Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Jan Arkesteijn and the misleading use of false colour versions of old paintings on Wikipedia transcluded from Commons

Example 1

Example 2

Jan Arkesteijn (talk · contribs)

I believe sanctions or a topic ban on this project are worth considering for the long term pattern of misleading edits by Jan Arkesteijn on Wikipedia, and in a slightly more complex way via Wikidata as infoboxes and reports may automatically transclude the (P18) image linked on Wikidata relating to the article subject.

The pattern of misleading use of images is under discussion at Commons:ANU, where anyone is free to add an opinion or provide further evidence.

As an example please refer to the multiple cases on the Commons Admin noticeboard, and the specific deletion request at Deletion_requests/File:Richard_Wilson_(1714-1782),_by_Anton_Raphael_Mengs.jpg where this diff shows Jan Arkesteijn replacing an official correct colour image of a painting from the National Museum of Wales with a false colour version on the article Richard Wilson (painter). Further research will show other examples of replacing museum quality images with misleadingly false colour versions, such as on Erasmus Darwin (replacing an official National Portrait Gallery image), these have not been researched for the discussion on Wikimedia Commons as that project's policies do not cover these types of rare inter-project disruption.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Support. This user's esthetic disruption is extraordinary. See also [1]. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

• @Fæ: So, reviewing the situation...wow. Just to make sure I understand the situation, this user has been deceptively replacing images of historical paintings with deliberately falsified versions, for years, and in spite of multiple blocks, and has gone so far as to falsify EXIF data? And, when called out at Commons' AN, he simply lied and said he wasn't doing it? Is that really the situation? I'm seeing his conduct described at Commons as "vandalism", "forgery", and "fraud". I see the number of falsified images is potentially in the thousands, and that these falsified images are in place all over Wikipedias of all languages. I also see that Jan primarily contributes by adding images to articles here, as well as other language Wikipedias, something he can most certainly not be trusted doing. He edits a wide variety of projects. I'm strongly inclined to indef here, if there are no objections, but I suspect that a global ban for severe cross-wiki disruption might be a more appropriate measure.  Swarm  talk  21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much. For years they uploaded their own recoloured versions of professional photographs of paintings from archives, museums and galleries, apparently thinking these were improvements by replacing authentic copies of aged old paintings with their digitally enhanced very pink faces, super blue skies or over brightened dark backgrounds. It was only in the last series of complaints and sample cases that it was highlighted that EXIF data was also their creation, so that clearly the casual viewer or reuser would be misled by whatever copyright statements were displayed with the EXIF. There are over 1,300 instances where a Public Domain Mark license has been misleadingly declared this way, yet the source institution has made no such declaration.

Though people can take their own photographs of paintings and release them on Commons, recolouring other people's professional photographs or archive quality photographs and failing to make that clear, and failing to upload the original, so if the source goes dead we can never work out if the image has been digitally altered, is seriously misleading regardless of our endless presumptions of good faith or the retrospectively declared intention. As this activity spans 10 years and these photographs were promoted on Wikidata as the "official" versions, it is unlikely that the encyclopaedia-worthy colour correct and professional versions of these artworks will ever be repaired across all the different language Wikipedias or Wikidata.

Without intending to brag, I am technically competent at examining EXIF data and tracking down original image sources, with my own track record of uploading over a million GLAM related archive quality photographs to Commons. However properly fixing one of the cases, including amending Wikidata and repairing global usage, can take me 15 minutes, so fixing several thousand is an unrealistic backlog for the limited Wikimedia Commons volunteer time we have available from those with the right types of skill or interest. In some cases repair will be impossible due to sources going offline in the years since upload. --Fæ (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support and how to globally indef and rollback their uploads? This is global digital cultural vandalism. Why just why? Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Is any image NOT a false-color image? The technology for reproducing colors using RGB falls short of perfection, and the appearance of colors on anyone's screen depends on adjustments on the machine they're using. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  There is a big difference between adjusting your own photographs and tampering with official research quality photographs from archives that have been carefully taken to be as colour correct as technically possible. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - As I've supported Jans block on Commons I think it would be very unwise for me to close this, Anyway in a nutshell - Different project = Different rules, We don't mass apply blocks just because they've been blocked on 1 project, Although Jan has been replacing images here no one's really battered an eyelid and I doubt anyone will, Unless he starts replacing local images then a block (or any sanction) at present is unwarranted. –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Nemo bis

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

Nemo bis is a vocal proponent of Sci-Hub, the academic paper piracy site, see Sci-Hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sci-Hub has a long-running legal wrangle with Elsevier, caused by Sci-Hub's use of university credentials to which it has no legal right, to access, store, and serve, Elsevier's copyright material in open defiance of copyright. Sci-Hub's operator, and many fans, repudiate the right of publishers to hold exclusive rights to academic papers. While this position is undoubtedly morally defensible (and I agree with it), it is the opposite of the current laws across most of the world.

Nemo bis has now stared adding "free to read" links to large numbers of articles, linking to zenodo.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com . This site allows anyone to upload papers without checking copyright status. Some of the papers are copyright by Elsevier, Nature and other well known litigious publishers. Another, by OUP, Nemo bis asserts on his talk page to be public domain based on his own reading of (current) US government copyright policy.

I think this violates WP:POINT and WP:RGW. I have blacklisted the site per WP:C while we work out what the copyright status really is for these works. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this taking over my watchlist. It's also a problem of making 2000 revisions faster than a human could. Natureium (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The links were checked and directed manually one by one. Also, I don't agree with the statement above that I'm a "vocal proponent of Sci-Hub". --Nemo 18:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Note this came up just over a year ago[2]. This appears to be a continuation/amplification of the problem identified then. Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• yep I asked that Zenodo be removed from OABOT's suggestion lists at WT:OABOT#Zenodo which they argued against. I have reverted many of their zenodo (and other links) over the past few days Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've also taken the initiative and ensured that Citation bot stops adding links to Zenodo, with User talk:Citation bot/Archive_12#Emergency blacklist and https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1029 (t) Josve05a (c) 22:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Josve05a: thank you, and apologies for the inevitable inconvenience this is likely to cause you. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand why questionable open access links are being added [3] when the existing DOI will probably lead to this [4] which seems to already be open access. Is there something I'm missing? I'm not accessing from an institution or other subscriber or via any such proxy, just an ordinary NZ ISP connection. I even tried private mode to make sure there wasn't some stray cookie, or a referrer causing it. If the PDF is desired it's here [5]. If it's feared the DOI's target will change or will be different, wouldn't it be better to link to the Nature site directly in the URL field? P.S. Since Nemo checked each addition, I'm assuming they checked what the DOI did before adding. Nil Einne (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I got the above by randomly clicking one of Nemo's recent contribs since there's been no examples of the what people were talking about in the earlier comments (well not counting the previous ANI). To see if this was a fluke, I looked at the other 5 most recent contribs. Without commenting on the copyright issues, the first 3 and last one at least seem to serve a purpose in that none of the links (either the DOI or link outs in PubMed) seems to lead to open access versions [6] [7] [8] [9]. But the fourth (fifth if you include the earlier case) [10] is another one where the existing DOI seems to lead to a full text link [11]. The PDF is also available [12]. So this is 2 out of 6. Again I'm using an ordinary NZ home ISP connection and tried in private mode. Have journals started to use region based pay walls and provide open access to only certain areas or is there something else I'm missing about the advantage of Zenodo over the journal site? Otherwise, considering the questions over whether they have sufficient systems in place to stop copyvios, I really don't see a benefit to adding these Zenodo hosted open access links when the journal hosted copy is already open access. If it's feared that the open access links may disappear wouldn't using archive.org or webcitation (if robots.txt allow) be a better solution? Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I see Wikipedia:OABOT#I am a publisher. How do I make sure OAbot recognizes my full texts? and Wikipedia:OABOT#What kinds of links won't the bot add? that there is already recognition that OABot should try and recognise existing full text publication links and not add other open access links if there's already one. While it's possible the publishers in these cases haven't properly complied with normal guidelines for making full text, which is unfortunate, since Nemo manually checked all their additions this isn't a problem since if the full text worked for them they would I presume have recognised it. (I mean it's pretty hard for a human not to notice it's full text especially since you don't have to click on anything in these cases.) So I really don't understand what happened here. I tried with a proxy, unfortunately my proxy doesn't offer Italy but both Ireland and Spain also gave the working full text version from the DOI. Has Nemo somehow been blocked from the full text or is Italy or wherever Nemo is accessing from not allowed the full text? Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That "manual check" does not appear to satisfy any of our normal criteria for checking rights. Try uploading an image with a rationale like that, see how far you get. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that when we link to academic papers in journals, WP:ELNEVER demands that we should only link to sites that trace the provenance of each paper and for which that provenance can be unambiguously traced back to an author (e.g. arXiv, many institutional repositories, or direct links to the author's own web site) or to official published versions of the paper (on the publisher site or sites with the explicit permission of the publisher such as jstor). Zenodo doesn't appear to maintain this provenance data, so we should not allow links to it. Blacklisting links to it may be a somewhat drastic step, but given the magnitude of the problem (huge number of links, many of which appear to be either copyright violations or self-published materials) it may be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• @JzG: Where does WP:C justify blacklisting a site "while we work out what the copyright status really is"? SmartSE (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The alternative was to block Nemo bis, but if these are copyright violating external links (as every one I have checked has been) then blacklisting serves a well established protective purpose preventing good faith users from accidentally invoking potential liability. We've done the same before. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

For example, sci-hub is globally blacklisted. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• If anybody doubts that Nemo bis a) doesn't understand WP:COPYLINK and b) has no interest whatsoever in understanding this policy, please see the series of discussions at their talk page which includes things like the following:
  • concerning this edit, which added a link to the final published version of this paper published in Science Signalling which per SHERPA/ROMEO does not allow the final published version to be archived.,... (Not ambiguous, not hard to figure out).... they wrote:
    • diff What reasons do you have to think that <zenodo link redacted> is a copyright violation? The author can have a contract addendum with the publisher, a specific license or other statutory rights.
    • diff Could you clarify what parts of the policies you believe to state that the non-copyvio status of the link targets needs to be verifiable? The very section you linked says something very different.
  • more generally:
    • diff I'm not hosting nor uploading or otherwise providing that copy. The responsible way to proceed, when one has a doubt, is to contact the author so that they can check their contracts and if necessary revise their archived copies. I happen to have already done so for the author of <zenodo link redacted>, but you can easily be helpful in reducing copyright violations even if you are less familiar than me with publisher policies: just point authors to the respective records on https://dissem.in/ . (totally outrageous)
    • diff I assume you just wanted to inform me of the existence of Template:Uw-copyright-link, because the text doesn't apply to any edit of mine. I'm definitely not «Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright».
    • diff I'm sympathetic to your concerns, but I'm afraid this is an inaccurate description of the matter (argh)
    • diff There is no reason whatsoever to blindly assume that CERN or the author of the article would be violating copyright. Civil systems exist for rightsholders to have their rights respected, and I don't think your second-guessing here is one of them. Are you sure you're not getting emotional due to personal connections to Blackwell? You may want to sleep over it
  • over at WT:OABOT they wrote this complete nonnsense:
    • diff How do you know the author did not gain authorisation for that upload?. In response to this very good answer from User:David Eppstein, they wrote
    • diff: By this reasoning, we should not use any institutional repository. Your reading of the policy is therefore clearly wrong.

It is very, very clear that to Nemo Bis, if a paper is in a repository we should assume it is there in compliance with the publisher's license agreement. This is exactly the wrong answer per WP:COPYLINK and also ignores question #4 that OABOT asks when it presents a link, namely: Is the new link likely copyright-compliant? nemo bis' answer is "I will assume 'yes'" -- the question appropriately asks for the user him or herself to make the determination before the editor takes responsibility for adding the link to WP. Since Nemo bis will not take responsibility and keeps adding links that violate WP:COPYLINK, we should TBAN them from adding links. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

TBAN or indef

In light of Nemo bis' disdain for WP:COPYLINK which is policy this person should be a) TBANed from adding any URLs to citations or b) indefinitely blocked. It is one thing to advocate for OA and another to push policy violations into WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Since this was first raised here last year the problem edits have continued, culminating in this latest batch of thousands of URL insertions, a significant number of which appear problematic. The user seems completely oblivious to the harm of these (and indeed seems to think themselves judge and jury[13] in matters of copyright), but in other areas their editing looks productive. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN as chronically willingunwilling to accept that current copyright law is what it is. The discussion Alexbrn linked is really troubling. In it, Nemo_bis appears to assert that a publisher is not allowed to declare restrictive copyright/licensing on their publications. DMacks (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, fixed a fairly critical wrong word in my comment. DMacks (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN whether he is intentionally violating WP:COPYLINK or inserting these links due to carelessness, it is problematic on a large scale and he refuses to acknowledge this. Natureium (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment any URLs to citations seems a bit over the top. As zenodo.org is already blacklisted they can't continue to add links to that, so I can't see what purpose a TBAN would serve, unless I am mistaken and there are numerous other sites they have been linking to? SmartSE (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes they seem to add whatever link OABOT suggests; they take no responsibility for making reasonably sure that the linked paper is OK to link-to. See diffs above on their approach. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thanks for the links. I agree they do show a worrying disregard for copyright and for listening to the concerns of other editors so also support TBAN although I still think that they should be able to add normal citations to articles, otherwise this is just de-facto blocking them from adding any sourced content. SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I thought about a narrow TBAN on using OABOT but there is nothing then to stop them from just manually doing it. There are parameters like pmid and pmc that they can use instead.... Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Nemo bis does not appear to respect Wikipedia's requirements for respecting publisher copyright (whatever we may think of the moral value of publishers acting in this way) and protecting the encyclopedia from legal liability takes priority over assisting readers in searching for pirated copies of references. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - Such a sanction appears to be necessitated by the editor's actions. Next step should be an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - linking to copyright violations is something that can have a serious negative impact on the project. Support TBAN and then escalation to indef if the disregard for copyright principles continues. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I know I am coming late to this party, but I am surprised that our long term colleague Nemo bis is challenged considering their years of good work for GLAM content. I have briefly looked at a couple of the example sources and the discussion. In the context of academic papers, which I believe is the primary locus of dispute, it is standard publishing practice to allow pre-publication versions of papers to be released by the author however they wish (like on Academia or Facebook!), without that being a breach of contract. In addition there are publishing contracts that effectively reverse the norm, such as for Wellcome funded projects where attempting to restrict access can lead to financial penalties. There is also a conflation of publishing contracts and copyright, these are legally separate issues and especially in the case of academic works may be contradictory. Where this happens I believe we always fall on the side of doing our best to comply with copyright rather than attempting to enforce contract law. There may be evidence I am missing where Nemo bis is misinterpreting the nature of the sources or the literal meaning of policy. If that may be down to a language gap issue, I would hope that sufficient good faith applies that any TBAN is limited and applied with a solid presumption of good faith on appeal, if Nemo bis commits to asking for better advice for specific sources if they are disputable. Not for one minute do I believe that Nemo bis is guilty of deliberately promoting copyright piracy. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Nemo bis was engaging in WP:POINTy behaviour, many of the links added were not to pre-publication versions, and the rate of addition is completely inconsistent with any checking of copyright status of the links. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, however my first language is English and I have engaged with many copyright discussions and policy development on Commons over the years, as well as on this project, and I do not find WP:Copyrights easy to interpret, and would hesitate to advise on it. It is not unlawful for a website to host a copy of a copyrighted publication if the copyright statement remains intact, and there is no obvious common understanding of which website is designed to act or be used in direct contravention of copyright law (which will vary by host country anyway). If the locus is academic publications, then these boundaries become harder, for example even on a website that can be shown to be actively used for copyright piracy, a link to a copy of an academic paper is still unlikely to be a copyright violation, even if you can argue that a publisher has hosted it elsewhere with usage restrictions for their copy. However I suspect that the policy is not actually about literal copyright, i.e. that which could be proven in a court of law, but rather what is perceived as an issue or a hypothetical risk.

On Commons our policies benefit by the use of casebooks. Looking at key past cases can often move us on beyond single word definitions and may assist users that are struggling with how to realistically interpret copyright related policies in particular.

Sorry for the tangent, if Nemo bis has a pattern of being pointy, then civility is the issue and that focus can be examined as evidence, and sanctions or restrictions can be framed by that evidence without digging into copyright definitions. --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about commons policy. but on en.wikipedia, it's not acceptable to link to material on another site when the other site most likely is hosting the material in violation of the copyright holder's rights i.e. without the permission of the copyright holder. (Permission would obviously include cases where permission has been granted non specifically e.g. freeish licences.) The only general exceptions for this are archive sites which archive material which was at one stage live on the web, as well as leaks of confidential material in the public interest. If it's a reputable site, e.g. a news sites we normally trust that they have sufficient systems in place to decide if they can host the material e.g. based on fair use or fair dealing exceptions, but for random sites e.g. someone's personal website this doesn't apply. The most common time this comes up is with Youtube links but it can come up with anything e.g. many Torrent links. Note with Youtube, AFAIK we apply it even to music links where the material is correctly identified by Youtube's content ID system. While in some cases concerns over the copyright of the graphical material may arise (whether it's the original music video or made up of random images), AFAIK we do the same even if it's a completely black video. For academic publications, while I've only seen 2 or 3 examples of such discussions, it similar. AFAIK, if it's a generally trustworthy site e.g. a universities official repository, we generally assume that they know what they are doing unless we have evidence otherwise. For the author's personal repository we generally cannot make this assumption since most authors of scientific papers are far from experts on copyright. BTW whether or not it's against the law is mostly not something we concern ourselves with. At least in the US, whether or not it's illegal, the person hosting the material could probably be sued to take it down and maybe even sued for damages, and there's even some minor risk the person linking to the material could likewise be sued. But the minor risk of being sued is IMO not the main reason we do it anyway. And definitely not any criminal liability (i.e. being against the law). Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

As for Nemo bis, if they are able to correctly interpret whether the link is hosting the material in an acceptable fashion for out purposes there would be no problem. The problem is they don't seem to be able to do so. This in itself would not be a problem. Copyright confuses a lot of people. They could likely resolve that by following a few simple rules e.g. only linking to reputable sources such as news sites, publisher sites etc. However despite being warned about it before, they've failed to moderate their behaviour and are still linking to material that seems not be okay. We would apply the same anywhere. If someone kept linking to dodgy Youtube versions of news stories, music videos or some such, they would need to stop or we'd force them to stop in some manner. Technically maybe a more narrow ban could be used here, but Nemo bis has IMO exhausted the communities patience so much, especially with the rate they've added these, and also since it doesn't seem to simply be that they don't understand copyright policy but that they don't care, that people are responding in this way and reluctant to give them a chance to wikilawyer e.g. to a ban allowing official sites or a ban on repositories. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• This appears closeable, perhaps? Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN I'm not sure if it's simply incompetence or pointyness, but I don't think it matters. Since Nemo bis, despite manually checking, didn't mark some free DOIs as free, regardless of whether they also added URLs, I don't think we can trust anything they did. One thing which hasn't really been raised is that it's not simply copyright issues. If you can't entirely trust that the website has systems in place to ensure that there are no copyright violations, then can we be sure they have systems in place to ensure material isn't modified? The answer is likely no, therefore anyone using them needs to also check that this didn't happen. If it's a copy of the published version, this is probably trivial. if it's a pre-publication or some other version different from the published, you probably need to be sure who uploaded the pre-publication version or created it (if it's digitally signed). Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox

Can an administrator please look at this deletion discussion and at the sandbox in question, User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox? The sandbox is a hodge-podge, consisting largely of notes, which are appropriate in a sandbox, and apparently of soapboxing about what may be a plan by User:Mervyn Emrys to name, blame, and shame those who are causing climate change, “Proposal for a Project on a New Doomsday Book for Global Climate Change” or may just be grandiose chatter. User:Guy Macon has proposed to delete it as inappropriate soapboxing, and has already deleted it from User talk:Jimbo Wales and User talk:Larry Sanger. (Knowing that Jimbo Wales intends his talk page to be a free-for-all zone, I think that Guy Macon was out of line in deleting it from Jimbo’s talk page.) User:Mervyn Emrys has requested, in the MFD, that the deletion discussion be put on hold for a case at WP:ANI, but deletion discussions are not put on hold due to ANI filings, and besides, as Guy Macon notes, he hasn’t actually filed at ANI. So I am filing, to say that some administrative attention is clearly needed.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SOAPBOX: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: [...] Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to 'climb soapboxes', Wikipedia is not the medium for this." (emphasis added).

We live in a time when a member of team red sent bombs to a bunch of people on team blue, and a member of team blue tried to murder everyone from team red at a baseball game, and yet Mervyn Emrys proposes that we "compile the names of individuals and their employers who share responsibility for stimulating global climate change... Each named entry will include a brief paragraph describing the role of the individual in stimulating global climate change. This will include individuals managing major energy production industries, such as coal mining and oil production, and major energy utilization industries, such as low miles-per-gallon automobile manufacturers and electric utilities. Most of the information given will be based on the office held by the individual and the role of the employer in the industry." That is a clear case of soapboxing, and if we actually allowed such a list on Wikipedia would be a massive BLP violation.

(Full disclosure: I strongly agree with the current scientific consensus on climate change). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• The “Proposal for a Project on a New Doomsday Book for Global Climate Change” portion is a misuse of Wikipedia. We are not a webhost. It would be better suited for a private website. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not sure exactly what admin action you guys want. What if I leave a talk page message that explains a few key policies? Will that resolve it? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it I do not think they want anything, the user threatened to take this to ANI (used that as a reason to try and (in effect) shut down an AFD) and then did not launch the ANI. Thus I suspect they do not want any action beyond this being closed as NO action (and a warning to the ed to not try and use ANI to shut down AFD's).Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't post this ANI report, but I personally would most definitely want to see a talk page message that explains a few key policies. Besides the obvious (BLP and soapboxing), Mervyn Emrys has been very aggressively attacking me, usually with totally fabricated accusations (example: I reverted with an edit summary of "WP:SOAPBOXING" and no other comment, yet Mervyn Emrys insists that my edit summary contains the word "VANDAL" in red letters. He also claimed that my revert had accidentally removed an unrelated talk page comment by another user. This also never happened, and indeed could not happen unless the "undo" button is broken.) A warning about personal attacks and about posting accusations without evidence would be most helpful. At this point I would oppose any other sanctions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping to resolve this without sanctions, but Mervyn Emrys keeps escalating the accusations and aggression, finding new places to post them. Clearly he is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be blocked.

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested Administrative Action

I did post this ANI thread. I was, most importantly, requesting that administrators take a look at the MFD, which has been done, and provide any warnings. I was requesting judgment calls as to who needed to be warned, User:Mervyn Emrys, User:Guy Macon, or both. My own opinion was that both editors were at fault, but that it was Mervyn who was completely out of line, and Guy had made a mistake (as most of us sometimes do), but I was deferring judgment. I thought that Guy had made a mistake in deleting a rant from two talk pages that were not his own, in particular from User:Jimbo Wales, whose censorship has been the subject of an ArbCom case. I thought that Mervyn, on the other hand, was, first, engaged in what seemed to be a massive soapbox campaign, along with personal attacks, and with a demonstrably false claim to have filed here, and that Mervyn was trying to squelch the MFD with talk of an ANI thread, when we know that an XFD and an ANI thread about an XFD run in parallel. I see that Mervyn has been given a warning that is consistent with what I thought was in order. That answers that; thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to why you would think that I did something wrong. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion is quite clear: "This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages." If you think that "advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, opinion pieces, advertising, marketing or public relations" should be allowed to remain if it is posted to someone's talk page, you should work on getting that policy reworded so that someone like me is not accused of wrongdoing for making a good-faith effort to follow what the policy says. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon – You ask why I think that you made a mistake (although, as I noted, a small mistake compared to that of User:Mervyn Emrys). I re-read talk page guidelines twice, and suggest that you re-read it once. Under “Editing Others’ Comments”, the guideline states: “Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.” You removed another editor’s comments, and I do not think that you exercised proper caution, and there has been objection. In particular, the guideline refers to Removing prohibited material and Removing harmful posts. The posts that you removed do not fall into any of the classes of prohibited material, so I assume that you thought that you were removing a harmful post. The post was not a personal attack, trolling, or vandalism. The rule then says:

Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. 

So, what you did was a borderline case, and I think that you made a judgment error, at least with regard to User talk:Jimbo Wales (a chronically controversial page, where a previous effort to remove prohibited material resulted in an ArbCom case). Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because another editor is out of control doesn’t always require cleaning up after them. (I would say not to follow someone else’s dog onto someone else’s property to clean up the dog poop, but someone might object to that language.) I don’t think that the talk page guidelines need to be revised. I think that you (Guy Macon) did make a mistake, although Mervyn Emrys has made a far bigger mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I requested the assistance of an editor per WP:Dispute Resolution, but no action has yet been taken in response to that request, other than perhaps some fact-finding. Apparently some folks are in a big hurry to come after me, for reasons of which I am unaware. What all you folks seem to be ignoring is the indisputable FACT that my original post was a personal message to two other editors requesting advice on a DRAFT proposal that was not yet ready for publication. It was NOT an article edit. And now that I have placed it in my personal sandbox so I can refine it, some of you are attempting to prevent me from doing even that by proposing to delete my sandbox.

There IS a difference between an article edit and a personal communication to another editor for purposes of obtaining advice on a DRAFT proposal. Can you tell the difference? A personal communication requesting advice, provided it is not advertising, is NOT "soapboxing," and one may wonder if communication between editors about ideas is now prohibited on Wikipedia? Jimbo Wales does not appear to think it is prohibited, because he explicitly invites messages be posted on his talk page, which is one of the places my DRAFT proposal was already deleted from. I wonder also if Jimbo is aware that personal messages are being deleted from his talk page without his being allowed to read them?

I think you folks all need to take a deep breath and step back a pace before you get yourselves in deeper than you already are, in terms of WP:Civility. You, and especially User:Guy Macon are missing the mark with all your unwarranted assumptions, suppositions, accusations, insults, and associated incivility. But you are building up an excellent case for WP:Harassment. If you view my communications on talk pages of two other editors as personal messages requesting advice, which they were intended to be, I think you must conclude that there really is no "soapboxing" there. There is nothing there but a request for advice. Or if you prefer, we can ask Jimbo what he thinks. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mervyn Emrys: the first issue here is that your draft proposal, as written, seems to be an attempt to "name and shame" evil-doers. This is incompatible with Wikipedia's purpose. If it matters, I think Guy Macon has been more aggressive than I would have been about removing all mention of it. But I think that's why you're facing so much pushback on this. One way to sidestep the whole issue of "this doesn't belong on Wikipedia"/"I'm just trying to discuss this with Jimbo!" is to email Jimbo directly. Then you won't have to deal with Guy Macon at all. Wouldn't that resolve your primary concern? You wouldn't be able to use Wikipedia to host your project, but there are other ways you can incorporate your ideas into valid encyclopedia articles. For example, Climate change denial, List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming, Individual and political action on climate change, etc. You just can't do this whole "name and shame" thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The first issue here is that of another editor editing Jimbo Wales talk page by deleting my personal message to him there, as invited by Jimbo Wales, without discussion or offer of assistance, or even the courtesy of a question. Your proposal is that the lack of civility, insults on my talk page, being held up to ridicule, bullying, stalking me around Wikipedia, threats and intimidation by one over zealous editor all be ignored and I go elsewhere. Before I was driven off Wikipedia about ten years ago by an administrator who contacted me by uninvited email at my place of employment, Wikipedia policy was that uninvited offsite contacts were prohibited and constituted outing and harassment. Apparently that has changed, unbeknownst to me before I simply attempted to contact two other editors on their talk pages to discuss an idea. Mine was a proper use of a talk page, or else what are talk pages for? So your proposal would basically endorse the behavior of this editor and have me throw in the towel, allowing him to act badly with impunity? How will that improve Wikipedia? I think you need to dream up a more appropriate solution, and you are certainly welcome to try. Meanwhile, please take another look at the trash Guy Macom has posted on my talk page and explain to me why this should be tolerated.Mervyn Emrys (talk):20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's review the facts:When User:Guy Macon discovered my message about a New Doomsday Book, did he assume good faith? No. Quite the contrary, he assumed bad intentions, summarily deleted my message, and aggressively posted insulting reasons for doing so.

Did User:Guy Macon ask if contributions to the New Doomsday Book would be required to abide by WP:BLP or WP:NPOV policies? No. I have assumed edits would have to be consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV ever since I started thinking about this about ten years ago.

Did User:Guy Macon ask me any questions concerning the nature of my message or the proposal? No. He deleted my message without asking me any questions about it.

Did User:Guy Macon make any suggestions that might make the proposal more palatable or acceptable under WP policies? No. He deleted the message without any attempt at communication or discussion with me.

When I found that my message had been deleted, did I assume good faith? Yes. My reason for reverting the deletion suggested someone might have deleted my message along with another one by mistake, “deleting more than was intended.”

When severely provoked by User:Guy Macon such that I made an inappropriate remark to him in frustration, did I return a short time later and redact those comments “with apologies?” Yes, I did.

Has User:Guy Macon made any apologies for the insults and ridicule he has repeatedly placed on my talk page, in apparent violation of several Wikipedia policies? No. He has not, but keeps adding insult to injury by sneaking into my sandbox, starting proceedings against me for acronyms I don't understand, and stalking me all over Wikipedia, leaving disparaging remarks every place I post a message.

