Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

CurlyTurkey unilaterally deleting good article nomination

Every user has the right to attempt to nominate an article for good article status, and it's up to the reviewer to decide whether or not the article will pass. However, Curly Turkey, who has made no contributions to discussing the content of the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, has been doing nothing whatsoever on the article's talk page except unilaterally edit warring to delete my nomination.[1][2][3][4] Deleting the nomination would be unacceptable under any circumstances, but I think every single Wikipedia editor should be able to agree that deleting a nomination without even bothering to give a single reason on the talk page is completely unacceptable. Curly Turkey has never stated any specific reason why the article is not good article status, or stated anything else for that matter, on the article talk page. Curly Turkey has never sought to gain any consensus for his unilateral actions, and he is in clear violation of Wikipedia's rules on assuming good faith because he keeps going around telling me and other users outright that I'm not editing in good faith.[5][6] For a long time now, he's been making hostile comments against me wherever I go.[7][8] I've been working hard on improving the article and Curly Turkey has given no evidence that any of my work on this article was done in bad faith. However, I could work collaboratively with Curly Turkey if he was capable of speaking to me in any way except threats and insults. What's more, Curly Turkey has already been banned three times for edit warring, and edit warring to delete talk page comments is especially bad. In fact, Curly Turkey seems to be in the habit of deleting my talk page comments, because he's done it before. This sort of behavior is obviously harassment.TH1980 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Well; it was obviously of import enough for you to edit war over. _Muffled ^Pocketed

From what I can see, CT is saying you need consensus to remove those tags and you are saying you don't. Given that all of this occurred three days ago, might it not be wise for you to see if you can compromise the matter? I understand you feel you've been hard done by. I would ask CT if they are of the view that the problems mentioned in the tags still persist in the article. I realize to some extent this is content, but let's see if there's common ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And out in the open, of course. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You're claim of edit-warring is misleading at best, just look at the dates of your own diffs. That said, there are currently no tags on the article and my question is who removed them? If you removed them then that is a problem, if somebody uninvolved removed them I'd like to know their reasoning if they provided it. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is also of concern; It seems that you removed the POV tags without getting consensus to do so. [9][10], the first removal of the tag was reverted with the edit summary of "That was sneaky. Do not remove this again without talk page consensus." I agree with that assessment given your own edit summary was "Added more bibliography". More importantly then that I'd also add this into the discussion for consideration if only for the summary [11]. Note that only a few edits were made after this and that they were nearly all minor (at least two of the major edits were reverted over consensus issues). I have my doubts about the above report. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone is going to revert a nomination, shouldn't they at least say what's wrong with the article so that I can fix it? CurlyTurkey has never mentioned any reason on the article talk page, and even when I asked him on my own talk page he did not.[12] I have already dealt with all outstanding issues concerning the article, but his edit warring has been going on for months.TH1980 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course you are correct they should, I do not condone their actions, however I also do not condone your own. I would take less of an issue with your removal of the POV tag if other edits after your removal of the tag hadn't quoted POV issues in their edit summary. Clearly, other editors, who are not involved here, believe that the changes had not removed the POV issue. I have taken a second look at your report and find that there is an astounding amount of assume bad faith on Curley Turkey's part, however, I will wait to give them a chance to respond here first before passing on any judgement. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems like some of the conflict here is the same as in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88, which TH1980 was a party to (along with several of the many ANI threads leading to that case). It also looks like nearly the same exchange happened with CT and CurtisNaito just a few months ago. Guess we need CT to weigh in to add context/justification. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Especially since CT mentions CurtisNalto in an edit summary. Concur.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There are longstanding issues with TH1980 and CurtisNaito at History of Japan and Korean influence on Japanese culture (and other articles, for all I know) regarding their misrepresentation and choices of sources, etc. As a result, the consensus is that they must seek a consensus from the other contributors to these articles before nominating them for GA (note: I am not a contributor to Korean influence on Japanese culture, aside form copyediting). CurtisNaito was blocked for editwarring to nominate History of Japan without seeking a consensus he knew he needed, and TH1980 was a contributor to the editwarring (but didn't get blocked).

With regard to the Korean influence article, the issues are extrememly controversial, and several editors have disputed TH1980 and CurtisNaito's handling of the article (particularly their choice of sources). User:I JethroBT told them "topics dealing with influences between countries are complex because sources claims sometimes conflict. In these cases, due weight is important to think about". Months after disputed sources were removed, the two added them back in, and CurtisNaito told TH1980 the article "could be nominated for good article status ... just by adding in all the citations"—meaning the disputed citations "which were already part of previous versions of the article". Immediately afterwards they nommed it for GA (from which TH1980 got my first warning). Then out of the blue, without even the pretense of seeking the consensus to nom that he knows is required of him, he nominates the article again. With no edit summary. Something he's done before in the hopes of just slipping this through. We've been through this pattern with him enough times that AingGF is no longer credible.

These problems have been going on nearly a year since I first got involved, and from the sounds of things they've been going on much longer than that at other articles as well. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm satisfied. Thank you for your work on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - looking at CT's involvement with Korean influence on Japanese culture, it seems he has vested at least enough in building this article for a seat at the talk page to collaborate on certain matters, like putting it forward for peer review. It seems contrary, to me, to suggest otherwise.--John Cline (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Like I said above, I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources, and try to stay away from contributing to politically charged articles like this one. Take a look at the talk page to see how much is in dispute, including in the three archives that have built up, and the AFD. Remember, this is but one article where these issues keep coming up with TH1980 and CurtisNaito. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Since you are "not a contributor to Korean influence on Japanese culture", I don't see why you should prevent nomination. I fixed all the problems from the talk page, but maybe you didn't notice that because you were not participating in those discussions for some reason. I asked you what parts of the article you disagreed with on my own talk page, but you never said anything. You can block a nomination because there is a problem with an article, but you can't block a nomination because you, who isn't even "a contributor", want some sort of vague "consensus". If you know of any specific problems, tell me what sentences you object to, and I'll deal with it. If you assume good faith, I'll work with you and other editors, but you can't keep edit warring without being "a contributor" to the discussion. Remember that IJethrobot never accused me of disruption. Actually, he said the exact opposite and he expressed concern that you were exercising a degree of page ownership over various other articles.TH1980 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think regardless of the tags, the article needs to free of POV issue before it goes to GAN, if only to assure the integrity of the process, because a GAN reviewer is not likely going to know the field well enough to detect them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• CurlyTurkey just said "I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources". Is that the reason why he won't tell me what his problem with the article is? Apparently, he won't tell me because he hasn't even looked into the article content yet. CurlyTurkey should think up a reason for preventing nomination before preventing nomination, not the other way around.TH1980 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Notice the game TH1980's playing here—a behavioural pattern. Notice how he never acknowledges—let alone addresses—the fact the he makes not even the slightest pretence of finding out if there's anything like a consensus for the nomination on the page. Expect him to continue playing this game—this won't be the last nom, and I doubt it'll be the last time he brings it to ANI. More eyes on his editing would be most welcome. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do plan on nominating it again as soon as I deal with any concerns you have with the article's content. You never got consensus to revert the nomination and you haven't posted a single concern about the article's current content on the talk page. Since you haven't yet told me what specific parts of the article you dispute (and you even stated above that you have no knowledge of the article's content), I see no reason why I shouldn't just renominate it right away.TH1980 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
      • And there we have it folks. Could we get a few more people to watchlist the page? Particularly some admins to watch the talk page? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
        • If you don't know enough about the sources to edit the article, I told you that I could make the changes myself if you tell me which sentences currently need changing. You haven't said a word about that. All I want is for you to take a collaborative attitude and discuss things on the talk page rather than just reverting. If you have nothing at all to say on the talk page about the article's content, no one will criticize me for nominating the article.TH1980 (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
          • This endless WP:IDHT is another part of the game. Enough editors have been driven away out of exasperation from the pages CurtisNaito and TH1980 tagteam on. Look how dead Talk:History of Japan has become. We've all run out of energy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
            • I don't see how you can be out of energy from doing nothing whatsoever but unilateral reverting without discussion. When I ask you to tell me if you have any problem with the article's current content, and you say nothing, obviously I'm not the one not listening. If this were on the talk page, it might just be a content issue. The reason why it might not be a content issue is because of the lack of willingness by other editors to discuss content or anything else for that matter.TH1980 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
              • For anyone falling for these word games, take a look at Talk:History of Japan and its numerous archives—a dozen of which are from the last year alone. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
                • As I already linked above, IJethrobot told you that I wasn't being disruptive in that discussion. Are you reverting me only because you think I was being disruptive in a discussion that took place many months ago? You were already told that I never did anything disruptive there.TH1980 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
                  • You know why you were reverted, and we're all sick to death of these games. As long as you refuse to get consensus you will continue to be reverted. Thanks for drawing more eyes to the problem. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
                    • You are the only one reverting, so how do I get consensus with you when you will not tell me why you oppose the current nomination and will not say anything on the talk page? According to Wikipedia rules, you can revert only if you discuss. I have been discussing the article and dealt with outstanding issues, but you have not been doing that. You cannot revert unilaterally, without consensus, unless you plan on explaining your reasons.TH1980 (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment - The deletion of talk page comments is definitely wrong and sanctionable here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homemade Pencils (talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the substance of this dispute, but FWIW Curly Turkey has a history of deleting other peoples' talk page comments if he's angered by them. Reyk _YO! 14:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Editing others comments is not inherently disallowed, except when the meaning of the original comment is changed WP:TALKO However, I would not recommend editing other peoples comments for any reason. If the comment is bad enough that it needs to be edited, it's bad enough to be outright reverted and the editor warned. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Questions and comments: (A) I'm not familiar with GA nomination procedures. Can someone point me to the relevant guideline or policy which indicates that an article cannot be (re)nominated for GA without some sort of consensus (and where and how that alleged consensus is to be achieved or denied)? (B) In terms of the maintenance tags at the top of the article, CurtisNaito removed the hidden comment underneath them (<!-- Do not remove these tags again until the issues with this article have been resolved. The first (enormous, highly dubious) section ("Art") remains largely unchanged since the AFD. ~Hijiri88, May 2015. -->), on 26 May 2016: [13]. After one intervening edit by CurtisNaito, TH1980 removed the maintenance tags themselves on 26 May 2016: [14], without acknowledging that in the edit summary and without Talk page discussion. He did the same thing two more times after they were restored: [15], [16]; still no discussion or permission on Talk. (C) If there are problems with the article, what are they? Could those opposing the GA nomination please indicate the problems? (D) I myself would be extremely skeptical about sourcing such an article. Any source which derived from Korea or from anyone of Korean descent would have an obvious COI and be suspect, in my mind. Therefore it would be most important to find unbiased sources. Softlavender (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(A) "If an editor finds and contributes to an article and they believe that it meets the good article criteria, they may nominate the article" "Anyone may nominate an article". Therefore, technically no consensus is required. (B) There is no question that the problems that originally caused the article to be tagged were fully and completely dealt with before the tags were removed. It was only many days after the tags were removed that concerns were raised on the talk page that were unrelated to the original tagging. I and other users dealt with those subsequent concerns, and I waited several weeks after that to make sure no one would raise any further objections. Only then did I renominate. (C) CurlyTurkey has not yet said what objections he has to the article's content. Instead, he said above, "I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources". (D) There's nothing wrong with including sources from neutral Korean scholars. Excluding all scholars even "of Korean descent" is definitely too extreme. Still, the majority of the sources cited are not written exclusively by people of Korean descent. William Wayne Farris is American and so is C. Melvin Aikens who co-wrote a peer-reviewed article on the subject.TH1980 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: There is no requirement to find consensus under normal circumstances. TH1980's and CurtisNaito's are not normal circumstances. Here's an abbreviated version of the exasperatingly long story (notice how long it is even when abbreviated):

I used to copyedit CurtisNaito's GANs when I saw them on the GAN listings—he edits Japan-related articles, as do I. Sometimes his articles seemed a little funny: Iwane Matsui, for example, which he brought to FAC with some strange omissions. I AGFed, because he seemed to be doing an awful lot of work for WP:JAPAN.

In August, CurtisNaito, who had never touched the History of Japan article before, made two edits to it and nominated it for GA the same day. It passed a week later with an extraordinarily superficial review. The listing immediately drew a number of editors disputing it. I showed up to copyedit, and didn't really follow the disputes at first. Over the months of dispute that followed, I eventually took a look at the actual sources—and discovered the disputants weren't just being dispuatious. Missing key figures and events, trivial detail in abundance, organizational issues, and the sources cited didn't support the text. In short, the worst hatchet job I'd come across on Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, TH1980 mysteriously and suddenly showed up on the page and began removing tags. Discussions on the talk page went nowhere as CurtisNaito tried to drown them in text and TH1980 would interject bizarre non sequiturs to derail them. Attempts to fix the article were blocked with the excuse that it was already a GA, so hands off! It was taken to GAR, and after 15kB more of this endless nonsense was finally delisted—and CurtisNaito relisted it twelve minutes later, and an edit war ensued. This happened more than one, sometimes with TH1980 participating in the edit warring, with bizarre comments like GA is a valid topic to discuss, (in an edit where he adds the GAN but does not discuss anything) and then responds to an actual discussion "We should just find out if the good article reviewer thinks that the article is at good article status yet, not start a poll." These are typical of the mind games TH1980 has played throughout the dispute. Here's an example of CurtisNaito sneaking in the GAN banner under the guise of adding a comment—notice a pattern? They've both GANed the "Korean influence ..." article in similar sneaky ways. A result is that these pair are now required to seek consensus on the talk page before nominating articles they know are disputed. Of course, they never do, and continue to try to nominate these article on the sly.

Then these disputes continued endlessly on the History of Japan talk page, editor after editor eventually giving up under CurtisNaito and TH1980's war of attrition. The discussions eventually came to an end around Christmas, and the article remains a mess that this pair refuses to allow to be improved. They've turned to Korean influence on Japanese culture, an article with far fewer editors watchlisting it. It is an extremely politicized topic, and it has been pointed out that some of the sources are by nationalists. Disputes ensued (I wasn't involved) and some of these sources were removed. User:I JethroBT told the pair "topics dealing with influences between countries are complex because sources claims sometimes conflict. In these cases, due weight is important to think about". Months later, CurtisNaito suddenly declared to TH1980 that the article "could be nominated for good article status ... just by adding in all the citations ... which were already part of previous versions of the article" (meaning the disputed citations that were removed).

This is an explicit declaration of Bad Faith. I've brought it up already, too—why do so many of the commenters here refuse to address it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a standing order or sanction or some such similar that states that TH1980 and CurtisNaito must seek consensus before nominating for GA? This is just an immediate question I have, I will take a look at these articles, edits and talk pages. Will reply sometime later today. For the time being, perhaps both parties are at least somewhat guilty in the ABF department. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

An official ANI-style sanction? No. This is a consensus among the other contributors to the page. Consensus doesn't require official sanctions. Please keep in mind the disruption these two caused by getting the History of Japan article GA-ed, using the certification to block improvements to the article—this is not a trivial issue, which is why consensus to nom is critical. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood, I'll be looking at the pages for History of Japan and Korean influence on Japanese culture, specifically I'll try to review the history and talk pages and come to better grips with the dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

My first impression is, both talk pages are just walls of text, currently on Korean influence on Japanese culture I notice that three editors are continuously in dispute over the quality and validity of sources. I think, it may be useful to get the third person's opinion here (the other two are already here), @Nishidani: would you care to comment on this thread about the issue? as you seem to be a recently involved party. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Others involved in that page's disputes with CurtisNaito and TH1980 are Shii, Ubikwit, Sturmgewehr88, and Hijiri88, though Hijiri88 won't be able to comment here as he and TH1980 have an interaction ban. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"This is a consensus among the other contributors to the page." Can you provide the link to that consensus? Softlavender (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well @Softlavender:, I have something even better. [17] How about this for some sleuthing, there is AN/I consensus that CurtisNaito is not to propose a GAN until consensus is formed. Read the entire closing statement, its in Archive906. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely beautiful, Mr rnddude, and I want ot have your babies. There are so many threads on so many different forums about this stuff that it's impossible to remember where all this is anymore. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That applies to a completely different article (and a different editor). I would like to see the consensus that Curly Turkey referred to regarding Korean influence on Japanese culture by "the other contributors to the page". Softlavender (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the same behaviour by the same two editors on a closely related and similarly highly disputed article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In other words, there is no "consensus among the other contributors to the page" that Korean influence on Japanese culture cannot be (re)nominated for GA without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: in other words, you have no qualms allowing such meatpuppetry to become a precedent? IJethroBT was explicit that "Both editors are well aware of how contentious [the History of Japan renomination is", and that applies to the closely-related "Korean influence" article which is disputed for the same severe sourcing issues. The bad faith and obfuscation on the part of both editors has been established, and the reasons for the nomination have been laid clear—to obstruct. We're dealing with a serious ongoing problem here, and your response is WikiLawyering. Will you take responsibility for the damage? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have the feeling we'll have one on this thread if the people that have been pinged have the time (or will) to reply. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this may be worth glancing at as well, its indicative of the sort of issues on the page. [18] Mr rnddude (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely no one except CurlyTurkey has ever told me, in any manner, that I need "consensus" before nominating the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, or for that manner any article, for good article status. CurlyTurkey cannot provide any diff that would show any other user telling me this, because that never happened. Even so, I'm absolutely willing to seek a consensus with CurlyTurkey on this matter. What I need to know is how I can reach a consensus with him when he has never stated anywhere on the talk page what his objections to the current text of the article are. My main goal in being here is to convince CurlyTurkey to tell me what he objects to about the content of the article so that I can deal with it before nominating. He still hasn't said anything. As CurlyTurkey points out, I did edit the article History of Japan, but I was not the one who nominated it for good article status. CurlyTurkey seems to mistakenly believe that my edits to that article were disruptive, but the admin IJethrobot explicitly told CurlyTurkey that my edits there were not disruptive. Another user says that CurlyTurkey has a history of deleting the talk page comments of people he is angry at.[19] Either CurlyTurkey is keeping his objections to the article a carefully-guarded secret, or else maybe he is just deleting the nomination because he doesn't like me personally.TH1980 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Bottom line: There is no known stricture on nominating or renominating an article for GA. If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions, if there are any. Here [20] he eloquently laid out some serious concerns, which he can repeat during the GA discussions, if they happen. Or, he can post those concerns preemptively on the article's talk page right now. I personally have no opinion on the merits of this article, although Curly Turkey's statements there are indeed worrisome, especially when noted alongside TH1980 and CurtisNaito's repeated removal of maintenance tags with diversionary misleading edit summaries, and I agree that sourcing such an article must be done very very carefully to avoid Korean-COI POV. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm open to having a discussion concerning the article. I think all editors can participate and lay down any remaining problems that they have with the article. Remember that I didn't try to nominate the article until weeks after I had dealt with all outstanding concerns on the talk page. Once discussion restarts, I will not nominate again until I or another user has edited away any remaining trouble points. A talk page discussion with CurlyTurkey and all other users was all I was asking for anyway, and if all users agree that we should discuss the supposed problems with the article, then this thread can be closed.TH1980 (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to having a discussion—then open one, as you've been told countless times. But we know from experience that will never happen. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

