Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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)

• No one's suggesting we "mass apply blocks just because they've been blocked on 1 project". This is an extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented situation, in which a user has deceptively and willfully falsified the appearance of images on, potentially, thousands of articles, not only on the English Wikipedia, but on an untold number of other language Wikipedias. This is an extreme degree of cross-Wiki disruption, and the user can obviously not be trusted to edit in good faith here, so consequences should not automatically be restricted to Commons.  Swarm  talk  22:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Swarm, Ah right sorry I just assumed he'd done this on a few articlse but it turns out [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/summary.py?name=Jan+Arkesteijn&search=image&server=enwiki&max=500&ns= he may of done it on 100) and even then that tool is only looking for "image" meaning yeah there could be hundreds if not thousands of hidden changes.... –Davey2010^Talk 14:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN from files

Jan Arkesteijn is indefinitely banned from uploading, modifying, or otherwise working with files, broadly construed.

• Support - I think it should go without saying that, at the bare minimum, this user cannot be trusted to continue working with files.  Swarm  talk  23:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I think this should be implemented together with below so that if the editor ever does appeal their site ban, it's likely it will remain in place (of course the community could decide to revoke it when revoking the site ban, or implement one when revoking the site ban, but I think this sets a good precedent for them). Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support This may seem a strong remedy, however JA is active on other projects but appears unwilling to recognize the problems they have created, and has not lifted a finger to help with finding the original images or ensuring that Wikipedia(s) and Wikidata are using authentic professional photographs, rather than this-is-what-I-like-for-a-personal-desktop-wallpaper amateur versions that will be mistaken for the authentic professional photographs because they are sourced that way and have EXIF data that appears original. There has been no indication that behaviour will change in the future. --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum, this is seriously irresponsible behaviour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Site ban

Jan Arkesteijn is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia.

• Support - We do not know how many thousands of Wikipedia articles have been affected by this user's falsified images or on how many projects. We do know, however, that the number of images is likely in the thousands, and it can be presumed that many if not most of the images in question are in use at one or more Wikipedias. We know that this user's intent, even if it was ultimately to "improve" the images, was deliberate, subversive and malicious, and not only included falsifying the appearance of historic paintings in spite of blocks, and over the course of years, but falsifying EXIF data to misrepresent copyright status. The user has not been accountable for their actions, and actually denied that they were even doing it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. And we don't know how long this will take to repair. I think they've completely and utterly destroyed the most fundamental level of trust that is required to edit here, and, as their disruption is widespread across many projects, they're probably in global ban territory, and banning them here, which not only is justified in its own right, would be a prerequisite to a global ban proposal.  Swarm  talk  23:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my support above. There is zero reason to trust a serial vandal. Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely indefensible with no hope of reliable rehabilitation. The followup question is: how do "we" clean this up? EEng 19:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I don't really know what this editor was trying to do. But it seems to have caused significant harm. And the editor seems unable or unwilling to explain why they believed their edits were a benefit to wikipedia and what explanation they have offered has been confusing. The nature of reproduction of colours on device screens means it's questionable if there's any one right version. And sometimes e.g. a recent controversy over Doria Ragland comes to mind, it's in many ways just editors personal opinions of what colours most accurately reproduce something they probably didn't even see. But if someone has gone to great effort to reproduce the colours as best as they can, any change would need to start from the same base. It's quite doubtful that Jan Arkesteijn saw the original copies of each of these images and then used a quality colour corrected device to modify any images to reproduce them. Therefore there changes seem to be just random personal changes. It's also not possible that Jan Arkesteijn has seen the real person and is trying to improve the images to reproduce how look in real life. (Likewise it's quite doubtful they've seen a bunch of different images and descriptions of the person and are trying to reproduce that as far as possible.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support With the normal conventions that a later appeal would be handled in good faith, perhaps to allow non-image related contributions. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support There is precedent for such an egregious breach of trust; supporting site ban per that. ——SerialNumber54129 14:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Going by this tool so far he's changed over 150 articles .... ofcourse that tool is only looking for "image" meaning he could've continued with either different edit summaries or none at all, I have no trust in this editor at all - There is a clear deception here, A major clean up is more than likely going to need to be done. –Davey2010^Talk 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per everyone's reasoning above, but noting that any eventual return to editing should not automatically include the ability to do image work, and a separate image ban would need to be addressed separately. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Get rid of them already. Strong support. They're just like OberRanks, deliberately falsifying info. No benefit to the project. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 08:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as this user is a serial vandal who isn't here to benefit the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support And why does a number change on the blackboard in these two images: main image and changes [2][3] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• That number appears to be a phone number. It is not the point of the picture, which is to show the human subject and so my impression is that this was a good faith update made for privacy reasons per WP:BLPPRIVACY, "Articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers...". Andrew D. (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You are right, and I know that. I've been looking at those bluish commons pics for the last hour. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support And wit that I think a site ban is the only way. That is not only an aesthetic choice, that is blatant alteration.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no such thing as true colour because that depends on the incident light and other factors. In the sample comparison pictures above, the various versions all appear to be different and the only one that is grossly different is the yellowish one that was taken by a different editor. My impression is that this work was all done in good faith. If Commons wants to make a fuss about this, that's their business and we should leave the matter to them. Andrew D. (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew D.. Is this work done in good faith: [4] [5][6] It appears that he changed a blackboard number. That looks like vandalism to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Altering colour and changing content are not the same thing. You cannot change a number in good faith.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As explained above, that number appears to be a phone number. It is not the point of the picture, which is to show the human subject and so my impression is that this was a good faith update made for privacy reasons per WP:BLPPRIVACY, "Articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers...". Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Its a publicly available photo (and for all we know was altered before release). There is not more justification for altering this then there would be for altering a direct quote. This went way beyond just an aesthetic choice.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support I've been holding my tongue on this for two weeks. I honestly can't believe the editor wasn't indeffed within 24 hours of this thread being opened, let alone that anyone would still be opposing this proposal so late in the game. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes but consensus is clearly towards siteban. We are almost done. Excelse (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support what would be a well deserved ban. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 14:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support as per above, particularly convinced by Swarm's rationale and Hijiri 88's statement. Re-touched files could have been uploaded separately if there was an actual need for it... I am quite literally left without words to describe this. The damage done is probably near to irreparable, and the breach of trust is so serious I can't really think of any scenario where Jan Arkesteijn could (or should) be trusted to touch any file ever again. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Impru20^talk 15:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, but given that this is a rare crosswiki disruption situation involving enwiki, commons, and wikidata, and probably others as a result, we should be posting this ban discussion at meta for a ban from all Wikimedia projects. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, total ban, complete crosswiki discussion as per Ivanvector, this sort of attack undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia so much as to be an existential threat.Jacona (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support total crosswiki ban- The damage deliberately inflicted by this user will take a lot of time and effort to clean up. They shouldn't be allowed to touch this project again. Reyk _YO! 20:00, 19 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 [7], 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: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Note that this behaviour continued even after being notified twice on it ([16] [17]). The edit warring has continued up to the current day, with new violations of 3RR (in total, five reverts before the article's lockdown: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]) and including some mocking/provocation to some of the users involved in the discussion ([23] [24] [25]). 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" ([26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]) 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 ([33] [34] [35]), despite repeated warnings to either bring such accusations to the proper venue with actual evidence or just cast them off ([36] [37] [38]). They also threatened to report me for one comment they allegedly saw as "insulting", but curiously, just like the "vandalism", they never did it ([39]).
  • More WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS ([40] [41] [42]).
  • 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) ([43] [44] [45]). Note that this has continued even after this case was opened ([46] [47]). 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 ([48] [49] [50]), 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 ([51]), a fact they have not even tried to hide ([52]).
    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, [53], 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 ([54]). 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 ([55]). 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: [56]. HiLo48 went straight to Merphee's usertalk to harass him: [57]. Merphee added back part of the material he had removed: [58]. HiLo48 inserted an extremely POV quotation into the article: [59]. Merphee opened a neutral discussion on the article's talkpage about the POV quote: [60]. HiLo48's response was "Stop destroying the article" and he continued to deflect, bicker, and ridicule: [61]. Merphee

correctly removed the quote and attempted to summarize it instead: [62]. HiLo48 reverted [63], and failed to neutrally respond to the issues Merphee brought up about it, instead bickering, casting aspersions, and making demands: [64]. 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: [65], [66], and then opened an ANI thread falsely accusing Merphee of forum-shopping: [67]. -- 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 ([68] [69] or [70] 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, [71]); a recent breach of WP:3RR at G.I. Generation (also concurrent in time with this report, [72] [73] [74] [75]); 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 ([76]); 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 ([77]). 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 [78]; 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)
• Support block for 3 to 6 months per above. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this block seems punative in nature, also it concerns me that there seems to have been a poisoning of the well by some of the usual suspects who have disagreed with HiLo48 in a number of areas and are taking this ooportunity to get revenge. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment after re-reading this entire thread and following the links and diffs therein, it has become obvious that many of the people commenting here are playing fast and loose with the truth or are putting the worst possible slant things. Frankly, in some of the complaints I see absolutley no misbehaviour at the linked to item.

    I am unimpressed with the way HiLo48's accusers have conducted their business, for example User:Global-Cityzen's first comment claims HiLo has form and points to a block from 4 years ago[79]. They then in their next comment say Yet again he has form in this regard linking to WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board instead of a diff - I am not going to delve into that to try and find some alleged misconduct. They then launch into a list of alleged misdoings with nary a diff in site. This is not acceptable.

    Then with this wall of text, User:Impru20 says Persistent personal attacks and general incivility and provides a list of seven diffs supposedly to back that up, except wither the links do not work (two) or they either contain absolutley no incivility or at worst in one case barely bordeline incivility, after provocation. They then accuse HiLo48 of "righting great wrongs" and provide three diffs that point to nothing of the sort. They then accuse HiLo48 of persistent refusal to address/reply to issues raised by others purportedly backed up by five diffs that do not support the allegation. There is much more in that post, but I do not intend to make this another wall of text in reply. Suffice it to say that in my opinion the post superficially looks like it has lots of evidence to back its claims up, but those claims fail when they are examined closely. I struggle to AGF in that post.

    Then User:Softlavender chips in claiming of Impro20's post HiLo48, none of that is "hate speech"; it is neutral, accurate reporting supported by evidence.. Accurate? Neutral? Really? Supported by evidence? I don't think so. They then say None of it is "lies", as each statement is supported by several diffs which bear out the statement. Except that the diffs do not bear out the statement. They then say None of the statements are "personal attacks", either; they are all neutral observations. ROFL! You've got to be joking, neutral? This is the epitome of a personal attack. Later Softlavender says What Impru20 posted was not a "litany of alleged crimes", it was a well-evidenced report of your recent disruptive behavior. No litany of alleged crimes is exactly what it was, not at all "well-evidenced".

    And now User:Merphee joins in with this personal attack.for which he is pulled up by User:Snow Rise and then doubles down before finally saying 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. but I note they did not strike any of their comments, so a rather fulsome apology.

    Now we are back to User:Softlavender. This time accusing HiLo48 of harassing Murphee. except the link provided in evidence shows HiLo48 commenting on a content deletion and following up with providing a source after a cursory search in response to the claim that the content was unsourced. HiLo48 may not have been overly polite, but neither were they uncivil as is alleged.

    Again User:Impru20 posts another diatribe here filled with links and diffs for things that are completely un-notable, or are irrelevent or non-sequitur. Once again it looks impressive until you follow the links and find it is non-sense.

    From here on it is just rinse and repeat. This entire thread has simply been a pile-on of people with apparent axes to grind and no substance. HiLo48 may not be the most diplomatic person at times, but his comments do not rise to the level of incivilty anywhere near the level that passes uncommented on in Wikipedia every day. Enough kangaroo court already, lets get back to building an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: Nick Thorne, kindly keep your accusations of bad faith to yourself! The fact that you are good friends with HiLo obviously makes the neutrality of your comments here exactly the same as any editor who has dealt with HiLo before and had a negative experience. Can't you see that. However I apologised and stepped out realising I shouldn't have got involved in the first place, but you sir just keep going on and on with your bad faith accusations against editors and administrators that support a block. How in any way are you neutral?? In my humble opinion, you should have kept out of this like I admitted I should have kept out of it. I would strongly suggest those administrators and editors that are neither buddies with HiLo nor those who have had conflict with HiLo should make the final call on whether HiLo receives a block.Merphee (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

On what concerns me:

1) be careful when accusing others of writing "walls of text", as that is exactly what you have done here.

2) You say that I provide a list of seven diffs supposedly to back that up, except wither the links do not work (two). I've checked them all and they all work. Then you say that "they either contain absolutley no incivility or at worst in one case barely bordeline incivility, after provocation". So, let's see: accusing others of "ignoring reality", lying, "using Trumpisms" without any further statement or argument is not uncivil to you? Or at the very least open and useless provokations? Further, when HiLo says "That post is the biggest load of insulting, arrogant, offensive, non-empathic crap I have seen for quite some time" what is that for you? We could provide dozens of diffs from HiLo provoking, berating or patronizing others (and yes, condescension is a form of uncivility, in case you didn't know), so I do not quite understand the justification given there.

3) You then say They then accuse HiLo48 of "righting great wrongs" and provide three diffs that point to nothing of the sort. The diffs provided point exactly that: the first one was a reply to a specific question asked to him, where he just replied that the point of his disruption was "the creation and maintenance of a quality, global encyclopaedia", when he has acted the opposite. In the second and third ones, he accuses others of not accepting "the truth"; a "truth" which only he seemingly knows (a prime example of RGW).

4) They then accuse HiLo48 of persistent refusal to address/reply to issues raised by others purportedly backed up by five diffs that do not support the allegation. May you please elaborate how the diffs do not support the allegation? In one of these, he resorts to "the problems have been described" when he was asked a particular question on a situation which had not been addressed. In another one, he explicitly says that he can't currently be bothered to explain the issue. This is exactly a refusal to address/reply to issues raised by others. Nonetheless, this is just three that were given as examples; more could be found and given if warranted (even from this thread itself).

5) There is much more in that post, but I do not intend to make this another wall of text in reply. Suffice it to say that in my opinion the post superficially looks like it has lots of evidence to back its claims up, but those claims fail when they are examined closely. Firstly, you did not succeed in not making your comment another wall of text in reply; secondly, you have only countered the evidence with "this doesn't show this, this doesn't show that" but without actually explaining how the diffs did not show such behaviour from HiLo.