Isn't this a bit much to expect one to ignore? Guy Macon should be sanctioned with a block, not me. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You have been invited to file an ANI case against me several times. I personally doubt that I will be blocked or even warned for doing exactly what WP:SOAPBOXING says to do, but I could be wrong. Re: "acronyms I don't understand", have you tried clicking on them? The page you end up at when you click on WP:SOAPBOXING is very clearly written. (This of course ignores the fact that you seem to have no trouble accessing our policies when you think they are on your side). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As stated above, I opted to request the assistance of an editor instead of filing an ANI case, as recommended at WP:Dispute Resolution. Why are you so eager to have me file an ANI case against you? Earlier you also baited me to file an Arb Com case? Why are you so eager to employ the most extreme option available instead of trying to work this out as recommended at WP:Dispute Resolution? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's indeed "look at the facts":

• The last time I looked your sandbox was well on its way to being deleted as a violation of a number of policies, with not a single comment in its favor - something you perhaps should take as a hint that your understanding of what's allowed to be posted on Wikipedia user pages isn't what you think;
• You're supposedly the holder of a PhD, and yet you seem not to know that "SOAPBOX" is not an "acronym" of any sort, it's an ordinary, everyday English word which is a shortcut, a quick, easily memorable link for getting to the page it's connected to;
• Despite being a PhD, you were unable to ascertain that to understand what a link is about, one simply has to click on the link and read what's there when you get there.
• Contacting an editor at their place of business was not a cool thing to do, and was an invasion of your privacy, but it never was "outing", because the information that admin had about you wasn't published anywhere on or off Wikipedia;
• You can stop kvetching about Guy Macon now - he's not going to be sanctioned for enforcing (perhaps a little over-zealously) our policies;
• If you don't stop kvetching about Guy Macon, and don't file an ANI complaint against him, you may well be in violation of WP:Casting aspersions.

So, in other words, you are in a hole, which you keep digging deeper. Perhaps you should stop doing that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I object to the snarky comments of the editor immediately above in reference to my having a PhD, which appear to be thinly veiled insults against my intelligence in gross violation of WP:Civility. I request you please retract that statement. My reference to acronyms was to "MfB" which I did attempt to click on as suggested by Guy Macon, and nothing happened. But then, you seem adept at taking things out of context. For example, I am incredulous that you folks continue to try and treat a personal message to another editor as if it was an article edit. It's almost as if you are unable to tell the difference between them. But if your cabal wishes to continue digging a deeper hole for yourselves, by all means go right ahead. Oh, and by the way Guy, that pesky "rollover VANDAL" message in red is back on your little indent diff on my talk page. Is it characterizing your edit as vandalism? I would never do such a thing.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the sixth time that Mervyn Emrys has posted something that is not true. The phrase "MfB" is not found anywhere on this page, anywhere in the WP:MfD, or anywhere on his talk page. Once or twice I could explain away as an error, but six times is clearly trolling. (If I am wrong and posted a typo somewhere that I don't know about, make that five times -- still obvious trolling) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"MfB" is not an "acronym", it's an abbreviation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it was actually "MfD" but I guess I should be condemned as a liar for having poor eyesight, in addition to all the other things I've been condemned for by this editor, who recently attempted to wipe his insulting comments from my talk page, in an obvious cleanup operation. Unfortunately, he neglected to delete all the negative comments he has posted on other user's talk pages as he followed me around Wikipedia, and I don't see any effort to clean up this page.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn, that "Rollback VANDAL" message is a function of Wikipedia. It's not something a user has added, it's a function that allows you to "roll back" a user's edit and then warn them about vandalism on their user talk page. This is nothing Guy has done to you, it always displays when you view a diff between two edits. You'll also note there are two other options displayed: "rollback (AGF)" and "rollback." The former lets you roll back the edit while assuming good faith (and leaving a template to that remark), while the latter is a neutral rollback with a neutral message to their talk page.

These functions collectively give you the option to undo a person's edits between the two diffs, and then leave them a message with one of three options: rolling back their changes and leaving them a template that it was done, while assuming good faith on their part; rolling back the edit and leaving a neutrally worded message; or rolling back their changes with a vandalism warning template.

In short, this was nothing to do with an action by Guy. You misinterpreted what is effectively a button that Wikipedia provides you for undoing another person's edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I never suggested User:Guy Macon added the red "rollback VANDAL" note to his edits, but simply stated it was there, for which he promptly called me a liar, saying it was not there. Go figure.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys response to the above was a classic demonstration of the Law of holes: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Your talk page is being edited. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys, in any case, it appears that your "sandbox" page can be deleted as a copyright violation, as it contains the text that it is "not intended for publication...by others." Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license, which you must agree to license material under if you post it on Wikipedia, requires that "publication by others" be permitted. Could you please clarify what you mean by that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware that placing text in my sandbox was the same as "publication," but have been under the impression for some years that a sandbox is more like a workshop where one places text one is trying to improve, provided,of course, that one is allowed an opportunity to do so. You folks do seem to come up with some interesting interpretations of policies. But perhaps privacy and improvement are values no longer embraced by Wikipedia? We shall see.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The above comment (diff) had edit summary "reply to threat of legal action prohibited by WP policies". That raises serious issues because there is no threat of legal action, and the WP:COPYVIO policy is being severely misinterpreted. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If somebody sends you a message citing legal sources is it a threat of legal action? In the law office I worked in when in middle school that was always interpreted as a threat of legal action. Would it be better to call it "wikilawyering" here?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys, Directly above the "publish changes" button you clicked on your sandbox page was the following notice:

"By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."

Please remove the "not intended for publication by others" language or the page will be subject to deletion as a clear violation of the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 License that you agreed to. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. It was deleted at WP:MfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Request block for Mervyn Emrys

Clearly Mervyn Emrys is not going to stop this behavior unless he is blocked.

Here is the latest:[14] Previous:[15][16][17]

The post to my talk page said: "I filed an ANI complaint against the arbitrary and uncivil behavior of Guy Macon yesterday". No. User:Mervyn Emrys has stated that they filed an ANI complaint. They made that statement both on my talk page and in the MFD discussion that was the original subject. However, they never filed a complaint here (at WP:ANI). I filed this complaint, after looking for their ANI complaint and verifying that none had been filed. Either they don't know the difference between referring to an ANI complaint and actually posting one, or they are making statements that are not true, either because they are confused or because they are trying to confuse us. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

[18][19][20][21][22][23]

Please advise whether it would be better for me to file this as a seperate ANI report. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

There has often been a principle to avoid multiple ANI filings that are closely related or to consolidate them. This report is primarily about the conduct of User:Mervyn Emrys. You, User:Guy Macon, had said above that you thought that a warning would be sufficient. Since the warning has not been sufficient, this thread is still about their conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support a block of between 48 hours and one week for general disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Mervyn Emrys: to avoid a block, I suggest you drop this whole "hall of shame" thing. It's not going to work out for you if you try to do this here. We have multiple policies that explicitly prohibit this. I'm also not sure why you're posting complaints about Guy Macon on random user talk pages. If you have a complaint about his behavior, it should be made here. You could argue that Guy Macon has treated you rudely, but what people are trying to tell you is that he is right. What you are trying to do does not belong on Wikipedia. With regard to email, I have no idea what went on years ago, when you say someone contacted you off-site and harassed you. However, using email to contact Jimbo is perfectly fine. Please see User:Jimbo Wales#Contacting me and Wikipedia:Emailing users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a block at this time. The offending user space page has been deleted and ME has posted a "semi-retired" banner on their talk page, so a block seems unnecessary. This can be revisited if the editor doesn't show signs of having gained some WP:CLUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The user page in question hasn't been edited since 2014, so it would seem that like most "retired"/"semi-retired" statements this is not really a basis for not blocking. (At least it wasn't a deliberate attempt to filibuster this ANI thread like what I've seen from some users in the past.) I'm neutral on what should be done here, but I just figured I should point that out as you seemed to have missed it; not sure if knowing that the "semi-retirement" is not a new thing will change your opinion on the matter, mind you, since I can't fault you on the page having been deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. [please see my revised !vote below]. I'll be honest in saying that, based on the basic misconceptions about Wikipedia's purpose and the necessity of neutrality--and the level of IDHT about same--I have significant doubts about the likelihood that Mervyn will adapt to ultimately become a productive editor who is truly WP:HERE in the way we'd need him to be. He does indeed seem to be here primarily to use the project as a platform for his own polemic projects, rather than to build an encyclopedia. That said, I don't see a pattern of established disruption sufficient to warrant a block at this time; skepticism put to the side, it's entirely possible that now that the MfD was unanimously supported and closed on a WP:SNOW rationale, he receives the message and will try a hand at more conventional editing, and I have not seen a compelling argument to not afford him that chance.

But Mervyn Emrys, you're definitely going to want to do some reading if you see yourself staying here to edit conventional arrticles, and I suggest starting with WP:WWIN, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTHESIS; Wikipedia editing requires that you prioritize objectivity in your approach to content, while the kind of polemics you have tried to pursue here thus far suggest you are embracing an editorial philosophy that is nearly the exact opposite of that. You're going to have to work fast to change the tone of your contributions if you want to volunteer your time here. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I am OK with waiting longer to see if he stops the behavior on his own if that's the consensus, but prefer a block. I have been around long enough that this sort of thing is only a mild annoyance to me. The downside of waiting is that we will be leaving a ticking time bomb that is likely to blast some other editor, and a disruptive user emboldened by getting away with it this time.

In order to make it more likely that he stops, as of now I will stop interacting with him outside of ANI (and Arbcom, if it comes to that, which I doubt). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Warn and wait. If he decides to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man we can then block him per that policy. Kudos to Guy Macon for the comment above: yes, also WP:ROPE. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support block. This editor has serious problems which add up to DE and CIR. Right now he is on a campaign of WP:CANVASSING: [24]. Also, he claims to be an experienced Wikipedian (has nearly 3,000 edits), but look at this bizarre post to WP:Articles for deletion/Acid Rain Retirement Fund: [25]. He has received dozens of notices, pieces of advice, and warnings on his talkpage, but doesn't seem to have learned from them: [26]. He needs to assure us that he will carefully learn and abide by Wikipedia norms and cease creating disruption. If not, I'm afraid the CIR issues are too great. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I just went through a couple of years of edit history. For at least ten years Mervyn Emrys has been getting into fights with other editors, accusing them of stalking, showing a detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines when someone else violates them, then expressing a complete ignorance of the same policies when he violates them -- claiming that they are too complex to understand. If anyone needs diffs proving this, I can compile them. "I will say this: your current approach is not working. You may think the reason it's not working is because Guy is keeping an eye on you, but it's the reverse case: He's keeping an eye on you because your approach isn't working. Take heed."[27] (I have stopped interacting with him except on ANI). --Guy Macon (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing those diffs, Guy; I've been interacting, in the tiny little bit of time I have to edit this week, with them, trying to inch them towards more productive approaches. If he is feigning incomplete knowledge of our processes, I'd like to know that before I invest any more time in explanatory comments. But honestly, though I may need to eat these words after seeing diffs, I'm not sure your read is correct on that: what other explanation than lack of familiarity with our processes would explain why he would go to Xavexgoem expecting assistance against you?

On the other hand, even if it isn't a convoluted fake-out, much of the problematic conduct may point to a WP:CIR problem significant enough to justify a block or topic ban. The ill-advised canvassing (which the experienced editors it was directed at either ignored and responded with warnings to) seems to have abated now, and hopefully Mervyn will accept what others have been trying to tell him about this being the appropriate space to discuss the conduct issues arising out of this situation. I've advised him further that he should consider learning the ropes here by first editing in areas that do not intersect with his apparent professional expertise / personal passions--that it would be better for the purposes of learning to prioritize our content policies (which often ask us to set-aside, or accept incongruities in our content with, our personal understanding of the "truth") if he was not working areas that mean so much to him. This would have the added benefit of demonstrating for those concerned about his objectives, that he is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, and not to leverage an encyclopedia's platform for a passion project.

We'll see if he finds any value in my advice and follows it; right now, his only content-facing edits are concerned with another environmental policy topic, defending one of his earlier articles from an AfD. Which, fair enough--nobody likes to see their work undone, and this article has been live for ten years (though apparently with copyvio issues for much of that time), so I wouldn't expect him to give it up without making an effort to preserve it. But after that, I would hope to see a chance in priorities. For one, the fact that he continues to litigate the issues surrounding the "Doomsday Book" could just mean that he has his druthers up about feeling "harassed", or it could mean that he is continuing to push the issue because he wants to be free and clear to continue trying to sell the idea across talk space. The question of whether or not the latter would be permissible is actually still an open one--we know how Guy feels about it, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. I know for a fact that this is a WP:SNOW issue and that such a project is never going to happen--or, if it did happen, it would be at some future date where Wikipedia had become something unrecognizable from what it is today. But I'm not sure Guy did the right thing in deleting those talk page posts; I would have rather had the editors they were directed towards join us in what we have all been telling Mervyn. Discussion is the heart of this project, and much content that is impermissible in itself under WP:SOAPBOX (or any other provision of WP:NOT) is still something that may need to be discussed, in the abstract, in talk spaces, if only for the purposes of convincing someone to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

None of which is meant to criticize Guy's good-faith conduct on the whole, or to give wind to the sails of Mervyn to re-launch their campaign on this issue. Quite the contrary, I agree with Softlavender that Mervyn is going to need to assure us that he is prepared to drop that matter. I would like to propose to Mervyn that the uniform opposition he is facing to his proposal indicates that he is failing to understand something fundamental about this project and its goals, and that, at a minimum, he needs to spend a lot more time working on this project, in a WP:HERE capacity, before he is in a position to properly analyze his proposal's appropriateness for this project--even when it comes to so much as putting it up for consideration from other editors. If he can assure us that he will take such an approach in educating himself to our norms in order to gain perspective on this, I maintain my position that we should give him WP:ROPE--if he can't, I may have to revisit my !vote. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I am listening very carefully to the places where editors I respect are telling me that I could have done things differently. Normally I would immediately respond with an indication that I get it and will adjust my future behavior, but right now that feels like feeding ammunition to a sniper who is firing on me. I will most likely talk more on this some time later, but I am paying attention to the advice I have been given.

In what may be another ill-advised attempt to stop the ongoing personal attacks, I noticed that Mervyn Emrys's latest flame said "He [Guy] also said some things he should not have said, which were decidedly uncivil, but did not redact them. Some remain on my talk page". So I redacted them from his talk page.[28] He restored them without leaving an edit comment.[29] Should I take another shot at it, this time marking my comments with <s>...</s>, or should I just drop the stick? That horse really isn't looking too good and I am thinking that beating it some more might not convince it to not be dead...

I have started compiling a list of diffs showing the pattern of behavior that I think I see. This might take a while; I have other real-life commitments. Of course the problem is that I cannot trust my own judgement on this, so I am thinking of temporarily posting them to my userspace, inviting others to look them over, and removing anything that any veteran editor concludes is not as solid as I think it is. Good idea? Bad idea? Should I go straight to ANI with it instead, with a disclaimer that I am no doubt biased? Please advise. (To all: Please don't keep this open waiting for those diffs; if this would have been closed otherwise, pretend that I didn't mention it). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think your initial instinct is the correct one; at this stage, best to avoid engaging in any form in any space. It's not required of you, as I don't see anyone here who has suggested you need to back off, but since that was your first impulse anyway, I will say that I think it is a healthy/helpful one. So as to your question there, I'd allow Mervyn to retain whatever version of the talk page he prefers, though I will also note for Mervyn that if he believes the comments were inappropriate, allowing you to strike them would probably be helpful, as a first step to resolving your differences of opinion, without anybody needing to explicitly own up to blame. Regarding the diffs, policy does allow you to host them for short-term aggregation in a sandbox, but I have to think it's just as easy to keep track of them without publishing them here, and often this is the least inflammatory approach, especially if you are not sure if you are going to have time to post them in an organized fashion to this discussion before it closes. Just my take. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, your report might have had credibility had you not violated WP:TPO by removing 13 of your own comments from Mervyn Emrys's talkpage [30]. In addition, banning him from your own talkpage while repeatedly haranguing him on his own talkpage is not collegial behavior. You are not a neutral or disinterested party when it comes to Mervyn Emrys, and my advice would be to drop the stick and let uninvolved editors analyze the situation, with actual diffs/evidence. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Alas, Mervyn Emrys has now decided that editing my comments on his talk page (which he would not let me delete) is appropriate behavior, despite WP:TPOC and WP:INTERSPERSE. I reverted his edits to my comments. refrained from responding other than removing the changes he made to my comments. While I was there, I struck my comments that he has been complaining that I "refuse to redact". If he edits my comments again, I request an immediate block for violating a bright line rule after being warded not to. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Mervyn Emrys has not edited any of your comments on your talk page, much less violated a bright line or done anything blockable. If you believe he has, please provide the diff and the policy. I have gone through every single edit he made to his talkpage since you started editing there, and he has not changed the text of any of your posts. At this point I think you need to back away before you receive a two-way IBan with the editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly fast, including a massive cleanup of my talk page by User:Guy Macon, removing some (but not all) of the nasty things he said about me there, and the following edit I made in response to a list of diffs he provided:

   (For those following along at home, see[8][9][10][11][12][13].)

This is an impressive list of diffs, but mostly just different versions of the same two personal communications you deleted from talk pages of Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger. The edit at #9 is not my edit, so I don't know why you included it. Padding?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC) And please note that pesky red rollover VANDAL tag I mentioned so long ago, to which you responded that I was a liar, is on the last diff in the list above, #13. So maybe I was not lying after all, hmmmmnnn? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

However, I still haven't seen any apologies from Guy, just his scrubbing of my talk page. Guy, please stay off my talk page in future, unless you wish to apologize. Your self-serving edits are not welcome there. Let's keep the record unchanged.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I will be glad to stay off your talk page as long as you don't edit my words. "Editing my words" includes inserting your own comments, signed or unsigned, in the middle of my comments, changing the wording or punctuation, removing striking that I added, or any other change. See WP:TPOC and WP:INTERSPERSE. (You are free to delete other people's comments from your own talk page, but you are not allowed to edit them.) Editing other user's comments on any page is a blockable offense, no matter what your other behavior has been. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The rather innocuous post in question consist of:

(For those following along at home, see[31][32][33][34][35][36].)

Pretty tame for the huge number of complaints Mervyn Emrys has posted about it. I'm just saying.

I had previously corrected the typo Mervyn Emrys talks about above ("The edit at #9 is not my edit") Not my fault that he edited my comment to re-insert the typo.

Does anyone else see the word "VANDAL" in the diff Mervyn Emrys calls "#13"? I know that I never wrote that word, because I have never seen Mervyn Emrys vandalize any page, and I don't see that word when I look at or word search the diff. Either there is a bug in Wikipedia's software (maybe on mobile?), Mervyn Emrys is lying, or we have a severe WP:CIR problem here. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what Mervyn Emrys means by a "pesky red rollover VANDAL tag" or "to which you responded that I was a liar". A red "rollback VANDAL" is a revert option on tools such as Twinkle, but Mervyn Emrys has never used Twinkle or any other (semi)automated tool that I can see. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys, you posted about the red rollback VANDAL link more than four days ago on this thread [37], and it was thoroughly explained to you at that time. Why are you bringing it up here yet again? Do you want to actually get yourself indef blocked? That is what happens to editors who repeat BATTLEGROUND behavior time and time again. If you respond to this question by blaming Guy Macon, that will be further proof that you are here to battle and not to build an encyclopedia. The best thing to do at this point would be to withdraw from this entire ANI discussion completely, because at this time there does not seem to be a consensus to block you, but that could easily change if you continue battling. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we have a larger problem here. The same link Softlavender posted above also said "My reference to acronyms was to "MfB" which I did attempt to click on as suggested by Guy Macon, and nothing happened". I looked at all of the pages where it might have been and did a text search for "MfB", thinking that I might have made a typo that needed to be corrected. Nothing. I even checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/MfB to see if anyone on Wikipedia has ever wikilinked to MfB. Nope. _{[edit: well now there is, because I just posted a wikilink to MfB...]}(WP:MfB exists, but would not have caused the described "I attempted to click on it and nothing happened" behavior.)

This is a cause for concern. Mervyn Emrys regularly posts accusations that have no basis in reality. Is he lying, hoping that nobody will check and that everyone will just assume that the other editor did what Mervyn Emrys claims he did? Does he actually believe that the "VANDAL" and "MfB" exist because he is hallucinating them? Is he just trolling us? If so, can we trust someone who sees things that are not there to edit Wikipedia?

I am imagining him unloading on a new editor the way he unloaded on me, a veteran editor who has been around long enough to be rather bored by internet flamers and trolls. There is a concept from the age of sail called the "loose cannon". in a battle, and incoming cannon ball can knock a cannon loose. You then have a couple of thousand pounds of steel rolling back and forth crushing people -- and it is still lit and eventually fires in some random direction. I suspect that Mervyn Emrys is a loose cannon.

Of course the possibility exists that I simply missed something when I searched and am about to be embarrassed by someone posting diffs showing the "VANDAL" and "MfB". Or that there some bug or other technical explanation for why he is seeing things that apparently nobody else can see. If so, I will apologize, but I did my good-faith best to find them and failed.

Finally, I cannot resist responding to the claim "But if your cabal wishes to continue digging a deeper hole for yourselves, by all means go right ahead" claim in the same diff. There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, Guy, I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but I think it's time to face up to the fact that any inertia that would have lead to some result other than Mervyen being warned has been lost. Only two editors support the block, with two opposes (though my remains a very weak oppose and a little bit weaker every time Mervyn posts). The thread has now grown to that length where respondents become hesitant to enter the discussion, and that hesitance is likely to be even further pronounced by the fact that the formatting here is not exactly neat (that's largely due to Mervyn as well, and is actually some decent evidence that he does indeed struggle with the technical side of things) and because the posts have tended to run a little long in this instance. Unless an admin decides to review and block Mervyn's behaviour on their own initiative (unlikely at this point), I don't see how continued discussion of the same past behaviour is productive, and I'd just as soon not have you wasting your time.

And I get it--the old behaviour stays relevant because he repeats those references. But even if I switched my !vote, that would still just make three of us urging a block and that's just not enough for a community sanction. After numerous of us trying to deliver the same messages, Softlavender seems to have managed to reach Mervyn with the point that he will be shooting himself in the foot if he comments further here, and he's pledged to drop the project which was the underlying source to this conflagration. While I'm grateful that you noticed and arrested that multi-core-policy-violating attempt a polemics, I don't think there's much more to be done here and the present time, and any further discussion that might have a chance of bringing further scrutiny of Mervyn will also magnify any criticism of your own conduct beyond the level of criticism that it deserves. I think it's time to let this one go and see what Mervyn does with his WP:ROPE. If he does indeed engage in behaviour with others that continues to suggest he may be trying to game the system, it will be obvious enough and we can start fresh with a new complaint, and he will have exhausted any AGF for his second go around--and the same will be true if he just has competency issues that can't be brought under control. In any event, I think the productive utility of this thread is toast at this point, and the best thing to do will be to someone close it with a warning or just let it be archived. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Good advice. Unwatching all pages associated with this now (including ANI, which i only watch when something involves me). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm supposed to edit in chronological order, although that makes my reply to Softlavender way out of place relative to that editor's question above. First let me say that I NEVER accused another editor of posting the word VANDAL in red on any diff--I merely noted that there had been one, which he denied, and then proceeded to call me a liar--several times--on my talk page. Am I to understand now that I am not to be allowed to refute his insults with actual proof that such a label did appear on one of the diffs for deletions he made? That is, are you interested in hearing only one side of the story, or are you neutral? The evidence is in a diff provided by the editor who called me a liar, originally marked #13 in a row of repetitive diffs he provided, and then provided again by the same editor renumbered as diff #37 ( think) above. The original diff #13 also appears on my talk page, a few lines below the stop sign with the hand in it, and just before that editor started repeatedly calling me a liar on my talk page. Applying WP:AGF I assume this was a mistake, but one which led to repeated insults on my talk page which, I believe, are violations of WP:Civility. So, am I now to be punished for defending myself by bringing this information to light? Moreover, after being warned not to do so, the same editor has now returned to my talk page, leaving yet another inflammatory edit accusing me of disruptive editing. I have never edited his words, preferring instead to allow them, in meaning and in tone, to speak for themselves. If I have edited at what some consider inappropriate locations, I apologize for the error, which was stimulated by a desire to reply as near to the edits I was replying to as possible, recognizing that some edits here are quite long. My bad, I guess, but not a product of bad motives, I hope one may agree. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You are not being "punished", Mervyn Emrys, but you are likely going to be blocked for disruptiveness, refusal to listen, and abject cluelessness. I told you that the red VANDAL link had, five days ago, been thoroughly explained to you, yet here you are a third or fourth time on this page yammering about it in a manner which makes it very clear you neither heard nor comprehended anything that was explained to you. At this point, the Wikipedia community generally cuts its losses by indef blocking someone for lack of competence, because if something simple has been clearly explained to someone a number of times and they still do not understand it, and they still bring the issue up disruptively again and again, that is too much of a drain on the community of editors who are trying to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I listened to, understood and accepted your explanation of the technical aspects of how the red rollover VANDAL tag gets put on some reverts. But do you understand that I just gave the other editor WP:AGF by suggesting that he may have inadvertently posted insults and other uncivil comments on my talk page as a result of his making a little (possibly forgivable) mistake in looking for such a tag on the wrong diff? This was not a criticism of him, but merely an attempt to stimulate a little understanding of how we got here. To repeat: apparently I mentioned the red tag in passing, he went looking for it in the wrong place, did not find it there, and started calling me a liar on my talk page. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. FACT: I did not lie. The red tag is still there, but on a different diff than the one he looked at. And that little misunderstanding led to all this drama. Your explanation was incomplete because you did not discover this little fact.

You need not insult me with accusations of presumptuousness. You seem to have forgotten the only other time I mentioned this was in the context of comments by Jimbo Wales to the effect that one reason civility is important is because incivility causes editors to leave Wikipedia, and that harms Wikipedia. His idea, not mine. So why is it good when he says it, and bad when I say it? I know nobody here cares if I stay--you have all made that abundantly clear in the one-sided comments posted here and elsewhere, including some thinly veiled--and not so thinly veiled--but uncivil suggestions that I leave. Yet you threaten me with an indefinite block?

I repeat: In the spirit of WP:AGF, I was giving Guy Macon the benefit of the doubt as a gesture of conciliation, and you stuck your foot in it.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a tag, and it's not part of the diff or "on" the diff. It's a revert option on various semi-automated wiki tools or permissions such as Rollback or Twinkle, and (among other clickable revert options) can be clicked to revert a diff. Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, whatever you wish to call it is fine with me. I meant it in a generic, popular sense, not in any WP jargon sense. Let's not get into semantics about it, we are already so far into the weeds that most everybody appears determined to kill the messenger rather than take a step back in favor understanding how we got here. Nobody posting here seems to think the lack of civility that is so obvious all over my talk page has any relevance to the explanations I have attempted to provide here.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The point that SL is trying to make to you is not a matter of mere nomenclature; you are still fundamentally misunderstanding that which you saw. The word "VANDAL" appeared automatically next to your edit as a function of the system that lists revision histories--no person, neither Guy nor anybody else, acted to place it next to your edit. And as such, neither did Guy look in the wrong place for it; he would not have looked for it in any diff whatsoever. So your attempt to excuse "his" mistake as a gesture of good-faith amounts to gibberish; you've been repeatedly framing yourself as someone who made a conciliatory gesture to someone else over their mistake, when in fact they never made any such mistake. Clearly we can make allowances for a good-faith mistake on your part, but when we have to explain these matters over and over to you--and at each step of the way, you become more and more inclined to accuse other experienced editors of exercising a lack of due diligence in investigating and analyzing the situation, and implying bad faith and leaps to judgement--this becomes as a basic competency issue, which you have displayed not just with regard to these technical details, but also in your approach to content policies. Did Guy come on a little strong here? Maybe so, it's hard to say at this point. What is clear is that it seems likely that A) his ultimate frustration is defensible in light of your inability to parse the basic facts and community standards he had to explain to you repeatedly, and B) it was likely you would have responded poorly to scrutiny even if he had approached you with an ultra-civil approach, given how you have responded to editors in this thread, owing to your own confusion about what is going on.