SoftLavender said, "If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions". I agree, and I don't think you've done that yet. Also, Mrrnddude seemed to indicate, I think, that one possible option to solve the problem is "The article is sent to GA, an editor reviews it, it either passes of fails." I didn't nominate the Korean influence article until weeks after talk page discussion had reached its conclusion, so I wasn't trying to obstruct anything. I'm willing open a new discussion if you participate and tell me what you would like to see changed in the article. This thread could potentially cause discussion to restart on the article talk page involving all users, and I'm okay with that. A number of other users have confirmed that consensus is NOT necessary to nominate the article, so I don't think you were correct to delete the nomination, but I'm willing to talk about any outstanding issues at this point. Sometimes solutions to AN/I threads can be complex, but most of the eventual solutions do involve assuming good faith and discussing things. This is Wikipedia, and for better or worse, those two things are pretty much mandatory.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to open a discussion. The person who wants to have a discussion, or insists on having a discussion, is the one who should open it. There is no requirement that a GAN be pre-discussed. Discussion happens as a matter of course in a GAN. If someone wants to re-nominate the article for GA, they are free to do so at any time. If someone wants to forestall that, the way to do that is to bring up clear and specific solvable issues on the talk page. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to open a discussion—CurtisNaito is, as you're aware. Again, you're WikiLawyering. Now why are you avoiding addressing the actual issues? This thread being part of it—the whole situation's a setup on TH1980's part. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The place to discuss the article issues is the article's talk page. The place to discuss behavioral issues is in an ANI thread with abundant substantiating diffs (or an ArbCom request, if it has gone that far). What other issues do you want addressed, or what outcome are you expecting/wanting from this current ANI thread? Could you be specific? CurtisNaito and TH1980 topic-banned from Japan-related articles? CurtisNaito and TH1980 banned from tag-teaming/co-editing? CurtisNaito and TH1980 banned from GANs without prior article-talk-page consensus? (Or some other sanctions against poorly sourced editing?) Since we haven't yet heard from any of the other editors to this article, it's hard to make those calls based solely on your evidence here. That's why I suggest a dedicated ANI thread that all parties who have experience with these two editors can participate in and bring evidence to. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: While I'd love to see them both topic-banned from Japan-related articles, all I've asked for here is that they both abide by the standing requirement that if they intend to nom any of these highly contentious articles for GA, they post about it beforehand on the article's talk page and ensure there is consensus that the issues have been dealt with. I'd hardly call that burdensome. Why would they refuse if they are acting in good faith? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't "the standing requirement". No one but you ever said that I needed consensus to nominate this article, and you only just told me this month. Still, I'm willing to get consensus, but only if those who disagree with the nomination do what SoftLavender says and "bring up clear and specific solvable issues on the talk page". That's the key. Those who disagree need to list specific objections that we can discuss and that we can fix. I think that once a majority of respondents approve nomination, that should be consensus.TH1980 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

All right. I'd like to see Wehwalt review that proposal and post his opinion, possibly also closing this thread in the process unless there is more business to attend to. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Softlavender: I need to point out—again, since people are ignoring this—how many editors have engaged with these two at History of Japan and who don't even bother to respond to pings any more, so effectively have CurtisNaito and TH1980 worn them out. A dozen archives in less than six months (mostly August to December). Attrition is a serious problem with these two, and a serious problem with getting them dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I hear you on that, and I've had experience in similar situations with editors who lock down a specific topic POV and wear everyone else out so that the landscape is clear for them to dominate. That's why an ArbCom may eventually be in order, if you can motivate the troops. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Unfortunately I see this going two ways, 1. the arguments stay on here and somebody gets a block or better yet no-consensus or 2. The article is sent to GA, an editor reviews it, it either passes of fails. That or wait for some responses, I went through as much talk and archives as I could, its impossible to sift through. The only people who could reliably comment on this are those that were there. As for a potential GA nomination, I agree with the above. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neither (1) nor (2) solve the problem. We've made numerous calls for someone to step in, but nobody has the balls. This mess is so big and so deep and so tall, we cannot pick it up. There is no way at all! And that's the point—CurtisNaito and TH1980's modus operandi is to keep these disputes so long, buried in so many archives and across so many forums, that nobody can seriously wade through it and deal with the real problem—which is CurtisNaito and TH1980 and their execrable hatchet jobs on Japan-related articles. It's too hard to see through the mess, and too easy to block a 3RR violation or someone saying "fuck". It's gone on for years now—how many more to come? How many people have to get blocked or IBANned or TBANned over standing up to these two editors' relentless shenanigans? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If you feel there are enormous and site-wide problems with Curitsnaito's and TH1980's behavior, then I think the appropriate forum for that would be a dedicated ANI thread (not this one) with numerous specific diffs that make your case. Or ArbCom, but it should probably be at ANI first. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: Another one? Very drôle. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• At this stage, I say block Curly Turkey if the GA review is removed again. I'm sorry, I don't see any indication that the request is in any being done to be disruptive or to make a WP:POINT so as of this point, someone has requested a review, so have a review and move on. I have zero idea in this long-winded discussion why Curly is opposed to another party reviewing the article but so be it. It's not like there's a dispute about the person doing the review, just the idea of a review. It seems like Curley is opposed to the state of the article, which is fine, but without a single discussion on the talk page about what is the problem with it, this to me is no different than someone posting a POV tag on the page and refusing to state what the actual concerns are. If the article is really in such poor shape, then a GA review should fail but at the very least, it won't be the same editors bickering over it. If we conduct a review, Curley still refuses to tell anyone what the actual issues are, a reviewer passes the article, can Curley then continue to be disruptive over the state of the article and refuse to state the actual concerns? What is we move towards a FA review? Will we continue this routine? It's not that difficult: if you have a problem with something, explain it and convince others. If you can't or won't do that, too bad, it's not our jobs to read your mind. Ranting that a group of others are ruining things without providing any concrete information about what the problem is is a fast way to get yourself topic banned. Besides, any article that isn't inherently stable is going to fail a GA review fairly quick so -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In other words, you ignored every word of this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I got it. You think people are doing something wrong. You haven't explained what it is nor do you have the consensus to get those editors topic banned and rather than either doing the necessary discussion to get your point across, you're pouting and edit warring and playing passive-aggressive games that resolve nothing. The talk page shows a lot of disputes but there is currently no IBAN or TBAN or whatever in place and you still won't just come out and explicitly tell anyone else the problems. So in terms of us moving on, either we will sit here going in circles with you pouting and complaining about what or even who really, I can't tell, or someone can make a request for a GA review, and other parties can review this one article while the rest of us deal with the remaining five million pages here. Again, it is YOUR responsibility to explain what your issues are: we are not psychic nor do I plan on responding to your "hide-the-ball" routine about what issue you have. I honestly could not care less about getting into whatever drama you want to engage in here but the fact that in this lengthy stupid discussion, I can't find a single concrete reason why your opposition to a review should trump someone else wanting to do it. I don't even know if you just think the article is not GA quality at which point the easier solution is to just start the review yourself or let it go. Clearly, you are more interested in stopping other people than actually achieving something here and for that, I suggest everyone else ignore whatever grudge you have and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If I may, Ricky, I originally thought exactly the same thing, and had so stated in so many words up above. Then I went back and closely read all of CT's posts in this thread which were not of the snipey type (the snipeyness and the like are CT's downfall), and found that his core points make abundant sense (even Wehwalt agrees with that), and are extremely worrisome. Even though ideally there should be an official ArbCom or ANI ruling to point to such a restriction on CurtisNaito and TH1980 re: this article, there isn't one other than the combined evidence that has been presented by CT and others in this thread and by other ArbComs and ANI threads (some of which are linked or mentioned here). It's enough to convince me personally that we have a problem here and it needs to be halted and a good way to halt it is to restrict CurtisNaito's and TH1980's GAN privileges absent talk-page consensus. That's why I'd like to hear from Wehwalt on this matter. Yes, CT was out-of-process in his GAN removals, but it may have served the higher good. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants to propose an IBAN or a TBAN or whatever, then propose that. Do it in a separate section and be concise and to the point, instead of making out an argument routine about whether you need a consensus to start a GAN. Still, I don't see a simple: "this is a problem because of diff X" that cuts through the pages of text here. Until then, I presume that the GAN request was in good faith. Is there evidence that the GAN is some sort of POINT violation or something screwy? Are others here opposed to a GAN review on that article? If so, why? Give me an explanation that can't be defeated simply by "let the review go and oppose it at the review." Otherwise, deal with that issue separately, by as stated explicitly making a separate AN or ANI or ARBCOM post about the matter. If people want to debate the standards for creating a GAN review, take that to WT:GAN or whatever as that is not for this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if literally no one else will deal with the problem, there are two possibilities here: either it literally is the most insurmountable problem ever seen in the history of this project, one that that is so complicated on such a giant topic involving so many different editors that it simply cannot be explained to mere admins or even arbitrators or regardless of your disagreements, there is no problem here. In this entire mess of a discussion, I see someone express a desire to get someone else topic banned and where the response has been "create an ANI discussion or take it to ARBCOM" and it seems like the response is "I don't want to do all that so this is how I'm objecting." Does that sum up where we are right now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

All I can say is, unless you have read every single post and link on this thread very carefully, I don't think you have a grasp of the situation or how it cannot be solved by "a simple: 'this is a problem because of diff X'" or by assuming that the GA renom was simply in good faith. That's why I'd like Wehwalt (who is currently asleep/offline) to weigh in. I understand your attitude of 'I shouldn't have to read 150,000 bytes of text to understand this', but unfortunately I think you do. Anyway, I'm probably not going to repeat myself further or reply further; I will await Wehwalt. Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Softlavender, I went through so many archives and talk pages. Discussions with these two editors is always a shitshow. The proposal is a little bit outside of norm but I understand where its coming from. Read everything and I believe you will too. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. When people can't distill their points down to a concise manner, it's largely a matter of effort. Ten to one if someone took this to ABRCOM and had to make the 500 word limited summary, they would be able to do it but no one is even trying here since there's requirement to do so. It's not that hard to link to five discussions that are going in circles rather than actual diffs to show us the Gish gallop routine if that's the problem. If even the IP dispute can be brought to ARBCOM with people following the specific word limitations and providing accurate summaries, this topic certainly can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I hardly ever participate in ANI threads, but the solution here seems simple. CT, opposed the nomination because of no consensus, then start a 7 day thread on the article's talk page, and if there is no opposition, or there is a reasonable consensus act on. CT was wrong to persistently revert, and TH1980 could have better handled the situation by starting a simple 7 day discussion on the talk page simply to appease the concerns of Mr. Turkey, and this whole discussion could have been avoided. If I'm missing something, I apologize, but this thread is turning into a wall of text going in circles.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 08:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A wall of text maybe, but a wall of text with vital information about a very complex, wide-ranging, and longstanding problem. Have you read the entire thread and also the links provided to other discussions? Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have and it's a rather large amount to take in. But I still feel, going back to the original reason this post happened to begin with, if it were me, I would've opened a thread on the article talk page asking the other editors if it should be nominated. That would've only helped the nomination, because if it was nominated as a result of a discussion, it would have shown the article to be decently stable. Then again, I'm no content contributor and I gain my experience from lurking around various places. I just thought I would offer my opinion on the matter.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 11:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• It would also be instructive to hear what BenLinus1214 aka Johanna has to say about the situation on this article, considering they rejected the last GA attempt 2.5 weeks a year ago with this summary: Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture/GA1. Especially given the fact that all of those maintenance tags were removed from the article surreptitiously, with false edit summaries, by CurtisNaito and TH1980. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC); corrected 12:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't receive the ping earlier for some reason. I haven't been editing much recently, but even so, if I was going to be discussed this much, maybe I should have been notified on my talk page instead.

Softlavender, I don't believe that I removed tags improperly. I removed the tag mentioning art because my very next edit was a rewrite of the section on art with the edit summary "art". I must have done a good job editing it, because even though concerns were raised about parts of the article later, none of it related to the section on art. When I did remove the POV tag, I used the edit summary "It might be better to tag just the specific section you are concerned about. The large majority of this has never been objected to." Although I discussed the matter with Curly Turkey on my talk page [21], Curly Turkey did not give a reason for tagging the article and did not argue against it in the talk page. It seems to me that I removed the tags in an open and proper manner. Also, note that the article was last nominated one year and 2.5 weeks ago.

However, a lot of the diffs above relate to events before 2016, almost all of which were presented as evidence in the aforementioned arbcom case. They may be misbehavior, but those diffs were already investigated and judged months ago.

And concerning that issue, I think Curly Turkey is still showing some hyperbole relating to my edits. I'm not a bad editor, as the users who have reviewed the good articles I nominated can attest. Let’s keep in mind that Curly Turkey, in reference to Nishidani's edits to the History of Japan article, said the following about Nishidani. "Any citations provided by Nishidani need to be double-checked—he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the how or the why of sourcing on Wikipedia." "improving the encyclopaedia is not what you're here for" "Leave the copyediting to the competent, please." "you don't understand what sourcing is about and are willing to disrupt article space to push the slightest of POVs. This brings all of your sourcing into question" Is Nishidani really that horrible of an editor, completely unable to read sources or edit in a competent and sincere manner? Actually, it seems like Curly Turkey gets more than a little carried away in heated discussions with the people he argues with.

Though I was not involved in the recent edit warring, naturally I supported nomination. I have nominated numerous good level articles, and when I noticed that TH1980 had been heavily editing the Korean influence on Japanese culture article while I was inactive, I told him he should consider fixing the article's remaining problems and nominate it. I never suggested to him that he add in any sources that (at the time) were described on the talk page as being controversial. From the talk page, we see that TH1980 was able to correct a number of important errors Nishidani made.[22][23] I'm sure each of them corrected each other on occasion. I noticed that Nishidani was warned by an admin about potentially driving users off the article because of his rude comments, but it seems like the two of them still managed to work together. TH1980 often pointed out in the talk page that the wording he used matched the preferred wording of the sources, which mostly were peer reviewed articles and academic books.

Various users have put forward various solutions to the current problem of when to re-nominate the article. Though consensus may not be required, it's obvious that if new complaints turn up they should be discussed either during or prior to any good article review. If discussion begins again on the talk page of the article in question, I'm sure I'll eventually get around to expressing my own view. TH1980 was correct to point out that he did not re-nominate until many weeks after he had responded to all talk page queries, so what was needed was indeed discussion. Nishidani himself stated below that very frequently my role in the article's talk page was to step "in to find a compromise". There were many occasions on the talk page where I proposed requests for comment and other such measures, so maybe we need to move in that direction.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"TH1980 was correct to point out that he did not re-nominate until many weeks after he had responded to all talk page queries." TH1980 renominated the article 2 weeks after Johanna rejected the first nomination. And none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved, as can plainly be seen on the talk page and its archives. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, as I already mentioned above, he nominated it one year and 2 weeks after. It seemed to me that he was responding quickly whenever Nishidani raised a concern.[24][25] Personally, I think that discussion was progressing well, and if more work was needed then discussion should have continued.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I see now you meant that the first nomination was in 2015; I had failed to notice the year date. However my point still stands that none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved, as can plainly be seen on the talk page and its archives. If you disagree with this, I invite you to read the entire talk page and its entire archives, as well as Nishidani's post below. on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of Nishidani's posts were disputing the reliability of "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan", a peer-reviewed academic article written by a team of leading scholars, including a prominent American historian. I offered to bring the source to the reliable sources noticeboard just to be sure it really was a good source,[26] but I never received a response. As was pointed out by three users in the talk page, Nishidani is a researcher but as a result has some tendency to lean towards original research. The academic article Nishidani disputed is at least not original research, but it could be original research to create, as Nishidani did, an entire paragraph, in an article on "Korean influence on Japanese culture", and cite it entirely to the Nihon Shoki, an eighth century work of history.[27] I appreciate that I could discuss things with Nishidani, but it is through discussion that we can identify and eliminate original research like this. I still think that re-nomination is fine as long as the current issues on the talk page are responded to and edited. TH1980 did not nominate until he had done that.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As to this, I cited a primary source, almost word for word. That is not original research. When requested, I gave a secondary source. Nothing in that breaks the rules. The so-called peer reviewed source used to write a third of the article was co-authored by Sung-rak Choi, affiliated (what's that mean in terms of academic status?) with the Department of Archaeology, Mokpo National University, a department that seems to have near zero attendance, and one lecturer, not him. just as the other chap, Hyuk-jin Ro is affiliated with the Department of History, Hallym University, a small private university in Korea. Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't take a passage from such an old history book and interpret it as being "Korean influence on Japanese culture". Wikipedia discourages the use of such old works in general, but we can't necessarily say that the authors of the Nihon Shoki intended that passage to demonstrate a Korean influence on Japanese culture. That might simply be a modern interpretation. I found it odd that you think the Nihon Shoki is a good source to cite in the article, but not a peer reviewed academic article specifically on the subject of the Wikipedia article. Also, I did offer to take the academic article to the reliable sources noticeboard, and we could have discussed the matter at greater length on the talk page. This article has a lot of strengths including co-authorship by numerous academics (you haven't questioned the two working at the University of Oregon), extensive citations to scholarly works, and research done at major museums in both Japan and Korea. Even if you disagree with its opinions, I suspect its acceptability as a source would stand at the reliable sources noticeboard, probably a lot better than the Nihon Shoki would.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a simple English lesson. 'Old history books' has two primary meanings. (a) an outdated secondary source in history (b) a primary source (Herodotus, the Bible,Sima Qian, Livy, Primary Chronicle). You are using (b) in the sense of (a) and haven't understood WP:PRIMARY, since I made no interpretation. Making a more extended comment than this will only generate the humongously silly threads your failure to understand these matters invariably generate.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia also discourages primary sources, if you prefer to call it that. The very fact that you put it on an article called Korean influence on Japanese culture means that you interpreted that passage as an example of Korean influence on Japanese culture. Perhaps it is, but to be safe it's better to just use modern scholarship about Korean influence on Japanese culture rather than culling obscure passages from ancient works and assuming ourselves that these passages were intended to prove Korean influence on Japanese culture.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Not really, Wikipedia doesn't discourage the use of primary sources, it discourages incorrect use of primary sources. Incorrect primarily meaning interpretation, don't interpret the meaning of a primary source. Where secondary sources are available then it is best to use them provided that they are Reliable. The very fact that it's on the article by no means means that there is interpretation going on. If a source says something and you quote it, there is, by its very definition, no interpretation. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the "primary source" would be irrelevant unless it was on the subject of Korean influence on Japanese culture, and I would be wary of declaring the passage in question to be necessarily about Korea influencing Japan. In this case, it was an entire section cited entirely to the Nihon Shoki, and Wikipedia does at least promote being "cautious about basing large passages on" primary sources. I think that we should be able to agree that a peer reviewed academic article published in 2007 is a superior source to base a whole section off of than a history book from the eighth century.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Curtis. The above only shows why you also have a behavioural problem. The obvious takes paragraphs + to get through to you, even with policy. When you raised this issue, you said: I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source. Translation? You don't understand what a primary source is (a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study.) There is no shadow of a doubt that the Nihon Shoki fits this exactly. It is the primary literary record of the early history of Korean peninsular relations with Yamato. Once more your trivial, ignorant hairsplitting here is evidence of how this game of quibbling attrition is played on those and similar pages. Eventually this willful obtusity to the obvious on talk pages, which has driven off several editors, will have to be reviewed administratively. If CN can harp on his doubts even in the face of facts and straightforward policy, I leave it to all to imagine what happens when one must explain to him the intricacies of ancient history and its interpretations, esp. since he knows nothing of it.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Large passage? it's one bloody sentence how is that a large passage. Can you link me to the source you are supporting CurtisNaito, I'd like to take a look at it myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

For that matter I have a serious question. If theres an issue with the Nihon Shoki, why, has this not been implemented; [28]. @CurtisNaito: made a request for a better source, @Nishidani: offers up a recent secondary source, and @TH1980: states quite literally that they'll put it in and then doesn't do it. how about some actual conflict resolution and not just conflict. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

TH1980 put the source in immediately after he said he would.