6) Accurate? Neutral? Really? Supported by evidence? I don't think so (...) Firstly, I see it bad enough that you are condemning Softlavender's behaviour in this discussion. When you are being brought to AN/I, such as HiLo has been, and pretend to claim innocence, you don't get into a rant accusing others of "hate speech" and, quite literally, arguing that It was rather silly of those who disagreed with me to think they could. You just don't. If others provide evidence against, you should bother to counter that, as the thinking that you shouldn't because you think you are above all of that and shouldn't argue anything shows there is a serious WP:CIR issue here.

This said, I would like to point out what I see as a serious AGF breach on your part. Firstly, because you are deliberately assuming bad faith from everybody involved in this discussion and supporting a block to HiLo, which is not good. Specially if your reasoning is of the sort of "hey no those diffs do not prove anything and everyone is wrong too, but hey it is my opinion". From your first comment in your oppose !vote, you have pointed to some sort of "revenge" wish against HiLo from some users having negative interactions with him in the past, without actually backing up that claim with evidence. Also, why do not you disclose that you have been defending HiLo's actions for years, even after blocks were imposed, as can be checked from a single read at HiLo's talk page? If this is going to be reviewed on the alleged history of those supporting a block, maybe the history of those opposing the block and who have been staunchly supportive of HiLo's behaviour for years should also be taken into consideration. Further, this separate discussion at HiLo's talk page hinting at some sort of conspiracy from Wiki admins is just unnacceptable. If there is anything to discuss, it should be discussed here. Impru20^talk 15:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: I do not apprecate being described with weasel words to the effect that I am a meat puppet of another editor. That is a direct personal attack and is unacceptable. I happen to agree on a couple of issues that attract a lot of attention from certain over enthusiastic supporters of the contrary position. That does not make me a member of the HiLo48 fan club. I took an independent look at your massive wall of text and found that it was less then entirely convincing. Without looking at what the links and diffs actually point to it certainly looks like a damning case. However, it turns out that theose links and diffs do not back up the statements you made. I make no judgement as to why this may be the case, only observe that it is so. You continue to attempt to bludgeon the conmnversation with lengthy posts making the same unsupported claims, as if they are established fact. I very strongly advise you to cease and desist or a boomerang may figure in your future. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: Excuse me, but I thought you have directly addressed me. If you do not want for me to reply to you, do not address me; I can't see how that is bludgeoning. Yes, your history of support to HiLo48 is perfectly visible at their talk page, but I did not called you a "meat puppet" of him or suggested you were that (you will have your reasons for thinking so; I am not going to enter into that). But if you see that a s a direct personal attack, should I see your initial comment on me as a personal attack? Should I see your veiled references to other users and myself on HiLo's talk page as a personal attack too?

The diffs show precisely that, and I even explained how. Other users who did check the diffs were the ones who made the block proposal, so yes, you have your opinion, but it is not an "established fact". It seems that HiLo's does indeed have some protective aura around them than makes every ANI thread on him end the same way, no matter how supported or well-argued are the claims made. Fine. I just sincerely hope this case is not brought here again in the near future because HiLo has again attacked someone in another discussion. I already argued what the alternative to a block would be: that HiLo change their behaviour. Not something very demanding or unfair I think. Impru20^talk 07:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• There is no consensus for this block. The only people who have supported a block so far are those who have had a history of negative interactions with HiLo.--WaltCip (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Really, the only people? Global-Cityzen for example, when?Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never interacted with HiLo before this ANI. —JJB^ers 17:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

So I think we can discard this assumption of bad faith.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

WaltCip, not only is there a consensus, there is an overwhelming consensus. Softlavender (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Walt, I also have no history of conflict with this editor. I'd like to ask that you be more careful with such blanket statements, and that you consider striking that comment. Given the proposed length of the block, I would not be entirely comfortable with it being implemented with just eight "support" !votes, but I believe you have seriously mis-characterized the concerns that have gone into what consensus does exist here; maybe some editors have a previous beef with Hilo (that's unfortunately a common occurrence in most ANI complaints), but it seems to me that most of the commenters in the present case have foregrounded their concerns in good-faith arguments, backed-up by a substantial number of diffs. I personally only supported action after watching the discussion for days and becoming concerned by Hilo's comments in this very thread, which I think are in and of themselves cause for concern. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• @HiLo48: Which of the editors supporting your block have you interacted with previously?  Swarm  talk  20:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much. I've interacted with HiLo48 on and off for about 9 years. HiLo48 and I disagree on just about everything. They are refreshingly blunt rather than cleverly using the Wiki system to "get" people. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Nick Thorne's perceptive dissection. ——SerialNumber54129 14:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Is this acceptable? Just asking. Impru20^talk 15:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been through the situation that HiLo48's in, years ago & I easily recognize the pile-on effect. Including the 'monitoring' of his own talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

So, it is bad to monitor a talk page where you (for myself) are being mentioned at your back, yet it is cool for HiLo to 'dare' an admin to block the users supporting a block in order for he to even care to comment at his own ANI thread? And is it also cool for you and Nick Thorne to have previously given HiLo48's express support for his behaviour before coming in here? ([80] [81]) Seemingly, there was more here than what seemed at first sight, as I see both of you have an history of automatically supporting HiLo whenever his behaviour comes at scrutiny. Amusing enough, if there was any support !voter not involved on this issue, they all became involved the time they were all treated with the same disregard here. Impru20^talk 16:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I will not push for an editors block or ban, if he/she hasn't vandalized articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: This is one thing (that you in particular won't push for a block unless there is vandalism) which is very different to the issue at hand, or the allegations that it is others' undoing, and not HiLo's, what have brought them here. Indeed, blocks can (and are) enforced on situations which are not vandalism; to the point that, should this have been regarded as vandalism, it would have been reported at AIV, which is a different venue to ANI.

Frankly, it would be just as easy for everyone here for HiLo48 to sincerely commit to constructive discussion from now onwards. As was pointed out by myself even before you did it in this thread, or way before Nick Thorne's remarks, editing restrictions are preventive, not punitive. A block is being sought on HiLo48 because their behaviour is conflictive and they have shown no intention to change that (much to the contrary, they have been openly hostile when addressing concerns raised here and asked for an outright and indiscriminate block of participants in this discussion). For me, it would be enough to see evidence that there is a sincere commitment to change such a behaviour; this is becoming increasingly difficult as new evidence keeps mounting.

Whatever the outcome of this discussion be, should HiLo48's behaviour remain unchanged, and just as Softlavender pointed out above, even if a block was not enforced it will only delay the inevitable. This issue will keep being raised at ANI and, eventually, will make its way to ArbCom, where the "everyone hates me"-victim play will not work, and HiLo may very well end up banned from Wikipedia (note that here we are merely discussing a temporal block, 3-6 months-long). I have just been engaged with HiLo at the one instance which made Global-Cityzen open this ANI report, and it has been enough for me to recognize that there is a serious issue here that will get inevitably addressed in the end, one way or the other. Seeing how you and Nick Thorne are in good terms with HiLo, I would rather advise you to, rather than keep playing his game and speak of alleged conspiracies against him by the admins or other users, make him come to terms and show a profound change of behaviour when engaging in discussion with others. Because what your sympathy towards him makes you see as a mere "not being polite" or a rude behaviour allegedly justified due to "provocation", others see as provocation in itself, patronizing, uncivility and, ultimately, a disruptive and tendentious editing which turns any discussion into a toxic and unbearable environment. Impru20^talk 17:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been before Arbcom, years ago. I don't want HiLo48 or any other editor to have that experience. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. User:Nick Thorne seems to have summed up quite concisely that we cannot block an editor based on a "consensus" of users when a number (not all) of those have been involved in issues with that editor. And I say that as someone who has had issues with HiLo in the past myself. Black Kite (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never interacted with HiLo48 before this ANI. —JJB^ers 18:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hence why I said "not all". Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• oppose agree with Black kite's comment. This thread needs shutting down, I see it's sunday again. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose ban dont see how a ban of a long time predictive editor will help here.....a good block is ok to get the point across....but not a ban. Us old timers know of many old editors with communication skill problems and we simply deal with it on a case by case bases. Its sometimes very hard for old timers to take admins with less the 10,000 seriously....that said it would be great if HiLo could tone down the hate talk towards younger admins..as they are just trying there best.--Moxy (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

And how do you think we can achieve this aim? Just because you are an old ed should not be a right to ignore (or indeed insult) admins? It is clear HiLo does not take some admins seriously, thus he can (and does) act in a way that many other eds would not be allowed to. So do you have a solution?Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

As has been suggested before .....a longer block this time and oversight. How does banning help us? This is the type of thing we expect our administrators to handle without the loss of longtime editors. --Moxy (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Errr this is a long block, not a site ban we are voting on.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: This proposal is for a block, not a ban. A long-term or indef block has been proposed, though several users have stated they would be fine with a 3-6 months block. A block and a ban are not the same thing. Impru20^talk 17:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup.....as I have stated .....OK with a block not a ban. How you like me to be more clear? Will highlight the ban part for thoses that still don't get it.--Moxy (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Blocks should be preventative, each time this comes up the same arguments used "but we cannot do anything", as if you are not choosing to tolerate this and "and the same old faces are here who have it in for him". Well each time it seems more faces show up, so maybe the problem is not the people who have issues with him, and that this will just get worse as he winds up more and more users. It might be best to actually start to try and address this in am meaningful way before the clamor for a full ban does become overwhelming (or more likely he attacks the wrong admin, because he thinks "we cannot do anything"). I am also concerned that many of the oppose votes do not appear to have read what has actually been written here (or who has written it). So can we actually have a list of the vote yes to a block who have previously taken issue with him at an ANI or have been in prior conflict with him, Rather then just ill founded and ill considered aspersions?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, some of the oppose !votes do seem to be mere pile-ons, which is precisely one of the things which those opposers have criticised from the support !votes. As I have pointed out above, seeing how some of those opposers are in good terms with HiLo48, it would be actually much more helpful for the situation at hand to have them advice HiLo48 to change his behaviour here rather than keeping commending him for his doings. Precisely, that some of these users have been so sympathetic to HiLo's behaviour for years (as can be seen in HiLo's talk page), even in spite of blocks or warnings, could be one of the reasons that HiLo behaves the way he does, as he may feel that, for somebody, he will always be doing 'the correct thing'. Impru20^talk 18:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I very much don't appreciate being told that I'm stating lies even though I've not said anything untrue. Somewhat ironic actually. (link) —JJB^ers 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I expected to be blocking HiLo based on the way the discussion was going, but I've finally gotten the time to read the whole thread and examine all the diffs, and I'm actually in agreement with Nick Thorne and Black Kite. The block supporters are overplaying their hand here. Reading through this thread, it just seems dirty. The original report was about two editors who were mutually battlegrounding and edit warring over a petty content dispute. Much of the focus of the original complaint appears to have been on Timeshift for their unhinged edit warring. Interestingly, Timeshift was not accountable for their actions here, yet is being given a free pass. That's not how things work, and that's not how things would have gone had this been reported to WP:AN3. Examining the talk page, the users were all bludgeoning each other with endless commentary and no one is attempting to seek dispute resolution. Of course things are going to get heated in that situation, and the lack of dispute resolution is clearly the reason things went off the rails, and HiLo can not be solely blamed for that. So, in a questionable move to begin with, it comes to AN/I, the page gets protected, and the reporter is told to start an RfC (i.e. seek dispute resolution), and the thread seems to be headed towards an uncontentious close with no action. Then, Impru, who is one of the users bludgeoning discussions on the talk page and who has been uncivil to and has attacked HiLo himself, posts a massive wall of text and diffs purported to make a behavioral case for a severe block instead. But, examining those diffs, there's nothing particularly serious there. Yes, the diffs show HiLo being blunt, heated and/or uncivil at times, but I didn't see a single diff that stands out as being particularly severe, beyond the level of a heated content dispute, and certainly nothing there justifies his calling HiLo a CIR/NOTHERE case. Honestly, I don't think HiLo's emotive mannerisms are any worse than Impru's detached, condescending, passive-aggressive mannerisms, excessively wikilinking to policy pages and reducing opposing views to logical fallacies. Sorry, but the diffs don't back it.  Swarm  talk  21:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: It is perfectly valid that you think that of me. However, it would be nice that you do actually explain where do you particularly see I act like that, so that I can ascertain what your views on uncivility and condescension are and see how those compare to HiLo's behaviour (from your description of events, this looks as if I acted much worse than HiLo, when I was not even the user filing this ANI report nor bullied other users into desperation as HiLo did).

Yes, as you would know, editing restrictions are preventive. Sure, Timeshift would have gotten blocked should their behaviour have been brought to AN3 at the time they happened, but they weren't, and by the time any action was proposed Timeshift had already stopped commenting and edit warring for days. To the contrary, HiLo has not shown any will to improve their behaviour (an idea which is reinforced by the little 'talk page conspiracy' bit).

From what I've been able to research (which I had to do, since unlike what some try to point out, I did not knew about HiLo's existence until two weeks ago), it is clear that HiLo will basically ignore admins and WP policies and guidelines which they see as flawed, that they think addressing others' issues is something they should not even be bothered to do and that they can basically bad-faith on everyone with a free license (as they themselves have explictly acknowledged).