Beyond all of this, there's just a pronounced problem with your inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK; you've been told several times here that all you probably needed to do to avoid a block or other sanction was to just let matters go and be more careful moving forward, but you repeatedly have shown you are incapable of doing that, and that you must prevail at all costs in this discussion and be vindicated as the victim here. Which just isn't going to happen, because you are the one at fault for creating this hullabaloo and for the numerous miscommunications that have occurred during it. I was the community member most inclined to extend you some WP:ROPE on this, despite misgivings about your ability to understand the changes in your conduct that needed to take place. But after your latest attempts at burden-shifting and implicating someone else for your difficulties, I can't continue to do that. We have to do a cost-benefit analysis in a case such as this, and the monstrous amount of community effort that has been consumed here trying to address what should have been simple matters to clear up (if you were WP:HERE for appropriate purposes and open to guidance from your fellow editors) makes it almost impossible to accept that you are likely to become a net-positive to our efforts in building the encyclopedia. I'm sorry, I hope you can believe that this all said not out of a desire to tear you down, but to be blunt about the facts. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No chance. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request block for Guy Macon This is a request for a block against User:Guy Macon for numerous violations of WP:Civility on my talk page and elsewhere. Please allow me to make one thing absolutely clear: The draft proposal for a New Doomsday Book on Global Climate Change is dead and will NOT reappear in Wikipedia by my hand. MY comments on this matter, which have been so blithely ignored by all and sundry, have from the beginning focused on CONDUCT issues, not content issues. Please recall the following indisputable facts, for which there are ample diffs: When User:Guy Macon discovered my message about a New Doomsday Book, did he assume good faith? No. Quite the contrary, he assumed bad intentions, summarily deleted my message, and aggressively posted insulting reasons for doing so. Did User:Guy Macon ask if contributions to the New Doomsday Book would be required to abide by WP:BLP or WP:NPOV policies? No. I have assumed edits would have to be consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV ever since I started thinking about this. Did User:Guy Macon ask me any questions concerning the nature of my message or the proposal? No. He deleted my message without asking me any questions about it. Did User:Guy Macon make any suggestions that might make the proposal more palatable or acceptable under WP policies? No. He deleted the message without any attempt at communication or discussion with me. When I found that my message had been deleted, did I assume good faith? Yes. My reason for reverting the deletion suggested someone might have deleted my message along with another one by mistake, “deleting more than was intended.” When severely provoked by User:Guy Macon such that I made an inappropriate remark to him in frustration, did I return a short time later and redact those comments “with apologies?” Yes, I did. Has User:Guy Macon made any apologies for the insults and ridicule he has repeatedly heaped on my talk page, in apparent violation of several Wikipedia policies, esp. WP:Civility? No. But recently he attempted to scrub the record by removing some of those items from my talk page, with no apologies whatever. Yet he has not removed similar comments from the talk pages of several other editors that he made while following me around all over Wikipedia, leaving disparaging remarks every place I posted a message. Following me around is fine, but leaving those messages appeared calculated to make my editing here unpleasant, and undermine my relationships with other editors.66.129.50.64 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) [Procedural note: I first responded to this comment when it was under the subthread above; I may have phrased my advice a little differently had I known it would be moved under a subheader suggesting Guy Macon be blocked, since I agree with the hatting editor that this is a non-starter).] I'm glad to hear you say explicitly that you won't pursue that concept--I think that will assuage concerns here considerably. As to your concerns with Guy's conduct, I will say this: AGF is a two-way street. The two thirds of your post note your frustration and not being given the benefit of the doubt or the ability to represent that you have perspective, and then you end by making several very particular accusations which presume a calculating, bad-faith motivation on Guy's part. To an extent, I feel you two are talking past eachother. You also have fundamental differences of opinion on some things, but I think this is more a case of miscommunication between the two of you than anything. But there are differences between your positions: on the editorial/content matters, Guy's perspectives are much closer to the community consensus. And he's also an experienced and respected editor; that doesn't count for everything, of course--he could still be wrong--but as a matter of realism, I have to tell you that I don't see him facing condemnation from his fellow editors here. I'm a bit of a stickler for civility, but even I can't feel motivated to give him more than a few half-concerned words over the matter here. Because you really were way out on the dark without a torch on the underlying proposal. So, fair or not, your conduct is likely to come under deeper scrutiny because you were promoting a fringe editorial notion (even if it was innocently and in good faith), and that makes you seem a little under-developed as an editor--which will in turn make editors reviewing this matter inclined to see his response as at least partly defensible from frustration, if they are even inclined to find fault at all. So my advice is thus: you seem willing to concede that you may have made mistakes, so long as you are approached respectfully. Your explanation and conduct thus far give me enough reason to hope you can understand the need to separate objective editing from activist editing, and that you'd like to continue your renewed involvement on the project for purposes of the former. There have been some lingering concerns from other editors here, but not enough that I think this discussion is likely to closed with a sanction or community action beyond some words of warning, if it ends soon. So I would advise just trying to move on. Guy has committed to not commenting further outside this ANI with regard to your conduct, and I would strongly urge you to do the same. If that happens, I suspect this will blow over. It would help even further if you two can come to a meeting of the minds, but I suspect it will suffice if nobody comments further in such a way as to up the ante. That said, I really continue to urge you to expand your editorial horizons for the short-term, so as to limit the liklihood that your next wave of edits will set off further concerns (Guy will not be the only editor you will meet here who will apply the precautionary principle to content that looks polemic). Snow let's rap 00:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry, my last edit was interrupted by the "dreaded blue screen." The conduct issues I refer to include violations of the following: "Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project."Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions."Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC) WP:Civility: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates...Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." This includes deleting personal messages from talk pages of Jimbo Wales in a high-handed manner, without question or discussion, possibly in violation of a previous ArbCom decisions referenced by other editors. And now we learn this user is researching my previous edit history so he can present HIS version of several years of constructive edits, which of course will be selective to serve his misbegotten agenda. Well fine, if he has a vendetta or lacks self control, let's elevate this to arbitration and see if his behavior is acceptable there. As I said to Snow, I don't need to edit in Wikipedia, and if editing here fails to receive an even-handed, civil response, I can find other things to do, and Jimbo might think that is Wikipedia's loss, not mine. I've had enough of this crap.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Wow. That reduced my enjoyment of Wikipedia by 3.1%![38] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Well, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so you'll have to run your own cost-benefit analysis on whether or not to stay. But honestly, you've said that more than once now, and it begins to give the impression that you presume that your value as an editor and net-positive to our efforts on the project is a given. And while I personally, as a collaborative principle, always try to assume any new editor brings a benefit to the project (I just think its the logical extension of AGF; call it "assume good benefit") I have to say there is also something a little presumptuous in the way you keep saying that, as if our default should be consternation at the thought of your departure. I don't think Guy would be likely to lose sleep over your deciding not to edit, and others here have expressed more concern than support over your contributions so far. While I personally think it is a shame any time an editor feels they have to leave the project because it was not as civil an environment as they expected, the story here is not as simple as you being "met with harassment at the door" as you have framed it. So while I don't want to discourage you from staying, I will say that I think you will be waiting a while of you are wanting someone to say it would be a travesty if you left. I have faith that you can be a more productive than disruptive editor, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that is who are you are as of this point in your time with us. You still clearly have a lot to learn, including in regard to some very basic editorial principles. I do want you to stay, but I gotta tell you, I'm not sure doubling down on the contest of wills with Guy is the best way to assure that happens. I'm not saying his conduct has been utterly unimpeachable, but at this point, I genuinely think you gain more than you give by trying to let this go. Snow let's rap 01:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support an indef block, given Mervyn's repeated IDHT and CIR issues throughout this thread. Enough is enough. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• End this. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support block. Alright, at this point I can't keep advocating for WP:ROPE and I'm rescinding my previous "weak oppose" !vote; it was already an extremely questionable proposition that this editor was going to convert to WP:HERE motivations and consistency with our editorial and behavioural norms, if given the opportunity, and in face of the continuing flagrant WP:IDHT, inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and pronounced issues with basic competency (regarding both simple editing mechanics and appropriate approaches to discussion), I'm afraid the cost-benefit analysis has become pretty stark. In short, I don't see much chance that this editor is presently capable of contributing non-disruptively--nor indeed capable of even interacting with their fellow editors without misinterpreting the nature of their concerns and ascribing malicious intent where good-faith advice is offered on how they would need to adapt their approach. At this point, we've exhausted all allowance and effort that the community can be reasonably expected to make in circumstances such as this. If Mervyn would like to spend some time over the next six months to a year studying our policies and how this project works, he can always apply to resume editing through the WP:Standard offer. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The user Arboleh

This user @Arboleh: is harassing, attacking, threatening me and other users in his edit summaries as well as accusing me and other users of vandalism and racism when we are clearly not, please have a look on his edits summaries here [39], [40] [41] [42] [43]. He is just making fake propaganda in order to divert attention from his edits and confuse people.

Moreover, I and other users have reported this user Arboleh before for sock puppetry and now he is trying to attack me and do the same thing as the suspected sock Itaren which is another unmistakable behavioral evidence that he is sock of Midddayexpress, This Arboleh also had disruptively edited some Wikipedia pages, attacked me, editwarred me, reported me asking for administrator intervention and the he asked for help the same user whom the user Itaren asked for help shortly after Itaren asked him!!! which is an additional unmistakable evidence that both accounts are for the same person who is indeed Middayexpress. The Somali user Middayexpress ( has the Canadian Nationality ) is a very persistent sock puppeteer who has been using many fake accounts in order to promote his racist Afrocentric agenda and vandalize Wikipedia, this user is trying to whitewash Horn Africans and link them to Middle Easterners and North Africans while distancing Horn Africans from their other fellow East Africans brothers which is very racist. At the same time, He is trying to black-wash Middle Easterners and North Africans and linking them to horn Africans:), this guy got really no life, he has been using hundreds of sock puppet accounts in order to vandalize Wikipedia and promote his Afrocentric agenda, for example, he is trying to deattach modern Egyptians from their ancient Egyptians origins and link the Egyptian civilization to Sub Saharan Africans who have nothing at all to do with Egypt or Egyptians which is extremely racist and ridiculous!!!. I have already filed a sock puppeting report against him but It was reverted because some other user before filed a sock puppeting report against the same user and the result was inconclusive because he is using proxy. You can check his IP history and you will find that he uses only proxies and that he never logged in through a legit IP address which means that he is trying to hide something, also this account was created shortly after the block of confirmed sock puppets Middayexpress, Soupforone, Geneticanthro, ....etc and he has been making the same edits on the same pages with almost identical edit summaries. You can also check the behaviors of these accounts and Middayexpress/Soupforone, you will find that the behavioral evidence is very clear and unmistakable. Thank youRyanoo (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)  Investigating.... That first edit summary isn't really at anyone in particular, and I wouldn't classify it as a personal attack. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A few things for you, @Ryanoo:

1. It looks like you're staring at a boomerang here. You have failed to engage on a talk page with Arboleh, and may break 3RR in the near future.
2. You have failed to notify Arboleh about this discussion. This is evident as a notice both on this page and in the edit window. You can copy and paste this onto Arboleh's page: {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=The user Arboleh}}
3. Some of the edit summaries were on pages you've never even edited before. That could be possible WikiHounding.
4. I do agree however, that Arboleh could assume better faith.

This judgement can't replace admin action. You may want to wait for admin input here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 I didn't fail to engage on the talk page, in fact he is the one who obviously did, I have asked in my edit summary to engage in the talk page and I mentioned him on the talk page [44] in order to discuss the edits. However, he didn't engage in the talk page and reported me for vandalism and continued to attack me personally on other users pages reply!!! Ryanoo (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That in no way excuses your failure to engage Arboleh on their talk page. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 Regarding the first edit summary I will consider it as both personal and general attacking, he said he is cleaning biased and racist claims while they are clearly not and by this, he means that the users who did those edits are biased and racist while they are clearly not as their edits are clearly of good faith. Regarding the rest of the edit summaries, he clearly harassed, attacked, threatened me and other users as well as well as accused me and other users of vandalism and racism when we are clearly not.Ryanoo (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. WP:NPA does not cover attacks on content, only contributors. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 I didn't know that I have to notify him and I didn't know also how that can be done. It is done now!Ryanoo (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have already reported this user Ryanoo for Vandalisme to Admin @Doug Weller and Roxy and to the proper Vandalism channel. This user is also extremely racist and harbors white nationalist or white supremacist views. I will wait for the vandalism report, until then I have no need to engage this person, all his intentions and views can be seen in the North Africa page where he spews his racist rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arboleh (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

*Support topic ban of Ryanoo from Africa topics This editor has a short but storied history about arguing pointless about Africa and even the "definition of Africa", and reporting anyone who disagrees as a vandal. This includes even hilariously suggesting that an editor tried to hack their account [45]. I am uninterested in watching this continue, and suggest a topic ban from Africa related topics as a last straw before blocking indef. --Tarage (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Striking my vote for my vote below. Both editors need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage I don't what you are talking about?!!!, my edits are focused on my country Egypt and region ( Middle East and North Africa ) and defending our history from the Afrocentrists who are trying to steal and appropriate it. I have nothing to with Sub-Saharan Africans, apart defending my Egyptian heritage from being stolen and appropriated by the Afrocentic ones of them. Yes, I accused some user of hacking my account in my first days on Wikipedia because I was new to the community and didn't know much information at that time. However, this user whom I accused of hacking my account ( he didn't try to ) got blocked many times because of his bad attitude on Wikipedia, I have been also battling the Afrocentric sock puppeteers and will definitely continue doing this. Those Afro-centrists are 24/7 insulting us Egyptians everywhere and are doing their best to to dattach us from our ancient Egyptian origins and appropriate our heritage and culture and all our mistake is that we are Egyptians!!! which is very racist and offensive, Enough is Enough!!!!! I didn't think that I will encounter such racist people on a main source of knowledge like Wikipedia.Ryanoo (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You started editing in January. This happened in May. You are not new. I've looked through your edit log. Anything of substance has been battleground edits on North Africa. You need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage Yes, I started editing on January, However, I didn't start editing frequently and being little bit familiar until this June. Please read again what I wrote, I didn't say I am new, I said I was new, I was new to editing on Wikipedia until July this year, even now I am still not familiar with rules. Moreover, even the reason for suspecting this user for hacking my account at that time makes so much sense for a new user. At that time, I got two notifications from Wikipedia that there is someone trying to login to my account and I think you have seen that clearly in the report which you mentioned!. Stop What?!, Stop defending my history? leave my history and culture for the racist Afrocentric Black supremacists, If this what you mean, then my answer is "NO". Again in case you didn't read it, I am a patriotic Egyptian archaeogeneticist and academic lecturer and I have along track of strong fighting vandals here on Wikipedia and getting them blocked and admins can check my edit history, I will never ever stop fighting the nonsense of the racist Afrocentrists either here or anywhere else. By the way, what you said is totally irrelevant to the topic of the report.Ryanoo (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't have a "track of strong fighting vandals", you have a lot of false reports. It is not at all irrelevant. By posting here, you have opened yourself up to as much scrutiny as the person you reported. I'm not going to continue arguing with you. The fact that you keep calling editors racist proves you do not belong here. You have a conflict of interest and are pushing a very specific POV. You need to either stop editing this topic, or be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also stop editing comments after people have replied to them. I'm going to start reverting you. --Tarage (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage Don't threaten me please, I am not a teenager, I am a respected 35 years old archaeogeneticist and academic lecturer. What are you talking about?!! False reports? Anyway the admins as well as other users are free to check my history. I am replying to you and I have the right to do so, we are all users here and I have the right to reply. Sorry, you are wrong here :), I am actually here for fighting the ones who have clear racist and destructive POV ( a.k.a Afrocentrists ), I am here to construct and I hate scientific dishonest people and I say it in their face and scientific honesty and self respect are my first priority. So, you aren't ok when I call racist people racist, but you are OK, when they call me racist, just for defending my history! By the way, I don't mind leaving Wikipedia at all :), if they don't want good scientific specialist users, I think registration on Wikipedia should be by using Identification card to avoid vandalism and sock puppeting which will save the community here a great deal of time wasted in fighting sock puppeting and vandalism and will also give more credibility. Ryanoo (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ryanoo: On the internet, nobody can prove you're a respected archaeologist. Besides, we wouldn't be able to accept what you say due to Wikipedia's policy against original research, unless you get it published and it is accepted formally. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: I can prove it easily and in fact I am very willing to do so, I can provide you with my passport and identification card or If you have an office or branch in my country or even in another country in the same region (MENA), I have no problem at all to happily visit it so they can make sure of my identity and in fact I very much support that registration on Wikipedia should be by using identification card or passport or whatever way which can prove the identity of the user which will save the community a great deal of time and will give more credibility. What do you mean by accepting what I say, If you mean my edits, well, I always cite published and accepted sources. Thank youRyanoo (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

If you can prove it, congratulations, but that is not a get out of jail free card. You still need to follow Wikipedia policy, if you're willing to listen to what Tarage and I say. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: I already follow Wikipedia policy, could you tell me when I didn't?? Listen to what?? could you clarify it? what do you want me to do exactly?? the user Tarage accused me of somethings I never did, the only thing right he said is that I reported someone for hacking my account, and I said that at that time I was still new and wasn't familiar with Wikipedia rules and I did it because I got two notifications from Wikipedia regarding someone user trying to login to my account. I didn't try to define Africa or any of this nonsense. The problem was that another user was trying to add some Sub-Saharan African West African and East African countries to North Africa!!!, he was disruptively editing the page and was refusing to engage in the talk page, and after I refuted this user claims providing tons of sources on the talk page of North Africa he refused to continue the discussion on the talk page, he insulted, attacked me personally and threatened me as expected and at the end he refused to continue the discussion on the talk page and came to attack me personally and threaten me on my page. It was this user who was trying to redefine a very clear geographic location!! North Africa simply means the Mediterranean countries located in the northernmost North Africa, it is actually a straw-man argument!! it is like trying to include Norway in South Europe. Almost all the world organizations such as the World Bank, US Census, African Union itself, FAO, Population Reference Bureau, WTO and I can list tons of other world organizations if you want consider North Africa to be only the Mediterranean countries located in the extreme northernmost of the continent and I have never came across any organization which consider Sahel as part of North Africa!! and If you did, so please provide your sources. Moreover, this user has removed very much info related to the topic and added very irrelevant info, he turned the page from North Africa to African Sahel, It is like to turning the page East Asia to the page of Congo!! I didn't actually want to talk about this as it irrelevant to the topic of the report but as some user have already talked about it, then I have to reply.Ryanoo (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's start with this very report. You speak of reverts where you yourself had reverted without engaging with the other party. That violates Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. You also missed the edit notice at the top of both this page and the edit window to notify the reported user. Given the strong wording, this is almost certainly a policy. You also accuse Arboleh of vandalism, but that is not so. They were merely boldly removing content to which they thought did not conform with Wikipedia guidelines, to which you then reverted, claimed the summary was a personal attacked, and then accused them of being a vandal with this very report. Most people who disagree with you are not vandals.

Now, the edit summaries linked I believe while may not be assuming bad faith, is also not really an infraction against WP:NPA, and it was never directed at you. The edit summary Cleaned up biased and racist claims. describes the content, not the contributor, which means WP:NPA does not apply here. Once again, they've only made bold edits.

Furthermore, most of the diffs you've provided are of articles you've never even edited before. This seems very much like wikihounding to me, and point pushing behaviour. That is, you've gone and reverted pretty much all their edits over one edit you've disagreed with, and most likely had thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Given all of the above, this report will most likely end with a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for you. Tread carefully. I strongly suggest you've read what I've written above, and take Tarage's points in too. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support boomerang topic ban of Ryanoo from Africa topics: per both Tarage and my points above. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 First off, I have edited many of these articles as well as many other articles before long time ago before registering on Wikipedia and while wasn't logged in, so your claim of Wikihonding doesn't make any sense!. Also, I didn't fail to engage on the talk page, in fact he is the one who obviously did, I have asked in my edit summary to engage in the talk page and I mentioned him on the talk page [46] in order to discuss the edit. However, he didn't engage in the talk page and reported me for vandalism and continued to attack me personally on other users pages reply!!!, why aren't you trying about him not trying to engage me in the talk page??!! Sorry, but I feel you are clearly trying to confuse the issue by turning the table on me ( for some reason which I don't know, may I know where are you from? ) and totally ignoring what the user did. Secondly, you are talking only about one edit summary of this user in which he clearly described good faith edits as biased and racist!! when they are clearly not, while totally ignoring his other edit summaries which include very clear personal attack and false accusations and his behavior ( he reported me for vandalism when I am clearly not as well as attacking me on other users pages ). Haven't you seen the edits which I provided above in addition his other edits of attacking and harassing me on other user pages as well as reporting for vandalism when I am clearly not[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. Moreover, yes one of his edit summaries isn't directed at me, so should I overlook the ones which target others??. He even has the guts to come and attack me saying some weird Afrocentric nonsense showing his real Afrocentric face, he is blaming me for defending my country's by calling me a Euro-centrist!! LOL. For those Afro-centrists, anyone who is defending his culture and history from being hijacked by them is a Euro-centrist!!. He considers me Euro-centrist because I am defending my history, and by showing the fact that my country is a Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and North African country which it is indeed is [54], [55] [56]. This Afrocentric user wants me to remove my country from its geographic location, deattach our Egyptian people from their origins and go and give it as a present to his Black people in Somalia in East Africa in Sub-Saharan Africa. It seems that this guy didn't open a map or history book in his life and is just like in a world of imagination like the rest of his fellow Afrocentrists who are trying to appropriate our culture and history ( as well as others history such as Phoenicians, Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Chinese and almost every ancient culture on this planet and probably other planets! ). Egypt is a Mediterranean, North African and Middle Eastern, so are the Egyptians!. Somalia is an East African country located in Sub-Saharan Africa, so are the Somalis, It is simple as that, he should love himself and stop appropriating and lumping himself with people who he is totally different from in every aspect. And regarding banning from editing Africa topics, that really doesn't make any sense, well, in fact I don't mind that at all, my edits are mainly focused on my country Egypt and my region ( Mediterranean basin, Middle East and North Africa) topics, I didn't edit much in Sub-Saharan Africa topics and I am not much interested in editing articles or topics related to Sub-Saharan Africans, but you can't prevent me from editing my country and my region topics and defend my history from being hijacked by the lunatic and racist Afro-centrists.Ryanoo (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ryanoo: There is no immunity for reporters. At the moment, you are more guilty of what you are reporting Arboleh for. Actually, you did accuse them of being a vandal, repeadedly trying to revert them. Also, your engagement happened only once, they indeed tried to talk with you (and you just dismissed them as a vandal) and you edit warred over North Africa.

Please just read what I've posted above and stop trying to accuse everyone of being a vandal. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You are wikihounding by the way. You found one of their edits, then decided to revert other edits of theirs, some on articles you've never even edited before (and I'm not about to prove you are those IPs). Even if you do edit with IPs on those pages, that still does not excuse the hounding and point-pushing on your behalf. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I did read all of the edits and the only one that seems to not be a bold edit is the second one. The rest have nothing to do with you, and I don't know why you report them besides wikihounding. Also, assume good faith already!Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Arboleh Again love yourself and stop trying to lump yourself with Egyptians, Middle Easterners and North Africans because you guys are simply not from the MENA area. Also please stop deattaching modern Egyptians from their ancient Egyptian origins like what you did on the Page of DNA history of Egypt because it is very racist and extremely offensive, respect other nations like others are doing with you, as there is no one trying to claim your history, please stop trying to appropriate others history. I am an Egyptian and you know and I know that Somalis are totally different racially, genetically, culturally, linguistically, and in every aspect from Egyptians and other MENAs. Your history is in Somalia which is an East African country in Sub-Saharan Africa, not in North Africa or the Middle EastRyanoo (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

References

I'm concerned about Ryanoo's trying to keep in Land of Punt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) what appears to be a self-published source from a blog.[57] There doesn't appear to be a "Lepoivre Bertrand" or perhaps "Bertrand Lepoivre" and I can't find any evidence of these chapters in the blog[58] outside the blog. I think it was originally added by an IP which I presume was Ryanoo editing logged out and then by another IP. @Ryanoo: were those IPs you and who is this Bertrand? Doug Weller talk 10:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What, you've never heard of Bertie the Pepper? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That paragraph seems to be translated from fr:Pays de Pount, the French version of the article (or vice versa). I don't know what to make of the Charmutha series on that nant44 site. Maybe a French editor has an idea. Are there any here? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Ryanoo, I love myself thank you, and I don't care about your Middle Eastern or Mediterranean heritage but you should not scrape the term Northeast Africa from Wikipedia when it's a valid region of the Nile Valley that exists and that every scientific paper uses. If you want to claim Egypt is part of your Middle Eastern and Mediterranean heritage that's fine but don't censure valid information, this region exists and is very intertwined, the mere fact Ethiopia announced the Renaissance Dam made Egypt worried for its survival as 95% of the population lives along the Nile, and you want us to believe this region is not connected? you can keep your 18th century racist views of Egypt to yourself without censuring facts. I also would like people here who have the capability to create that Northeast Africa page to do so. Arboleh (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Arboleh LOL Which region are you talking about?? What are you talking about?? and which scientific papers are you talking about??! the link you provided totally contradict your claims and it shows that Horn Africans are totally different from Egyptians and other North African and Middle Easterners, check this admixture fractions of clusters of the link you cited !!! [59], It seems that you know nothing at all about genetics that you cited a page which totally contradicts what you said and can be used as an evidence against your claims LOL, I am an archaeogeneticist by the way. This name exists only in your dreams and your edits regarding this topic were reverted two times before by an administrator here [60] [61] for being very poorly sourced. Man, you are from Somalia which is an East African in Sub-Saharan Africa which has nothing at all to do with North African and Middle Eastern countries. Don't you like your area and looking for some ancestry in North Africa and the Middle East or something ???and Why are trying yourself to deattach yourself from your fellow brothers in East Africa brothers in Kenya, Uganda and so on and try linking yourself to North Africans and Middle Easterners?!!! stop this nonsense please, you are just embarrassing yourself and your people who are proud of their country and don't agree with nonsense at all. Again love yourself, your people and your great fellow East African and Sub-Saharan African brothers and stop trying to link yourself to people whom you are totally different from in every aspect!.Ryanoo (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop calling editors racist. Both of you. Assume some good faith dammit. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Ryanoo, this is about the term Northeast Africa being used by the scientific community and not about the Horn of Africa genetics which you can find on that page if you were not trolling, and anyways you're not related to the Ancient Egyptians. Learn to love your immigrant heritage and stop the hate. Arboleh (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL You don't know even the nature of the link you cited which has nothing to do with what you say and totally contradicts your claims. WOW finally you showed your real Afrocentric face which you have been tying to hide, as other Afro-centrists, you couldn't hide your racism and started insulting an Egyptian for being an Egyptian!!! I won't reply to your insults and I will leave it for the administrators to deal with that. Ryanoo (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Ryanoo, If you don't behave we're gonna cut your water off :) Arboleh (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

BOTH OF YOU STOP. You BOTH don't understand that all you are doing is digging a hole deeper. You are BOTH acting like children right now. Stop posting, let everyone else view the logs and decide what to do. You are doing yourself NO favors by continuing this. --Tarage (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Request close

 Request withdrawn

 – Forget the header above please. Discussion is still relevant however. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has clearly gone off the rails. Can we close this, maybe? No punishment needed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300, with all due respect I disagree with your assessment, If you got offended by my little "Ancient Egyptian" jab at Ryanoo it shows clearly the bias I am talking about within the Wikipedia editors. Ryanoo is a racist editor and the proof is all over Wikipedia and yet a jab becomes an offense that derails the issue to the point where you want to recommend nothing for his racist views and constant vandalism of the Land of Punt by using derogatory and disgusting links? I think he should be banned from Wikipedia out right, he is a racist who spews white supremacist views and considers Africans sub-human. If you keep him, it validates what I have been saying all along, that this place is full of racist editors who dont give a damn about facts as long as it supports their racial preconceived views. Arboleh (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop. Calling. Editors. Racist. I'm not going to say it again. I WILL grab an admin and see you both blocked if you continue. --Tarage (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Why do you constantly accuse others of racism? I've nothing to do with any topics you've edited until now. Besides, that close comment wasn't directed at either you or Ryanoo in particular. Please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being racist. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300, my bad I thought you had closed the discussion because of the jab, apologies. Arboleh (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Dragon, I'm afraid I disagree. It's clear to me now that both of these editors are problematic, therefor I am recommending a topic ban for both editors from Africa/Egypt topics, broadly construed. This is a supreme waste of time. --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Very well. Withdrawn my close proposal. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, Can you please point to a page where I demeaned Wikipedia users for their racial background like Ryanoo does? So please don't equate me to him, if you are offended by my use of the word "racist" that is your personal opinion but Ryanoo comments all over the place prove you wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arboleh (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaking me for someone who cares about your squabble. You will stop calling editors racist or you will be blocked. Period. --Tarage (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Support topic ban for both editors Judging by this, both editors are using WP:STICKs with a bend against each other. Could an interaction ban be appropriate? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: As I've been asking folks below, what is the justification for this proposal? If we're going to enact an IBAN, that makes sense. But a TBAN suggests we believe an editor cannot edit constructively within a given topic. I think there is some evidence for that in the case of Ryanoo, but all I see in the case of Arboleh is that they are unable to get along with Ryanoo (which may or may not be due to some poking going on with the aggressiveness in Ryanoo's responses). What is the evidence that Arboleh merits a ban from the topic in its entirety, or that they didn't engage in collaborative efforts, or that their editing in this area is tendentious? A TBAN seems inappropriate to counter interaction issues with another editor, and while I've seen a lot of negative response to the language each editor is using to describe the other, I haven't seen any uninvolved editors point out issues in Arboleh's editing in this discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Part of the rationale for a topic ban is that these users seem to be POV pushing (Most edits by Ryanoo "has been battleground edits on North Africa" according to Tarage, Arboleh seems to be calling anyone who disagrees with them on this topic "racist") which is why a double topic ban may be needed as well as an IBAN. On a side note, pings only work if you sign in the same edit, I can tell you tried a ping. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 13:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: Yeah, I screwed up the ping. But where are the diffs of Arboleh calling anyone who disagrees a racist? I saw Arboleh call Ryanoo racist, and to be fair, Ryanoo has been skewing on the edge of that in his overblown commentaries about his own expertise and his bad-faith allegations about the motivations of anyone who disagrees with him trying to promote an Afrocentrist agenda. But when did Arboleh call other users racist, and where did he call Ryanoo racist without any provocation? We seem to have jumped quickly to that conclusion, but all the really ugly diffs and quotations people are citing are tied only to Ryanoo, and until Arboleh got riled up by Ryanoo's allegations, I didn't see such language, nor have I seen it directed at other editors. I think that's why I'm concerned--Tarage's (understandable) frustration led to an immediate call for a TBAN, but I'm seeing some dangerous false equivalency going on here, and I've seen NO evidence that Arboleh seems to be calling anyone who disagrees with them on this topic "racist"; where are the diffs of that, which is a pretty significant accusation? Again, a read-through of the North Africa talkpage shows a history of battleground behavior from Ryanoo against a number of editors, but I don't see problematic behavior from Arboleh until his motives get questioned in the middle of a condescending tirade and he's on the receiving end of a backhanded accusation of subverting the truth. Grandpallama (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify--Arboleh edit-warring and incorrectly labeling others' edits as vandalism is problematic behavior, but I'm not sure that's worth a TBAN. More in line with block. Grandpallama (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose bans for Ryanoo and Arboleh

I see a few potential outcomes. Note that all topic bans are broadly construed. topic bans and indefinite unless noted otherwise. You may suport multiple proposals. Feel free to support a proposal outside what I've lined below.