Most of the history covered in the Nihon Shoki was not written contemporary to the events that had occurred. The Nihon Shoki describes hundreds of years of events and was compiled by individuals who had no personal experience with those events. I favor the journal article Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan. I do think it's a double standard to use the Nihon Shoki as the sole source for an entire section, but disparage a recent peer reviewed article.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Nihon Shoki describes hundreds of years of events and was compiled by individuals who had no personal experience with those events.

The 4th proof in a few exchanges you don't understand what you are talking about. Prince Toneri, the editor of the primary text that is the Nihon Shoki, was a contemporary of the Empress Jitō whose reign is covered by that work. Sheesh.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You're probably aware that Prince Toneri, who was born in 676, was not a contemporary of most of the historical figures portrayed in the book and could not have met Maketsu personally.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are totally unaware that Livy, Sima Qian, the Tanakh, Herodotus, Thucidides, etc.etc.etc. are all primary sources, like the Nihon Shoki, and are regularly quoted on early Roman history, the Zhou Dynasty. the history of early Israel, and the Ionian Revolt, all things that occurred up to a 1,000 years before the birth of those primary source authors. My practice is always to quote them, unlike most good wiki editors, through secondary sources, unless the datum is quoted verbatim, as I did from the primary source here. You don't know the subject, you don't understand the elementary rules on primary sourcing, so drop the obtusity.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this is Wikipedia, we should just use Wikipedia's definitions. Wikipedia defines primary sources as "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." You can't deny that this does NOT describe the Nihon Shoki as you cited it. Prince Toneri was not "close to" the events of, say, Shotoku's regency (or Maketsu's arrival in Japan) and certainly was not directly involved it in.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Further evidence why you should be banned from editing these articles, for intransigent hair-splitting to dispute the obvious and challenge the universal consensus of scholarship, which, if if isn't just dumb, looks like a tactic of attrition.Since this is Wikipedia, we should read the whole policy page, and not spin one part for the whole, i.e. 'Perhaps the only eyewitness reports of an event may be memoirs, autobiographies, or oral interviews taken years later. Sometimes the only evidence relating to an event or person in the distant past was written or copied decades or centuries later.' All modern scholarship on Japan classifies the Nihon Shoki as a primary source: here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. So much for your vaunted preference for ‘modern scholarship’.

This persistently willful obtuseness to make a point should be sanctionable, and I leave this for anyone to bookmark for an occasion when CN’s longterm behaviour on these articles calls for serious administrative review.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of those sources you just cited are referring to the Nihon Shoki as the main source of information on ancient Japanese history. "Azumamaro established a reputation as an authority of the Nihon Shoki which for him served as the primary source on ancient history". If it was only "the primary source for him", it means that it was the main source he was using, not a "primary source" in scholarly terms. You are far more likely to see the Nihon Shoki described as a historical text or an ancient history book than as a primary source. According to "Traditional Japanese Literature" by Haruo Shirane, "The Nihon Shoki draws on numerous sources, including Chinese dynastic histories, records compiled by Korean immigrants to Japan, histories of temples (engi), and various local clan histories." In scholarly terms, a primary source should be the original. If a book is researched by consulting earlier sources, as the Nihon Shoki was according to Haruo Shirane, it is likely a secondary source. That's why Wikipedia says that secondary sources are "one step removed from an event."CurtisNaito (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Digging yourself deeper into the hole you made. (a) WP:Secondary source

if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, (a) that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source, (b) but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary".

This means per wiki policy that the Nihon Shoki, as all scholarship confirms, is a primary source.

Even if you accept Shirane, then my citing the Nihon Shoki would be citation from one of the 2 fundamental secondary sources (which it isn't per the scholarly consensus) for ancient Japan. And thus your original objection is self-invalidated. In either case you are wrong. In both cases, you are demonstrating your ignorance of policy and the status of these works in Japanese scholarship Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that there are varying definitions of primary sources, but I had thought that on Wikipedia it was fine to use Wikipedia's in-house definitions: the ones from the policy page. Many of the Nihon Shoki's sources are still extant, like the Wei Zhi, which is directly quoted in the Nihon Shoki[29], and many temple records including Gangoji Engi[30]. Obviously the Nihon Shoki is far more than "one step removed from" most of the events it describes. As you know, the point I was trying to make earlier is that we should discourage using the Nihon Shoki alone as a source for entire sections. No matter how we classify it, I think we should realize that the Nihon Shoki's information is not always reliable. If you still insist that the Nihon Shoki is reasonable as the sole source of information for a paragraph of potentially controversial material, you can have that view, but maybe we can discuss that on the article talk pages on a case-by-case basis, rather than here.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No one used the Nihon Shoki for 'entire sections' or even a 'paragraph', that is, again, a fairy-floss fantasy spun out of nothing. I cited it for one sentence on sewing. (b) Since you believe the Nihon Shoki, against all the scholarship, is a Secondary Source, you should have simply challenged it as a secondary source, rather than challenging it as a primary source. No one in his right mind, with a knowledge of the hopic would discuss such details on that talk page any more. It is a numbers game controlled by two editors, who write what they want to write, regardless of objections, and that is why it probably won't get GA approval.Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the reason why I said "I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source" is because I assumed that, if the Nihon Shoki were construed as a primary source, then the section would be reverted outright. I have been warned in the past to never use primary sources in any articles, though maybe the rules have changed since then or maybe it was always an informal rule. Because of my tendency to compromise, I wanted to hold out the possibility of retaining the material rather than just reverting it. I was told in my early days, "we avoid primary sources". If the Nihon Shoki were a secondary source, as it definitely is if we use Wikipedia's in-house rules, then it would seem more acceptable as a source. My personal opinion is that the Nihon Shoki is not reliable enough to be the sole source for an entire section, but that's just my opinion and I wanted to stimulate discussion rather than force my opinion on you.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually the reason why we are having this absurd discussion is that you ignored taking the tip from 15 modern academic sources, which overwhelmingly list the Nihon Shoki as a Primary Source. Only someone who has no frequentation with classical Japanese scholarship could ever doubt the obvious, and quibble on those testimonies, as you then did. That, and the fact that you didn't know what WP:Secondary sources states, explains why we have this tedious negotiation. It's even worse on that talk page. When wrong, admit it. It's simpler all round. Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Except its not an entire section. It is one sentence. Stop referring to it as a paragraph or an entire section. This sort of misrepresentation is what annoys other editors most. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the section entitled "sewing". Do you not call that a section?CurtisNaito (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes its a section, with one sentence. Here's your comment -> "not reliable enough to be the sole source for an entire section" that section is one sentence. Is the source reliable enough for one sentence? Yes actually it is. So what exactly do you want done here? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I was not deliberately misrepresenting. I had believed that each titled portion of a Wikipedia article was called a "section". According to Wikipedia, a paragraph means a "self-contained unit of a discourse in writing". I had thought that an independent "section" dealing with sewing constituted a "paragraph", but I suppose that the word paragraph can be defined in other ways. I feel that not responding to content-based complaints would be rude of me, but what I really want is what I said right above. "Maybe we can discuss that on the article talk pages on a case-by-case basis, rather than here."CurtisNaito (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you don't 'deliberately misrepresent'. You're certainly confused, and disconcertingly change tack endlessly in this infinite pettifogging. You've rephrased defensively as usual your gross distortion that started this nonsense. You origionally wrote of my one short sentence that it broke wiki policy on 'large passages based on primary sources (which you deny however was a primary source!:

it was an entire section cited entirely to the Nihon Shoki, and Wikipedia does at least promote being "cautious about basing large passages on" primary sources. 19:08, 28 June 2016

This style of backtracking without giving an inch is what we have to supposedly negotiate with assuming good faith.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As I showed, there's simply no way to define the Nihon Shoki as a primary source according to Wikipedia's rules and, though you denied my description of it as a "history book", if you want I can give you far more than 15 sources describing the Nihon Shoki as a "history book". In order to not step on Wikipedia's rules, I would personally rather call it a history book, as do many scholars. However, on this issue, like many others, I'm always modifying my stance in accordance with the stances of other editors. My stance isn't fixed, because that makes compromise more difficult. It's not that my personal viewpoint "changes tack", it's that I'm willing to put aside my differences with others for the sake of a compromise. For instance, I personally believe that the Nihon Shoki is not a primary source, but in my comments I merely said "I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source", because I was holding out the possibility that it was a primary source. I have my opinion, but I don't like to force it on others. I would rather be deliberately vague and guide the discussion to a mid-way compromise.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

i.e. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHATNishidani (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Just take my above words at face value. Opinions vary, sources vary, but usually there's ground for compromise somewhere in the middle. I hope we can discuss this matter further on article talk pages if there is need. I'll listen to your views, and I will not unequivocally call the Nihon Shoki a "history book" again. That's only my opinion and the opinion of certain other scholars. I promise to not impose that opinion on any articles one-sidedly.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A history book, doesn't necessarily mean an old book, it can also mean a book about history. Many secondary sources are called history books because they are books about history. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, that's a more reasonable request. Paragraphs are generally 4-6 sentences in length but can be smaller, one relatively small sentence won't be considered a paragraph even by technicality. It is generally preferred that content discussion stay on the article's talk page. So yes please, take those discussions there by all means. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think part of the reason TH1980 started this thread in the first place was what he perceived to be absence of talk page discussion. It seems like reverting without discussion was one factor leading to this dispute, and maybe all users need to be enouraged to use the talk pages more readily to explain their ideas in detail. Wikipedia says, "A paragraph consists of one or more sentences", but your above comments on paragraph size are something we can discuss on that article's talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Did he? I see that he put it in the references section but didn't actually use it for the citation in question. A remarkably convenient omission don't you think? Thank you for linking me the article, I will take a look at it shortly. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

He added the source as the citation in question, not just in the references section, immediately after saying that he would.[31] TH1980 was correct in saying that he did not nominate until after he had executed all existing recommendations posted on the talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my apologies, the format is a little different on the citation then in the references. Due to the lack of date and name for the source. I didn't recognize that they were the one and the same. As a side note, what in particular would you like to be included from the source you linked me for the sewing section?

No, I only meant that I found it odd that such an old text was being cited as a reliable source for an entire section, while the academic article was not treated as a high quality source. Concerning the Nihon Shoki, both TH1980 and myself expressed some concern that Nishidani was extensively analyzing the Nihon Shoki and another ancient source to refute the academic article in question. I don't think that the reliability of a peer reviewed paper should be questioned based on a Wikipedia user's analysis of an ancient text like the Nihon Shoki. My preference in all matters is modern scholarship.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

'My preference in all matters is modern scholarship.' Thanks for giving me a laugh. I like to end the evening with the stimulation of a fantasy, preferably someone else's. Guess who added most of the modern scholarship on that page. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I cannot comment on the reliability of sources dealing with the article in question. The issue that Nishidani, if I have understood, seems to be addressing is that the source you have provided isn't credible for biased POV issues. That is something that the editors who are working on the article need to sort out themselves. Somebody should open an RfC with their version and the competing version and hope to collaborative productively from there on. That said, Nishidani does not appear to be the average Wikipedia user, but, a published academic in this field. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this again, and then I'm going to stop, because I feel you are changing the subject and giving a run-around, instead of addressing the point (I'm guessing this is one of your behaviors that CT and others have referred to). You claimed above that TH1980 did not renominate until he had responded to all talk page queries. The truth is that none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved. This can plainly be seen by anybody who reads the talk page and its archives, and now also Nishidani's post below on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess my point was that TH1980 did not see the peer-reviewed academic source as a problem, and while I didn't either, I wanted to find a solution that might settle the matter. However, when Nishidani did not respond for weeks, I think TH1980 just went with the existing consensus because many of Nishidani's drive-by criticisms seemed to be based on the sort of original research which, TH1980 and I noted, was somewhat dubious as article content. If this issue arises again, the reliable sources noticeboard or request for comment are maybe the only solutions.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It is a personal attack insofar as it, as is usual, completely screws up my work here and the editor in question had the hide to misrepresent me as agreeing with him.

many of Nishidani's drive-by criticisms seemed to be based on the sort of original research which he and I, noted was somewhat dubious as article content.

Naito. Give me diffs, or, if you can't, strike that crap out.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

While I know the basics on Japan/Korea history, it's not my field and I don't want to opine on the article because I know an expert could lead me around with subtle POV I wouldn't get. And I feel I expressed an opinion when I said I was satisfied with CurlyTurkeys explanation, so I don't feel I should close this. Appreciate the confidence though.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Responding to User:Mr rnddude's request.

• WP:COI.I am published on this topic, in a peer-reviewed academic press. My identity as such is known to several here, including an admin with a professorial chair.I am critical of nationalistic cant, esp. when it infects scholarship, not only regarding this culture area.
• I agree with Curly Turkey on this. There is no conflict there. We had a vigorous disagreement on one of these pages, that turned nasty once. We sorted it out. I respect his independence of judgement and care in editing.
• The article would be very important if it was in competent hands. Fixing the persistent POV+pushing spin and clumsy uses of sources by TH1980 and CurtisNaito - my experience with them is that their editing is a nightmare- has been a constant drag on everyone’s time. They shouldn’t be editing the article so deeply entrammeled by competing nationalist claims. Yet they have done nothing that would get a sanction there, except showing an extensive ignorance of early Japanese history, and a persistent desire to document a theory, that it is all Korean, basically. They are very careful to be polite. The iron nescience wraps itself in a velvet glove. Impeccable, with a variant: When TH1980 screws up, CurtisNaito steps in to find a compromise,
• Nothing was either ‘Korean’ or ‘Japanese’ down to the 6th—7th century, when a proto-nationalist strain slowly began. The Korean state was created in 668, the Yamato ‘state’ somewhat earlier. In both we have constant inflows of tribes, cultures, language groups, warring and making alliances with each other alternately, in both the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archepelago. TH1980 is retroactively casting all this intricately polyethnic movement as being ‘Korean’, as do many of the sources (dumb to the nuances of higher scholarship) (s)he cites.
• I’ve been notified from time to time to look at it by several editors, and almost invariably found both their edited content deeply problematic. Neither should be allowed to touch anything dealing with ancient Far eastern history. They know nothing of the scholarship, the sources they use are mediocre, and they consistently misread them.
• The article is in its present shape because (a) edit after edit, TH1980 mainly, screwed up. Editors like myself stepped in, readjusted the text, and replaced the poor sources with page-links to the latest scholarship on every issue. I gave up because I intuited that it doesn’t matter to the POV pushers that they get everything wrong, since, their bid for a GA article is assured: They screw up, and a competent area scholar will fix the damage making it look so much better.
• A third of the sourcing (37/118) comes from just one source: Rhee, Song-Nai, Aikens, C. Melvin, Choi, Sung-Rak, and Ro, Hyuk-Jin, "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan". Asian Perspectives, Fall 2007.
• This passes RS, formally, but the kindest construction on it is that ‘Asian Perspectives’ though that, despite the heavy handed Korean nationalist spin, it did contain numerous citations of recent high quality Japanese and Korean scholarship, and was worth passing solely on those grounds. I have said that it should never be used unless the trouble is taken to verify their spin or claims or arguments, item by item, against the judgements of recent Japanese and Korean scholarship.
• I stated some of the problems on the talk page here. Where I gave one instance of where in just one (of numerous details) these four scholars allow their nationalist POV twisting to alter and distort primary sources. All of the corrections involve technical details that will fly over the heads of the average reader unfortunately. The criticisms I make are consistently ignored by the two editors, perhaps because they can’t grasp them.One could do this for much that is in the source paper written by those 4 scholars. I for one, haven’t the time or inclination to frig about correcting it all, to make it usable for this article.
• All of these issues, and many others, will persist with that page as long as incompetents guide its editing, and GA reviewers are likely to miss the mess because to see the fraudulent spin you must have some solid grasp of Korean and Japanese nationalism, a detailed knowledge of their respective ancient histories, and the fact that nearly all of the ancient historical issues exhibit conflicting currents of interpretation in the relevant scholarship. Everything there is theoretical, not factual, and drenched with potential bias u nless one exercises acute care. One could do better by writing an article The history of interpretations of Korean and Japanese cultural links in modern scholarship, which has an extensive academic literature, and would run to the 100,000kb level at a minimum. As it stands, and as its main editors edit, the article should never been considered worthy of GA review. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop dicking around with other peoples comments here. Unless you are removing a personal attack against yourself, leave them alone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an opportunity venue for editors to weigh in with mechanical adversity against an editor whose views they consistently oppose on any or every topic. The proper thing is to ask an editor who with his tagteam mate has driven to exhaustion six other competent editors, to explain his egregious distortions regarding my views. My practice is to use the talk page to convey what the relevant scholarship says. They don't know it, and need to be told in every edit. When I do that drudgery, the response is 'original research', (i.e. 'Duh, I didn't know that.') I don't cite my own views on any article. I cite what the scholarship states in its varied opinions.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nishidani for taking the time to respond to my request. From what I gather, there is a significant imbalance of weight being allocated to certain Korean sources. Perhaps the editors in question, or perhaps all editors, should look to try to balance their use of Korean and Japanese sources with some other Western sources as well, or at least, look to make statements that are confirmed by both side, Korean and Japanese, or Korean/Japanese and Western sources. This should ideally prevent all bias and POV. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ok, I'm still not seeing anything new here. It looks to me like there was a prior GAN, someone provided a review there, including numerous suggestions. Since then, it's been a year and someone else (or the same person, doesn't matter) wants to conduct another GAN. The original reviewer and others think the prior fixes weren't done, other editors think it was. Some editors think others should be topic banned, others don't or the reverse but the end point here is: there still are not topic bans in place and I still do not see any indication that the GAN request in and of itself is a problem, just a vehement disagreement on whether the article is a GA, which is kind of the point of a GA review. Either way, there should either be continued discussion on the talk page about whether it even passes the first GA requirements suggested or we can start a new GA review and you all can chew out the new reviewer as incompetent to understand the vague suggestions that you all are going on about or you can take on the new reviewer as another review. The first thing any sensible new reviewer is going to ask is if the prior GAN review concerns were addressed so that same issue now stopping a new GAN from starting will be done there. If the new reviewer wants to start anew, so be it, go chew them out for that if you want. Again, if someone wants to suggest a topic ban or an IBAN or whatever, there is little in this discussion seriously addressing that so either start that specific issue or let's just move on to doing a GAN. It would be hard to imagine a GAN passing without the people who find the page problematic actually expressing their views but if they don't express their views beyond vague generalities about Korean and Japanese sourcing, I have no idea what the rest of us are doing here other than waiting until this discussion takes up the whole page, runs out of steam and then goes straight into the archive without any admin action. As if now, I'm probably the only outsider even remotely willing to read the whole pile here and I care only about resolving the GAN issue right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm probably the only outsider even remotely willing to read the whole pile here—Whoa, way to put Mr rnddude and Softlavender in their places! You've contributed nothing but noise, Ricky. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: If you think "vehement disagreement" is something that can or should be resolved by a GA review then you need to look more carefully at the GA criteria, and especially at "quick fail" criterion 4 and GA criterion 5. Being the subject of an ongoing and significant dispute is an immediate disqualifier for GA status. So any GA reviewer could reasonably stop there without taking the time to understand the dispute in more detail. That is, the existence of this dispute ipso facto means that any attempt at a GA nomination would be premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the talkpage I am pretty sure the disagreement would disppear with the forcible exiting of certain editors. What stands out for me are the personal attacks.