Showing an inability "to communicate with others and present rationales when questioned by others" is a CIR issue, unless the guideline needs re-writing (which I dunno). Just pointing out that HiLo has done this even after you required them for it, and not in a particularly nice way ([82] [83]). You've overlooked it. Not my business though: I've only ever encountered HiLo once and will be unlikely to encounter him again for a long time given our topic editing areas, so I'll be fine whatever the result. Basically, because I won't be the admin who has to deal with this mess again in the near future because no action was taken at the dozen times this issue was raised previously at ANI. Impru20^talk 22:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: why are you so bothered then that you spent six hours on a sunday afternoon focussed on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Impru20 Govindaharihari (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who takes the time to read your comments in the original discussion and in this one can see it for themselves. You may not be self-aware of it, or willing concede anything on your end, but that's my honest impressions of your conduct overall, and I think the excessive debating/invalidating of differing opinions itself mirrors the conduct I observed in the original discussion. I get the distinct impression that you're a fairly intelligent person who likes to debate and is self-aware of the fact that you're good at it to the point where you will outmaneuver your opponent ad infinitum until they concede. Don't get me wrong, I respect that, but in the context of a content dispute, it's no more productive for resolving disputes than being uncivil and refusing to listen to reason, and where you have a group of editors who have been needlessly debating each other endlessly for the better part of a month, while taking no actually productive steps to move past that state, you can't really just scapegoat one person in the situation. The criticisms of HiLo are fair, but the proposed sanctions are not. Like I said, HiLo can be blunt, emotional, even uncivil, but that in itself, to the degree that was demonstrated by the substantial case you made, does not add up to 'longterm block'. I haven't overlooked HiLo's unreasonable response to me, but it's clear HiLo has serious grievances with the project that aren't related to me, and, frankly, aren't my concern.  Swarm  talk  04:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: Bothered? Maybe because I was directly addressed by other users at this discussion? Maybe because other users and I were being called liars and other things at a private talk page without even the courtesy of pinging us so that we could defend ourselves? Yeah, I did not find it amusing for it to happen at a Sunday either. Impru20^talk 07:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I do concede those are your honest impressions of it (never said otherwise), but I do not concede that is reality, specially when your only evidence that my own behaviour was worser than that of HiLo's is your own expression (and excuse, but whenever I say "It was rather silly of those who disagreed with me to think they could" at an ANI thread on me and demand an admin to block other users at leisure, just to name two issues which are strongly concerning on their own, then we could start off thinking my conduct is minimally similar to that of HiLo's). You are not even the first person to acknowledge that the discussion leading up to this ANI thread was heated, but that does not justify HiLo's behaviour a single bit (if anything, their constant uncivility and disruptive behaviour is what made that discussion toxic in the first place). HiLo's grievances with the project is what makes them act like if guidelines and rules do not go with them, and I'm rather astonished to see some users receiving such a special treatment as if they had a free license to reign all over Wikipedia just because they play the "bullied victim" game, when in fact they have no objection themselves to bully others into submission. Acknowledging that and at the same time suggesting no action should be taken will only mean this issue will end up being brought here again whenever he acts like this again on other users. Not by me, though. Impru20^talk 06:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I suspect this is going to be closed as no consensus, so see you in 6 months.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Seeing the above issue and talk page comments to the tune of "block everyone who I feel has lied about me", I'm seeing an editor who has no business being here on Wikipedia. They have the attitude of someone trying to fight the system rather than work with it, and frankly we have enough combative personalities here to begin with. --Tarage (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban for Timeshift9

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

---

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)

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

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 [84]:

• 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 [85]. 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" [86] when asked by multiple parties and about multiple posts ([87], [88]) 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" [89] (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" [90] (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 [91], 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." [92]
• Another pointless "nonsense" post again [93] 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. [94]. (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 [95].
• "I disagree with everything that you say." [96] (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" [97]. (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 [98] a proposed change under discussion ([99], [100]) to resolve the thread's main concern, but actually made a very different change discussed by no one [101], 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 [102], [103], and [104] 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 [105] and his comment above it, though there are several other examples even in just the few pages of contribs I looked at, e.g. [106]). 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 [107]). 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, [108] [109][110] [111] [112] [113]. 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" [114] [115], 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[116][117] 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 and soapboxing.  — 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)

@Snow Rise: Sorry, I saw your above comment, but didn't get it read to the end, and through some accident of combining diffs I thought it was written by SMcCandlish, and replied to him in an email (pinging him so he knows that email was in error). 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. Per the final consensus statement of a recent RFC that apparently involved comments from "hundreds" of editors, context matters when discussing civility. "Deletionist", in the context in which James used it in quotes like gigantic pile of wholly unmeritorious incredibly extreme mega-deletionist garbage,[118] [w]e ... need a way of dealing with deletionist trolls at AfD,[119] [s]uch deletionist trolls need to be silenced,[120] Massive oppose to all deletionist SNG,[121] all or most of the constructive useful editors have left because they have been bullied out by those deletionists who do nothing but smash up good content and make a nuisance out of themselves,[122] ignore any deletionist garbage SNGs,[123] some deletionists seem to think [X],[124] [i]n the minds of some deletionists[125] and some deletionists seem to want Wikipedia to be a children's encyclopedia based on poor sources[126] definitely was not civil (note that I linked to a mass diff of all of these quotes several days ago).

There's also meta:Deletionism, which says Few editors would explicitly describe themselves as "deletionists", rather the term is often applied as a slur, as self-deprecating humor, or simply used to expose contrast with people describing themselves as inclusionists. This view -- the official view, for at least the last seven years, of the page to which WP:DELETIONIST is soft-redirected -- is in-line with my user-essays User:Hijiri88/Don't call other editors "deletionists" and User:Hijiri88/Don't call yourself or others "inclusionists" (presumably what you mean by I think I've seen you advance this theory before that it is a pejorative -- the latter is actually a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I've called myself an inclusionist several times, with reference to my support for including more articles on marginalized/underrepresented topics in the encyclopedia). Despite those titles, I'm not trying to impose a hard-and-fast rule on the community, but rather saying that the word "deletionist" is, by definition, almost never used except as a pejorative or in a humorous/ironic sense, and so should be treated the same as other pejoratives when it is clearly used in this sense -- and you can't tell me that deletionist trolls need to be silenced is not using it in this sense!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I note that you have somewhat selectively quoted James there: "deletionist trolls need to be silenced" sure does sound bad, but what he actually said is "Such deletionist trolls need to be silenced with objective precisely worded criteria..."; so, a substantially different tone when the entire clause is presented. That said, I will concede that it is hard to view "deletionist troll" as a term that represents a respectful, collaborative mindset, regardless of what sentence it appears in. But in my opinion, the operative word in that phrase which defies WP:AGF is not "deletionist", but rather "trolls". "Deletionist" standing alone just cannot be considered a pejorative insofar as it describes an editorial philosophy; that philosophy, insofar as I can tell, is largely a scarecrow label, which is why I think it erodes, rather than augments, any argument it is added to. But at the same time, it's not intrinsically hostile, and I think we need to be careful with what we label a "pejorative" vs. "a term that tends to suggest a myopic view and a proclivity towards factionalism". It's difficult enough to enforce basic civility standards on this project without opening up that can of worms.

All of that said, the diffs you present do help to develop the argument of a problematic pattern here; I just don't think that recognizing that pattern particularly centers on the word "deletionist" so much as the general refusal to AGF. The thing is, James seems immensely more willing to make concessions about these behaviours than your average person being scrutinized at ANI. Myself, I have never interacted with him or even seen his conduct out on the project beyond what has been presented here, that I can recall, so I have no sense of how sincere he is likely to be about moderating his approach. But it does seem to me that given those concessions, there's almost no chance of a TBAN resulting from this complaint--indeed, a sanction was unlikely to have resulted here regardless of any promises. However, since James has tacitly admitted his rhetoric could be altered to be more gracious to his philosophical opponents, I for one would take a dim view of things if he did not follow through on those promises, and I'm betting I am not the only one. So if this has to come back here again over essentially the same behaviours he has promised not to indulge in, a sanction will suddenly be looking much more likely. So I certainly hope he didn't make those promises hoping they would mollify scrutiny without a need to follow through--he's likely to be surprised by the outcome if so. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:53, 17 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)

To be fair, the apparent lack of consensus is mostly due to friends of James and people who don't like SMcCandlish, Rhodo or me showing up to defend him, while largely ignoring the actual substance of the problem. Take, for example, Power's bogus assertion that James wasn't hounding me: has he presented any reasonable explanation for the evidence provided other than that James was hounding me? He was either hounding me or one of the other "deletionists" involved in those discussions (e.g.: the admin who filed the ANI report that got Huggums banned, whom I will not name as doing so would put me in a catch 22 of either pinging him or being accused of discussing someone on ANI without notifying them) -- the weird thing is that SMcC was, coincidentally, against banning Huggums, the same position James suddenly decided to espouse several weeks too late, "coincidentally" at the same time as I opened an ANI thread on the serial plagiarist / unreserved "inclusionist" Dream Focus and two other editors opened two AN threads on two other "inclusionists", in both of which I was involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say it smacked of circular reasoning. When we already have 17+ years of noticeboard decisions deeming consistent patterns of (especially topically obsessive) uncivil discourse and battleground/soapbox campaigning to be sanctionable, the fact that someone has two wikifriends who defend them no matter what is alleged (and in one case blatantly lie about the ANI filer), and the fact that some respondents to the discussion don't seem to closely follow either the evidence or the rationales, doesn't magically make the activities suddenly not sanctionable. They are sanctionable, unquestionably. It's just a matter of whether we should let it skate this time on the basis of promises by the subject of the ANI. I'm actually included do that in this case, since it's James500's first visit to ANI (that I know of) as the scrutiny subject.(When I was noobish I ended up here, too, for being sharp tongued. I learned to moderate and have contributed something like 140K non-automated edits to date. So I'm willing to extend the same benefit of the doubt. I don't like to call it rope, which is presumptive of eventual failure. I even tried to get that essay changed to stop making such presumptions but the snarky owners of the page will have none of it. They really like the tiny little niche they've made where CIVIL doesn't apply, even if you're applying it to people being sanctioned under CIVIL. It's really hypocritical.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I think you're looking at it the wrong way: that applies to cases where the result will be eventual failure. In cases where it won't, it simply doesn't apply, so can be ignored. I've already stated why I think it applies here (James has made similar promises to me before, and broken about half of them almost immediately), but that's kinda beside the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it the wrong way is certainly possible. I hang upside-down when I take my vampire bat form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Guys, this is a bit off-topic, but can we please avoid the use of small text here? I don't believe it's really appropriate for ANI; WP:ACCESSIBILITY and other policies make it clear that anything that makes text generally more of a challenge to read should be generally avoided--some of our editors have to work from devices with small displays and others have varying degrees of vision impairment. We sometimes allow this for superfluous "joke" content (I think it should probably be avoided even there), but for anything that touches upon (or even just supplements) discussion on editorial, policy, or conduct matters should be presented with a normal font and font size. Anyway, I've always been of the opinion that if you feel the need to say something small, it maybe doesn't need to be said at all! (Hey, that has great meter!) Though for the record, I thought your comments actually were perfectly relevant and consequential--which is the other reason I removed the small tags. All that said, I hope you don't mind. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 08:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Meh. If we think our <small> or {{small}} output is a bit too small, this should be discussed at WT:MOSACCESS, a target size to change it to agreed upon, and MediaWiki:Common.css changed to implement that. Many of us use one-step-smaller (not excessively small) text to mark up material that's pertinent to the conversation but maybe not to the central matter and likely not of interest to everyone (e.g., only to a few people in a sub-thread).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's a short-sighted (pun not intended) view of this issue; you have no way of knowing who would want to see or respond to that content, and this essentially boils down to an equality of access issue (and not for nothing, but the WMF has actually adopted an official resolution that says that the policies of local projects are not allowed to override such concerns). I don't think that users with vision impairment or who can only edit from a mobile device are likely to view this as a "meh" issue. And yes, the ultimate place to discuss the policy language itself is WT:ACCESSIBILITY (indeed, there have been discussions there and other policy talk pages that have sharpened the language already, though clearly it needs to be more explicit), but it's been happening here a great deal lately, and this space is entirely about process and oversight, where equality of access is paramount to our objectives, so I just don't think it's appropriate. If there's something one is inclined to say that they are certain will be only of interest to a small handful of editors, probably it can be said elsewhere, but if they are going to say it here, it should be easily readable to all participants. You're a reasonable person, can't we agree that given the context and the concerns here, it makes sense to apply the precautionary principle when it comes to access to discussion about process? After-all, there are other and more elegant ways of emphasizing and de-emphasizing portions of a post if we think they are on the line of being important enough to mention here, but also likely to be secondary to the main thrust of one's comments. (I find that introductory clauses like "On a side note," or "Incidentally, I've found that..." work pretty well for this purpose.) Snow ^{let's rap} 00:01, 18 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)

For the avoidance of doubt only, I have never hounded Hijiri88. The allegation made in this thread that I did is not true. If the community wishes me to provide a detailed explanation of why I made any edits to which that allegation relates, I will do so. James500 (talk) 13:54, 16 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)

Judging by the WP:WALLOFTEXT, this has gone past Trout territory and straight into Whale.--Auric talk 14:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban I am under the impression that I am supposed to !vote on this. I do not want to edit notability or deletion discussions unless the community does not oppose my doing so. However, I would find the existence of a topic ban so humiliating and distressing that I would be prepared to do anything the community wishes (other than something even more humiliating or distressing) in order to avoid such a ban. A topic ban is therefore not necessary. James500 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Much of the commentary in this ANI case relates to other editors' perceptions, assumptions or speculation about why I made certain edits, what I was thinking at the time, what I meant by them, my motives, how I expected them to be understood by others and so on. This commentary is far from entirely accurate. If the community wishes, I will disclose what I was really thinking when I made those edits. James500 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban is therefore not necessary. - I appreciate the sentiment that a formal sanction can be humiliating/distressing, and, at least speaking for myself, I would be happy if there were an outcome that addressed people's concerns expressed in this thread without effecting those kinds of feelings. If this could be taken as a self-imposed/voluntary topic ban on notability/deletion to be documented in the close, I, for one, would not see the need for something formally imposed/logged at this time. On reflection, given the other assurances made in this thread, I would be satisfied if it were specifically notability-related and deletion-related policy/guideline/essay pages in particular (in other words, it would not extend to e.g. individual deletion discussions themselves). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This would work for me as well. A number of James500's AfDs are fine, as he is adept at finding sources, especially on topics relating to books. I would mention for him to be careful on AfD's on other topics, where I would welcome his vote as long as they are specific and explain why the topic would pass notability guidelines, using available sources to do so - so no quoting WP:PRESERVE as policy. SportingFlyer talk 00:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume what you mean to say is "no quoting WP:PRESERVE as a policy relevant to an article notability determination"?; WP:PRESERVE itself is policy, and a somewhat important and broadly supported editorial priority. It's just that it clearly, by its own terms, only applies to content within an article, not a given subject's notability. If James has been quoting it in AfD as a presumption for not removing article's, I could see why some would find that vexing. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, I have never cited WP:PRESERVE as an argument for keeping an article, or as an argument that a topic was notable. I only cited it, in conjuction with WP:ATD, as an argument for merger. It may be, however, that other editors have misunderstood the intended meaning of my !votes. James500 (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I've read through a number of your AfDs. !Votes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Digital Imprimatur (an "oppose" vote) says the content cannot be deleted because a viable merge candidate exists per WP:PRESERVE. Or here, where Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Trench_(novel) (another oppose vote) where it claims the page is "ineligible for deletion" because it has a proper merge candidate, yet there is no "merge" vote or discussion of notability of the topic - just that it can't be "deleted." There are several others as well. While your argument is clearer now, this is still an extremely confusing case of wikilawyering. SportingFlyer talk 10:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Both of those AfDs are old and use a form of !vote that I have deprecated and would not use today. The rationale I gave in the AfD for "The Trench" would not happen today. I would have found the book reviews that were cited in that AfD. I no longer use the word "oppose" as a way of indicating that I am have no objection to a page being merged/redirected. James500 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, geez, that's obviously not a valid rationale. I could easily write an article on my mom's dinner with the Beatles in the late '60s (a dinner party organized by the head of Norman Petty Studio, where Buddy Holly recorded, when the Fab Four were on a US tour and in the Southwest for some reason – maybe on their way between major cities, unless they actually did play in Albuquerque). This trash could not be kept on the basis that it would be technically possible to merge it into The Beatles or some other article about them. If it's trash, it gets taken out. What PRESERVE means is that if we have sourced, encyclopedic material (passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, etc.) about a topic that actually is notable at another page, but this material is in a page on a non-notable topic, then it should be merged not deleted, when this is feasible. It's not a keep rationale at AfD. And ideas like "this would be non-indiscriminate if the topic were notable" doesn't work. E.g., you can't merge the breed history of a non-notable alleged breed to List of dog breeds or Collie since the history of a "backyard breeder" experiment is indiscriminate trivia in the context of a broader topic like breed groups. Mention is often appropriate, though, especially for completeness (e.g. don't exclude a non-notable band from the list of who performed at a notable music festival, even if you obviously can't dump their bio in there). Context is king.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You should have a look at some of Andrew's "keep" !votes sometime; he frequently cites PRESERVE as though it applied to one-sentence sub-stubs, content-forks and completely unsourced nonsense. Honestly, if it weren't for James's rhetoric, I would have next to no problem with his AFD activity (I would say I agree with somewhere between 70% and 90% of his !votes in principle); the same can definitely not be said for Andrew. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it the other editor's AfD/notability stuff is or becomes problematic, that's best saved for another ANI, if it comes to that. Hopefully just discussion, and observing ANIs like this one, and not seeing one's AfD !votes taken seriously, and so on, will shift the behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:49, 17 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.[127], 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