Pinging Tarage and SemiHypercube, since they've advocated bans before.

1. Both Ryanoo and Arboleh are banned from Africa and Egypt topics.
2. Ryanoo only is banned from Africa and Egypt topics.
3. Arboleh only is banned from Africa and Egypt topics.
4. Ryanoo and Arboleh are interaction banned against each other.
5. Ryanoo is one way interaction banned from Arboleh.
6. Arboleh is one way interaction banned from Ryanoo.
7. Oppose any ban (mutually exclusive)

• Support proposal 2 and 4: per my previous posts. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 4, but not against 2, 3, 5, or 6: Frankly this is a bit verbose and unlikely to reach consensus but sure. The problem is from both sides and I see a LOT of POV pushing and pointless bickering. I also see racism claims being thrown around. --Tarage (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  To clarify, but not against means you will not oppose 2, 3, 5 and 6? Anyway, I think a formal proposal for bans may be neccesary. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  It means I am not opposed to any of those passing. I support them, I just support 1 and 4 more. They both need to be banned from that topic, and they both need an interaction ban. But I'll take what I can get. --Tarage (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 4 per User:Tarage. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 4 per above. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 4 per User:TheDragonFire300's observations. I see appalling behavior here from Ryanoo, and some less than ideal behavior from Arboleh, but the latter seems to be in exasperated response. Ryanoo seems to lack competence to edit WP, and I suspect a TBAN here will be the beginning of a slow spiral toward an indefinite block of some sort down the line. Grandpallama (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 2 and 4 The reason why things have cooled off between myself and Ryanoo was because I was wise enough to ask for page protection for the North Africa page. If admins hasn’t intervened, I’m positive we would have been at square one. I think Arboleh may be reacting this way because Ryanoo seems to be trying to game the system to ban users he clashes with (tried the above case with Arboleh, opened a random SPI on me) rather than civilly discussing issues. I also agree with @Grandpallama: Itaren (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 4 per Itaren. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Just from what I've seen on this thread I'm already sick of both of you-there seems to be a lot of anger and insults and precious little that is constructive here.

Statements such as 'I am actually here for fighting the ones who have clear racist and destructive POV a.k.a Afrocentrists' or 'I am here so as not to leave my history and culture for the racist Afrocentric Black supremacists' hardly give the impression of someone who is here to help cultivate an encyclopaedia.

I would also note whilst we're debating this that Ryanoo has stated 'regarding banning from editing Africa topics...in fact I don't mind that at all,my edits are mainly focused on my country Egypt and my region(Mediterranean basin,Middle East and North Africa topics'. So I would add the caveat that 'Africa-related topics' covers ALL of the African continent and related themes. We don't need another round of North Africa vs Sub-Saharan Africa-which is the real Africa?

So it's

• Support 1 and 4 with that caveat. Lemon martini (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Lemon martini:Both of the quotations you included are from Ryanoo, so I'm curious as to why you say you see equally bad behavior from Arboleh. Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 4 per Tarage. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Kzl55:, why would interaction issues between these two users necessitate that both of them be topic-banned? Even a cursory glance at the article in question shows only one of these editors having difficulty with collaborative editing and failing to show good faith. I continue to be mystified at what seems to me to be unjustified support for a TBAN of Arboleh. If the expectation is that Arboleh needs to be sanctioned for having suggested Ryanoo's editing is racist (which the interactions show may not be entirely unjustified), that is only grounds for an IBAN. It doesn't demonstrate an inability to edit in the topic area. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  Is there a reason you are pinging everyone who doesn't respond in the way you'd like them to? You should stop. --Tarage (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  I've asked three people to justify seeking a topic ban for a user on the basis that the user is calling "anyone who disagrees with him a racist" when the diffs don't back this up--saying that I'm pinging "everyone" is just as unfounded as some of the other statements you made earlier. I'm also worried that your own frustration with the preceding conversation led to a premature call for a topic ban for a user based upon declarations about his editing that weren't backed up by any provided diffs. Is there a policy that I've violated by seeking reasoning from some people for their support? No? Then my response is that the next time you prepare to tell me what I should or shouldn't do, you should stop. Grandpallama (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Grandpallama: I also agree with Tarage on this. I would suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 18:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)(

  If you think my responses to the two most recent votes constitute bludgeoning, you're free to take it up with an admin. That said, I think I've replied enough to this topic, so the end result is the same, either way. Grandpallama (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 4, could live with 2, 3, 5, or 6 per Tarage. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hilo48 and Timeshift9

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is written about a week after I created this block. I no longer support a full-block or topic-block for @Timeshift9: after a careful consideration of other editors views. Though I remain firm in my conviction that @HiLo48: should be blocked for 3-6 months. Refer to my statements on each of them below for my reasoning. Global-Cityzen (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm requesting Timeshift and Hilo be temporarily blocked for some wanton and blatant Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, chiefly with respect to their continued deletion of material in the Wentworth by-election, 2018 article, specifically their refusal to engage or even offer civil points of difference in the article's talk page.

• The history page shows examples of Timeshift repeatedly editing in ways that make it difficult to directly compare his reversions of my and other editor's edits (which have added information to the infobox). For instance he'll make a minor [62], then the very next one will be the revert.

• At the very least general history page shows how often they (sincere changed to TS9) is willing to violate the WP:3RR rule.

• Timeshift is guilty of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, most notably in this instance on the talk page: Oh look, results aren't final/are still changing! I love being proven right...! :) Silly troublemakers proven wrong. Feeling very smug :D Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC); an edit that was made two days after the page was finally settling down and is blatantly tenditious and WP:POINTY, much to the frustration of the majority of editors who are seeking to IMPROVE the page and UPDATE figures when appropriate rather than simply DELETE the figures in the infobox

• Both users misrepresent alleged precedent in relation to the infobox (see this section of the talk page and when exposed to this, simply ignore and pursue their deletions

• Neither engage in consensus building with multiple editors, and are now simply taking ownership of the page.

Hilo has form, repeatedly. Global-Cityzen (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Can this please be quickly turned into a boomerang for the lies and irrelevancies it contains? And the forum shopping? I really don't want to have to go into detail on every piece of nonsense there. HiLo48 (talk)

These "lies and irrelevancies" accusation is precisely what HiLo has done on the page's talk page, whenever he is asked to justify his and Timeshift's edits to remove information from the box. Yet again he has form in this regard; this time at another page. Global-Cityzen (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

And now the latest 3RR violation by Timeshift (here). Global-Cityzen (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

There has been a massive amount of discussion re this article. We have reached a point where both Timeshift9 and I are being accused of not having discussed things that we definitely have discussed. I can accept someone not remembering everything I have written, but I cannot abide false accusations that I have never written it at all. That is were discussion has gone. We are both being asked to repeat points we have both made before, as if demanding this is a winning argument. We have both, at times, given up on discussion at that article because of the toxic atmosphere, but it's hard to forever ignore what we see as poor content. I also have a life away from Wikipedia, and get rather sick of and don't really have time for having to repeat myself here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm accusing Timeshift and HiLo of repeatedly ignoring prompts that directly challenge their reasons for editing. If one reads through the talk page, they will note that both users' objections are responded to in substance, namely that;

• No precedent exists for not including figures in an Australian election infobox, as User:Impru20 pointed out on the talk page: "about the alleged "precedent", I've found that this is bogus at best. Batman by-election, 2018, for instance, didn't abide to such a "precedent", nor did Australian federal election, 2016 or others. Further, it is not that other by-election articles actually did: it is just that most of those did not see their infoboxes added until later." No substantial point was made by either of these users in response to this expose.
• When asked why they would advocate continuously deleting verifiable information by the same user, neither responded.
• We are not asking them repeat points made before, rather asking them to present any argument for the exclusion of verifiable information in an infobox whose central purpose is to convey that information to the reader

And unfortunately, when challenged on these issues of substance, HiLo simply engages in ad hominen attacks on the user, saying they are extolling in inaccuracy WITHOUT demonstrating how. Whilst Timeshift simply waits 2 days for the discussion to settle before launching into the same disruptive editing process. Global-Cityzen (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Lies. Yet again. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that yas open up an Rfc at the article-in-question, in order to settle the content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou, I've done that (here). Global-Cityzen (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Timeshift9: has just reverted the same content for a FOURTH TIME IN 30 MINUTES simply saying he "disagrees". If that's not an example of edit warring I don't know what is! These numbers have been up for at least two days without interruption, it's just some of the most abhorrent behaviour you could imagine. Global-Cityzen (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Apparently the issue concerns whether an infobox should be included at Wentworth by-election, 2018, and if so, what it should contain. It seems the issue was raised a week ago at the relevant wikiproject and my brief skim of that suggests there is no consensus for inclusion. Enthusiasm is not a good substitute for patience. The OP's statements about "refusal to engage" and suggestions of incivility are blatantly incorrect. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've applied protection for a few days, that should allow the election results to firm up and we can go from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Awaiting final results is really only a small part of the issues with this article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As an uninvolved bystander, this is not a helpful step. Getting aggressive with other editors about an infobox is a needless escalation of a dispute that was already fairly pointless to begin with. Everyone play nice. Global-Cityzen, you've been making some absolutely phenomenal (and very badly needed) contributions on women's sport recently - may I suggest that it might be a better usage of your time than this dispute? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• On Timeshift9, they have been carelessly reverting everything and anyone not complying with their views, even reportedly conducting at least eight reverts from four different users within a 24-hour period (up to ten depending on whether you would consider other minor edits), namely: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]. Note that this behaviour continued even after being notified twice on it ([71] [72]). The edit warring has continued up to the current day, with new violations of 3RR (in total, five reverts before the article's lockdown: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]) and including some mocking/provocation to some of the users involved in the discussion ([78] [79] [80]). To be fair with everybody, though, it should also be noted that the OP (Global-Cityzen) has also violated 3RR today as a result of getting involved in such edit warring, with five reverts, but this should not obscure the fact that there is a serious behavioural issue with these two users.
• The biggest issue here, however, is with HiLo48, who has been openly disruptive from the start, resorting to using arguments from ignorance and proof by assertion once and once again with a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour (note that it was them who started the discussion in the first place and that while starting a discussion is perfectly ok, the ensuing behaviour shown while engaging other people there is not). This includes:
  • Persistent personal attacks and general incivility, continuously resorting on commenting the contributor for opposing reality or "the truth" ([81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]) while showing a rather patronizing behaviour to those not agreeing with them (specially and most notoriously with Onetwothreeip). HiLo48 even went as far as to enter into vandalism accusations without caring to explain why ([88] [89] [90]), despite repeated warnings to either bring such accusations to the proper venue with actual evidence or just cast them off ([91] [92] [93]). They also threatened to report me for one comment they allegedly saw as "insulting", but curiously, just like the "vandalism", they never did it ([94]).
  • More WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS ([95] [96] [97]).
  • Apparent failure to understand what discussion and talk pages are for. This includes a general refusal to engage in constructive consensus-building and persistent refusal to address/reply to issues raised by others, seemingly failing to understand why they should bother to reply (while concurrently acting as if others had never addressed any issues raised by him) ([98] [99] [100]). Note that this has continued even after this case was opened ([101] [102]). At some point of the discussion they also accused other of misrepresenting them, but never actually explained how nor addressed concerns raised at their accusations of misrepresentation.
  • Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, by:
    1. Suddenly shifting the discussion focus to issues not even raised at first so as to purposely hinder any consensus-building attempt aimed at preserving the infobox (most notoriously ([103] [104] [105]), raising the issues of Phelps' pic looking "appalling" and a alleged failure to understand what colours do mean in infoboxes, despite party labels being shown just below (this alone would raise some competence concerns, but nonetheless it would be an issue with either the pics or the infobox template as a whole, not for the particular infobox used in Wentworth by-election, 2018. This was pointed to them (and was the main motive behind the discussion being centralized) to no avail).
    2. Mutilating the infobox to make it truly useless and force a point on how "useless" it actually was ([106]), a fact they have not even tried to hide ([107]).
    3. Deliberate withdrawal from the centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Infoboxes in by-election articles without addressing any of the content concerns raised there, then moving the discussion again to Talk:Wentworth by-election, 2018#Still Infoboxing in order to raise the same exact issues that led to the discussion being centralized.
  • I could spent more time putting more examples or explaining this even more in-depth, but I think this is enough for it. Further, after some research it transpires that issues on HiLo48's behaviour are very recurring, for the exact same reasons as depicted above (or even others: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16)
  • Their own block log is troubling, and as far as I have checked, if it is impossible to find any issues between January 2015 and March 2018 is just because they remained inactive for that whole period. Their own userpage is very disturbing, being full of attacks on Wikipedia as a whole, a notorious disregard for civility policies or some other really really disturbing statements against Wikipedia's workings.
  • Foremost of all, Competence is required to communicate with others and present rationales when questioned by others, to collaborate with other editors, defend their editing when asked to do so and, obviously, to not ignoring some of the most basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It looks like this has been an issue with HiLo48 for years, and it seems obvious that HiLo48 is not able to learn from their mistakes and adapt. Refusing to engage with civility with other users, or even acknowledging that they cannot be "bothered" to discuss issues or even purposely provoking others for the sake of it, goes against the very essence of WP. But then, acknowledging a complete disregard for WP's workings is just unacceptable, and if they think they should not be here, nor are they here for contributing Wikipedia, then maybe they should not be here. Impru20^talk 16:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the energy to respond to that hate speech from someone clearly obsessed with me. How many lies and personal attacks can come from the keyboard of someone before they cop a boomerang? HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, none of that is "hate speech"; it is neutral, accurate reporting supported by evidence. None of it is "lies", as each statement is supported by several diffs which bear out the statement. None of the statements are "personal attacks", either; they are all neutral observations. It seems to me that your modus operandi when you disagree with someone more than once is to attack them personally and to accuse them of personal attacks, lies, vandalism, etc. Sooner or later this long-term behavioral pattern on your part is going to end up getting you very long-term blocked or site-banned due to an inability to edit collaboratively and due to creating disruption instead. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I see it differently. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, of course you would say that. And you haven't refuted the dozens of diffs the editor presented, or offered any proof that what he stated is "hate speech", "lies", and "personal attacks". Attacking others and making baseless comments may seem like the easy way out for you, but it just makes the other editor's case look perfectly accurate. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Not to objective, open minded editors. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you still can't refute anything the editor wrote and you still can't offer any proof that what he stated is "hate speech", "lies", and "personal attacks"; instead you are continuing to cast aspersions. Softlavender (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that's precisely what you're doing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack, which seems to be the only way you respond to evidence-based statements about yourself and requests that you actually make your case. The more you post "Nope" (edit summary) along with a personal attack, the worse you look. As Impru20 has noted, your recent disruptive behavior is not isolated, and has been reported many times on ANI, and you have been blocked five times for personal attacks. Softlavender (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is pointless. I don't have the time to respond to that litany of alleged crimes on my part, nor do I have the time to catalog all the sins of the gang who disagreed with me. I do note that the environment at the article became so toxic that many experienced editors gave up, and let you guys just go for it for a while. That left a short term majority of people from one side of the debate, certainly not representative of the usual editing community for Australian political articles. Being in a majority is never evidence of being right. It's really just a chance to bully those in the minority.

Meanwhile, Admins have shown very little interest in this complaint. They have told people to go back to the article's Talk page for an RfC. This is a content dispute. I suggest you go to that RfC. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not involved in the article, so I am not "you guys". What Impru20 posted was not a "litany of alleged crimes", it was a well-evidenced report of your recent disruptive behavior, which you responded to by falsely calling his report "hate speech", "lies", and "personal attacks". This is your pattern, and it will get you into sanctions if it continues. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This discussion does pretty well in summarizing HiLo's behaviour. Bring any argument to them, no matter how well explained or referenced, that if it is against their views it will be met with outright unmotivated opposition, condescendention, incivility and a refusal to "understand" what the problem is, as well as a total disregard of WP:AGF. Impru20^talk 06:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith of editors who falsely accuse me of having NEVER said things I have definitely said? And who created such a toxic discussion environment that many experienced editors stop discussing at that page? HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please indicate, with diffs, where editors have falsely accused you of having never said things you definitely said. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No. I really can't be bothered. If you are looking at this objectively, you will have seen how much discussion there has been. A massive amount. I wouldn't make an absolute claim about anything anyone had said or not said in that pile of now fairly useless trash. It was rather silly of those who disagreed with me to think they could. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

In other words, yet another refusal to back up your claims about other editors. And this: "It was rather silly of those who disagreed with me to think they could." is borderline block-worthy, as it points up your refusal to edit or discuss collaboratively. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is much more that needs to be said here but I find the reverting of many more times than three in a day to be very concerning. The poor discourse on the talk page is a problem, but the constant reverting seriously compromises the editing process. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not condoning Edit warring, but avoiding the appearance of doing so is much easier when you create a toxic editing environment, discouraging the majority of those who disagree with you from even trying. This leaves you and just a couple of others with identical views that any new editor must confront. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever made more than three reverts of the article in a 24 hour period? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea about timeshitft, but having just commented on the RFC and seeing HiLo48's reactions to anyone who disagrees with him (who appear to be in the majority) I think that there is a problem with him. This is a case of tendentious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

HiLo has indeed been a frequent offender when it comes to civility issues, both on main space and project space; I believe he's even had an RFC/U on his conduct in the past. That said, he's unrelenting and inveterate to those said issues, attributing these to cultural differences, and I doubt that blocks or sanctions of any sort will induce him to change his behavior, if his screeds on his user talk page are anything to go by. Either we accept that he's going to just be uncivil, or we look at the serious possibility of a community ban.--WaltCip (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Or we have a series of rolling topic bans, this time form Australasian politics. This edit warring over such a trivial matter is an indicator of a very severe battleground (but not in a POV pushy but rather "I HAVE SPOKEN" kind of way) mentality that is hugely disruptive and wasted a lot of eds time that could have been better employed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it, this should apply to both parties, one for edit warring the the other for incivility, both for battleground mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Global-Cityzen: Can you clarify whether you meant to suggest HiLo48 was violating 3RR? I thought you did but maybe you were simply using singular they. I had a quick look and didn't see any examples of HiLo48 violating 3RR in Wentworth by-election, 2018 Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Since there's an Rfc now occurring at said article, these block requests should now be considered moot. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

They shouldn't. One thing is the content dispute (which is what is being addressed with the RfC) and another one is the behavioural problem (which is continuing, at least from HiLo48, in the RfC or even in this very same thread). Impru20^talk 06:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This is way too extreme of a form of WP:IDGAF from User:HiLo48. It's really inappropriate for a ANI discussion about your civility. —JJB^ers 15:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Trust me, it would be way worse if he was writing real replies. As noted above, this is nothing new for him and it's never going to change. We can follow GoodDay's suggestion and consider the block requests moot, but that would just be kicking the can down the road because the behavioral issues are just as glaring as ever. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Then a block is needed as it is preventative not punative. It is supposed to prevent the kind of behavior we are seeing. If it is accepted that his behavior is wrong, but he is not going to change no matter how much we ask then a block (for now make it a topic ban, maybe that will get through) is the only answer. What we must not do is accept policy beaching actions on the grounds of "well what can we do?", otherwise what the hell is the point of having them. How can it be fair to have rules that only apply to some users?15:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

I just noticed this on their talk page, [108], it seems that they got pretty uncivil to this user. They also accuse them of vandalism in the edit summary as well. —JJB^ers 16:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I've only now noticed that talk page. I don't appreciate being accused of conspiring with other editors when they've done that themselves, per User_talk:HiLo48#Wentworth_by-election,_2018. This section has gone long enough, can we get a determination already? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that until now as well... and now I also noticed this after digging out a little further ([109]). So I now understand this reply from HiLo48 where they accused me of having "clones". Disturbing.

Further, looks like they won't stop their incivility elsewhere even with this report ongoing ([110]). Impru20^talk 22:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend a general block then if the incivility isn't even just on the Australian elections pages. They seem to be generally incivil to multiple places (including the one you linked). —JJB^ers 00:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What more needs to be said. It's hi time hi lo is blocked indefinitely. He is here only to disrupt and has a history of incivility and personal attacks and edit warring as long as anyone in the history of Wikipedia. Block him before he does any more damage to the project. No one will miss him and his contributions.Merphee (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

An observation. The problem with making such wild and sweeping statements as that is that it rather encourages examination of one's own contributions. For instance, your 400 edits to articles might be mentioned. IMHO of course. ——SerialNumber54129 10:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Merphee, please do not attempt to "fight fire with fire". It's one thing to make observations that raise concerns about specific conduct, and it's quite another to make blanket statements about another user being generally useless and a caliber of person that "no one will miss". It's even more inappropriate to contemplate their motives as being entirely predicated in trying to disrupt the project; when you make that implication, you are essentially saying they are here for no other reason than to troll the project, and that kind of accusation should not be made unless you are prepared to make a case with substantial evidence--you know, one of the very things Hilo has been called out for not doing himself here. Furthermore, it's an absurd assertion in these circumstances; whatever legitimate grievances may be raised here with regard to Hilo's conduct, it is abundantly clear that they care about the topics they edit and are not here to troll the project. Lastly, "clever" little turns of phrase like "hi time to block Hi lo" are not productive or useful; they contribute nothing but snark that can inflame an already antagonistic process--if you cannot contribute your insights here in a sober tone when criticizing another user's behaviour, please do not comment at all. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"hi time to block Hi lo" are not productive or useful" I do agree with that point you made. I shouldn't have said that. However I completely disagree with everything else you just said. That is my opinion based on HiLo's long term incivility, bullying, throwing around accusation after accusation with no no basis, chasing new editors away, harassment, hounding and so forth. You are entitled to your opinion Snow Rise, and I am entitled to mine. I believe he probably cares about his point of view on article's he edits, but there is no way I could possibly believe based on the hard evidence over countless interactions with countless editors, HiLo cares about editors who may disagree with him. And frankly him caring about the article has nothing to do with it. It is his bullying, personal attacks and incivility that has landed him here. Again. But I respect your opinion. You need to also respect mine. Please refer to Softlavender's excellent description of HiLo's incivility below, if you are in any doubt.Merphee (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)  

Of course it's your opinion and of course you are entitled to it, but some opinions are not to be shared, as a matter of policy and long-standing community consensus. For starters, you shouldn't be detailing your speculation regarding his motivations--your comments should be focused on his conduct, not your guesswork as to the psychology behind it. And saying that he is here to troll without providing evidence that clearly established such a bad faith motivation is also beyond the scope of acceptable commentary. Both of those principles are codified in WP:NPA. Clearly if I wasn't convinced there are behavioural issues with Hilo's conduct, I would not have introduced the proposal that he be blocked below, or noted my endorsement of criticisms by other editors, after I had read through the thread and followed up on the many diffs and links. But there's a right way and a wrong way to do that and your approach was needlessly personalized and aggressive, and more likely to undercut your points than to bolster your case that Hilo needs restraining, because it makes it look like he had an active foil in any of those discussions in which you may have taken part, and undercuts the perceived neutrality of your comments here. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You keep using the word "troll" which I never said he was. However when there is such widespread incivility toward so many editors on so many different articles over such a long period of time and he is so aware of policy I fail to see how HiLo's conduct is not highly disruptive. However having said that I do think my comments were needlessly personalised and aggressive and I take your point in that regard Snow Rise. In hindsight I shouldn't have even commented at all and in fact should have stayed well out of this debate. So this is where I will close my mouth and step away.Merphee (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Been through an investigation and came out clean and it was because of Hi lo's incivility and personal attacks. Don't appreciate your comment dude. May need to go looking through your me thinks. It is as plain as day from comments here that HiLo has attacked and caused havoc since he's been here. I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm NOT on trial here SerialNumber so keep your opinion to your self! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphee (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, civility, yes; the irony is duly noted. And please remember to sign your posts, Merphee. ——SerialNumber54129 11:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Merphee is entirely correct. Here is a prime example from just three months ago:

Merphee removed an uncited, unattributed POV statement from The Australian that had been tagged for three years: [111]. HiLo48 went straight to Merphee's usertalk to harass him: [112]. Merphee added back part of the material he had removed: [113]. HiLo48 inserted an extremely POV quotation into the article: [114]. Merphee opened a neutral discussion on the article's talkpage about the POV quote: [115]. HiLo48's response was "Stop destroying the article" and he continued to deflect, bicker, and ridicule: [116]. Merphee

correctly removed the quote and attempted to summarize it instead: [117]. HiLo48 reverted [118], and failed to neutrally respond to the issues Merphee brought up about it, instead bickering, casting aspersions, and making demands: [119]. Therefore Merphee engaged in WP:DR by opening a thread on WP:RSN: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 246#The Monthly. HiLo48 falsely accused Merphee of forum-shopping: [120], [121], and then opened an ANI thread falsely accusing Merphee of forum-shopping: [122]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Just so. ——SerialNumber54129 20:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Link to the full ANI dissusion that Softlavender mentioned at the end of their message. —JJB^ers 04:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban for Hilo48

From Australian politics in the hope they get the message. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is feasible, but I don't think HiLo48's problematic behavior is limited to Australian politics. I think a very very long block (3 to 6 months or indef) is what is needed, because as is evidenced above, he has no intention of stopping his abuse of other editors. I think ArbCom is going to be the next stop for this editor if this isn't solved/stopped here. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

True, but maybe the issue is the attitude of "well we do not know what to do so lets do nothing" had engendered an attitude that he can do as he likes. If he is sent a clear message that enough is enough and there are actions we can (and will) take it may cause him to rethink this attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support something is better than nothing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I would also support a full block. —JJB^ers 17:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – a little better than nothing, but I would see it as ineffective. Overall I'll have to agree with Softlavender: this extends far beyond the topic of Australian politics. A prime example would be the behaviour exhibited in this same thread ([123] [124] or [125] as examples); the recent dispute with Merphee in The Australian pointed out by Softlavender; the activity at Talk:Gasoline (concurrent with this report being ongoing, [126]); a recent breach of WP:3RR at G.I. Generation (also concurrent in time with this report, [127] [128] [129] [130]); describing the "fuck off" expression as a "too useful a tool" to deliberately provoke other editors "and draw community attention" so that those other editors get sanctioned that way; the similar uncivil + BIT behaviour at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football ([131]); a call for not trusting admins for not using their sysop powers on "miscreants among their ranks"; or a possible canvassing attempt to influence the discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Infoboxes in by-election articles ([132]). This aside from the already spotted misconduct or the long-term concerns with their behaviour. At this point, I think that only a long-term or indef block would work. Impru20^talk 17:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but nevertheless recommend that this proposal be tabled in favour of a long-term block proposal, since every respondent to this proposal so far (of which I am about to become the fifth) seems to agree that a TBAN does not match the scope of the issues. I've been following this discussion for a few days, reserving comment. I've observed Hilo48 to be somewhat short in some of their responses in the past, but I hadn't any idea the problems ran this deep. But the pattern is well established by the numerous diffs provided by editors in good standing above, and clearly runs strong in recent interactions. The nature of Hilo's response to concerns above is itself problematic--particularly the back-and-forth with Softlavender that seems to cast a great deal of light upon Hilo's perspectives on limitations as to his conduct vis-a-vis civility and providing justification for their actions. No editor is immune from having their conduct scrutinized by the community, no matter how put-upon they may feel, and in particular, no editor is allowed to make accusations about the supposedly disruptive and bad-faith conduct of other editors without providing proof, particularly when those accusations regard supposed conduct touching upon such serious concerns as "hate speech", dishonesty/gamesmanship, and personal attack. The fact that Hilo steadfastly refuses to provide such evidence and yet simultaneously refuses to withdraw the comments in question is more than sufficient evidence to tell us that they do not feel that they need to comport with our policies where they don't feel it's "worth their time". That's an untenable attitude for for any community member to have with regard to their involvement on this project, and more than enough reason in itself to endorse a block here.