"Go away. You are boring and incapable of reading either policy or scholarship. It is quite pointless addressing me, since you cannot understand my replies."

"Because the other editor is, is for me, notoriously incompetent"

"obviously because you don't know anything about Asian, Korean or Japanese history."

"You haven't understood anything."

"you are a one-eyed POV pushing editor"

"You shouldn't be on Wikipedia

"my working hypothesis is that your lazy tossing in of 'stuff' you google up without understanding what its status is in Japanese studies, is meant by now as a prod to get serious editors who actually know the subject professionally, to fix it, and thereby, since you can't write a GA article, get them to do so by fixing your errors with technical precision."

Etc. When you add in the constant use of profanity, it is actually surprising that disagreement has been so civil by the other parties there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

All factual descriptions, and I confirm them. The tactic here is to maintain a perfectly WP:AGF posture while consisting hindering competent editors from doing their work. That's why so many have fucked off. The amount of netspace caused by the intransigent hair-splitting in particular of Curtis Naito, whose knowledge of ancient Japan, and the secondary scholarship, is close to zero and yet who persists in talking past the concrete evidence by waffling, is unbelievable. Anyone who disbelieves this is invited to look at the tortuous negotiations to resolve obvious solutions his presence there demands on numerous pages. Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There are no exceptions to WP:NPA and your opinion of other editors is not a factual description. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

My opinion as to CN's ignorance of the topics he edits is factual. I've documented it on numerous talk pages. Read them. Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I recognize that you and the other editors are getting frustrated because the discussion is going nowhere. However, it is best practice to never comment on an editor, only their work. Please keep that in mind. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. All that will happen is that it will cause the original complaint to stall and even backfire. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: The whole reason this is here at ANI is because of behavioral problems by the users in question. That is, literally, the primary topic of this discussion. So don't tell us not to discuss it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then what's the solution? It's either (a) a GAN review or (b) no GAN review. We can add blocks or topic bans or whatever else people want but I don't see any specifics other than general bickering and people pointing out that the talk page and its archives are not being productively done. The last review was just a quickfail on the tagging. The tags have been removed. Is the tag removal at issue? If so, then oppose a GAN review and go back and argue about tagging. If not, what are we doing here other than going in circles here with the bickering. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Somebody above mentioned that according to GAN policy, a dispute on content should automatically invalidate a GAN. I would not personally recommend the article for GAN until all the content disputes are resolved. Yes, there are multiple simultaneous content disputes. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Thus putting the article in breach of GA criteria #5. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude: Somebody above mentioned that ...—you don't have to tell Ricky that. He is, after all , the only one who has read through any of this mess. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I apologize if that came across as an order to not discuss behavioural problems. Some of the comments made by Nishidani above are not acceptable. If I were to pick one specific example it'd be "You shouldn't be on Wikipedia.", the only editors who shouldn't be on Wikipedia are those that WP:NOTHERE and WP:VANDAL. What I is was trying to demonstrate is that "Comment on content, not on the contributor." should be a guiding principle when talking to other editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think as a whole, Nishidani's comment was that they shouldn't edit that area until they had read up on the material because what they are producing is substandard. Possibly some of the descriptions could be toned down without loss of content, to assure that this discussion doesn't sidetrack.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Since when does any of that justify NPA? Also, user comments should almost never be modified by another user. As for al the claims, I don't think anything is going to come of any of this because at this point, it is just one large wall of text.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You obviously failed to see that the user's comment which I struck out, was then emended by that editor when challenged to provide a diff, because he realized it falsely attributed to me a view I never espoused. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

1) I've been reading this since day one, I didn't stray in. 2) As for your comment, I am very much opposed to touching someone else's comment. What I would have done is ask him, or coax him to strike or remove himself. If he fails to do so then i would contact an admin to see if that is casting aspersions or something that would warrant you to strike it out yourself. As far as results, this is typical of ANI, once the thread is too large to read, there will be no action other than auto archive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not averse to following advice. But it is rather disconcerting to see that when I struck out an opposing editor's fictional attributions to me of an idea he shared with his pal, there began a fluttering in the dovecotes about me that wholly ignored the justice of my complaint. That I was correct was shown by his subsequent alteration of the text, without any note that he had made the mistake. I don't mind the fine tooth-comb being vigorously applied to my work. I often observe that in a conflict where I have a just complaint, my formulation of it is scrutinized with a microscope for my behavior, while the content issue is ignored. I sigh, stiff chedder, mutter 'fuck me dead' and then, well, have a cuppa and roll myself another smoke, thinking that that's how all of this bullshit written here will end up anyway, like my cremated self one of these days.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I referred to both you and TH1980 in my post, and then much later in the post I made a reference to "He and I". I thought it was clear from the context that "he" meant TH1980. I didn't care that you altered my comment, but if you had instead asked me, "Who is the 'he' you are referring to later in your post?", I would have said TH1980, not you.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the only thing that can, and arguably needs to, come of this is that the editors recognize that GA will have to wait till all content disputes are resolved. I'd rather not see any sanctions imposed on any editors involved unless they irreconcilably demonstrate that they are not here to co-operate to improve Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In other words: enforce the restriction on CN et al. against nominating without first seeking consensus. We're back to where we started, but I'm sure Ricky's itching to block me if I dare try to enforce this already-established restriction again—so how do we enforce it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to institute that restriction, because it never existed in the first place. Above someone said, "Bottom line: There is no known stricture on nominating or renominating an article for GA. If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions, if there are any." "CN et al." is a vague statement... In my opinion, the problem was that other users were not willing to discuss the alleged problems with the article on its talk page. Now that discussion has restarted, the problem is solved for now.TH1980 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You won't lawyer yourself out of this—I JethroBT named "Both editors", and the consensus here is against your pulling this again. The number of people who've seen you at play keeps increasing—do you seriously think you can keep playing these games? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the link, and IJethrobot never said "both editors". You said "both editors" in your comment, but nowhere did the closer of the thread, IJethrobot, say "both editors".TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

TH1980, you quoted me (without attribution) just above, but you failed to mention that I later stated "It's enough to convince me personally that we have a problem here and it needs to be halted and a good way to halt it is to restrict CurtisNaito's and TH1980's GAN privileges absent talk-page consensus." I will strike my earlier opinion if necessary. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have not been involved in this article for over a year, I think, so I'm not directly involved in this thread. But I was pinged, so here I am. I think that this article was one of the oldest outstanding GANs (though I may be wrong about that). It was a pretty easy quick fail candidate, as the seemingly endless maintenance tags disqualified it. Furthermore, I looked closer and the concerns of whoever placed the tags seemed to be quite legitimate. That's pretty much all I can say about this. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 02:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thus my statement above. The GAN was rejected because of the tags. The tags were removed. If someone believes that the tags were wrongly removed, then we can discuss that but given the lack of discussion about the tags I presume people think the tags were rightly removed, so what is wrong with having this exactly same argument at a GAN? The only problem seems to be people who want to make it clear they reject any notion of any discussion about whether it qualifies under the GA criteria because of some fear that people who aren't them would pass it as a GA because they cannot or will not explain what their concerns are. As such, this will be another one of those "throw enough nonsense at a discussion at ANI about why you hate the other people there and no one will do anything about the actual conduct at issue until it goes into the archives" discussions. It seems agreed upon that there's no two person or consensus requirement to nominate a page and start a GAN or at the very least, it's literally something no one has every heard up and seems a new made-up rule for this page (every other dispute just goes to actually objecting at the GAN) to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The tags were removed by the editors most involved in the article, can't remember if it was TH1980 or CurtisNaito that removed them. Not sure if it matters. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Noticed a couple IPs repeatedly adding and removing closing tags to this section without much by way of explanation. There were no objections, but that might just mean nobody noticed. I've reopened just because it didn't seem like a legitimate close, not because I have any opinion on the content or outcome. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: CurtisNaito and TH1980 removed the maintenance tags, without permission and with diversionary and misleading edit summaries. This has already been noted several times in the discussions above. CurtisNaito removed the hidden comment underneath them (<!-- Do not remove these tags again until the issues with this article have been resolved. The first (enormous, highly dubious) section ("Art") remains largely unchanged since the AFD. ~Hijiri88, May 2015. -->), on 26 May 2016: [32]. After one intervening edit by CurtisNaito, TH1980 removed the maintenance tags themselves on 26 May 2016: [33], without acknowledging that in the edit summary and without Talk page discussion. He did the same thing two more times after they were restored: [34], [35]; still no discussion or permission on Talk. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I edited the Art section right after I removed the tag recommending that the art section be edited.[36] I asked in my next edit summary why the tags could not be put only over the part of the article in dispute(if there was such a part)[37], but got no answer. No one disputed the removal of the tags on the article talk page at the time. I did discuss the matter on my talk page[38], but I never heard any reason to maintain the tags. Recently, an experienced user commented on the article talk page, "At present, I do not see any arguments that would justify tagging this article or reference with POV/RS tags." There are issues currently being discussed on the talk page, but I never heard a single editor argue on the talk page that the whole article needed to be tagged.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• If the arguments are about the tagging, then why were we wasting this time arguing about the GAN nomination requirements? What was the point of that whole routine above? I said from the beginning that if the tags were the problem, say that and we can discuss it. And no, I don't care if someone puts up hidden text that says "don't remove these tags no matter what." No one owns the articles including the "right" to require tags. The tags were placed in May 2015 and there is nothing on the talk page about what specifically that editor found as OR at issue or what neutrality is in dispute. Is it in the archives? I'd guess that any reasonable editor looking at that page and looking at that talk page would presume that the issue has been resolved, hidden comment or not. If someone now thinks that there remains OR or that the neutrality remains in dispute, fine, post that on the talk page and/or put new tags or let it get GAN quickfailed, either one achieves the same result BUT again, we are back to the same issues: if someone has a problem with the page, articulate it on the talk page. Do not argue to reinstate tags and then quickfail GAN or oppose a GAN and then play the "it's too complicated to explain the problem" routine. This discussion looks resolved to me while other sections seem to be being discussed but I don't see a need for giant tags at the moment. If the text is not based on a reliable source, then it should be removed entirely, I don't see why we have this belief that that we must keep what is already there and at the same time demand that something "better" be found to replace it before someone agrees to a GAN on the page. It seems entirely guaranteed to just result in stagnation and arguing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The tags were placed in May 2015 and there is nothing on the talk page about what specifically that editor found as OR at issue or what neutrality is in dispute. Is it in the archives? Of course it's in the archives; the talk-page is bot-archived every 60 days and only has threads from April 2016 and thereafter. I'd guess that any reasonable editor looking at that page and looking at that talk page would presume that the issue has been resolved. Not if they checked the archives, where various issues were raised. As has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, CurtisNaito and TH1980 have been waging a tag-team IDHT and wall-o-text war of attrition against anyone trying to correct and improve the article (which seems mainly to be Nishidani, and the two-against-one tag-teaming has worn him down, as detailed in the above discussions). Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like the contents of the talk page and article over the last week mostly involves other users like Nishidani asking for things and TH1980 by and large doing them. Nishidani complained about a certain source being used for 30% of the article[39] and TH1980 decreased it to 7%.[40] Nishidani wanted book links[41] so TH1980 added book links[42], and so on.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You're both going to GA and, when I extracted with a humongous and quite absurd effort, blood from a stone showing a consistent pattern of deception to push a POV, a partial compliance was swiftly executed, when it could have been done months or a year ago. It took me 3 months to get TH1982 to make one obvious minor concession (see the talk page). So no. No more complicity in this Potemkin village façade dressing, for the vanity of a GA certificate from the unwary. Last remark. There is one huge gap, that could be documented in great detail, to underline the decisive role of peninsular influence on early Yamato, and neither of the 2 editors have woken up to its possibilities for their POV. I'm not going to tell them. If I'm still around, one day, when these things can be written with detached equanimity, I'll add it, but probably to a different or fresh article.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I want to make it perfectly clear, there are six people discussing on that page. Myself, I have discussed ways of working through it based on policy, MOS, etc but have not done work on the content. Spacecowboy420, I think has done mostly policy discussion but may also be involved in content. CurlyTurkey, bringing up conduct issues. CurtisNaito, putting away conduct issues to try to keep discussion on content. Nishidani has done 80% of the content checking, working, questioning, etc. And finally, TH1980, who has done the other 20% of content work by implementing changes (proposed by Nishidani) and doing their own article work as well. Softlavender is mostly right, CurtisNaito and TH1980 are working with Nishidani on content, that is wearing on him because he alone has been going through and tagging problem sections. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Count me out. I've documented, and could do it dozens of times over, the manipulation of sources there. It has no effect on the attritional quibbling. Wiki has no devices to stop that. I've withdrawn from the article. Thanks for the efforts, Softlavender, rnddude et al.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"Wiki has no devices to stop that." Actually, wiki has several devices to stop that: ANI and ArbCom among them. CurtisNaito has already been banned from such GANs via a previous ANI (so now he has TH1980 to do it for him). All that is needed is a dedicated ANI thread on the tag-team IDHT/wall-o-text/diversionary war of attrition they have waged across several articles. And if that doesn't work, ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It was only the GAN on History of Japan that I was advised from not doing without consensus. On Korean influence on Japanese culture, I was not restricted, and actually, until recently I only made periodic comments on that page and otherwise stayed out. I've commented much less than TH1980 or Nishidani and have not inserted any walls of text.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You are the third most involved user on that page with 39 mentions. Most of yours, TH1980's and Nishidani's posts have been explicitly walls of text. Any comment that takes more than about 6 lines to read, is a wall of text. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Mr rnddude, I think your role in the article as a moderator has been helpful. I'm willing to forget about that article and move on if you think it would be for the best, but if anyone stays behind to edit it, you should consider staying as well to help them.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I'm not asking you to leave, what I want is a resolution to this thread and then the article can move on. If you would prefer to move on elsewhere, go for it if it'll help you. To be honest, I don't know what is for the best, I only know what I can do to help. I imagine that all parties are over it at this point. As always, if people need me they are more than welcome to ping me. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

War of Attrition

Comment I am separating this from the above, to give evidence to the allegations raised by Softlavender. Below is what I can provide to show the issues of IDHT, wall-of-text monstrosities, diversionary tactics, but also, the general frustration of all parties.

The most recent thread, should have ended shortly after this with a resolution to the problem; [43], that thread is still going and currently looks like this [44]. It's impossible to have a resolution to any dispute like this.

The first response by either editor, TH1980 or CurtisNaito, to address the issue was by TH1980 at 14:55 July 6, [45] to clear up the issue.

Three minutes later, TH1980 accused Nishidani of not pulling their weight[46] which is frankly, bull.

By 17:07, July 16, Nishidani comes back to inform of bad-faith editing on the part of TH1980 [47].

My testimony is this; the use of sources in the case brought forth isn't acceptable. The problem is incorrect paraphrasing of sources to push a point of view. Take a sincere look at the edit that Nishidani made.

to which CurtisNation weighs in to defend TH1980 15 minutes later [48]

an issue that did not even begin to be resolved until 22:28 [49].

This then spiraled out into a behaviour discussion for hours (from 23:38 July 6 to 05:05 July 7) and was only brought back on track by me here [50] and would be derailed again within the hour, the first attempt at about 7 minutes after my post.