• 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)

I basically agree with the above, although I'm perhaps a bit more skeptical than Barkeep about whether the promises made by James in this thread will be kept in the long term: my first interaction with him in April ended with him saying I will refrain from making comments about types of behaviour or points of view in order to make you happy. I apologise unreservedly if my comments appeared to anyone to refer to editors, as that was certainly not my intention. Clearly, I should have worded them far more carefully., my second interaction with him consisted of him comparing AFD nominators to vandals, and my third consisted (summary diff; click all the diffs inside the diff for the actual evidence) of him following me to a bunch of discussions while hypocritically accusing me, about a half-dozen times, of hounding him, so I'm naturally loath to believe him when he issues essentially the same contrite-seeming apology and promise to do better again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's more "on the record" this time. Anyway, I'm okay with Barkeep49's draft close of sorts. And even if it should turn sour, I'd be fine with "something more than the tbans being discussed" not being what we leap to; we typically use escalating sanctions, and a topic ban is often very effective at both preventing the disruption while retaining the editor and (less often) reforming the editor's behavior and permitting an eventual return to the topic. PS: I think Rhodo and Hijiri may have been at wit's end from long interaction with James500 that I wasn't aware of. For my part, this was a routine civility-and-soapboxing-I-see-right-now ANI. My personal history with James500 doesn't go back more than one recent thread at at WT:NBOOK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd support such a closure. (No preference whether this or my earlier support.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've requested closure at WP:ANRFC since this is clearly "talked out" at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• I also support such a closure. As I've noted, James500 does do a good job finding sources on book-related AfDs, and he was very helpful during a bad bulk AfD nomination on a number of foreign language articles. Problems exist, but they're fixable, and my hope going forward is all of James' !votes at AfD will be strong and meaningful (and, to be clear, I'm specifically referring to the !votes which cite incorrect notability guidelines, or ones which are overly wikilawyered as noted above, without commenting on sourcing). SportingFlyer talk 00:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: By a bad bulk AfD nomination on a number of foreign language articles, you wouldn't be referring to Tyw7 (talk · contribs)'s Shadowowl (talk · contribs)'s (good-faith, controversial at worst, per the lengthy discussion that took place on this page at the time) nomination earlier this year of a bunch of shitty one-sentence non-articles created by Starzynka (talk · contribs)? I found James's conduct there to be pretty poor: the actual reason virtually all of the pages needed to be redirected/deleted (I recently explained why the latter may be preferable in some cases) had nothing to do with notability, and so James's gathering of sources, where he did as much, was not helpful unless he actually expanded the article into something meaningful, which he has done from time to time but certainly a lot less than simply showing up to the AFD and !voting "keep" without consideration of our deletion policy and what will be best for readers. If you were referring to that incident, I think you should probably strike it, and if you were not you should probably clarify, since it certainly looks like you are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC) (mod. 08:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC) )

@Hijiri88: I'm not familiar with that particular incident, or it's long forgotten. I was thinking more along the lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Družba Pere Kvržice and a whole boatload of other articles, particularly foreign language articles, that were nominated nearly in bulk without a WP:BEFORE search earlier this year. SportingFlyer talk 08:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Sorry, that was what I meant. I commented in a few of them, but forgot the name of the nominator; the one that sticks in my mind more than the others is In der Falle, which Shadowowl initially nominated but botched and withdrew -- when I checked the one I commented on now it was the one that was re-nominated by another editor. The "BEFORE search" you refer to doesn't apply to one-sentence content-forks where notability is not the issue, as it was not with any of the 100+ articles Shadowowl nominated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I stand by my comments about those nominations. I also have no idea why a WP:BEFORE search wouldn't apply in this situation, because a lot of the foreign language articles were nominated on failing SNG and GNG indicators. A large number of these passed notability guidelines, but in different languages, and I remember James500 being helpful in saving them. SportingFlyer talk 09:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I criticized ShadowOwl at the time for the awkward wording of the nominations, but it was clear enough to anyone who really cared enough to look that "notability" (let alone specifics of GNG or SNG) was not the reason for nominating. "Notability" is just so prevalent a concept that the word gets bandied about where it doesn't really belong. An argument could easily be made that what he actually meant was "This subject is not notable enough that in the decade or so this article has been on Wikipedia anyone has bothered to come by and write anything about it" (and I'm pretty sure when I did make this argument at the previous ANI on him he agreed with me), and that's a simple truism, regardless of whether this or that topic actually meets GNG, so your continuing to refuse to drop the stick on it strikes me as a little odd. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Word count

• The issue here is being prolix, right? So far, this section is over 130Kb – over 20,000 words of verbiage. Please see WP:POT, WP:SAUCE and WP:NOTFORUM, which states "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia." Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, the issues are being uncivil, derailing discussions with off-topic rants (some of which are long, but that's beside the point), and lobbying against consensus-accepted guidelines. You would know that if you'd skimmed even the original post, instead of deciding it would be clever (it's not) to vent about the length of the discussion because you think it's ironic that anyone early on mentioned post length in some context or another. What you've done here is an example of WP:NOTFORUM; this page doesn't exist for you to impress people with your jokey wit.

  Please see also WP:CHUNK in particular: If a noticeboard action, proposal, or other bunch of process requires lengthy discussion, then it does, and that isn't wrong. This is a process page, not an article or its talk page. ANI in particular is not about the task of creating an encyclopedia, it's a meta-process for deciding whether certain editors and/or their behavior are impeding that goal, and if so then what to do about it. And the length of this discussion was quite productive; what probably would have resulted in sanctions like a topic-ban (if this had been tersely listed diffs followed by knee-jerk one-liner !votes) instead looks likely to result in a negotiated agreement to desist from certain unconstructive habits. That's a good thing for all concerned. In short, if you don't like long ANI threads, don't read them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Andrew, I hardly think it's fair to tell the winner of WAM 2017 that he is not "staying on the task of creating an encyclopedia" when he is unable to participate in WAM 2018 to the same degree due to his being too busy IRL (I told SMcC on my talk page, but ... translating 100,000 Japanese characters, in essentially three weeks, while also working another full-time job: I'd like to see you do that) and only participated in this thread (and the other one on you a couple weeks back) because of (a) a sense of obligation to the project and (b) other people having opened them without consulting me. The fact that someone, quite possibly you or James (you have a demonstrable history of "good hand / bad hand" sockpuppetry and James is ... everything said above), chose the other day to log out of their account and post a harassing message about me that creeped me the fuck out would honestly be enough of an excuse never to edit Wikipedia again, and it's not even the worst I've seen this year. So don't ever talk down to me like that again. EVER. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And FWIW, I'm increasingly certain that the IP was neither you nor James, but actually the last disruptive editor both of you showed up to defend because, as far as both of you are concerned, an "inclusionist" editor fights with a "deletionist" editor, the former is right no matter what else they do, and the latter is in the wrong. Yeah, anyone could show up on his talk page and pretend to be him, but how many would know about his penchant for calling me a self-proclaimed "japanese expert"? You have not apologized for your defense of that toxic editor who made building the encyclopedia a hellish experience for me for months, nor for your current defense of this toxic editor, and you dare tell me that I'm not focused enough on building the encyclopedia? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 19 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)

I tend to agree with 73.168.15.161's analysis. Just because the user can switch between Spanish and broken English doesn't mean they're not the same person, when the abuse pattern is consistent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Concur with IP 73 and SMc. Ivanvector these death threats are a clear behavioral match. It is not unreasonable to believe a Spanish speaker may have a broken English. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a clear behavioural distinction between the two that I don't want to get into here. But whether they are or not, my previous response applies. This most recent IP is dynamic but not a proxy, there's no policy rationale for blocking it for more than a few days. If they show up on another IP we'll do it again. For the open proxies we already block on sight. It would be nice if the WMF could pursue these cases a little more, uh, at all, but on-wiki we will use the tools we have available. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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)
• 91.148.17.241 (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)

There's no simple solution. But we can take some measures. We can find all articles containing e.g. pmid=30030508 with an insource search on insource:"pmid 30030508". If we suspect that the spammer is e.g. M Mraz, we can search on insource:"last Mraz". Less common surnames give results small enough to be inspected. We can filter larger result sets on initial like this: insource:"last Doubek" insource:"first M". In addition we can find papers on PubMed by author. These are the 178 papers on PubMed authored by M Mraz: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Mraz%20M%5BAuthor%5D which would allow us to accumulate a complete set of pmids that might be viewed as "suspicious". If the size of the problem seems too large to tackle manually, it is possible that a bot request might help collect and collate target articles that need to be checked. Stopping the spammer from adding text looks like it would need a complex edit filter and that's unlikely to get approved for what may be seen as a relatively small problem. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The author seems to be called Marek Mraz. Some of his papers now have entries in Wikidata. For example this one. Their university affiliation points to the Czech Republic. I searched for an editor named 'Mraz' on cz.wikipedia.org but didn't find any. For a stopgap fix we could semiprotect about 80 medical articles for a year. Or, we could let User:Natureium continue to work the old-fashioned way to remove these IP edits with whatever method they are using now. Which might be tedious. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I figured out the author’s name after the first time I found him on a spree, but I didn’t know if giving it would be considered outing. I think I’ve removed all the papers at this point. Because he only puts the PMID, his name doesn’t go in until someone expands the ref. Honestly, he’s the only person I can recall seeing that only lists the PMID, so it might work to disallow that feature. I figured by now he would give up after seeing that his edits are reverted every time. He is the corresponding author on some of those papers, so even though he clearly doesn’t read his talk page, he could be contacted by email or phone. Natureium (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I will add this to my list to periodically check. It may be worth adding the author name to an edit filter? Guy (Help!) 09:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Add LAG3, PAK1, KIAA0825. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Which author did you search for those? I only went through and removed the Mraz papers. Natureium (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding 'calling him on the phone and telling him to stop': I am unsure if it is wise to contact the author off Wikipedia. Why not ask one of the oversighters if any other follow-up is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm definitely not going to call him myself because that would be very expensive and sounds incredibly awkward. Can you explain what that has to do with oversighters though? Should I call an oversighter on the phone and ask them? Natureium (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll continue this discussion on your user talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Natureium, RexxS, EdJohnston, and JzG: Can this thread be closed now? Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No objection here. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Are we saying that the solution to this is to just keep removing them every time he spams them? Natureium (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, he added more just today. 91.148.17.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Sigh. Natureium (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It might be possible for Cluebot to detect these additions and automatically revert them. That would be less 'expensive' (in computing terms) than an AbuseFilter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The edits are idiosyncratic so amenable to a filter. The PMID changes but the format is largely stable. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

• Fob.schools (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Steven (Editor) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BT Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.[128][129] 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[130], and I have warned him I would report him here.[131] 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)

The text that is showing in the copyvios report was not added by me. What's "unnecessary and unencyclopaedic"? How about comprehending what I put above about your edits. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:49, 17 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)

WP:CASTINGDISPERSIONS. EEng 00:40, 17 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)

Floq, if you and I have a disagreement about something, you go do something else, and I then I follow you there for the sole purpose of attacking you, is that a productive thing for me to do? Dennis's or my snarkiness in a different debate is completely irrelevant to the question. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I have had an editor do that very thing to me. If it happens once (or, in my case, once every few months) I try to ignore it. If it becomes a pattern then I'll ask for help. As I specifically said above, I'm not condoning Dennis' comment. I'm saying there are extenuating factors - one, this article was specifically mentioned in the argument you two were having, so it's not the same as if he'd followed you to an unrelated topic. And two, you were both being snarkier than necessary, which tends to lead to a bad vibe spiral. Because of that, I'd want to see evidence of more pestering, after TomSstar's warning, before doing anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not looking to get anybody blocked - I would like somebody to make clear to Dennis that this sort of behavior is unnacceptable.

That said, this isn't exactly the only time he's had trouble with another editor - see for instance here. Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

While I'm not saying I endorse the use of the phrase "fuck off" on Wikipedia, that exchange makes me more inclined to view Dennis as a reasonable person than an unreasonable one.  Swarm  talk  22:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• While I don't doubt that Dennis followed you to that page, HOUNDING implies intent to harass, and I'm not seeing that. If you extensively argue for the removal of content from one article, and then hop over to a similar article that hosts the same content for a spontaneous GA review, and you don't even mention the fact that the article hosts content that you fundamentally object to out of principle, pointing that out isn't harassment, and it's not an attack, it's relevant context. And, it's not an aspersion, as a reasonable rationale for his comment was provided. If anything, in the interest of transparency, it's probably best that it be brought up, and I would think any reasonable person can understand how that might potentially look suspicious, even if you were acting in good faith (and yes, it's possible to have a COI in good faith). If your intentions were pure, then surely you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for performing that particular action on that particular page, and you could easily put to rest any concerns about COI with a simple good faith explanation. Aggressively hatting it as "trolling" and reporting the user are not only dubious actions in their own right, but it also just comes across as being overly-defensive. I understand being defensive is just human nature, and doesn't imply that you're in the wrong, but it doesn't help your cause. I know it must be frustrating to be called the hell out so brazenly by an editor who followed you from another dispute, and I understand how frustrating it can be when you're an administrator and someone's accusing you of petty violations as if you don't know better. But I don't see this as an actionable violation.  Swarm  talk  22:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Insults and naming calling by User:Panosgatto

This user is a typical vandal. I reverted his vandalism a number of times and reported him to your respected page after the last warning on his talk page. Take a look here please: [132], [133], [134], [135]. It's a clear removal of sourced content without reason, deletion of information and facts without consensus. He deleted sources and content without any justification whatsoever. He removed parts of the introduction without any reason. This user is an avid fan of a rival club to this particular article's club and he removes sourced facts in the introduction just because he doesn't like them. It's a typical case of vandalism, removal of content and reliable sources without justification (and without any consensus).