I understand Slatersteven's inclination towards the most targeted possible sanction, hoping that this will prompt a fundamental change in Hilo's approach, but I join the others who have responded to his proposal in observing that the conduct in question goes well beyond the topic area that would be covered, and that the problems are more about apparent hostility toward views contrary to Hilo's own (and a definite refusal to prioritize civil discourse in many instances) than they are about over-zealousness in that one area. Moreover, taking all of the evidence presented here in its entirety, I find it highly unlikely that Hilo will actually reform in that manner as a consequence of receiving that community response--much more likely, I think, is that it will feed into their "Wikipedia's administrator's and administrative spaces are corrupt and the community's priority's are ass backwards--that's why they are trying to get rid of me" mentality. I just don't see the likihood that they can be won over by a TBAN, and I think a significant block may be the only way to make clear that a long-term and basic change in approach to their response to disputes is going to be required of them--whether they accept the underlying philosophy or not. Softlavender, Lepricavark, JJBers, Impru20, I'll put forward the proposal myself, so if there are any sour feelings resulting, they can be directed at me; feel free to reiterate your thoughts above in an !vote below, or not, as per your present perspectives. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Let's us be careful, that we're not seen as punishing an editor. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but my endorsement of some form of action definitely arises out of a desire to prevent further disruption, not punish prior conduct. And indeed, looking at the comments of others in the forgoing discussion, it seems that most have contemplated the community's possible responses in terms of prevention. Can you be more specific about what previous comments have prompted your concerns that participants in this discussion are being motivated by a desire to punish previous conduct rather than prevent further disruption? I followed pretty much every link in the discussion above before contemplating my own !vote, but if I am missing additional backstory here between those involved in the discussion, it could influence my own support for sanctions. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm lenient in these matters, unless it involves vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ok--understood. I disagree that we would appear punitive by acting in this instance, given the concerns expressed, but I understand where you are coming from; I just wanted to make sure I was not missing any additional context. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well it seems the consensus is to table this for a longer block. I have no objection to tabling this (this is not an endorsement of a longer block).Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Longterm block for Hilo48

Per comments above from contributors who feel that a topic ban does reach to the nature of the conduct in question here, I am proposing a block as an alternative. The reasons expressed for preferring a block regard the fact that there is a perception of incivlity and general tendentiousness in Hilo48's interactions with multiple editors over a significant span of time, and a hostility in this discussion towards the notion that they may wish to reexamine their conduct, particularly as regards WP:AGF during disputes and making accusations against other editors that are not supported by evidence. The first editor to propose a longterm block contemplated one as long as six months--I think that may be excessive, but respondents can reach their own conclusions as to the particulars. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nom, per my thoughts expressed in the proposal above and recommending a block of 2-3 months in duration. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support this proposal as preferable to the one above. A topic ban is far less likely to be effective. Lepricavark (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per Snow's and my own thoughts so far. My impression based on the provided evidence is that a TBAN would just lead to HiLo's belligerence being re-directed elsewhere. A block is probably the only way forward at this stage. Impru20^talk 20:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Let's be careful that we're not seen as being punitive in nature. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support block of at least 3 to 6 months or indef. (His last block was for one month [133]; standard block escalation would be no less than 3 months.) As is evidenced above, HiLo48 has no intention of stopping his abuse of other editors. I think ArbCom is going to be the next stop for this editor if this isn't solved/stopped here. This is most decidedly not a punitive block; it is a preventative block preventing abuse of other editors -- there's no telling how many editors HiLo48 has driven off of articles or off of the site itself, and we absolutely cannot allow that to continue. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Previously said I would support this. —JJB^ers 02:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support block of at least 6 months or indef. There is no evidence HiLo has changed his ways or has any intention of doing so. This is not a punitive block by any means, it is instead aimed at stopping him abuse and accuse other editors with no support for his accusations.Merphee (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support a wiki-wide block of 3-6 months for @HiLo48:, though I now oppose blocking in any capacity Timeshift9 (see below for my shift in reasoning). On HiLo, as multiple editors now reveal, the kind of behaviour that I outlined on the Wentworth by-election page (offensive commentary, refusal to engage in civil fashion on the talk page) is an ongoing issue. An escalation in sanction (up from a previous 1 month ban) seems appropriate. Global-Cityzen (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban for Timeshift9

Its takes two to tango and this was just pure battleground for no real reason.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN – just as I see a TBAN alone would be ineffective on HiLo48, I think it may be too excessive for Timeshift9. As per WP:TBAN, The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive. While edit warring is disruptive, I don't think there is enough evidence of a long-term behaviour on the part of Timeshift that justifies a TBAN (given the preventive, not punitive, nature of editing restrictions), and I'd rather see it as an isolated incident. Further, the 3RR violations (which would also involve Global-Cityzen) would have probably justified a short block at the time, but given that there have been no new discussion/behaviour issues or warring, I would say to just let it go for now. Impru20^talk 18:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - we should be careful, that we're not seen as being punitive in nature. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It doesn't look like Timeshift9 was the bully here. Get at the root cause of the issue which was obviously Hilo after looking at their interaction.Merphee (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. —JJB^ers 04:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Statement. Upon reflection I don’t believe a full-scale ban would be necessary for @Timeshift9:. Specifically I think TS9 engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINTY behaviour on the Wentworth by-election page within about a 4 hour period around the time I created this section, though I can’t deny I reacted by adding the original material he was so opposed to several times, possibly in violation of 3RR. Days later, and he’s actually made an edit to the infobox which sought to improve it (from “swing” to “change” of something like that). So a full-scale ban would be wrong, and (and against what I feel is my better judgement), I lean to opposing a topic ban for him. Unlike HiLo, this would appear to be an isolated case and I hope the both of us can learn from it. I’m firmly of the view HiLo should be blocked wiki-wide for 3-6 months, as I’ll explain above. One piece of advice I have for Timseshift, take a read of how to pull back from the brink from tenditious editing/editing to “prove” a point. Global-Cityzen (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Veteran contributor with a huge contribution to this area over many years. Many people behaved badly in this clusterfuck of a dispute and his conduct in no way rises to anything approaching topic ban worthy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Strong arguments have been made this was a one off, and being provoked is often defense.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I think this can be closed as a snow close at this point. —JJB^ers 19:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Dr Nobody's behaviour at and around Irish Bull Terrier

Dr Nobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Irish Bull Terrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well, I wish it hadn't come to this, but I tried just about everything else I can think of to get through to this editor. They have repeatedly demonstrated a ownership mentality about this article, see here, here, here, and here. They have also apparently refuse to learn how to use references and sources correctly on Wikipedia. They have been pointed to various policy pages regarding these policies, but has not bothered to read them or doesn't care as evidenced by their repeated insertion of unreliable and incorrectly referenced sources. I can provide more diffs if required, but since it is pretty contained I didn't think it would be hard to see.

Like I said at the beginning, I wish it hadn't come to this. zchrykng (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional note, I have no opinion on what is the "correct" version of the article. I ended up there and interacting with this editor solely through recent changes patrolling and have been trying to help since. zchrykng (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I've just reverted his latest edit, as the "source", even if reliable, doesn't actually source the text anyway. I'll wait to see if there's a response to this thread. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I sincerely hope they respond, but I doubt they will, at least in a positive way, at this point. zchrykng (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite I feel like I need to add Competence is required, I didn’t hear that, and Right great wrongs to the list of issues. zchrykng (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what this person is talking about I referenced a change to the article from a reliable source. I started the article several years back as many of this breed were being put down as American Pit Bull Terriers which they are not. DR NOBODY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nobody (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dr Nobody: The text you added was sourced to this page.

Your text: "The main difference between the IBT and the APBT is the head shape." Which text at your source verifies the claim that head shape is the primary differentiating factor between these two breeds of dog? This is particularly confusing because neither "pit" nor "APBT", your abbreviation for American Pit Bull Terrier, appear in your source at all.

Your text: "The APBT head is of medium length with a broad flat skull and a wide deep muzzle" Which text at your source verifies this information?

Your text: "whereas the IBT the head is short and deep throughout with a distinct stop reference" This appears to be referenced to the "Description" section at your source, which says the dog has "a broad head and very strong jaws. The muzzle is short and the cheek muscles distinct. The stop is clearly defined." Could you change your text so it more accurately restates the source's text?

2602:306:BC31:4AA0:905B:33DA:5576:AFE7 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully this meets WIKIs requirements as I have referenced more clearly. Dr Nobody (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dr Nobody: I just undid your most recent edit because copying someone else's words and pasting them, even if you include a citation, is a form of stealing called "plagiarism" and of course, we don't allow it. Thus, the previous concerns about your text still stand. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:905B:33DA:5576:AFE7 (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

We are allowed to quote people.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Have redone again for you but it doesnt show ? Dr Nobody (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

All that was done ('redone') was to revert the edit by 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:905B:33DA:5576:AFE7 which meant a continuation of edit warring and seemingly took no notice of the allegations of plagiarism. It has been reverted again. Eagleash (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I rewrote the piece there was no plagiarism. I would like to complain about this harassment please Dr Nobody (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of this ongoing ANI, but did a "crash course" bullet-point list, of how to do it right and stay out of trouble, for this editor at Talk:Irish Bull Terrier#Reboot. I think that between this and just the drama of being dragged into ANI (especially after returning from a long absence) is probably enough, and thus oppose any sanctions at this point. Give the editor time to absorb the advice and get re-acquainted with how Pickyweedia operates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, I have no objections to that course of action, just as long as they actually follow through. Nothing would make me happier than they learn how Wikipedia works and start making useful contributions. If someone wants to close this, be my guest. It can be reopened or a new thread started if the problem recurs. zchrykng (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC); edited 03:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yep. It's pretty typical for first-time reports to result in no action and for a renewed-problem report to be necessary later and action then taken. It's not the most expedient process, but it's fair and helps us retain editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That said, I think only so much WP:ROPE ought to be extended here, since the primary issue is WP:OWN, and it's set to full throttle. That their having started the article does not give them some form of elevated status in content discussions is the policy point which needs to be most clearly made to this user, and if they do not show signs of understanding this and adopting a thoroughly collaborative approach from here, I think this should be brought back sooner, rather than later, and serious thought given to a short-term block or even a TBAN at that time. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Dimas gilang persistent disruptive editing

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

Dimas gilang has a history of disruptive editing with multiple warnings on his talk page, all of which he has ignored. He has created numerous unreferenced articles and, when they are moved to draft space or deleted, he just moves them back to main space or recreates them. A recent example is Fokus (Indosiar news program) which was moved to draft space by PaleoNeonate back in September. He subsequently has recreated the page at multiple locations, only to have the pages redirected to the draft and/or deleted. Unfortunately, deletion of Fokus (Indosiar news program) has allowed him to move the article back to mainspace. Another of his creations, INews (TV program), is currently at AfD and all three of the delete voters, Gonnym, IJBall and me, have made negative comment about Dimas gilang's work. Of course we all understand that we should be commenting on the content, not on the contributor, but I think the comments demonstrate the level of frustration that we have in dealing with this editor, especially after constructive criticism has been ignored. For example, in September I politely asked him not to use flags in infoboxes and directed him to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Despite this, he continues to create articles with infobox flags as his latest poorly sourced article demonstrates. Note the fixes that I've just had to make to that article.[134] In October, only 16 days ago I asked him to format infoxes correctly after this effort. I took the opportunity to mention correct use of infobox fields, date linking (clearly he has ignored that from the Jenny Tan example above), WP:NOTTVGUIDE and correct use of italics but he continues to ignore these. For example, at Seputar iNews I had removed a list of airtimes,[135] but he just restored them.[136] Even after asking him to format infoboxes correctly (and everything else I asked him) he persists in creating articles that contain numerous violations. See Delik (TV program) and the fixes that I had to make. UseeTV (previously mentioned) is an example of a program that was moved to draft space and which Dimas gilang immediately moved back to mainspace. It is now at AfD. Finally, at least for the moment, concerns have been raised about his assertion of ownership of articles by both HitroMilanese[137] and myself.[138] The latest came after he posted yet another banner on my talk page stating please don't moving & editing my article on draft.[139] This was just before he moved Draft:Fokus (Indosiar news program) back to mainspace. This editor seems unable to understand the requirements of WP:GNG, the requirement to source articles or to comply with our other policies and guidelines. There seem to be severe competency issues that need addressing as his efforts are creating a lot of work for other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably the worst example of this editor's blatantly bad behavior is the saga involving Kompas (news program) (which has also been at Kompas (Kompas TV news program) and Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program), and which is now at Kompas (TV program) and which is still failing to meet WP:GNG). The latter ruckus even got this editor blocked by Amakuru (see also User talk:Amakuru#Kompas (news program)). At this point, I fully believe this user is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate on this project, and should get an WP:INDEF block. At a minimum, they should be indefinitely banned from creating articles (probably even in Draftspace...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Actions included hijacking an existing talk page to avoid scrutiny/patrol when recreating, like this. I remember warning with a standard COI template as well but there was no answer. My impression is that this is typical undisclosed conflict of interest and spamming... —PaleoNeonate – 09:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, it may previously have been disclosed. —PaleoNeonate – 09:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

A few more examples of Dimas gilang asserting ownership:[140][141][142][143][144] And let's not forget the time he accused PaleoNeonate of being a hacker.[145] --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Along with all of this, in the process of nominating one of Dimas's articles for deletion, they posted these obnoxious "Wikilove" messages all over my talk page. I would support a CIR block because they seem to not understand anything on the encyclopedia, despite being here for almost 2 years.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 19:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Support CIR block per 💵. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, disclosed for a second or two. Immediately after posting that he blanked the page.[146] --AussieLegend (✉) 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel like with this editor it's a game of whack-a-mole as nothing seems to stop him. As I look for articles that are not named according to television guidelines I keep on seeing the same articles I've previously tagged over and over again. Just yesterday he moved (again) Fokus (Indosiar news program) from draft to mainspace. He obviously does not care for the correct process, or for writing and other guidelines, and as a result, for other editor time which is spent cleaning after him. Also, from the types of articles he's creating, I'm almost positive it is a CoI situation. --Gonnym (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As if to reinfoce everything that has been said here, he has just created Aiman (TV program), with all of the problems that he has previously been warned about: improper infobox formatting, a flag in the infobox, multiple invalid infobox fields, datelinking, with some incorrect bolding and unnecessary piping thrown in for good measure, all of which somebody else will have to fix. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response but immediate block is needed on this person. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and this person is treating Wikipedia as a personal blog. People like AussieLegend, IJball and Neonate are investing their time on him, we should utilize their effort in something fruitful. Dimas gilang is truly incompetent for English Wikipedia, he has no perception of GNG. Hitro talk 21:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that is now very likely that User:Dimas gilang is socking at 139.0.207.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Pinging Onel5969 and SkyGazer 512 to see if they have any comment... But this may now involve an account block, and an IP block as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block per COI/UPE, DE, NOTHERE, CIR. For any admin observing, that's now a unanimous consensus among the 8 editors on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping IJBall - I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, this is a very new editor (account created in September 2018) who is adding articles from a non-English area. On the other, I understand the frustration of editors who make valid, good faith attempts to provide counsel and direction, only to be either ignored or rebuffed. Normally I might suggest that they be given a mentor, to help them learn the ropes. However, in this instance, due to their apparent attitude based on their actions, I don't think that would help, and might simply cause unneeded frustration to another editor. I don't participate much on ANI, but I must reluctantly agree that this editor has earned an indef block. Therefore I add my Support as per NOTHERE and CIR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, his first edit was in December 2015. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Onel5969, he edited sparsely in 2015 and 2016. He also has multiple deleted article creations, which is why you can't see all of his edits unless you are an admin [147]. Softlavender (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef. I generally don't comment at ANI, but I am quite involved in this situation and IJBall did give me a ping (thank you for that), so I might as well pile-on. I have always wanted to try to avoid indefinite blocks for good-faith editors as much as possible; I believe they usually do not help situations and do not help improve the encyclopedia. However, this is a case where I believe it would be necessary. What I see here is this user creating a ton of clearly non-notable pages and doing multiple actions against policy, which users do sometimes, particularly less experienced ones. However, what I don't see here is the user trying to respond to the concerns more experienced users are pointing out. Not a single one of his talk page posts have been replied to by him, and he continues his disruptive behavior without acknowledging the concerns that were brought up at all. Communication and collaboration is a vital part of the wiki, especially responding to concerns about editing behavior, which Dimas gilang is clearly not doing. Thus, I believe a CIR block is the only choice now.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef since there has been no response by Dimas gilang. Excelse (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

He has responded in a way, by completely ignoring this discussion and continuing to ignore the advice given to him by creating poor articles like NET. (TV program) that contain the same incorrect formatting, invalid infobox fields, datelinking, WP:REDNOT violations etc., that he has been warned about previously. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It's almost as if he's being deliberately disruptive now. Previously, BLPs seemed to escape his incompetent editing but now he seems to have decided to apply himself to BLPs. Gista Putri, for example, contains the bad infobox formatting, datelinking etc. With no admin apparently interested in addressing this editors deficiencies, what's the option? I'm sick of being civil to this editor. Drastic measures time. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef Block for COI/UPE, DE, NOTHERE, CIR as per Softlavender, or just plain disregard for all community norms, and their complete failure to respond to any of the concerns raised here. I just had a look at their latest article, the BLP Gista Putri, and its pretty bad- meaningless puffery, unencyclopedic language, debatable notability, lack of citations for several statements, basic spelling errors/typos in a heading (Carrer instead of Career), and many style issues like bolding of both subjects and parents names throughout the article, in addition to those problems mentioned by AussieLegend. It pretty much needs complete rewriting. of the 4 sources it has, 2 look like unreliable gossip profile sites, 1 goes to page not found, and the other to a domain for sale ad. I checked the Indonesian Wiki, and the article is a straight copy paste of it using google translate; the editor didnt bother to check, or care, if the reference links were still good. If noone is willing to block, at the very least this editor should be topic banned from creating articles, and mandated to go through AFC- which should be automatic for anyone who, as PaleNeonate pointed out, appears to have already admitted a COI. Curdle (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello? Could we get a little Admin intervention here please?! – There's clearly consensus that this editor will not improve their behavior (indeed, they're still at it) and should be blocked. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless editors disagree I'm planning to issue an indef block of User:Dimas gilang. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Incivility, disruptive "dumping" in threads, and activism against notability guidelines by James500

All of us are critical of some ideas from other editors from time to time, and may call something "nonsense" when sense actually cannot be made of it. But there's a major difference between that and habitual use of hostile, hyperbolic, denigrating language in a fallacious argument to emotion and argument to ridicule pattern whenever one is meeting with disagreement. Especially when it's combined with either refusal to address others' points, or a hand-wave and Gish gallop technique of using a firehose of off-topic ranting and rambling that doesn't actually address the substance of the discussion others are trying to have. That's simply disruptive.

Without digging into very far at all into just the notability-related edits of James500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – and I am not the first to raise these concerns about his edits [148]:

• In response to a simple copy-editing proposal (mostly about word-order in a guideline sentence): "Utter nonsense. ... "manifestly factually untrue manifest total nonsense from start to finish" [sic] ... "Literally nothing he says is accurate." ... "This is completely misleading" ... "I am confronted by epic exaggeration ... and spectacularly misleading statements", and much more [149]. This is all just from the first 15% or so of James500's enormous 8.8K, 1400+ word rant, all dumped as a single WP:BLUDGEON paragraph, and most of it having nothing to do with the proposed revision or the problem to resolve. (Instead it goes on at length about what kinds of publications do what kinds of reviews, how GNG should (in that editor's consensus-diverged view) be interpreted and applied, his unhappiness with "deletionist mega-trolls", and on and on, concluding with his opposition to the guideline even existing – there "no possible justification" for it, he says. Also, the frequency which other respondents agreed with the proposal for revision clearly disproves James500's claim that it is "nonsense".)
• Responded with nothing but "That is total nonsense" [150] when asked by multiple parties and about multiple posts ([151], [152]) to stay on-topic and either use paragraph breaks or write shorter.
• Did not understand the rationale someone presented, and simply declared it "nonsense from start to finish" [153] (followed by argumentation that missed or intentionally skirted the actual point again; other participants showed no such comprehension problems or faux-problems; it appears to be an act to excuse ranting.)
• Declared arguments for deleting an Australian lawyer bio to be categorically "utter nonsense from start to finish" [154] (an evidently habitual phrase), but did not address any of them. Simply asserted that being a Queen's Counsel automatically translates into "notable", an idea that does not enjoy consensus (there are over 1,000 QCs in Australia alone, probably 10,000+ throughout the Commonwealth; it's an indicator of professional competence, not notability).
• "That is nonsense" again plus more off-topic hand-waving [155], when called out for misunderstanding WP:Systemic bias so badly that he said "I have yet to see any statistical evidence of actual over representation of any kind of topic on this project." [156]
• Another pointless "nonsense" post again [157] that substantively addressed nothing at all but appears to be pure battlegrounding against Hijiri88, with whom James500 is in frequent disagreement in discussions relating to notability.
• Similar ad hominem commentary, declaring other editors' input "completely irrelevant", "no value", "playing pointless semantic games", "nonsense", etc. [158]. (The other editors were simply making the point that small-town newspaper coverage of a local resident doesn't establish notability, a view well-accepted by consensus; so, James500's straw man mischaracterizations of them are demonstrably false.)
• Yet again "that is nonsense", with no substantive commentary of any kind [159].
• "I disagree with everything that you say." [160] (Followed by activism that Wikipedia shouldn't have it's definitions of and rules about primary and secondary sources and should instead use those from another field.)
• Labeled a section (WP:AUD) of the WP:Notability guideline "bizarre nonsense" [161]. (Not a civility problem, but helps establish that "If I disagree, it's okay to call it 'nonsense'" is a habitual pattern, as is unconstructive activism against consensus-accepted policy material and its application, covered in more detail below.)
• Claimed to have implemented [162] a proposed change under discussion ([163], [164]) to resolve the thread's main concern, but actually made a very different change discussed by no one [165], and which is unacceptably redundant wording which to many readers would read like some kind of typo. (It may have been reverted by now; I haven't checked yes, it has been.)

This sort of behavior seems most frequent in James500's "pet peeve" area: he is a consistent agitator against the very existence of Wikipedia notability guidelines (see [166], [167], and [168] as just a few recent examples). This is essentially a WP:1AM and WP:GREATWRONGS exercise in activism against long-standing consensus (an activity that is frequently considered WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, and grounds for action in and of itself). Given this, it makes the editor's hostile and unresponsive commentary pattern doubly inexcusable.

Disclaimer of sorts: I have no prior interaction of note with James500 that I can recall. I myself was once among the staunchest opposers of WP adopting notability guidelines (at least as they were being drafted early on). I'm sympathetic to James500's viewpoint more than he'd realize. But the guidelines are part of the Wikipedia playbook, and the community has crafted and re-crafted them carefully for over a decade. I'm also not known for brevity; having a lot to say isn't a problem – dumping it in a massive unbroken text wall is, and so is posting piles of stuff that doesn't actually pertain to the discussion just to keep re-injecting one's "Wikipedia should work differently" activism viewpoint.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC); updated: 14:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Previous ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive300#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics
• On civility, this editor may need to be prohibited from this kind of flippantly insulting and dismissive commentary (making any real counter-argument certainly doesn't require it!). Just a civility warning might be sufficient at this time.

  Regardless, a topic-ban from discussions of notability other than its application to specific cases at AfD (where James500 is a frequent and on-topic albeit extremely inclusionist participant) should separately be considered, given that railing against a guideline's existence is not a constructive activity and is a drain on other editors' time and goodwill – and isn't likely to stop on its own. A compounding factor is the editor's attempt, in this same context, to hijack the phrase "systemic bias" to just mean "we don't write enough about ancient and medieval dead people", even to the point of clearly stated denialism that white male Westerners are overrepresented (see [169] and his comment above it, though there are several other examples even in just the few pages of contribs I looked at, e.g. [170]). Guaranteed to raise the ire of anyone who cares about WP:BIAS issues, this is difficult to distinguish from intentional trolling, and at very least seems a WP:CIR matter.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC); revised: 14:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm frankly surprised this editor wasn't site-banned years ago. His tone is unnecessarily aggressive at best, and he's got an extreme battleground mentality when it comes to "the deletionists". This entirely aside from his specifically targeting me for some particularly slimy "enemy-of-my-enemy" harassment. He pretended to rage-quit Wikipedia when I called him out a very small portion of this (specifically his trying to trick the AFD analysis tools by never bolding his !votes, which is why this happens despite his having auto-!voted "keep" in hundreds of AFDs before that point). This is not a healthy presence for the project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that the above diffs are mostly me summarizing the disruption in response to James, to which he either feigned contrition before quickly reverting back to normal or just ignored me entirely. I find these more useful as evidence than simply providing the original diffs of James's actions, as my comments explain them in context. For the slimy harassment, the primary diffs of James's activities are located in my comment, but with the quotes about "deletionists" I didn't think it necessary as they all appeared on the live version of the same page. SMcC has suggested to me on my talk page that I give all the individual diffs of the quotations, which I might do tomorrow, but Ctrl+Fing the quotes will show them accurate, and even worse in their original context. I doubt, however, that I could be comprehensive in giving all the diffs of this editor's disruptive incivility. Anyway, in the meantime anyone with access to deleted pages might want to check out the page that was userfied as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics and then deleted at James's request: it's more strong evidence of the editor's battleground ideology. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Will write/link more later tonight, but James is long overdue for a tban on deletion in general, and especially on notability in particular. Easily one of the most consistently disruptive wikilawyers I've come across in my time on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The issue is a discussion at WP:NBOOK where SMcCandlish is trying to outlaw book reviews as sources and James500 is arguing against this proposal. We're supposed to discuss these matters to establish consensus but it's a common vice for editors to go on too long and all concerned should read WP:TLDR. Preventing editors from speaking at all is not appropriate because this would distort the consensus process. Trying to silence such an opponent at ANI is inappropriate as SMcCandlish has just explained at WP:GRAPES. Andrew D. (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Then there's the kind of case where someone doesn't get what they want out of a nomination process, RfC, BRD discussion, or other thread, and feels that someone in particular blockaded or thwarted them. So they dig around in that editor's history for enough dirt – none of which involved them – to try paint a picture of their "enemy" as a disruptive editor (or bad admin, or whatever) at WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:RFARB or some other drama-board. Even cursory review of editorial interaction is going to show the noticeboard's respondents that the real motivation is petty vengeance. The editor engaging in this will be lucky if it ends with just a snowball close against their pillory-my-opponent proposition; a boomerang is quite likely.

• Wow. So, if I may paraphrase this one oppose we all knew would be inevitable regardless of the reality of the situation: "nope nope, fake news. he's mad because he wants to outlaw book reviews?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if Andrew would have posted such a clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND comment (which essentially amounts to "This user is an inclusionist, and therefore must be defended regardless of his other policy violations.") if the ANI thread about his misbehaviour hadn't been closed two hours earlier. @28bytes: This is why some threads should probably just be allowed get archived without a "formal" close. For one thing, saying there's no consensus for sanctions against him, without specifying that the lack of consensus relates specifically to his deprodding, and not to his battleground behaviour, disruptive comments at AFD, etc., makes it harder to bring up the other problems later. Virtually everyone who opposed sanctions specifically referred to PROD, and hardly any of them addressed the other stuff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: That's a patently false statement and you should strike or correct it. I have suggested nothing even faintly, remotely resembling "trying to outlaw book reviews as sources". That idea isn't even on the same planet. PS: This has nothing to do with "vengeance" (for what? I have lost nothing and not been harmed in any way, nor was my proposal "blockaded" by this person, but is proceeding exactly as intended and as discussed [171]). It's entirely and only about a clearly evident pattern of disruptive and uncivil behavior (which runs far deeper than I suspected it did, judging from the evidence presented by Rhododendrites and Hijiri88; I only looked back about a month in talk-post history, in notability-related pages which is where I observed the problem occurring; that's not dirt-digging, it's basic ANI due diligence).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC); updated: 14:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of a long-term pattern

James's perspective on deletion and notability is an extreme one. That's not the problem, though. The problem is that for years, he is, in my experience, the Wikipedian most likely to expend incredible amounts of text to wikilawyer the absolute correctness of his perspective and the extent to which there is clear consensus supporting him and against others; and furthermore, that other people -- especially "deletionists" -- are the ones wikilawyering, acting in bad faith, and harassing him. His perspective is objectively correct until presented with evidence, at which point anything can become subjective (GNG, the interpretation of data (data which is probably wrong anyway because James disagrees), etc.), so he's still right. It's an exhausting time sink, and the battleground approach he takes throughout often turns the whole discussion toxic.

James routinely acts in contempt of standard community norms when they do not suit him. A handful of such examples would be ok -- we aren't robots, after all, and nobody asks for absolute conformity -- but persistent, seemingly antagonistic refusal to many users' requests are disruptive/tendentious and counter-collaborative. For example, when it's clear he's going to be in the minority, he refuses to bold his !votes (seemingly so that AfD stats cannot track it). He wrote an essay encouraging others to do that same -- a wild wikilawyering exercise that was nixed from projectspace at its MfD. Another example is how James removes all messages from his talk page and does not archive them. This is standard for someone evading scrutiny, and extremely uncommon for anyone else. Again, not on its own grounds for a sanction, but combined with all of the rest shows a pattern of disregard or even hostility towards established practice and other users' polite requests. Then there's refusing to indent threads like everyone else (which is included in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, from which James argued to remove it back in 2011, so it's something he's known for many years now). James frequently responds to someone on the same indentation level, even after being asked to do so many, many times. For examples, [172] [173][174] [175] [176] [177]. The last two are both examples of extensive wikilawyering, and he defends the practice of not indenting at length and declares that closing admins must carefully consider his non-indented comments or should be desysopped (a declaration that also came up when talking about not bolding !votes, which, as it happens, is also addressed in the deletion review link). Yet another example: it's well established at AfD (a venue James knows well, which makes the following seem disingenuous) that just linking to a search engine is insufficient to demonstrate significant coverage/GNG. Yet he defends doing so and even says that asking for sources at AfD is equivalent to insisting an AfD be referenced like an article. This last example is less ubiquitous in his edits than the others, though. Another example, posting to a thread after it has been closed: here a thread created by a banned editor was closed with no support at all; James posted under the closed thread to argue the opposite -- that AfDs with only delete votes should be relisted and AfDs with no participation should be kept as no consensus. And then there's stuff like "'Plagiarism' is not a valid concept, it is a political weapon"...