Realistically, there's two problems at play here; 1. Is myself, Spacecowboy420 and CurlyTurkey's involvement, there is constant derailing of discussion on that thread and it's heavily predicated on our outside uninvolved commentary. Though I try to bring it back to the rails. 2. The absolute wall of text war of attrition that every thread turns out, it wears on the spirit.

This all I could dig up on a moment's notice. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

To conclude, since I didn't do so above, without sanctioning anybody, CurlyTurkey, Spacecowboy and myself need to stay out of it for now. Let TH1980, CurtisNaito and Nishidani (who probably wants nothing to do with it anymore) deal with the problems. This, is rather an unreasonable request, but it could hypothetically work. Alternatively, somebody else might have a better suggestions. I highly recommend the involved parties to do not post thoughts and ideas below (that means, Nishidani, CurtisNaito, TH1980 and CurlyTurkey). Let AN/I resolve the issue, because the past two weeks, have achieved nothing. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• • We will not get a resolution until there is clarity on what people want and consensus for that. This entire two-week mess started off as an argument about the consensus required for a GAN which everyone admits is a smokescreen for the actual desires here. If people want someone topic banned then propose it in a separate section and provide justifications in a plain statement. Statements that "it's too complicated to explain" do not help. Otherwise, the sniping at each other over other pages and insinuations that ARBCOM can resolve this do nothing. This is not a topic subject to discretionary sanctions so the people involved will need to get a consensus here for any sanctions and these walls of text (such as the week-long debate about the consensus for GAN) resolve nothing. Otherwise, it looks like there's nothing to do here. Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#TH1980 alleges repeated, deliberate misrepresentations by one editor. That's not a minor charge but again since there's no basis for discretionary sanctions, sanctions require a consensus here. It's not block-worthy to me at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

'alleges repeated, deliberate misrepresentations by one editor.' I made no allegation. I documented repeated, deliberate misrepresentations by one editor'. Anyone who ignores the chat, and just isolates and examines the primary data, how it was spun, how this distortion was exposed, and how the editor concerned kept it up until forced to admit it by adjusting under pressure, would see this. Ask any outside expert with competence in Japanese studies. The technique is to 'bury' the essential data under walls of hum and haaing textNishidani (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• • • Nishidani recommended that the Tamamushi Shrine section be changed, and so I did change it in accordance with Nishidani's suggestions. I dealt with Nishidani's concerns myself, so give me credit for that at least. By contrast:

Nishidani said in the article that Hyeja was from Baekje.[51] No source anywhere in existence, including the one Nishidani cited, says this. I pointed this out on the talk page[52] and eventually I fixed this error myself.[53]

Nishidani wrote in the article, citing Mikiso Hane, that "many from these kingdoms fled to Japan and, according to Mikiso Hane, later contributed significantly to the implementation of the Taika Reforms and the Taihō Code". The source in question does not say anything about Korean influence on the Taiho Code. I pointed this out on the talk page[54] and eventually I fixed this error myself.[55]

Nishidani wrote in the article "the Japanese continued to prefer employing open-hearth ovens"[56] even though the source only said "In cooler regions of the northeast, however, the kamado's limited capacity as a room heater discouraged its use". "Cooler regions of the northeast" is not the same thing as "the Japanese", so I pointed this out on the talk page [57] and fixed this error too.[58] No matter what the problem is or who added it, I always fix it. An honest person would have to give me credit for that.TH1980 (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

In DNA, there are 2 threads that spiral in parallel, but the sequence on one finds its pattern precisely replicated, if in a different order, on the other thread. Much of it is clutter, but the dual coding of the two texts is correlative. In wiki threads, there is no consonance. Make a point (a) and the answer is (z), or (p) or (s) at random, and the issue raised (a) is lost in alphabet soup. That is the attritional tactic. You just used it above.

I gave meticulous documentation on the last of your many manipulations of source text, and of the exceedingly long time required to make you come round to adhere to the wording of the source in your edits. Your answer? No explanation of what you did. You shifted the goalposts, and said: 'But Nishidani made mistakes. 'Of course I make mistakes, but they are not reintroduced by myself after that mistake is corrected: I do not defend them. Indeed, I apologize to the page. So your reply consists of an evasive red-herring. Making an error or two over some years is not a behavioural problem. Persisting in restoring erroneous edits, under protest, and against the clear evidence of specialist scholarship on each problem, is deeply problematical.

The minor lapse of memory, for example, in the diff re Hyeja which you noted, which came from retaining in my memory on provisional trust a mistake endorsed by an IP on that page from an as yet unexamined poor source years earlier('The temple became his personal devotional center where he studied with Hye-che, a Buddhist priest from Koguryo), was acknowledged as such by myself immediately here. I nowhere tried to defend that mistake. You have stubbornly defended your ill-informed content, for months, over several sections, and only yield ground at the last minute, esp. if third parties join in and are watching. The one is a lapse, the other is a behavioural stubbornness in the face of contrary evidence.

This thread started as a complaint you laid against one of the last surviving editors on a page you have thoroughly dominated from the outset. Several editors just gave up, some were driven off. I succumbed to the passive aggressive polite WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT technique as well. I came here, on request. As far as I can see, under the huge rubble here, the evidence of abuse by you warrants a WP:Boomerang result. Since this thread is on the theme of attrition, I will document that charge minutely, if third party editors need the whole story briefly, topic by topic. If they prefer to just drop it, fine.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"In DNA, there are 2 threads that spiral in parallel, but the sequence on one finds its pattern precisely replicated, if in a different order, on the other thread. Much of it is clutter, but the dual coding of the two texts is correlative. In wiki threads, there is no consonance. Make a point (a) and the answer is (z), or (p) or (s) at random, and the issue raised (a) is lost in alphabet soup. That is the attritional tactic." I have to 100% agree with this. CurtisNaito has used this tactic in every post he has made to this ANI. That is why it is impossible to have a coherent, productive, collaborative, good-faith conversation with him, and the same is apparently true of TH1980. It is obvious how this behavior of the two of them combined would drive off any editor attempting to do anything productive, remedial, or collaborative on any article the two of them have targeted. Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's the same with Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Jomon-Yayoi_transition: the article says Korean based on a source that isn't readily available. I point out that another article explicitly calls its Chinese. When pushed for the exact wording, the actual wording from those sources is both and the source TH1980 is irrelevant and TH1980's response is that those scholars aren't citing this source (ignoring that the source cited is irrelevant). It gets changed to reflect the actual sourcing better but then TH1980 adds more details than the edit summary implies. This is not productive and a topic ban may be warranted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

EVERY source agrees that paddy agriculture originated in China. The difference is between sources that say, on the one hand, that paddy rice agriculture was adapted in Korea and then imported to Japan, or on the other hand, that it came directly from China. All the reliable sources I inserted into the article until recently stated only that it came through Korea. In my recent edit, however, I added in an entirely new source referring to the possibility that it could have come directly from China.TH1980 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If EVERY source says China, then why are you defending having it say "Korea"? I didn't even accuse you of adding it but I'm guessing you did. So we have sources that are not available online that you know say something different than what you are putting there and since no one else can easily see what's going on, you have no issues with blatantly misrepresenting sources? I wouldn't even have figured this whole thing out if another article didn't touch the same subject, a subject that you fully admit you know states China and yet you have no issues with this article saying Korea because you found a source that say both and then you ignore half of that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article said that wet rice agriculture was transferred to Japan THROUGH Korea. Every source agrees that wet rice agriculture originated in China, but every source which I inserted into the Wikipedia article said that wet rice agriculture was transferred THROUGH Korea. Neither the Wikipedia article, nor I, nor anyone ever said that wet rice agriculture did not originate in China. The controversy does not relate to where wet rice agriculture originated. The controversy relates to how wet rice agriculture was transferred to Japan. Originally the Wikipedia article only said (per the sources) that wet rice agriculture was transferred THROUGH Korea. Recently, I added a new source suggesting that it could have been transferred DIRECTLY from China. The source from the other Wikipedia article that you found said that wet rice agriculture originated in China, as do all sources. What my scholarly sources said was that wet rice agriculture was transferred from China THROUGH Korea to Japan. Do you understand? The Wikipedia article was never inaccurate and the sources were not misrepresented.TH1980 (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

TH1980. It is really pointless going on like this since you are an unreliable reporter of sources and (b) do not actually understand the import even of the words you cite or paraphrase. I.e.just one more example

If you believe what you just stated

paddy rice agriculture was adapted in Korea and then imported to Japan,

then perhaps you could throw a brilliant light on the extraordinary genetic mystery you just created in stating this, i.e. how did the 'Koreans adapt this Oryza sativa japonica/sinica from China before exporting it to the Japanese archipelago? They, the 'Korean' geneticists in 1000BCE only had a very short time since this species appears almost contemporaneously in both Korea and Japan. Remember that Rhee et al., are cited by you precisely regarding this distinct kind of species to prove Japanese rice is of Korean derivation.

As you waffle out of that bizarre assertion, keep in mind Daniel H. Temple, ‘Evolution of Postcranial Morphology during the Agricultural Transition in Prehistoric Japan,’ in Ron Pinhasi, Jay T. Stock (eds.) Human Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture, John Wiley & Sons, 2011 pp.235-264 p.256, which makes a nonsense of your statement, since he writes :'The earliest wet rice fields in Japan best resemble those from China dated to around 6000 BP.' I.e. either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are pretending to have read widely in the fundamental source literature.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

What you just posted above cites only one source, "Human Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture". However, the statement from that book, "The earliest wet rice fields in Japan best resemble those from China dated to around 6000 BP" is in turn cited to Imamura 1996. Here is what Imamura 1996 says, "In contrast with the former two [routes from China and the Ryukyu Islands], for which their is scant archeological evidence, the third route is supported by a great wealth of evidence that links northern Kyushu to southern Korea... Most Japanese archeologists support this route... The existence of both round and slender types of rice in the lower reaches of the Changjiang presents a problem for the direct route hypothesis, since only round varieties have been discovered in Japan..."TH1980 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Shifting the goalposts again,-it's not the trade route, it's the source for the technology- and failing to understand the question. The source says Japanese wet-rice paddy culture is identical to that in early China. I asked you a question. You are listing as a 'Korean' contribution to Japanese culture the adoption in the latter of wet rice cultivation from southern Korea, where it came from China. I've told you a dozen times, in trade and cultural diffusion, the middle man is not prioritized as the original creative agent, he is the Kulturträger. The Greek alphabet developed from the Phoenician, and via an Etruscan modification of its Western Greek variant, became the Roman alphabet. You're like a Greek patriot listing this as a 'Greek' influence on Roman civilization while burying the fact the idea was Semitic in origin. So what was the specific event in the 'Korean' (all historians save Korean nationalists agree Korea (a unified polity) didn't exist at that time, any more than 'Japan') adaptation of Chinese wet-price technology that influenced Japanese culture? (note to self. Next I'll be told a computer chip developed in Silicon valley and manufactured in China, now inside my computer, is evidence of the Chinese impact on Italy, where I live).

So, stop dodging, answer the question.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You have a legitimate point of view. However, you cannot deny that Rhee et al also have a legitimate point of view when they describe the Yayoi-Jomon transition as "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan". You cannot deny that Satoru Nakazono has a legitimate point of view also when he describes the Jomon-Yayoi transition as "characterized by the systematic introduction of Korean peninsula culture".TH1980 (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me get to the gravamen of this conflict. The issue is one of an editor consistently cherrypicking sources to drive home an identifiable nationalistic POV against another nation, by ignoring the wider scholarship, focusing on 'friendly' snippets torn from context, and often distorting them. This is in violation of WP:NPOV. Outsiders perhaps have difficulty in seeing this because the dispute easily degenerates into talking round quite specific but complex technical issues.

Nationalistic POV pushing

To understand what's going on one should keep in mind the following.

Evidence suggests that between 300BCE and 300CE large numbers of peoples migrated from the Korean Peninsula to the Japanese archipelago, where they introduced rice agriculture, bronze and iron working, and other technologies. Thus rather than the existence of Korean and Japanese peoples there was a continuum of peoples and cultures. The Wa of western Japan, for example, may have lived on both sides of the Korean Straits, and they appeared to have close links with Kaya. The task of historians to sort out the links and patterns within this complex has been made more difficult by the strong nationalist sentiments that prevail in the region today, and by the tendency to project modern notions of national and ethnic identity anachronistically onto these early times. (Michael J. Seth, A Concise History of Premodern Korea: From Antiquity through the Nineteenth Century, vol.1 ed.2 Rowman & Littlefield, 2006 p.32.)

• In the discussion re the spread of rice from peninsular Korea to Japan, this is being spun as a 'Korean' influence on Japan. Korea at the time was a congeries of a dozen different tribal groups, often linguistically, culturally and ethnically differentiated, many of whom also migrated over to the Japanese ar chipelago, and the these diversified groups maintained interactive contacts. The 'influence' is not state to state until almost a millennium later.

Examples of 'we taught them' hyperbole, that require consistent adjustment.

• According to linguist Ho-min Sohn, it "seems certain" that the Korean script Gugyeol influenced the creation of Japanese katakana characters.(Korean Language in Culture and Society by Ho-min Sohn page 58)

This was ludicrous because (a) it was a false attribution and (b) it misread the source (c) creating a nonsense. Not understanding what he was reading on a complex issue in linguistic history TH1980 put the cart before the horse, making out that the later attested kugyŏl system influenced the creation of the earlier attested Japanese katakana system. Not understanding the problem or his source he edit warred against 2 others (here;here and here trying to get back his preferred anachronism in the flawed form rejected by two other editors. I had to step in and fix it. He wasn’t satisfied and reintroduced the identical anachronistic text rejected by 3 editors and , superseded by a rewrite, here.

• Regarding Yamanoue no Okura, one of the greatest of early Japanese poets, he insisted with one loosely phrased source from a non-specialist that Okura was a 'Korean' living in Japan, a Korean influence on Japanese poetry. He stated a controversial theory as a fact in extremely simplistic terms to buttress the 'we-Koreans-did-everything-theory' He edit warred to retain this phrasing of Okura’s being a ‘Korean’. I had to step in and provide the basic facts and eradicate the Korean nationalism he'd introduced.
• Ancient Japanese learnt to build large ships from Koreans. Nonsense.The source was an obscure article from an inaccessible Korean weekly printed 50 years ago Had to be fixed thus. .
• Japanese neo-Confucianism was essentially learnt from Koreans. Utter nonsense. Had to be fixed thus and thus.
• The flowering of the Japanese publishing industry owes to the introduction of Korean metal type. Utter crap. Fixed thus

One could go on for every section in the article, but the pattern, of an initial silly tidbit from a poor source requiring to be totally rewritten by other editors, or corrected, or eliminated as counter-factual, is constant. What are we to do, when 2 editors dominating the content because everyone else has drifted off, underwrite this pointscoring nationalism against another country?Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Everything that I added to the article was cited to reliable, published works written by reputable scholars, but I have never been against adding different perspectives from other scholars in the article. Everything Nishidani added to the article is still there, and though dozens of good scholars will attest to Korean influence on Japanese printing and Confucianism, I welcome adding in alternative perspectives. If I wanted to be as dismissive of Nishidani as he is of me, I would say something like "all the seamstresses of the village of Kume (來目) in Yamato province hailed from a sewing woman, Maketsu (眞毛津) who was given as tribute to the Yamato court." More nationalist bullcrap from Nishidani. Sourced only to a 1,500-year old primary source." Also, another user said "I do not see any arguments that would justify tagging this article or reference with POV/RS tags".TH1980 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

'Everything that I added to the article was cited to reliable, published works written by reputable scholars'.

I.e. Hyoun-jun Lee writing 3 articles for 'Korean Frontier' 46 years ago, used by you extensively? Ernest Fenollosa writing 96 years ago?,etc .etc.Nishidani (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of TH1980