Now he started insulting and attacking me on my talk page as you can see here: [136]. I won't answer to his unacceptable insults so I choose to defer to the administrators. Thank you for your attention. Lynxavier (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

looks more like a content dispute to me. I think however that the implication of the use Football hooligan might warrant a mild rebuke.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: it's not a content dispute. I'll try to explain what happens here. This user is a fan of Panathinaikos B.C., a rival team to Olympiacos B.C. (the article in question). His objective is to "belittle" Olympiacos by removing sourced content because he doesn't like it (and without any consensus whatsoever of course). At the same time he tries to "praise" or "magnify" the team he supports by adding content which is inappropriate and outside of any encyclopedic interest in his favorite team's article. Another user tried to revert his edits and he keeps reverting them back. These are his vandalisms at Olympiacos B.C.: [137], [138], [139], [140] These are his disruptive edits at Panathinaikos B.C.: [141], [142]. Another user, editor Seraphim System reverted his disruptive edits but he keeps on and on. Moreover he plagiarized my explanation to "justify" his disrupting editing on the page, twice and thrice reverting back Seraphim System's reverts: [143], [144], [145]. Lynxavier (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Lynxavier, what is your proposed solution? A WP:TOPICBAN from Olympiacos B.C.? -- Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • • Softlavender Thank you for your answer Softlavender. A WP:TOPICBAN from both Olympiacos B.C. and Panathinaikos B.C. is the right course of action in my opinion. I don't think that you should give him a ban for his insults and his demeanor, it would be nicer if somebody explained him what exactly wikipedia is and what it is that we're supposed to do here. Lynxavier (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Softlavender The matter is beyond ridiculous. He reverts back Seraphim System's interventions thrice and nothing is being done: [146], [147], [148], [149]. I tried to revert his disruptive, POV editing after Seraphim System but he keeps reverting back to his POV version: [150], [151]. He plagiarizes my justification text and uses it as his own, and now he keeps coming back: [152]. Admins are you going to do something or not? Lynxavier (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the other issues, I have blocked User:Panosgatto for two weeks for edit-warring. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:IQ125

Well, I tried to avoid taking this action but IQ125 obviously WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. Their edit history at Irish Bull Terrier has been highly disruptive as the following diffs will demonstrate:

Editor was warned

• 11-15-2018 - I posted a friendly warning, he deleted
• 11-16-2018 - harassing mockery of my warning to them on my TP
• 11-16-2018 - notified of this discussion

Editor argues to keep citing an unreliable source (self-published book by unknown author in limited print) despite RS such as The Telegraph and quotes by the RSPCA and editor of Dog World calling it a fictitious breed created to circumvent dog fighting laws

• 11-12-2018
• 11-14-2018
• 11-14-2018 - insists unreliable source adds "strength to the article"
• 11-05-2018
• 11-15-2018

Disruptive reverts and incivility

• 11-13-2018 - disruptive revert of Merge tag and properly sourced material
• 11-15-2018 - disruptive revert of Merge tag and properly sourced material
• 11-15-2018 - disruptive revert - restores reverted material
• 11-15-2018 - accuses me of vandalizing the article
• 11-16-2018 - calls editors "dog people pretenders"
• 11-15-2018 - argues about proper move of article name to lower case by SMcCandlish

The Merger discussion

• Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Merger discussion - the only "no merger" is by IQ125

As a result of this editor's inability to recognize RS, AGF and respect consensus, I cannot see any other remedy short of a t-ban from terrier articles broadly construed that will resolve their disruptive behavior, allow the proposed merger to take place without incident, and remain in place. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Question: on 26 October IQ125 reverted an edit differentiating the Irish bull terrier from the Staffordshire bull terrier, saying they're "the same dog" (edit summary, [153]). On 12 November they're the only editor opposing merging the two articles, because Irish bull terrier is "a separate breed" ([154]). Is this trolling? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• support (edit conflict) TBan per nom. I took part in the merge discussion, and have followed both it and the article since. Although of course their vote to merge or otherwise is entirely their own business and not disruptive, their continued behaviour in the article—diffs again per nom—is wholly disruptive.
  I also suggest a corollary that, should they attempt to move the article back unilaterally after the close (I'm rather assuming the result there, admittedly), an immediate WP:IDHT block will be enforced, per this and without further community discussion. ——SerialNumber54129 14:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• No: The only one being disruptive is User: Atsme. As you can see from the detail above, he seems to have far to much time on his hands and suffers from a bad case of compulsive obsessive disorder. It seems Atsme and another editor have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the Irish Bull Terrier article. They are deleting cited information from the article. I posted on the articles talk page to stop doing that amongst other comments to work with them rather than reverting the article. User:Atsme and the other editor do not want to work together cordially and build a better article. Some of the information they are both posting in the article is bogus. Atsme knows nothing about the dog breed Irish Bull Terrier and should not be editing unless he can provide a citation for anything he is adding. Atsme is edit warring and practicing article ownership, I object to that [Emphasis Added] Thank you. IQ125 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked over all of this but just saw this last response in my watchlist. IQ125, are you sure that you want to state that the person that you are having a disagreement with "seems to have far to much time on his hands and suffers from a bad case of compulsive obsessive disorder"? You should rethink that.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @IQ125: speculating on an editor's mental health in this manner is a personal attack. Please retract your comment immediately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TB and corollary per Atsme and SN54129. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBan, in order to halt obvious disruption, edit-warring, and personal attacks. I have a hunch this will probably not be the last sanction this editor will receive, given that they immediately remove every single message, notice, or warning from their talkpage: [155]. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from dogs terriers, dog fighting, and breed-specific legislation, broadly construed and one-way ban from interaction with Atsme, per diffs provided, the apparent trolling over whether or not the two breeds mentioned here are the same breed, per conduct in this thread, and because this behaviour does not appear to be limited to articles on terriers (e.g. [156]) and extends at least to breed-specific legislation and dog fighting (the topics, not necessarily those specific articles). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: refined suggested scope of topic ban. On review those do seem to be the specific disrupted topics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support T-ban ("no-gaming" extended versions by Ivanvector and Cavalryman V31 – maybe just make it dogs in general) and corollary (by SerialNumber54129). I-ban may be overkill, unless some kind of personal harassment develops. Frankly, any time someone shows up in ANI and starts making insulting accusations about other people's mental health as if that that's any kind of response to the issues raised about their behavior, they should just be indeffed on the spot (though not without a close, on the merits, of the ANI and its evidence, since indefs are often not permanent). I went to great lengths to bring the new-seeming editors at that page up to speed and into the fold on how to participate without ending up at ANI or having their work reverted, and apparently not a word of it was absorbed. If anything, the behavior has markedly worsened, turning to excessively clumsy mass-revert editwarring against multiple editors, and uncivil rants than recycle IQ125's pet [pun intended] theories that don't have reliable sources. There's a WP:CIR problem here, and I wouldn't consider an indef off the table, even aside from insults used above; I'm skeptical this person has the temperament or communications, writing, and research skills to contribute constructively at a rate that outpaces the disruption they cause. I also note that the sources added by this person appear to be self-published (either directly or through a vanity press), so it's not just an attitude thing but a core content policies issue. The only good things that're going to come out of this are that we now know the article in question isn't encyclopedic and needs to be merged to the extent any of it's salvageable; and the tutorial material I wrote for Dr Nobody and IQ125 is being used as the basis for a new "how to write about breeds on Wikipedia" essay I'm almost done with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC); revised 21:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Question For how long would this topic ban be in place? Jacona (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Huh? Isn't this the second issue we've had with this same article? Is this in any way related to the issue with User:Dr Nobody? I swear this is related. Why is this suddenly a problem space? --Tarage (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  Tarage yes, and since DrNobody is a relatively new editor, I volunteered to mentor them. I initially picked Irish bull terrier as a teaching aid  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough...little did I know what was lurking in the shadows. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, even I got IQ125 and Dr Nobody confused for a moment. I've re-checked what I've written above to make sure it pertains exactly to IQ125 (e.g. the revert-warring, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Ivanvector but also all of the Bulldog breeds. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC). Amended, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC).

• I don't know why we would bother with a tban. I have no involvement whatsoever in this topic area, but every time I've encountered IQ125 they were edit warring, owning an article, refusing to communicate, making revenge edits, or generally refusing to get the point. Our main topic area overlap is chess. e.g. this ANI thread from February 2015, which involved edit warring to copy/paste merge a list that was closed as redirect, refusing to communicate, filing a bogus SPI about me, etc. There's also been stuff like repeatedly adding information about sexual orientation based on about.com, repeatedly removing copyright templates from the Nazi architecture page, edit warring to repeatedly make inaccurate copyright claims in relation to a nonfree image used in these two templates, then when I fixed the NFCC for use in an article (not the templates), they uploaded an exact copy (the templates were kept because the image was deleted)... so dogs, chess, musicians, architecture... not sure what would be accomplished with a topic ban on one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  Although I withdrew the specific proposal below once I was shown that the assumptions it was based on were not correct, I stillbelieve that IG125's behavior regarding their lack of response to comments on their talk page, and their immediate deletion of those comments, is dismissive and contempuous of the community and therefore warrant a block, although not the indef block I originally proposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and based on what Rhododendrites says above, a site ban may also be necessary. We do not need promotional articles about dog pseudo-breeds, and we do not need the contributions of an editor who uses unreliable sources and edits against consensus. Disclosure: My wife and I own a purebred terrier. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  I'll prepare your scarlet COI patch. ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 00:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  But pick a different color; dogs don't see red.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, though I would additionally support a block. The general tendentiousness is pretty obvious here, and the resort to PAs (at ANI no less) demonstrate that this user, despite their tenure here, either has not made the effort to familiarize themselves with our basic conduct standards or just disregards them out of hand. That's an issue that goes beyond the WP:OR/inadequate sourcing/edit warring concerns which may or may not be forestalled by a topic ban. Clearly there is support only for the TBAN as the most targeted option at this time, and parallel sanctions are rarely applied regardless, but I am attempting to disentangle the two separate problematic patterns of behaviour so that it is made clear for IQ125 that both need to change and a TBAN will not isolate them from being back here in short order to face the consequences of PAs/harassment, if they should occur in other areas. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional proposal

Withdrawn by proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from examining their talk page, IQ125 has never responded to any comment, question or warning left on their talk page. Almost every edit they have made to their talk page has been to delete those comments, etc. [157]. This is a blatant violation of WP:Communication is required, and in and of itself is worthy of an indef block until the editor positively confirms that they will communicate with other editors when they bring their concerns to them, which should be a condition of their unblock. They have been here for over five years, long enough to know that their behavior is unacceptable (since they delete every comment shortly after it's posted, and there is no archive, it's practically impossible to tell if someone has specifically warned him about this without reading every contribution to their talk page}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Oppose - blanking comments from one's talk page is explicitly permitted per WP:BLANKING. This conduct is not sanctionable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry, IV, unusually for you, you missed the point entirely. It's not the blanking which is problematic, but the lack of discussion. Editors who refuse to talk to other editors get indef blocked all the time, since it's impossible to have a collaborative project with someone who won't collaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 10:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) In this case, the editor does talk to others; just not on his own talkpage: [158]. He's not the most civil or rational or prolific of communicators, but communication has not been 100% absent, which is usually the only reason we give someone a wake-up or indef block. Softlavender (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC) OK, thanks for pointing that out. In the face of that, I'll withdraw the proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict × 3) I appreciate the clarification, and I did understand the point you were trying to make. We do often sanction editors who never respond to anything ever, but that's not the case with IQ125. They're very obviously participating in discussions, often problematically, but that is the opposite of never communicating. I realize that constantly blanking a talk page makes it difficult to know if the user has been warned about particular things in the past (not impossible) but my point is they're allowed to do that specific thing. All it really means is they have no basis for being upset when they're repeatedly warned about the same things over and over. Side note: I don't know why SineBot thought you didn't sign your edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC) It was SignBot. I mucked up the sig and used xsign to replace it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) Oppose It isn't true that he never communicates, I have had talk page discussions with him on chess-related articles. We should only indef editors for WP:CIR if they have never made any edits to any talk page, ever.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC) I've withdrawn it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC) I have to strongly agree with BMK's analysis with regard to the difference between blanking and communicating, and not communicating (whether blanking or not). Blanking stuff off your page is permissible, but being utterly unresponsive to other editors is not. If we were to end up wikilawyering ourselves into the corner that it did become permissible just to support the ability to nuke things off one's talk page without ever any response to anyone no matter what, then obviously we should go to the talk page guidelines and revise WP:BLANKING to actually be workable (something we arguably should have done a long time ago, given that a radically high percentage of people who behave that way in user talk end up at ANI for other and legit reasons and that a high proportion of people who end up here for other and legit reasons also engage in that behavior; there's a two-way and very strong correlation). The consensus that editors must be competent and a collaborative participants rather than dead-silence, I-can't-hear-you meatbots in order to continue editing here is much stronger than any alleged consensus for the idea that it is utterly impossible for the community to impose any sort of user-talk behavior restrictions. That said, I would think that this ANI subject is in enough hot water as it is, we don't really need to address this "sub-complaint" at this time. And he has been at least a little communicative (though not very constructively) on some other pages. The entire thing might be better as a WP:VPPOL discussion about adjusting WP:BLANKING and maybe some other parts about that overall page to match actual community norms, about a decade overdue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm happy to see that no one in this thread is exhibiting BITEY behavior. EEng 01:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, BITEY can be a bit terrier-fying. Everyone here is having a tail-waggin good time. 🐶 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You'd prefer we not be clear about the inappropriateness of PAs? I'd certainly contemplate a short-term block in place of the TBAN, but when someone responds to a complaint by commenting on the mental health of their "opposition", its clear that they are not understanding the degree of civility that is expected of them here. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Punning around, Snow Rise,...of the kind - to relieve some of the tension about the pit bull terrier dog topic. I hope an admin closes the discussion soon. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 04:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Errr--yeah, I totally got that! Snow ^{let's rap} 15:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

😅 🍻 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Regstuff, Jaggi Vasudev, Isha Foundation

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

---

Note: I'm involved in a move and content discussion/dispute at Jaggi Vasudev and Isha Foundation. I left a note on Regstuff's talk page about COI issues on 2 November. He's responded to it yesterday on the Jaggi Vasudev talk page. I've chosen to address this here.