The wikilawyering/battleground is everywhere upon even just a spot check for large text additions to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Especially at any notability-related page (I would invite any skeptical editor to look through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability, Wikipedia talk:42, etc.). In terms of WP:BATTLEGROUND, James makes constant references "deletionist", "ultra-deletionist" [178] [179], etc. bogeymen and all of the terrible things they do. It's an always-available, imaginary evil to play against, to make his ideas sound sensible, rather than way outside of consensus themselves. He also frequently responds with insults or dismissals of people's comments (along these lines, though not always as clustered together).

You may look at some of these diffs and say "hey some of these are a few years old now." It's true. Most of my interactions with James were in 2014-2015. He did not edit from early 2016 until earlier this year, when we find ourselves back here for the very same sorts of things. Speaking of my interactions, it will also become clear in looking at some of the diffs above that I have been directly involved in many disputes with James. Take that as you will.

In short, because James has shown a long-term pattern of wikilawyering and a battleground mentality when it comes to discussions of deletion and notability, I would Support an indefinite topic ban on discussions related to deletion and notability, broadly construed. At this time I would abstain from taking a position on a community ban until I have time to take a closer look at his mainspace contributions, which may well be good. As I recall, James has some expertise in law (this is not me taking a wikilawyering swipe, to be clear), and that's a kind of expertise Wikipedia could use more of. My hope is that this is one of those situations when issues really are constrained to a particular topic area, and can be addressed with a lesser restriction. If mainspace contributions are good and the problems are indeed limited to deletion/notability discussions, I would certainly oppose a site ban (I'm only mentioning it because it was brought up above). Apologies for this wall of text. This is already the most, I think, that I have ever written on ANI, but I think that when it comes to a major sanction of an established editor, a long post is called for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, I think it is inconsistent to accuse me of "expending incredible amounts of text" in a post more than 8.6 kB long, preceded by a post that was more than 10.7 kB long before it was expanded, and many others that are not particularly short. Especially when many of these criticisms relate to things that happened a long time ago and are stale. Am I expected to answer all of these many criticisms without writing something of a similar length? James500 (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Evidence age matters when reporting an incident; that report is by me, and uses fresh evidence. Rhododendrites' evidence from further back establishes that this is a long-term abuse pattern and not a one-off temporary problem. It's the furthest thing from inadmissible or irrelevant. If I'd known of the depth of this problem I would have proposed a broader t-ban at very least, or perhaps an indef or site-ban. There is also no valid comparison to be made between your habit of dumping massive, attacky, off-topic, anti-consensus rants into ongoing discussions, and someone providing a comprehensive multi-year summary of your problematic edits. If the only response you can muster to this ANI is to point fingers at someone else in a nanny-nanny-boo-boo manner, this is not a good sign. No, you are not expected to post a huge rebuttal. You are expected to make it clear that you understand why some of your editing patterns are a problem and why that problematic activity is going to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  I am not allowed to respond to a criticism even if it is factually inaccurate? Even if the problem alleged does not actually exist, did not actually happen, and is not supported by the evidence provided? Or even if the criticism misunderstands a relevant policy or guideline, or misunderstands something I said? Or even if I stopped doing the thing I am accused of long ago? Or even if other editors in this dispute have engaged in incivility etc towards me? Even if the only editors who agree with the criticism are involved in this dispute with me? If that is the case, I clearly have no choice but to say whatever you want me to say. It goes without saying that I will accept the community's decision in this matter and do whatever the community asks me to do. If I am not allowed to say anything in my defence, I think I should wait to hear what some uninvolved editors think before saying anything. If they tell me I am in the wrong, I will apologise 100% and modify my editing 100% in accordance with their wishes. If they would like me to explain myself, I will be happy to do so. They can even set me a word limit, and I will stick to it, if they feel that necessary. James500 (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  No one said anything about what's "allowed". I'm trying to advise you how not to get blocked or banned. You can take that in the spirit in which its offered or ignore it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  James, as an outside, uninvolved editor, I have to say: your response above is exactly the kind of problem people are talking about. You took a comment that said you should not go tit-for-tat with someone, and turned it into I am not allowed to respond to a criticism even if it is factually inaccurate?. This is the problem I am seeing. You twist others statements into pretzels, then complain about how salty said pretzels are. There's a repeated pattern of taking specific words from another person's statement, and using those out of context to claim the editor meant something other than what they clearly said. It's that confrontational "gotcha!" style of arguing that's exhausting other editors' patience with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  I understand what you are saying. I am sorry for my response to SMcCandlish above. It was a mistake. But most of the time I cannot actually understand what SMcCandlish is saying. I, for example, have absolutely no idea what the expression "nanny nanny boo boo" means. If he had used the expression "tit-for-tat", as you did, I would have understood immediately. He and I have a communication problem. I cannot understand most of what he says. If he is going to continue to talk to me, I am going to need someone to translate what he says, because I cannot understand him, most of the time. James500 (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  But you're doing exactly the same thing again. Rather than just absorb the point, you've latched onto some tiny phrase in what I said, "in a nanny-nanny-boo-boo manner", which can be completely removed from my post without substantively changing anything about its meaning, then you claim you "cannot actually understand". There is no communication problem. There's a WP:GAMING and WP:CIR problem, and you are not fooling anyone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would support a notability/AfD ban. According to AfD stats, he's voted delete exactly once, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Female_Struggle (another delete vote shows, but it was actually a keep vote incorrectly identified by the software.) Obviously there's been some gaming of the statistics as noted above, and there may be valid reasons to consistently vote keep/have an inclusionist point of view, but his votes stand out for two reasons. First, the use of statistics from book searches to keep articles, and to be fair, he has been in the right on several of these I've checked. But for other articles, especially articles unrelated to books, he is completely unwilling to vote delete, often citing non-existent or irrelevant notability guidelines without explanation in an attempt to keep the article, and argues against any notability guideline that could be deletionist in the slightest. I'm not sure a site ban is warranted, though. SportingFlyer talk 06:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, I've linked to several user pages and discussions with specific people above. I intentionally didn't link to usernames to avoid any sense of canvassing, but now I wonder if that conflicts with ANI norms of talking about people's discussions without notifying them. I will presume not do so myself unless told otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't conflict with ANI norms. I have seen people pilloried for canvassing when they name-link a large number of allegedly aggrieved parties. The ANI rule is to notify people about whom one is making a report, i.e., the person[s] potentially subject to sanctions. If someone else ends up also potentially subject to them, they'd be notified if they're not already involved in the thread. We also typically name-link people if we've made a specific claim about their involvement, statements, understandings, etc., in case we might be mistaken.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Tell that to this guy Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I never read your replies but your comment leads me to believe you still think it was okay for you to call out someone edit's on AN without notifying them. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Meanwhile of course, I'm assuming you're still claiming you needed to be notified for something which actually had nothing to do with you which even SMcCandlish's (IMO mistaken) comment doesn't agree with. I would note that in any case, SMcCandlish does recognise something you failed to last time around. Wikilinking someone's name or pinging them raises the same canvassing concerns that notifying them does. Therefore if you are concerned over canvassing it's a moot point whether you wikilink or notify. The question should be solely about whether it was acceptable to do so, so your objection to someone being notified when this came up remains pointless. Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm not complaining about you mentioning my comments here without notifying me. That's the sort of thing which was completely okay as there's almost no chance anyone is going to raise concerns with my behaviour, except by opening a new thread. My only concern is that you still feel it was okay for you to talk about the actions of the editor who originally closed the AN/I thread, even though you simultaneously felt they didn't have to be notified, while also feeling you had to be notified even though your actions had nothing to do with the discussion, and it was fairly unlikely people were going to discuss your behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't think the issue there was my discussing the editor in question without wanting them notified but the other editor's choosing to shoehorn a reference to them in to an otherwise unrelated filing. And, as with the discussion at WT:CIVIL to which that editor had canvassed others, context matters: if the editor in question hadn't just received a stern final warning for canvassing, I wouldn't have even made note of the shoehorning. Conversely, SMcCandlish opened an ANI thread about a discussion I had posted in more than he had; his not pinging Rhodo was actually more unusual than his pinging me, so he could hardly be accused of canvassing, even if an ANI thread had just closed with him being warned about canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I don't think it's acceptable simply to namelink people if you are bringing their involvement up for discussion anymore. You need to notify them when you are naming them. If you are not naming them because their actions don't matter, or you believe they don't matter then you should not name them or notify them. If their involvement was incidental and it's unlikely anyone is going to bring up their involvement for discussion, it may be okay to simply wikilink them but this is IMO risky probably why it's rare. When that happens, it's not uncommon that someone's actions come up for discussion and they are never notified despite not yet being a participant because the assumption is made they were already notified. It's IMO rare for someone to notify people except at the beginning of a thread so if people aren't notified at the beginning, they often aren't going to be notified point blank. (Of course in practice, whether notified or wikilinked someone may simply read a discussion, say something or not, and decide they have nothing to add and then not read it anymore only for their actions to later come up for discussion. We can't handle all possibilities we simply do our best to be fair to editors.) Since canvassing concerns arise either way, not notifying someone when you are wikilinking them is of limited benefit. The only exception I'm aware of is when you're simply pinging someone because they've dealt with the editor or page of concern before so may be interested in the discussion (rather than being the focus of it), although even then it's not that there's a harm in notifying them, simply that it isn't needed. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: That seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. I tend to ping someone in a thread like this if I'm putting forth my interpretation of what they've said, I'm directly quoting them (perhaps out of context?), or have characterized their actions (and it's important in the context), since they have a right to say whether I'm being accurate or off-base about them. But if someone I'm reporting got in an argument with 10 editors, and certainly not going to ping them all to come and restart their flamewar. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment in defense of above site-ban reference I'm not actually proposing an SBAN or even an indef, and at this stage would be satisfied with a TBAN. My reasoning for saying that I am surprised he hasn't been site-banned is that having a battleground mentality this virulent is normally a quick ticket to a community indef (functionally the same as a site ban), and while I too have not examined James's mainspace edits, I do note that since returning this year his article edits are roughly equal in number to his WP:-space edits, and many (most?) of the former are actually deletion-related (this applies to all of the ones on European literature, lists of star systems, and years/centuries in philosophy), and so would be covered by Rhodo's proposed TBAN anyway. The harassment of editors he sees as "deletionists" in non-deletion-related areas, such as requesting that an editor who was blocked partly for harassing me be unblocked, is also, IMO, the worst thing about his behaviour, and experience[180][181] has taught me that TBANning editors who do this won't actually stop it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• support TBAN from notabilty and deletion discussions. That was a lot to read, and yes, this person is disruptive on these topics and refuses to accept the community consensus (such as it is) or even to see the need for it. Hopefully they will contribute in other areas. Jytdog (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @User:Jytdog: If I was to accept what you consider community consensus on notability and deletion, would you change your !vote? If I was, amongst other things, too agree to refrain from !voting to keep articles that should not be kept according to what you consider community consensus, would you change your !vote? James500 (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

    I have to observe that this is a spectacular example of a WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:CIR problem. This is not about negotiating with particular individuals to WP:WIN them to your side by slightly tweaking your tactics. The point is complete cessation of tendentious and uncivil verbal combat against site-wide consensus about what notability is, why we have it as an inclusion criterion, and how it is applied by the community.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

    I have struck my comment. I am sorry that I made it. I think that I now understand what you want me to refrain from doing. I agree to refrain from doing what you have just told me to refrain from doing. I will never open my mouth on the subject of notability again. James500 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• support Tban from notability and deletion discussions per Jytdog. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So, is anyone gonna look at this?

So far this thread has received commentary from the editor who filed it, the editor who is the subject of discussion, another editor (me) who was pinged, another editor involved in the dispute that led to this thread and with a long history with the subject of the thread, and a battleground editor who defended the subject of the thread with a bizarre non sequitur because said subject agrees with him on one hot button issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've been reading this thread and there's quite a bit I could say. But anything I did say would only be throwing petrol on the fire without doing anything to help the situation. I do agree though that the stuff about "forbidding book reviews" is just obfuscation. Reyk _YO! 08:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted a comment in the previous section. Waiting to see how James responds before making any further statements. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Frankly, I agree entirely with this thread, but I'm so tired of this crap that I don't feel like contributing to it, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that front. That's all I'm gonna say. ansh666 19:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: James500 exclusively votes to keep articles, but his participation at AfD has been generally productive. The AfD tracker shows that "without considering No Consensus results, 81.9% of AfD's were matches and 18.1% of AfD's were not". This is pretty good. If there are problems with participation in notability discussions, then there are probably better ways of dealing with the situation, such as ignoring their comments. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• @K.e.coffman: I can only presume you didn't read all of the above (though can't say I blame you). One of the very issues above is that James found a way to game those stats, refusing to bold his !votes except in certain circumstances and thus controlling which are tracked by the tool. If you actually look through his contribs to AfD rather than use the stats tool to do so, you will see that his record over the years is poor. Regardless, none of this is about accuracy at AfD, it's about a years-long pattern of disruption, battleground mentality, etc. around the topics of deletion and notability. I can pull a lot more diffs demonstrating this, but if all of the above didn't convince you, I don't know what will. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I do recall the "Salami" essay MfD. But it seems that the non-bolding of !votes has stopped, and I'm going by personal experience with seeing James500 at AfD. Most recently, I saw his edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Over the Abyss where I was going to vote keep, because it was a notable book. I'm sorry that your experience has been negative; I generally try not to get into repetitive discussions, hence my advice to ignore posts like that. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That you have had positive experiences doesn't invalidate the heap of diffs to the contrary, unless you're saying all of the above is perfectly acceptable? Or you just don't believe it's evidence of a pattern. There are so many diffs, that I wonder what sort of evidence you would consider sufficient, if anything? Again, this is more about discussions about deletion and discussion of notability than accuracy at AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: TBF, leaving out the "no consensus" results kinds misses the point, since it leaves out the cases where there would have been "consensus" of one or two editors ("soft delete") had it not been for him showing up and undermining that, and there is also the fact that he actively tried to trick the AFD stats tool by not bolding his !votes. This, for example, doesn't show up as an AFD in which he cast a !vote, despite the fact that any human being who can read can see he clearly did -- and in fact the AFD only took place because he disruptively requested a bunch of articles he hadn't read be undeleted "just 'cause". All of this was outlined, somewhat briefly/simplistically, in my own comment above, and Rhodo at least also alluded to the refusal to bold !votes in order to trick the AFD stats tool -- did you read them? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: This is all off-topic. This ANI report has nothing whatsoever to do with AfD stats, but with long-term and topically focused incivility, and a habitual campaigning against WP consensus being WP consensus (i.e., to have notability guidelines and to apply them, to delete non-notable articles). That is the entire subject. Even if he had a 100% AfD record, these issues would remain.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Revision: The ANI I opened had nothing to do with ANI stats, but enough editors have raised the issue that I concede its inclusion. However, I think most of the discussion about it has been a "sidetrack" of the central concerns, which are civility of campaigning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• After reviewing this thread a few times over the past few days, I feel I can say definitively that I don't plan to comment on it in detail. The early grave of a no-consensus closure-by-default is sufficient, in my view. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know what that means. Are you saying that in your view there is no action justified, or is this a non-comment to justify spending time digging through ANI yuckiness? I would ask you the same as coffman, then: what, exactly, would be convincing if not the evidence above? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• It means I've seen him at AFD and haven't seen anything beyond "annoying" in his behavior, certainly nothing that would justify sanctions here. None of the specific diffs presented here are enough to convince me otherwise. The warning that the ANI regulars are aware of him and if he becomes more tendentious, he is more likely to be sanctioned in the future, is probably sufficient here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Several times it's been bad enough to come to ANI. On one or two occasions it did. On the others, James did, as above, saying "I'll stop" when confronted with the possibility of ANI. There have been breaks, but no stopping. Eh. Perhaps the single most consistent and problematic long-term wikilawyer I've come across in my time on Wikipedia. Anyway, if I see a request for more evidence/diffs, I will drop more links. I'm less than convinced people will actually click them, though, so I'm going to allocate time elsewhere for the time being. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I hadn't seen him at AFD but in a discussion about notability in general (which he apparently considers to be part of a deletionist plot to destroy the encyclopedia), and called him out on his combative language. He responded by, several months later, requesting that an editor who was indeffed (partly) for harassing me be unblocked for apparently no other reason than that he didn't like me, and showing up on an ANI thread to defend another user whose harassment of me was under discussion (he had never edited the noticeboard before). You might call this behaviour "annoying" but I call it downright disturbing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I've taken a second look. Excessive wordiness, complaints about indenting style, and a too-aggressive use of the word "nonsense" may not be encouraged, but they certainly don't justify any of the sanctions. Disagreeing with the community consensus on notability (in discussions about changing the notability policies) is something that can't be the justification for sanctions. Beyond that, we have a general tendentious tone; I don't think a warning "James500 is encouraged to be less tendentious" will please anybody. The (now-10-month-old) discussion on WT:NBOOK is one I've been a part of (as have SMcCandlish, Rhododendrites, Hijiri88, and James500); an RFC is probably necessary there and James500 should be encouraged not to comment on the drafting of the RFC (before it is open to general comment). Am I missing anything else? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I pinged you above with specific diffs of James500 engaging in hounding of an editor he had decided was a "deletionist": did you not see them? There was nothing in my above reply to you about Excessive wordiness, complaints about indenting style, and a too-aggressive use of the word "nonsense" may not be encouraged; you are indeed missing something else, but given that you responded to a comment that was 100% about harassment and completely ignored that, it looks like you are doing so deliberately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

After the incident where Hijiri88 felt that James500's vote at Philafrenzy's RFA was hounding, I don't feel this is a topic that needs to be investigated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Umm ... it was hounding, as clearly demonstrated by the evidence above that shows irrefutably that he was hounding me (how on earth did he know who Huggums537 was, and why did he show up there right before showing up at ANI thread I had opened?): the problem was that RFA is a fiery enough place already, without using the RFA talk page to address who is hounding who. But bringing that up here just comes across as mudslinging for the sake of it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I will not engage in excessive wordiness. I will improve my indenting style. I will not use the word "nonsense" to describe other editors' talk page comments. I will not comment on the drafting of the RfC at WT:NBOOK. I will refrain from tenditious tone in the future. Is there anything else you would like me not to do? James500 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That honestly sounds entirely reasonable and notably more "getting-it" than previous responses, though you may be at once over-promising (that's a lot of detail to remember) and under-promising (in that some of it's gameable). Consider that the central issues here are incivility, and a "lobbyist"-style, anti-consensus approach to notability. It wouldn't be taken as reasonable to, say, start using "stupid", "twaddle", etc., in place of "nonsense", nor to just stop opposing notability guidelines on their talk pages but instead go to AfD and argue robotically to keep every article regardless of the applicability of notability guidelines. It's not about navigating a checklist of don't-do-this-little-thing and do-that-little-thing, it's about working within Wikipedia as a system and a community. That said, I'm inclined (finally?) to take this show contrition and awareness at face value.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm I will not use the word "stupid" or "twaddle" or any similar word to describe other editors' talk page comments, and I confirm I will refrain from incivility and follow Wikipedia:Consensus. James500 (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the above explicit ignoring of my request below is quite telling: someone saying they will "refrain from incivility" in response to another editor telling them to avoid using a specific uncivil word, which they can later say is "up for debate" whether its use qualified as uncivil, would be bad enough by itself, but James500 still hasn't even acknowledged that targeted harassment took place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri can you be more specific about what term we are talking about here? If it's "deletionist", I am afraid I am with James on that one small point. I think I've seen you advance this theory before that it is a pejorative, but if I am to be perfectly blunt, I think that's a bit histrionic and I don't think you are going to find it is a common view--in any event, I am quite certain that it's not going to be a big factor in anyone's analysis of whether James has been incivil in general with regard to the conduct discussed here, which presents far bigger questions. I say this as someone whose AfD stats, last I checked some years ago, skew strongly towards the "delete" side of things, and who will probably thus be accused of being a "deletionist" at some point. But the word in itself is just a term that some editors have adopted as descriptor for a supposed editorial philosophy. Let me be clear that I happen to think it's a small-minded, jingoistic term personally; it does seem to suggest, especially in the context in which it usually used, that the "deletionist" works from a knee-jerk, dogmatic approach and just wants to see things gone out of some obsessive, non-nuanced, mechanical approach to deletion discussions. Whereas the "deletionist" might say, in any given context in which that term is invoked, that they are simply following policy and that content guidelines make it clear not everything is appropriate for this project. So when someone uses that term to describe the approach of another editor, it degrades the strength of their argument, because they have chosen to adopt an argument that looks at least a little like a scarecrow argument and which attempts to build itself by addressing the "opposition's" characteristics rather than the issues themselves--both of which are weak forms of argumentation when it comes to policy/editorial decisions.

But WP:INCIVIL or a WP:PA? No, I'm sorry, I feel that's excessive. A dumb term? Yes. A clumsy bit of work in categorizing people instead of on-topic discourse of the virtues of approach A as opposed to approach B? Typically, yeah. But nothing actionable. People have to be able to have some flexibility to make their arguments on this project, and sometimes that does involve analysis of the bias of other editors. I think people reach to such arguments and statements more readily than I'd like on this project as a general matter, but I certainly can't get behind labeling that as incivil in itself, because sometimes its going to be vital. So I would call "deletionist" just generally lame, rather than offensive. But beyond my personal views, there's this to consider: we just had an RfC on WP:CIVILITY in which a substantial number of users felt the phrase "fuck off" was not per se offensive, even if said in the context of a dispute. What chances do you think you really have of convincing a majority of editors at ANI to take action against "deletionist" in that context? Of course, I could be mistaken; it could be you were referring to something entirely different, in which case, sorry for bending your ear with my deletionist dissertation!

More broadly, while I wouldn't defend James' conduct throughout (I'll speak to that in a separate post) I will say that at this point he is being more cooperative than one typically is at this point in a conduct discussion. He's already pledged not to do/say a number of specific things here that others have expressed concerns about. Usually a truly tendentious editor will not make such promises, because they believe (and correctly so in most circumstances) that if they do not abide by those promises, someone will quickly bring them back here seeking a sanction--because at that point, they will have tacitly conceded that the behaviour was not appropriate. Again, without pretending James' conduct has been perfect, James has agreed not to utter some words that I think a lot of other editors would not willingly part with. So is it truly that important to you that he concedes an apology to you specifically? Is that really where you feel the focus of this discussion needs to be? Because I must be honest with you, whether it is a fair assessment in this instance or not, it makes it look like any commentary on the conduct issues you may be offering here have a strong personal element. And therefore it doesn't seem so much targeted to meet community/project needs so much as you're own. If you have reason to believe James is being disingenuous, that's one thing. But if on the other hand you believe his promises are good-faith, is it really worth the risk of derailing that progress in order to try to get him admit being the one at fault in the personal dispute between you? Snow ^{let's rap} 05:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Without getting into many of the specifics here, @Snow Rise: the issue is not the term "deletionist." Plenty of editors use that term on a regular basis. The issue is the manner/context. Regardless of what a deletionist is, whether such a thing exists, or the extent to which it is a good or bad thing, James uses the term "deletionist" as an evil bogeyman -- a rhetorical tool to make wild assumptions of bad faith fitting into an overall battleground approach to notability-related discussions. It is an easily available straw man rationale to support any mischaracterization of notability/deletion-related matters that otherwise have broad consensus behind them. I've been called deletionist (as well as inclusionist) a number of times. The words don't matter (similar to the recent civility RfC, it's about how they're used/context, and long-term patterns). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, yes I do see some hints of the term being used in a jingoistic, dismissive fashion in some of the diffs provided thus far, but I am afraid I (and I suspect many other community members) would have to see more of those specifics before supporting such a strong sanction as a topic ban from all notability-related topics (that's a pretty solid chunk of all possible editorial activity on this project, even if we limit it to policy pages and don't include article content/AfD contexts); see my larger post below for a fuller description of my feelings on that. I certainly find this kind of usage (even insofar as has been presented here already) to be myopic, dogmatic, and indicative of subpar logic. But if we begin to topic ban editors from policy areas where they regularly hit that trifecta, we're going to have our work cut out for us here at ANI for, oh let's say the next thirty years. I'd need to see either something that more cleanly crosses the threshold into open hostility/incivility, or attempts on his part to filibuster/game the system/troll/what-have-you, before I could contemplate a topic ban here. Just expressing skepticism about the existence of a policy, on that policy's talk page, is not in and of itself unacceptable in my view. We need to be able to occasionally challenge even fundamental assumptions about how this project works from time to time. While I think James' approach would be nonsensical, I'd not be comfortable declaring his perspective anathema. That really would be pure dogma. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a Catch-22, though. People have already complained that the evidence presented was too long and detailed, and someone even made a (bogus) WP:WITCHHUNT accusation. You're asking for an actual witchhunt, to diff-dig into James500 past edits to dredge up additional examples of the exact same things of which we already have sufficient evidence – both as to them being repeated instances of the same sanctionable behavior and as to them forming a very topical pattern of tendentious battlegrounding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Except you do not seem to have a consensus which holds that the conduct presented so far actually is sanctionable, at least not with regard to the sanction you are seeking. I'm by no means urging you to go digging through anyone's edit history. I'm just telling you that James' conduct that you have presented thus far does not constitute the kind of disruption or incivlity I would need to see before endorsing the proposed TBAN. You may do with that information as you will, but certainly should not take it as encouragement to do anything you feel would be inappropriate, unfair, or generally discouraged by the community in discussions of this sort, or which you have been advised against in particular here. As to others telling you that your previous posts were excessive, I was not among them, so I can only speculate as to what they meant, but from my observation your post was very long, but also very repetitive, describing the same kinds of behaviours over and over. That may have been intentional to demonstrate the persistence/proclivity involved, but the problem is that I for one found those particular behavours (while by no means admirable) to fall short of outright disruption. Besides, James has promised to abet the behaviours which you spend the lion's share of your initial post describing, and you don't seem to be forwarding the contention that he is being disingenuous in his pledge, if I am reading you correctly? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@James500: Please also apologize for your hounding of me and promise not to hound any more editors in the future, and don't ever call any other editors, even unspecified groups of hypothetical editors, "deletionists" again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

James500 avoiding such stuff in the future would be implicit in his agreement to cease uncivil activity and battlegrounding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

As for specific words, this ANI has nothing to do with whether the word "deletionist" is per se uncivil (it isn't). I've already indicated to James500, above, that his long string of highly detailed "I won't do that any more" promises may be a bit off the mark. He doesn't need to "part with" a particular word (even "nonsense" - we do, after all, have WP:NONSENSE for when something is truly nonsensical). It's about the use to which he's been such putting words; it's all about intent. To the extent terms like "deletionist" have valid use (and they do), they should be reserved and used sparingly as adjectives to describe an unquestionable view or pattern when it is relevant to do so, not as labels to stick onto individuals as a fallacious ad hominem denigration tactic. WP:HOTHEADS provides some good generalized advice about this sort of thing.

"Deletionist" absolutely is pejorative when used to pigeonhole individuals, to set them up as enemies to combat, and to dismiss everything they say as worthless without actually addressing any of it. James500 should respond to the substance of arguments people make, and respond to arguments he disagrees with as arguments, not as stupid or malicious people (or exaggerated hobgoblins) to whack with his stick. Contrast James500 abuse of "deletionist" in the way someone else might use misuse "fascist" as an argument to ridicule against anyone politically right-of-center, versus ANI respondents' use of "inclusionist" in references to James500's stated views and his non-constructive "keep everything" pattern at AFD. See the difference? It's the same distinction as "We shouldn't hire Amy because she's Baptist" versus "Amy's Baptist and has a dim doctrinal view of Catholic crucifixes." Radically different use and intent.