Ok, I'm cutting to the chase now. I'm too WP:INVOLVED now but I'd like to propose that @TH1980: be topic banned from the Korean influence on Japanese culture article. To get a short idea of the amount of headaches TH1980's editing creates, see Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Jomon-Yayoi_transition which I only started based on the fact that another article explicitly states that the wet rice cultivation is from China. As TH1980 admits above, all sources say that but one source may say that both Korea and China (and that's in dispute if it's on point at all) and thus TH1980 feels that this article should only state Korea. This kind of POV pushing, gameplaying and completely misuse of citations (especially obscure non-internet-available citations) is not even disputed, just responded to and then ignored. It is literally a death by a thousand cuts WP:BATTLEGROUND routine as each fight then results in another sentence or two being added from another or the same difficult to find source that may or may not be another misrepresentation which is kind of the point since the article itself is sort of a WP:SYNTH of examples of Korean influence in Japanese culture rather than something that's pretty concrete. I see their point above and while I still think framing this as a GAN argument is why so much time was wasted, we should just get to the actual point here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – This topic ban is being proposed because of a misunderstanding. Ricky81682 says "As TH1980 admits above, all sources say that but one source may say that both Korea and China (and that's in dispute if it's on point at all) and thus TH1980 feels that this article should only state Korea." I never said anything like that. ALL of the sources I used in the Wikipedia article said ONLY that wet rice agriculture was transferred THROUGH Korea. Therefore, that's what I put in the Wikipedia article. Later, I added a NEW source stating that it may have been transferred DIRECTLY from China. The Wikipedia article NEVER said that wet rice agriculture originated in Korea nor did I EVER say that. Wet rice agriculture ORIGINATED in China, but most sources agree that it was transferred to Japan THROUGH Korea. Historian Keiji Imamura says, "the third route [through Korea] is supported by a great wealth of evidence that links northern Kyushu to southern Korea... Most Japanese archeologists support this route..." The information in the Wikipedia article is accurate. Piotrus examined the Wikipedia article earlier and concluded, "I do not see any arguments that would justify tagging this article or reference with POV/RS tags". It's a rather one-sided proposal to topic ban me. Only in death was saying just recently that problems would dissipate on the article if Nishidani were removed[59], and Nishidani is the one who received an official warning from an admin over his behavior.[60] I don't want to remove any editor from the article, but I have been very patient throughout in working to keep the article neutral and to insert good scholarship. I should not be topic banned because of a misunderstanding. Users who want to know how I edit really should read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Jomon-Yayoi_transition to see that I use reliable sources and seek compromise.TH1980 (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It is also claimed that "the article itself is sort of a WP:SYNTH", but most of the information from the article was already compiled in the essay by Rhee et al entitled "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan" and the book chapter by William Wayne Farris entitled "Ancient Japan's Korean Connection". The synthesis was already accomplished by scholars before the Wikipedia article was even written. But if it were really true that the article was all SYNTH, it would have been deleted altogether. Any user can nominate an article for deletion, but as long as this article exists we can use scholarship, like the works I listed above, to build the article.TH1980 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Either you are deliberate or you are massively unable to read these sentences. I don't care about official warnings for other people. If you want Nishidani topic banned, propose that below. I have had a single section going on with you where you admit that all sources say China which were you exact words and yet you still have no issues with just putting Korea there and then playing this weird backpedaling game of "well they all say China but I found this one source that says China and Korea so it's ok to put Korea there" and then "ok, we'll put both China and Korea but one is the 'dominant' theory" and you don't answer how you know what is the dominant theory and so on. Now, we're arguing about inlays that you claim a source calls a "Korean" influence that is entirely in Japan based on a single source with no credentials I can find about Japanese lacquer history that cites later excavations in Korea and who claims that Koreans brought to Japan a design based off a beetle that doesn't exist in Korea. Again, the only other alternative is a WP:CIR problem with an inability to comprehend what sources actually say. And it is a synthesis when the entire laquerwork section is based off a single source's very odd historical description of a single monument and applying that the entire history of lacquerwork in Japan (of which the talk page notes is based on the fact that one author called this the old surviving work of its sort as an statement about all lacquerwork in Japan. It's an mix of sections, each one citing a different source about a different art or style and each one has to be analyzed and sliced and then we just get another paragraph put in about another particular piece of art or work citing another source and we continue onward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Initially, ALL the many sources cited in the article stated that wet rice agriculture came to Japan through Korea. Historians like Keiji Imamura agree that this is the dominant theory. LATER another source turned up suggesting that wet rice agriculture may have come directly from China. I added that theory to the article so that both theories would be represented. Therefore, the Wikipedia article only included the scholarly consensus initially, but later I added in the alternative theory as well. What's so wrong about that? Also, are you saying that you do not believe that Dr. Beatrix von Rague is a reliable scholar? Her book on Japanese lacquerwork was described as a "thoughtful, lucid, and thorough text" by Louise Allison Cort in Monumenta Nipponica.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a beautiful monograph. No one questions that. How you selectively spun its content to score a point for Korean nationalism is the problem. See the talk page: ’I just checked Beatrix von Ragué’ and TH1980 for proof you manipulated it, and had to be forced to alter your distortions only after the abuse of it was exposed.Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I'd even extend it: topic ban both TH1980 and CurtisNaito from Japan-related articles, as proposed/requested by Curly Turkey far above. Softlavender (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The article exists. TH1980, at least (though CurtisNaito bears equal responsibility for this mess) shouldn't go near it. It should be retitled, State Formation and Continental Cultural Influences in Korea and Japan. All modern historians criticize the ways Chinese, Korean and Japanese scholars have at times twisted the record to boost their own national narcissism. Given those 2 premises, one could, without difficulty, expand the article into a neutral, denationalized, outline of the profound links, ethnic, linguistic, cultural etc governing the formation of both states. This cannot be done with nationalist POV pushers deciding what goes in or out. The peninsular impact on Yamato was as profound as the Chinese impact on the peninsula, no one disputes that. Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose When I looked over the talk page, I saw that there were a ton of problems involving incivility and misinterpretation of sources, but TH1980 seems like he might be the least to blame of anyone. A topic ban on TH1980 for this article is not a solution to anything, and how long is that topic ban on TH1980 even supposed to last?Homemade Pencils (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I freely admit to exasperation. Did you examine, not the verbal politeness issue, but the behavioural issues of (a)stonewalling (b)WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT (c) repeated source distortion (d) the refusal for a year to provide links to verify the asserted content (e) the repeated reintroduction into the text of erroneous material which a majority of editors had challenged (f) citing obscure old, non-RS from popular magazines that cannot be accessed (g) the persistent attachment, demonstrating total ignorance of the topic, to stray suggestions that have been killed and buried in serious scholarship (Tokugawa Neo-Confucianism being derivative of Korean thought?) (h) that at least 7 editors who disagree with TH1980 and CurtisNaito gave up on the page, though many know the topic well, out of despair etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not to put to fine a point on it, but Homemade Pencils has been on Wikipedia less than a year, has made less than 220 edits, and his only edit to the article was adding a comma on 27 June 2016: [61]. He clearly also hasn't read this thread or the article-talk archives. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have looked at one of the discussions and I don't see anything that would warrant topic ban, however I would strongly urge TH to exercise caution regarding NPOV and anything along the lines of WP:BRD. I'd suggest we give him a second chance and if in, let's say, half a year people are complaining again, then I'd probably not object again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

6 more months? I took some months to do even a complete rewrite of this trash with 107 notes from mediocre sources to get it right at Khazars more or less, 297 notes from strictly scholarly sources, and that was possible only because the several obsessive POV pushers messing with it and who knew nothing of the topic found themselves in a minority, and stood aside, as the overhaul was overdone. This article, by contrast, is relatively simple, it has a huge scholarly coverage (only slightly used) but can’t be touched because the POV push knows nothing of the topic except googled POV tidbits, and exercises control over whatever any other editor tries to add. Do you understand the topic issues in terms of contemporary area scholarship on these issues? This has been going on for 2 years over several articles, as well. An article like this, written by someone who knows the secondary literature thoroughly, would take 2 days to finish. Under Wikipedia conditions, perhaps 3 weeks. It's not as if huge threads over time indicate that there has been a modification of this stubborn nationalist POV. Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

All the information you have added into the Wikipedia article is still there, so it does not seem like I am obstructing you much right now. Also, it is not me but you who were warned by an admin that your behavior would "drive people away from articles". I am fine with working with others and I do not want to topic ban anyone. In addition, I find it ironic that you are accusing me of using "googled" information, even though this topic ban was proposed because of my use of "non-internet-available citations". I am being accused of both using Googled information and information not available on Google.TH1980 (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Piotrus, you can't make an informed decision without reading all of the talk page discussions, including all three of its archives, plus also this entire ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support, and doubly support Softlavender's proposal of having both TH1980 and CurtisNaito banned from all Japan-related topics. The attrition and exasperation have to end. These two have done huge damaged to these articles and to the morale of their fellow editors. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  Also keep in mind:

  • ArbCom has reprimanded both TH1980 and CurtisNaito for their editwarring on Japan articles in the past, CurtisNaito has a couple of blocks for this stuff.
  • The number of competent editors who have been driven from these pages in exasperation over these two's behaviour: @Shii, Ubikwit, Sturmgewehr88, Signedzzz, and MSJapan: etc etc.
  • Both Ricky and Softlavender started off seeing me as the problem, but when they examined the actual evidence came to see TH1980 as a major disruption. Don't be fooled by TH1980's superficial congeniality. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I concur with TH1980 and Homemade Pencils. In particular, I have to agree that Ricky81682 proposed the topic ban on TH1980 based off a fundamental misinterpretation. As you can see in that link to Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Jomon-Yayoi_transition, the point that TH1980 is trying to make, the point that the Korean influence on Japanese culture article itself made, and the point that the quoted books and articles are all trying to make, is that wet rice agriculture came from China to Japan by way of Korea. TH1980 was correct, the Wikipedia article was correct, and the sources were correct. In this case and in all cases, everything TH1980 put into the article had a reliable citation attached. I don't know on what grounds a page ban can be reasonably instituted here.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Not to restate the bleeding obvious, but CuritsNaito's !vote should be disregarded as he is TH1980's meatpuppet and partner in disruptive/tendentious editing. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support This is much more than a content dispute. It's a pattern of highly disruptive, nationalistic POV pushing that has taken place on other similar articles in the past. If this was a minor part of their editing history, then I might think differently, but it isn't and there is no reason to think that anything will change. I think a wide ranging topic ban will let us clearly see if these two editors are here to improve Wikipedia in general, or if they are only interested in articles that allow them to push their POV. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Careful, folks—these two are going to try to frame this as a content dispute, when the issue is entirely behavioural.
    As to the content issue, there's already a list on the talk page of the different rice routes, some of which don't pass through Korea, and one of which has Korea as a stopover—but these two had the text assert in black-and-white that Japanese rice farming was "based on the wet-rice farming practiced in Korea". Repeat this sort of distortion for virtually every paragraph of each of the disputed articles. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This has nothing formally to do with content disputes, except as shown repeatedly on the talk page and archives, all material added by the 2 has a nationalistic point-scoring direction. You go and fix it, and they tailor it, to retain the nationalism, while being happy to have added some serious scholarship by editors that know the topic, because they haven't provided much of it themselves and it helps to get GA approval for the nationalist POV.
    • This is hard to follow because the issues are technical, but there are many proofs that the two editors have no knowledge of the subject: (a) they supported the hallucinating suggestion in a minor Korean source that Tokugawa Neo-Confucianism owed a huge amount to the stimulus of Korean thinkers. This flags to the competent proof that neither has every had even a grazing acquaintance with either Confucianism or its Japanese development during the crucial period of the Tokugawa.
    • They argued that Korean metal printing accounted for the flourishing of Japanese printing technology in the Edo, and subsequently, modern Japanese publishing industry, again using the same inferior source. Several specialist sources show that this technology was introduced, used for a few decades, and dropped for woodblock printing which accounted for the overwhelming mass of Japanese books for 2 and a half centuries.
    • To make those two edits means you have no knowledge of either topic, that you are unfamiliar with Japanology, and are liable, if you see any quarter-baked opinion in an incompetent source that suggests otherwise, to embrace it and register the error on Wikipedia.
    • The essential objection to their presence is thus this. They repeatedly show that they are wholly out of their depth, that they cannot understand the nature of the objections made by people with a scholarly background in the subject, that they have driven off several competent editors, now retain control of the page, and that all 'compromises' are advanced to keep on board what is a form of neo-nationalist 'Korean'-ascendancy theory in the development of Japanese civilization. The answer is to get them off this page for 6 months, allow it to be overhauled per NPOV and per the complexities of the vast modern scholarship that has been systematically ignored or selectively clipped, and call on the other, exiled editors who left I n exasperation, to return to guarantee that the rewriting is done according to FA criteria, even if that is not the aim. I'll do it, and rapidly, but not if I have to negotiate with high-school level amateurs with a buzzing 'Koreans'-taught-the-Japanese-everything- fringe theory in their heads.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I.e. everyone can edit any topic for several years, and waddle about in a slough-of-despond on any topic. But if the article gets seriously stuck, the aim, of producing encyclopedic reliable articles is lost from view. Piotrus is in favour of letting this frigging about in the sandpit continue for another 6 months, after over a year of incessant dispute. My proposal is to stop the agony column, by an immediate rewrite free of humming and haaing, that will more or less produce what Wikipedia claims it aspires to create, under competent collegial supervision. It's not how I want to spend a month this summer, but I'll do it, if asked, just as I did, with User:Tom Reedy for the 10 year old agony page Shakespeare Authorship Question, damned to its decennial mess by a POV crowd, which we extricated and drove to FA status, and then on Khazars. Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The point in that discussion is that other articles have no issues with explaining that this came from China. TH1980 admits that all sources state that it came from China. The only response is that a source partially claims that it came from China via Korea and after much teeth-pulling and review, it's obvious that TH1980 would have no problem stating that it came from Korea without question if no one else noticed it. That is not in the spirit of this project. This project doesn't work on the basis of people writing whatever they can get away with, citing very obscure sources and then other people have to continually police them and treating one side's misrepresentation of sources and correcting their **own** antics as equal to other people having to review and revise their work incessantly. The point of the matter is, the actual quality of work that TH1980 brings pails in comparison to the amount of time and energy that has to be spent policing it to make sure TH1980 isn't playing some game here. Frankly, to me, that is the worst kind of editor to have around here. If not topic banned, the talk page seems to be filled with point after point of erroneous and erroneous citations and the only response continues to be "well, you caught me there, so let me adjust it slightly and add a bunch more stuff for you to challenge next." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not what the article or the sources indicated. The article only said that wet rice cultivation came to Japan through Korea. ALL the sources I had, including by historians like Keiji Imamura, Song-nai Rhee, Gina Barnes, and Satoru Nakazono, entirely agreed with this. NONE of these sources could possibly be called "obscure" by anyone. The article always said the same thing as the leading scholars: wet rice cultivation came to Japan through Korea.TH1980 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No, virtually all the sources make it clear that the issue has never been settled and that there are several theories by which rice either bypassed Korea entirely or only passed through, while the article states in black-and-white that Japanese rice farming was based on Korean prictices. But look—you're trying to obfuscate this again by making it look like it's a content dispute. Ricky81682, you should stop talking about the rice—it's a game these two are playing to make it seem like this is an isolated content dispute, rather than a protracted behoviour issue spanning years over a number of articles. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support I clearly see this as malicious and a competence issue. At best they are simply unable to edit constructively, at worst nationalistic POV cherrypicking. I can't see this as a net positive for wikipedia. Tivanir2 (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• @Nishidani and Ricky81682: The supports since your own are calling for the TBAN to include CurtisNaito, and to expand its breadth. Could you clarify for the closer where you stand on those points? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think any measure should be restricted to this page. The problems I see there with both editors precede this of course - we've had the same issues on other pages earlier.Since they appear to tagteam, the measure taken for one ought to apply to the other, and at least one of the very bad edits I noted above comes straight from Curtis Naito. However, this is a consensual republic, I don't believe in severity. I only believe we are here strictly to write reliable articles, competently, collegially, and in an environment of trust that is not undermined by repeatedly flawed additions that require surgery. This one evidently can't be edited by either because they refuse to, or cannot understand, objections to their abuse of sources going back years. It will take a month or two to fix. I am suggesting a topic ban for 6 months at least from this article. If that is in place, it would serve as a warning that there is a deep problem in their approach, and such a sanction would be on the record for future consultation if the behavior persists on other pages. By way of balance I suggest administrative directions obliging the editors who cannot work with the two to bring this at least to GA level within that period, or suffer sanctions.Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

So much for WP:NODEADLINE. EEng 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

But... there is a deadline... WP:DEADLINENOW Mr rnddude (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for TH1980 and CurtisNaito. It's clear that boosterism is occuring, and TH and CN are promoting a particular line, then fiercely sticking to it. They rarely engage with points raised, but instead deflect with some other point. Several of the diffs shown above involve information that only topic experts could interpret, but it is possible to see that TH and CN deflect rather than engage. Indeed, most of their points on this page involve dodging and weaving. Johnuniq (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. Well stated. Softlavender (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only am I always very quick to respond directly to concerns on the talk page, I have also added far more material to the article than any other editor this past month, always with the goal of responding swiftly to what other editors have said on the talk page. Not a single diff has shown me personally evading any direct question or refusing to compromise with others.TH1980 (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

We're all aware of this game at this point, having waded into the dispute and seen your behaviour in context. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• After reading this mile-long thread and some more I support a topic-ban on all articles relating to Japan, broadly construed, for both TH1980 and CurtisNaito. Enough is enough. Thomas.W ^talk 19:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support I thought these issues had long been put to bed especially after all the ANI threads and even Arbcom. This is ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: This thread shouldn't be archived without a proper close, there has been significant discussion on the topic. NeilN or Ricky81682 is there a way to prevent the bots from archiving this discussion prior to a proper close, or, perhaps have somebody close it now? Note that this thread hasn't been touched for a few days so it may be safe to say that not other parties want to vote on the discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – If TH1980 is editing with reputable sources then his opinion(s) or theory is still valid. I would question these wanting to ban this user just because they don't like this user's edits. If this user is ban then all others who asking to ban this user should also be ban from Wikipedia society as well.KoreanSentry 11:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• No, not it is not KoreanSentry, none of our "opinions" are valid on any article. Our opinions stay off of articles for a reason. We don't base "our" theories off of reliable sources, we're not entitled to have our theories (or opinions) put on Wikipedia. What is acceptable, is to paraphrase (and it must be an accurate paraphrase) of the source material. That is it. No more, no less. As for the rest of your comment, nope. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Note—KoreanSentry has not edited in seventeen months. Their last edit was to the "Korean influence" article removing tags. According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KoreanSentry/Archive, there seems to be agreement that KoreanSentry has nationalist Korean leanings and runs a website spouting pro-Korean, anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese ideology. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Now ain't this downright incriminating—a certain User:Consoleman who signs his comments ~~KoreanSentry~~. Consoleman wearing a false nose, or was the SPI closed prematurely? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

And worse: a certain Consoleman is a moderator of the Korean Sentry message board. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for TH1980 and CurtisNaito. Johnuniq puts it very well and I have nothing to add to it. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Blackmane and ThomasW, and the mountain of evidence above, and in previous iterations of this nonsense.
  We tolerate this crap for far too long. Let's stop doing that. To be clear, as requested above, whilst I obviously refer primarily to TH, I include CurtisNaito, and my support is for a ban from all Japanese related topics for both. Begoon ^talk 14:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support - This IDHT/TAGTEAM/SYNTH/EW/LAWYER/GAME (must I go on?) has lasted for years, and enough is enough. These two do hack jobs on articles to boost their stats and edit war to push their POVs, playing arduous games of IDHT to the point that most editors just give up or get in trouble for swearing/edit warring or some such. I treated them fairly and courteously, and then I found out that this is either a game to them or they are too incompetent to edit here. I applaud those of you who were willing to sift through the walls of text to see the big picture, and especially nishidani for putting up with them more than anyone else. I also want to point out that a few times, in this thread, where TH1980 claims that CT was the only one who told him something (like needing consensus to nom articles), well, he obviously forgot about nishidani, Hijiri88, and myself. Neither of these users should be editing East Asia-related articles, in all honesty, until they can prove that they are willing to contribute in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in letter and spirit, which they have promised and failed to carry out multiple times in the past. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Add Korean Sentry to any sanctions User:KoreanSentry lasted edited Wikipedia 18 months ago. (one single edit) prior to that, he last edited in early 2013. It seems very obvious that this is either a sock puppet, or meat puppet and the only reason for the account existing is that he can jump into debates for the master account saying "me too, me too!" - I suggest indef blocking Korean Sentry, the reason for him being here is nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - This proposal is not supported by any diffs. This can be a controversial topic, so warn all users to stick to the scholarship, but it's obvious in the one link provided above that TH1980 is not causing any disruption. H. Humbert (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing of F1 articles by Rowde (talk · contribs) whilst logged out (etc.)

