionary sanctions). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion

Many pages about collaborations with Nazi are really contentious because people have developed them along the lines "collaboration of ethnic group X with Nazi". This is very bad idea because blaming ethnic groups (rather than countries or individual citizens of certain countries) of collaboration with Nazi is actually wrong, not supported by academic sources, offends WP contributors, and was the basis for racist Stalinist deportations after WWII. What needs to be done is renaming all such pages along the lines "Collaboration of country X citizens with Nazi occupiers" (I commented about it here - agree with IP who started this thread). That will help to minimize conflicts and improve the content. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Considering that the article at the core of this dispute is titled "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland", which doesn't mention ethnicity at all, only a state or region, how does that suggestion help this particular problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Right. That - as reflected in the title - is what it's *suppose to be* like. About a country not an ethnicity. But that's not how it ends up in practice. This is in fact the central problem here with editors like Icewhiz purposefully trying to make it about ethnicity (and even suggesting that we exclude some sources on the basis of their ethnicity). Hell, after failing to force his way through on the article he even started a suggestion on the talk page [80], to make the article exclusively about "collaboration by ethnic Poles" (and exclude collaboration by any other ethnic group). (This led another editor to - jokingly I think, though sometimes it's hard to tell - to suggest that the article should actually be about "collaboration by ethnically pure Poles". If this doesn't show that Icewhiz is here with a POV WP:AGENDA I don't know what does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Marek, you should stop making unfounded accusations about people. I (strongly) disagreed with Icewhiz's rationale, but he did have a rationale for his proposal, and there was no sign of bias on his part in making it. François Robere (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

My observation from the collaboration articles (Collaboration in German-occupied Poland and Collaboration with the Axis Powers) on scope was actually opposite - one of the major problems was editors feuding over how much content to devote to each ethnicity - e.g. how much space (and claims) to devote to Jewish collaborations vs. Polish collaborations, which also led to introductions of content like this diff with piped links (Koniuchy massacre->Jewish, Skidel revolt->murdered Poles) to two incidents of inter-ethnic strife, or edits aimed to minimize ethnicity X while maximizing ethnicity Y (and in WWII German occupied Poland - there are at least 6 relevant ethnic groups (in different parts)).Icewhiz (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"edits aimed to minimize ethnicity X while maximizing ethnicity Y" - Dude. You fucking proposed that ONLY collaboration by "ethnic Poles" should be included and collaboration by any other ethnic group be excluded. How the hell can you then come here and complain with a straight face that SOME OTHER editors are trying to "maximize ethnicity Y" and "minimize ethnicity X" when you yourself have proposed the most extreme variant on that strategy????????????????????????????????????????? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

To be clear - diff - I suggested the same for other ethnic groups - " I will support such a breakdown for other ethnicities", "Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany, Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany, Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany, Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany,...." - which would keep each one in its own page (instead of, for instance, repeating Judenrat in each country or covering Ukrainian Auxiliary Police in multiple countries, etc.) - the suggestion did not garner support - but it was completely equal for all ethnic groups - it was not an article specific suggestion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Because that is what much of the dispute (even over its name) is about. The issue of "ethnic" poles vs "Germans" or "Ukrainian" Poles. If there was a WIki wide policy (lets call it that) that said that all articles about collaboration with Germany had to be called (and about) collaboration by a nations citizens it would remove much of the dispute by virtue of the fact there would be a policy and a standardization. I can think of no other article on this subject which has so much space devoted to ethnicity, or that includes material about other nations citizens.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out already "collaboration by ethnic group X" is generally problematic as an organization strategy for an article because ethnicities spill over into each other and often overlap. Which isn't to say it can't be roughly done, but the proper way to do it needs a lot of context and that can't be done when you limit it to "only collaboration by ethnic group X". Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me, but it was not people like me who argued that ""ethnic Germans" should not be lumped together with "ethnic Poles". The reason for the forking suggestion was to address that issue, that Pole should mean "ethnic Poles". I did not argue for (and in fact largely opposed) the splitting off into separate paragraphs for each ethnic group. Arguing that what mattered was nationality, not ethnicity.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Nazi did persecute specific ethnic groups, such as Slavs, Jews, etc. Such "ethnic issues" will inevitably appear on such pages, and they should. However, other than that, there is no need to debate any ethnic questions on such pages. Every Nazi collaborator, an individual or an organization, has a name. Just use that name per WP:Common name. For example, naming Russian Liberation Army among the Nazi collaborators is not really an "ethnic issue". This is just a common name of organization. Same with all other collaborators. No one will object. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Large numbers of former Poles served in the German army, we cannot list all of them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course not, and no one suggested it. What should be done is placing sourced info about Nazi collaborators on the page, like here. Overall, I think this ANI thread qualify as block shopping or forum shopping. If anyone had a case, they would go to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Well sourced" and then you go on and link to the most OR content in the article, which has been clearly disputed (and superseeded) on the talk page, a discussion from which you seem to have abstained. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you, but if you want to edit contentious subjects and complain about other contributors, I think you should create named account. This is for the reason of accountability. My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Why should we delay dispute resolution? There is obviously a perceived POV dispute which has evolved into edit warring and/or user misconduct, and WP:ANI is one of the appropriate places to handle such a situation. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you did not seek any WP:Dispute resolution beyond discussing this on article talk page. Dispute resolution would include posting RfC, request for mediation, etc. But instead you reported users you do not like to the ANI. This is not dispute resolution, but forum shopping or block shopping. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There were multiple discussions on the talk page, including some RfCs - and yet, not much progression. The rest is already said above so I won't bother explaining yet again in yet another different way how ANI is the appropriate place for this kind of dispute. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As someone who has peeked at this affair from time to time but opted out of participating, I'd like to say I think the proposal by User:My very best wishes is a good one; with regards to the issue raised by User:Slaterseven, in general phrases like "x-ethnicity individuals" (and etc) can be helpful. In addition, keeping in mind I don't think my opinion is exactly the same as Icewhiz' here, I'd like to say I strongly disagree with the characterization of his editing tendencies. In topic areas like the Middle East, sadly occasionally a cesspool of nationalist edit warring, he has been one of the most civil, conciliatory and especially patient editors (way more patient than I would be given what he sometimes had to put up with). Collaboration in the, erm, 1940s era, is as complicated an issue as it is (understandably and perhaps rightfully) emotional, and it's very easy to end up with misunderstandings. Nobody ever said WP:AGF was always easy. Cheers all,--Calthinus (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

To the IP/Cat, it might be best (daft as it seems) to have a small statement after each post to say (I am cat and this is not a sock), just to avoid the obvious confusion this is causing some peopleSlatersteven (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ashbourne1

User Ashbourne1 has consistently been vandalizing articles on Wikipedia or introducing false narratives in topics related to Turkish or Turkic peoples (such Azerbaijanis). User is introducing ethnic bias and prejudice in his edits, quite a few clearly being vandalizing trollish behavior as well which disrupts the overall environment at Wikipedia.

He's vandalized and reverted the names of the city of Istanbul to Constantinople on a couple articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmed_Muhtar_Pasha&diff=836051630&oldid=822783307 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Bogoridi&diff=833160867&oldid=802446359 when Constantinople was changed to Istanbul in 1453...

He removed a forward link involving Turkic rulers for this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuman_bay_II&diff=836055080&oldid=813045789

Removed Robert Hossein's Azerbaijani heritage from this article (calling it a ploy from Azerbaijani nationalists, which is clearly false) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Hossein&diff=831519237&oldid=831248849

Removed the ethnic heritage of the Iranian Schindler, who was an ethnic Azerbaijani - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdol_Hossein_Sardari&diff=836220590&oldid=832381432

Removed Category:Israeli emigrants to the United States for this Azerbaijani-Jewish author (from Israel) here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zecharia_Sitchin&diff=828915449&oldid=827085356

Vandalized the name of Israel, and changed it to Palestine here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margot_Frank&diff=830969470&oldid=830770524

Added Westboro Baptist Church in this article before quickly reverted for false positive - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faithful_Word_Baptist_Church&diff=835098672&oldid=833017156 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNutt (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I question how malicious this user really is, because it's clear you're assuming bad faith and have your own agenda. You also did not notify the user that they have been reported here, which is required. Elassint ^Hi 02:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Elassint is certainly correct that you are required to report him. As to Elassint's argument that you have your own agenda .. that seems odd, because Elassint just criticized you as assuming bad faith for assuming the other editor had their own agenda?? All that said, a number of the edits you point to seem quite inappropriate, and well beyond facially good faith revisions - this does seem to deserve closer attention by some admins. 2604:2000:E016:A700:7943:2675:5B48:2161 (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks user, and i'm hoping the community can keep a closer eye on this user. There is somewhat of a status quo maintained at wikipedia and I noticed this user has been editing articles by erasing mentions of individuals ancestries (for example): Erasing Robert Hossein's ancestral heritage and claiming that it is a ploy by "Azerbaijani nationalists," which is just utter nonsense, or the fact that he deleted the ancestry of the Iranian Schindler, who was also an ethnic Azerbaijani. He erased important information without conveying it on the talk page. While we seem to be seeing eye to eye, I think it is somewhat insulting when User:Elassint claims that i'm the one who may have "an agenda," when I'm questioning the motives of the other individual deleting significant information to mask certain portrayals of people that he doesn't like. There seems to be targeting toward topics relates to Israel and Turkic peoples (Azerbaijani people, history of Ottomans). Additionally, I wasn't aware that I'm to notify user. I'm not requesting disciplinary action, and I've repeated before elsewhere that I find this entire ordeal too court-like. I just want to make sure that individuals don't push political agendas on Wikipedia, considering some of the recent and existing drama there has been on the Russian wikipedia platform about political bias which extends to ethnic bias. I'll let user know that he was mentioned, thanks User talk:2604:2000:E016:A700:7943:2675:5B48:2161 . WikiNutt (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I do apologize for the hypocrisy of implying possible bad faith while criticizing you for assuming bad faith. However, this does seem to be a mutual dispute rather than one sided, in that you both seem to be assuming bad faith on each other. I suggest that both you and Ashborne1 investigate WP:DRN as a better host for this discussion than here. Elassint ^Hi 04:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• @WikiNutt: How these[81][82] edits are vandalism? See WP:NOTVAND. Have you attempted to discuss the issue with Ashbourne1?

Why do you mark major edits[83][84][85][86] as minor? D4iNa4 (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

If you'd please remain on topic it'd be appreciated, User talk:D4iNa4|talk, much of what you reference back to are reverts I made from the user who unjustifiably deleted relevant information, see bottom bulletin on page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit#When_to_mark_as_minor_changes). Again asking you to remain on topic and to refocus on the edits stemming from user in question instead of trying to make this about me... WikiNutt (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Read when not to mark as minor changes on same page and you are marking your major edits as minor. Since you have made a report, your conduct will be judged as well. I am not really seeking any sanction on you, but only telling you that you need to improve your editing. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - the use of "Constantinople" is correct until 1928. From the Istanbul article " the use of the name Constantinople remained common in English into the 20th century, Istanbul became common only after Turkey adopted the Latin alphabet in 1928 and urged other countries to use the city's Turkish name." Therefore any change of Istanbul to Constantinople when dealing with a date before 1928 is not vandalism, but good editing. Mjroots (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• But why did "Constantinople" get the works? That's nobody's business by the Turks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The city fell in 1453. While it was still called Konstantiniyye in certain contexts, it was also called Istanbul (which is also a Greek word for "in the city.") There is significant information available showing that the context of Istanbul and Konstantiniyye were synonymous, and that the Ottomans would use them interchangeably. There are plenty of other Wikipedia pages relating to Turkish history which continue to use "Istanbul," rather than "Constantinople." If this is the decision of Wikipedia, there should be changes in all of them. Though I found the changes to be correlated to possible bias which I why I made mention of them. WikiNutt (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether the city should be referred to as Istanbul or Constantinople (in contexts of Turkish/Ottoman history between 1453 and 1930) is certainly a legitimate content disagreement, to be discussed on article talk pages or possibly in a central WikiProject or Naming Conventions venue. Both versions are clearly legitimate in principle, and as far as I can remember we never had a clearly spelled-out project-wide consensus guideline for or against either. (The crucial content argument here is not what the city was called at a given time, but what English-speaking scholars call it today, when speaking of that time, and as far as I know, nobody ever went to the trouble of demonstrating whether either of the two names clearly dominates in the contexts in question.) But anyway, that's not a discussion for ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A centralized discussion would probably be best; I also think that in addition to from what English-speaking scholars call it today when speaking of that time, (as noted by Future Perfect), which may be influenced on what other periods such scholarly work is addressing; we should also consider what English-language scholarly sources called it at the time, especially if these are referenced and quoted (or expected to be referenced and quoted) to minimize changing from one name to another mid-sentence or mid-paragraph. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Spamming wikipedia with deletion requests

User:Sportsfan 1234 spams wikipedia with deletion requests, sometimes multiple articles per day, without taking a detailed look at the articles. Whereas some of the deletion requests actually have validity, lots of them do not. Many articles that the user nominates pass WP:GNG per multiple independent in-depth sources cited. User:Stephreef repeatedly contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 concerning the issue but never received any response. User:Sportsfan 1234 never engages into any discussions but continues his/her agenda.Stephreef (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Every article I have nominated that you have created fails WP:NBASKETBALL. It has also been pointed out to you that these articles fail GNG, contrary to what you are saying. You calling this spamming is a borderline attack on my editing here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Is a topic ban warranted? We don't need prolific creation of non-notable topics. Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Legacypac - There seems to be uncertainty as to your question about a topic-ban. Are you inquiring about a topic-ban on User:Sportsfan 1234 against "spamming Wikipedia with deletion requests", or against Stephreef creating articles that don't pass basketball notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to @Legacypac. Topic ban for me? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion requests are "prolific creation of non-notable topics", User:Legacypac? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it "articles for deletion" considered a "topic"? And could an editor be "topic-banned" for "prolific creation of non-notable topics" IF listing and article for deletion creates a new "topic" every time that editor seeks "deletion of hundreds of pages" some days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors have been topic-banned from nominations for AFD. Editors have also been topic-banned from creating articles in particular areas, especially when the articles were not suitable for Wikipedia. Which is User:Legacypac suggesting? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I hate to interject, but I wonder if Legacypac might not be referring to the 934 non-redirect pages created by Stephreef, many of them having to do with basketball? [87] Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

We absolutely can ban someone from creating AfD's. We've done it before. Whether we should is another issue. Smartyllama (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

:*Support topic ban from creating sport-related articles for Stephreef. I've reviewed a number of the articles they have created, and the majority fail various section of WP:NSPORTS (for example, many are on non-notable youth tournaments or non-notable players. As the user doesn't seem to grasp the issue, this may unfortunately be the best way forward. Mdann52 (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As mentioned before, I agree that some articles fail notability criteria. Yet, many of them fulfill WP:GNG and other users have pointed this out in the deletion discussions. Stephreef (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• On second thoughts, stuck the above vote - I'm happy there isn't a long term issue here - think I just got a bad batch the first time around.

I don't think there is really an issue here with either party - I think closing as no action required may well be the kindest thing to do here - sportsfan is at times a prolific contributor at AfD, but by itself that isn't an issue IMO. I think the recent nominations are generally ok, so I don't see what good can come from this report if it is left open. Mdann52 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mdann52 Contrary to what @Stephreef is saying, a majority, if not all of their articles lack either notability standards for the relevant project (WP:Basketball), (WP:GNG) or in most cases both. If this is not addressed (ie through a topic ban or a temporary ban from creating articles) the problem will only continue to get worse. Just out of random I opened another five articles created by Stephreef and all would fail both (WP:Basketball) and (WP:GNG). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't argue some basketball players meet GNG even though they fail BASKETBALL. If that is the basis for crewting a bunch of pages a topic ban is in order. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The claim that User:Sportsfan 1234 "spams wikipedia with deletion requests" is unsupported by any evidence presented. For that to be true we would to see a long list of Keep results on their AfDs. Stephreef's frustration at having enough of their basketball bios creations AfD'd suggests they are creating too many pages that fail the inclusion criteria. Please don't misread my comments to suit a preconceived notion. Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there is some substance to the argument that Stephreef is making. Most of the articles that Sportsfan 1234 has recently nominated for deletion have been largely getting "keep" votes and (in my opinion) meet WP:GNG. It does not appear that the nominator is following WP:BEFORE and just opening new AfDs for each article they see that doesn't have a significant number of sources already cited. TempleM (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 certainly has done this before, around the start of this year, with a large number of nominations of Phillipines basketball related subjects. A couple were deleted without a real consensus because no one commented, but the vast majority were closed as keep, and the deleted articles were mostly recreated. I attempted to discuss this with User:Sportsfan 1234, and his response was to just delete my comments from his talk page without reply. It appears their work may result in WP:BIAS against non-English speaking basketball topics, as all of the current round I have reviewed so far are individuals who have played for the Indian national team (including one, Akanksha Singh who is the team captain and has been on the national team since 2004!). I do wish that User:Sportsfan 1234 would attempt to discuss with users instead of just rushing headlong into mass deletions, which can be disruptive. By and large they do a lot of good work, and are an asset to the encyclopedia, but they could work on communication, and understanding of how notability relates to non-English subjects.Jacona (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of the earlier list of deletion discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa. A couple of these guys are amongst the all-time greats in Phillipine basketball history, and the Phillipines is known for loving basketball! The newest round of deletion results seems to be targeting members of the Indian national team. Is the editor failing to do before? Or are they unwilling to go to any effort to find sources for a subject that's unfamiliar to them because it's not on ESPN? They need to listen to criticism, consider language bias, and take the time to do a thorough WP:BEFORE process, before mass deleting basketball players from a country's national team. AfD nominations require a lot of our collective resources to consider, and should not be done lightly.Jacona (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Analyzing this current batch of deletion nominations, I am struck by the extreme disregard for WP:BEFORE in some of them. For example, Ram Kumar is the recipient of the highest sports achievement award in India [88]. One could not possibly perform WP:BEFORE and come to the conclusion that Kumar is not notable. This is a shameful example of WP:BIAS and part of a pattern of repeated disruptive mass AfD nominations. Something needs to be done to get this editors attention. Jacona (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@JaconaFrere: Technically, being a recipient of a certain award does not automatically make a player notable, unless the award is specified by the Wikipedia guidelines. However, I do believe that a number of the articles that have been nominated for deletion pass WP:GNG, some quite easily. Just because it fails WP:NBASKETBALL, it doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Additionally, I agree that Sportsfan 1234 does not seem to be following WP:BEFORE at all, as I stated previously. There are no signs that this user has attempted to find additional sources before nominating it for deletion. TempleM (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved Assessment

In looking this controversy over, I will comment that the filing editor, User:Stephreef, is shrieking, exaggerating an issue to try to "win" a dispute (although no one wins disputes; winning is what happens on the basketball court). It is out of line to call multiple deletion requests "spamming", unless perhaps it was being done by bots, and no one has suggested that. It is certainly out of line to call multiple deletion requests in one day "spamming" without providing metrics. I may have missed a few deletion requests, but it appears that on 15 April 2018, User:Sportsfan 1234 nominated multiple articles on basketball players who have not played at the first-tier level and so do not satisfy basketball notability (and one who appears to meet basketball notability after all). In particular, SF1234 PROD'd one of Sr's articles and nominated 8 for deletion. I didn't count the number of articles by other editors that they AFD'd, but the total number of AFD's is certainly within reason for one editor. There certainly is not a need for any action against User:Sportsfan 1234; just defend the articles on general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The boomerang question is whether User:Stephreef should be topic-banned from creation of basketball articles. I haven't seen the numbers to justify that either. I don't see a need for a topic-ban against either party. I do see a case for a WP:TROUT to the filing party for shrieking. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Good assessment. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Authors of wrong nationality

Ktrimi991 frequently removes cited text using wrong nationality of its authors to justify removal. Some of their last activities include:

• diff
• diff

while some older diffs can prove this modus operandi lasts for quite some time:

• diff
• diff
• diff and diff.

They insist on the wrong nationality of authors of historical works to justify their actions although there are sources authored by nonSerbs as explained here (diff). In many cases Ktrimi991 uses this excuse to remove text cited by works authored by authors of right (non-Serb) nationality. The above diffs include some of them like: French consul Hyacinthe Hecquard, Noel Malcolm, Croatian historian Milan Shufflay, Prof. Dr. Ger Duijzings and many other.

I tried many times to explain them that it is wrong to dispute reliablity of works based on the ethnicity of authors, but they either ignore such explanations or give laconic reply which can be interpreted as: its not X ethnicity which is wrong, its historiography authored by people of X ethnicity which is unreliable by default. I am afraid that this behavior will continue as long as it is tolerated.

If it is wrong to make conclusions based on nationality of authors, then I propose that somebody with appropriate tools explain that to Ktrimi991. Otherwise, if I am wrong, I most sincerely apologize.

I notified them with this edit (diff) about this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• From where I sit, looking at this, the matter as given in the examples looks to be best be covered under Wikipedia:General sanctions subsections Eastern Europe and Macedonia, for which the general regions are all covered. Accordingly, then, admins look to be authorized to implement standard discretionary sanctions for the articles in question. As for the behavior, that would need to be addressed by reminding both of you that there are arbcom/community related sanctions in play here, and advise that you both play nice lest you end up topic banned, or blocked, or so forth in that manner. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You report editors after you have content disputes with them, and in no case they get blocked. Search your ANI history. The last case actually was on the talk page of an admin who told you your claims were wrong. You have a long history of topic bans, and you are banned from the Serbian Wiki (your home Wiki) because of your support of solving content disputes with off-Wiki violence. Did you forget your old good times?

On your claims, yes, you have been told by many editors, including Serbs, that you should not use every Serbian or Yugoslav source you find to depict non-Serbs as inferior or as of Serbian origin. If you need me to help your memory, there are plenty of diffs. In the other hand I do not use Albanian sources in delicate topics like experiences of people during the Yugoslav era, Serbian history and Kosovo conflict. The Albanian and Yugoslav/Serbian sources should be used with great care, because not all of them are reliable, in particular when they make strong claims not supported by foreign reliable sources. The worry about use of such sources is widespread among Balkan editors, but you reported only me because you do not like my work, or my work does not let you have your preferred version of sth. "They insist on the wrong nationality of authors of historical works to justify their actions although there are sources authored by nonSerbs as explained here" Fallacies at the best, you wanted that recent stuff stay and I showed good faith and allowed it, although much of it is sourced to Milosevic's propaganda machine or is taken out of context. Poor you Antidiskriminator. I guess it is the time to request a new topic ban imposed on you, and I am starting to prepare the case. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment This report was written in a rather intellectually dishonest way, as some might say. In fact, in the article in question, Marino Becichemi editors advancing the position that Ktrimi991 likely felt the article was biased in favor of not infrequently made the argument that the only sources disputing their view were Albanian and therefore unacceptable (example: [[89]]). Ktrimi991 pointed out their reliance on Yugoslav sources (which was in fact rather hypocritical), before himself adding non-Albanian, Italian sources.--Calthinus (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, it appears that some of the sources provided by Antidiskriminator are misleading, and don't actually support what he was saying. For example, in this one [[90]] Ktrimi's reasons for removal had nothing to do with the nationality of sources, but rather that he felt they were misrepresented. --Calthinus (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 didn't reacted towards repetative editing - at first, the whole editing "conflict" started with this his revert - [91]. As seen, he deleted one part of the text with sources with the claim that partisan sourceS were added. Simple check can showed that these are not partisan sources and because of that I reverted that. What is even more interesting, is that one of the references, a Croatian one which was just before that introduced in the article and deleted and claimed as "Partisan" and later as "Fringe" by him, () is still used in the text and Ktrimi991 in this edit didn't removed it from other places in the article. Why is for him this source problematic when it assures that the person's family from the article was originally from one group of people and representative "Yugoslav" propaganda, while in all of other cases and places in the article the same source is all right, I don't know - and that's the main problem here. Same goes for other deleted sources from Croatia, Montenegro or Serbia. Later I moved the article so it could have the name I have seen in the English-literature. After some users seeked consensus for that I started that on the Talk page and Calthinus continued and we everybody agreed. As for the claims in the sources, Ktrimi991 continued to make reverts without proper explanations. After edits by other users who brought back, he continued to revert with the claims as, for example, "Fringe claims by sources from a single country (Yugoslavia)" and here is the link [92]. The fact is that the sources were contemporary Croatian and Montenegrin, thus not from single country nor Yugoslavia, just written in Croatian/Serbian language which are similar. And at his talk page [93] when he was asked why he insisted on reverts, after being introduced that the sources weren't from Yugoslavia but from Croatia, he insisted that they are, quote, "Still they belong to the school of Serbian/Yugoslav propaganda", a personal opinion without any references or arguments to back it up. Here is link [94]. This assures Antidiskriminator position that there is bias towards Yugoslav/Serbian/Croatian sources by Ktrimi991. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

References

• I find it discomfiting that bias will be inferred from the writer's nationality or ethnicity. WP:RS itself acknowledges that use of "biased sources" even of the acknowledged variety are appropriate in certain contexts, see WP:BIASEDSOURCES, and it's left to the editors of the article to decide whether to label the bias of the source. However, claiming that bias inheres in sources solely because of the writer's nationality or ethnicity seems to me to be WP:EXTRAORDINARY, and would require lots of sources to support that contention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46 Personally this is not an argument I would use myself. However, you may be unaware of the context. The historiographies of most Balkan countries, historically-- both Albania and Yugoslavia-- have had some serious issues. See Serbian historiography, Historiography of Albania, etc I say Serbian historiography because that one has a large page on wiki, but the truth is that all Yugoslav historiography had certain issues that have themselves been the subject of academic study as historiography. So that is where the contention was coming from -- Ktrimi (once) denounced about reliance on Yugoslav sources, and FkpCascais did the same for Albanian sources, and really, in a way, they're both right, it's just that with nationalized edit conflicts in the Balkan area on wiki it's... really not the best thing to say.

My preferred solution here is an "Ethnicity controversy" section where we can discuss hte (rather divergent views) of the Yugoslav and Albanian scholars, in addition to the new sources from Italian authors that were posted. However neither side has directly indicated interest in this solution, which has been somewhat disappointing. --Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This issue of Balkan historiographies is complex, and their usage from certain time periods can be problematic. Ktrimi has felt the sources used by Antidiskriminator were misrepresented in the article. Antidiskriminator in past times has voiced concerns on certain articles about sources by communist era Albanian academics. In the same token Ktrimi991 too has the right to go about things in a similar manner (as per WP:BRD), as these kinds of sources may also not be reliable and on par with multiple Western academics doing the same research. In articles where there is sensitive content, a silent consensus of sorts among Balkan editors has existed to avoid the usage of Balkan sources in the most delicate pages, although some do not apply that formula for a variety of reasons. Its complicated with these things and often take time go through on a case by case basis.