This is also relates to the third concern of this ANI, after incivility and soapbox/battleground behavior: using rivers of off-topic "hand-waving" to mire discussions in noise. It's another disruptive form of failure to address substance. James500 actually seems to have started absorbing these kind of distinctions, though it took us a lot of ANI mileage to get there. In closing: if you think someone's argument really is nonsense in light of what a policy or a guideline or sources actually say, then prove it, don't just label its author. Clearly provide what you're certain is the correct analysis.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with quite a bit of what you said there, in particular this: "To the extent terms like "deletionist" have valid use (and they do), they should be reserved and used sparingly as adjectives to describe an unquestionable view or pattern when it is relevant to do so, not as labels to stick onto individuals...", with especially strong agreement as to the italicized clause. However, the question is, when an editor employs these particular tactics, in these particular words, have they demonstrated incivility, hostility, or disruption such that they should be sanctioned by the community? Or have they simply embraced a form of irrational argument that weakens their standing among reasonable editors, but which otherwise falls within the scope of permissible commentary? In my opinion, it is more the latter than the former, at least as regards the specific instances that have been reported here thus far. And honestly, the comparison between "deletionist" and "fascist" is a pretty obvious false analogy that illustrates the fault line between the argument you are advancing and my own perspective on this; those two terms are not remotely identical in form or function and indeed, it is a rare context indeed where calling someone a fascist would not be seen as provocative and inflammatory. Almost any use of the word "fascist" in a dispute is going to be less acceptable than any use of the word "deletionist". Besides, isn't this point also moot--isn't that another habit which James has pledged to stop indulging in? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Some time ago (possibly several months) I decided to reduce my use of the word "deletionist" to a minimum. I will not use the word "deletionist" to describe editors. I do not believe in the existence of "deletionists". IIRC, I have nominated hundreds of articles for speedy deletion (an admin may have to confirm this as I may not have logged or patrolled all of them). Does that make me a "deletionist"? I do not think the word is meaningful. I immediately stopped using the word "nonsense" when Hijiri88 asked me not to use it at WT:NBOOK. I have been trying to accommodate the editors who are criticising me, and minimise conflict with them, for some time. I do not know if they are aware this. James500 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've indicated awareness of it twice, though I'm not sure what you've said mollifies others, due to concerns that the same stuff (or effectively the same, e.g. using different denigrating words, or a different tactic for undermining WP applying its well-accepted notability guidelines) will start up all over again after some period of laying low. It's basically a matter of "try it and see" versus "let's not go there", at this point. I have no objection to the former because sometimes people's habits will change after an ANI like this. But I don't think this ANI should be closed without at least a warning as to the central civility, discussion-bludgeoning, and gaming/lobbying-against-notability concerns.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for advice

I would like advice as to what I should do from an uninvolved admin. Should I respond to the allegations, or apologise for saying the word "nonsense" or for saying anything else that I actually said, or offer other concessions, or wait and see, or something else? Please tell me what to do. I am absolutely terrified and in enormous distress. James500 (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You could apologize for all the disruption demonstrated above. Are you really claiming that saying the word "nonsense" is all the wrong you've done? Because if you are that recalcitrant in your unwillingness to abide by our policies I imagine the number of editors who think the solution is an indef block will rise substantially... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Advice from an uninvolved admin is pretty much what this process is for: the closer (more often than not an admin) either imposes a community-suggested sanction that keeps the editor out of this kind of trouble, or a warning that advises how to avoid ending up back here again for the same issue (or – should it apply – summarizes that the community take on the matter is that the reported editor did nothing wrong and the filer is being a bonehead or has a nefarious motive).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• There's independent advice at WP:ANI advice and this generally seems quite sound. As the issue here is that James500 is accused of being prolix, points 6, 7, 10, 11, 16 seem most appropriate. In summary:

6. Keep it brief.

7. Don't badger

10. Keep calm

11. Don't get upset

16. Speak moderately.

Andrew D. (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Davidson above gives good advice, but deliberately doesn't leave edsums explaining why an edit took place. This is considered incredibly rude by most editors, so don't you forget. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 19:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Modified to reflect reality by Roxy, the Prod. wooF 12:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not leaving an edit summary is "Incredibly rude"? I think not, but in any case, it's specifically not required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall an editor getting site-banned at one point where their lack of edit summaries was seen as disruptive, they were placed under an editing restriction requiring them to use edit summaries, which they initially abode by but then started to ignore. It's kinda off-topic here except that Roxy recently opened an ANI thread on Andrew requesting he be banned from de-prodding, and was overruled by a large number of editors claiming that we don't ban people from doing things that policy allows them to do. Anyway, sometimes editors go out of their way not to leave any form of edit summary (even an automatic one indicating which section of the page they edited), and while that's not forbidden, I do think it's a pretty clear sign of someone trying to hide something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure would be nice if this could return the actual topic of this ANI. While the advice above from Andrew D. isn't wrong, by any means, it only addresses a fraction of the problem, the other big chunk being the activism against WP's notability guidelines themselves. This has to stop. Normally I'm inclined to take someone at their word when they say it will stop, but we have indications that this editor has made similar promises before, laid low for a short while, then gone right back to their anti-consensus campaigning. If this doesn't resolve now for a T-ban, we'll likely be right back here in a few weeks or months re-reviewing the same evidence plus more just like it and then issue a T-ban. Worse could happen, but it's rather inefficient, since the problems are unmistakable and long-term, and the end result predictable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I've read a lot of the above but can you point me (on my talk page if it makes more sense if it's going to be long) to where he's made similar promises before? My remembered experience with James has purely been on book AfDs. I only tend to weigh in on those when I think they're keeps and have seen alignment there. I can't recall him being off base in book AfDs that I thought should be deleted or in areas where I tend to more often be vocally on the delete side (e.g. articles about organizations/corporations). His gaming of the tracker is no good and so I would like to see a promise to stop doing that (which some have indicated above has already happened) but pending that evidence of promises not kept in the past I would suggest a close reflecting James' promises and we move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have been bolding my AfD !votes for some time (probably several months now), and will continue doing so if I am allowed to continue to edit AfDs. James500 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I briefly described the string of events that led to that development above: James claimed that use of the AFD stats tool was "wikihounding", I asked him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GJ 3522 (and a few other places before that) to bold your !votes, you responded with Are you going to stop trolling and violating WP:HOUND, or shall I just put Template:Retired on my user page? Your behaviour has completely exhausted my patience. If you plan to continue trolling and wikihounding, please let me know now, because I will simply leave.[182], I responded on my talk page (as I know James would blank anything I left on his without indicating whether or not he had read it), and James pretended to rage-quit the encyclopedia. I'm guessing someone probably told him off-wiki that continuing to evade scrutiny despite being asked to stop would probably result in him being indeffed, so hedecided to finally give in once he came back a week later. This whole thing is why it's so ironic that the editors who are trying to defend him are doing so with the AFD stats tool he hates so much. (And how one of them is actually insisting that I'm the one making bogus accusations of hounding: James only stopped accusing me of hounding when I accidentally happened to notice that he had been hounding me.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Some thoughts: I'm a little torn on all of this. Some of the editors who are here accusing James of tendentiousness are community members whose opinions I respect, and in general, I am pretty much for a significantly higher standard of civility than has been generally enforced in recent years. And yet, I can't help feel a little underwhelemed by a lot of the evidence that has been presented against James here. I'm left to presume that there must be a lot more context that was not included here to explain these concerns, but I can only speak to the matters that were raised here.

To wit, I'll start with "nonsense": using this word, especially with regularity, certainly doesn't paint the picture of the most open-minded or collaborative contributor, I will grant that. Similar to the opinion I expressed above to Hijiri about "deletionist", it is the sort of thing which I tend to view as weakening one's view rather than augmenting it--at least when used too casually. But is it generally outside the scope of civil discourse? No, I would not say that it is, typically. I mean, context is queen, so of course I can think of any number of instances where it would be overly aggressive/hostile, no doubt. But few, if any, of the instances raised here would qualify as brightline violations of WP:CIV. And I think I'm often perceived as being nitpicky about adherence to WP:CIV, so if I am not convinced, it's probably unlikely that a sanction for this would be forthcoming. In any event, James has chosen to address concerns about this by agreeing not to lean on the term anymore, so that seems a closed issue, unless the proposition is that he will not follow through.

As to his POV on WP:NOTABILITY...it's dumb. It's short-sighted. It's completely infeasible. It would, in my opinion, should the community ever adopted it, invite such a deluge of special interest editing and--shall I say it?--nonsense that the reputation, quality, and utility of this project might never recover. It's a poor theory, is my point. But is it WP:disruptive for him to even forward this opinion? I don't see how it would be. Bad ideas get forwarded here every day, but we rely on the consensus process to filter them, and that's usually pretty reliable when they are such bad ideas and where the change is so fundamental that it would need a huge amount of support to generate inertia for the change, as would be the case here. This site is a laboratory of ideas if ever one existed, being the largest collaborative, bottom-up endeavour of its sort in human history. To an extent, it is healthy to have a certain number of people at the extremes; or at least, it's a an indication of health in our consensus process and culture of open-mindedness. Extreme positions when it comes to editorial matters are only a concern when they are exercised in bad faith or when the party expressing them cannot accept overwhelming consensus. Now I can conceive that maybe there has been such bad-faith/disruptive behaviour associated with regard to James that is driving the concerns here, but if that's the case, the evidence has not been well presented, despite some very long posts with many diffs. I certainly think numerous of the comments presented suggest James has lost the plot vis-a-vis notability and "deletionism", but I don't see glaring problems with how he presents those opinions, which is what we would need for something to be actionable here.

Of the comments which do touch upon behavioural issues needing addressing, most can be found in Rhododendrites' large-ish post above. Things like refusing to indent, or follow standard !vote formatting are in my opinion more significant problems than they may seem at first blush. However, I'm not sure how the course of action Rhododendrites suggests (endorsing SMcCandlish's proposed topic ban on notability) addresses those issues. In general I think all of the complaints/frustrations various community members have with James (which may be perfectly legitimate in and of themselves) have been amalgamated into one monolithic sense of frustration, but we'd need to tease them out again before action can be taken. And notably James seems to be making an effort to make concessions above. (Admitedly I don't know him well enough to gauge his level of sincerity though). I'm not going to !vote "oppose" on the notability TBAN just yet, because, as I say, I trust the perspectives of editors who have raised concerns here, so I'm open to being won over. But I'd have to see a strong showing of obstructionism, rather than just evidence that his views lay at an extreme. And I say this as someone who is at the diametrically opposite side of this issue--I think SNGs are far, far too permissive with regard to the content they let in. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I've addressed much of this (before seeing it) in a post above about this not being about particular words. The other main theme of this, "is it WP:disruptive for him to even forward this opinion?", isn't what has been under discussion or what the evidence shows. That is a long-term pattern of railing against Wikipedia having and apply notability guidelines at all and (an issue raised by others, not me, because I did not "diff dig" very deep nor outside of talk pages) trying to thwart them at AFD (by arguing to keep everything) since he has zero traction in getting the N guidelines deleted or substantively changed. If I recall, we've only identified a single case in which James500 has agreed with an article's deletion despite having made himself an AFD fixture, and even if there are more it's something he virtually never does (he's gone out of his way to hide this by gaming the AFD stats). This is in fact disruptive, of Wikipedia operating the way the community wants it to operate. There is no "amalgamation" of unrelated concerns in this ANI. James500's problematic editing is all notability, all the time. In looking at the last month of James500's edits, I could not find a single case of him being uncivil, abusing process, derailing discussions, misrepresenting the meaning of a policy or guideline, or engaging in "WP is wrong and must change, or else" behavior in any other topic area. It looks to me kind of like you're responding to the frustrated tone of Hijiri88 and Rhododendrites, deciding they're being mean, and not actually looking at the their evidence on its own merits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not !vote to keep all of the articles at AfD. I generally ignore AfDs about articles on topics that I consider potentially non-notable, because I do not have the time or resources or patience to pursue their deletion. In particular, I lack access to certain paywalled databases and certain sites that my browser security settings, which I do not know how to modify, will not let me. The most that I can usually do when I find an article that I consider potentially non-notable is to report that I have looked at Google and found nothing, as I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurts Publishing (where my comment was responsible for the deletion of the article; in that case I was unable to access HighBeam, therefore I could not complete a WP:BEFORE search). The reason that my accuracy rate is above 81% is that on the order of 81%+ of the topics I !vote to keep actually are notable within the true meaning of the guidelines. The idea that I am trying to undermine the guidelines fails to take into account the fact that I am only one person and I am completely incapable of doing that, because the other participants would shout me down. James500 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"It looks to me kind of like you're responding to the frustrated tone of Hijiri88 and Rhododendrites, deciding they're being mean, and not actually looking at the their evidence on its own merits." Can I trouble you to re-read my comments a second time and tell me if you still think this is the major thrust of my arguments, because, respectfully, I do not think that captures the general sentiment of my observations above and if that is the message you took from it, I don't think you read it as carefully as you might have. Nowhere that I can see have I impled that anyone has been mean or mistreated James, and I can assure you that no such perception coloured my interpretation of their (or your) evidence. And I think I did a pretty heavy (indeed, verbose) accounting of why I just do not believe you have made your case for the sanction you are proposing with the conduct evidence you have presented here thus far. As to your more immediate argument: there is no policy that says James may not !vote "keep" in 99% (nor indeed 100%) of AfDs he participates in, nor is there any principle of community consensus which holds that he is being WP:disruptive if he !votes in service of an extreme editorial philosophy, even if he does so consistently and in a way where it seems improbable to another editor that he is making a full accounting of policy as it applies to those facts. The cure to that sort of non-nuanced, sloppy argumentation is that, if his opinion does not jive with the policies as they apply to the specifics of that particular content issue, it can be discounted. And if he makes a habit of it, other community members will be of the habit of dismissing his perspectives.

At present, I feel your arguments about James' conduct blur the lines between the kinds of outright disruptive behaviours we must attempt to control and expression of more subjective, a priori editorial perspectives and priorities, which are not in our purview to regulate--not as a consensus on this project always has (and in my opinion, has needed to) operate. Again, I do not dismiss the possibility that there is more to the story here than has been presented so far, and that I may not be convinced that some sort of community action is warranted here. But I for one would need to see evidence of conduct that is of a substantially different character (that is, constituting more blatant gamesmanship or incivility) than has been presented thus far. And the response of several other editors here give me to believe I am not alone in this. Indeed, I believe I have expressed substantially more openness to the possibility that you have a legitimate complaint here, than some others have, and the entire point of my last post was to try to lay out the kind of conduct I would need to see in order to endorse such a substantial sanction as a TBAN from all things notability. As to my reference to amalgamation--my point is that I view certain isolated behaviours discussed here as easier to handle individually. For example, the indenting and bolding of !votes. But on some of those particulars, James has already given ground. I doubt very much, however, that he will concede to removing himself from all discussion impinging up notability (his presumably snarky comment to that effect above not withstanding. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to mischaracterize your original point; it just seemed to be (and still does) focused on whether having an opinion and expressing it is, or is central to, the issues of this ANI, which isn't the case. It's just about behavior patterns and their effects. No one's critical of James500 for disliking WP's notability system or proposing that it be changed or scrapped, but for tirelessly trying to undermine it and being terrible to other editors while doing so. The difference is meaningful. Constantly pushing the same idea after consensus has declined to accept it is a priori disruptive if it continues indefinitely. "There is no policy against [x]" isn't an argument often accepted here in a case like this, because there actually is a policy against it (no matter what "it" or "[x]" is, in narrow terms of a specific type of action) when it becomes disruptive. And ANI decisions are not [usually, and we hope] based on lawyering over the exact wording of policies anyway, but an assessment of whether the reported party is exhibiting at least a baseline of competence in collaborative editing.

So, it has nothing to do with whether James500 is entitled to an opinion about how good our notability guidelines are, but whether we're going to be really rudely brow-beaten with it until the end of time. Anyway, going round and round in argument with you isn't my intent. I do understand your take on the matter more clearly now, though still find myself disagreeing with it, mainly because the "certain isolated behaviours" are not isolated, but part of a general pattern of anti-notability grandstanding. As you suggest, he may be unlikely to actually remove himself from notability discussions despite saying he would. But, worse can happen than having to re-examine the same and additional evidence at a later ANI if the pattern resumes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Did you mean XfD or AfD instead of ANI in these cases "thwart them at ANI" and "an ANI fixture"? Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and will blame lack of coffee. I fixed that in the original post (and fixed lack of coffee in mah belleh).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Close I believe there has been overwhelming evidence that James has been regularly disruptive in the past (even the very recent past). However, in the troubling areas he has already taken aboard the criticism before this ANI filing or agreed to work on them as this discussion has proceeded. Specifically the promises James has made I would hope to see noted in a close would be: avoiding walls of text (especially in notability discussion), following indenting conventions, appropriately formatting XfD !votes, and that he will not engage in tendentious discussions and labeling of other editors. I don't blame SmCCandlish and Rhododendrites for reaching their wits end. Were James not willing to make what I think are credible promises of change some measure of sanction would be appropriate. Instead we should see if he can live by his promises; if he can't something more than the tbans being discussed would strike mas appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

POV-pushing on Suicide and Talk:Suicide

An editor with a dynamic IP address (most recently editing the page as User:2600:1700:8680:E900:8C6F:CAC6:D0E0:A9EB) has been posting long screeds on the suicide article talk page and edit-warring over usage of the WP:MEDRS tag on the page. They don't appear to have been editing the article itself, but instead repeatedly post large rants on the talk page, demanding that suicide be discussed purely as a matter of human free will and not as a medial problem in any manner. This user started an RFC about this issue, and the consensus was that the article's presentation of suicide as a public health problem is a largely accurate reflection of how sources discuss the topic, but they have continued their same behavior.

[183] - removing the MEDRS section from the talk page once [184] - second time [185] - third time

Just look in any section of the talk page to see what I mean about the rants.

Note: I'm not really sure how to notify an editor on a changing IP address. I'll post a notice to the talk page of the IP address linked above, since that seems to be the most recent one they've posted from. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sysop assistance requested: Talk page of User:2600:1700:8680:E900:8C6F:CAC6:D0E0:A9EB is blacklisted; content is at the user page instead and needs to be moved to the talk page. Home Lander (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, did I post that on the user page instead of the talk page? Sorry, my mistake. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon could you have created that message on the talk page since it was black listed. I doubt it. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for disruptive editing, IDHT behavior, refusal to accept consensus and edit-warring against it.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've changed that to three months to match Bbb23's block duration here. I think block evasion may possibly be thrown on the heap now. My block is a hardblock.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Improper page moves

ChupaCol123 has been monkeying around with pages about Sky (United Kingdom), Sky UK and Sky Limited, using cut and paste moves to change article titles to his liking. Whether or not the moves are legitimate (they have not been discussed anywhere), the use of cut-and-paste moves needs to be sorted out. Given the amount of cutting, pasting and changed redirects, it will take an admin to sort this out. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ChupaCol123 (talk · contribs) - Sky (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Sky UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Sky Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Just adding some links to make checking on these a bit easier. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: ChupaCol123 has been blocked as a sock. Can an admin take on the task of cleaning up this particular mess of page moves? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves can usually be reverted normally, like any other edit. The big headache is when the two articles (original and pasted one) have divergent histories. That's when you have to do a history merge. Luckily, it doesn't look like that's necessary, and someone seems to have reverted these edits already. If there's still cleanup necessary, feel free to point it out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

User:John.menzies61202

User:John.menzies61202 is uploading non-free images / copyrighted publicity photographs from British television shows via Wiki Commons and releasing them into the public domain despite not owning the rights. It may just be that they do not understand the guidelines here but it probably needs admin intervention to stop the problem from escalating, given that they uploaded numerous images and it appears the sole purpose of the account. Wiki Commons contribs / upload log. I have privded a selection of edit differences here to demonstrate how they are then adding them to Wikipedia articles - [186] [187] [188] [189].Rain the 1 23:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Raintheone: Why did you not make any attempt at raising the issue on John's talk page before reporting at ANI? Tornado chaser (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring IP issues death threats

Per WP:Death threats, all such threats should be taken seriously. The Spanish-speaking user 190.158.26.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has a long history of making threats after being reverted or warned for edit-warring. Most recently today here and here today, and thus they were blocked for 31 hours. This IP has not been very active this year, but last year they made another death threat here.

However, the same person appears to have edit-warred using other IP addresses. This IP for example has been blocked for 2 years, as has this one, and this one for three years (apparently with another threat redacted by admin), another blocked until Jan 2019 (again with likely threads redacted by admin), another for 3 years, another for 1 year, and who knows how many others. I am quite sure these are all the same person, and clearly this is a long-standing pattern of abusive behavior, so I do not see how a 31-hour block will stop this person from behaving this way. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A permablock is needed. These are blatant death threats.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't do permablocks on IPs, especially not dynamic ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

All those blocked proxies (see WP:NOP) are clearly the same user but clearly not the same as this IP, and they have long-term blocks because they're open webhosts and we block those when we see them. The IP you reported is Colombian, is posting threats in Spanish (versus the proxy abuser's broken English threats), and is not an open proxy as far as I can tell. I've reported this to WP:EMERGENCY because of the violent threats, but there's not much else we can do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a reasonable explanation, thank you! I knew that a permablock would not happen, and was not sure about a year(s)-long block, but a few days seemed pointless. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I have no doubt that all of those long-term blocked IPs are the same person as the IP who was blocked yesterday for death threats, despite the different languages used to make the threats. They went out of their way to restore content here and here and here that the other IPs have added before, and have attacked User:Sro23 repeatedly. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone is channeling their inner Pablo Escobar, it seems. *rolls eyes* By the way, wouldn't it be appropriate to revdel their edits, at least the ones addressed to Sro23? –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate - by the way, the 31-hour block is already over, so we will see if they come back with a vengeance. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

'Porn' complaint

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

---

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

---

On Nov. 12, the user who calls himself "The Rambling Man" (aka "TRM") immediately deleted the following request from his Talk page, and took no action on it. (The link in question was to a silly old American pop song on YouTube, and was meant as a joke.)

Stan Lee

Very reluctant though I am to post on your talk: If you're going to crack a joke about me supposedly posting a link to "German porn" you'd better make it damn clear you're joking. Unfair – please go back in & fix. Sca (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This is over the line. I request a retraction and an apology at Wikipedia talk:In the news. – Sca (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

@Sca: Don't link bootleg YouTube videos anywhere on Wikipedia. I've now removed the link from your above post. Please be more careful in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri: How was I to know it was bootlegged? It's been posted on YouTube for almost nine years and viewed nearly 1.8 million times. Sca (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: Look at the account name, and if that's unclear look at the channel page. If it doesn't appear to have any direct connection to that particular artist or record company, or has an "eclectic" selection of videos uploaded, then it's probably bootlegged. The number of views and the longevity of the video is irrelevant, since there could be myriad reasons a copyright-holder chooses not to enforce that copyright that do not mean the video is in the public domain and uploading an entire song unedited to YouTube is not considered fair use; and heck, the way YouTube has been going recently, we have no way of knowing if the copyright holder actually does earn revenue from bootleg uploads, while deeming it not worth the effort to upload an "official" version, but that doesn't change our policy that bootleg YouTube videos are never to be linked anywhere on the site. Anyway, the rule is "if in doubt, leave it out", so if you find yourself fretting over whether the video is "official" or "bootlegged", you should assume it is bootlegged and not post it. I should also probably point out for your benefit that arguing over this kind of thing is a quick path to a block: just as this guy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri: I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining how the situation seemed to me at the time. I'm no expert on cyber copyright. (I don't know what a "channel page" is.)

It would be nice if you were to voice a degree of collegial understanding – perhaps even congeniality. Have a nice rest of your day. Sca (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply you were arguing. I was just cautioning you that it might look to others like you were. (I don't have the authority to block you, or the inclination to ask someone else to do so, so even if blocking you was my intent ... well, it's not.) I apologize for not being clearer on this point. Anyway, a "channel page" is the page of a particular YouTube "channel", which is an account that uploads videos. Clicking on the username of the uploader will take you to their channel page. If it says something like "This is the official channel of John Artist." or "This is the official channel of Recordcompany Records, known for albums by John Artist." that means it's probably safe (explicit impersonation accounts with large number of views are likely to be banned fairly quickly), but if there is no connection to either John Artist or Recordcompany Records anywhere on the page, it should be presumed to be just some randomer's YouTube channel, and if some randomer uploads entire copyrighted songs said randomer is a bootlegger. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. What if it says "Standard YouTube license" – does that make it OK? Sca (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

IP refspam

This IP editor has been adding links to his own primary research papers to a large number of articles over a long period of time (since at least October 2016 March 2012, but there may be more IPs I haven't come across). Talk page messages and warnings have not worked. He has been blocked twice. I don't know what else to do short of calling him on the phone and telling him to stop.

• 85.248.18.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 147.251.89.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 147.251.157.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 78.102.206.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 176.74.129.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.221.212.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 195.168.25.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 147.251.89.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 213.220.227.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 98.155.90.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 147.251.157.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.113.98.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Please make it stop. Natureium (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems tricky - what with inserting blank PMIDs there's not even a keyword (e.g. author name) to filter...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

No one has any ideas? Natureium (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Falconfly

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

---

For several years Falconfly has been adding his personal speculations to articles relating to paleontology, frequently violating WP:NOR by backing them up with sources that do not, in fact, directly support his claims. Calm, reasoned discussion has repeatedly proven ineffective in curbing these tendencies, as he takes an overly defensive attitude towards content he adds and regularly exhibits disproportionate incivility in response to any (or no) opposition towards his edits. This is chronic, recurring behavior and administrator intervention would be appreciated.

Summaries of select incidents are provided below.

• Flying volaticotheres

Beginning in 2015, Falconfly began to modify Wikipedia articles to suggest that volaticotheres, a group of extinct mammals, were capable of powered flight. No peer-reviewed scientific paper to date has ever concluded that volaticotheres were flight-capable. He focused his efforts in particular on Ichthyoconodon, a volaticothere known only from fossils of its teeth. (Note: Chaoyangopterus has been shown to be a sockpuppet of Falconfly.) Similar edits were made to related articles such as Argentoconodon, Triconolestes, Volaticotherini, and Volaticotherium. He went as far as to commission illustrations that depicted these animals in flight, which he then added to Wikipedia. Falconfly engaged in several bouts of edit-warring on the aforementioned articles, particularly between September 2016 and September 2017, and has also attempted to justify his edits by citing a self-published, non-peer-reviewed article that he wrote himself (a violation of WP:NPOV). Most of his commissioned images were later removed from Wikimedia Commons for not having followed the proper procedure outlined by Commons:OTRS (see below).

He refuses to relent despite several attempts to explain to him why these edits constitute WP:SYNTH, including a discussion at WP:NORN, and has continued to push his views on this subject as recently as March 2018.

• Images on Wikimedia Commons

In 2016 and 2017, several images commissioned and uploaded by Falconfly (including some of the aforementioned depictions of flying volaticotheres) were nominated for deletion for not having been uploaded under proper OTRS procedure. He seemed to take these actions personally, displaying an uncooperative, combative attitude throughout, even as other editors were civil. This culminated in him threatening legal action on most of the parties involved, which got him permanently banned from Wikimedia Commons. He has continued to try and get the images reinstated by harassing a previously-involved user who has no say in the OTRS process.

• Mystriosuchus tail fluke

In similar vein to the volaticothere example above, Falconfly is convinced that the extinct reptile Mystriosuchus had a tail fin, a conclusion that is not actually stated by the source he cites for this claim, and has tried to add a commissioned illustration depicting this speculative notion to its article. In December 2017, this violation of WP:NOR was again pointed out to him on the paleoart review page of WP:PALEO, resulting in heated discussion and edit warring that led to a temporary block for Falconfly.

• Maniraptoran reproductive behavior

Most recently, Falconfly has been pushing his view that most Mesozoic maniraptoran dinosaurs reproduced like megapode birds today, burying their eggs inside a mound and the young being capable of flight upon hatching. Though some elements of this reproductive method has been suggested for some Mesozoic maniraptorans, none of the papers he cites extends this entire suite of behaviors to nearly all maniraptorans like he implies. (In fact, several of those same studies outright contradict his claim by providing evidence that the eggs were only partially buried and were attended by a parent.) Once again, this has already been civilly explained to him, to no avail.

• Inflammatory edit summaries

Falconfly often makes inflammatory remarks in his edit summaries, insulting other users on a regular basis. (A perusal of his contribution history will uncover many more examples.)

• Other

As previously mentioned, Chaoyangopterus is a demonstrated sockpuppet of Falconfly. He continued to deny this after the sock account was blocked, despite unambiguous evidence. Chaoyangopterus’ talk page shows that the issues of SYNTH and edit warring were also prevalent on that account.

He repeatedly put words in other users’ mouths in an otherwise benign discussion regarding a page he created. (The unsigned comments are his.)

His block log shows that he has already been temporarily blocked several times for edit warring or harassment of other users.

Shuvuuia (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

And still with this. May I remind literally all of this has been met with outright obtusity and pettiness (i.e. several artists like Julio Lacerda repeatedly sending their confirmations on the part of commission permissions, numerous edit wars and personal attacks on my person, for starters) on YOUR part? I swear, you imbeciles beg to humiliate yourselves. BTW, this constitutes another personal attack on my person; I strongly recommend you to desist, lest you be faced with legal action. - Falconfly

Are you serious? Retract that right now or I'm going to see you blocked for making a legal threat. --Tarage (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Depends. I am contacting wikimedia to sort issues out. I will retract this if you allow me to discuss those issues and drop this nonsense against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Depends nothing. I'm getting an admin. Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deinonychus&oldid=868254730 is still edit warring even if time passes. Use the talk page. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, given your hilarious petty responses I expect you to be punished as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Not surprisingly, Falconfly has threatened their way into a block. I think we can call this resolved? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm content with closing. --Tarage (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: site ban (Falconfly)

Thanks for closing, Tornado chaser, but I think we're not done here. Falconfly is a user with a long history of personal attacks, attempting to WP:OWN articles, making legal threats (this is far from the first and they have doubled down on their talk page), and most importantly, using the website not to build an encyclopedia but to try to publish their own research, and to a lesser extent to promote their own work. It's long past time for this user to be shown the door.