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

Regstuff became a member of Wikipedia in May 2010. His first edits were promotional edits on Isha Foundation. The following are the articles he has created:

• Action for Rural Rejuvenation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation programme)
• AYUSH-ISHA Organic Health Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation programme; merged yesterday)
• Isha Gramotsavam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation sports festival)
• Isha Home School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (An Isha Foundation school; merged yesterday)
• Isha Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation's wellness centre; merged yesterday)
• Isha Vidhya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha foundation's literacy programme; created in tandem with a single purpose account named Sallyforisha)
• Isha Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation's primary business)
• Project GreenHands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation programme)
• Yaksha (festival) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha foundation arts festival)

These are other articles Regstuff has created which are indirectly linked to Isha:

• Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [Isha Foundation is an awardee]
• D. Balakrishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): 1 external link and one citation to an ISHA blog.
• Rama Ravi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): 1 source from The Hindu cited for her performance at the ISHA centre; another external link to the ISHA blog
• Chorabari Glacier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): A Jaggi Vasudev article in the Times of India cited as a source and an ISHA blog cited as a source
• Abhilash Tomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Uses another ISHA blog as a source
• Rajiv Gandhi Khel Abhiyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): A "rural sports initiative" collaborating with the Isha foundation

Unrelated:

• Tiger of Pilibhit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mary Jobe Akeley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pulney Andy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Janardhan Mitta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Heliopithecus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted:

• Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While Regstuff has a number of contributions to other articles, most substantial ones involve promoting Jaggi Vasudev and the Isha foundation. For example,

• Thaipusam: promoting the Linga Bhairavi temple of the Isha Foundation
• Shiva: Promoting Jaggi Vasudev and the Adiyogi Shiva statue of the Isha Foundation
• Malladihalli Raghavendra: a guru of Vasudev
• International Day of Yoga: Jaggi Vasudev promotion
• Kundalini: Jaggi Vasudev promotion
• Lingam: Isha blog promotion

There are more. There are also a number of edits that are blatantly promotional involving external links to the Isha blog.

There are some other articles where Regstuff has added substantial content unrelated to Jaggi Vasudev or Isha, but these are far fewer in comparison.

While looking this up, I noticed a few (now stale) promotional accounts such as Sallyforisha and Veeru.isha. It's possible that more *isha accounts can be unearthed simply by searching through usernames or looking for edits which involve ishafoundation.org. (I'm not going to bother notifying these users about this ANI.)

Finally, there is a curious overlap between Regstuff and banned paid editor, Bilingual2000. 6 minutes after the creation of Rama Ravi by Regstuff, Bilingual2000 makes a bunch of edits. Regstuff resumes editing a few minutes after that.

If you look at Regstuff's global contributions, you'll find that he's been promoting Jaggi Vasudev and Isha in a number of Indian language wikis including Tamil, Telugu, Hindi, and Kannada. On Wikibooks, he's created a book with reference links to the Isha blog. On Wikimedia Commons, all of his uploads bar one are of brochure photographs of Jaggi Vasudev or the Isha Foundation.

I'm convinced that Regstuff has a conflict of interest in all matters Isha and Jaggi Vasudev. This is evident from the volume of created and edited content across multiple wikis centred around these topics as well as the active policing against anything negative about either the foundation or Jaggi Vasudev. Considering all the articles he's created promoting Isha's various businesses and activities, I'm quite convinced that he's also either a paid editor or someone actively engaged in SEO manipulation. The is further evident from all the disguised link spam he has gotten up to over the years. Then there's the momentary overlap with a banned paid editor. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban for this editor. Appears to be massive UPE by the same site-banned editor Bilingual2000. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Ditto, and if they're not a UPE then that's one helluva of COI, and as for the spam...It seems pretty clear that by now the terms of use have been broken. Many few times. ——SerialNumber54129 17:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block at minimum and preferably a siteban - This isn't some case of someone not doing the homework and making honest mistakes (well, as honest as paid SEO/PR hacks can get); this is someone attempting to broker Wikipedia's goodwill for their client's personal gain. I would also bring this up on WP:COI/N to get some more eyes looking at the article, its citations, etc. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Lose the editor, lose the pages Do not reward this type of behavior. Purge it all. --Tarage (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit. This looks very much like a cult. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

yes, Guy guessed it right. To be precise, "an elephant murdering cult. [159] And the cult members guarding these pages wont allow anything other than puffery for the leader. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support siteban and nuking all these pages. A CU will also be helpful as I think there may be sleepers accounts as the previous account was site banned. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Guy, firing a superlaser at this mess. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support and Nuke. This will consume some salvageable stuff but I don't give a damn.∯WBG^converse 18:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Pi zero, the above promotional material is related to Regstuff's wikibook creations also. You may want to delete them. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

MasterofAllWorlds and NOTTHERE

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

---

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

MasterofAllWorlds made about 30 edits to Wikipedia, most or possibly all of them have been reverted. Apparently, they want to tell us the TRUTH that Americacentrism is evil [160], [161], [162], [163]. I do not see any useful contributions. Could we please stop this activity now, before it sucks out too much time from the community?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Ymblanter's proposal. Also, according to this thread, this user seems to have some WP:CIR issues.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support and nothing of value was lost. --Tarage (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Looking at the edits, not all are even about America-centrism. [164], [165], [166]. Editor made an attempt to open a discussion: [167]. There are clearly many useful contributions and Ymblanter had too narrow of a focus when looking. If the editor is making problematic edits on Crimea, a topic band might be more appropriate at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• "MasterofAllWorlds made about 30 edits to Wikipedia, most or possibly all of them have been reverted." You clearly have no interest in researching your assertions.MasterofAllWorlds (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@MasterofAllWorlds: The easiest way to disprove the assertion would be to go to your contributions page and find an edit that is still in place. Copy the "diff" link where your edit was implemented, make sure it's actually in the article, and then share the link here. Walter Görlitz's post above provides a good example. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

He provided multiple examples.MasterofAllWorlds (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

While this has not been reverted, this one has. That doesn't really help with your counter-claim that most of your edits have not been reverted. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support under WP:CIR. The user literally said, several times, that the position that "most countries support Ukraine's claims to Crimea" can't be true simply because China doesn't support said claims. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I've had to revert the user's edits made since this ANI thread was opened. Timesink. Plus most all of his edits seem to be some sort of inaccurate POV-pushing. Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Dan56 and RfC closing

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

---

Dan56 (talk · contribs) opened an RfC and badgered the four editors who disagreed with him while it was running. The Legobot closed the expired RfC template, and I offered a summary based on the majority opinion. Nearly ten days later, he protested claiming that I shouldn't have closed it as an involved editor, causing a reactivation of the RfC. My claim is that the RfC was closed by the bot and I was summarizing, which is what I believe WP:RFCEND No. 5 to state. Could we please have some clarity on the situation? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFCEND: "As an RfC is a discussion with accompanying solicitation of comment, ending an RfC consists of ending that solicitation. That means removing it from the RfC lists" (as happens when the tag expires and the RfC removes it) "This is distinct from ... closing the discussion, which means someone lists conclusions and discourages further discussion." Dan56 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Note - Only three of the six who voted were previously uninvolved in the content dispute that led to the RfC; one of those three voted one way, the other two voted another. More input from uninvolved editors would be appropriate. Dan56 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: editors should not close RFCs when they've voted in them; see WP:BADNAC. Stop edit warring to reinstate your close. And please don't wikilawyer about how "the bot closed it, not me". @Dan56: stop edit warring to remove the close. Go to WP:AN and contest the close there. Notice how WP:CLOSECHALLENGE does not advise people to edit war with the closer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

DBigXray

• An IP added BLP violation on Jaggi Vasudev, which was restored by DBigXray using a misleading summary for his edit. DBX then added much more content to provide a negative point of view against the subject.
• Edits of DBX were reverted as BLP violation and lack of relevance, which DBX quickly restored, and restored again by providing misleading summary. The discussion was still running on talk page. Other editors removed nearly all of the content which was added by DBX and the page was protected by Amakuru for 24 hours.
• Edits by DBX violated BLP and used poor quality sources. They also show indications of borderline trolling on main article which was figured out by an IP and admin Amakuru. DBX was unhappy with that and he begin to justify even these absurd edits where he tries to establish a statue as "illegal" without any reliable source or conviction. (talk page diff)
• Consensus has been so far against any of his edits. He threatened to have me blocked by claiming I am violating "three-revert rule" when I made no revert on Jaggi Vasudev.
• DBX is also trying to drive away admin Amakuru by wrongly accusing him of violating WP:INVOLVED. I believe that Amakuru has not even edited the article other than removing an absurd edit of DBX which was requested on talk page.[168] How he is involved?

DBigXray's modus operandi seems to be: (1) insert blatant POV content; (2) revert any edits of his edits by other editors; (3) stall conversation on the talk page by repeating himself and attacking the contributors; (4) justify his additions by wrongly claiming the article to be puffery; (5) accuse others to be biased.

After he saw that consensus has emerged against his edits, he started writing a long thesis defending his indefensible actions at the article talk. He is still asking that why anybody even reverted him for the first time,[169] which further confirms that he refuses to understand the concerns with his actions.

His edits and talk page messages not only on Jaggi Vasudev but other related pages like Adiyogi Shiva Statue, reflects his inability to edit in a neutral manner. He is editing the subject as per his negative feelings. It seems impossible for DBX to understand why his edits are not being accepted, yet he he wants to continue fighting for them. Maybe it could be his jumbled English doesn't help him; sometimes it's hard to understand what he is telling. Either that or maybe he feels that he has to repeat himself because we can't understand his comments. Qualitist (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray (talk · contribs) also put an editorial cartoon depicting the Saudi crown prince dismembering Jamal Khashoggi on the article about the killing. This editor doesn't seem to know the difference between editorializing and editing. Jonathunder (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Wooooooooow. That's a good enough reason to block right there. --Tarage (talk)

• My above summary appears to be underestimating the actual scale of POV editing by DBX. His latest AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears of an undeniably notable subject [170][171] seems concerning and ridiculous. Qualitist (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Overall, he seems to be here to right great wrongs, and now he's added the editorial cartoon back as an IP address. Jonathunder (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

So, no I am NOT DBigXray. I am a French girl. Living in Germany ;-) --87.170.195.137 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• To know about the edits questioned above, please see my comments on these ongoing discussion threads at

• Talk:Jaggi_Vasudev#Death_of_his_wife
• Talk:Jaggi_Vasudev#Mass_reverts_with_misleading_edit_summary
• Talk:Jaggi_Vasudev#Adiyogi_Statue
• Talk:Adiyogi_Shiva_statue#Expanding the lead
• User_talk:Qualitist#November 2018
• Talk:Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi#Cartoon_of_killing_of_Khashoggi--DBigXrayᗙ 03:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is looking more like a case of CIR. See the recent ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Black Kite and his aspersions (where he was reverting multiple admins) and continued failure to drop stick regardless of concerns raised above. Kraose (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Another recent example of DBigXray's severe disruption and harassment: On 11 November 2018 DBigXray opened a WP:RM at Emirati passport, and then proceeded to bludgeon and harass everyone who !voted against the move: Talk:Emirati passport#Requested move 11 November 2018. The harassment, quite astonishingly, extended to repeated bludgeoning on other editors' talkpages, at User talk:Alexandermcnabb#November 2018 and at User talk:Wikiemirati#Blatant misrepresentation of the Policy. DBigXray particularly seems to have it in for Wikiemirati, for reasons unknown to me; this is particularly odd since Wikiemirati has repeatedly shown themselves to be a mild-mannered, good-faith editor. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• DBigXray's Harassment

This user has called me a POV pusher [172], described my opinion on a talk page as "cocktail of BS" [173], called my good faith edits "stunts" [174] and accused me of conflict of interest [175] to push his pov in an article title change when I disagreed with him. He has attacked me directly for voicing my opinion on my talk page here User talk:Wikiemirati#Blatant misrepresentation of the Policy, called me "lying" and that I do not have 'English competence' [176]. In that discussion he threatened to open an ANI discussion simply for putting my thoughts on a talk page. He seems to take my words word-by-word for a policy when I talk about my opinion and accuses me of not adhering to the policy. When that was not enough he threatened to take me to ANI on any edit I do in the future here [177]. This is outright WP:harrassment. He even stated that if he comes across my edit in the future, he will take me to ANI, confessing to hounding. He previously followed my edit history to when I asked an admin if his edit constitute copyvio, and accused me of stonewalling here User talk:Diannaa/Archive 60#Input required. I really feel this user is following my contributions in wikipedia. He seems to abuse the discretionary sanctions alert as well as other alerts and has placed it on multiple talk pages (bascially everyone who disagrees with his edits on a page), such as these users talk pages User talk:InedibleHulk#Discretionary sanctions alert and User talk:WikiHannibal#Discretionary Sanctions Alert andUser talk:Alexandermcnabb#November 2018 as well as my own talk page. I highly view all these edits as disruptive and honestly, I do not have the time to debate every single one of them and that was the reason I did not open an ANI discussion on this user. However, I do not care for online disputes but I would not tolerate harassment or be threatened with "topic ban" or "administrative action" as he claimed he would seek against me and he should be dealt with. If his behavior continues, then someone else will be attacked eventually. I am highly busy in the real world as a physician and I do not have time to deal with some form of online harassment. I do not know why this user has continuously targeted me. I have urged this user to take a wikibreak [178] but he continues to have case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I urge administrators to take some form of action on this user to limit his disruptive editing, or at least keep him away from me. Thank you. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--I'm getting quite-concerned that DBX is gradually getting close to the block-line. We have collided in the past but to be fair, he is a productive editor, who is here for the right purposes and does improve the project, heavily. And, that these linked diffs does not bear well, I will advise him to take a breath and step away from these volatile areas which are quite draining.this is not an endorsement of the complainant's own behavior/editorial tactics. ∯WBG^converse 18:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Qualitist clearly took offence with my WP:EW warning template on his talk and then in retaliation he brings a bunch of content dispute here on ANI. Classic cases of content disputes have been dredged up and hauled here to build up this thread. The diffs should be read in context of that particular page discussion and not out of context, those threads already have my responses.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You left a 3RR warning (not "WP:EW") when I made no revert. After this you made numerous attempts to prove that you were perfectly right with your indefensible actions per your recent notes on multiple talk pages. Like other editors have stated above, you are here only for righting great wrongs and believe that all other editors will give up only if you continue stalling discussions by repeating yourself and attacking others. Right above I had mentioned your nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears. In place of doing the right thing by withdrawing such a ridiculous nomination after reading my comment, you are badgering that AfD even when enough users disagree with your misrepresentation and poor understanding of policies. This behavior is pricesly the point for the report. Qualitist (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you calling my opinion "cocktail of BS" and describing me as "lying". This is not a content dispute and it should not be a tolerated behavior. It seems multiple other users have also endured your ill-mannered behavior, not just me. This name calling behavior must stop. Wikiemirati (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for Boomerang