• ‎92.21.243.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) multiple removal of maintenance templates at Penske PC3 and others and abusive edit summary when removing warnings from TP. A sock of Rowde (talk · contribs) who constantly frequently edits whilst logged out (although the account was only created within the last few weeks) to rm maintenance and other templates (see 92.21.253.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and this edit). A long-term disruptive editor for F1 articles who will not engage or change his ways. See also this edit and this one where pages were restored whilst logged out without discussion or edit summary. Over a period of a year 130+ different IP addresses have been used (list available) making it impossible to communicate with the editor as the IP changes sometimes more than once per day. And if he does see messages, he'll blank the page and can become abusive. (diff) There are discussions at the F1 project talk-page here and here and there are multiple earlier threads as well as discussions at other locations. This editor has been out of control for several months and the F1 project really would appreciate some assistance. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• I will notify both the editor, Rowde, and the IP address. Please ensure that you always notify editors when issues come up about them. May have been to quick to pull the trigger, will revert my edit. Carry on Mr rnddude (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I was doing so!! Please ensure that you allow more time before jumping in thank you. (Reluctant laptop). Eagleash (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that even on the registered account, Rowde, the editor refuses to communicate with others. Tvx1 13:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

More removal of templates at this address today whilst logged out. Eagleash (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, how long does this beleaguered section of the Wikipedia community have to put up with this editor? Long-term disruption in a dozen different ways, particularly editing while logged out and removal of maintenance templates, also repeated tendentious input concerning items for deletion, and submission of drafts. Communication with this editor, as explained, is usually impossible but always fruitless. Just because this guy restricts himself to a relatively obscure are of the project, does not mean he should be allowed to disrupt it ad infinitum. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Again removal of template here. Eagleash (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

And again here. Eagleash (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And again here. Eagleash (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of MfD notice here. Eagleash (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Although the MfD notice was restored, it was quickly removed again here. Eagleash (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

After logging in, the editor moved the article to mainspace and some of it was subsequently deleted by Diannaa (who has blocked the ed. in the past) as copy-vio. Several articles have had to be deleted in the past as copy-vios and the F1 Proj. are aware that the editor copy & pastes from somewhere but have often been unable to 100% identify the source. Eagleash (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Again removal of template here. Eagleash (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ditto the above here. Eagleash (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment/Question: If it's just a few articles, would (longterm) semi-protection via WP:RFPP be a workable solution? Or an admin reading this could longterm semi the articles if you provide a list. Softlavender (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: It has been suggested before that RFPP could be a solution and occasionally pages have been protected. However, generally, the F1 project feel that it is not practical in view of the number of pages he has already, and could potentially, edit. It would be necessary probably to protect every F1 article and possibly a number relating to other forms of motorsport also. In fact Softlavender you suggested this last October here, which was the first time this editor was blocked. Eagleash (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Could an admin please look into this and take action? See previous ANI, where Diannaa instituted hard rangeblocks for one week. Softlavender (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There were two further blocks by Diannaa around the same time. Eagleash (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Earlier, recent, removal of templates here and here. Eagleash (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance tag here and here. Eagleash (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The second of those two edits removed the PROD notice and replaced it with an Admin closing notice which was then removed as debate closed and decision to keep. Eagleash (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Particularly abusive ES here after some to-ing and fro-ing (I hesitate to call it warring) over restoration of inappropriate content to a page which itself fails Wiki F1 proj. notability and will likely be re-directed in a short time. Eagleash (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Requesting immediate IP range-block and a block on Rowde, based on the above edit summary, the editor's failure to listen and respond to Talk page requests, the editor's willingness to edit disruptively while logged out, and a significant recent history of disruptive and abusive edits. The editor has been warned repeatedly, continues to edit disruptively against WikiProject consensus, and refuses to respond on Talk pages.

The IP range in question appears to include 92.21.252.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.21.243.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 92.21.253.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa provided me with the ranges in use at the time of the first block and I still have a record of them as well as a list of all known IPs used to date (beginning last August). (Range 92.21.240.0/20 and range 88.106.224.0/20). I believe However, I'm not sure whether the ranges used are still the same. Eagleash (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Really need some admin attention here

This thread has been here for 12 days so far, without any admin assistance. I'm creating this subthread so hopefully it will be more visible in the sea of massively long threads. Softlavender (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, I sympathize, but when the closest thing to a diff that has been provided to justify the requested IP range block (a pretty tall order) is a link to 92.21.252.128's contribs (where they appear to have removed one template once since the beginning of July) and the fact that they appear to be sock edits from a user with a named account, the faith of this thread appears to be to be archived without result. I have filed dozens of ANI reports more carefully and diligently than this OP and got worse results for my efforts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I should also note that I spent way more time than was justified trying to read through the ungrammatical and bizarre OP comment. Whether Rowde has been disruptive or not (making declared edits while logged out, despite the OP's assumption of bad faith, is not usually considered a sanctionable offense or even a form of sockpuppetry) is a matter that will have to be dealt with another day, I think. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 I'm sorry you find my original post hard to understand. It was rather hurried, but other editors don't seem to have a problem with it, particularly. I also admit I have little experience with this sort of thing and thus do the best I can. As for only one template being removed in July, several other reports have been noted above of similar actions, in the same period. Further as far as this editor's actions are concerned what has been mentioned here is a very small proportion of their disruptive behaviour which, as noted by another member of the F1 project has been continuing over several months. There is also the question of inappropriate edit summaries, particularly the one noted yesterday, and other behaviour patterns previously noted. Eagleash (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Checking the contributions from this IP range (92.21.240.0/20) from the past two weeks, it certainly appears that the vast majority are from probably one editor who is interested in racing articles. Whether that's the same person as Rowde (t c) is an exercise left to the reader. Spot checking those contributions does not reveal anything that is grossly disruptive, other than the inherent disruption in using ~20 different IPs over two weeks. However, we have never required anyone to obtain an account to edit, and we have only attempted to require an editor to log into their existing account when it's been proved they've been abusing logged-out editing or alternate accounts — and this does not particularly look like misuse of multiple "accounts" to me. I don't see anything severe enough to make blocking this editor, or the rest of their /20 network, necessary. If I've missed something, please feel free to gather some diffs (you can even use that handy list from the Xtools report I linked) and ping me here, and I'll take another look. –Darkwind (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory's latest actions

A few days back, I started an AfD discussion for 2016 Ramadan attacks, which was created by E.M.Gregory. Since then, he has committed actions that wander into WP:BADGER territory and fail WP:AGF.

First off, he directly accuses an IP user of being a WP:SOCK account for Ianmacm without providing any evidence outside of the diffs (which don't indicate much of anything), and instead of taking the issue to WP:SPI where a professional could've verified his suspicions.

Second off, he puts an edit summary that assumes the people voting for the article's deletion are basing their arguments on the grounds of WP:IDL, even though these people (including me) have given legitimate-sounding reasoning based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

Third off, he makes it clear in his edit summary that he suspects Ferpalnum and has tagged the user as a WP:SPA, along with more sockpuppet suspicion, though Ferpalnum insists he is not based on when he opened his account.

Fourth off (and I find this one to be the most hilarious of them all), he sends me this message on my talk page, right after he explains why his article should be kept.

Now, it's honestly fair game either way if his article is kept or deleted, but E.M.Gregory's recent behavior is rather troublesome (not to mention irksome) and it needs to be addressed properly here in some way or form. Parsley Man (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above seems to be fairly normal behaviour. That first comment was wrong, the sockpuppet accusation falls under PA and the comment he sent to you was uncivil. On contentious AfDs its fairly normal to note an editor with little or no prior editing experience and it's normal to ask the question about sockpuppets when you think its the case (although he should have taken it to SPI). He's free to have his opinion on why another editor is voting, if he thinks its because of WP:IDL that's his right and he can note it if he likes below their comment so long as he isn't being malicious about it. I don't know why he sent you the message, but, it doesn't seem to be a PA or anything malicious, just a bit sarcastic. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the comment, I'm just going to point out that E.M.Gregory has been active here since 2014. Not sure if that constitutes a "little or no prior editing experience" editor to you, but just saying. Also, I'm not sure what exactly constitutes WP:PA, but given the fact that I was the one who created the AfD (on an article he created, mind you) and E.M.Gregory has a history of what Ianmacm mentions as "failing to assume good faith and commenting on contributors rather than their edits", I'm pretty confident the message he sent to my talk page was a personal attack. Parsley Man (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood. The editors with little or no prior experience on the AfD, not E.M.Gregory. The message he sent you was uncivil, the accusation of sockpuppetry is PA. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. But his assumption that people are voting to delete his article for WP:IDL reasons is still a violation of WP:AGF. I for one won't hold it against him if the article is kept; I just find the material very sketchy and questionable. And everyone has been making sound arguments about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm tempted to start writing "disclosure; non-admin comment" for all of my comments at AN/I from now on because I've been confused for an administrator far too many times at this point. So, Disclosure; non-admin comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt that anyone would confuse you for an administrator. You've been editing with this account since November of last year. Doc talk 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Doc9871, you're being kind: let me just add, Mr rnddude, that those very comments aren't very adminny. No, a person is not free to just post on-wiki whatever they think. That message wasn't sarcastic--it was assholish. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What? Drmies where am I being an asshole, and Doc9871 I've had one user ask me to close their thread as an admin (on AN/I) and I've had one user ask me about a block. They were both very new though. I know anybody who's been here longer then a month would know that I'm not, but what about the complete newbies who just got here. But, whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Drmies wasn't talking about you, Mr rnddude. He was talking about E.M.Gregory. Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the comment that I called sarcastic. Mea culpa, I misunderstood. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm very annoyed about the sockpuppet allegation and would have let it ride if it had been a one-off. However, there is a pattern of failing to assume good faith and commenting on contributors rather than their edits. The request on Parsley Man's talk page is outside the range of acceptable conduct for an AfD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I figure you are referring to a WP:CIVIL issue rather than a WP:NPA issue with the comment on ParsleyMan's page. I also wasn't aware that there is a recurring pattern of WP:SPI abuse, and cannot comment about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Its both. Accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet absent evidence is a personal attack. The comments on ParsleyMan's page fall under civil. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, it's because he's making an accusation without evidence, he did provide diffs for the accusation though, I'll review them now, see if I can see the relation or not. No, no I won't, since the accused has already commented about it, didn't see it was you Ian that was being accused. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

With sockpuppetry there are two things that constitute evidence. Behavioral (so editing patterns, wording, etc) and technical. Technical evidence is gather by checkusers at/after an SPI - they wont go on fishing expeditions just because someone has posted a list of diffs that dont actually make a connection between the two users. Behavioural evidence needs more than just 'look at this'. It needs an explanation of why the editors are connected, what it is that links the two etc. Just 'here is some diffs with not explanation' is not evidence of sockpuppetry. I had a look and the allegation seems unfounded. Unless ianmacm actually was editing logged out (from his comment above the answer to this appears to be no) its an unfounded personal attack (on both the IP and ianmacm) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

70.27.162.84 is Bell Canada so it obviously isn't me. Nor do the edits referred to show any obvious link, other than being opposed to some of the things that were being said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I did have a look, if I were to consider my personal experience with Ian and these comments my conclusion would be this. The first diff, not a similar speech pattern although conflated, Muslim and Islamism showed up a lot on the Islamist terrorist attacks talkpage... now I wonder why that is, it couldn't have anything to do with the people conflating Muslims with Islamist could it? (sarcasm of course). The second diff, there's nothing alike, Ian is in my experience civil even patient, casting aspersions is not his MO. The last diff, anybody, literally anybody, could have said that. On Wikipedia saying "Gone ahead and done away with that section as is..." is like saying "Hello, I am currently doing work" in the real world. The diffs substantiate the accusation of sockpuppetry as much as a broken egg substantiates a murder conviction. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• If one doesn't know what one is talking about one should perhaps not comment at length here. For once (stop the press) I am in total agreement with Only in death: unwarranted sock allegations are personal attacks (they violate AGF, for instance), and these were unwarranted. Thanks Only in death for stating what needed to be stated. This comment, "perhaps send a donation to a hospital in Medina, Tel Aviv, Dhaka, Orlando or Istanbul", that is so asinine that I'm a bit speechless, for once. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I'm sorry, you may not be talking about me. But, seriously...were you? Or were you addressing Mr rnddude... I got confused by your comment there... Parsley Man (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

He's talking to me. Though for which part, I don't know. If it's sockpuppeting, then ok, if its the comment, I'm honestly not moved, it appeared and to me still appears sarcastic, rude but sarcastic. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could believe that the message he sent me was sarcastic, but given that he sent it literally five minutes after he explained why his article should be kept (check the time stamps if you're not convinced about that), plus the other actions he has committed in the AfD discussion, I have a strong degree of certainty that he was trying to force me to change my vote and/or guilt-trip me (in regard to his mention of the "hospital donations"). If the message was indeed sarcastic and nothing more, well, then he should've timed it better, because sending me that message soon after he explained his position in the AfD is a pretty questionable course of action... Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• This is the comment I'm talking about, the comment mentioned in the first section of the case. It's E.M. Gregory's comment. Mr rnddude, my disagreement with you is over your uninformed and hasty commentary on the socking thing, as if making sock accusations is simply a matter of free speech. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• The matter of free speech? I said he should have taken it to SPI, the free speech was for his opinions on why the editor is voting (IDL). I do however apologize and strike my comment on socking, since I was still wrong, sorry am human. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Been sort of following the AFD and !voted early on... gotta say I'm unimpressed with EM Gregory's behavior so far and sorta glad I wasn't the one to initiate the AFD (though I was tempted). EM Gregory recently blanked their user talk page, but there seems to be an uptick in recent problematic behaviors in the past few month, including even a 1 month topic ban on Arab-Israel conflict. Pre-deletion talk page at this link. There seems to be a strong interest in Islamist terrorism, but judging by AFDs, ANIs, and the sanctions, I'm wondering if this strong interest is becoming disruptive or interfering with their ability to edit constructively as part of a team project. There are general sanctions for ISIL articles (WP:GS/ISIL) which the AFD in question is related to. IMHO, the current behavior alone warrants a warning. However, (1) this current behavior, (2) what appears to be an increase this problematic behavior recently, (3) the sanctions for the topic, and (4) the recent topic ban loosely related to the topic make me think admin intervention is reasonable. Someone with a better understanding of this user's past behaviors (like Ricky81682 who imposed the topic ban) might help here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the AfD...you're welcome, I guess. Parsley Man (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you... I think? :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The prior topic ban was based on this close and was based on a combination of massively inappropriate BLP-violating comments on talk page (this and this kind of pointless, divisive, drive-by commentary) and a ridiculous BLP violation changing that a living person had ties to an organization that called on Turks to murder Armenians to stating that the person himself called on Turks to do such that (based on a Swedish-language source) as an "error" was enough for me to drop the topic ban. As of right now, I'm leaning towards making it permanent based on BATTLEGROUND nonsense like this. I'd give some leeway towards it being an AFD discussion but this is getting ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Respond that I first met IP 70.27.162.84 and IamMacM here: [62] (top of page), and you will see how I took the IP for the alter-ego of a long-standing editor. I did not bring it to this board, merely to the talk page of the IP were I was frankly astonished to immediately have IanMacM immediately arrive Here: [63]. I had gone back to IP 70.27.162.84 's talk page to soften my comment by suggesting that the attack on me might have been not deliberate sock- or meat-puppetry, but a careless failure to log in. I did not leave such a remark because the response form Ian (not from the IP, only form Ian at that point) appeared to confirm that he was using the IP to make nasty attacks he had the good judgment not to do in his own name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If you were really suspicious about the IP user, I will repeat myself, WP:SPI exists to investigate such suspicions. There was no need to make direct accusations against the parties involved. Parsley Man (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Respond Editor Ferpalnum weighed in at the AFD on 2016 Ramadan attacks with an intensity and aggressiveness that led me to look at his editing record, which showed that he had started editing only a few days before the AFD began.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"were I was frankly astonished to immediately have IanMacM immediately arrive" Why would this surprise you? you pinged them to the page, of course they're going to respond to the sockpuppetry allegation. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Over the years I have been involved in many AfDs, and this is the first time that one has led to a sockpuppet allegation. As stated above, 70.27.162.84 is Bell Canada so it isn't me and there is no obvious similarity in the writing styles. Sockpuppet allegations should not be made without strong evidence and a formal WP:SPI, otherwise they are just a way of badgering the user.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Respond. From my perspective, 2016 Ramadan attacks is an ordinary sort of article, similar to 2015 Ramadan attacks and in a sort of category with 2000 millennium attack plots; 2015 New Year's attack plots; Rizal Day bombings; 1919 United States anarchist bombings. I was surprised that it was brought to AFD, very surprised that the grounds were OR and SYNTH since the article was based on solid sources and other editrs had immediately started to help build it [64]. I only just now realized that the IP who showed up [65] and blanked material related to well-sourced 2016 Hamas calls for Ramadan attacks was the IP discussed above. Nevertheless I was genuinely surprised, not shocked, just surprised when ParsleyMan started the AFD. Parsley, as you will see from my occassional comments on his talk page, has been hounding me almost from the time he began editing, with what I then described on his talk page as unusual familiarity with Wikipedia and its rules for a new editor. Here: [66] is one of several complaints I have posted on his talk page. I am far from the sole editor to have posted such complaints on his page. His response has been to intensify his WP:WIKIHOUNDING of me. His behavior towards me meets the textbook definition of WIKIHOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." The discussion "Wikihounding and Disruptive Editing" on his talk page on Feb. 16-19, 2016 documents his behavior, and another editor weighs in to advise him to stop. I wish he would. Stop. Instead, he lurks, reading all of my thousands of edits and bringing me here when I, very occasionally, lose my temper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, about the recent edit on his talk page: [67]. I not infrequently suggest to editors who have started AFD discussions unlikely to lead to deletion that they change their opinions where, as here, the sourcing becomes overwhelmingly strong (usually as a result of WP:HEY - it saves a great deal of editorial time when editors do so. As for my other suggestion, I give charity regularly, and it is my routing custom to sent to a medical charity when a particularly distressing terror attack occurs. I find that it alleviates the horror, and, given ParselyMan's emotional involvement with these issues, I sincerly thought it might relieve his stress. I am more than a little surprised that my suggestion that he follow such a common practice elicited such a negative response.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit was a sincere suggestion meant in good faith? If you sincerely believe that, I strongly suggest you consider reading about etiquette and tone in communication. To me and other folks here, it was an insincere, assholish thing to do. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I think you could've worded the message way better than that if you were really trying to be sincere. It doesn't help that that was literally the first post you made right after you explained your vote to keep the 2016 Ramadan attacks article. "The graceful thing to do now would be to reverse your opinion"? With that timing, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were thinking your vote was all it took to justify keeping the article and that you were trying to force me to withdraw my nomination. Parsley Man (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I really would like an uninvolved admin to respond to this. Don't wanna see this archived without a proper conclusion, because I do think it needs to be addressed in some form... Parsley Man (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, EM's behavior has veered from merely annoying to now quite uncivil over the course of his career here, and it's making editing and discussion in the general topic area quite a laborious task. I was considering opening a case myself recently, but didn't notice this until now somehow. I'd be glad if someone could sort this out. ansh666 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't anyone going to address this? Parsley Man (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

To User:Parsley Man, in my opinion there is no action to be taken. And the issues have been addressed, in that this ANI proceeding happened, in which you criticized E.M. Gregory and you obtained support from others who also found fault. All of this is punishment delivered to E.M.G. I have been there in both roles: I have been pilloried here at ANI with people chiming in negatively and I experienced that as the punishment it was intended to be. And I have been here with a legitimate complaint or two or three and found that no one was taking any action when I felt it was darn sure that something should be done. Here there is nothing so darn sure. What you and others seem to focus on most as somehow horrible is that E.M.G. suggested at your Talk page you retract your AFD, just after they argued Keep in the article. That diff has been given three or more times above. I think that the kind of suggestion EMG made is perfectly reasonable and I believe I have done that. When I think the article should be kept, and when I think the AFD nominator can also see that the nomination was not justified (or at least the situation is not like they thought), and when nudging them on to do the right thing can get them to withdraw it. That would cut short the drama of AFD which in general a negative experience, and it would save other editors' time. Obviously you are sensitive and did not interpret EMG's suggestion as a polite nudge to go ahead and do the right thing. You find it foreign and interpret it to mean something it did not, in my opinion. EMG's suggestion to withdraw was followed by suggestion to make a donation, which is unusual, and I can see that you could wonder what was meant by that. Another here said they interpreted that as sarcasm. EMG has replied they earnestly meant it, and that is what I then believe. Assume some good faith here, and wouldn't EMG have gone on with sarcasm if they had meant the first to be sarcasm?