• Support site ban, as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Not yet. Although this may turn out to be unnecessary, I think I'd wait to see how this plays out before proposing a site ban. They are currently indeffed, so will need to retract the legal threats and give assurances that they understand where they have been breaching our content policies before being allowed to edit again. Falconfly has been an editor since 2006, but their block log only dates from December 2017, so I'd be tempted to see if there is a chance that they can reform before writing them off completely. If they can convince an admin that they can safely be unblocked, they will be under scrutiny and it would be simpler to get consensus for a site ban if they breached unblock conditions. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yet - There's really no reason to think that this editor is going to change their viewpoint or their way of editing. I don't think we lose much of anything by giving them the heave ho. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Editor clearly doesn't have the temperament or perhaps sanity to edit here. I've seen a lot but not inventing dinosaurs and then commissioning fan art for them. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's been years and this user's editing patterns have not changed. If anything, he has become more confrontational and unwilling to listen over time, characterizing all opposition as "spite" and "harassment". Shuvuuia (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban Although ENWP does not take into account activity offwiki, the behaviour in Commons is sufficiently parallel to the behaviour exhibited here that an exception can be made. Commissioning someone to create images of their opinion of how a dinosaur behaved then trying to shoehorn into articles here is blatant OR. They threatened legal action on commons and indefinitely blocked, that block still stands and they've doubled down by also threatening legal action here. --Blackmane (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban I mean, making a legal threat, on ANI? Come on. Add in the other persistent behavioural issues, and I think that they need to regain the trust of the community before they edit again. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Since I'm so personally involved in this I will refrain from placing a formal vote on this, but Falconfly has caused nothing but anger and disruption among the wikiproject editors since he began, and I most certainly will not be sad to see him go. Unlike every other discussion, bringing things onto the talk page did nothing to even slightly slow the edit warring or rule violating, and talk pages instead became a cesspool of personal attacks and threats and uncooperative behaviour. While RexxS has a reasonable suggestion for opposing at this moment, the behaviour of falconfly has gotten worse exponentially over time, and I would rather not give them another chance after their recent contributions, over 50 edits in three days which require reviewing, reverting, and getting involved in more and more edit wars. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban, unfortunately. I admire RexxS's good nature and extension of good will, and I wish I could be even slightly optimistic. But we have chronic stonewalling intransigence and a refusal to budge an inch over following Wikipedia's policies and processes (on copyright and OR mainly), the judgment of every opinion and suggestion that disagrees with Falconfly's as harassment, serious and continuous incivility, and an almost immediate resort to legal threats here even after having been banned from Commons for doing the same thing. It's rare that I see any editor as a hopeless case at such a stage in their time here, but I'm afraid this is one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support When an editor responds to a discussion here with name-calling and threats, it appears they want to be banned immediately. We should grant their wish. Jacona (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. If any admin feels in the mood for a facepalm, check out his UTRS request (link on his talk page). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I concur with RexxS that the block resolves the issue satisfactorily for now. --Bsherr (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support This has to be one of the most clear-cut cases of a lack of basic competency and appropriate temperament for the project I have seen in a long while. Using the project to try to push their own fringe original research in contravention of established science, blatant hostility and thoroughly unacceptable PAs and extended harassment directed against those who attempt to restrain these efforts (which attacks have extended even into this thread while their behaviour was being scrutinized), repeated edit warring over an extended period of time, sockpuppetry to support all of these efforts, legal threats when all else fails, and a truly staggering embrace of WP:IDHT, apparently any time that anyone has ever tried to point out the relevant policies and community expectations in relation to these behaviours, including a failure to learn from numerous previous blocks. It's rare that one can be completely comfortable with a CBAN based on the information presented in such a short ANI, but there's abundant evidence presented that this user is not WP:HERE and is unlikely to ever be so. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - You have to be incredibly stupid to make a legal threat on ANI ... and their comments and behaviour across the Project certainly haven't done them any favours either, No amount of blocking and topic bans will change this person, I don't really like to use this phrase but I do genuinely believe they're incompatible with this website, Support site ban. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per further unambiguous legal threats via UTRS. This editor doesn't get it, and it doesn't look like they're going to any time soon. Yunshui ^雲_水 16:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Props, for the killer Ignatius Reilly impersonation. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• It's admin-only, but wow, that UTRS request sure is something. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Um, yeah, just wow. Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban Given the above legal threat, the OR and everything else it is clear they are here to push their theories which have (I suspect) not made it into reputable journals. Not seeing any benifit in retaining.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban - The only reason I didn't block them indefinitely for their response to the first post was because they had already been blocked and had their talk page access revoked. They have learned nothing in at least three years and seem to indicate that they never will. Putting in a site ban now only saves us trouble from having to do if they decide to start socking. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If they decide to resume socking, I think you mean. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, well, fuck, keep an eye on the oppose !votes to make sure they don't get out the Flavor-Aid. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, they have now also been banned from UTRS. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban per the above comments. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE user

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

---

Hi, Bashir-Afghan made this edit which i reverted because Greater Khorasan encompasses 6 countries, not only Afghanistan. I warned them and here is their first reply : [191] (for that answer, they did not log in probably). And after i said that i was from the Iranian province of Khorasan, here are their replies : [192] and [193]. Admins should deal with this user. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Whereas they are indeed unlikely to stay here for a long time unless they learn basic Wikipedia policies, I do not see anything actionable here.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, i thought that saying things like "get fucked you stupid Iranian" or "you people are bullshit" was sanctionable, am i mistaken ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I have blocked them indef for harassment.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable time. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN by User:Ɱ

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

---

This user has continued to attempt to OWN the article Briarcliff Manor, New York and I would like to have an unbiased admin take a look at this situation.

1. The use of {{Geobox}} for pages about locations has been deprecated for years. After the first objection from this user, I formally renominated the template for discussion and it was speedily closed. To quote the user who closed it (Pigsonthewing) This has already been done and the use of Geobox for settlements is long-since deprecated.
2. In this diff the user stated I will convert again asserting that he owns the article.
3. In comments on my talk page (see the full thread here) the user has stated that I maintain the quality of the FA, which means that I keep all of the parameters from being removed.
4. Another comment in that same thread by the user said I spent about 1,200 edits to this article alone, so stop imposing yourself when you haven't contributed anything. AGAIN demonstrating WP:OWN.
5. On multiple ocassions both on my talk page in the tread linked to above and on the talk page for the article I have attempted to talk through the issues with this user, their stance has continued to be that until {{Infobox settlement}} is converted to the way that THEY want it, they will not allow the article to be changed.
6. {{Infobox settlement}} has 485,845 transclusions as of right now. {{Geobox}} has only ONE for settlements. The decision was long made not to continue to use Geobox for settlements yet this user continues to insist on having things done his way.
7. Finally, I was under the impression we have FINALLY worked through all the issues per the thread on the article's talk page, but it now seems the user is refusing to allow "his" article to be changed until The 'named for' parameter for some reason displays much lower in a random place; it should be moved to near the nickname, as they both refer to and explain the place name. Also, unlike the Geobox, it links to Namesake, which seems a little unnecessary. People will understand what 'named for' means. This is one users opinion. Again the template works fine for the other 485,000+ transclusions. To prevent the change from being made for this reason demonstrates clear attempts to WP:OWN in my opinion. To be clear, I have no objection to that change being made to the template. But it should be discussed on the template talk page and should not block this process just because of one user's objects.

I would appreciate if an unbiased admin could investigate this issue. In the mean time:

1. I will not make ANY further edits to Briarcliff Manor, New York. There is no need to edit protect the page to prevent edit warring. I'm not touching the page again. Neither the article itself nor the talk page. I'm removing myself completely.
2. I will not have any contact with Ɱ other then the required notification of this post. I'm not interested in getting in a shouting match about this.

I will be the first to admin that I'm not perfect and I KNOW I have made mistakes in this situation, including a bit of edit warring. That being said, I thought we were past all that and finally working towards a good solution. Happy to address any questions. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest admins take a pass on this one, it's very silly. Here we have one user who wants to deprecate what seems to be the last use of {{Geobox}} on a settlement article (a featured article, as it happens) while another user desires some minor tweaks before the newer {{infobox settlement}} goes live. In the long run it doesn't matter at all how this resolves, both users are already working toward using the infobox and deprecating the geobox, one is just in more of a hurry to get on with it. It does seem to me the editors working on resolving the outstanding issues could do so more efficiently without Zackmann08's obsessive interference, but I've already full-protected the page once because of this nonsense and that's about all I want to have to do with it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: this isn't just about being in a hurry. This is about a user who is insisting things be done his way or not at all. I don't see how my contribution has been obsessive interference and would ask that please back that up with evidence. Myself and Hike395 are the ones actually doing the work while Ɱ is just sitting back and nitpicking every single thing. Additionally the Featured Article status doesn't seem relevant to me. The 50 other FAs about settlements all use {{Infobox settlement}}. It isn't like this is some half baked, brand new Infobox I'm forcing onto the page. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm just asking for some minor changes to the infobox before we roll it out, okay? I generally follow Bold, Revert, Discuss, so we're in the discussion phase; let's not edit war again. We're literally on the cusp of coming to a full agreement with all parties happy here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What you are doing is not "discussing" what you are doing is insisting it be done your way. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

1. tl;dr 2. WP:DR. Ask if you need additional help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't need WP:ANI. It just needs a canvas-board; there are so few participants that there's no distinction between consensus and unanimity. With multiple editors who are opinionated, that can be problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Should also be noted that one of the changes that M required now has to be reverted because another user raised numerous issues. Again, they are WP:OWNing instead of actually discussing. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• What this issue would really benefit from is a halt to hostilities at the article, and a fulsome discussion on the template's talk itself. For what it's worth I have been following the discussion since Zackmann08 first brought it to my attention a few weeks ago (just before I protected the page) and up to this point the discussion has been constructive and I've seen no need for an admin (e.g. me) to intervene, which is why I have not participated. I'm disappointed to see it deteriorating now when consensus is so close, and yes I do chalk that up almost entirely to impatience (and I see that several users commenting on the article talk also see it this way). However, the current discussion really only concerns what layout is appropriate for this one article; it stands to reason that some of these changes that are appropriate for one article are going to cause problems with some of the other half-million transclusions. Can I suggest to both users: (courtesy ping @Zackmann08, Ɱ, and Hike395:
  1. replace {{geobox}} with {{infobox settlement}} in the article immediately, since there is indication that keeping geobox in this article is holding up other discussions, and it's generating a large red error message on the page (maybe only for logged-in users, idk); and
  2. continue discussing minor issues with the template at Template talk:Infobox settlement?

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I 100% can agree to that. As I previously stated, I'm not making ANY more changes to that page. Either the article or the talk page. I've basically given myself a personal ban to avoid any chance of a 3RR violation. If there are other tiny changes that are desired for {{Infobox settlement}}, they need to be discussed on the talk page for the template and then can certainly be implemented. M had some good suggestions but as you pointed out, just because they are appropriate for ONE article, doesn't mean we should do them right away. We need to consider the other half-million articles. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This kind of went off the rails since the post here attracted more attention to the article. There's nothing for admins to do at this point, I suggest this be closed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IPs on NYC-area railroad articles

For about six months now, a series of IPs geolocating to around Ossining, New York and New York City - almost certainly the same editor at home and work - have been making poor-quality changes to railroad-related articles. Most articles are related to Metro-North Railroad and Long Island Rail Road, though some are farther afield. Although some edits they make are correct, most are incorrect, useless, or outright vandalism. They repeatedly soft-revert when their poor edits are reverted, ignore talk page messages, leave no edit summaries, and refuse to discuss on talk pages. The frequently-changing IPs and refusal to engage with the community makes working with this editor impossible. The currently active IP is 69.117.14.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

list of IPs and ranges

Sorted 17 IPv4 addresses: 67.85.54.157 67.87.197.84 68.196.140.27 69.113.130.30 69.113.133.238 69.113.135.58 69.117.12.70 69.117.12.248 69.117.14.113 69.117.14.252 69.117.15.126 69.117.15.179 69.118.168.191 74.88.69.251 74.90.22.232 74.90.23.159 166.109.0.236 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 2057 1 1 67.85.54.157 contribs 1 1 67.87.197.84 contribs 1 1 68.196.140.27 contribs 1 1 69.113.130.30 contribs 1024 2 69.113.132.0/22 contribs 1024 6 69.117.12.0/22 contribs 1 1 69.118.168.191 contribs 1 1 74.88.69.251 contribs 1 1 74.90.22.232 contribs 1 1 74.90.23.159 contribs 1 1 166.109.0.236 contribs 779 1 1 67.85.54.157 contribs 1 1 67.87.197.84 contribs 1 1 68.196.140.27 contribs 1 1 69.113.130.30 contribs 1 1 69.113.133.238 contribs 1 1 69.113.135.58 contribs 256 2 69.117.12.0/24 contribs 512 4 69.117.14.0/23 contribs 1 1 69.118.168.191 contribs 1 1 74.88.69.251 contribs 1 1 74.90.22.232 contribs 1 1 74.90.23.159 contribs 1 1 166.109.0.236 contribs 17 1 1 67.85.54.157 contribs 1 1 67.87.197.84 contribs 1 1 68.196.140.27 contribs 1 1 69.113.130.30 contribs 1 1 69.113.133.238 contribs 1 1 69.113.135.58 contribs 1 1 69.117.12.70 contribs 1 1 69.117.12.248 contribs 1 1 69.117.14.113 contribs 1 1 69.117.14.252 contribs 1 1 69.117.15.126 contribs 1 1 69.117.15.179 contribs 1 1 69.118.168.191 contribs 1 1 74.88.69.251 contribs 1 1 74.90.22.232 contribs 1 1 74.90.23.159 contribs 1 1 166.109.0.236 contribs

Several of the IPs, including 69.117.12.248 and range 69.113.128.0/21, have been given blocks for vandalism at AIV. However, the nature of the edits (the disruptive nature is not always obvious at first glance) and the frequently shifting IPs which make repeated warnings difficult means that sometimes my AIV reports are turned down. I would like to see ranges 69.113.128.0/21 and 69.117.12.0/22 (where the majority of this disruption is coming from) blocked for a longer period, and for other appearances of this disruptive editor to be blocked on site. Pinging @Epicgenius and Cards84664: who have also been involved in dealing with this disruptive editing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Also see the prior SPI reports here. Thank you for compiling this. Cards84664 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the SPI, I don't think these IPs are Conrailman4122 socks (despite the same geographic area) due to their lack of edit summaries, talk page usage, and hard reverts. Meatpuppetry is possible, but this is probably just a separate disruptive editor. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I found a slip-up by the other sock, see this one. They used edit summaries on October 19th and 20th. Both that ip and the latest one above edited Roosevelt Field (shopping mall). Cards84664 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisting. Cards84664 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Cards84664: in case you didn't get my ping here, you changed the IP listed in a closed SPI with this edit which made it appear that IP 67.87.196.115, who is admittedly User:Conrailman4122, was also admitting to using IP 69.117.14.252. Based on that I blocked the 69.117.14.252 IP incorrectly. I have reversed that block after realizing you had overwritten the original IP in the closed SPI report, but it still makes it confusing for any admin reviewing Pi.1415926535's concerns above.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Fob.schools

Hi, I could do with some help with an issue regarding the above user and I will be laying out everything here. It's to do with a series of edits (diff) to the BT Group telcommuncations towers subsection. This editor had already done similar pattern of edits to this section as well as the other subsections which are all under its parent section "Buildings and facilities" (see diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). I undone those changes with a clear edit summary, citing the Main and See also templates to its respective category/articles as well as WP:SUMMARY - a key importance to this section (see diff) - this was all last month. So that was it until the editor returned back yesterday to do those edits to the towers subsection. I undone these changes with a clear edit summary again, also mentioning that this was mentioned before (see diff) and "You added citation needed tags regarding BT Tower in London, the citations are there". The editor then reverted my edit today (see diff).

Two reasons for coming here: 1. The editor posted on my talk page about me being the owner and "If you remove citation requests again without replacing them with references, you will be reported on ANI." (see diff - I reverted this and also mentioned not to bother posting on my talk page - this is because I've already encountered this user before in the past and I prefer to stay away from this user, just unfortunate we happen to be editing the same articles, I'm surprised this editor has posted on my talk page. Re owner, perhaps some of the edit contributions to the article look like I'm the owner, but I'm not, there is no ownership - don't know why the editor bought this up, as the concern is this edit). 2. Rather than me going back to the article to undo those changes as I think we will end up hitting the WP:3RR. There is clear disagreement and I believe this editor has an issue understanding what my edit summary means. What I also don't understand is that the information about BT Tower in that section is already referenced and there are two citations at the end which confirm that information, so the cn tags are unnecessary (I don't even think this editor has bothered to click on those references to check) - BT Tower article itself also has some of this info. The other cn tag which may be correct was placed at this text which is at the beginning of the subsection: "BT remains one of the largest owners of telecommunications towers in the UK." - The reason a citation was not added for this is because this sentence is a snippet from British Telecom microwave network which is already linked via the main template.

Also the editor has removed "Some of its towers are:" text which has a few of BT's towers underneath with their own articles and added a new subsection "List of towers" with unreferenced section and incomplete list tags (note that a See also to the buildings category is there and a link to Telecommunications towers in the United Kingdom which has a list of BT Towers, again WP:SUMMARY which is the reason I had done it like this and makes sense).

I apologise for bringing this here, some of this is probably better discussed at the talk page, but per the reasonings above and I don't think we will come up to a decision, also again, the possibility of hitting 3RR. Maybe DRN? Also noting that this editor doesn't liked to be pinged. Whether it's me, that editor or both at fault, I would greatly appreciate help from an admin. I don't agree with this edit and it would be good if this can be resolved. Thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I've just dropped an ANI notice on their talk page. --Blackmane (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Oops, self reverted, I didn't notice that one was already there. I've added a heading for better visibility though. --Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I should respond.

1. There is a content dispute on BT Group. It has no place on ANI at the moment.
2. Steven (Editor) (talk · contribs) does have ownership issues with the BT Group article. And I'm not the only person to think so.[194][195] And it is not the only such article.
3. I don't understand why my name is on this other than we have disagreed strongly previously[196], and I have warned him I would report him here.[197] Have I behaved inappropriately? I don't think so. It's certainly not clear from the 'rant' above what Steven would like me to do except not edit articles that he wants to edit unencumbered by having to answer to others.

If anyone would like me to comment on the content dispute here just say.

Otherwise I will just allow this to wither on the vine. Fob.schools (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment I placed the WP:COPYVIO notice on BT Group AFTER this report was filed by Steven (Editor) so the comment by User:Fob.schools that this discussion has no place on ANI at the moment is invalid. Particularly since it would appear that the copy-violation was performed by User:Fob.schools in the first place. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest that an accusation like that needs to be backed up with diffs. To save you the bother of searching I'll just include them here and you can choose which ones:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=868835311&oldid=868717542
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=868625918&oldid=868620720
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=862284005&oldid=862270868
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=862110144&oldid=862103979
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=861818377&oldid=861784259
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=861741240&oldid=861644567
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=861569414&oldid=861525913

If you check the history carefully enough you'll also find that a huge amount of the (often unnecessary and unencyclopaedic) copy added by young Steven is indeed copy/pasted from press releases and the like. I think an apology and strikethrough by Zackmann08 (talk · contribs) may be necessary. Fob.schools (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Xayahrainie43

Xayahrainie43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked but has been repeatedly evading their block by continuing to edit their subpage at User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal (and lately mucking about with the main sandbox as well, I don't know why), most recently as 175.96.65.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I've nominated this page at MfD, but in the mean time, could someone block this latest IP and maybe watchlist the page since they seem to pop up on new addresses fairly frequently. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. I see that the many other IPs they've used to evade this block have also been blocked for the most part. I've reverted their sandbox to a version prior to all of the block evasion, and semiprotected it indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive paid editor

Shrav81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is disrupting the project with their attempts to create an article for their client. Shrav81 is a properly disclosed paid editor per WP:PAID, but their first attempt to create an article for Q-tickets ended in deletion (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q-tickets), and they recently submitted two separate drafts of their client's article (Draft:Q-tickets and Draft:Q-Tickets) through WP:AFC, without success. I took note of Shrav's editing after I noticed that the article I was reviewing (Draft:Q-Tickets) was practically identical to another draft (Draft:Q-tickets) that was declined the day before. I am guessing that the editor in question chose to copy the draft under a new title to scrub the other reviewer's decline notices. This is fairly clearly an attempt to game the system, and the repeated attempts to create the article violates parts of WP:DISRUPTIVE. Requesting an admin take a look.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• The recreation of the draft with at least some of the same content at a new title is effectively a cut-and-paste move, so I've merged the histories of the two drafts and restored the previous AFC rejection notices. As far as paid editing it seems that Shrav81 is doing what they're supposed to do, other than the repeated recreations, but they've been hired by a company that's not notable. I don't think the draft qualifies for WP:G10 so I suggest pushing it to WP:MFD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

BLP violations on Jackie Walker (activist)

SPA JonathanMarkOfVirginia has removed RS content and replaced it with content based solely on OR.[198][199][200][201][202][203]. Despite warnings the editor has continued to repeatedly insert these BLP violations against talk page consensus in the Jackie Walker (activist) article and others. RevertBob (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Page protected for 2 days. I see no actual consensus on the talk page. Keep discussing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've certainly done a fine job edit-warring with them about it. You should've tried other methods of dispute resolution by now—a third opinoin springs to mind—instead of edit summaries such as "see talk", which directs one with a talk page singularly lacking any consensus. ——SerialNumber54129 13:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to say I am somewhat disturbed that users are edit warring over what makes someone a given race or religion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Noting for the record that BLP violation was reverted by an admin.[204] Qualitist (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It could be argued—cogently, perhaps—that the amount of trouble that both parties have caused is highglighted by the fact that Ivanvector had to go back over 30 edits to find a last clean version... ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I just went back to the first revision I could find before either of the editors started into the current dispute, which is my personal SOP for BLP-related edit wars. Also, as an update, both JonathanMarkOfVirginia and an IP that opened the talk page discussion have been blocked as sockpuppets, and I have thus reduced the article protection to ECP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Clermiston

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

---

On mobile, I fear, but some vandalism that's amusing and harmless enough, but should likely n e reverted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:CIR

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

---

Anonymous Hidden has repeatedly edit-warred at Saint Peter for including the following line:

• But the Truth is Peter is Not the First Pope He is An Apostle Only and the First Pope is Linus

He has been warned about talk in article, about original research and so on, also the phrase is ungrammatical. He also had a 3RR warning, but does not seem to care. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The inevitable has happened. I was going to post here earlier that he should log in under his original account; but did not do so in the knowledge that Bbb23 would have bollocked me :p :D ——SerialNumber54129 17:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Keditz

Keditz This new user is a net-negative. Continuous blatant copy vio's, Genre warring. Total disregard to any talk page warnings or blocks. Same problem at Commons, I have also suggested they be blocked there. Seems like it's time to get this users attention with a lengthy block if not indef'd. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't totally disregard it, but if my assumption is correct from what I've witnessed, he appears to believe that these problems aren't as serious as they truly are. With the amount of copyright problems we've had to deal with because of his failure to understand it, he probably should be blocked on Commons at the very least until he learns how copyright works there. Edit: I am not an admin, just thought I'd toss in a comment, if that's allowed...didn't think about it until now. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: I should of been more clear, my "total disregard" is referring to editing patterns, not talk responses. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Keditz does not seem to be "getting it". Their talk page is filled with warnings about unsourced content and genre changes, but there is no change in editing behavior. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

And as of today, Keditz still doesn't get it. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet's two hooks are in DYK Queue 6, needs to be removed

The nominator of Qiu Bojun and Women in Iceland was just banned as a sockpuppet. Both articles are in Template:Did you know/Queue/6. I think that it's fine if they aren't replaced by the same admin who removes them, but they just need to be removed before they go live on the main page. SL93 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@SL93: Women in Iceland was created by User:Yellow.Umbrella. Also, you'd be better in this case, posting at WT:DYK as that's watched by a lot of editors (including admins) with specialist DYK knowledge. ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I posted there first, but I didn't know if I should post here since it gets updated in a few hours. Thanks and sorry for the trouble. SL93 (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, no problem whatsoever! ——SerialNumber54129 19:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:POINTy disruption and harassment

Following a dispute at Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision, Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) has started to WP:HOUND me, following me to Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic/GA2, casting aspersions here, which I hatted as off-topic trolling. He unhatted it here, casting further aspersions. Can someone take a look at his behavior here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsecboy (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You hatting someone’s comments and dismissing them as “trolling” because you don’t agree with them is worse than anything Dennis did here. And “casting aspersions” seems to be the new wiki buzzword, even though maybe 1 in 10 people I see using it use it accurately. Fish+Karate 00:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how Dennis's comments are relevant to the GAR or in any way made in good faith. He came specifically in an attempt to poison the well by attacking my motivation. As for "aspersions", it's been around since 2015, regardless of whatever the trend is here. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Parsecboy does raise a important point: why bother to follow someone across the article space to continuously make you point? We expect that on article talk pages on which relevant discussions are being made and on our own talk pages, but to have the problem bounce form one to the other does sound less like a wiki-disagreement and more like an personal attack. I advised both to focus on the matter at hand, but singling one out without the other when it takes two to tango suggests that either the debate was not looked into before an opinion was rendered or that there was one clearly right editor and one clearly wrong editor. Its not my place to judge, but I would caution against dismissing someone's comments because you don't agree them because that frequently does make things worse. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Seems like TomStar81 has already dealt with this at the GAR discussion; after this report, but before the comment I'm writing. While I'm not supporting Dennis's overall behavior (or yours), I don't think going to one GAR of an article specifically mentioned in your really long previous discussion counts as hounding. I'm not really interested in comparing the severity of your snarkiness and his snarkiness. I'd wait to see if Tom's good advice takes hold. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

User:DrKay

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

---

Is this acceptable language for a Wikipedian under any circumstances? I think I need to know that. I was commenting there on h edit summary, not on his subsequent explanation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

First off, I think that edit summary is somewhat uncivil, but probably not worth taking to ANI for. Second, you didn't notify the user that you started an ANI thread on them, though I did that for you. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The general feeling seems to be that a one-off loss of temper and resulting use of a rude word is part of being an imperfect human, while frequent such attacks are more problematic. So asking if it is "acceptable" is a little too simplistic. Not exactly praiseworthy, but it's best ignored if it's rare. ANI isn't really the place to ask hypothetical questions; I assume you aren't here to try to get them in trouble? At least some time could also be spent wondering if you did anything wrong to warrant someone getting mad... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

For example, your tone that led to that comment came of as somewhat obnoxious. Not an excuse, but an explanation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable, and I apologize for and withdraw it. DrKay (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) (edit conflict) @SergeWoodzing: ANI is basically the last resort short of ArbCom. Do you have diffs of you or other editors attempting to discuss DrKay's language with them? Generally speaking, if you post something on someone's talk page, and they blank your message with the edit summary May I respectfully suggest you be more careful in the future about making facetious and sarcastic comments on a user's talk page when you don't actually object to their edit? Otherwise, you come across as an arrogant prick who is wasting their time. I explicitly said "I don't know what his full name is, in the sense of a legal name under civil law or birth name.", generally you should take on board the advice, rather than immediately running to the second highest court in the land to complain about them, so you don't come across as an arrogant prick who is wasting people's time; by jumping here, as you appear to have done, you just prove their point.

In answer to the question as you literally posed it, no, of course it is not acceptable "under any circumstances". It may be acceptable under some, though. For example, here, he didn't actually say "You are an arrogant prick", but rather "You might come across as an arrogant prick if you continue behaving in this way."

And now after my third edit conflict I see that I was 100% right that you should have just politely asked them not say that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

• Looks like DrKay answered the questioned asked and apologized, good job DrKay, thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Nightscream

I have warned this user about ownership of pages as well as insulting others in recent months. He unfortunately shows no remorse for such actions and doesn't even address the concerns, dismissively removing such notices with a misleading edit summary of "cleanup" (which most definitely isn't what that removal was), and continues with blatant personal attacks. The most recent attacks I've found since then are here, which were completely unwarranted regardless of content quality. Nightscream has no excuse for his actions and evidently doesn't care that bullying people such as myself is flat out inappropriate on Wikipedia. Frustration with content changes doesn't justify incivility at all. His hostility needs to end. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be an ANI issue. Could you move the thread there? Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think this was placed here by accident. Regardless, I issued a templated final warning: someone with over 100k edits should know better than that. I'm hesitant to block right now, esp. since the comments were from 5 days ago, but they are certainly blockworthy insults. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry for any misplacement, Softlavender. In any case, thank you Drmies for that warning, and I do feel a block would be more than warranted if he keeps this up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well User:SNUGGUMS you know I don't care about anyone's feelings, but I do agree with you on the substance... Drmies (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Understood. I've also left a notice for ANI on this thread. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree that these edit summaries are needlessly aggressive and inappropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG

There have been many protracted discussions in Talk:Sci-Hub over the content and word usage in the article such as on accusation of fraud and wrong-doings, e.g. in Talk:Sci-Hub#Facts in plain English, and ethics, Talk:Sci-Hub#Framing the RfC and Talk:Sci-Hub#Problematic wordings. It became difficult due to many instances of using words such as fraud based on what are primary and non-neutral sources, and appear to violate WP:N and WP:V. User:JzG however choose to concentrate throwing accusation at me instead of discussing the issues raised - [205] [206] [207]. Despite being asked to focus the issue instead of on me [208][209], the same accusation continues, with the expectation that his fellow admins would agree with him - [210]. I was accused of having a long history of POV edits there (I made only three edits in the article) when I mainly edited in the talk page, raising my concerns over the use of words there. Raising issues of neutrality and verifiability of the article content in the talk page is apparently considered POV-pushing. The discussion is getting difficult due to the many instances of problem wordings involved, I would rather not having it derailed to focus on me. I also don't mind if someone independent can examine the content and wording of the article. Hzh (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)