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

• support Boomerang block for Qualitist for this shocking display of bad faith and WP :BATTLE. clearly he is pissed off due to my template for his edit war. The messages I have left everywhere are quite descriptive, still if anyone needs any further clarification from me, please feel free to ping. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like clarification User talk:DBigXray for the inclusion of that comic and all the other things he pointed out. Please elaborate on each of them and don't just dismiss it as bad faith. --Tarage (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

There are talk page discussion threads for all my above edits including the comic. Please see my comments there. --DBigXrayᗙ 02:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

here are the links for the threads of the ongoing discussions. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• (non-admin) I don't see the 3RR issue from the above user, nor do I support the boomerang block, and I'm extremely concerned the very first post to this ANI by the user in question immediately suggests a boomerang. SportingFlyer talk 02:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• I consider the editorial cartoon showing Mohammed bin Salman to be a shocking and egregious BLP violation. Personally, I have great sympathy for Khashogghi's friends and family, and concern about the Saudi Royal family, but BLP policy requires that we be judicious and cautious regarding criminal allegations against people who have neither been arrested nor convicted. Please explain here (not on any talk page) why you believe that this cartoon belongs in this article, DBigXray. We can then examine your reasoning in detail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I am aware of the strictness of our BLP policies. Since 2 Oct when this incident was reported, Almost all the reliable sources have mentioned Mohammed Bin Salman as the person who is capable to launch such a scale of operation. Yesterday's News article on Wa Post mentioned this.

• CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination, The Washington Post  
• CIA concludes Saudi Crown Prince bin Salman ordered Khashoggi murder: Report

I understand that our article still cannot say that "MBS 'is' responsible for the killing of Khashoggi" because there is no conviction yet. The difference now is that the allegations reported in media have become even more stronger than before. Now based on these sources, our articles can mention : "WaPo reported that CIA has come to a conclusion that this killing was ordered by MBS". There is a difference between the two statements and I know and can appreciate the difference.

Now coming to the cartoon, this cartoon is an editorial caricature, that signifies, MBS dismembering what appears to be a journalists pen with Khashoggi's head. The caricature clearly implies (to me) that journalism is the victim in this case of killing of Khashoggi. Caricatures for War articles and political articles are common in most media sources, and many of our war and politics related articles do contain it. E.g. Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact#Negotiations, Consequences in Finland File:Caricature gillray plumpudding.jpg#File usage File:Lincoln and Johnsond.jpg#File usage

For what it is worth, French, German and Turkish Wikipedia are already using this cartoon c:File:Jamal Khashoggi.jpg on their article for the subject.

After I added the cartoon, it was reverted by an editor, Since I felt this needed a wider consensus accordingly I started a discussion thread with my points in support. I felt that the interpretation of this caricature is a subjective matter, so a wider consensus is needed and I left the matter for the talk page Consensus to decide whether the image can be added or not. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Indef block Qualitist - see Qualitist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and note the subject in the context of other recent discussions. This quacks very loudly indeed. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate? I for one have no idea what you are talking about. Qualitist has made 153 edits [179], mostly on Sarimah Ibrahim and Statue of Unity. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Registered October 18, immediately piled in to reverting edits (so very likely not a new editor) then picks up the cudgels at Jaggi Vesudev, see the report above on user:Regstuff. I don't know, I am a nasty suspicious bastard, but none of that looks kosher to me. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that Jaggi Vesudev connection too, but in fact the user has made only 3 edits to that article [180], and 3 edits to the talkpage [181]. I also agree the editor has more experience on Wikipedia than one month, but I don't see anything presented that would equate to a rationale for an indef; nor has anyone even presented diffs that would equate to a rationale for a short block. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Adiyogi Shiva statue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Softlavender to your edit count figures, please add another 6 edits by this user on Adiyogi Shiva statue which is on the same topic area (i.e. Isha Foundation by Jaggi). would be curious to see what news CU brings up here. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Adiyogi Shiva statue is a notable statue like Statue of Unity. Here you had made multiple problematic edits[182][183] which I removed without caring whose edits these were. I was making efforts to make this article look similar to Statue of Unity. I made total of 5 edits and then you restored your problematic content and I reverted you again. I thought you are a problematic editor and that's why I checked your other contributions found that you are disrupting other similar articles (like Jaggi Vasudev).

Maybe if you could avoid inclusion of problematic content on any of these articles then I wouldn't be editing any of them. I reported you because your contributions were bad not only in these articles but outside them. I don't have enough time to watch every edit that is made by you. Qualitist (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

JzG: I havent created account to edit this subject and I am not related to User:Regstuff. I made my first edit on that article in last 2 days which is weeks after I registered. Had I surfaced similar threats and deliberate policy violation on any other article, I would be still reporting. Qualitist (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Quantist is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopaedia. This is an opportunity to get it over with. ——SerialNumber54129 09:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On what basis do you make that statement? He's made 153 edits [184], mostly on Sarimah Ibrahim and Statue of Unity. He has never been blocked. Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • (non-admin) I'm also not seeing anything obviously block-worthy other than the fact the edits don't suggest someone who is using Wikipedia for the first time. I'm also not convinced based on reading through all of the above/talk pages/et cetera the initial boomerang suggestion was in good faith. I'm not suggesting we don't run a checkuser, but this seems at the moment to be a distraction from everything else that has been reported. SportingFlyer talk 12:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Of course it wasn't in good faith, it was a retaliatory diversionary tactic, just like DBigXray's recently going after Black Kite in this similar thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Black Kite and his aspersions. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Link to another specious report by him: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#Harassed and Wikihounded by a Battle Syndrome. Kraose (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, this is too much to ignore or get distracted away from. Even if someone is socking (including to post this ANI) that doesn't mean that the behavior reported isn't subject to scrutiny.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Dan56 won't take "you're wrong" for an answer

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

---

Dan56 (talk · contribs) complained about having two reviews from Rolling Stone magazine on U2's Boy (album). Several people told him it was fine and stated that having two reviews from one source was not a problem. He didn't agree and opened an RfC, which did not go his way either. He then made a series of edits to make it clear he thought the Rolling Stone reviews should be two entries and created a new "retrospective professional ratings" section. First, this violates his own position that an article should only have "10 reviews" as it's at has 14 between the two sections. Second, it was done without discussion. I'm requesting a topic ban for Dan from this album article at the very least and possibly from the topic of U2 or possibly music in general. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Dan56 Please drop this WP:STICK in my personal opinion this is extremely trivial debate for which an RfC is already tried. Please utilize your time elsewhere. (In my personal opinion I find 2 ratings from same agency is confusing, but the talkpage group feels it is ok. so be it) Time to move on guys, there are better topics to discuss than whether to add 1 rating or 2 ratings in a rating table. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

My edits 👏 respected the RfC decision 👏 to keep both scores 👏; also, I never said an article should have "10 reviews", but that a ratings template should adhere to the outlined 10-score limit. If you are going to try to slander me, can you please do your homework first please? You are absolutely insufferable in your frequent accusations and complaints towards me. Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray:, there is no stick. I don't need discussion to add verifiable content to an article. Walter does not own the article, and he is misconstruing my changes; I've added an entire section, mostly of prose. Have you even bothered to look at it? Dan56 (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment - What does that even have to do with the RFC - that's no ratings table. Complaining about an involved closure is also usually valid. And no edit needs to be discussed before if it has never been contested or discussed upon per WP:BOLD. I see no reason for a ban or block; or even a warning. Lurking shadow (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Dan for the record, I only commented after checking all your recent edits [185] and it is true you added another section and another table for the ratings. You are repeatedly failing to generate consensus on the talk page before making edits that others are protesting against and this is a problem. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

What "repeatedly" and what "others"? Walter is the only editor who has protested these recent edits. Dan56 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If you cannot even offer an opinion on the merits of my edits ([186]), why are you even here other than to join Walter in vilifying me? Dan56 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, again Walter: My edits 👏 respected the RfC decision 👏 to keep both scores 👏 My addition/edits were valid; you cannot just revert them without explanation like this; and to have the nerve to open this thread to vilify me? Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Walter Görlitz you reverted Dan and immediately opened this ANI thread, did you tried discussing this content dispute of 2 subsections/ratings with Dan before opening this thread? This thread should have been started on Article talk first. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I did. it is my considered opinion that Dan didn't get his way and he's going to continue to manipulate the article until he does. I did not try to discuss, but that was a rhetorical question as you can see my edit history. Another discussion isn't needed. And for the record Dan, you're right, did not "say" that the article should only have 10 reviews, you "wrote" Include no more than ten reviews in table form. We're more than four over that, and they're all in tables. It appears to be just another attempt to push your point that there were two reviews from Rolling Stone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Question whether this U2 article needs 14 ratings or 10 ratings and if it needs 2 or 1 subsection, is a Content Dispute. ANI does not discuss the content disputes, please start a thread on the article talk. Walter Görlitz, you are claiming here that you started this thread to preempt a presumed manipulation of article. Again that is a content dispute, and needs to be discussed on the talk page when that happens. I see no good reason for this "preemptive thread" and I suggest this thread be closed, since no discussion has taken place on the talk page for this specific sets of questioned edits which is basically a content dispute not handled by ANI.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason I opened this ANI is not whether that's the question, it's to discuss whether Dan56's behaviour is or is not appropriate. At first, he was edit warring to remove what he felt was more than 10 reviews. Then he opened a discussion. When he didn't like the answer, he opened an RfC. When he didn't like that it was closed, he "fixed" it again, modifying the article to what he wanted. That's why the ANI was opened. The content itself is secondary to this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz as far as I can see, Dan56 has not made any policy violation. He has made bold edits that you consider inappropriate and you reverted, those edits do not constitute any blockable offence or policy violation. Start a thread on talk and discuss this per WP:BRD and follow WP:DR. Not giving any chance to Dan56 to discuss this and bringing this straight to ANI instead of starting a thread on the article talk first, is actually something that is concerning on your part.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Article needs full protection while these editors who should know better are edit-warring, and things need to be discussed for consensus on the article's talkpage. Also, Dan56 and Walter Görlitz, you both need to provide a detailed and informative edit summary for every single edit to the article, not just when you feel like it. Softlavender (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I understand what both DBigXray and Softlavender are saying. I suppose I overreacted. I agree to close this ANI and continue discussing on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Continued incivility and bad-faith accusations by Walter Görlitz toward me at article content discussions

I don't remember how far back this goes exactly, but Spike Wilbury can attest to Walter's incivility toward me as far back as September: "Brandishing topic bans and WP:NOTHERE as conflict resolution tools is absurdly aggressive. Feel free to comment on the topic here but further comments on Dan56 or other editors is likely to result in a block to prevent further disruption."

• He again suggested the threat of a topic ban this month, after I contested his formal closure of an RfC that had expired and that he had been involved in; my ANI complaint challenging the closure concluded the closure was inappropriate.

• Yesterday, he reverted without explanation an extensive addition I had made to an article and immediately filed an ANI complaint against me, complaining my edits were performed without prior discussion and "requesting a topic ban for Dan from this album article at the very least and possibly from the topic of U2 or possibly music in general."

• His overall inability to communicate without being dismissive, snarky, or rude is toxic; this discourages me from discussing any edit he protests without encountering some hostility from him, forcing me to open RfCs for my changes to get a fair assessment on the merits, especially in the most recent case when he is the only editor challenging them.

• Today, he has followed me again to the recent RfC at the same article to post embarrassing commentary; in response to Beyond My Ken's question directed at me, asking why I chose to open an RfC rather than start a regular discussion at the talk page; Walter responded to it himself, brandishing another bad-faith accusation: "Because, you came straight here and edited the article again after the last time you were told wasn't a problem, just to make the point that there were two Rolling Stone reviews. You wanted to make it clear to everyone and the rest was just whipped cream on the bullshit you've been spotting for a month".