This ANI shifted the talkpage conversation to here. Some conclusion of that at least would be good, otherwise the back and forth will continue with other editors who have edited the article which makes things time wasting bordering on farce. Calthinus's suggestion here that the part about ethnicity ought to be a separate section in the article would go a long way to resolving this.Resnjari (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi could responded in the way described by Resnjari and Calthinus above if he thought that usage of Albanian, Croatian and other sources is problematic. If Ktrimi wanted to point out that there are problems with them, he should have reverted previous edits with an explanations such as described by Resnjari (f.e. "There is a consensus not to use Albanian and Yugoslav sources because of that and that" etc) and that is alright. But Ktrimi didn't done that. Ktrimi removed the sources without reading them and didn't checked that they are not from Yugoslavia, called them "Partisan sources" (which are not), as fringed Yugoslav sources and examples of propaganda. These are hard accusations and bias. Also, Yugoslav historiography is a rather different than modern Croatian and Montenegrin but not to go out of topic. Ktrimi just removed them from the parts of the text and called them fringed but those same sources left in other places even after he called them partisan etc. The topic of Marins family origin wasn't researched pretty much in the Western historiography - in majority, in that topic they deal with Marins national identity, and not too much about his family's origins so Yugoslav and other sources weren't conflicted in that, but gave pretty much the same picture about other things such as Marins life and work etc. Those "conflicts" with "Yugoslav" sources vs. Western one's are hypothetical or weren't pointed out. As for FkpCascais, as it is seen from edits history, he just responded after a long time of repetitive and problematic Ktrimi's actions. Also, the rule of not using a Albanian or Yugoslav sources wasn't followed in the article about Marin from the beginning. Long before all of the editing by Ktrimi and others, Albanian literature was used in the article as seen here [95] or [96]. Some users weren't aware of that rule and people who were are could aware them politely. But is out of topic for a discussion here. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 needs to stop reverting whole articles just because he disagrees with something, and instead use what is known as the talk page. He tends to not start a discussion at all, nor engage in discussing the perceived issues, at least when I contact him. I just want to note a recent issue regarding article Names of Kosovo: again reverting, and in the common Albanian–Serbian rival spirit "Serbia" is out of the question (despite its historicity, official use, and geographical corresponding to the Kosovo Vilayet), despite being far more "real" than a petition by Albanian nationalists which he instead left unremoved... Let's face it, the user is disruptive.--Zoupan 23:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

JMccoy13 and WP:Synthesis at the Adult, Adolescence and Puberty articles

JMccoy13 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in WP:Synthesis and WP:Disruptive editing at Adult (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Adolescence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Puberty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Click on the box below for what I mean:

JMccoy13's behavior

At the Adult talk page, JMccoy13 has insisted that puberty ends at age 13 or 14 for both girls and boys, and has argued that "the process of puberty is over after you can have babies!" I told him that there is no reliable source that states that "puberty is over after you can have babies." An 11-year-old pubertal girl might be able to have a child, but she is still going through puberty. I also pointed out that the Tanner scale, which is also something JMccoy13 has used to make his argument, goes up to age 15. As seen here at the Adult article, JMccoy13 engaged in WP:Synthesis. JMccoy13 added the following to the article: "By definition, puberty ends when sexual maturity has been attained, contrary to the popular misconception that puberty ends when vertical growth ceases. The average age of reaching sexual maturity and therefore the end of puberty is 13 in humans." Sources, including the sources he added, do not state that. JMccoy13 kept trying to define puberty as sexual maturity. Rather, puberty is a process of reaching sexual maturity. It doesn't mean that a person is sexually mature as soon as they hit puberty. It's also the case that many boys don't begin puberty until age 11 or 12. With this edit, JMccoy13's text was based on this everydayhealth.com source that is not WP:MEDRS-compliant, this WebMD source that is specifically about earlier puberty, and this 1985 "Spermarche--the age of onset of sperm emission" source. In his edit summary, he stated, "Puberty does not end at the age of 16 in the vast majority of cases - I fixed this error with proper sources." Thing is...I see no reliable sources to support his statement. He also added that "boys typically reach sexual maturity on average at the age of 13" and sourced it to the "Spermarche--the age of onset of sperm emission" source. His text appeared to be implying that boys complete puberty at age 13. But that is not what sources state. MedlinePlus: JMccoy13 referred to a MedlinePlus source, but even the MedlinePlus "Puberty" source that he added states, "It is a process that usually happens between ages 10 and 14 for girls and ages 12 and 16 for boys. It causes physical changes, and affects boys and girls differently." And this MedlinePlus "Puberty and adolescence" source states, "In girls, puberty is usually finished by age 17. Any increases in height after this age are uncommon." I told JMccoy13 that I have seen sources typically giving the ending pubertal age for girls as 14 or 15, but also as 15 to 17. I suppose "15 to 17" is to cover late bloomers and late finishers (those who didn't begin puberty at age 10 or 11). Similar goes for boys, but I haven't seen as many sources stating that boys finish puberty at age 14 or 15. This WebMD source states, "Most guys hit puberty sometime from ages 9-14 -- the average age is 12." And this 2012 "Pediatric Primary Care - E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 534, states, "Boys normally begin puberty from age 9 to 14 years." The sources are speaking on when boys begin puberty, not on when puberty ends for them. In that discussion at the Adult talk page, JMccoy13 insisted that the sources are wrong because most sources are basing puberty on legal age. I told him that I don't think that most sources are basing puberty on legal age. If they were, they would not be stating that girls complete puberty by ages 14 or 15, or by 15 to 17. As you know, the age of majority for the vast majority of the world is age 18. For the completion of puberty, I would be willing change the article so that it states that puberty commonly ends at age 14 or 15 for girls and at age 16 for boys, but that it may last until age 17 for either gender. But only by using sources that support this text. I asked him: "Do you agree to go with that? If you want other editors to weigh in on this matter so that we can resolve this dispute, I suggest that you leave a message at the WP:Med, WP:Biology and/or WP:Anatomy talk page and link to this discussion, or look to some other means of WP:Dispute resolution. Just don't go adding in your disputed text to the article. WP:Edit warring is not tolerated and can lead to a WP:Block." JMccoy13 never responded again after that (obviously since the sources are not with him). Instead, weeks later, he popped over to the Adolescence aricle and started pushing his POV there too and engaging more synthesis, and made this edit that he argues as grammatical. The RfC at the talk page has challenged this: Talk:Adolescence#RfC: Which lead sentence to go with?. JMccoy13's wording is unnecessary and a bit awkward. It essentially begins by calling adolescence "a transitional stage" without clarifying what that transitional stage is. Yes, his wording has "which includes," but "which includes" is simply saying that the transitional stage includes physical and psychological development, as if there is something else not being mentioned, rather than making it clear that physical and psychological development is the transitional stage. He says the current wording is not supported by the sources even though it is, and argues that his wording is more precise. At the Puberty article, he has also recently engaged in synthesis, stating "clarified." Like I noted when reverting him, that is no clarification. He added that girls end puberty by the age of 14 (on average) and that boys end puberty by the age of 15 (on average). He also added, "In some cases, puberty can end as early as 13 or as late as 17 without there being pathology involved." That, and his "average" text, is not what the sources in that paragraph state. And his addition of this source at the end of the text while moving a source that doesn't jive with his point of view doesn't make the text any more supported by the sources. Furthermore, his change has made it so that the lead of the article is inconsistent with what the lower part of the article states. Also notice that the source he moved aligns with other sources stating that boys finish puberty at about age 16 or 17, like this "Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy" source that is used in the Adult article.

Something needs to be done here. I and other editors shouldn't have to put up with WP:Synthesis and inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles and then take it to the talk page or to WP:Dispute resolution when our WP:Synthesis policy, like our other policies and our guidelines, is clear. This needs to stop. I warned JMccoy13 on his talk page and at the Adolescence talk page. I've made my case at the Adult talk page, with reliable sources, showing how sources can differ on the age ranges, and that we should stick with the age ranges most commonly cited in the literature. And yet he's still doing what he wants. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Flyer22 Reborn: "'''When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use [[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> to do so. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.''' Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates {{Pagelinks}} (for pages) and {{Userlinks}} (for editors) may be helpful." Once you've done that, ''then'' we will consider your request. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

TomStar81, I'm aware that the editor must be notified, and I did notify the editor. I've also provided links and diffs here to involved pages in the box above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this kind of comment actually ever a more effective use of time than just notifying them? GMG^talk 21:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful. Now we can move on to more pressing matters, like solving this quagmire. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If you wanted me to ping Rivertorch, IdreamofJeanie and Mathglot (who have been involved in the adolescence matter), I've gone ahead and done that as well, but there was no requirement for me to do so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

A new editor pushing a POV and refusing to try to understand basic concepts like synthesis... I think a time out needs to be taken. --Tarage (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• i have reviewed all this stuff. I understand Flyer's frustration. This is a topic where we get a lot of creepy editors, and editors with strong feelings - so bad editing, bad discussion, and bad behavior.

From what I can see, McCoy showed up with some pretty strong ideas about the age of puberty and what defines it, and has:

• edited aggressively about that, using generally crappy sources.
• on talk, the quality of their contributions are also low quality - their first comment was on March 21 here and their last one is here. They are discussing a complex topic based on the dictionary and britannica, and mostly writing what they think (not focusing on what the best sources are, and what they say).

This is not going slow, and a) respecting that they need to learn how Wikipedia works, and b) trying to bringing the best sources that are available and summarizing them and working toward consensus. Which is what is needed on a topic like this.

I think McCoy should agree to stop working on this topic and go edit about other stuff, and focus on learning how we work here - namely finding the best sources, reading them, and summarizing them in edits, and when there is disagreement, working toward agreeing on what the best sources are, and then how to best summarize them -- not just writing mini-essays about one thinks about the topic. McCoy has been doing the latter, and there is no end to that - it is just an endless time drain.

If McCoy won't agree to do that, then I suppose a topic ban will be needed. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban as well, but there is a more fundamental problem if McCoy refuses to grasp how collaborative editing works. The problem will just spill over to the next topic area and his topic ban will quickly become a site ban. Either way, I'll support any sanctions as long as McCoy continues this behavior. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support a 3 month TBAN while they learn more about Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support three month topic ban per Guy. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on pages related to human life stages, but the behavioral issues are worrisome. I'd like to see the 3-month TBAN followed up by 1RR on the same topic. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 09:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to say that it seems to me that the culture here on Wikipedia, at least among some, is pretty toxic and unenjoyable which makes editing here an uphill battle. It seems I have upset maybe a few user and at least Flyer, I don't know who all is upset because I haven't read through the entire mass of comments above yet. I apologize to whoever feels I am harming the platform or who feels that I am difficult, I am only trying to make Wikipedia the most accurate platform possible. Some may be unclear with what my goals are with these articles - on Adolescence, I want it to be clear that adolescence is a changeable, socially constructed stage of life and in Puberty, I want to make sure the ages it is completed at are accurate. On puberty I have many sources - literally every study ever done supports what I say (and no, I am not trying to say in the article that puberty ends when you can reproduce. I am using the widely accepted pediatric standard called the Tanner Scale.) There seems to be some hard feelings in regards to this because it may not support the common view of life. I am aware that the Palo Alto source claims puberty usually ends at around 17. Sadly, it's pretty clear cut that this source is wrong as the abundance of research and medical consensus does not support what that source says, meaning it does not belong on Wikipedia. In regards to Adolescence, every source actually supports what I say - that when adolescence ends is socially/culturally/legally decided by society, meaning that nearly all sources at least strongly imply this fact that should be made more clear. Many sources come right out and say it. I don't and have never meant to be difficult and quite frankly I think this strange business of me being "on trial" is extreme. I feel someone got mad at me and is trying to punish me for not doing what they say, but that's beside the point. To finish, I want to say in response to some claims that I have broken editing standards of Wikipedia that I am not here to break those standards or challenge them in any way even though some users may feel that way. If I have found that I have broken a standard I will withdraw my improper edit and redo it following the standards. --JMccoy13 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Per my arguments and sources I listed at Talk:Adult, you are wrong about the literature on puberty. The "age 16 or 17" aspect mainly applies to boys in sources. I've already noted that a number of sources cite girls completing puberty by age 14 or 15, but I also noted that some sources state "15 to 17," or just "16" or just "17." I've made it very clear that not as many sources state that boys complete puberty by ages 14 or 15, and certainly not by 13. If they did, you would be able to provide sources showing this instead of claiming it. I've looked, and I'm not seeing any online sources stating that boys typically complete puberty by ages 14 or 15. And your reliance on the Tanner scale is faulty for reasons I've already gone over. Furthermore, as noted in the collapse box, I offered to "change the article [and related articles] so that it states that puberty commonly ends at age 14 or 15 for girls and at age 16 for boys, but that it may last until age 17 for either gender." You never got back to me on that. As for adolescence, I've made my case with sources at Talk:Adolescence, and that includes commentary on adolescence being socially constructed. When looking at the Adult article, you'll notice that adulthood is noted as a social matter in part, has also been argued as socially constructed, and that a scholar recently added a "Social construction of adulthood" section to that article after discussing things with me on the article's talk page. I don't have much more, if anything else, to state to you on these matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Reading through some comments I see concern over my brash editing behavior. I have learned something about this platform because of this - that consensus and agreement is VERY important despite what might seem clear to an editor. I pledge that I will launch discussion topics on the talk pages of articles I think should be edited from this point forward before editing them so we can all reach a better understanding of the topics at hand. --JMccoy13 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to quickly address some of the complaints about me made by Flyer22 Reborn in the "behavior" box. The vast majority of those are from like a month ago, and I withdrew those edits for a reason - I learned more about the platform and figured out why I shouldn't make them. Therefore those complaints are non-issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMccoy13 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The edits and arguments regarding the Adult article in the collapse box are to show a pattern of behavior -- your behavior. You stopped editing the Adult article, but you were still making arguments on the talk page that go against what sources state or what the literature generally shows. You were still arguing in a way that is at conflict with the way Wikipedia works. And then you continued that behavior, editing included, elsewhere. So that recent past behavior of yours is relevant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to respond to Jytdog 's comment : "i have reviewed all this stuff. I understand Flyer's frustration. This is a topic where we get a lot of creepy editors, and editors with strong feelings - so bad editing, bad discussion, and bad behavior. From what I can see, McCoy showed up with some pretty strong ideas about the age of puberty and what defines it, and has: edited aggressively about that, using generally crappy sources. on talk, the quality of their contributions are also low quality - their first comment was on March 21 here and their last one is here. They are discussing a complex topic based on the dictionary and britannica, and mostly writing what they think (not focusing on what the best sources are, and what they say). This is not going slow, and a) respecting that they need to learn how Wikipedia works, and b) trying to bringing the best sources that are available and summarizing them and working toward consensus. Which is what is needed on a topic like this. I think McCoy should agree to stop working on this topic and go edit about other stuff, and focus on learning how we work here - namely finding the best sources, reading them, and summarizing them in edits, and when there is disagreement, working toward agreeing on what the best sources are, and then how to best summarize them -- not just writing mini-essays about one thinks about the topic. McCoy has been doing the latter, and there is no end to that - it is just an endless time drain. If McCoy won't agree to do that, then I suppose a topic ban will be needed." You're right that I was too aggressive in my editing. I do want to continue to edit on this topic as well as other topics. I was too quick to edit war without other users understanding what is going on. I want to open discussion on pages in the human development area where there are issues and help everyone reach an understanding before I edit so that there is not war. I won't make anymore edits without agreement but I believe that barring me from contributing to this topic is unnecessary at this point. JMccoy13 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You are not showing any sign that you understand that the way you are using talk pages is not productive. Above and elsewhere (eg here) you have hand-waved about "other sources" but generally you have actually cited crappy blogs, the dictionary, britannica, etc. Your talk discussion is mostly what you think (not "specific source X says Y, specific source A says B" where X and A are high quality sources.) It is not clear that you understand what high quality sources are, or that you care about that... but high quality sources are fundamental to everything we do here.

Also what you write just above -- I was too quick to edit war without other users understanding what is going on. and help everyone reach an understanding sounds too much like "I will slow down and help everyone else understand the truth that I know".

I really think you should go edit about other stuff for a while and learn how WP actually works. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that I sound too sure about my position, I'm not too sure and I'm certainly open to having my views changed. I agree that I should go edit other things and that's what I'll do, however I do want to open discussion on talk pages in human development topic. I won't edit those pages for a long time though so you don't need to worry about me continuing with bad edits. I think that through editing other topic areas and through patient discussion on talk pages that I'll become more familiar with the standards here and you guys won't feel like there's a problem anymore. I apologize for edit warring and for not instead discussing possible problems with articles first so that there could be consensus (and that of course means that through discussion I could realize why there isn't a problem with an article where I might have believed there was). I also apologize for any violations in regards to sources like WP:Synthesis. I have been reading up on source standards and feel much more competent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMccoy13 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban and whatever else Flyer 22 suggests. I have watched Flyer spend hours and hours of her valuable editing time on talk pages with editors who appear to be unable to understand how this place is supposed to work. Watching her efforts over the years I'm surprised that she continues to try to create good Wikipedia articles at all. Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@JMccoy13: there are some indications that you still don't quite grasp what's going on. You wrote: I don't and have never meant to be difficult and quite frankly I think this strange business of me being "on trial" is extreme and I was too quick to edit war without other users understanding what is going on and I pledge that I will launch discussion topics on the talk pages of articles I think should be edited from this point forward before editing them so we can all reach a better understanding of the topics at hand.

Wikipedia doesn't have to be adversarial. Our policies and guidelines, and the mechanism for enforcing them, exist to ensure that our objective of building a worthwhile encyclopedia is not compromised. When users make the effort to learn the rules and then try to follow them, our work here goes smoothly and, for the most part, no one gets upset. This noticeboard isn't about putting people "on trial"; by and large, it's for responding effectively to users who aren't listening to the advice we've been offering them in various other places. For instance, after being advised that edit warring is against policy, you denied that you'd been edit warring and then you edit warred some more.

There is no such thing as being "too quick to edit war". Edit warring is always disruptive, regardless of when one does it, and that's why the policy allows for such limited exceptions. "Launching discussion" is a very good idea, but on articles where there's a topic dispute, it's not enough; consensus must actually be reached before you make further edits to the disputed content (and, obviously, those edits must reflect that consensus).

Finally, I want to say something about the way you opened your contribution to this discussion—by calling Wikipedia culture "toxic and unenjoyable". You're right, it frequently is, and you're far from the first user to notice it. I can't tell what you'd find enjoyable or unenjoyable, since that's subjective and personal, but if you want to minimize the toxicity, I'd suggest that regardless of the outcome of this discussion, you (1) make it a point to avoid editing articles on the topics that have seen you involved in content disputes and (2) listen to the advice that more experienced users have to offer. Some users are officious boors, but most of us are actually trying to be helpful and have no desire to contribute to any toxicity. Wikipedia has a learning curve, and no one expects perfection from anyone, least of all the newbies. What we do expect is that you be willing to learn what the rules are and then try to abide by them. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that edit warring is fine if you wait a little while. I engaged in what I now know to be edit warring because it seemed to me that I was getting rolled back on anything I did by Flyer22 Reborn. It felt like it was borderline harassment and so I rolled back the roll backs. I now know that instead I should have started a discussion and laid out the facts as clearly as possible, which I failed to do, leading to confusion. JMccoy13 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to allegations

At the Adult talk page, JMccoy13 has insisted that puberty ends at age 13 or 14 for both girls and boys, and has argued that "the process of puberty is over after you can have babies!" I told him that there is no reliable source that states that "puberty is over after you can have babies." An 11-year-old pubertal girl might be able to have a child, but she is still going through puberty. I also pointed out that the Tanner scale, which is also something JMccoy13 has used to make his argument, goes up to age 15. You make me sound like a pedophile - here's what I actually said: "Flyer22 Reborn , Sorry that I used a sketchy source or two. In future edits I will make sure they are reliable. However, many of the sources I used were reliable. I'm confused as to what you think puberty is? My reliable government source (medline.gov) clearly defines puberty as the process of reaching sexual maturity. Sexual maturity is clearly defined as, by valid sources, the capability of an organism to reproduce. Therefore the process of puberty is over after you can have babies! Of course some growth takes place afterward, but that's not a function of puberty. Bones and hair continue to grow until the mid to late twenties!" My discussion on a talk page is also in violation of no rules. And given that this was a month ago, some of my views have changed since then. As seen here at the Adult article, JMccoy13 engaged in WP:Synthesis. JMccoy13 added the following to the article: "By definition, puberty ends when sexual maturity has been attained, contrary to the popular misconception that puberty ends when vertical growth ceases. The average age of reaching sexual maturity and therefore the end of puberty is 13 in humans." Sources, including the sources he added, do not state that. JMccoy13 kept trying to define puberty as sexual maturity. Rather, puberty is a process of reaching sexual maturity. It doesn't mean that a person is sexually mature as soon as they hit puberty. It's also the case that many boys don't begin puberty until age 11 or 12. WP:SYNTHNOT "It's not always obvious whether something is SYNTH. To be able to say that something is SYNTH, you have to be able to understand what it says, what the sources say, and whether the sources suffice to verify the assertion. If you don't understand something, don't say it's SYNTH. Say it's too advanced for the article. Say it's unclear writing. Boldly try to clarify it. Allege on the noticeboard that it's SYNTH. But don't revert it indiscriminately for being SYNTH." But Flyer does that here andhere. And it's clear that Flyer22 Reborn doesn't understand my edit, as I was NOT trying to define puberty as the start of sexual maturity. I think it was clear that I was defining puberty as the process of reaching sexual maturity, and sexual maturity as the ability to reproduce (which is what the article here says on it anyway). So no, I was not saying people are sexually mature as soon as they hit puberty, and Flyer22 Reborn clearly doesn't understand that. "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception." Flyer22 Reborn did not even explain what improper thesis I was making, instead rolling back first and asking questions later. "SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. In 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." [2] It seems clear to me that "synthesis of published work" was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia. Some old versions of NOR even said "Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source ..."[3] (emphasis added). Which is really helpful for those editors with time travel capabilities who can go back and edit Wikipedia before community consensus changed the policy to specifically remove that connotation." It's basic deduction. If a source says that puberty is the process of reaching sexual maturity and that sexual maturity is the ability of an organism to reproduce, and another says that the ability to reproduce is reached at around 13, then I can deduce that puberty ends at about 13. But because what I did may fall under synthesis, I stopped! This was from a month ago, and I have stopped trying to use deduction on Wikipedia because it might be against the rules. So what is the problem? Why is this behavior from a month ago that hasn't continued? I was just learning the ropes. With this edit, JMccoy13's text was based on this everydayhealth.com source that is not WP:MEDRS-compliant, this WebMD source that is specifically about earlier puberty, and this 1985 "Spermarche--the age of onset of sperm emission" source. In his edit summary, he stated, "Puberty does not end at the age of 16 in the vast majority of cases - I fixed this error with proper sources." Thing is...I see no reliable sources to support his statement. He also added that "boys typically reach sexual maturity on average at the age of 13" and sourced it to the "Spermarche--the age of onset of sperm emission" source. His text appeared to be implying that boys complete puberty at age 13. But that is not what sources state. Again, something from a month ago that I have since learned from. I took Flyer's word that my source was bad and stopped using it because she said it wasn't compliant. A month later, why is this a part of her complaints? On the spermarche thing - my source said something along the lines of "13 is the typical age of the onset of sperm emmission in males." She doesn't claim this is Synthesis, so what is the complaint? But again, I was using elemantary deduction. If I know that when the sun sets, it's night, and a source says that "the sun sets typically at 8 o'clock", it's not ridiculous for me to say "night starts typically at 8 o'clock". Again, this was a month ago and I am now much more hesitant when it comes to deduction. MedlinePlus: JMccoy13 referred to a MedlinePlus source, but even the MedlinePlus "Puberty" source that he added states, "It is a process that usually happens between ages 10 and 14 for girls and ages 12 and 16 for boys. It causes physical changes, and affects boys and girls differently." And this MedlinePlus "Puberty and adolescence" source states, "In girls, puberty is usually finished by age 17. Any increases in height after this age are uncommon." Again, a month ago. I told JMccoy13 that I have seen sources typically giving the ending pubertal age for girls as 14 or 15, but also as 15 to 17. I suppose "15 to 17" is to cover late bloomers and late finishers (those who didn't begin puberty at age 10 or 11). Similar goes for boys, but I haven't seen as many sources stating that boys finish puberty at age 14 or 15. This WebMD source states, "Most guys hit puberty sometime from ages 9-14 -- the average age is 12." And this 2012 "Pediatric Primary Care - E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 534, states, "Boys normally begin puberty from age 9 to 14 years." The sources are speaking on when boys begin puberty, not on when puberty ends for them. In that discussion at the Adult talk page, JMccoy13 insisted that the sources are wrong because most sources are basing puberty on legal age. I told him that I don't think that most sources are basing puberty on legal age. If they were, they would not be stating that girls complete puberty by ages 14 or 15, or by 15 to 17. As you know, the age of majority for the vast majority of the world is age 18. For the completion of puberty, I would be willing change the article so that it states that puberty commonly ends at age 14 or 15 for girls and at age 16 for boys, but that it may last until age 17 for either gender. But only by using sources that support this text. I asked him: "Do you agree to go with that? If you want other editors to weigh in on this matter so that we can resolve this dispute, I suggest that you leave a message at the WP:Med, WP:Biology and/or WP:Anatomy talk page and link to this discussion, or look to some other means of WP:Dispute resolution. Just don't go adding in your disputed text to the article. WP:Edit warring is not tolerated and can lead to a WP:Block." Bottom line is that I have many sources that are much more reliable than Medline that disagreed with Flyer's. I should have laid those out but I went away from home for a few days and when I got back I just didn't feel like coming back to Wikipedia immediately. JMccoy13 never responded again after that (obviously since the sources are not with him). Instead, weeks later, he popped over to the Adolescence aricle and started pushing his POV there too and engaging more synthesis, and made this edit that he argues as grammatical. The RfC at the talk page has challenged this: Talk:Adolescence#RfC: Which lead sentence to go with?. JMccoy13's wording is unnecessary and a bit awkward. It essentially begins by calling adolescence "a transitional stage" without clarifying what that transitional stage is. Yes, his wording has "which includes," but "which includes" is simply saying that the transitional stage includes physical and psychological development, as if there is something else not being mentioned, rather than making it clear that physical and psychological development is the transitional stage. He says the current wording is not supported by the sources even though it is, and argues that his wording is more precise. I didn't engage in anything remotely resembling synthesis at Adolescence. We were just debating over a definition there, semantics. When Flyer rolled me back after the edit (here) with what seemed to me barely any reason why, other than opinion that the change was odd and unnecessary, I rolled back the roll back because I felt that she was the only one who had a problem with my edits and that she was overusing the rollback tool. I learned from this - now I'd launch a proper discussion instead of engaging in anything that could be seen as an edit war. I have also seen that she wasn't the only one who had an issue with my edit, and I apologize for not respecting her perspective. At the Puberty article, he has also recently engaged in synthesis, stating "clarified." Like I noted when reverting him, that is no clarification. He added that girls end puberty by the age of 14 (on average) and that boys end puberty by the age of 15 (on average). He also added, "In some cases, puberty can end as early as 13 or as late as 17 without there being pathology involved." That, and his "average" text, is not what the sources in that paragraph state. And his addition of this source at the end of the text while moving a source that doesn't jive with his point of view doesn't make the text any more supported by the sources. Furthermore, his change has made it so that the lead of the article is inconsistent with what the lower part of the article states. Also notice that the source he moved aligns with other sources stating that boys finish puberty at about age 16 or 17, like this "Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy" source that is used in the Adult article. This source is my source. On page 29 I read table 1.11. G5 is the mature genital stage, signaling sexual maturity. This is the consensus definition among pediatricians, not some crackpot zoological definition like I was operating on earlier. Reading a table is not synthesis. The table contains the average age for reaching G5 and the standard deviation of that average time 2. That gives you all you need to know. Note: PH5 is slightly higher but not significantly so, either one could be used by G5 is more accepted. Again, people including Flyer seem confused so I now realize I should have made a discussion area about it and laid out these facts very clearly. JMccoy13 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Your "Flyer seems confused" argument does not fly (no pun intended). I've already responded to you above. And given what you stated in your collapse box, I stand by what I stated and believe that you are not a person who should be editing pubertal topics. Your "[t]his is the consensus definition among pediatricians" argument is something I'm not even going to address, given what I've stated. I will, however, advise you again to stop relying on the Tanner scale for your pubertal age range arguments. Some sourced text for it in its Wikipedia article and reliable sources elsewhere discussing the scale even note that trying to use, or using, it for ages is a poor use of the scale and can easily be inaccurate. And for the record, I was arguing that your "spermarche" source was being used in a WP:Synthesis way. That is clear. And sexual maturity is not defined consistently by researchers when it comes to non-human animals and it's often not defined in the same way with regard to non-human animals as it with regard to humans. There are many sources that don't define sexual maturity plainly as "the capability of an organism to reproduce" or similar. And there are sources that note issues with trying to define sexual maturity. In fact, looking for sources defining sexual maturity is challenging. I don't trust you editing the aforementioned articles or any other Wikipedia topics. And I'm done replying to you in this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I did make mistakes, sorry, I've learned and I won't make those mistakes again. You were CLEARLY confused with what I was saying - what you think I said doesn't line up with what I actually meant. The meaning got lost somehow, it happens. As for you not trusting me, I have two question: 1. So what? Why does it matter if you trust me? You don't know me. 2. What are you implying? You seem to be implying that I am in some way a shady or bad individual. Again, you don't know me or what my circumstances are. I don't like that implication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMccoy13 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"I will, however, advise you again to stop relying on the Tanner scale for your pubertal age range arguments. Some sourced text for it in its Wikipedia article and reliable sources elsewhere discussing the scale even note that trying to use, or using, it for ages is a poor use of the scale and can easily be inaccurate." The article says "Tanner stages do not match with chronological age, but rather maturity stages and thus are not diagnostic for age estimation" You seem unduly sure in your viewpoint. I don't want to discuss this stuff here, though. It's not the place for it. I just felt I had to point the above out. JMccoy13 (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

One last thing I want to say is that I will take a break from editing articles relating to the subjects discussed here because of possible tension between myself and others who edit those. However, I am going to ask the admins to not give me a topic ban for a few reasons. 1. I want a clean record here on Wikipedia, and I don't want to be punished for my newbie mistakes. 2. I will take a break, but I would like to probably lightly edit some articles within the general topic area after maybe a few weeks, not 3 whole months. 3. I have learned much about Wikipedia from this process and I think a ban would just be unnecessary. JMccoy13 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment and Question

I have not had good experiences with regard to editors who edited stubbornly and against consensus who then said that they needed to take a wikibreak of a few weeks or months, and had the case closed due to the editor having taken a break, because usually the editor does come back, and has not changed their approach, and has to be dealt with again. I am not happy that the stated desire of User:JMccoy13 for a clean record will be sufficient to guarantee that we aren't right back here in 3 weeks or 3 months or 6 months?

Would it be possible to close this thread with an agreement that User:Jmmccoy13 will completely avoid the area in question without having a formal topic-ban written? Would such a close be acceptable to the filing party, to the subject party, and to the community? If this sort of informal approach will work, we can try it. If it won't work, then I would say that sanctions are needed, because experience with editors who just take breaks from stubborn editing has not been good. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. - JMccoy13 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not a suspended topic ban? For example, Jmmccoy13 is subject to a X month topic ban, which is suspended for Y months. If within the Y month period, Jmmccoy13 shows recidivist behaviour similar to what has been reported in this original ANI, then the X month topic ban will automatically come into force. Blackmane (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User posting death threat on my talk page

This IP recently edited my talk page to change a Wikiproject notification to say that they hope that I get redrummed or die. 1 I know this isn't serious, but I feel like this user might need attention. EMachine03 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if it is indeed an empty threat, you might as well want to bring this to the attention of authorities, per this page. Seeing this is a US-based IP whoever made that threat to you could be liable for a felony or two. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@EMachine03: I've blocked the user. I'll leave it up to you if you want to contact the emergency@ team or others—Blake gave you the link above. GorillaWarfare (talk)

@GorillaWarfare: Just a note that hiding the revision makes reporting it far more difficult to do. Fish+Karate 09:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The emergency team is able to view revision deleted (and suppressed) revisions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

They are. Authorities are not. Fish+Karate 09:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion is standard practice. The Foundation can easily disclose this to the proper authorities. We do not want to place our users in the role of reporting things to the authorities and coordinating with them. emergency@ is very effective at their job, and will tell users that they can request revision deletion from local sysops when emailed in. Just noting it because revision deletion in these cases is usually something we want administrators to do. It's not normally brought up on noticeboards because we don't encourage asking for it here, but if it were requested in #wikipedia-en-revdel or via email, it is almost always granted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Is making legal threats on Wikipedia now cool or something? 124.106.139.19 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Fake news can hamper Dalljet's career

• Dalljet Kaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As requested earlier also, to plz delete the information about Dalljiet kaurs engagement with warren masilmony. Dalljiet has given several interviews personally confirming that this news is fake. Everyone knows now that this news was fake .. given out by somebody to ruin her name on purpose. Everytime someone googles her name, this rumour comes as the information of her personal life in Wikipedia. Everyone relies on information in such a reputed site. this can affect her personally and professionally too. There were lot of media reports confirming that she is single and never got engaged to the said guy. It will be so very kind of u all to please remove this information from her page and not mislead the viewers who visit this site. We are only requesting to remove this to not malign her name and character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbai branch (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why this posting. But there is a user by the name of Dalljiet kaur whose page says it is "Official pr", and who has edited both Dalljet Kaur and Warren Masilamony (where the engagement is posted). There is also an article Daljeet Kaur. — Maile (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators, FYI - this relates/in response to the ANI for item 24 above - "Dalljet Kaur and Warren Masilamony - User:139.130.45.86, User:180.216.4.217 and User:Mumbai branch - silent warring". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Item numbers change. Are you talking about "Dalljet Kaur and Warren Masilamony - User:139.130.45.86, User:180.216.4.217 and User:Mumbai branch - silent warring"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

How would a rumor of engagement ruin her reputation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well regardless, any unsourced rumours pertaining to a BLP may be considered libelous hence OP's concern. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If it is unsourced and about a living person, it needs sourced or removed, full stop. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Proper sourcing would be the issue, yes. "Everybody knows" is not proper sourcing, either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The source was abysmal, completely inappropriate for this content in a BLP. I removed the sentence in question from Dalljet Kaur and Warren Masilamony but am a bit concerned about the IP hopping edit warrior who has kept restoring them. Admin eyes on the articles for possible protection would be good. --bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You could request semi-protection at WP:RFPP for some reasonable length of time, and see if that takes care of the problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of that :-) I think I will be heading there now since there's been more disruptions - the edit warring has continued from a new IP address. --bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Question - should User:Dalljiet kaur be blocked indef, since it claims to be nothing but a promotional account to edit Dalljet Kaur? — Maile (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• I would still like to know how a rumor of this woman allegedly dating some particular man could be "damaging" to her career. It's not like she's some innocent young virgin or something - she's a divorcee with a child. In America, any kind of dating rumors or other rumors are attention-drawing publicity, typically enhancing the subject's visibility and profitability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

She could still be a virgin. EEng 02:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Worked for Stormy Daniels. EEng 20:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't so hot for Tiger Woods though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have already semiprotected the articles on Dalljet Kaur and Warren Masilamony per another report of the same dispute, here at ANI. The unsourced rumor of an engagement of these two people has been taken out of both articles. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

In some parts of the world, such matters can have fatal ramifications.[97][98] Not a joking matter.Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

She's already been divorced once. What is there about the man in question that could prompt someone to carry out an honor killing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, dating and engagements are more gossipy than encyclopedic - but for whatever reason for biographies of people popular with the Gen X crowd or younger, we turn a blind eye and I won't even start my rant on what sports teams that person supports and other trivia masquerading as a biography... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: things are very different in pther parts of the world. See for instance Samia Shahid 'honour killing': ex-husband and father remain in custody - you really do not what to guess about the topic. It is prudent to rely on ironclad sources for such information.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Baseball Bugs: In that particular case the honour killing could be done as "you already brought disgrace to our family/clan by getting a divorce. Now you are a dating foreigner!? He is not a sikh, nor a hindu. He is not even indian! Die!" And yes, I know one honour killing first handedly (not hear-say), that was carried out only for dating a person from sub-clan. They were not married, nor from different castes. Just from different sub-castes of the same caste.
  • Comment in general: In any case, unsourced content from BLP must be removed. Dating is gossipy, not encyclopaedic. If somebody's marriage is covered in reliable sources, then it should be added. If killed, they brought it on themselves by themselves.
  • I also notified Mumbai branch that their username implies shared use. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Thejoebloggsblog WP:CANVASSING and general disruptive arguing on a settled dispute

User:Thejoebloggsblog has been engaged in a content dispute at Talk:2018 AFL season. The status a day or so ago was that three editors had disagreed for a variety of reasons. Thejoebloggsblog (from South Australia) rejected that this constituted a consensus based on an argument that all three disputing editors were from Victoria, supposedly making their views biased. He or she has since individually WP:CANVASSED a total of 26 non-Victorian editors to join the discussion; ([99], [100], [101], [102], refer to the editor's contributions page for the full list [103], and note that almost all editors approached fall into the categories Category:Wikipedian_Adelaide_Football_Club_fans (South Australian) or Category:Wikipedian_West_Coast_Eagles_fans (Western Australia). The standard message he or she has posted diff is mildly biased, detailing the justification for his or her position while ignoring the justification against – although the language is not egregiously emotive Additionally, there are now seven dissenting views at the original dispute talk page (including non-Victorians), so the consensus is increasingly clear but Thejoebloggsblog continues to argue the point in a manner which is becoming disruptive. [104]

An ANI search indicates that Thejoebloggsblog has previously been reported three times (although each time by the same editor), mostly for edit warring, low level personal attacks (accusations of bias), and WP:OWN behaviour. One occasion [in a warning]. Aspirex (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned in the debate on this topic that all the opinions were fans of Victorian clubs. We now have opinions from multiple fans of non-Victorian fans and I have conceded the debate.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The whole thing that is disappointing about this is that we are all here to work together as a community to make Wikipedia better and behaviour by Thejoebloggsblog makes it increasingly difficult to do so. Although Thejoebloggsblog has said they are now conceding, it shouldn't take an ANI to do so as I'm pretty sure we've all been in situations where there has been a consensus against us and people have accepted it without kicking and screaming as they do. Not at one point has Thejoebloggsblog publicly (and I don't know if they have privately) reflected on their behaviour in this discussion when people have said they are offended by the repeated personal attacks and even the response to WP:CANVASSING was defensive and didn't take any ownership to doing something inappropriate. There seems to be some sort of dispute with Thejoebloggsblog every six months and if they took some ownership for their inappropriate behaviour in this dispute then I think we could move on, but I can't see how this won't happen again in six months time. Flickerd (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

To me what's most concerning is the fact that Thejoebloggsblog either doesn't understand or doesn't care that the real issue wasn't their disagreement with consensus, it was the way they want about arguing their case. They wouldn't accept any consensus against them if the people involved were Victorian and actively canvassed for non-Victorian perspectives thinking they would be on his side. And then when consensus was reached he acted as if conceding defeat absolved him of any wrongdoing. TripleRoryFan (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The last time Thejoebloggsblog was reported to ANI there was a suggestion by an uninvolved user that Thejoebloggsblog's behaviour during the dispute should result in a block, but the discussion fizzled out and nothing was done. I am agreeing with TripleRoryFan that this issue isn't about Thejoebloggsblog's disagreement with the consensus but their behaviour during the dispute and admitting defeat does not absolve wrongdoing. Can an administrator please review this case and state whether any action needs to be taken. In my opinion, Thejoebloggsblog should receive a short term block so they can reflect on their behaviour in this dispute including WP:CANVASSING and personal attacks so they don't repeat this behaviour in the future and try to work collaboratively with editors to reach a consensus in the future rather than against editors. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN violations by Newbiepedian

The user Newbiepedian has replaced piped links to Margaret Curran (politician) with direct links to Margaret Curran in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, such as in Scottish Parliament election, 1999 and Scottish Parliament election, 2003. Before fixing the links, he has requested AWB permissions, and the request was declined because replacing piped links to redirects with AWB is a NOTBROKEN violation. The replacements also lead to the redirect being deleted. Some administrator should probably undelete the redirect, which shouldn't have been deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This looks to be a misreading of WP:NOTBROKEN by GeoffreyT2000. The guideline is basically telling you not to replace a link to a redirect with a pipe to the redirect target, which is not what happened here. Piping to a redirect when not needed for some other reason is actually a bad idea for several reasons, including that it introduces a note of confusion when one clicks on the words "Margaret Curran" and lands on the page Margaret Curran... but it has a note that you've been redirected, when you went to exactly what you clicked on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The point of notbroken is to avoid people cluttering histories and wasting time doing things that accomplish nothing. Why would we react to a violation of notbroken by doing even more pointless work? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not the point of NOTBROKEN. For the point of NOTBROKEN, see WP:NOTBROKEN. Did somebody delete a redirect of Margaret Curran (politician) after Newbiepedian's edits, or did Newbiepedian simply fix two redlinks? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

In this context, yes it is. A long time ago the article currently at [[Margaret Curran]] was at [[Margaret Curran (politician)]] and there were many piped links to that location of the form [[Margaret Curran (politician)|Margaret Curran]]. Eventually the disambig page was moved to [[Margaret Curran (disambiguation)]], and the politician's page to the simple title. Eight years later, Newbiepedian changes all the piped links to the politician's page to direct links, with no effect on the destination or appearance of the link, and then an admin deletes the redirect as an unused and never-will-be-used orphan of a page move. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so they were not redlinks at the time of the edits. But this has nothing to do with NOTBROKEN, which is the basis given for this complaint. NOTBROKEN discourages unnecessarily (and often detrimentally) piping to an article title, not removing the piping to a redirect. There is nothing wrong with changing links after a move. I do it myself whenever I see that and I feel it meets the requirement that every edit should improve an article, if only barely (an article can be improved without changing what readers see and that happens quite often). As for cluttering histories and wasting time, their volunteer time is theirs to waste in others' eyes. It costs others very little to look at it and ignore it, and we do that many times every day. Histories are perpetually "cluttered" by editors removing unnecessary blanks or similar makework, and I don't see people making a big fuss about that; it's just part of the business.
My suggestion to the OP would be to let editors do what they feel capable of doing, provided it meets the requirement, if only barely. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you have misread the intent of NOTBROKEN, which does in fact mean to say that the edits Newbiepedian made were bad (not-great?) edits: Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. That the section later says It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. is inconsistent with the very next paragraph, which is That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] just to "fix a redirect". However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] if for some reason it is preferred that "Franklin D. Roosevelt" actually appear in the visible text. is the true point. I agree with GT2K's assessment. Newbiepedian should avoid this kind of edit. --Izno (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN: Reasons not to bypass redirects include:

• Redirects can indicate possible future articles (see {{R with possibilities}}). Margaret Curran (politician) was not a redirect with possibilities.
• Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form. Unnecessary invisible text was removed, not introduced.
• Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links. A link was unpiped, not piped.
• Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links. (The Rdcheck tool is extremely useful in such cases for finding which redirects need to be changed after an article is updated.) Not a section link.
• Intentional links to disambiguation pages always use the title with "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect. Does not apply.
• If editors persistently use a redirect instead of an article title, it may be that the article needs to be moved rather than the redirect changed. As such the systematic "fixing of redirects" may eradicate useful information which can be used to help decide on the "best" article title. It was already decided that Margaret Curran (politician) was NOT the best article title.

I submit that my letter is better than your spirit. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

What Mandruss just posted was largely what I was about to post, somewhat better phrased. Under the reasoning at NOTBROKEN, what Newbepedian did actually improved the article. He should be being thanked, not dragged through ANI. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this, just wanted to make an appearance here to assure folk that I'm not just ignoring this. Thank you to the users pointing out why what I did is not a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. The policy exists to prevent the unnecessary replacement of unpiped links to redirects with piped links to non-redirects. What I did in was exactly the opposite – replacing needlessly piped links with unpiped links. The redirect then no longer had any use, as it wasn't needed in any hatnotes, and therefore was just clutter as an obsolete R from page move. I don't know what possible case there could be for undeletion. I also don't see what my AWB request has to do with this; just because something isn't a good use for AWB doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Welcoming new users (as a primary use) isn't a good use for Huggle, that doesn't mean we should categorically stop welcoming new users.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 18:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've undeleted the redirect at Margaret Curran (politician). The article was at this title for nearly six years, the probability of breaking incoming external links created during that time is quite high. Please see Template:R from move and WP:RFD#K4. Courtesy ping RHaworth. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

They created a table and used the smoke from that to remove entries

Over at List of people who disappeared mysteriously, I recently discovered that the article had been converted over to a table. Upon closer inspection, I noticed that, during this table creation, a number of entries for the article went missing during the population of the table. I have a developing theory as to why they were removed, but it's tangential to the problem.
I brought up this problem at the discussion page, suggesting that there was no consensus for the table's creation. As well, I noted that though I am not necessarily opposed to the table in theory, either the table-creators had to re-add the missing entrants to the table, or the table had to be redone, adding in all of the missing entries back in.
So, two problems: no consensus for the table, and entries were craftily removed without any discussion. To my mind, the second problem was the worst of the two, as certain entries were heavily cited and previously discussed.
I stated that unless one of those two things happened, I would revert the table out of the article, taking it back to the version that had all of the entries. I stated that I would wait for a short period before doing so. No discussion from any of the people creating the table. So I reverted it out.
I am not sure how to proceed, since the table creation falls under BRD, and the removal of cited material requires at the very least edit summaries or discussion, none of which occurred. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• So some people who disappeared mysteriously have mysteriously disappeared? Reyk _YO! 08:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I know; the absurdity struck me as well. The amusement of the thing was easily tempered by the appearance that someone tried to conceal the removals within the table creation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is my (non-admin) opinion, but from the article's talk page, there seems to be a consensus among everyone except Jack Sebastian that the list needs trimming and that the table is an improvement. ANI is not the place for content disputes, but if we're looking at behaviour, to me it looks like Jack Sebastian is obstructing attempts to improve the article by clinging to the letter of WP:BRD and ignoring the spirit, as exemplified by [105][106]. Marianna251TALK 09:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, i think you're misordering events, Marianna251. There are hundreds of contributors to that article, at least two dozen of them within the last two months (I'm but one of them).

Three editors decided that the article needed trimming, and deliberately concealed that trimming in a table creation without any sort of discussion. I get that we embrace 'Be Bold' but if people object to the boldness, it gets discussed - its the whole point of collaborative editing. I make no apology for wanting that to keep people discussing as a group.

Apparently, the editors adding the table don't want that; it was almost as if they knew that people might not notice the missing entries right away, due to the new format.

And to repeat, I am not opposed to the table; I'm disappointed that the editors prefered to conceal what they wanted under the guise of adding an uneccesary formatting instead of, you know, discussion and honesty. ::Why are they so terrified of discussing the matter? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

deliberately concealed that trimming in a table creation. This is inaccurate. I was not involved with creating the table and only arrived at the article in the past 7 days after the table was made. I have no idea what was removed: 1 entry? 500? No clue. Do you? Also saying they "deliberately concealed" requires some evidence and not just used the opportunity while creating the table to trim some obvious non-notable entries, which is frequently done in that article. It's irksome that a good faith attempt to improve the article to table format is undone. Creating tables takes a very long time and is loathsome hard work. Discovering which entries were deleted and restore them is something Jack can do, he can help out. But he rather set the article back and posted walls of text on multiple forums while pointing fingers and making bad faith accusations. Jack, why don't you help out and contribute. You've said you don't mind the table, restore it and help out by re-adding deleted entries. -- GreenC 14:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit that converted the article into a table, and requested that the editors supporting that change address these issues on Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously. I'd suggest that separating the issue of reformatting the article as a table from discussions about content inclusion might be a way to start to resolve this in an amicable way. -- The Anome (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that will get everyone to the table (pardon the entirely unintentional pun). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The Anome, in the process you've deleted a bunch of entries that were added in the weeks after the table was added. By other editors who have no skin in the table discussion and don't have the article in their watchlist. It's the same problem either way of deleted entries, keeping the table or not. -- GreenC 13:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The history of List of people who disappeared mysteriously shows that GimliGlider converted part of the list to a table, with Shinerunner finishing the conversion to table format between March 24 and Match 30. Some articles were deleted from the list, but people noted that they were making the deletions.[107] [108] [109] [110] as well as moving solved cases to another article.[111] Since the start of the conversion to table format, roughly 2 dozen editors who did not create the table format edited the article - clearly none of these editors, including myself, had any problem with the change. The only person objecting to the conversion is Jack Sebastian, who reverted against consensus 3 times in 24 hours.[112] [113] [114]. In the last case, Jack Sebastian accompanied his revert against consensus by saying "Did IQs just drop sharply?" and "Your consensus is invisible."[115] Since then, Jack Sebastain seems to have assumed bad faith on the part of those who disagree with him, calling the conversion to table format "clusterfuckery"[116], complaining that the edits weren't discussed during the month he didn't edit the article[117], and saying "removing entries was a recipe for a stupid edit-war".[118]. One of Jack Sebastian's chief complaints appears to be the removal of Lord Lucan from the list,[119] but Jack did that removal several days before the conversion to table format.[120] Edward321 (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Splendid. Allow me to pose two simple questions to you, Edward321: at what point did you discuss the conversion to table before doing it? And, during the conversion, were any entries removed while the table conversion was taking place? The answer to these questions created the problem, which you are making more of than it actually is. When you take bold action, and then refuse to abide by BRD, you

All I wanted was for the conversion to add all of the entries that were there before the conversion to table. You and others didn't even bother to respond to my talk page enquiries and request. I posted here bc you offered no other choice. You don't get to act all offended now.

Now, people are talking at the discussion page, thanks to Anome. As far as I am concerned, collaborative editing is back on track. Mischief managed, and all that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Jack's behaviour and baseless allegations

• Comment standard mode of operations for Jack Sabastion. Insult, belittle and befiddle other editors. (More Diffs available) Legacypac (talk) 17: 40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Dude, maybe you should go find something to edit, instead of tempting fate from the Boomerang Gods. And also, maybe read up on how you aren't supposed to be stalking my edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18: 18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

That is an interesting proposition and accusation that I encourage a full investigation on. [121]. When should we start voting on a boomarang. Legacypac (talk) 18: 34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, perhaps you are unaware that you are trolling. You have come to a discussion where you have no active part, solely to attack another editor. I get that you are still hurt over being called a "harsh douche-canoe", but you are allowed to get over it now. If it will help you get over it, I don't think you're actually all that harsh. Just...unfortunate. Now please go away. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18: 48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

note: any admin who wants to collapse the above drahmahz as non-germane should feel free to do so. If the other user wants to file a complaint, they can do so without piggybacking on my filing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18: 53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm entitled to comment of the complaint brought here which has been shown to be baseless. Jack came here to accuse other editors of misconduct and can expect to have their own conduct examined. Jack have been warned off my talk page by an Admin for harrassmemt and Jack banned me from their talk page while continuing to post attacks on my talkpage. Jack's behaviour needs addressing and this thread is another example of that bad behavior. Jack accused me of stalking - I request he show evidence now. Legacypac (talk) 19: 04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

DFT. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:Casting aspersions. Anyone can comment, and doing so is not "trolling", so knock it off. You think someone's comment is not helpful to the discussion, then say just that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Legacypac's comments are neither helpful nor germane to the discussion, as this is not a discussion about rehashed slights, etc. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but regardless of anything else, Legacypac is quite correct that the behavior of all parties comes under scrutiny when an noticeboard report is filed, and his remark that your complaint is "baseless" is quite pertinent. I'm neither endorsing it nor gainsaying it, just saying that it is quite "germane to the discussion". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the sole issue here is not one of my creation. y behavior in the matter has been restrained, and I'm not going to give a stage to a user with thin skin and a poor memory to derail a discussion about something else. And now, you've given him a spotlight and a tophat to do his Michigan T. Frog thang. Good job at keeping shit on target. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

But that's just the point. In any AN/I report, the "target" is all parties involved. Your personal opinion, as the complainant, is obviously that there's a problem caused by other editors, but the community needs to evaluate that complaint, and, in doing so, needs to look at your behavior as well. That's a legitimate point, which is the essence of what Legacypac brings up. If the community feels that what Legacypac presents is irrelevant, it can ignore or downplay it, but that is their responsibility. You can obviously disagree with what Legacypac says, or explain why you think it is not pertinent, but you should not attempt to stop them from commenting, please allow others to do that if it is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, my behavior in this matter has been rather renstrained, and the nonsense that Legacypac continues to bring up is shit that didn't pass must the past three times he's made a stink about it; he was laughed out of AN/I the last time he brought it up. So, maybe creating a section right in the middle of an off-topic subject about something else entirely is perhaps offering a stage to someone who's clearly stalking the fuck out of my edits. But you know what? You just do you, Ken. I surely hope that a day doesn't come when someone one of your stalkers the same highlighted stage time when you are actually trying to accomplish something that cuts down on all the drahmaz. Sigh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Open a case and prove stalking - or I will seek sanctions against you for your continued campaign against me. Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Further baseless stalking sllegations make at Beyond My Ken's tslk page. Put up the evidence or desist. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

'My continued campaign against you'...um, you *magically* show up here, unbidden, to post here about your butthurt from months ago, unbidden, and all I've done is call you on it. The only person here with an agenda is you, sport. And keep showing up at wildly different articles just to complain about me while claiming that you aren't stalking my edits. See how that plays out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Which articles Jack? Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That's Mr. Sebastian to you, sport. Follow the advice you have been given: 'give a wide berth' and go away. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You made the allegation so Answer the question. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

continued table discussion

I'd like to know why anybody thinks the table format is an improvement over the simple bullet-point list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I personally don't think it is, as it is going to be harder for the average reader (and potential new editor) to add new content, being unfamiliar with table formatting. That said, a few editors want it, and I'm fully prepared to live with the consensus if the majority wants it; that's what collaborative editing and consensus is supposed to be about.