Can someone sit him down, talk some sense into him? It is one thing to be overly protective of articles one has a personal stake in. But he is creating a toxic, offensive environment, making it embarrassing to even respond to the most recent remarks. Dan56 (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This thread seems to be related to the now-closed thread above: Dan56 won't take "you're wrong" for an answer (permalink). It would appear that Walter Görlitz is unable to be objective or neutral with or concerning Dan56, and if he is unable to discuss content without mentioning editors, he will likely end up with a one-way IBan towards Dan56. That said, both Dan56 and Walter Görlitz need to leave specific and detailed edit summaries for every edit, not just when they feel like it. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• As I commented on the RfC, Dan56's opening of the RfC without first making an attempt at discussion seems like a very pretty aggressive thing to do, so I'm not sure that WG's response to it was completely unwarranted. It looks to me that Dan56 does not come here with clean hands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• It is clear that these two users are more interested in hauling each other to ANI rather than discuss on the talk to generate WP:CONSENSUS, if things continue like this, Topic ban / IBAN will have to be proposed. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It is demeaning to have to respond to an editor who can accuse you of illiteracy for failing to agree with him: "You need to learn to read."; just recently, in reference to you^, D. Dan56 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

    accuse you of illiteracy – I always carry a copy of my parents' marriage certificate in case anyone tries that on me. EEng 12:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

    • By engaging in such personal attacks on me, Walter Görlitz is only confirming that the thread against his appalling behaviour is justified. He is digging his own grave with such acts. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

      It's unnecessarily pointed wording, but his thrust was that you were straw manning his argument, which is frustrating. It's not uncivil to point out when someone's exhibiting a "reading comprehension difficulty" moment (or pretending to in order to mischaracterize someone's OP). While the choice of words was poor, and unlikely to be taken kindly, that's all Walter is doing there. It is not credible that he literally believes you can't read, otherwise it would not be possible for you to follow the discussion or write on Wikipedia. That is, no one is going to buy that he's actually accusing you of illiteracy. Walter just needs to absorb the advice at WP:HOTHEADS and moderate his tone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Topic ban both editors from the article and interaction ban them from each other - this is the third discussion on this page (Dan56 and RfC closing, Dan56 won't take "you're wrong" for an answer, this thread) plus more on other pages (e.g [187]) about this dispute, which at its core is just these two editors insisting on disrupting each other's work. It's just wasting time on an unresolvable personality conflict at this point. Get them out of the way and let others work on the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What work of his have I disrupted? It has exclusively been my edits challenged/reverted by Walter at Boy (album) recently. What work of his anywhere else have I disrupted? Dan56 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• TB & IB - Per Ivanvector, who hit the nail squarley on the head. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Ivanvector's IB would be reasonable (this really is clearly a personality dispute), and maybe a short-term TB. I don't really see enough evidence for a TB for either party at this point. And we need to keep in mind that the average editor treats a TB like a public flogging; some otherwise-productive editors quit over one if it's indefinite or lengthy. Three months max, I would say, but only if there's sufficient evidence that their conflict is topically limited, and it rises to TB level, and we don't think an IB would resolve the problem (don't use two sanctions when one will do). If we're certain there's a failure "to communicate without being dismissive, snarky, or rude" and it's not limited to this topical context, then it may not be a t-ban matter, though many editors learn from a short block or even a warning to stop doing that sort of thing, lest it lead to stringent sanctions. Give people the benefit of the doubt that they can do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've suggested both because the article is clearly suffering from their personality conflict, and should be given a chance to recover. I don't want this to turn into a situation of both editors warring over who is allowed to edit because the other is ibanned. I just wrote somewhere else that I don't really care for time-limited bans (my opinion is that the banned editor should actively convince others that the ban is no longer necessary, instead of it just expiring with no action on their part) but I don't have a strong opinion about the matter in this case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• • • If anything, my consolidation of critical information in the article has allowed for this addition of new content by Y2kcrazyjoker4. So, how exactly has the article "clearly suffered"? Dan56 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Whatever is done to Walter, should be done to Dan as well, as he exhibits all the same traits (OWN, IDHT, etc) that he’s accusing Walter of. Both are prolific, good editors in the music area that don’t play well with others in disputes. I’d prefer neither get restrictions, but it doesn’t appear either know how to disengage when they encounter each other, so if this is the only way, so be it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm accusing him of an enduring pattern of incivility and assumptions of bad faith in interactions with me; hence the title of this thread. Anyway, show proof; open a thread here. Don't just make a lazy generalization when you comment on my character. Dan56 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• TB & IB per Beyond My Ken and SMcCandlish - Both are getting on each others nerves and both seem unable to steer clear of each other, Topic and interaction ban the both of them = Problem solved. –Davey2010^Talk 20:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay: On second thought, I am fine with this. I have nothing further to add to Boy (album), and if Walter cannot be civil, I don't want to ever communicate with him in any way. Ever. Again. I have never (knowingly) followed him/his work, and would prefer he avoid me. Dan56 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I would accept with both, but would rather not remove the article from my watchlist since I primarily have it there because it's an old album that has been prone to unconstructive edits in the past. There is also the underlying issue of Dan56's use of RfCs as a substitute for discussion. I'm not sure that will be addressed with a TB or IB. If you've seen any of his RfCs, he starts by claiming that we're making votes, which is not the case, and interacts only with those who disagree with his position. Is it reasonable to discuss that or am I making too much out of that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Another rangeblock request

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

---

Hi. Earlier this month I requested this rangeblock, which Berean Hunter helped with. However, the IP is back, shifting from the 39.57 range to the 39.44 range. Here are some from today:

• 39.44.26.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 39.44.235.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I reported the first one this morning at WP:AIV, but it went stale due to the backlog there. I've just reported the second one. Can this range also be blocked? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's a bigger range ... but there's practically nothing on it for the last couple of weeks except this editor, so I've rangeblocked it for 2 weeks. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:CIVILITY & WP:AGF by User:DePiep

I wasn't going to file this until I saw that DePiep was placed on WP:PROBATION 2018-05-29. In the probation it states DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.

This diff to me clearly violates both WP:CIVILITY & WP:AGF. As does this. Was particularly disappointing given that I had just posted on their page asking for how I could help with a project they were working on (see this diff. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Euryalus and Beeblebrox: FYI. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I am willing to give DePiep a chance to explain them-self, if they can. But this looks pretty straight forward and a clear violation of the terms of their probation. Worse their block log is longer than my arm and most of the blocks were for similar behavior. I am strongly inclined to support an indefinite block. The linked diffs are grossly uncivil and flatly unacceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The first diff there is DePiep telling someone asking what looks to me like a good-faith offer to help to "fuck off", and we might reasonably debate whether or not that's a personal attack but I, an administrator, judge it to be uncivil. The second diff is a clear assumption of bad faith. I have blocked DePiep for 2 weeks. Given the exhaustive previous discussion and their enormous block log all pretty much over the same sort of behaviour, this seems like it would be a good time to discuss whether this person should edit Wikipedia at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Since we started with two weeks, I'd support bumping their block to 3 months with a clear understanding that it's the last block they are going to get that will have an expiration date. This needs to stop. And if they are unable/unwilling to treat their fellow editors civilly, then it's time for them to find another hobby. I say that with some regret. Clearly this is a productive editor. But there are limits to what the community should be expected to put up with, and we passed that point a while ago. If there is a consensus for indeffing them now, I won't object. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ad Orientem and Ivanvector: I think another thing that needs to be considered is just how many times DePiep has violated their probation and not been reported. As I mentioned, I almost didn't file this complaint at all. I wonder how many other people have had issues? Just a quick glance at the recent contributions by DePiep and I found: this thread and this edit. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately DePiep is easily trolled. Please be satisfied with having had him blocked for two weeks without wanting to punish your opponent further. Yes, DePiep should be like the majority here and only bother people in a civil manner, but we're not all the same. Move on. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, Ad Orientem, Ivanvector, and Alex Shih: I don't understand how this was closed so quickly? Given the EXTENSIVE block history for this user and the fact that they were on WP:PROBATION I don't understand how only a 2 week ban is being applied? Their last ban was for 3 months. The latest ban should be AT LEAST that long. They clearly aren't getting the message. How many chances are they going to get? At the very least this warrants a further discussion. I think closing this discussion so quickly is a mistake and would ask another NEUTRAL admin to reconsider. Obviously I'm biased here since I filed the initial report. I am simply asking for a lengthier discussion before this is closed. If the consensus is that 2 weeks is enough then so be it, but given the lengthy and extensive history of this user, I think this more than warrants a longer discussion. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I am reverting Alex Shih's good faith close. I am not seeing a consensus supporting the two week block and I think further discussion is warranted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Per WP:ROPE, two weeks is sufficient here. If it were longer, I'd have supported that too. If it were shorter, I'd have supported that too. A block was needed, if he returns in two weeks and never again tells someone to "fuck off", then the block has served its purpose. If he does again behave incivilly, we can always block him again for longer. Admin discretion over block length is perfectly within reason here, and I see no reason to extend the block to a longer expiration date. If an actual site ban (or indefinite block) is warranted, then perhaps that is a discussion for a separate thread, but any expiring block of sufficient length will do in a case like this. --Jayron32 18:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah but Ivanvector, the blocking admin, also said "this seems like it would be a good time to discuss whether this person should edit Wikipedia at all".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Then start a new thread asking for a formal site ban. I suspect it wouldn't take all that long to find consensus for one. --Jayron32 18:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Jayron32 and Ad Orientem: I'm all for WP:ROPE and if this were the first, second or even 3rd time the user had been blocked for this I would say 2 weeks is fine... But this is the ELEVENTH block the user has received. Additionally, they were on WP:PROBATION where they promised to stop this sort of behavior and didn't. According to WP:ROPE it should not be used:

• If a user has already been blocked numerous times for the same behavior, they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the lever
• And If the user was justifiably blocked but is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong See this diff where the user essentially says they should be given leeway because my actions warranted their response.

• I am all for giving people chances to correct their mistakes. We ALL make them. But for their 11th time to be such a tiny slap on the wrist... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Look, in my opinion there are only two kinds of blocks: expiring ones, and indefinite ones. If we set it to autoexpire at a certain date in the future, it is because we expect the person to change their behavior when the block expires. Two weeks, two months, whatever, an expiring block means "When this runs out, we have full expectation the problems will cease". If we DON'T expect the person to improve their behavior, then what is the point of letting their block expire? If you think that a site ban is needed instead of a limited term block, start a new thread asking for a site ban. I suspect you would get significant support for one. However, unless and until we do that, any expiring block of any sufficiently long length has the same effect. --Jayron32 18:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• That really is the crux. Do I think this pattern of behavior will cease when the block expires? In all honesty, I do not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm with Ad Orientem. I also want to note that while I am the one who filed this particular complaint, until yesterday, I had zero issues with DePiep. I actually really valued their input on a number of things. I just don't want anyone to think this is some long standing grudge on my part. Looking at their track record though... 11 blocks all for the same thing? And this time when they were blocked their first statement was to try to justify their actions by essentially saying they were provoked. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 5 month block - I've been pondering between 5 months and indef for some time now,

On one hand their block log is ridiculous and them making PAs despite being on a topicban makes me want to support indef,

On the other hand under the topicban this has been their first offense (and I feel it would be harsh to immediately indef them when others here have been blocked more than 7 times and still edit here)

So for now I support extending to 5 months in order for them to clear their head and gain some perspective, Anymore violations should result in indef. –Davey2010^Talk 19:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I just don't feel 2 weeks will achieve anything whereas a 5 month block would (or should) have more of an impact if that makes sense, –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. DePiep is generally productive, but that is a long b-log, and the transgression of the probation was pretty stark. A nice long wikibreak seems to be in order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 5 months - @Davey2010: I would support a 5 month ban with the caveat that next time there is a block of any kind, it is indef. I'm not saying "next time someone complains", I'm saying next time that an admin decides that the actions require a block of any kind, that needs to be it. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• As blocking admin, I felt that DePiep's overreaction to Zackmann08's query was sanctionable only in the context of their topic ban, otherwise I would have just said "hey, knock it off and be polite". Yet, just a little bit less than six months ago they were banned specifically from these behaviours, which included language indicating they should be blocked immediately if they violated those conditions, and so in my view a block was warranted. Since this was fairly mild and apparently the first instance of violating that ban, I felt that two weeks was sufficient. I blocked while Ad Orientem was writing their "give them a chance to explain" response above: I hadn't seen it before I blocked. As for my comment about discussing whether DePiep should edit at all, I was referring to this being part of a long-term pattern which warranted a topic ban in the first place. Personally, after the fact, I think that one slip in nearly six months is probably not ban-worthy, but at the same time it indicates their behaviour isn't really improving. Afterwards I saw Johnuniq's wise comment about trolling, and thought it best to leave this as is unless others really wanted to talk about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, any admin should of course feel free to override my block with whatever is decided here. I do not need to be notified (I'll be following anyway) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Johnuniq: point of clarification here... Was the trolling comment directed towards me? Lot going on here so I don't want to assume anything. That being said, if you feel that I did anything wrong in this matter, please do not hesitate to tell me so, either here in this thread or in a message on my talk page. If I was in the wrong at any point, I want to own that and learn from it. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I can't speak for Johnuniq but I interpreted his comment as a general comment, not suggesting that you were trolling DePiep. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 5 month block per above with the stipulation that this is likely going to be their last block with an expiration date. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support a long block as a final warning - the only thing more impressive than the size of the log is that it shows a pattern of unchanging behavior that goes back nearly 10 (9.83) years. Even a final warning at this point I think is generous.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Terryfirut

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

---

• Terryfirut (talk · contribs · logs)

The user made a number of unnecessary edits to raise his number of edits. May violate WP:GAME. --158.182.178.168 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether this is gaming or tests by a new user these edits are certainly not helpful, almost reminds me of subtle numbers vandalism, but changing the windspeeds back and forth between 155 and 155.2 (among other numbers that they changed to windspeed to) does look like an attempt to inflate their edit count. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

list of suspect diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206]

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

User making threats

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

---

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but a user (who is likely a sock), TormentForment (talk · contribs) is making threats about crashing an airplane and stabbing one or more editors. Whether the threats are credible I don’t know, but if you see something, say something, so I’m reporting for admin attention. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 15:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It's already been dealt with, but thanks for the report! This is garden variety LTA vandalism; no need to do much more than RBI. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: What’s “RBI” and “LTA”? Also, the point about “garden variety vandalism” was exactly my point about see something say something - never assume that something is just silly disruption, always take threats seriously. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 15:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Already dealt with, but in terms of reporting these things, you should not report them here but send an email to emergencywikimedia.org with details, as it says in the red editnotice above the edit window on this page (or use the form at WP:EMERGENCY). Also, Writ keeper is referring to WP:RBI and WP:LTA. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TL;DR: what Ivanvector said LTA is "long-term abuse"; a single person who has been disrupting Wikipedia in a recognizable pattern for a long time. RBI is "revert, block, ignore". This is certainly not garden-variety vandalism per se, but it's par for the course for this particular user; by and large, you're absolutely right about taking threats seriously, but in this case, we've seen enough of it to be able to just remove it, block the account, and move on. Incidentally, if you see a threat of violence against oneself or others, the best thing to do is to contact these people rather than report it here; that will help get the most effective response while minimizing the publicizing of the threats themselves. All that said, I do genuinely thank you for the report; it's a good instinct to have, even if it wasn't technically optimal here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Beyond My Ken

• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Riverdale, Bronx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This editor's WP:BATTLEGROUND methods over a single word are making it difficult to make progress at this article, and wasting everyone's time.

• Edit warring over article content: [207] [208] [209] [210]
• Posting a frivolous and POV-worded rfc after consensus has been reached on the talk page: [211]
• Personal attack on one of the editors involved in this dispute (in edit summary): [212]

I would normally give more warning, but I see that this editor is no stranger to ANI, and I am certain he knows what he's doing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Without comment on his methods of interaction here, has anyone addressed the point of his objection? Has there been any wide discussion over the use or non-use of words like "affluent", broadly? If there hasn't been, maybe it is time to have one. If there has been, maybe by directing him to that consensus, you would have a reason to say he's wrong. On the edit-warring issue, however, yes, he's clearly edit warring and should stop immediately. He's been around long enough to know better. If that's all you have on the personal attack front, I'm sure SMC has heard worse, and I'm not sure that's the straw needed to break any camel's back... --Jayron32 21:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There's also this: [213] And while SMC may or may not have been offended, incivility affects all of us, not just the target. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)