My sole problem was that they were removing entries as they were converting the format, which hides the removals and makes it nearly impossible to sort out - sort of like a bank robbery during a hurricane. That's why I posted here. The format is best dealt with via article discussion or RfC. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a vast improvement. But the article needs to be broken down in any case. And frankly, none of this is pertinent to an ANI report. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You should feel free to weigh in on the article, Rambling Man. To reiterate, the ANI report was about the concealed deletions during reformatting, not the reformatting itself. That just falls under BRD, and usually handled in article talk or, if necessary, RfC. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

What the table fans should have done was a straight conversion of the table as-is/was and then deal with questionable entries separately. And you make a good point that putting it in table form discourages further work on it. Converting a list to a table is tedious busy-work that accomplishes nothing useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The data is in the diffs, anyone can go back and re-add the missing entries at any time. Why don't they? They'd rather spend 10 days on ANI and Talk making a point about their suspicions of concealment. -- GreenC 00:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, has it been 10 days? Maybe instead of arguing here, you've already been advised to head on over to the talk page and argue about content. Please, feel completely free to do that at any time now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The table format makes the page much more readable and, by happenstance, reduces the page size by about 20%, which is great all round. Our readers get the double benefit of quicker loading times and easier to navigate (and sortable tables!) material. We shouldn't be concerning ourselves with the technical challenges our less competent editors may suffer, editing a table is as trivial as editing a bullet point list. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the technical aspect, Rambling Man. And not to belittle our "less competent" editors, some of them probably aren't as well versed in table formatting as others; a well intentioned addition might throw off the table considerably. There are only three outcomes from that: either the adding editor tries to fix it and manages to do so, the adding editor can't fix it and doesn't bother adding the information because they don't want to fvck everything up, or they just add it and leave the mess for someone else to fix (or simply revert out). To my mind, that is the only downside of using a table.

But again, this section wasn't created to argue the de/merits of using table in place of prose or bullet-points. It was that entries were being removed by the folk who were supposed to be transitioning the article into table format. That makes it hard to spot removals because not every editor is going to mark a removal of text while working on the table. That's the heart of the matter. And it looks like the article will go ahead with the table formatting, as long as a true transition is made, without removing entries before the table is complete. If that's don, all of my concerns evaporate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Changing to table format began on 23 March in this edit, which put only the "Before 1800" cases in table format. Other sections were later converted. The solved cases were split off into a separate article. Three weeks after the process began and after it had concluded, Jack showed up and started complaining. According to this statistic page, there were 646 (now 648) people watching the article when he appeared. Not one of those watchers had objected to, or reverted, the table format or any of the deletions made since 23 March. The consensus of the 646 therefore is that the table format is an improvement. Jack's behavior on the Talk page has been a disgrace. He has thrown out epithets and behaved like a provocative bully, demanding no other way but a rollback. The rollback has resulted in the loss of many good small edits done since. What should happen is that the entire table format should be restored and Jack can then go through the deletions he's complaining about and re-insert them one by one. ANI action here should be at least a censure for Jack for his conduct on the Talk page. Akld guy (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but your past interactions with me aren't germane here. I didn't bully you, nor did I call you (or anyone else) a pathetic felch monkey. I pointed out that the table conversion was done without discussion or concensus from any of the 646 people typically editing in that article. As well, it is suspicious when entries start going missing while the table is populating. It isn't my - or anyone else's - job to uncover gaslighting by an editor(s); there is a presumption that editors are not going to do something as suspicious as culling an article while presenting the newly-tabled article as a true copy of the previous version. You, me and every other decent editor should want that. That it wasn't done - either through simple idgaf laziness or something more sinister - means that you reset the table and repopulate it. With every entry that was in the version of the article before the formatting. Everything else you brought up here, Akld guy, is just off-target and a waste of time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What is germane is your recent behavior on the Talk page of the article in question. You are insinuating that I've come here simply to attack you. That's not true. I'm a significant contributor to the article and it's been in my watchlist for years. You're just slinging mud, hoping some of it will stick and deflect attention from the real problem, your abrasive behavior with other editors. Akld guy (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Since I'm late to the party let me start by saying that I have not received any notification of this discussion or the previous one on the article's talk page. I've been busy at work but I would have responded if I had received some notice regarding the table conversion since I removed the page from my Watchlist. Let me start off by apologizing for the problems that have arisen due to my work converting the information to the table format. I've been accused, indirectly, of "entries were craftily removed" during the conversion but I must state that I was following the lead of the editor who brought this complaint when he removed an entry of a "fugitive of justice" while I was working on the conversion. I simply followed that example. When Jack Sebastian made the statement the removals were "deliberately concealed" nothing could be further from the truth despite whatever "theories" he may have decided on. For proof of that I would ask you to look at my contributions and you will note that I added descriptions into each of my edit summaries regarding the number of entries removed [122]. Did I make a mistake in removing some entries? I'll admit that yes I did but if I had been contacted I would have worked my butt off to restore the entries that were an issue. Since Jack failed to contact me, when expected allowance be made for him not monitoring the page for an extended period, I must state that this issue has been very enlightening and is causing me to re-evaluate my participation on the site. I guess Baseball Bugs statement is correct - "Converting a list to a table is tedious busy-work that accomplishes nothing useful" and you can bet that it won't happen by me again. Shinerunner (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for not contacting you; I really thought I had contacted everyone involved. No slight was intended. As for the rest of your response, I have to say that, had someone posted a response in the article discussion (or any response, really) addressing my concerns, this section would have likely never been necessary. As no one was responding over the day that I waited, I grew more convinced that the mindset behind the silence was more of a 'so-what-if-we-did-it, whatcha-gonna-do-about-it' type. In point of fact, it doesn't matter if the removals during the en-tabling were sinister or not; the end result is that they would have been a pain in the ass to find, sort out and re-add. I am sorry if your good faith efforts were lumped in with another's laziness/cynicism.

Again, the only argument being made here is that when you change the format of an article, you do so without muddying up the transformation with other edits. You do the formatting first. Then you can do other stuff. That is in the interest of transparency. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem but I think it's time that I walk away for a bit.Shinerunner (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment whether a table is better or not belongs on the article's talk page; whether someone's behavior was inappropriate belongs here. Per WP:BRD, creating a table and trimming was WP:BOLD, someone in the above WP:REVERTED, time to WP:DISCUSS the content, but not here. To the extent someone is claiming that either the table addition or the reversion was improper that user needs to show an action contrary to consensus (absent a consensus to the contrary, one ought to be bold) or was otherwise disruptive; claiming it was subterfuge requires some affirmative showings of bad faith or the claim itself is contrary to WP:AGF. No opinion on the gravamen on the various claims above, just setting forth the relative high bars that need be met and redirecting the table or not discussion to the article's talk page where is really belongs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That's entirely fair, @Carlossuarez4:. Fortunately, Akld guy compiled a list of edits during the table formatting where entries were removed:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4 Restoration of Lord Bingham
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8 Solved cases split
• 9

So, one or two entries could be overlooked as an innocent removal, maybe. But nine? Not so much. As I cannot see into the hearts of those making the edits, I have to look into my own and ask how I would go about black-hat concealing a deleted entry for which I didn't want lengthy discussion; hiding it inside of a large scale article conversion (or merge) seems a pretty good way to do it. And while its easy to find now (when attention has been drawn to it right away)m fixing it well after the fact would take a lot of slogging through DIFFs - an effort that some wouldn't bother to undertake on a lower traffic article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not nine, but seven. Jack has misrepresented two of those edits. Lord Bingham was a re-entry that he has supported in the past, and the split off into a separate article for solved cases has been called for on numerous occasions to reduce the size of the article. Non-controversial. As I said when posting the list on the Talk page, the re-addition of the seven entries would be a trivial matter, providing they meet consensus. Some of the seven won't, and it was right to delete those. Jack is disrupting the article in insisting that we go back to the pre-tabulated version and start formatting the article as a table all over again, just for the sake of those seven entries. That's absurdly time-consuming, and wastes all the good edits done in the meantime. Jack appears to have trouble working out how to make entries in a table, doesn't like the table format, and is disruptively insisting on a narrow interpretation of BRD in order to force a change back to the plain text version. No other watcher or commentator has supported Jack, and although he has inappropriately brought this content dispute here, it's really his behavior that we should be examining here. Akld guy (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Err, how am I misrepresenting any of the edits, Akld? They're from your post on the talk page. Akld found 9 (or 7 or whatever); he himself has admitted that removing entries during "tabulation" (conversion to table) was a "mistake".

So, how exactly am I at fault for this mess? I just expected the people making the mistakes to fix them, or reverting the article back to the version before the mistakes were made, so it can be done correctly. I dodn't tell them to choose not to act on that suggestion.

And its a nonsense claim that I don't want a table; its fake news: at every point that I have said that I have no real problem with a table, if that's what the consensus wants. I've actually said it again and again - most recently here. So, anyone suggesting that I am fighting the table formatting is using it as a bullshit distraction.

So, Akld guy's current narrative is that I'm the one being disruptive for stating that since the formatting snuck in deletions, we have to do it right.

Yes, its all about my behavior.

Despite the fact that I am nt the one who got caught hiding deletions inside of a large-scale table formatting, and then (at best) misrepresent the number of those deletions.

I'm not the ones who ignored repeated requests to fix the problem that they created.

I'm not the one who just suggested that we go ahead and overlook the deletions, because adding them back in, or redoing the table was "too hard".

In short, I am not the one who thinks its easier to ask forgiveness than permission. and then attack and blame the guy who caught them red-handed.

Yeah, I'm the one disrupting the article. Pull the other leg, it offers lemonade. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Two of the nine are not deletions at all. The Lord Bingham edit is actually an addition and the split off of the Solved cases list deleted nothing but moved those to their own article. I simply included those for reference in case someone wanted to make a big deal about them. Nobody has, except Jack Sebastian, who is misrepresenting those two as deletions of content, and what's more, claiming that editors had ulterior motives by "hiding" deletions among other edits. Jack, you've been around long enough to know that edits can't be hidden. They're there for everyone to see. Akld guy (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to keep missing the point, and I'm tired of bricking you over the head with actual fact:

1. The table conversion included edits that had nothing to do with converting an article to table format. This is undisputed.
2. Nine of these edits added/removed entries to the article, which meant that the article after table conversion was not the same article that existed before table conversion.
3. Most editors would have thought that a true copy had been made of the article, just in a different format. Removals and alterations to content (not formatting) would have reasonably gone missing from most editors.
4. Requests to restore the missing content were ignored by the people who removed that content.
5. The same people who contributed to the content removal were also the staunchest defenders of keeping the article just as it was, removed content, rule changes and all. To them, it was "no big deal"...yet big enough of a deal to fight tooth and nail to keep the changes in content.
   

So, tell me again how this is all my fault again? Stop trying to make this all about me, guy. I did nothing wrong but point out the attempted jacking of an article. Instead of complaining about me, why not stay on target and fix the article? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

So...a more detailed account puts the number of missing entries at 26 - almost three times what was determined by Akld guy.

If nothing else, my complaint highlights the need to be a lot more transparent in formatting edits than was evidenced in this instance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Mass removal of hanjas by different IPs

There has been many different IPs from the same range that are mass removing hanja names from Korean artists and even changing the birth dates of artists. Is there something to stop them? Like a range block or something? Some of the IPs are:

• 175.223.35.214 (talk · contribs)
• 175.223.30.53 (talk · contribs)
• 175.223.22.129 (talk · contribs)
• 175.223.21.152 (talk · contribs)
• 110.70.15.104 (talk · contribs)
• 110.70.51.189 (talk · contribs)
• 110.70.14.46 (talk · contribs)
• 110.70.50.222 (talk · contribs)
• 121.143.243.198 (talk · contribs)
• 121.173.28.131 (talk · contribs)
• 221.154.78.210 (talk · contribs)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.43.184 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I notice that the hanja being removed is completely unsourced, therefore is technically valid to be removed if it can't be proven it's being used especially as hanja isn't used that much for everyone these days. That being said however that would be a content dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 17:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: It might be a little different for Korean since it is possible for a Korean-language RS to describe a topic without giving the hanja (Japanese works that use kana exclusively are aimed at very young children, and are therefore not RS), but with Japanese and Chinese topics the Chinese character representation of proper names is usually treated as WP:BLUE: if infobox content of that kind were tagged as needing a source, the response I would be likely to give is "Here's one, but we don't usually cite inline sources for stuff like this so the tag should just be removed". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR, [[WP:OVERLINK]] and Commissioners' Plan of 1811

WP:CITEVAR is quite specific in what it says:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article.

When I took on the expansion of Commissioners' Plan of 1811, [123] the article was 13,591 bytes and had 4 references which did not have a consistent reference style. Now, mainly through my efforts, the article is 129,820 bytes long, and has 164 references with a consistent references style, which I established, and which has remained in the article since I established it in 2012. I am listed as the primary author of the article, responsible for 89.5% of the text. [124]. Obviously, I do not, and can not WP:OWN the article, but -- also obviously -- I have a vested interest in it as the major author of it.

Now, two editors, first Imzadi1979 and then PSantora, neither of whom has contributed a single byte to the article, have decided that the article's existing consistent referencing style is not to their liking, so both have attempted -- in blatant violation of WP:CITEVAR, and without seeking consensus on the article talk page -- to change the references, but to two completely different referencing systems. Neither is, to my mind, superior to the current system, but that is neither here nor there. CITEVAR clearly says that if there is an existing consistent reference system in use it should not be changed without a consensus to do so. Both have been told this, and both have declined to try to get a consensus. Imzadi, to their credit, dropped the issue, but Psantora has been edit-warring to enforce the system they prefer.

Psantora is also overlinking, having added links to publishes in a number of cite templates I created and use often. [125],[126],[127],[128],[129],[130],[131],[132],[133],[134],[135] (On some of these he also linked the name of the publishing location city, but most of those he later removed.) It is true that I sometimes see publishers linked in references, but only very rarely, and I believe it qualifies as WP:Overlinking. I can't image someone reading Commissioners' Plan of 1811, checking a reference, and saying to themselves, "Hmm, I've just got to know more about this 'Yale University Press' it mentions as the publisher." That's absurd, links should be for stuff the reader is likely to be interested in finding out more about, especially in relation to the subject matter at hand -- and that is why the vast majority of book references do not have the publisher linked. This portion withdrawn, see below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Psantora also appears to be doing a bit of following me around, since I never heard of him before a couple of days ago, and now he's turning up on all sorts of article I have watch listed, such as Untermensch, List of mayors of New York City and Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, not to mention the numerous citation templates I create for references that I use frequently.

I do not want any sanctions -- at this point, I don't think anything remotely sanctionable has occurred -- but I would like Psantora -- in particular -- to be told to stop violating CITEVAR and changing references without a consensus to do so, to stop overlinking by linking publishers, and -- if they are doing so -- to stop following me around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A quick follow-up. I see on Imzadi1979's talk page that the claim is being made that the referencing style on Commissioners' Plan of 1811 is "not consistent" because different methods were used to arrive at the resulting reference. This is a red herring. "Consistency of style" refers to the results the readers see on the page, not the methodology used to generate that result. If a reference says:

Last, First (date) Title of book. Location: Publisher. page(s). ISBN

it is completely irrelevant whether it was generated by a citation template, or if it was "handrolled", as someone called it. The ideal is that the reader (the people we write the encyclopedia for) see a consistent style in the reference section. Like sausages, they should never be made to be concerned about how it was made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Two editors notified. Discussion has taken place at Talk:Commissioners' Plan of 1811, User talk:Imzadi1978 and User talk:Psantora. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting that Imzadi has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a globally-locked LTA. ansh666 20:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No, that was an impersonator account that was blocked long ago. --Rschen7754 00:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  Huh, I thought that something was off. Sorry about that. ansh666 08:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • • Given that, someone should revert these incorrectly founded (based on Ansh666's comment) edits by BMK: [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141]. (I'd do it myself, but I don't want to inflame this situation any further than required to resolve it.) - Paul^T+/_C
      • I don't see why they should be. Yes, the reason given for the edits is now wrong, so I'll provide a null edit saying what is also the case, that the edits did not improve the templates. It really should be noted that I created these template because I found myself using those sources a lot. As far as I know, no one uses them but me, but because of the volume of my edits, they still get used frequently. (Template:Cite gotham, for instance, has 117 transclusions [142].) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)\
        •  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
          • What, exactly, was done? - Paul^T+/_C 06:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup, agree absolutely that consistency of citations is about what the reader sees on the rendered page, and they should stick to current usage, or make a case on the Talk page why not. I'm less bothered by whether a publisher is linked or not, although I see why it rankles if your template is changed and it forces you to do something you are opposed to. There is some indication in user doc for {{cite book}} that a linked pub is not completely outré; see the examples (search on page for ' [[HMSO]] '). However that's just a doc example, not a community guideline. If the editor is hell bent on linking his pubs, a compromise might be to introduce new param publink (on the model of authorlink) and let them link their pubs if that's what floats their boat. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, I almost always link everything I can in the citations, but I also almost always work with news articles and scholarly journals available online, not books. ansh666 20:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I also link periodicals and websites in references, but I do not link book publishers. I started out linking publishers many years ago, but stopped when I noticed that almost no else did it. I concluded that this was the community norm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have wikilinked book publishers in references hundreds of times, including in Good articles like George Meany, and never once has another editor objected to this. I consider it a good way for a reader to be able to evaluate the reliability of a publisher. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That might be a valid argument for "off-brand" publishers, but no one's going to evaluate the reliability of the Yale University Press or Random House by consulting our articles on those publishers, nor should they have to. If someone has a concern that the reference is not to a reliable source, they should bring it up on the article talk page, or on WP:RSN. The link serves very little purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As have I. I will respond at length to this a little later, but I just wanted to quickly point out I believe this AN/I is a response to a 3RV that I started here, though in retrospect I clearly should have come here instead. I believe my actions have been misrepresented by BMK and I will need some time to outline them properly. - Paul^T+/_C 01:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What 3RV? I received no notification of a report at WP:EWN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This notification? Sent directly after I created the report and well before this one. Don't be coy. Regardless, it is stale and superseded by this discussion at this point. If I had been more clever I would have come here instead. - Paul^T+/_C 01:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it look like you did indeed notify me. But if you look at this report on AN, you'll see that the talk page message flag was down for some portion of today, so the orange box never lit up, saying there was a message on my talk page, so this report is not a response to your EWN, because I never knew until just now that there was a EWN report.

Perhaps you could strikeout "Don't be coy", and next time WP:AGF? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I assume you'd also argue you missed the pings from the post as well. I don't[didn't (Psantora 4/21)] buy it, but my opinion doesn't really matter on this small point. (And again, that report has become redundant at this point anyway.) - Paul^T+/_C 02:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think I have pings turned on? In any case, I frequently ignore pings (when I have them on - I turn them on and off frequently depending on what I'm involved in, and what condition my blood pressure is in.)

So, are you saying directly to me that I am lying to you and the community? That doesn't seem like a particularly good stance for you to take when starting to engage in what is supposed to be a collegial discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally -- not addressing this to you, Psantora, since you apparently aren't interested in believing anything I say -- but Cullen made a pretty good point to me on my talk page about linking publishers, so I'm going to re-evaluate my position on that. But, of course, the important part of this complaint concerns Psantora's serial non-compliance with WP:CITEVAR, even after its provisions have been pointed out to them -- that's the issue that needs to be dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and Psantora: I am open to you retracting your clear implication that I was lying any time you wish to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, I agree that this is the right venue for this discussion and I shouldn’t have posted to 3RV in the first place. Even if you did see that notice it is no longer relevant. Why do you care/should it matter what I think? If I had more experience with this kind of thing I would have come here much sooner. I’m glad to hear you agree that I haven’t violated OVERLINK now that you actually gave it some thought and I regret that I was not able to help you get there in our previous discussions. I’m confident/hopeful we’ll get to a similar agreement with some of these other issues with a little bit of productive discussion, which I think you’ll agree we haven’t really been having (and I’d very much like to have). I’m about halfway done or so with my “at length” response (spoiler alert, I try to be objective and admit *some* culpability for this situation) but unfortunately I will not be able to finish until tomorrow. - Paul^T+/_C 06:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, considering that all I said above was that I was going to think about my stance on the overlink question, and I didn't actually report the result of my thinking until about 17 1/2 hours after you posted this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. I read this quickly last night and slightly mischaracterized your view at the time, however I believe I did correctly at the time state it in a few of my edits in the large section below. You've somehow managed to get me to laugh (at myself) twice in this thread. Bravo. I do find it slightly disappointing that other than the apology below (which I do appreciate, thank you) I didn't get any credit for your change in view on this. If it weren't for me you'd still be incorrectly citing inaccurate "general consensus" on this issue! Seriously though, I appreciate your self-reflection on this point. From my perspective, this contention was the primary cause of the dispute in the first place. - Paul^T+/_C 00:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not give you any credit for the change in my thinking, because I did not take anything you said into account when I re-evaluated my stance. If I had, I would have said so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Per my own analysis here, I'd support any kind of one-way sanction against Psantora for his pretty blatant tendentious editing, hounding, gaming of the system, uncivil mudslinging, IDHT, etc., up to and including an indefinite block if the IDHT regarding the inappropriateness of his own behaviour continues. I would also not be averse to at least a final warning for Imzadi1979 regarding citation styles, when to change them and when not -- it might be a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but if editors can't understand the rules they shouldn't be playing the game. BMK can also be trouted for technically-kinda-sorta pushing the limits of 3RR, maybe. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You're entitled to your opinion. I'd urge you to read my post below. I do admit that my behavior hasn't been stellar, but the behaviors you are accusing me of are extreme. I think I spell out my motivations very explicitly and clearly if you care to read it. I'm engaged in this conversation and willing to discuss my own behavior in an effort to improve. I don't think it is really appropriate to suggest the kinds of sanctions you are talking about, for anyone involved. - Paul^T+/_C 19:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Psantora: You still do not appear to have stricken your off-topic, uncivil mudslinging on ANEW, despite me calling you out on it twice. This implies you not only stand by it but see no reason why you shouldn't continue to treat BMK and whoever else in this manner. This is sinply unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The statement was based on facts, though did represent poor judgement on my part as I have explained below. That said, I struck the comment in question. - Paul^T+/_C 18:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any action because I have strong views on the participants involved. I think BMK talks a lot of common sense (even if said common sense upsets people) and Imzadi1979 seems to follow too much style over substance (the typical reader doesn't give a flying toss what the citation format is as long as the article is well written and is factually correct). That said, I think this is a storm in a teacup, and Psantora needs to stop taking it personally and realise that some debates you just don't win, before somebody sanctions him. Imzadi1979 appears to have scrubbed the conversation off his talk page, which I take as meaning he's dropped the stick and walked away, so I would not advocate any action there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not here to win a debate. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. Take a look at the article and look at the 150+ references. It is a mix of full citations (about 25%) and short citations (about 75%). See WP:CITETYPE. It is not consistent. - Paul^T+/_C 19:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (BMK) has had a history of edit warring and other problematic and disruptive editing activity, as is evident in their long block history does not strike me as the reasoning of someone who simply wants to improve the encyclopedia. This, combined with the talk page IDHT, pushing BMK to 3RR oneself and then immediately reporting him for "edit warring"...? If you ignore attempts at communication, then it doesn't matter who has more "reverts": you are the one edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already stated that the edit warring report was a mistake and that the proper venue was both the relevant talk page(s) and (eventually) here, (if the talk page discussion(s) didn't work). (Full disclosure, those 2½ parentheticals are new nuances of my opinion.) The history of edit warring bit was mainly in reference to BMK's most recent entry in their block log, which was for edit warring on April 11 (in fairness, it was lifted early), though there are others as well. The "problematic and disruptive editing activity" was opinion again based on the block log (and a quick review of relevant previous discussions at AN*). I agree it was unfair for me to characterize BMK's behavior in that way and I regret doing so. With that said, my intent (improving the encyclopedia) was always there. I see now it was based on a flawed view of the situation, but the intent was there. The communication that occurred with BMK and me was definitely sub par, especially on my side of the CITEVAR dispute, but it did occur and was not ignored. I can account for my side of the communication and I admit it is my fault it escalated beyond talk pages, but I don't think I'm solely culpable. - Paul^T+/_C 17:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the current state of the references on Commissioners' Plan of 1811:

References (notes, citations, and bibliography)

Informational notes An example of the grid laid down according to the 1785 law can be found in Ballon, p.52 A street map of Savannah in 1818 can be found in Ballon, p.50 A 19th-century reproduction of Goerck's 1796 map can be seen in Ballon, p.22. The 1785 map is not extant. A graphic indication of the overlap between Goerck's surveys and the Commissioners' Plan can be found in Ballon, pp.44–45 The text of the April act can be read at Ballon, pp.30–32 A fairly large-scale fold-out version of the map can be found at Ballon, pp.34–36, and a zoomable version is available online at "Map of the city of New York and island of Manhattan as laid out by the commissioners appointed by the Legislature, April 3, 1807" New York Public Library Digital Collections It is not possible to tell from the map whether the "Garden" listed between 47th and 51st Streets and Fifth and Sixth Avenues was an existing feature or a planned one; possibly the former as there is no break indicated in the planned streets. See "Map of the city of New York and island of Manhattan as laid out by the commissioners appointed by the Legislature, April 3, 1807" New York Public Library Digital Collections (zoomable map) Haerlem Marsh, from 106th to 109th Streets between the East River and Fifth Avenue is shown in the map, but is not gridded, as the technology of the time would not allow it to be filled-in until 1837. See Koeppel (2015), p.124 An illustration of Gaynor's proposed avenue, published in The New York Times on May 29, 1910, can be seen in Ballon, p.125 Citations Augustyn & Cohen, pp.100–106 Burrows and Wallace, pp.419–22 Gray, Christopher (October 23, 2005). "Streetscapes: The Commissioners' Plan of 1811: Are Manhattan's Right Angles Wrong?". The New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2010. Spann, Edward K. "grid plan" in Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010), The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2, p.558 "Map of the city of New York and island of Manhattan as laid out by the Commissioners appointed by the Legislature, April 3, 1807" New York Public Library Digital Collections (zoomable map) Glaeser, Edward (2011) Triumph of the City: How Our Best Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier New York: Penguin. p.19. ISBN 978-1-59420-277-3 Higgins, pp.50–67 Koeppel (2015), pp.1–16 Higgins, p. 76 Higgins pp.67–68 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.110 Grava, Sigurd "streets and highways" in Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010), The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2, pp.1252–54 Holloway, p.151 Ballon, p.17 Burrows & Wallace (1999), p.187 Koeppel (2015), p.47 Koeppel (2015), pp.17–28 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.112 Brazee, Christopher D. and Most, Jennifer L. (March 23, 2010) Upper East Side Historic District Extension Designation Report New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, p.6 n.12 Koeppel (2015), p.27 Koeppel (2015), pp.37–41;51–56;60 Koeppel (2015), p.48 Koeppel, Gerard (August 1, 2007) "Talking Point: Manhattan traffic congestion is a historic mistake", The Villager. Accessed: 19 May 2011 Szabla, Christopher (April 7, 2011) "An Alternate Map of Manhattan" Urbanphoto Koeppel (2015), p.60 Koeppel (2015), p.56 Koeppel (2015), pp.70–71 Holloway, p.50 Kimmelman, Michael (January 2, 2012) "The Grid at 200: Lines That Shaped Manhattan", The New York Times Eldredge & Horemstein (2014), p.111 Ballon, p.25 Malouin, Paul-Jacques (2004) "Miasma" in The Encyclopedia of Diderot and d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Assarian, Jaclyn (trans.). Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing Morris, Gouverneur, De Witt, Simeon, and Rutherford, John [sic] (March 1811) Remarks Of The Commissioners For Laying Out Streets And Roads In The City Of New York, Under The Act Of April 3, 1807 Archived June 10, 2007, at the Wayback Machine., accessed May 7, 2008. Koeppel (2015), p.77–78 Koeppel (2015), pp.83–84 Koeppel (2015), pp.82–83 Koeppel (2015), p.86 Koeppel (2105), p.83 Koeppel (2015), p.80 Koeppel (2015), p.84 Koeppel (2015), pp.90–94 Koeppel (2015), caption; images between pp.136 & 137 Holloway, pp.96–97 Koeppel (2015), p.98 Holloway, pp.19;36;44 Koeppel (2015), pp.100–102 Koeppel (2015), pp.102–06 Steinberg, pp.60–61 Holloway, pp.60–61 Holloway, pp.61–62 Koeppel (2015), pp.106–08 Koeppel (2015), pp.108–110 Holloway, p.63 Koeppel (2015), pp.112–14 Holloway, pp.63–64 Koeppel (2015), p.114 Holloway, p.152; quoting Hartog, Hendrick (1983) Public Property and Private Power: The Corporation of the City of New York in American Law, 1730–1870 Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. pp.163, 165-66 Koeppel (2015), p.101 Steinberg, p.58 Peretz Square, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Accessed July 12, 2007. "A sliver of Manhattan bounded by Houston Street, First Street and First Avenue, Peretz Square marks the spot where the tangled jumble of lower Manhattan meets the regularity of the Commissioners' Plan street grid." Koeppel, p.122 Glaeser, Edward (2011), Triumph of the City: How Our Best Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier, New York: Penguin Press, pp. 169–170, ISBN 978-1-59420-277-3 Koeppel (2015), p.7 Roberts, Sam (May 20, 2011) "200th Birthday for the Map That Made New York" The New York Times Ballon, p.39 citing Rose-Redwood, Reuben Koeppel (2015), pp.84–85 Ballon, p.87 Kane, Michael (February 24, 2013). "The making of Manhattan". New York Post. Retrieved November 6, 2016. Mendelsohn, Joyce (1998). Touring the Flatiron. New York: New York Landmarks Conservancy. p.13. ISBN 0-9647061-2-1 Koeppel (2015) pp.124–25 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.116 Koeppel (2015), pp.123–24 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.67 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.77 Theodore Roosevelt Park: Margaret Mead Green, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Accessed July 31, 2016. "In 1979, the City Council enacted a law naming the northwest portion of Theodore Roosevelt Park 'Margaret Mead Green' in honor of the distinguished anthropologist." Koeppel (2015), p.124 Holloway, p.104 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.117 Holloway, pp.104–109 Augustyn & Cohen, pp.106–109 Holloway, pp.51–51 Koeppel (2015), p. 126 Holloway, pp. 64–65 Manaugh, Geoff & Twilley, Nicola (July 30, 2013). "The 25 Best Nerd Road Trips: Central Park Bolt". Popular Science. Retrieved 22 June 2014. Holloway, pp. 77–85 Koeppel (2015), p. 136 Holloway, pp. 9;14 Koeppel (2015), p. 134 Holloway, pp. 87–88 Holloway, p. 102 Holloway, pp. 120–125 Augustyn & Cohen, pp. 110–111 Koeppel (2015) pp. 132–134 Holloway, p.125; quoting Stokes, I. N. Phelps (1915–1928) The Iconography of Manhattan Island, 1498–1909 v.1 New York: R. H. Dodd. p. 564 Holloway, p. 145 Koeppel (2015), p. 97 Renner, Andrea "The System of Street Openings" in Bonner, p.76 Koeppel (2015), pp.138–143 Koeppel (2015), p.182 Yerkes, Carolyn. "Rocks on 81st Street" in Ballon, p.83; quoting Cozzens, Isacher (1843) A Geological History of Manhattan or New York Island... New York: W. E. Dean Henry, Sarah. "Tweed's Grid" in Ballon, p.135 Ballon, p.73 Rose-Redwood, Reuben "How Manhattan's Topography Changed and Stayed the Same" in Ballon, p.80 Holloway pp.158–59; quoting Rose-Redwood, Reuben & Li, Li (2011) "From Island of Hills to Cartesian Flatland? Using GPS to Assess Topographical Change in New York City, 1819–1999" The Professional Geographer v.63 n.3 p.403 Koeppel (2015), p.177 Blackman, Elizabeth and Rozenweig, Roy "Central Park" in Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010), The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2, pp.222–224 Koeppel (2015), pp.188–90 Renner, Andrea. "Improving the West Side" in Ballon, p.141 Garber, Steven D. "earthquakes and faults" in Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010), The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2, p.389 Koeppel (2015), pp.192–194 "Geography of Disaster" (map) New York Koeppel (2015), pp.185–187 Ballon, p.169 Koeppel (2015), pp.150–51 Koeppel (2015), p.222–24 Rose-Redwood, Reuben "Numbering and Naming Mnahattan's Streets" in Ballon, p.95 Koeppel (2015), pp.146–148 Koeppel (2015), pp.219–20 Malbin, Peter (November 16, 1997) "If You're Thinking of Living In/Sutton Place; Secluded, but With a Neighborly Feel", The New York Times. Accessed April 8, 2016. "In less glamorous times, Sutton Place was part of Avenue A. It was renamed by Effingham B. Sutton, an entrepreneur who saw potential in the area and formed a syndicate in 1875 to develop rowhouses between Avenue A and the river." Staff (October 29, 1928) "York Avenue Gets Lights Tomorrow; Walker to Switch On Traffic System From 54th to 93d St. on Renamed Avenue A. School Children to MarchL Bishop Manning, Rabbi Silverman and Mgr. Carroll Will Offer Prayers -- Luncheon to Follow", The New York Times. Accessed April 8, 2016 Hughes, C. J. (June 25, 2013) "East End Avenue: A Gated State of Mind", The New York Times. Accessed: April 8, 2016. "Into the early 20th century, East End was called Avenue B and York was called Avenue A, according to news reports of the time. They aligned with their downtown counterparts." Ballon, p.155 Viñoly, Rafael "Reflection" in Ballon, p.101 Koeppel (2015), pp.xix-xxi Steinberg, p.41 Koeppel (2015), p.175 Koeppel (2015), pp.179–180 Burrows and Wallace, p.447 Koeppel (2015), p.209; quoting James, Henry (May 1906) "New York Revisited" Harper's Monthly Koeppel (2015), p.117; quoting Harder, Julius (March 1898) "The City's Plan" Municipal Affairs Koeppel (2015), p.131, quoting Stokes, I. N. Phelps (1915-28) The Iconography of Manhattan Island, 1498–1909 v.1, New York: R. H. Dodd. pp.407–08 Koeppel (2015), p.117 Koeppel (2015), p.145; quoting Mumford, Lewis (June 22, 1932) "The Plan of New York: II" The New Republic Koeppel (2015), p.73; quoting Schopfer, Jean (1902) "The Plan of a City" The Architectural Record Koeppel (2015), p.128; quoting Janvier, Thomas (1894) In Old New York New York: Harper and Brothers. pp.57–61 Steinberg, p.154 Koeppel (2015), p.236 Holloway, p.150; quoting Marcuse, Peter (1987) "The Grid as City Plan: New York City and Laissez-Faire Planning in the Nineteenth Century:" Planning Perspectives p,287 Ballon, Hilary "Introduction" in Ballon, p.13; quoting Reps, John W. (1965) The Making of Urban America:A History of City Planning in the United States Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04525-9 Holloway, p.150; quoting Reps, John W. (1965) The Making of Urban America: A History of City Planning in the United States Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, p.299. ISBN 0-691-04525-9 Koeppel (2015), p.128, quoting Shanor, Rebecca (1981) New York's Paper Streets: Proposals to Relieve the 1811 Gridiron Plan (master's thesis, Columbia University) p.51 Holloway, p.145; quoting Schuyler, David (1986) In the New Urban Landscape Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p.23 Koeppel (2015), p.129 Holloway, p.145; quoting Hartog, Kendrik (1983) Public Property and Private Power:The Corporation of the City of New York in American Law, 1730–1870 Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p.159 Holloway, p.146; quoting Hartog, Kendrik (1983) Public Property and Private Power:The Corporation of the City of New York in American Law, 1730–1870 Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p.162 Strong, George Templeton (October 27, 1850) Diary entry in Lopate, Philip (2000) Writing New York: A Literary Anthology New York: Simon & Schuster. p.191. ISBN 978-0671-04235-6 Ballon, Hilary "Introduction" in Ballon, p.14 quoting Koolhaas, Rem (1978) Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. Oxford University Press Joseph, Wendy Evans. "Reflection" in Ballon, p.177 Koeppel (2015), pp.215–16; quoting Staff (April 29, 1900) "How Can New York Be Made the City Beautiful" New York Herald Traub, James "Reflection" in Ballon, p.85 Ballon, Hilary "Introduction" in Ballon, p.14 Owen, David (2009) Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability. New York: Riverhead. p.177 ISBN 978-1-59448-882-5 Glaeser, Edward. "Reflection" in Ballon, p.209 Lance Hosey, The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design (Island Press, 2012), 150-151. Bibliography Cohen, Paul E. and Augustyn, Robert T. (1997). Manhattan in Maps: 1527-1995. New York: Rizzoli International Press. ISBN 0847820521. Ballon, Hilary, ed. (2013). The Greatest Grid: The Master Plan of Manhattan 1811-2011. New York: Museum of the City of New York and Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15990-6. Burrows, Edwin G. and Wallace, Mike (1999). Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-195-11634-8. Eldredge, Niles and Horenstein, Sidney (2014). Concrete Jungle: New York City and Our Last Best Hope for a Sustainable Future. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-27015-2. Higgins, Hannah B. (2009) The Grid Book, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, ISBN 978-0-262-51240-4 Holloway, Marguerite (2013). The Measure of Manhattan: The Tumultuous Career and Surprising Legacy of John Randel Jr., Cartographer, Surveyor, Inventor. New York: W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-07125-2. Koeppel, Gerard (2015). City on a Grid: How New York Became New York. Boston: Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-82284-1. Steinberg, Ted (2010). Gotham Unbound: The Ecological History of Greater New York. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-476-74124-6.

Note that most of the formatting is lost in this list, so you will still have to go to the actual article to see the full context, but it illustrates the point. The citations are not consistent. It is a mix of full and short citations. My edits were an attempt to reduce the short citations (and eventually replace them all with full citations). This also has the added side benefit of reducing the total number of citations since almost every short citation can be directly referenced by one full citation for each source. See the change to the article to illustrate this example for one reference by Koeppel, which reduced the number of distinct citations by around 1/3 from ~150 to ~100 without any loss in verifiability and an increase in clarity both for editing and reading the page. Am I missing something here?[Yes, I was.] - Paul^T+/_C 19:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The "mix of long and short citations" you complain about is a standard format, and it is absolutely consistent. Here's how it works:

• (1) When a source is used for multiple references in the article, it is placed in the "Bibliography" list, and all references to that source use the form "Lastname (date), page", or something quite similar. This is help keep the "Notes" section from being clogged up with repetitive text. The full information for the reference is in the Bibliographic listing.
• (2) When a source is used only once it is handled just like a normal source; this is the reference says something on the order of "Lastname, Firstname (date) Title Location: Publisher. page ISBN". Whether this is generated my hand or via a citation template is immaterial.
• {3) When an editor notes that a specific reference is used multiple times, but is listed in long form each time (for whatever reason - usually each instance has been added by a different editor who never checked to see if the source had been used elsewhere), the editor who has noticed converts the references into the form of #1 above.

That's it, it's absolutely standard, used in hundreds -- if not thousands -- of articles, is entirely consistent, and is closely related to the structure of Harvard formatting, except that it doesn't use the "sfn|name|date|page" form.

There is no possible way that the format used in Commissioners' Plan of 1811 can be consider not to be "consistent" in the context of WP:CITEVAR, which is why you need to get a consensus to change it. My problems with the format you prefer are not a matter for AN/I, which does not deal with content disputes, but are a matter for talk page discussion, if you should ever decide to follow CITEVAR and start a consensus discussion there, instead of changing the already consistent referencing unilaterally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I concede you have a point there. I still have some quibbles so I'll have to think on this a bit. I was mostly annoyed at the context in which it was occurring. - Paul^T+/_C 02:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss this with you on the talk page of the relevant article. Your point is valid and I see now that I was not making useful changes to the article without first getting agreement on the talk page there. I was wrong in my assessment of the inconsistent reference style in that article. Please accept my apology for this. I will work to ensure that I do not misinterpret your actions in the future, especially as it relates to citations. (I will not forget this exchange, believe me!) - Paul^T+/_C 17:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Linking publishers in references and WP:OVERLINK

As I mentioned above [143] and on my talk page [144], I was going to re-evaluate my stance on linking publishers in references as an example of OVERLINKing. Here's what I came up with:

• (1) Linking publishers was my original impulse, years ago. I stopped when I didn't see others doing it, and thought that not linking them was the community norm.
• (2) Established editors such as Cullen328 and Ash666 report that they link publishers in references.
• (3) Cullen wrote on my talk page: "I write with the interests of English language readers worldwide, which includes young readers in South Africa, India, Jamaica, Japan and China. And so on. I concede that only a tiny percentage of readers will click those links, but anyone who does will learn a little bit about a major publishing house, which I consider a good thing." [145]. I think that's a very valid point, one that I had failed to consider.
• (4) Mathglot wrote above: "There is some indication in user doc for {{cite book}} that a linked pub is not completely outré" [146]
• {5} No one had stepped forward to agree with my contention that linking publishers was OVERLINKING.

Given these factors, I am withdrawing the portion of this report which complains about Psantora "overlinking" -- which I will indicate by striking it through -- and I will restore the links to publishers in the cite templates referred to above (and add them to my other cite templates), both with my apologies to Psantora. I will probably take up this practice again, since it seems to have a least some small benefit, and since there is no indication that the community thinks it is overlinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. What about the similar reverts in article space? Example: List of mayors of New York City There are others, but I don't want to confuse those diffs the other topics still under discussion. - Paul^T+/_C 03:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Opposing view and full context

Introduction

I doubt that anyone is actually going to read through these diffs, as most of this dispute comes down to formatting in generally well-referenced articles. Having said that, please indulge me as I go through what happened from my perspective. Think of this kind of like a director's commentary for my contributions over the day or so previous to this incident. Also, in an effort to actually come to some kind of compromise here (as well as set the record straight), I am doing my best to be objective in this account and accordingly will include points about my edits that a less scrupulous editor probably would suppress if they were they in my position. Ultimately, my goal here is to improve these articles and templates and in my view my actions have been in support of that. In the spirit of WP:DGF I'm trying to explain my actions and my honest motivations, warts and all. I'm tempted to cite WP:AOBF, but generally arguments of this nature aren't a good idea and defeat the purpose of WP:AGF in the first place. It should be noted that since this incident has started I have not made any edits to any of the related articles. I'd like to resolve this here first. In my opinion, this whole process would have been a whole lot less contentious if all related editors had done the same.

Edit commentary - initial interactions

This started with some edits I made to Alfred Tredway White, which led me to make similar changes in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. Both edits were entirely appropriate and what I thought to be positive additions to these articles. (Some of) the edits to the latter were immediately reverted by Beyond My Ken with the edit summary restore unnecessary changes. As far as I can recall, this was my first encounter with BMK. That reversion was entirely about formatting and restored what seemed to me (ironically) to be nonsensical and unnecessary changes to the article. These include the comment "<!-- spacing -->" at the bottom of the page before the navbox (I understand this to be against the MOS and I later learned is something that BMK is fond of in "their" articles) and using "{{fakeheader}}" in article space (my understanding is this template should never be used in articles in consideration of people using screen readers). In retrospect, at this point I should have started a dialog with BMK on the talk page of Cobble Hill. Obviously, I did not do this. Instead, I continued to edit. I was in the middle of doing a full update to Cobble Hill since my first edits were mainly confined to one section that related to Mr. White. As part of this, I made changes to some of the templates and other articles that were being transcluded or linked to from Cobble Hill. These included:

• Cobble Hill Historic District, where I again saw the "<!-- spacing -->" comment, which I thought was unusual and I'll admit made me suspicious of whoever added it in the first place.
• {{Cite nycland}}, {{Cite enc-nyc2}}, {{Cite fednyc}}, {{Cite gotham}}, {{Cite brookneighb}}, {{Cite brooklyn}}, {{NYCS const}}, {{Cite NYC bus map}}, where I mainly added links (not just to publishers and locations) and in some cases I also made some other improvements and corrections.

I then made 2 culminating edits to Cobble Hill incorporating all those related changes so that the article was internally consistent in terms of formatting, links, and display. BMK then reached out to me on my talk page. I think it is worth quoting that discussion in full as it relates directly to the heart of the WP:OVERLINK part of this situation:

Please stop adding links to the names of publishers and locations in cite temppates. We generally do not do this. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Beyond My Ken, I do not think you are right about that. See MOS:DUPLINK where it states: if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in ... footnotes. I'm happy to have a larger discussion about this with others in a more appropriate place, but I do not agree that "we generally do not do this" is accurate. Can you cite a policy somewhere disputing this? - Paul^T+/_C 14:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's say in my almost 13 years and 220,000 edits of experience, 70+% to articles, I have not come across it often, very rarely, actually. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, ok? Doesn't change the fact that "We generally do not do this." is not accurate just because you do not generally do this. Please cite some policy supporting your assertion. - Paul^T+/_C 15:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the linking of locations since those are generally redundant per the language here: Template:Citation#Publisher. I think the links to publishers are relevant and so I left them in.

Note that you also removed other improvements to those templates when you wholesale reverted my changes, including the addition of |page= and |pages= in one case. Please be more careful when making changes in the future. - Paul^T+/_C 15:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

[conversation continued below]

Edit commentary - poorly-conceived escalation

This exchange paused after my reply at 15:20 UTC on the 17th. Afterwards I was very surprised and, frankly, wary of BMK. I cited very specific policies and instead of a reasoned discussion BMK cited his experience as the only reason why I should listen to him. Curiosity got the better of me and, regrettably, I took a look at his recent contributions and logs (including Untermensch, which as I recall is the only article I edited directly as a result of this action). I mainly did this to get a better understanding of this aggressive editor. This was a mistake and escalated things unnecessarily. For that I apologize. I don't know if edits to that one page (or anything else I just mentioned) is against policy, but if it is please point it out to me so I can better understand how to deal with a similar situation in the future. Regardless, this led to my having done a poor job of seeing BMK's edits completely objectively after this point. With that in mind I would welcome it if an uninvolved, neutral 3rd party did a review of both of our edits in light of this initial exchange, which as far as I can tell BMK almost completely left out of and/or misrepresented in this discussion. (To be fair, that is not necessarily something BMK needed to do, but it is still an omission and would have balanced things out a little - as previously mentioned, WP:DGF. BMK could also make a similar, honest review of his related edits as I have here. I think it would be enlightening to us both.)

I then continued editing and made a 'final' edit to Cobble Hill to consolidate some references. At this point I started looking a little closer at the citation templates there. I did this because I found them interesting since I had not previously interacted with Category:Specific-source templates. I looked at some of the other articles where {{cite gotham}} was used, which led me to List of mayors of New York City and I then made similar edits to those that I made on Cobble Hill. I was curious if there were similar citation templates used on The Power Broker (there weren't) and I made similar edits there. It was around this time I took a break and BMK responded again on my talk page regarding the edits to the citation templates:

No one looks at a reference and says to themselves "Oh, I've just got to learn more about Yale University Press", so your links are definitely violations of WP:OVERLINK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

[My response to this is below.]

Edit commentary - Commissioners' Plan of 1811 take 1

It is important to note that up until this point I had not made any changes to Commissioners' Plan of 1811.
A few hours later I started editing again and found myself on the talk page of Talk:Commissioners' Plan of 1811 with this edit in support of Imzadi1979. I don't recall how I found my way to that page, but if I had to guess it is probably the same way I found myself on the list of mayors of NYC page, by following the transclusions of one of templates I edited earlier, likely {{cite gotham}}. My comment there was mainly to agree that the citations on that page should be standardized because right now it is (and at the time it was) a mix of Harvard and non-Harvard references - the references there are not consistent as displayed on the page look for yourself. I was suggesting a compromise and a possible example of what the page could look like with a slightly different reference style that limits extraneous Harvard references so that there are fewer total references and more citations of the work directly by using the {{rp}} template to indicate page numbers. I made the change to the article to illustrate this example for one reference by Koeppel, which reduced the number of separate citations by ~50. I explained all of this in a subsequent post to the talk page. I also noted in my comment there that BMK was nearing 3RR as I was made aware of his previous edit warring behavior when I saw his logs. I then responded to BMK on my talk page regarding our previous edits to the citation templates:

In the context of a reference, the publisher is absolutely relevant and WP:OVERLINK encourages that kind of link. For example, someone may want to get a better understanding of the quality of the reference and something published by Yale University Press would carry more weight than something published by Phoenix University, but unless you are already familiar with both entities you wouldn't know that without the aid of the link. Your opinion isn't the only thing under consideration for these disputed links. This is an encyclopedia, not BMK's playground. - Paul^T+/_C 04:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

My comment echos the comments above by Ansh666 and Cullen328 about OVERLINK (albeit with some childish snark of my own that was unnecessary) and was the last time BMK edited my talk page until he notified me about this incident. It should also be noted that since the start of this incident BMK has agreed that he may be misreading OVERLINK and might be more inclined to link publishers in the future. Given BMK's many accusations and reversions of my edits with OVERLINK in mind, perhaps this is something BMK should look at again? he has

Edit commentary - further escalation, this time both of us

This is where things started to get a little heated. At this point, I did a bunch of reversions back to previous edits I'd made in response to a bunch of reversions removing those edits by BMK: (an incomplete list, but you can see them plainly by looking at both BMK and my contribution history) [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168] This included:

• {{Cite enc-nyc2}}, {{Cite gotham}}, {{Cite brookneighb}}, {{Cite brooklyn}}, {{Cite fednyc}}, {{Cite nycland}} restoring edits from the above list with these templates
• Untermensch, which I maintain was a valid edit that was reflexively reverted, though I probably should never have been on this page in the first place
• Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, which I maintain was a valid edit whose reversion violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Floating elements
• List of mayors of New York City, which I maintain were valid edits. Also, I think this article in particular is a good example of the kinds of changes I'm trying to make to these articles that are being removed indiscriminately just because BMK doesn't agree.

In retrospect, these edits, while valid, were not productive and just inflamed the situation even further. I would argue the same of BMK's edits for the same reasons.

Edit commentary - Commissioners' Plan of 1811 take 2 - CITEVAR

The next relevant edit from my contributions is on the talk page of Commissioners' Plan of 1811. My comment here gets to the heart of the disagreement BMK and I have regarding the reference style on that page. An excerpt, citing the WP:CITEVAR guideline:

...The relevant parts:

::::The following are standard practice:

[...]

• imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit;
• fixing errors in citation coding, including incorrectly used template parameters, and <ref> markup problems: an improvement because it helps the citations to be parsed correctly;
• combining duplicate citations (see § Duplicate citations, above).

All three of those bullets apply to the change I[psantora] made and parts of them apply to the change Imzadi1979 made. You cannot just wholesale revert a change to a page just because you don't like it. Furthermore you do not WP:OWN this or any other page in Wikipedia, regardless of how much you edit it. I'm reverting back my change. Please attempt to understand the benefits of the changes we are proposing. It will make it easier for readers to follow the references if they are in a consistent format across *all* references and citations in the article.

Again, in retrospect this was a little harsh and I probably shouldn't have reverted this article at this point. That said, the discussion was not progressing and BMK and I were talking past each other. However, I maintain that my argument is valid since there is no consistent reference style in use on this article. There are a bunch of Harvard references, but there is a mix of other styles present also. The point of my edits was to try to get to a consistent style on this (and other) pages.

Edit commentary - Ignoring accessibility concerns

My next edit was a reversion on Cobble Hill, again citing violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Floating elements. BMK completely ignores this guideline. Quote: "WIkicode, smickicode - what's relevant is why the reader sees. Go get a consensus on the talk page for your edits, and stop edit warring." Editors that can't see have the page read to them and these images will appear unexpectedly and out-of-order, which is why the guideline exists in the first place.

Edit commentary - Commissioners' Plan of 1811 take 3

I then made some quasi-unrelated talk page edits regarding the content supported by some references on the Commissioners' Plan page. This was prompted by one last group of edits I was in the process of doing along the same lines of the initial example that I had done that was summarily reverted without any substantive discussion by BMK. None of the points that I brought up were addressed and we were talking past each other. These edits were to the following templates in addition to the Commissioners' Plan page: {{Cite greatest}}, {{Cite concrete}}, {{Cite unbound}}, and {{Cite measure}} mostly adding links to publishers. I also created and began to populate a new template category for these New York-specific-source templates, but those categories have since been inexplicably removed from the relevant templates by BMK. Regarding those templates, BMK posted above as far as I know, no one uses them but me, that may be because BMK doesn't let anyone else make improvements to these templates, simply because he disagrees they are improvements: the edits did not improve the templates. I should also point out that I'm not the only editor that BMK has been reverting when making changes to these cite templates.

Edit commentary - accessibility concerns

I made two posts to Template talk:Fake heading and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility because of an edit by BMK that added the template in article space. I have not done so yet (and won't until this situation is taken care of), but I think there is a valid argument to be made to limit the use of this template in articles due to accessibility concerns. At least one other person agrees with me. (Hooray!)

Edit commentary - ANEW & AN/I

At this point, as I stated above, I started an ANEW report about BMK because of his reverts to Commissioners' Plan of 1811, while technically accurate regarding the number of reverts on the page, the correct venue for this conversation is here and I regret posting that report there. Having said that, while I would change the tone of that post to be less combative, I still think the substance of what I wrote regarding BMK's conduct towards me throughout this is valid. I have tried to articulate that in this lengthy response here.

That about catches us up to the edits on this page, at least as far as my contributions go.

Opposing view conclusion and summary

On the whole, I concede that don't look great when I look closely back at my actions. But I contend that neither does BMK. Almost every interaction I had with him was dismissive, combative, and generally not conducive to a collegial conversation in support of any kind of collaboration. I am also guilty of similar behavior in response. I realize this is not a fair defense for my reactionary actions, merely an explanation.

Regarding specific policies/guidelines:

• WP:OVERLINK generally supports linking publishers (and others) in citations, regardless of BMK's personal thoughts on this (he has since expressed potential support of this idea no longer potential).
• WP:CITEVAR makes sense if the article has a consistent citation style, but the article in question does not have this. Otherwise, per the same policy, attempts to make the references consistent should be supported and encouraged. I will admit that I did not go about this in the best way, but I think it is fair to say that neither has BMK. Yes, BMK has made a large contribution to the article in question, but that doesn't mean his opinion is all that matters with regard to consensus.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is important to keep in mind while editing, even if that means a slightly larger table of contents or images being moved slightly from your preference.
• Category:New York-specific-source templates is an appropriate category that BMK removed from a number of "their" templates without any valid explanation.
• Things went a little far, but I maintain these points still stand. Furthermore, I think this ANI has been productive. Both BMK and I have made some steps in each others' direction and I'm hopeful we are on a road to some kind of reasonable compromise to this situation.

I hope this post is helpful and illustrative of my honest thoughts regarding these edits. I'm happy to continue discussing this with others here and I hope we can come to an amicable solution to this dispute. - Paul^T+/_C 19:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

By all the gods, talk about your walls-of-text! Most of this is content related..(at least the first bits, which was all I had the energy to read...). If you really want some resolution to this...chop it down to about 1% of what it is now. And deal only with behavior. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

News to me and my mistake. Thanks for the correction. It has been a long, long time since I've been on any AN* (at least at any length) so forgive me for not following and/or remembering the proper convention. That said, a good chunk of what I wrote *is* related to behavior, though mostly my own (as well as the motivation for the behavior, as best as I could). I'll try again and pull out the bits directly related to BMK's behavior, a lot of which *is* in there as well, but I'll leave out the specific content dispute portions. - Paul^T+/_C 02:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Psantora: Given that you've been called out for mudslinging about how much time other users spend contributing to ANI discussions, it would be wise to avoid saying things like It has been a long, long time since I've been on any AN* Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am interpreting this discussion as a continuation/successor of the one you are referring to. Outside of these two (that I consider as one since the original was closed, pointing here Dispute has been drop-kicked to WP:ANI), I can't remember the last time I was here. I admit I went about this very poorly (and I probably am making it worse with this comment) but I don't see how that true statement about my own experience here is unwise. Is inexperience with AN* bad? Is experience good? Or am I completely missing something (again)? - Paul^T+/_C 17:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's review, shall we? My complaint about your behavior is that on Commissioners' Plan of 1811, an article I wrote 89.5% of and established a consistent reference style for, you attempted to change that consistent referencing style without getting a consensus to do so, in violation of both WP:CITEVAR and normal Wikipedia editing custom, and when it was pointed out to you that you were doing so, you kept on trying.

So, let's hear what specifics you have in regard to my behavior in connection with that complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

On the complaint regarding that article, I have fully conceded. See my direct apology above. That was where this dispute culminated, and I regret letting it get there in the first place. I have redacted (by strikethroughs: "redacted") my arguments above about on CITEVAR in "Commissioners' Plan of 1811".

I was going to list out my other concerns here (as I indicated above), but I think that would be counterproductive at this point. The summary above has most if not all of it, albeit as my opinion in prose without the supporting documentation (I got lazy towards the end of that "[wall]-of-text"). I think it would be more productive to have that conversation (without the snark) on your talk page (and the relevant talk pages of the articles in question) if you don't object. I don't intend (and never intended) to get into a huge back-and-forth "mudslinging". I do have some fear that you will simply ignore my points as you did in the OVERLINK discussions, but that is a risk I am willing to take and, given that I have unfairly misjudged you and your contributions that led to the CITEVAR dispute, probably not an accurate fear for me to have (or at least I hope so). Hell, given my unfair misjudgment of your motivations I can understand if you were wary of my opinion, just as I was wary of yours at the beginning of this. I just hope it isn't dismissed out of hand, which is how it came across to me at the very beginning. If you think it would be more productive to have that conversation here, let me know I will do so. - Paul^T+/_C 17:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I never object to having pertinent discussions on article talk pages -- that's what they're there for -- but only if the discussion is going to be productive, which means that all parties agree that when a policy or a guideline says "Wheezletoff", it actually means Wheezletoff, and not "Whipplestick".

My talk page is not the proper venue to carry on a discussion related to this stuff, so I would object to anything taking place there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Being hounded by an IP user

• 87.254.94.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.137.16.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.254.80.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP 87.254.98.88 is going through my contributions list and reverting my edits, in revenge because I reverted an edit he made (as 87.254.80.110)[169] to add what I found to be a very vague, confusing term "aspect departing downwards". In the meantime, he had changed his device to 213.137.16.121 (without intent to sockpuppet, as far as I can tell) and reverted[170] my reversion. Looking for a good faith reason why he edited as he did, I guessed, apparently incorrectly, that it was some kind of jargon. I asked him to discuss it on the article's talk page and explain exactly what the phrase meant, but he refused and accused me of "cherrypicking" policies just because I don't like his edits, and reverting all of his edits, which I did not do.

Now he is harassing me by doing what he accused me of doing, reverting recent edits of mine (and one less recent): [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176].

By the time it took me to learn and write this ANI report, a guardian angel, LuigiPortaro29 (talk · contribs) has gone through and reverted all his mischief; bless you. Please make the IP user stop this. Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Both recently used IP addresses have been blocked for 48 hours. Let me know if this continues and I will take appropriate action. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Where to discuss 366 day pages

Some editor(s) added the count of Mondays, Tuesdays (etc.) in 400 years to the lede sections of 365 day-of-year articles, from "January 2" to "December 31". The count of weekdays in 400 years sounds to me like, "The year 1828 is one of 2 years containing 2 digits '8' and one '2'." Where should removal of such unsourced factoids be discussed for the set of 366 pages? Do we need a policy wp:Obsessive to deter this? Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Since those "unsourced factoids" have been in the articles for well over ten years without anyone complaining about them, you would - clearly - need to discuss such a removal at somewhere like WT:DOY. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, been there over 10 years, so I guess I'm not the only one who didn't know where to complain. Found the weekday-count as modulo arithmetic in Template:Day, as easy to remove or hide for 365 pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:V is a core policy and trumps WP:SILENCE, in my view. Any assertion not verified, can be challenged by a user, and if not attended to in a reasonable interval, can be removed by that user. Naturally, one good reference would be enough to prevent removal—or restore the content—but ten years silence does not somehow void or weaken the core principles of verifiability in any way. Mathglot (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The question should not be about V, which is also not relevant here as the claims are calculable - you don't need an expert published source to confirm how many January 2nds fall on a Monday in a given span of time. No, the question is about whether this content that is at 366 articles is cruft, or more specifically where to ask that question, and my answer would just be an echo of Black Kite's. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've got an alternative view. IMO this falls afoul of WP:OR, which is also a policy. If there are no sources for it, it doesn't matter how long it's been in the article; it should be removed. ansh666 08:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No - WP:OR is where no reliable sources exist at all for the content - I'm betting you could find one for this. Black Kite (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with anyone who thinks I should have to find a source for this This date is slightly more likely to fall on a Monday, Wednesday or Saturday (58 in 400 years each) than on Thursday or Friday (57), and slightly less likely to occur on a Tuesday or Sunday (56). but any editor who wants it in the article is free to add a source for it, until then it should be removed - its not "calculable" — more likely to fall on a Monday doesn't make sense. It seems to be arguing more likely to fall on a Monday based on calcuclations within a 400 year period that is unspecified. If anyone wants it in the article, please, add a WP:RS for it so editors can figure out where this wording went wrong — but until then I welcome its removal.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I could calibrate a portrait of actress Elizabeth Taylor and perhaps conclude, "She had one ear lower than the other on that Tuesday" but not compare to Monday's photo and put it in the lede section! -Wikid77 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fairly trivially, the start of the 400 year period doesn't matter. If a 400-year period starts on a Monday and ends on a Sunday, and has X number of Mondays in it, then starting it the next day won't make any difference, because you'll start on a Tuesday and add an extra Monday on the end instead - you'll still have X Mondays. I obviously do agree a source would be good though. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

And if it starts on a Wednesday will it make a difference for the number of Sundays? What if it starts on a Monday and ends on another Monday? I once had a multi-day long debate with another editor about whether 50 really means 50 - he thought it could mean 49 if you counted inclusively. Anyone who has edited Wikipedia should know that editors may count differently ... I have seen it happen. I think if it has been in the article for 10 years without a source removing it is fairly trivial, but since this a mass removal over 366 articles maybe it should be discussed somewhere central first - would Village Pump be a good place for that?Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, VP for a discussion, probably. Quite apart from being trivia, I can't actually see a use for it. Incidentally, your example can't exist - 400 years is always an exact number of weeks (which is why it's used), because it's always 303 normal years and 97 leap years, making 146,097 days which is divisible by 7 (20,871 weeks). So if your 400 year period starts on a Monday, it'll finish on a Sunday) Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is what I've seen called "trainspotting", observations that can be made that aren't wrong but that no one else has made. It's related to trivia, which basically means, unless a source has noted this type of breakdown of information, it should not be included. --Masem (t) 13:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: if you think you could find a RS for this, then find one. I think the fact that it's sat for so long without is a good indicator that it doesn't exist. And please, no citogenesis. ansh666 19:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I was just pointing out that one could probably be found (hence not WP:OR) since it's a simple matter of calculation. Since I don't think it's worthwhile content myself, I don't think it's worth doing. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but someone could add a section to all our math articles like "This is the article in base-2" and I think there would be a reason to remove that, but I'm not sure what the consensus of editors in that topic area is - whether they call this OR, UNDUE or something else like trivia — but either way, since no one seems to be disputing the removal at this point, would this discussion be considered consensus to go ahead with the removal or how that would work for so many pages...Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It is only one template ({{day}}) so only one edit.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh ok, looks like it has been resolved with prevailing justification complete idiocty [177] Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with EEng is that its hard to tell if that typo is intentional or not :D Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Just want to remind people that per WP:CALC, adding routine calculations of sourced details is not OR. The classic examples of these are ages and unit conversions of which we have many, current ages in particular are one which often wouldn't be sourceable and even units of relatively unknown things often likewise. I make no comment on whether anything here is a 'routine calculation', nor on exclusion for other reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noting wp:CALC. Perhaps add, as example, the weekday-count among 400 years as a negative example of non-routine math, where day-counts must be hand-verified by scanning all 146,100 days among 400 years to count relevant Mondays, Tuesdays (etc.) as confirming counts of 56, 57 or 58 days. Also note the confusion at year 1752 in British Empire, when 11 days were dropped to adopt the Gregorian calendar as 354-day year, and so the 400 years must be after 1753-2153 if counting Tuesdays in UK. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Posted notice at WT:DOY

I have noted the removal of the weekday-counts from Template:Day on 19 April 2018, as a section in WT:DOY to explain the related issues. Thanks to all above for solving this 10-year problem. Wikid77 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Unregistered user removing Arabic text from 50+ Somalia related articles

User 5.186.126.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been removing Arabic text from a very large set of articles relating to Somalia without discussion and is edit warring to keep these articles free of Arabic text, creating disruption across a large swath of articles. Troyoleg (talk · contribs) and Elassint (talk · contribs) have reverted their edits. While I am concerned that neither me nor the other involved editors posted to their user talk page, I feel that this needs posted here to as a result of the disruption caused. Elassint ^Hi 00:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure whether Arabic script is needed in these articles, but since the IP only edit-wars and does not discuss anything, a block might be needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Since Somalis apparently speak the Somali language, perhaps the isp is right. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Arabic is one of the two official languages of Somalia [178], an Arab League member state. Troyoleg (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, right, not quite what it says: Article 5 "The official language of the Federal Republic of Somalia is Somali (Maay and Maxaa-tiri), and Arabic is the second language" - so why not use the first one? I understand issues around Arabic can be controversial there, as the isp's edit summaries suggest. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying "isp", but I think you mean "ip". I don't see how they can be right, since "Arabic is the second language" makes it perfectly reasonable to provide Arabic names. The only argument that the IP has provided is "Somalis are NOT Arab", which is about as red herring as it gets. Deleting all the Arabic text from a largely Muslim country which acknowledges Arabic as the second language at the urging of an edit-warring IP is not the proper solution. A block, however, is. Grandpallama (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

On the one hand, as this edit and this edit in particular show, we've got a classic case of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS going on: all of the edits from this address are part of this "de-Arabization" effort. On the other, these names seem to all trace back to User:Middayexpress, who is one of the sources of the geonames-based bogus town dump I've been trying to clean up over the past month. I'm not utterly convinced that the Arabic spellings we've been given are accurate. Mangoe (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably worthy to mention that Troyoleg has been accused of being a sock of Middayexpress. Elassint ^Hi 21:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This looks familiar

I do not know who exactly, but this edit [179] looks very familiar to a sockmaster whose name escapes me at the moment, but edited articles related to Armenia and Turkey. If this is the person, feel free to tell me. But if it's not, you can say it. I just found this edit in recent changes, and thought, "now where have I seen this before?" UnsungKing123 (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The ubiquitous Disneys

I'm bringing this here because it involves WP:COI, WP:NOR, WP:ADVERT and probably WP:SOCK, so it may be prosecuted under a variety of jurisdictions, and mass protections or user blocks may be appropriate. Numerous biographical articles about the Disneys--Disney family, Roy E. Disney, Flora Call Disney, Roy O. Disney, Lillian Disney, Elias Disney, Ron W. Miller, Diane Disney Miller have been copiously edited by multiple COI accounts, some claiming to be family members. One, Browndevelopers (talk · contribs), has been blocked, but for the unrelated issue of user name; his edits constituted an apogee of the promotional tone [180], though a related account didn't do badly in this vein, either [181]. I've refrained from listing all the accounts involved, out of suspicion that notifying each user would be superfluous, if all accounts belong to the same person. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sock drawer being cleaned. The users John O'Brien31, Disney66, Disneynow, Patrick Sean Murphy, and Charles Elias Disney are now blocked. Courcelles (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Found two more, JohnPatrickObrien and CatherineKays77. Now to go do some semi-protections... Courcelles (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much, Courcelles. This has been on my back burner for a few weeks. The family tree article appears to rely to some extent on original research, and is ripe for Disney experts who wish to remove names or add sources. Some of the people aren't notable, so I'm dubious about the need for a complete accounting anyway. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It's indeed hard to know what animates editors to undertake such a project. EEng 07:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Zing! Grandpallama (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I do the best I can with the material available. EEng 08:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Lunablivion

An account banned several years ago has resurfaced, now making up information about a fake country-rap album on their talk page. It's... Weird, to say the least. I recommend an admin remove talk page access. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 17:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• TPA revoked. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  Looks like it's related to the issue here with the focus on Alan Jackson. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  No doubt, especially with the pings the user issued in the "Fake draft"... Courcelles (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

MMarcoo221

MMarcoo221 edits fall somewhere between the fine line of Assume Good Faith and Vandalism. They have been blocked before for vandalism, and I believe that is the single purpose of this account.

For example, this edit [182] changed Los Angeles to LA, which although might see like a good faith edit, its clearly the name of the event so it doesn't make sense.

The user also constantly changes links to SmackDown Live to saying Tuesday Night SmackDown, such as [183], [184]. When the show was on Fridays, it was called Friday Night SmackDown, but the move to Tuesdays, it has never been called anything other than SmackDown Live.

He will also constantly change theme songs or sponsors for events, and give no indication as to where he got his information from. In some instances, such as [185], [186], [187] he removed sourced information to add unsourced information. He will also often remove notes that say not to include this information without a source, which he removes to add unsourced info, such as [188] or fake sources like [189].

He is also known to just add random unsourced information that clearly doesn't exist like [190]. This similar type edit [191] was even with a past date, so clearly it would be verifiable if it was something.

This user has been warned countless times on their talk page, but they just ignore it and keep editing in this manor. It appears to me to be a single purpose vandalism account. - Galatz^Talk 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. I've thought about doing this report for a long time, but I've never managed to do it since I've been really busy and exhausted. Even if I have plenty of free time, I always forget about this. Nickag989^talk 18:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

If these changes made by the user are blatantly useless then yes it is disruptive. The only edit this user has made to the talk or user talk space is this - so there's been no attempt to discuss or respond to these warnings. I've left the user a message on their user talk page urging them to respond or reach out; otherwise I may consider action. I'm giving myself time to think of a better solution in the meantime (if such exists)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of warnings left, the ongoing behaviors that have not improved despite these warnings, and the user's lack of communication and attempts to respond and work with others regarding the ongoing concerns repeatedly noted, I've indefinitely blocked the user and left a note that they will need to appeal their block and explain themselves before the user will be able to resume editing. I think that this is a fair action given the history of the behavior and the numerous attempts by editors to reach out to the user. All other attempts have been exhausted, and we've unfortunately now arrived at this point. I hope the user reaches out and communicates so that I can help him and get his edits back on track so he can contribute with the rest of us :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits / edit warring by user יניב הורון

Regarding continues disruptive edits by user:יניב הורון. Based on my recent observations, user repeatedly engages in WP:Edit warring on multiple pages in the past couple of months. Case in point: previously, the article Antisemitism in Ukraine got edit protection in end of March '18 (with me getting a warning from a neutral admin [diff]), however back then we didn't establish a clear WP:Consensus on the talk page regarding the issue at hand (renaming section titles, so they are not misleading/confusing). Now we do have such consensus (every editor that had enough interest, has participated in on the talk page, while user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all), which we have found through dialogue and discussion on the talk page diff. As mentioned above user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all and have begun unilaterally reverting the updates to article's section titles (which were agreed through consensus on the talk page). Given user יניב הורון history of initiating numerous edit:wars over the last two months, his latest edit diff seems like a case of malicious edit warring, where an editor reverts against general consensus and I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future, against general consensus. Piznajko (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I know you've been told this already, but that's not vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me, I removed mentioning of vandalizing and changed it to continuous edit warring.--Piznajko (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not see talk page consensus for Piznajko's suggestions - I do not see anyone else agreeing to the proposal. As for this report, it seems Minority Report (film)ish, being based on I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future. A prediction which seem to apply to Piznajko as well, as he is the one reverting/edit warring against Yaniv. While Piznajko's predictions on other users seem non-actionable, his self predictions should be. In short, unless Piznajko can present where on the talk page there is consensus for his suggestion, then a boomerang may be in order to prevent self predicted edit warring.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The following edit warring report on Mikhail Bulgakov might be illustrative of the self prediction's veracity. this talk page section (and a few above) might be illustrative regarding perception of consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not bad Icewhiz, I see you're applying the old-as-the-world-itself-playbook rule #1 of discredit the editor-of-interest by referencing an unrelated-discussion-that-did-not-involve-the-user-being-discussed-here, so that the discussion would be about disliked-editor rather than the actual the-subject-of-discussion-editor. Well, if you're playing it that way - that's fine too - it's obvious you're trying to steer the conversation away from user יניב הורון and do a switcheroo, where instead of יניב הורון it would be me would be me who'd neeed to defend his edits. Fine, I'll follow your bait: regarding, you referencing this talk page section the discussion on Mikhail Bulgakov as an illustration of "my perception of consensus" - I never claimed there was consensus on the talk page of that article; we had plently of discussion there, which led to no consensus and all additions proposed by me were removed. Regarding an an edit warring report against me on this same article on Mikhail Bulgakov - it was civilly settled since unlike the editor of interest (e.g., יניב הורון) I actually engage in discussion and try to explain my edits on a talk page to try and find consensus on edits/new content among editors. Lastly, garding your request to show proof of consensus found on the talk page - please read the discussion that I have referenced - it clearly shows consensus that the section titles should be renamed to avoid confusion - see last relevant-to-discussion-about-updating-titles comment by one of the editors engaged in the discusson on the TP - beyond that point discussion went into direction of content, which is beyong the scope of that disucssion (and yes, there was no consensus on the content of the article, but I never claimed there was any consensus on the content of the article, precisely because my proposed changes were specifically about updating section titles to avoid the confusion of the old section titles) ps. it's commendable that you're trying to help your countryman, but there's no need to resort to ill-hidden personal attacks on me in order to achieve that.--Piznajko (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in the page - I do not see support for your position. As for Bulgakov (a page I only got involved with due to the RfC) - I would not say the resolution was as amicable as you present - you were clearly acting against consensus (IIRC a 5 vs. 1 situation), repeatedly inserting content that other editors rejected. To your credit, you did drop the stick after the EW report. As for this report - you basically complaining based on your prediction of Yaniv's future editing (on a page where it seems there is no consensus either way.Icewhiz (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you're pretending unintentionally that you don't see that the consensus was reached on the talk page of Antisemitism in Ukraine on the specific issue of titles headers (which is unlikely given the sheer number of years you've been on Wikipedia and your experience) or you just doing it intentionally for obvious reason.--Piznajko (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User account only a few months old seems extremely familiar with how things work here.. No way newbies are familiar with obscure policies as seen in the wditsummaries.--Moxy (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, to be fair, they made some pretty new mistakes with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and as editing that and Jewish topics is one of their main areas of interest, it was likely quite the introduction to obscure Wikipedia behavioral policy. I had to block them for 500/30 violations, and NeilN's recent block of them is also for something in the AE area that lends more to inexperience than anything else. Having their TP on my watchlist because of the initial block, I've never really suspected socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

look at the early edit summaries not what we see from new people.--Moxy (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

With their first edit[192] they perfectly used a template. On their second day of editing they were aware of policies such as WP:ERA and WP:Sandwich. These while suspicious looking to some are not indications of socking unless they are similar to another user. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be suspicious, but do we have any solid evidence to assert with confidence that this user is a sock puppet as what's being implied in these responses here? We should either be filing an SPI if we have this evidence or we should remain focused on the issue at hand. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

To be frank, his edits at the very first days of his registration was odd to me, too. However, I'm not saying he's certainly a "sock puppet", since that needs "solid evidence" as Oshwah said. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like the underlying issue here is if יניב הורון is/was edit warring and if action should be taken against the user, or not. The last warning I've seen on the user's talk page for 3RR violations or edit warring was back on the 26th of March. I understand that the edits recently made were misinterpreted as vandalism and the incorrectly stated warnings left on the user's talk page have been modified since this was pointed out, but that's not fair on יניב הורון. To have such such warnings left incorrectly and then changed to state that these are now edit warring notices, and then given the expectation that this should suffice as a fair warning and action taken upon the user isn't the right way to properly address the problem. As far as I'm concerned, this user hasn't been given a proper and fair warning for edit warring or violation of 3RR recently (which should be provided first, and with a report or escalation to follow if the user continues the behavior despite being given the warning) and taking action upon יניב הורון is not justifiable at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the statement I made above was not meant to call Piznajko out, scold him in any way, or to make him feel bad over what happened at all. I want to state openly that mistakes are a normal part of learning, gaining experience, and becoming a better editor - they happen. Hell, I still make mistakes, and I've made more than my fair share of them over the years that I've been here. I don't hold the mistakes against him and I know that he'll walk away from this ANI with more experience and understanding because the mistakes happened. Just don't repeat them... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

comments by blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is this editor, who is so blatantly edit-warring, gaming the system, and being down right disruptive being allowed to get away with this???? This is a case of WP:POINTY if I have ever saw one. This editor is clearly a WP:NOTHERE and engaging in blatant editwarring, with a battleground mindset. Examine these 'following' outrageous edits [193][194][195][196]the first four in rapid succession on random articles with no other common denominator other than to be disruptive toward the editor named Agustin6. And before you try to pass of this as some wild coincidence (yeah right), look at these ADDITIONAL edits (again directed at this same editor he is clearly stalking) where he is threatening him withOUT evidence:[197]. In fact, between March 23rd and 24th of 2018, he makes 10+ such random disruptive edits and reverts aimed solely at this editor for no good reason. Add to this that this editor has already been blocked TWICE and warned multiple times for edit-warring in his short time here. Then it doesn't seem SO odd to include the circumstantial evidence that this editor jumped right into the mix with a clear understanding of how wikipedia works. Then ADD to that edit summaries like these two [198][199] which are battleground in tone and certainly WP:FORUM. Sorry...but that is one too many coincidences. Maybe someone could do a checkuser on him (as it has been suggested) if the socking allegation enough makes sense. But it really isn't necessary because this is clearly WP:DUCK of an edit-warring troll and that's bad enough. I think what offends ME more is the behavior of admins lately looking the other way very selectively with certain editors like this who clearly came to wikipedia with an agenda. It almost gives credibility to this myth that wikipedia enables paid-political operatives. If admins are going to assign more of a priority to far less offensive behavior of new people when disruptive editors like this are being giving a pass, then why should we take any of these rules seriously?!? Do with this what you will, but this disruption will continue by this editor and has no sign of stopping because of a failure to take this ANI seriously by some. I'm on break at work, so sorry I have to rush this, but I think the allegations are plenty clear and action should be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8300:B761:5083:E4E0:19DB:7AFF (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC) The IP was blocked by checkuser--Shrike (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Please use or create your named permanent account (whatever it might be) and complain on appropriate noticeboards, such as WP:3RRNB or WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC) WP:POINTY You are not an admin, and this type of tactic distracts from the merits. Sometimes people forget to login. Take such feedback to the user’s talk page if you must. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8300:B761:4C82:327:BEEB:E8F8 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC) The IP was blocked by checkuser--Shrike (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) It is not obvious why diffs above are "outrageous". One should know context. Besides, you accuse another contributor of sockpuppetry without evidence, but your own edit history can not be checked. Do not you think this is a little unfair? If there was a 3RR violation on their part, this should be reported to WP:3RRNB. If you think his editing in ARBPIA area was problematic, report it to WP:AE. But to do that you need a named account with editing history, so that anyone can check what you are doing in the project besides complaining about others. Does not is sound reasonable? My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban Piznajko from subjects related to Jewish history

1. Piznajko continued edit war on page Antisemitism in Ukraine even after receiving a warning about it from admin [200]. He was so upset that he even brought a complaint about another user from Israel (with whom he edit war) to this noticeboard. Why? This is hard to say, but one of the changes he edit war about was removal of anti-Jewish "pogroms" from two titles on the page ("Pogroms during the Russian Revolution of 1905" and "Other pogroms during the Russian Revolution") and from a legend to a picture ("Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire").
2. He now edit war on page Antisemitism in the Russian Empire: [201] [202], [203]. Why? Notice that he again edit war to remove information about pogroms from the lead of the page. Why? He could not explain [204].
3. He also contentiously argued with several contributors on talk page page of article Joseph Brodsky. Why? He makes this comment. So, according to him, "Based on [user G] talk page he is of both Ukrainian and Jewish ancestry, so given that we are talking about Brodsky who was of Russian and Jewish ancestry, I believe [user G] can be viewed as a neutral editor." What? Why it matters to Piznajko so much that the subject of the page was Jewish (Piznajko tried to include negative and undue information about him on the page [205]) and that the WP contributor was Jewish?

I do not think Piznajko should edit such subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

1. I don't see edit warring in either of those articles by Piznajko. I see WP:BRD and attempts to follow WP:RS.
2. Disagreement is not automatically "contentious." If I understand the comment, Piznajko's suggesting you solicit the opinion of an editor most likely to disagree with him. That's ideal behavior.

I can't tell whether your misinterpretation is unintentional or an attempt at WP:GAMING but either way it's concerning. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can be wrong. Maybe Piznajko is simply the case of WP:Not here. Here is their recent edit history. During a couple of months he follows a pretty bad pattern: coming to page X (there are five such pages already), edit warring and disputing against consensus with multiple contributors, and wasting time of other contributors without being able to actually improve these pages. But OK, let's wait and see. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible violation of topic ban by user:Chjoaygame

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

On April 13th 2016, after a long discussion that resulted in strong consensus from multiple users, user:Chjoaygame was indefinitely banned from editing on the topic of quantum mechanics (see Editing restrictions). I notice that in the policy describing topic bans, it says (for the example of a topic ban on weather): "discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia,...including the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes)." Chjoaygame has made several edits to her/his sandbox on quantum mechanics since the topic ban, for instance these diffs [206] and here. Are these violations of the topic ban, as the phrase "including sandboxes" seems to imply? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not per the terms of the original ban, which is recording in Editing restrictions as:

Chjoaygame has been banned per community consensus, from making any edits to quantum theory articles or their talk pages

Is it gaming the system? Certainly, but it doesn't seem to violate his ban, per the letter of the ban. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 19:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• I concur with KoshVorlon. The admin who closed it may help clarify their thoughts in closing that thread [207]. @EdJohnston: Your thoughts? @Waleswatcher:, despite the two year old ban, I think your best course of action here would have been to discuss this with Chjoaygame first. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party; "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution." A quick stop by his talk page may have helped illuminate the situation. Just a suggestion, not remonstrating you. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

At present I wouldn't take any action against Chjoaygame, but would understand it if another admin wanted to. Both sides of this argument have something in their favor (topic bans cover all pages of Wikipedia per WP:TBAN, while on the other hand, the exact wording left on user talk didn't mention 'all pages'). EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, understood. Thank you. Another grey area are Chjoaygame's edits to articles on thermal and statistical physics. Those topics have a lot of overlap with quantum mechanics (and Chjoaygame's contributions to them have been very disruptive at times). However I haven't seen any recent edits or comments that clearly cross the line to being about QM. If I do I will bring them up on Chjoaygame's talk page first (thanks Hammersoft). Waleswatcher (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) [208] Lots of TBANs include the "pages related to", "articles related to", etc. wording, but I'm apparently one of very, very few people to have ever sincerely wondered if it was meant be taken literally. There was community consensus to ban Chjoaygame from the topic, so they are not allowed make edits related to the topic anywhere on-wiki except as they relate to the ban itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Youssef1450

Youssef1450 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps removing[209][210][211][212][213] content from the Maghreb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article without so much as an edit summary, despite having been asked[214] to provide an explanation and finally warned[215] of the possible consequences. M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the user edited once on April 19th and was last given a warning on April 14th. Is there a reason why this user wasn't warned for this edit made on the 19th of April? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: It seemed futile since the user has ignored the other two warnings and is not communicating. I can certainly warn them again if that's what you meant, or let someone else (ideally an admin) do it. Please let me know how you would like me to proceed. M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:RivetHeadCulture, disruptive edits, threats, and ban evading

This mainly concerns the articles Synthwave, Dark wave, and Ethereal wave, three closely related genres of music. (One could argue that they're all essentially the same thing.)

Most of the discussion between me and the editor is on Talk:Dark wave#Sources. Here is a basic summary:

Background

• In 2015, User:RivetHeadCulture created a stub article, Synthwave (1980s genre), which had only a few sources to obscure German-language fanzines from the 1980s. It was deleted in 2017 due to OR concerns.
• Meanwhile, I attempted to salvage what I could from Dark wave and Ethereal wave, which similarly included myriad claims that I could not verify. By the time I was done nuking Dark wave so that every claim was verifiable to accessible English sources, it looked like this.

Initial IP sockpuppet disruptions

• On February 11, 2018, the Synthwave article came under an IP sockpuppet attack. The editor was upset by the deletion of Synthwave (1980s genre) and wrote: "Wikipedia is not a serious platform. It ignores historical facts and deletes articles with historical facts."
• That same day, RivetHeadCulture, restored all of the claims that were unsourced, failed verification, or could only be verified with a couple obscure German books or fanzines from the 1980s.

Attempted talk page discussions, further disruptions, and threat(s)

• There is no question that the editor keeps trying to restore original research to the articles. See the subgenres listed in the infobox of this revision. None of them are sourced in the article body, nor on most of their respective articles.
• I eventually reached a compromise to let the unverifiable sources remain, but only if the editor could prove that some of the more suspicious claims were actually supported by the sources, lest the content be removed. My suggestions have gone ignored, and the editor will engage in edit warring if I attempt to insert cleanup tags of any sort. They even admitted that they have no idea whether some of the claims are supported by the sources, but will still restore anything I remove anyway. (note this statement: "Many of those bands were not added by me. ... But it is a simple fact that the music produced by seminal cold wave bands such as Clair Obscur has been described as dark wave.")
• I've also had numerous(?) vague threats thrown at me. Only one I can remember at the moment comes from this edit rationale: "Revert. If you wanna start a war, go on. I will revert every single edit you made in the last few months. Without mercy, believe me." Hours later, I assume the editor began looking through my edit history just so they could make this revert.
• This rationale is pretty good too: "Revert. Nobody cares about your opinion."

In short: I'd like to see other editors chip in and improve these articles. This can't happen if there's an editor who thinks the articles are already perfect and will remove anything you add if the information contradicts something that might have been written in a German fanzine from 1982.. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The only problem i can see is that you don't accept sources based on other languages. This is the main problem. Again, nobody cares about your lack of knowledge. If you can't read it, learn German or French or ask people who can read it.

It is a simple fact that most books about music genres and youth subcultures have been published in Germany and the US, followed by the U.K. and France. Most countries don't care about youth subcultures.

Furthermore, everyone can see that you manipulate the content of the dark wave article. You repeatedly removed sources and text parts, just because YOU can't verify them. But again. That is simply your problem. Go to a library or buy the books.

• "that might have been written in a German fanzine from 1982"

I already discussed this matter. A German music magazine such as SPEX is not a fanzine. It's one of the most popular magazines and it is absolutely reliable. It has its own article in Wikipedia.

From the beginning you tried to destroy several articles. That's a fact. Of course, i will revert your edits. What do you expect?

• "I was done nuking Dark wave so that every claim was verifiable to accessible English sources, it looked like this."

Nice link. It simply proves your OR/POV edits in Wikipedia. Dark wave is not and never was a term from "obscure Eurpean circles". It's nothing more than an unsourced claim. This is YOUR POV and just another try to destroy the article. You also removed the 1980s section, ignoring the fact that the term exists since the early/mid-'80s. You are not a trustworthy person. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've pinged Wikiproject Germany to assist with the issue of the German publication.

I've checked The reliable sources noticeboard and see no ruling on whether or not Spex is reliable or not. Nor does our article on Spex make that claim. The fact that we have an article suggests that Spex may indeed by notable, but notable is not the same as reliable. Far as threatening to edit war, that's never a good option. I'd suggest locking the page down and forcing discussion on the page. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 14:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you two editors are aware of this, but trivial and immature disputes about musical genres have been so common on Wikipedia over the years that we have a shorthand description of them: genre warriors. Do not be that kind of editor. It never ends well.

Ilovetopaint, we allow references to reliable sources in any language. And reliable sources need not be readily available online. Your personal difficulty in reading a source of does not make the source unreliable. RivetHeadCulture, please be aware that making revenge edits to punish someone you disagree with is completely unacceptable. If you engage in that behavior, things will end badly for you. So, my advice to the two of you is to avoid all negative editing behaviors. Go to the talk pages of all those articles, and work together to achieve consensus, with the mutual goal of improving this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I'm aware that the inaccessibility of sources has no bearing on their reliabity. My point was that the sources I could verify did not support many of the article's claims. When this happens, it's usually safe to assume that the book/magazine sources are similarly misrepresented.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint has got an argument: they requested at Talk:Dark_wave a translation of each source. RivetHeadCulture must provide them and wrote a version in English inside each source, adding:

• {cite work |last= |first= |title= |publisher= |date=|quote= Add a translation of the quote here for each source}.

Several users request it, we are working to build an English wikipedia, what's going on another wikipedia doesn't have anything to do with this present encyclopedia. Each historical fact added in an article must be supported by a source. There are serious doubts of wp:SYNTH at this article. "Dark wave" is a tag only used in the German media in the late 1970s and the 1980s (also the countries speaking a similar language) for gloomy post-punk bands. The readers must know that neither NME, Melody Maker, Sounds, or music historians like Simon Reynolds have ever used this tag: the lead of the article must clearly mention it.

Asking help from people from other wikipedias, is not acceptable either. Woovee (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• "we are working to build an English wikipedia."

Not at all. You are working to build a Wikipedia based on English language. The article content is written in English language but the platform itself includes sources from all around the world. Not to forget that Goth and Dark Wave are primarily a European phenomenon. Of course, most of the sources are from Europe, especially from Germany. This also includes sociological publications, studies, and school books. Show me something similar from the US, the U.K. and France...

• "Dark wave" is a tag only used in the German media"

We don't know that yet. This assumption needs a source, too. The term appears in many German and Swiss magazines. Italian party flyers from ca. 1984 also know already a word combination of dark and wave. The origin of the term is unclear while the meaning of the term is pretty clear. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Several users ask RivetHeadCulture to expand the in-line citations in the Dark Wave article so that they include direct quotes from the German texts translated in English. This will have to be done. Woovee (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is necessary for the entire article. Only for a few claims.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Clarifying — I'm not sure whether I've made it clear that my issue is not about the article's presentation of the genre (WP:GWAR), but the integrity of the article's citations (WP:SYNTH). Here is an example of the sort of thing I'd like to see removed:

Wikipedia's claim — "Synthwave" is a term that originates from the 1980s.

What the sources show — magazines from the 1980s that used the term "synthwave" — however, none of them state that the term "synthwave" originated in that decade — therefore constituting SYNTH

Another example:

Wikipedia's claim — Coldwave expanded internationally to become a popular genre among dark wave groups. Some of the bands were X, Y, and Z

What the sources show — X, Y, and Z were each described as "dark wave" by various writers — nothing about the genre being "popular" or "expanding"

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia's claim — "Synthwave" is a term that originates from the 1980s."

Where did you find this sentence? I couldn't find it in any existing article.

• "Wikipedia's claim — Coldwave expanded internationally to become a popular genre among dark wave groups."

You don't have to create fictional claims. Not a single article in Wikipedia contains this assumption. Cold Wave was primarily a French movement. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit wars in several Catalan politics articles

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

---

Note: This discussion was originally listed at WP:VPM. I have no opinion on the matter. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Filiprino has been constantly deleting information and modifying information without any reliable reference, he has had edit wars with other users, arguing that politicians and organizations against the Catalan independence process have very close affiliations with the far-right, without adding reliable sources, I'm not sure but I think he also used another pet account who did the same edit in the moment of the edit war 37.135.109.62. These edits can be seen in the (1) Tabarnia: Revision history, (2) Societat Civil Catalana:Revision history, (3) Somatemps: Revision history and (4) Jaume Vives: Revision history. What I'm saying is that if he want to hold something like that in these articles that is with reliable sources.

He has already been blocked two times for the same (see User talk:Filiprino).--ILoveCaracas (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have used reliable sources but you say they are pro catalan independence. I could say that your sources are pro unionism :S In the article Jaume Vives I have removed unsourced material and added information of his news program. I left a message in the talk page of that article. I don't want to incriminate you. I have just described what I have done, which forms part of Wikipedia encouragement of bold editing. Additionally, another Wikipedia recommendation is to not revert and instead modify or edit the parts of a revision. That is what I have done by removing the unsourced material. I have had to read it and check if it is available or if it is reflecting what the article says. Jaume Vives article did not comply with that. The links I removed are this and this and this. The first one does not talk about Jaume Vives but about TV3. It says that the TV TV3 channel has a campaign against Jaume Vives (questionable). The second link returns a 404 Not Found error. The third link is a redirect to esglesiabarcelona.cat without any related information. Because of that, I removed the line of text which used those sources. Additionally I have used this link and this link as source for the El Prisma collaborations and brings information about Jaume Vives and its relation with Tabarnia as promoter of it. I hope these explanations disipate your worries. Filiprino (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

He just added controversial information again with an unreliable source, excusing himself in this above response. Now adding a source with i see a complete radical position, read that url he just post [216]. in the comments of the same page, readers demystify the information of this "media" by saying that the same link that references that page says the opposite. the reference of that link is a blog, which coincidentally ensures otherwise. in summary nothing reliable this source--ILoveCaracas (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The link you refer to is this one, right? Well, "El Triangle" is a known hard paper weekly publication which costs 5 euros in a kiosk and has been under investigation by Mossos d'Esquadra due to El Triangle contacts with Método 3 in their journalistic investigation. Filiprino (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

"El Salto Diario" is again a hard paper publication, of monthly cadence and is not linked at all with independentism. It is not controversial. The article just states the unknown origin of Jaume Vives and Albert Boadella positions in Tabarnia. You accepted that same link in Tabarnia's article. See this diff. In that edit you added the article from the digital "El Catalan" which focuses on TV3 rather than Jaume Vives, the same article you wanted to use in Jaume Vives article. Filiprino (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

that link is not the page of El Triangle, it is a mask, a false page, there is no any link in the site that move you to the main page of the real one, you click anywhere and it takes you to dead links. This is the real website of that media [217] (of which I did not know)--ILoveCaracas (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

El Salto Diario only shows articles of opinion clearly independentists, I have looked at some and nothing else because their titles are radical, I read them and do not show some kind of criticism on the other side, just to one side--ILoveCaracas (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Archive.org is a website which saves snapshots of web pages for archiving purposes. Allows to preserve references. "El Salto Diario" is a well known journal and that article (analysis) in particular summarizes all what has happened with Tabarnia until their first demonstration, including the roles of Jaume Vives and Albert Boadella. Includes events and analyses from other journalists. Filiprino (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a reliable source that I leave to the neutral administrators that can contribute to this discussion. I only see in the links that you pass me a radical opinion and away from reality, based on references that say the opposite when you access it, and fact is based on references that are mere blogs where fans write to various topics--ILoveCaracas (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

the other link is another opinion biased and radical from beginning to end, of a dubious verifiability if it is of that (unknown by me) newspaper, remember that there are also current newspapers in Catalonia as "vila-web" and hundreds others that behave as a propaganda archive towards the Catalan independence, and who are not interested in their reputation, and not behave like a newspaper that gives neutral information--ILoveCaracas (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have just indeffed ILoveCaracas for evasion of an indefinite block on his previous account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Somebody please talk to Kosh Vorlon because I just can’t do it.

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

I am bringing this here because past experience has demonstrated that me and this user cannot hold down a civil conversation. His attitude aggravates me to no end. So here’s some advice he’s been giving new users who add spam on their userpages:

Hello, I'm KoshVorlon,one of the other editors on Wikipedia. I had to remove your contribution on your user page as it ran afoul of WP:UP#PROMO (especially due to the edit summary). You cannot have promotional materials on your userpage or your user talk page. Just so you know, you can post them as an article, if there are Reliable sources to back it up. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 10:09 am, Today (UTC−8)(emphasis added in case you can’t see the glaring error in this advice)

I have twice removed this remark from different pages. Kosh has chosen to question this and has reverted me at least once. See the discussion User talk:Beeblebrox#Blanking for this and other issues I see with this user. They also just blank spam pages instead fo using WP:CSD for some reason. This is just the wrong approach, and I generally find their input at WP:UAA unhelpful noise as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

1. Don't tell people it's okay to put advertising in mainspace as long as it has sources. It's not okay. That's why we delete it.
2. Don't blank obvious advertisements in any space. Have them deleted.
3. Don't clerk at UAA. It's a best a waste of time and at worst a distracting waste of time.

Does that about cover it? GMG^talk 18:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to second point #3 above, responding to Bot reports as though the bot will respond is pointless. Current as of this report. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Add "When someone tells you to stop doing something, consider that they might be right and you might be wrong", given that we've been having variations of the "KoshVorlon is making up his own policies and lashing out at anyone who tries to explain that they conflict with actual policies" thread for about a decade at this point. I personally think we're well past indefblock point; WP:AGF has a limit and we've surely reached it by now. ‑ Iridescent 18:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uh, I'm not surprised this is here—I was slightly bemused at the two remarks at the top of their UP a while ago, and whilst there's nothing particularly egregious in them, they do seem to show a slight disconnect—in their originality, at least. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That’s just it. I have no doubt that they are trying to help, but they don’t listen to anyone and just throw around policy links seemingly at random, as in this case where their defense for reverting me was that by removing their bad advice I was violating AGF and WP:BITE, which makes zero sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I would ad that I have been trying to just avoid them the past six years, but their now near-constant presence at WP:UAA, which I regurlarly do actual work on, has made that impossible. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if your permalink worked as intended since the bot part of the page is transcluded. This is the bot page at the same time as your link [218]. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Uh -- I left one message, | which was civil on Beeblebrox's page, and you can see his response. As you can see from the message itself, I'm not being high handed about what's going on, I'm asking him his reason for blanking out message placed on talk pages in good faith. I'm not so sure this really belongs on the Admin board, as I'm not fighting with him, reverting him, nor in any way being incivil. Feel free to check my contributions and you'll see that what I'm saying is true. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 18:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You are outright telling people that promotional material is permitted in article space provided it is accompanied by a source. Which is blatantly wrong. And when you are called on it you double down reaffirming your incorrect belief. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, the claim that promotional material can be included in articles if it is sourced is one of the most bizarre pieces of advice I've ever seen handed out to beginners. It has to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• My mistake, this is indeed not a revert, just posting the same garbage advice to yet another user and going out of his way to make sure I know he did it, and trying to lecture me in the idiotic edit summary. Which of course does not comport with the claims being made just above. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I've WP:G3 deleted User talk:Clinnzy Clinton and User talk:Stinchy13, which seem to be the only surviving ones from this particular round of KV disruption. ‑ Iridescent 19:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban(s)

Proposed:

• KoshVorlon is banned from adding comments to reports at WP:UAA, or from otherwise responding in any way to reports there. They may still add their own reports if they see apparent username violations.
• KoshVorlon is banned form patrolling new user’s userpages as their interpretation of rules is inconsistent with established policy and practice in these areas.
• They may appeal these bans in six months, and once every six months thereafter.

Alternately just ban him altogether, that’d suit me just fine as it has been far too long with no apparent progress in their ability to recognize their own errors. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Per my comments above, the incidents I mentioned here (which are just the tip of an iceberg as I was only listing those relating to abuse of signature templates; if you dip-sample his talk page history it's basically a non stop parade of WP:CIR warnings) and the decade of outright disruption with very little positive to show in return (just gonna put this here), I'd strongly support ban him altogether with a "can appeal in six months if he can commit to actually deigning to follow Wikipedia policy rather than treat our site as his personal sandbox" provision. A lengthy clean break would probably be good for him, and would certainly be good for us. ‑ Iridescent 19:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess with our checkered past I didn’t want it to seem like I was just out to get him, but yeah, I would totally support a full ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support the two topic bans - I'm still stunned by that advice about promotional material. I'm not sufficiently familiar with other problems to support a full ban, but I won't oppose it against those with more experience. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Obviously oppose - As I stated earlier, I'm not edit warring, reverting , harassing, not do anything worthy of a ban. Yes, I majorly poisoned the well against me because of all of my past behaviors, and that's 100% my fault for sure. If you'll check my log, you'll notice that I took a break from Wikipedia, and since returning, If I was spoken to and advised to stop something, I have, on first request. So, no, there's no reason to enact a ban.

<Additional edit> Iridescent's signature example is at least 1 year old, and I have not used a template since, the copyedit example is 5 years old, the Larry Sanger is 7 years old. These have been dealt with and are past history. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 19:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is a crazy question to ask of someone who's been here for a decade, but do you actually understand how Mediawiki works? We can all see that you did something that directly contravened policy, were told not to, and promptly did it again. ‑ Iridescent 19:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This is really the heart of the issue. This user has been here a very long time and still acts like a total newbie who has no idea how to do things and doubles down on their own errors when called out on them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Iri, removing a promo item from user or talk page doesn't contravene policy. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 19:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

But telling them that they can put promotional material in an article so long as there is a source is blatantly incorrect, and what you are telling people. This is something that despite being told (I think this is the fourth time now), you don't understand. Or won't understand. Or both. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Come on, that's the kind of response I'd expect from a child - you know perfectly well that nobody is telling you that removing a promo item from a user or talk page contravenes policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why in the permalink provided by Iri above you felt the need to ping Beeblebrox from the edit summary and link to AGF and BITE? I find this particularly confusing as Beeblebrox had never interacted with that user and on the off chance that the editor interaction tool missed deleted edits, I checked, and he hadn't interacted there either. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I was confused about that as well Tony, but I think it is likely because Beeblebrox is active in UAA, and KV likes to comment on reports, and that username was listed there. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support the two topic bans, but like Boing, I don't know the situation well enough to support a full ban, however would not oppose one should it be heading that way. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• How do you define and therefore enforce a ban on patrolling new user’s userpages? That seems nebulous. GMG^talk 19:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  Defined as commenting on them and/or marking them as patrolled, I'd say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  Well he can't mark anything as patrolled, because he doesn't have access to the curator...even though yes, for some reason the curator does do that to some extent. But...for these two instances, "patrolling" wasn't the issue. The issue is he was intervening in two users who had been reported to UAA, which he was inappropriately clerking and then following up on. BB was working UAA, so that's where the crossover was. It would make more sense in this instance to TBAN from UAA broadly, including from interacting with users found there. GMG^talk 19:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  Can't he just use the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link at the bottom of each new page? A ban from UAA broadly seems like a good idea, but I'd be concerned that would allow him to give nonsense advice to other new editors other than via UAA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  Providing advice to/warning new users without using standard Wikipedia templates? Since that is what we have templates for. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, that could work - I like that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  Pretty sure having NPP or the full toolkit is what gives you that link. Maybe I'm wrong. But yes, kelapstick's suggestion is much more clear and intuitively appealing. GMG^talk 20:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  Ah yes, could be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, if you really want to play the "we're not judging you fairly" card, here we go

KoshVorlon, I'll give you a chance to turn this around if you really feel we're being unfair and not judging you on current behaviour. Here is every mainspace edit you've made since your return (representing a mighty 3.8 per cent of your total edits in that period, incidentally). Imagine that this is a third party whom you've just come across; explain to me how this isn't a disruptive editor who should be shown the door? If you feel I'm unfairly stacking the deck and your strengths lie in areas other than the one area that Wikipedia exists to support, feel free to refer to every other edit you've made since your return in your reply. ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a serious Wow! (and it's the first one I looked at). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s also perfectly reflective of his general attitude. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving the table of contents above the lead, and just leaving it there. You should have seen either with preview, or after saving, that it messed up the article. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, and this one and its associated talk thread is just...it's not a good look, my dude. Even regardless of what one thinks about trans people, that's a pretty bad interpretation of what's going on. That's a 60% miss rate on mainspace contribs. I know I'm not the ruler of mainspace contribs myself, but yikes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what the Mendoza Line is for Wikipedia, but we are definitely below it at this point. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea if this ban from trans related edits is still in place (it's not listed at WP:RESTRICT as a current ban but I can't see any sign of it being revoked). If it is, then that Jazz Jennings one is a completely clear-cut breach. ‑ Iridescent 20:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent: you were looking at the wrong log. It looks to still be in place. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That's even worse. I mean, it's a four-year-old ban, so I could maybe understand forgetting about it as an honest mistake, but it's a bad pattern. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

never mind, full site ban

Given the astounding level of WP:IDHT behavior on display here, and the many past instances of similar behavior, I propose a full site ban, appealable in no less than six months and every six months thereafter. Enough was enough several years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

​By "several years ago" do you mean 22 Jan 2013 by any chance? ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Appears totally unwilling to change his behaviour. Maybe six months off will prompt him to realise we're serious.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support The more people look, the more disruption is found. WP:CIR. Courcelles (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Provisional support unless there's an extremely convincing answer from KoshVorlon to my challenge above. The enough-is-enough point was reached sometime around here and looking at the recent histories indicates pretty clearly that nothing has changed in the intervening years. ‑ Iridescent 20:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support A quick view of their user page shows an open rebellion against a discretionary sanction. Don't play by the rules, don't edit. Editor clearly believes that their ideas of how Wikipedia should be run supersede the actual rules. --Tarage (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support, despite my comments above, the more I look, the more concern I am seeing, with few redeeming edits. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, absent a convincing response to the above. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support, the Jazz Jennings diff above was the point at which I stopped looking. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per above discussion and supports. Enough is enough. Jusdafax (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support, considering this, which still completely fails to see the serious problems with recent edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It's very troublesome that the user thinks that, instead of engaging or trying to work with people to understand their issues, that self-banning themselves will somehow absolve them of their sins. No, not this time. This time they are going to have to actually prove competency to come back. Time has NOT fixed this issue. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support based on my review of quite a few instances of bad behavior. The one year "self ban" is just a colorfully worded retirement notice. I am unlikely to support this editor's return in any increment of six months unless compelling evidence of a dramatic behavioral change is presented. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Sigh...yeah. GMG^talk 00:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Competence is required..., His answers here, the Shroud of Turin diff and most importantly the Jazz Jennings diff genuinely make it seem like the editor is lacking that competence to edit here - I'm by no means a smart editor myself but I know what should and shouldn't be added in articles and to put it very bluntly I know when I fuck up ...., The Jazz Jennings diff is something I would expect from a newbie not a 10-11yo editor, His answers here come across as IDONTHEARTHAT which isn't the best way of dealing with it, Their userpage shrine is the nail in coffin for me - Self banning for 6 months does nothing because they can easily return - No one's going to monitor their contribs 24/7 365 days a year, Anyway enough's enough IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 03:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - for just too many reasons (i.e. see all of the above) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Jeez. That userpage (which gives me flashbacks to another user who tried to preemptively filibuster all attempts to deal with him with "I quit!", and then returned a week after the ANI thread was closed) by itself is enough to merit at least an indefinite block IMO, and the long-term disruption makes me think that a community ban is the way to go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Question I am verging on supporting this; as I said above ^{I'm not going to link to it as that would draw attention to my inability to post without duplicating the entire AN/I page)}, what drew my attention to KV was the mildly bizarre—but not particularly egregious—user page notices (checkusers and ARBPIDS stuff). But the—¿crap?—that's been highlighted since most certainly is egregious enough to warrant a severe sanction: this is a pattern of constant (although perhas unconscious) disruption and needs to be stopped. The only thing holding me back from a enbiggened embolded support as what JzG said below: I would prefer to see something less brutal than moving straight to a ban, though I freely admit I can't think of it right now. And nor can I, unfortunately. This is the sort of thing that mentoring would be perfect for—for a noob anyway. Will someone with ten-years' tenure respond positively to that process? Would the community feel happy at a (metaphorically) bloodless result, particularly after the trouble everyone has gone to here? I'm not even sure that I'd support this tbh; but I thought I'd just ask, if that's OK?
  I also note that the pishing about with voluntary site-bans and inability (unwillingness?) to answer Iridescent's questions does not indicate any sufficient degree of actually understanding what's happening here. Which also makes me wonder if the ten-yeas' tenure has actually achieved much—surely in that length of time one learns basic community expectations. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

  I share your feelings (and those of Guy below), and I initially was not prepared to support a full ban and wanted to go for topic bans instead. But seeing the further evidence presented, it's clearly nothing to do with specific topics - the problems occur regardless of topic. And the response to this discussion persuaded me to support a ban. As for mentorship, you're right that it's really meant for newcomers who will only need it for a short while until they learn the ropes, and it's going to be a no-go for someone who has still not learned after more than 10 years and who exhibits a chronic inability to listen. Having said all that, I'd still be open to changing my support should someone come up with a viable alternative to a site ban - but add me to the list of those who have no idea what that could possibly be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  A TBAN from project space comes to mind, since thats where a lot of problems seem to come from. See if they can find some quiet articles to write on, and figure out any disputes without needing to escalate past the talk page. But that would have to come with the hope that their main space contributions are of such poor quality in part because they're so few. There certainly seems to be an unhealthy preoccupation with the back end of the project. But basically refocus, get grounded and come back and show us what you've written or what you've gnomed. GMG^talk 13:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  GreenMeansGo, his article-space contributions appear to be so low in the links I provide above because I intentionally only provided very recent edits (to rebut his claim here and elsewhere that he's being judged on his past reputation, not on the facts). He has no shortage of mainspace edits (4629 at the time of writing), most of which are equally inept; claiming Penthouse is a reliable source, adding unsourced information about his own employer, edit warring on a BLP to continually reinsert an obvious libel 'sourced' solely to The Washington Times (the house journal of the Moonies), claiming that the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging isn't a white supremacist or neo-Nazi organisation (hint: this is their logo), claiming that Leni Riefenstahl (director of The Victory of Faith, Triumph of the Will, Day of Freedom: Our Armed Forces and Olympia) wasn't a Nazi propagandist, edit warring to remove references to Kike (footballer, born November 1989) because he doesn't believe that it's a real name in Spanish, and edit warring to remove claims that faith-healing/reiki/spiritualist/homeopathy peddler Mehmet Oz has been accused of promoting pseudoscience (claims that were all sourced in the article at the time), are all within his 100 most recent non-minor article edits. If you look through his talk archives, you'll literally find dozens if not hundreds of warnings regarding his conduct, all of which he ignores, tries to blame somebody else, or promises not to do it again before immediately carrying on as before. ‑ Iridescent 16:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah. I knew they were only edits from since they returned. And I remember quite a bit of interaction with KV. I hadn't remembered they were the one behind the Kike ANI thread. I'm not saying it's a good alternative. I was just fishing for some alternative. Maybe there isn't one. I dunno. GMG^talk 17:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent's links are phenomonally convincing, unfortunately. Like GMG I was looking for some other way to deal with them; having said that, Rhodedendrenites' point below about the radio-silence is equally important—and disappointing. I think I've said elsewhere that I consider communication fundamental here, and a lack of it a) makes one realise, eventually, that they are unwilling or unable to act in time with the community, and b) what's the ******* point in defending someone who won't even defend themselves? @User:KoshVorlon, a MEGA-FYI! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support unless Kosh returns to this discussion in the very near future to acknowledge the above problems and provide assurances that he understands why they're problematic. If he did so, I would definitely switch to oppose, but it seems like a big part of the problem is that he does not acknowledge problems when they occur, and instead leaves the discussion. I really wanted to oppose this, since I believe Kosh really does want to help new editors, and his name is both familiar and does not immediately call to mind problematic behavior where our editing has overlapped. I also don't care at all about namespace percentages. Some of the evidence above is very concerning (regarding the Shroud of Turin [which btw extended here], transgender issues, Malcolm Nance, etc.). The incorrect advice given to newbies is less troubling in the sense of its damage to the pedia, but more concerning because he's more active in that arena. Also saw this advice about redlinks and some shaky advice about copyright/images). Then there's also the AfD stats: "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 47.3% of AfD's were matches and 52.7% of AfD's were not" (52.7% missing the mark is quite high). Again, if I would support something less than a ban if he would just make it clear that he understands and will address these things, but otherwise this seems to be the only way to go. Since he looks to have gone on a long wikibreak anyway, this will just add the step of opening a discussion before coming back -- then, as now, if he shows understanding of the issues, I would support lifting the ban in favor of something less severe. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, guys

How about we stop doing full site bans for long-term editors on 3 HOURS AND 10 EDITORS DISCUSSION????? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

They already left the building, and this is a long time issue. Look at those diffs and tell me you honestly think they are a net positive to the project. It's called snow for a reason. --Tarage (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

May I point out that CBAN discussions must now stay open for 24 hours. Now, if you IAR, you IAR, but I wouldn't be going against such a recent RfC so easily. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have reopened, as it is apparently now mandatory to leave it open for at least 24 hours, as pointed out by User:Bellezzasolo. I can't see it making any difference, but I don't see a pressing need to IAR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• I stand corrected and am fine with re-opening the discussion, though I am not a fan of bureaucratic process for process' sake, especially when there is no doubt as to how this is going to end. All of which said... carry on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  I didn't know about it either. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

FTR I have removed the ban notice from their talk page and unblocked them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keeping it open fr at least the minimum 24 hours is the right move in the case of someone so prone to lame wikilawyering. This does look to be headed into snowball territory, but it would be best if it were airtight and without hiccups. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur. There is no rush. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Kosh Vorlon has been here a long time and deserves at least that much respect, and in fact I would prefer to see something less brutal than moving straight to a ban, though I freely admit I can't think of it right now. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW In the DS ban discussion (or more specifically the reopen-the-ban-discussion discussion), there was general consensus to keep the discussion open for 24 consecutive hours after being reopened. In that case, this was probably a bad idea, since it left the door open for dozens of nonsensical "Yeah, I know another simple indef would not go far enough, so what say we TBAN him from a completely unrelated topic he rarely edits in, for three months?" and "Yeah, but User X is worse!" off-topic personal attacks; but on principle I think it was a good idea and should apply here as well. Nothing really to say beyond that: the discussion should stay open until at least 22:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, personally I do think User X is worse. EEng 12:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Tu quoque, sez User:Y :p  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Parra Matters 86

I have repeatedly contacted this editor, but they simply delete the messages. I have pointed out that WP:Communication is required as part of the policies WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE. They created an unreferenced article which I came across at New Page Patrol, and ticked off as reviewed so it can be indexed by search engines, but it needs its sources added. This is my original message, which was removed with no response or edit summary: [219] and my 2nd attempt: [220], 3rd attempt: [221] and 4th: [222]. Their list of creations shows many unreferenced list articles [223], but if they won't communicate, I have no idea if they are aware of WP:SourceList. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I’ve seen this sort of thing before, where users try to just “fly under the radar” by never ever talking to anyone, and sometime removing any and all posts to their talk page that might leave a clue that they are doing this. I checked, They’ve been editing for nearly a year and in that time the removal of content from their own talk page has been their only activity on any talk page of any kind. That’s not ok on a collaborative project. I would say that if they continue to edit without responding here a block is in order. You can’t work with someone who refuses to talk to anyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I have blocked this editor, and left a message letting them know that any administrator can unblock if they commit to providing good references and communicating with fellow editors who have concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Works for me Beeblebrox (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mannerheimo

I knew I had contacted this editor many times and hadn't really got anywhere, but I checked, and I have sent them 48 messages [224] and they have received many other messages on the same topic over their 12 years of editing. I have been contacting them about creating articles with no references, or with inadequate references, but they won't respond. I have directed them to WP:Communication is required and that communication is required as part of the policies WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT but I'm just getting nowhere, and they are continuing to create articles with serious sourcing issues and ignore messages (please see User talk:Mannerheimo, although the less recent ones have been deleted). Boleyn (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

NFL Draft wars

There's an extensive set of edit wars going on between Makers267 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2605:A000:140D:4329:4024:3347:1857:C89B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Someone should take a look and at least warm them both, or block both for multiple 3RR violations. Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know how to proceed or if I did anything wrong. My point would be that a user taking advantage that he was anonymous, was putting information that shouldn't be in the notable undrafted section. You can also see that I tried to contact the user but he would not reply.Makers267

The user in question also employed the following IP addresses: 2605:a000:140d:4329:f977:6a99:3992:909b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2605:a000:140d:4329:6d40:a702:713a:7031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2605:a000:140d:4329:e116:6274:f430:ceb7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2605:a000:140d:4329:658d:7741:1046:e7c8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2605:a000:140d:4329:5dd2:e399:c579:1bcc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2605:A000:140D:4329:21DB:CA42:7C3C:3D2D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc.

I will respect the resolution that you reach.Makers267 (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors are not required to make accounts. It's OK to use an anonymous (and dynamic) IP. Use the talk page of the article in question if you're having trouble coming to an agreement, and you can often get a third opinion or more. This constant reverting from both of you is not a productive way forward. See WP:3RR and WP:DR. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

IP's can be geolocated (to Wisconsin, in this case) while registered users cannot. So, in a sense, a registered user is more anonymous than an IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedack. In the talk page of some of the articles in question (2002, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2015), I just registered the situation so there can be a consensus agreement on the list of players that should remain.Makers267 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Refusal to drop the stick

• BrightR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 12 Monkeys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BrightR (talk · contribs) has been arguing extensively on Talk:12 Monkeys about one specific issue – whether to include citations to a primary source in the article's plot section. It has gone on for a very long time now, and BrightR refuses to drop the stick. As far as I can tell, this drama began in July 2017 with Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs". It restarted in Talk:12 Monkeys#Ambiguous ending in February 2018, and the arguing led to this RFC in March 2018. The RFC was closed in April 2018. As far as I can tell, the close was not challenged, and it endorsed the addition and removal of citations to primary sources in plot sections. Following that, BrightR has once again revived the argument. He has repeatedly accused people of "WP:OWNBEHAVIOR" if they disagree with him (diffs: April 2, April 3, April 5, April 10, etc). Tired of this never-ending argument and the accusations, I made an irritable request to BrightR that he drop it. He decided not to, and, in fact, chose to double-down on this with an accusation that Doniago is "willingly ignorant" of policy simply because Doniago disagrees with BrightR. The argument has continued well past the point at which anything new could be said, and I think sanctions are required to make BrightR drop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're accusing me here of—calling DonIago "willingly ignorant"? He said I make requests (bordering on demands) that editors provide reasoning they are not required, which is willingly ignorant of WP:CONSENSUS—editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever; If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article (emphasis mine)—and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR—An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. Repeatedly claiming that the reason for the revert is because the edit is "not needed" is the problem here; and after the above has been brought to the attention of everybody in the discussion and DonIago in particular, he still [sees] no requirement that editors stipulate why they feel the references are inappropriate. That's willing ignorance of WP:CONSENSUS. Bright☀ 07:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Aargh I actually agree with some of what BrightR has been saying on the substance, to a point: our plot summaries in general should include citations,[225] film plot summaries should not be based directly on the films themselves since deciding what to put in and what to leave out often amounts to OR, and local consensus on this or that film article doesn't overrule the NOR policy.

But adding a bunch of inline citations of the film itself doesn't actually address this problem, clutters things, and makes it look at first glance that the summary is cited to reliable secondary sources (and so is counterproductive). On top of this, I may not agree with WP:FILM (and WP:TV) on this, but I recognize that I'm in the minority, and have not tried to enforce my standards on articles despite facing opposition, which BrightR has unfortunately been doing.

This needs to stop.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to enforce anything; I'm requesting a reason for the revert in accordance to Wikipedia policy. If you think primary sources are inappropriate for plot sections, I encourage you to read through the discussion, or just the policy and guideline on the matter: WP:PRIMARY—A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. (emphasis mine)—and MOS:PLOT: using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. If editors revert an edit that makes such changes—which are supported by policy, guideline, and an explanation in the talk page—their revert cannot be supported with "not needed". Bright☀ 08:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can. See also the three reasons I gave above. Not to mention WP:BRD, a process with such broad acceptance in virtually all cases where the policy doesn't 100% support one version over another that it might as well be a policy in its own right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can [be supported with the reason "not needed"] No, policy says it can't. See also the three reasons I gave above Presumably you mean this: doesn't actually address this problem, clutters things, and makes it look at first glance that the summary is cited to reliable secondary sources: (1) the "problem" you raise (plot summaries based directly on the films themselves) is not a problem per Wikipedia policies and guidelines; (2) two references in two paragraphs are not "clutter", it is almost the minimal level of referencing; (3) references don't have "this is a primary source" or "this is a secondary/tertiary source" tags on them so unless you're proposing marking each reference as to what kind it is, this is far outside the scope of this issue. Not to mention WP:BRD BRD is being followed, and very unfortunately the majority are ignoring the most important part of BRD: WP:CONSENSUS, particularly the parts I quoted above (and that WP:BRD-NOT is quoting in bullet points 2 and 3), for your perusal. And since you're already hinting it with the comment about "100%", may I refer you to the original discussion. I never said plot summaries must contain references; I said that policy and guideline support putting primary references in plot summaries, so reverting this edit requires a reason other than "not needed" or "no consensus" per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:CONSENSUS. Bright☀ 11:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• So, is there any reason we cannot prune the plot down to what is verifiable from reliable independent secondary sources, as is the standard for all content on Wikipedia? Or is this one of those situations where we absolutely must reference the primary source because secondary sources don't consider the thing we want to say to be significant enough to mention? Guy (Help!) 10:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not the issue here. This was never the issue here. WP:UNDUE was never the issue. WP:RS was never the issue. The issue was having a helpful, good-faith edit reverted with the reason "not needed", and when I pointed out that reason is against policy (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) and that a valid reason needs to be provided, I was met repetitively with "not needed", "not necessary", "not a must", and so on. Now and again other issues were raised but they were immediately dropped, and the only reason that remained is "not needed". Bright☀ 11:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, much of editing is driven by commonsense opinion of editors; and in my opinion, "not needed" is quite a well-accepted commonsense reason, as well as "needed", especially when the article topic relates to plots and the likes. Having a policy/guideline base to include a statement does not mean the statement has to be included, and that someone cannot remove the statement boldly. Having said that, I feel that this issue (or broadly whatever I've understood here) is not something egregious for ANI. This seems to be a good-faith editorial banter that's gone a bit awry. I don't know how is ANI supposed to sort this out. L0URDES 11:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Having a policy/guideline base to include a statement does not mean the statement has to be included, and that someone cannot remove the statement boldly. Perfectly agree, and I never said it must be included. However if an edit has been disputed and a discussion has started, WP:CONSENSUS has to form using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense, not with reasons that are against policy and sources, even if the majority favors them. in my opinion, "not needed" is quite a well-accepted commonsense reason Then fix the policies that say it is not an acceptable reason. Or I can explain why "not needed" is a non-reason equivalent to "I don't like it". Bright☀ 11:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef TBAN from "film" OK, BrightR has officially worn me down after only two comments, and I agree with him. Hats off to those who don't but have somehow been able to put up with him for longer than that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Imagine having to "put up" with editors and administrators who imply you should be with banned or blocked because you're discussing a revert that's blatantly against Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 12:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Weird how often people have recently responded to comments I have made in a manner that explicitly claimed to be familiar with my editing history but also managed to get said history completely wrong. I was, in 2015, TBANned for my response to a couple of editors very explicitly violating several of our core content policies, despite virtually everyone who looked at the substance agreeing with me on said substance. You can be TBANned for uncivil, bludgeoning behaviour regardless of whether you are right on the content: WP:CIVIL is the most important policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment That should probably be TV & Film if they are disruptive across the entire subject area but from what I have seen a TBAN relating specifically to Plots may be more appropriate. This would be based on TE evidenced by refusing to drop the stick after months. Bludgeoning the RfC, including multiple attempts to close their own RfC. That same bludgeoning behavior is in evidence in this very thread.
  I would support either TBAN if someone can come up with either evidence of disruption/TE outside of plots or more narrow wording focusing on plots. Jbh ^Talk 13:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be cool with a "plots" TBAN instead. Honestly, it's not the content I have a problem with one way or the other (even if I disagreed with him 100%, which I don't, he would be only as bad as a dozen other long-term contributors against whom I've never proposed sanctions): it's the incivility in his responses to me and other users here. Any form of sanction, even just a short block, would hopefully force him to reconsider how he interacts with other editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Since this is AN/I you are obligated to provide diffs for instances I have been uncivil to you. Bright☀ 16:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Now you are just making up rules. And when everything you say is shouted at me in boldface it hardly seems necessary to provide "diffs" of your incivility, let alone the fact that you and I have never interacted anywhere beyond this ANI thread so it's here for everyone to see: I even said above that I was specifically referring to only [your first] two comments [directed at me] (your subsequent comments have been no better, of course, nor have your replies to other editors in this thread or in the linked talk page). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So I should be TBANed because I replied in bold? Should you be TBANed as well for replying to me in bold? Now you are just making up rules. WP:PERSONAL: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Any evidence would do, but diffs and links are standard. Bright☀ 16:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: including multiple attempts to close their own RfC You do realize you have to provide diffs for these multiple attempts? My closure was 100% in line with WP:RFCEND (5). DonIago then undid my closure citing article deletion closure procedure... Bright☀ 16:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@BrightR: My apologies I have struck "multiple". I misremembered a close although I recall a discussion where you wanted to close it early and were told to let it run and not to close your own RfC. As I recall there were several editors involved. I thought it was at AN but I can not find the diffs. Do you recall that or am I mistakingly conflating some other incident with another editor?

Regardless, you closed your own RfC with a simple No consensus your close and were reverted [226]. The close by a neutral editor did find consensus, just not the consensus you wanted. Jbh ^Talk 17:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

not the consensus you wanted I don't see how you can make that assertion. I did not contest the close and I support the close summary. I suggest you be more careful with your accusations and any intentions you ascribe to others. Seems people keep attributing to me intentions I do not have and actions I have not performed. I agree 100% with the close, the only problem was DonIago undoing my close citing irrelevant reasons. Bright☀ 17:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Were you or were you not told closing your own RfC is improper? You have cited RFCEND, above, as defense of your involved close yet it reads "a formal closing summary of the discussion can be posted by any uninvolved editor."^{(emp mine)} The general guideline for NAC closes says "Closing editors must abide by the standard of being uninvolved as described at Involved admins" which says "editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved". So, regardless of the particulars of your motivations — which, admittedly, I can only speculate on based upon your actions — you have let your passion for your particular viewpoint not only blind you to the disruption you are causing for other editors but you have shown willingness to ignore a basic tenet of dispute resolution and consensus building. It is past time to let this go. Since you can not seem to do so on your own this thread was opened by NinjaRobotPirate to make you drop it. I proposed the narrowest restrictions I could think to to accomplish this. If you would prefer I justify them more generally per BLUDGEON/IDHT/DROPTHESTICK as illustrated by behavior at Talk:12 Monkeys#Ambiguous ending, Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs" and this RfC. Including an INVOLVED closing their own RfC [227] compounded by an inability to recognize such a close is improper. (See this thread and comments here.) You may consider the reasoning for the below proposed sanctions to be so amended. Jbh ^Talk 18:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You are citing RFCEND (4) and you're leaving out the first part: The rfc tag can be removed and a formal closing summary of the discussion can be posted by any uninvolved editor. I did not remove the RfC tag and (4) does not apply. I cited RFCEND (5). A bot removed the RfC tag and there was no discussion for two weeks. At this point anyone can close the RfC. As you cite RFCEND partially in a misleading way, you also cite WP:NACINV as if it were a guideline; please see the top of the page where it says This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The correct policy is WP:INVOLVED (that's the actual policy; not an essay about the policy). Any editor could have closed the discussion as such after the bot has removed the RfC tag and discussion has stopped. The close summary was not disputed; the reason given for undoing the closure was for deletion discussions, not RfCs. the disruption you are causing for other editors but you have shown willingness to ignore a basic tenet of dispute resolution and consensus building I do like the basic tenets of dispute resolution and consensus building! In particular, this one: When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. I have opened a section, I have asked for reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. You know what reason I got? "Not needed", a reason explicitly stated to be invalid in Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 18:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Your reasoning that somehow it is OK to make an INVOLVED close of your own RfC simply because the bot removed the RfC tag and not you is, at best, motivated reasoning. I do not believe that anyone involved in the discussion re your close thought your interpretation was correct.

I have stated my position and proposed what I believe to be a narrow and equitable solution to the problem. I will now step back from this back and forth with you to avoid clogging up the thread and allow other editors to comment. They will agree, disagree or propose some other solution(s) — They may even think you are correct in your reading of RFCEND and that the 'persistent' strategy you have used to press your view is just fine. I, obviously, do not think that will happen, but I recognize it might. — In any event I firmly believe it is time we let others express their views. Jbh ^Talk 19:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe that anyone involved in the discussion re your close thought your interpretation was correct. My "interpretation" is "no consensus" which is largely in line with the close that followed. As for closing an RfC, you cite an essay and call it a guideline, I say "policy" and cite an actual policy. WP:INVOLVED is the only relevant policy, and there is nothing wrong with non-admin closure or an involved editor's closure as long as the closure is not controversial. The reason given for undoing the closure was about deletion discussions, so it's entirely irrelevant. If you actually have a reason why this closure was "bludgeoning" I'd like to hear it, because according to WP:RFC, after discussion has naturally ended, the RfC can be closed by anyone. Bright☀ 20:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban on discussions of proper citation for TV and Film plots.

• Support as proposer BrightR's disruption looks to be limited to this specific topic. I do not see, on brief inspection, any reason to ban them from TV and film in general. Since this seems to stem from discussion at a single article, 12 Monkeys, I am proposing a topic ban from that article as well.
  Indefinite term. Minimum 6 months. Jbh ^Talk 15:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 15:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support either this or the one below or both, whichever one everyone else backs. Per my own comment above, I think any sanction would likely make him reconsider his behaviour. WP:AGF, WP:ROPE, and all that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban on 12 Monkeys

• Support as proposer The genesis of this issue seems to be discussions related to the GA review of 12 Monkeys where he have been pressing this issue for more than nine months. See Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs" and following sections. From a brief read through I firmly believe, absent BrightR's refusal to drop the stick, the other editors could have reached some sort of consensus.
  Indefinite term. Minimum 6 months. Jbh ^Talk 15:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 15:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support either this or the one above or both, whichever one everyone else backs. Per my own comment above, I think any sanction would likely make him reconsider his behaviour. WP:AGF, WP:ROPE, and all that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

VOA account.

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

---

Found an account which seems to be here to vandalize and make derogatory comments about someone. [228] Sethie (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The user has been warned once by Cluebot NG for their latest edit. Please leave further warnings for the user in case they continue to vandalize, and report them to WP:AIV when appropriate. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed as a single-purpose vandalism/harassment account. See the now-blanked userpage in addition to the other edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on the article

Please see this, he wrote Pakistani americans to Pakistani "Chutiya" Americans, word used "Chutiya" is a Hindi abusive word used. A Remedy would be appreciated against that user who did this. CK (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the word "Chutiya" in that revision, and in this edit where you said "Removing abuse word "Chutiya" ", I don't see any removal of any such word. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Entranced98

Hi, Apologies if this is in the incorrect place but not entirely sure where to ask,

Basically I've come across Entranced98 who seems to spend their time here primarily replacing all IP talkpage warnings with the OW template (Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history.",
My question is should the editor be doing this ? .... Whilst they are tidying talkpages up and removing years old warnings at the same time they're not exactly improving the project with these edits ?,
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The user has plenty of activity outside of the user talk namespace, and I don't see how the {{OW}} edits are disruptive. Elassint ^Hi 23:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• I do not see a problem with what they are doing. I have noticed IP users from time to time asking about warnings they see on their talk pages, not noticing that those warnings are years old. Looking at the ones being removed here they are from 2008-2016. Jbh ^Talk 23:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)