I think this ANI proceeding should be closed. There certainly is no evidence adding up to requiring any negative action; at most one or two or more persons could be advised to be careful how they say things and/or be careful how they interpret things. But if no one who regularly closes things here wants to take it on (because it takes some effort to give a good summary and smooth things over where things should be smoothed), I think it is also okay to just let this fade away without a formal close. Parsley Man made their complaints, they were heard. --doncram 03:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Bless you, Doncram. (I am not certain if this is appropriate, but when I heard about last evening's atrocity, I made a donation to a fund for victims. It relieves the horror better than getting irate on Wikipedia does.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Uh...since when did I start thinking the AfD I started was not justified, or that it wasn't turning out like what I had thought it would? I have absolutely no intention on withdrawing the AfD and will wait until a decision to delete or keep the article is made. Parsley Man (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm not going to vote because I'm far too involved, but I will say that this is not new (or even recent) behavior. Issues with Matthew C. Whitaker eventually (months later) revealed on the talk that the whole article was the result of EMG seeing plagiarism by the subject as "unprofessional behavior." In short, he didn't like the subject and wrote the article as a pseudo-biography to basically discredit the subject as much as possible by coatracked every single article he could find about the plagiarism cases into it while cherry-picking quotes to support said position. He also attempted to tie the 2015 Ikea stabbing attack to migrant crime by Muslims based on rumor alone, and then threw a quote from a Swedish white supremacist politician in to try to make into a bigger deal in the country than it really was. Reality indicated the perp was an Eritrean Christian, and several Swedish editors fixed the issues. I also seem to recall a conversation on a I-P topic talk where EMG fought to call a source neutral when it clearly was not, again because it supported his argument. In short, he edits articles with a goal in mind from the outset, coatracks sources to further that goal, and then can't understand why others don't see what he does when the sourlces often don't say what he thinks they do. He has clear biases, which is fine, except if one is going to write about every single Israeli who has ever been killed, such as Shooting of Danny Gonen, and then turn around and write articles on Islamic terrorism. In short, what is being brought up now as "escalation" is the same behavior we've had all along. MSJapan (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I stand behind my behavior in writing and and continuing to edit each of the 3 articles mentioned. As MSJapan's accusation that I had a personal grudge against Matthew C. Whitaker; it is quite simply false. I have had no contact with Whitaker, his institution or this case, which I read about in the news. I do regard plagiarism as "unprofessional behavior." My error, my first contact with MSJapan, was when, as a still very inexperienced editor leaning the WP lingo by cutting and pasting code from the edits of other editors, I somehow managed to mess up a comment made by MSJapan that I was merely attempting to copy some phrasing from. I apologized as soon as the mistake was called to my attention. She has been flinging accusations at me ever since, on the Whitaker page and on others. Once she brought my editing of Matthew Whitaker to this board; no sanctions were imposed. Her accusations about the IKEA stabbing attack are equally false. This was a stabbing by "Eritrean asylum seekers" my edits are there; I consistently described them as "Eritrean asylum seekers" precisely because that was all that was known about them at the time. You can read my edits. As far as I can tell, her claim that I was supporting a "white supremacist" is a badly garbled account of the fact that I added news reports about an uptick in support for the Christian Democrats (Sweden) and comments made by the deputy speaker of the Swedish parliament, Björn Söder in the wake of the Ikea stabbing attack in a section on "Impact". This was early in the refugee crisis, I was in and out of Sweden and other parts of the continent last summer, watching the migrant crisis develop with astonished fascination, and wrote and edited a number of articles on aspects of it (Hungarian border barrier). In the Ikea stabbing attack article, as with the 2016 Ramadan attacks that launched this discussion, feelings run high, different editors perceive these events very differently, tempers flare, and editors fling accusations. I trust that the closing editor here will read the personal attacks against me made at the 2016 Ramadan attacks AFD (some by editors commenting above,) the intemperate accusations flung by MSJapan on the talk page at Matthew G. Whitaker, and the talk page and edits at 2015 IKEA stabbing attack before rendering judgment. As I said, I am human and I do make mistakes, but MSJapan's description is highly colored.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was talking about at all in respect to those articles, and I had in fact forgotten about your "behavior" on Whitaker - you didn't "mess up a quote", you attempted to associate me with the article topic by editing talk page material and then accused me of sockpuppetry by being the subject of the article. Your "uptick in support" in the IKEA article wasn't supported by sources - you put it in there to make a connection that simply wasn't there. The fact that you were in Sweden and have a heretofore undisclosed "fascination" with the topic might cause an objectivity issue, which seems to actually have been the case now that you've admitted it, again, well after the fact. I see that you've also become concerned enough to start posting apologetics on the talk page of the Whitaker article so nobody "misunderstands" you. Sanctions or not at a previous time are irrelevant - the behavior you are engaging in now is the same behavior you have always engaged in since you started editing here, and that is what is at issue here. Diverting it to specifics doesn't change the fact that you have a fairly lengthy record of doing exactly what it is you're being brought to ANI (once again) for doing. MSJapan (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

sigh. I should perhaps mention that I have had cause to refute MSJapan for his tendency to misread, misinterpret or misunderstand WP policies, or, at least, to mis-cite them to win a debate or fling an accusation on talk pages and, especially, at AFD. For example, on that original Whitaker page she accused me of COI [68] I responded [69]. Today at an AFD for a "Murder of..." article, he wrote that "WP:BIO also indicates that we have to show notability prior to death" to which I responded [70]. I seem to recall that he has made similar assertions, and that I have called him on them, at 1 or 2 other AFD discussions in recent weeks; I cannot recall which discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A short defense of E.M.Gregory

For the past few months, unbeknownst to him, E.M.Gregory has been stalked by an abusive sockpuppet who turns up on whatever Middle East/Islamic terrorism-related article he happens to be working on and reverts or disruptively revises his work and abuses him on the talk page. The incident that sparked this very thread involved this sock (editing as an IP) wading in and inflaming tensions in the middle of a good faith dispute that E.M.Gregory was having with another editor. This resulted in E.M.Gregory losing his cool and accusing the other editor and others of being the sock.

E.M.Gregory is now fully aware of the sock's identity and hopefully won't go accusing other editors from now on. In addition, until fairly recently E.M.Gregory was hounded by a left-wing editor (who is not party to the discussion, so I won't name them) who nominated seemingly every other article E.M.Gregory created for ideological and personal reasons.

I won't defend E.M.Gregory's short fuse and constant accusations of bad faith, but he has created a lot of good, well-researched articles, particularly related to religion, which is a topic which is often sneered at by some in the Wikipedia community. Remember that it takes a lot more work to research and write a new article than it does to vote "Delete" in a deletion discussion. I am also certain that "not notable" is all too often a codeword for "not interesting" to the editor or to the Wikipedia demographic. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh. Who would've guessed that the IP editor was a sockpuppet, but E.M. just accused the wrong person of being the sockmaster. Well, color me surprised. Parsley Man (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but E.M.Gregory should be careful before accusing other editors of being sockpuppets on their talk pages. This is not what talk pages are for. If a user suspects sockpuppeting with good reason, they should file a formal WP:SPI with the diffs involved. Otherwise, it is a failure to assume good faith on the part of the editor involved, and is a form of badgering the other user.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I second that. It also makes the user look bad and could damage credibility, I might add. Parsley Man (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, AnotherNewAccount. It is true that I have sometimes lost my cool, and also true that [[User:Parsley Man noticed this when it happens among thousands of edits because he follows me around like a hound dog on a scent, behavior for which he has been cautioned on his talk page by an editor with whom I an wholly unacquainted. [71]. Certainly, I do feel that I have been unduly harassed by editors who make little effort to be collegial. A particularly remarkable example of harassment was the nomination of 3 articles I was involved with for deletion by the editor who was the harassing me, for what I perceived as political reasons. One was an article that I had created 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush, one was a SeaGlass Carousel (for speedy deletion), and the third was 2012 Paros (Greece) rape (an article I had happened on at AFD). At the AFD on the Route 60 ambush, Nom described the incident as having had "no lasting significance.' (Note that I wrote that article 12 years after the event; far more difficult than creating an article about a recent attack since sources disappear and become hard to find by searching (spellings of perps's name vary; keywords like "shooting" "Hamas" etc. are so common). Still after 12 years of stories in major international newspapers, the incident did seem to merit an article. My iVote to KEEP read: "*Except, of course, for impact on a series of major international legal cases, impact on the public conversation about funding terrorism, and ongoing coverage describing this attack in all its gory detail that have continued to appear in major international media for over 12 years. Please run WP:BEFORE before bringing article to AFD in future. Thank you for backing down on your prod of SeaGlass Carousel, another article that I began. You might also want to consider withdrawing this and your AFD on 2012 Paros (Greece) rape."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Again with the WP:WIKIHOUNDING accusation. Since when have I been hounding you? And really? The AfD nomination of 2016 Ramadan attacks was NOT for political reasons. Parsley Man (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Exhausted and Fed up

I am essentially being harassed, apparently in concert, by two editors, both of whom received warnings in the last ANI "Exhausted". Let's say that I am now Exhausted and Fed Up, as all of my activities since that ANI have been interefered with by the editors in question to the point where the new page I made is page protected, and the AfD pages are being actively sabotaged by mean-spirited votes in opposition to mine.

Here's what I have been up to:

• Creating a new Page Robert Adrian, with 20+ references. (now page protected)
• Bringing the page Tony Scherman, which Maybeparaphrased nominated for deletion, up to the point where it is extremely unlikely that it will be deleted.
• Telling Maybeparaphrased at AfD that it would be a good idea to do WP:Before before nominating an artist who is in a dozen or more museum collections, including the Pompidou.

Here's some of what Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been up to in the past day or so:

• voting at Afd's where I have voted shortly therafter, mostly in the opposite. This is despite having been warned to steer clear. The intention to cause trouble is clear.

• Example 1: Keep vote for an article which I discovered has declared paid editing by two editors
• Example 2: Delete vote today on an article that I worked to add ten or so references to
• Example 3: Delete vote today on an article thsat most every other editor agreess passes [[WP:ARTIST]] after I spent hours adding refs for TEN musuem collections as well as 25 publications and a half dozen good refs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Scherman
• Example 4: creation of a special but public "tracking document", to keep track of the times I have apparently been stalking him/her Newyorkbrad was kind enough to talk to him/her about this in this thread.

• acting in concert with Maybeparaphrased to bizarrely ratchet up the revert cycle at Robert Adrian] with what I believe is the sole pupose of launching a baseless/bogus 3RR report here. The report seems to have been dismissed fairly quickly.

Here is some of what Maybeparaphrased (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been up to:

• nominating Peter Flemming (artist), a page that I created, for deletion. Granted, the notability is somewheat in question. However they were warned at ANI to steer clear of me. Seems malicious.
• Launching a lot of unreasonable nastiness apart from the article facts in the AFd at the above page.
• acting in concert with Fouette De Jame ronde en tournante to bizarrely ratchet up the revert cycle at Robert Adrian] with what I believe is the sole pupose of launching a baseless/bogus 3RR report here. The report seems to have been dismissed fairly quickly.
• claiming harassment on their talk page after I tried to ask for a "can we talk" reasonable compromise and/or discussion.

• Conclusion. If I am not mistaken, we were here a day or two ago and the conclusion was that these editors should leave me alone. I take the above items as clearly not steering clear-- is there any other way to take them? It strikes me as harassment plain and simple, and it is likely that it is coordinated as the two have been passing barsntars for "good work" back and forth on their talk pages.

• Direct Request/Pleasding: these two need to be blocked for some period of time, otherwise this unpleasant activity is obviously going to continue. They have been warned by three admins @Drmies, Newyorkbrad, and Mackensen: but it just keeps going. It has been less than 48 hours since they were warned. Thank you and have a nice evening. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

---

• Comment - Having a tough time figuring out Frdjet as well. History shows the editor performing a decline on Draft:CAOS 101 here and has been an editor only since MARCH of this year? Regards,   Aloha27  talk  02:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Reading the previous ANI, it seems this whole debacle was set off when Fouetté and her (for lack of a better word) meatpuppet Maybeparaphrased accused HappyValley of lying about the substantiating content of one or more citations that, for instance, were not fully visible on GoogleBook snippet view. Opinion on that ANI thread was somewhat divided as to the possible validity of these accusations, although most deplored them since WP:AGF is our watchword. Now it seems that Foutte and his meat/sockpuppet have stepped up their behavior into actual WP:HARASSMENT and WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Before I suggest that Fouetté and Maybeparaphrased be blocked, I'd like to suggest a simple solution: HappyValley says they checked at least one reference at the library. If this is so, simply Xerox the page(s) in question, scan it, and upload it (as a file or PDF) for others to (temporarily) view. (This has been done in similar situations here on Wikipedia, and I can provide examples.) Do the same (provide a temporary viewable copy) with any other originally disputed citation, and if you are able to view a Google snippet that others currently can't, take a zoomed-in screencap of that and upload it temporarily. Do that for every citation that was in the original dispute. HappyValley claimed to have checked all of them, so s/he has or had access to them somehow. If the resource isn't handy, get a copy from WP:RX. If uploading all of these items isn't a good idea, send copies to the disputing parties and/or to a neutral admin(s) to vet. This should settle the matter once and for all, and shut this circus down immediately. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Firstly this is not required by sourcing at all and AGF. Secondly HV already took a photo on their phone which is more than they had to in the previous report. The *simple* way to fix this is either topic banning the two editors from the area (the pointless revert cycle HV has outlined above clearly looks like disruptive editing) or interaction banning them from Happyvalley. Your 'simple' solution forces a user editing in good faith to jump through hoops not required, and by doing so, actually enables the harrasment of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Something funny has been up with, let's call it a "sense" of collusion with those two accounts. If an admin could get in touch with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, s/he has discovered what is seems like concrete proof of off-wiki collusion/meatpuppeting/gaming the system. I won't go into more detail than that as it would violate privacy rules. I can also provide the info, but I am goign to sleep now!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna is more than capable of contacting admins himself, and so are you; no admin is going to contact him/you. Plus read WP:OUTING. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Admins that don't want to talk to me...? Now that's a thing ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Onlyindeath: I have now re-read the original ANI more carefully, and see where some of the citations were linked or photos provided. If the substantiation of the material has been adequately confirmed, then yes Fouetté and Maybeparaphrased need to be prevented from further harassment of HappyValley. I'm not 100% convinced that a one-way IBAN would be the best way. Ideally, in an ideal world, it would; however IBANs sometimes have the effect of exacerbating a situation. I'm more in the mind of a lengthy block for both Fouetté and Maybeparaphrased, because they were clearly warned against this continued harassment just a few days ago, but instead escalated it. I'd go for a Floquenbeam-style one-month block, to be repeated and lengthened if any further harassment/stalking/hounding ensues. Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Providing an excerpt from the source would have solved the original content dispute, but that's irrelevant. A simple discussion would have provided ample sources showing the notability of these artists, removing any need for AfD. It looks like MP is nominating AfD on tenuous-at-best reasons, possibly for the sole reason they were edited by HVE. I believe a warning is merited per WP:HOUND, and if these disruptive practices persist, further preventative actions should be taken. Furry-friend (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Furry-friend, I actually did upload some images of the paper source during the first ANI, but he link was removed by an admin. I believe lots of editors saw it though. Not that I had to, I was just being honest. And as to warnings, they have already been issued in previous ANI. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: I've just received an email from Fouetté, of which the content is two undated emails she sent, one to Montanabw and one to Newyorkbrad. The emails refer to someone on wiki she repeatedly calls "attack dog" (or "AD") who is following her around and stalking her edits and hounding her. This "attack dog" appears to be HappyValley. I wanted to report this because I find it problematic that issues are being "litigated" off-site rather than upfront right here on ANI. Fouetté, if you have grievances against HappyValley, deal with it publicly on wiki. Don't go behind everyone's backs. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@HappyValleyEditor: Just that email shows that Fouette has been hounding HappyValleyEditor. Due to repeated incidents, I think actions against her need to be taken. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Could you please enquire of Softlanvender as to the first two letters of the email address. Thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: can you forward me the emails? My email address is theplatypusofdoom9@gmail.com (this is my wikipedia-only email). ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the other eight. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

nothing. I just chose a random single-digit number. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not going to forward a private email. Softlavender (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I also received an email with content that sounds pretty much like that noted by Softlavender. Likewise, it contained a copy of a message sent to Newyorkbrad. I am monitoring this situation and not taking a position here at the moment, but I am concerned about the behavior of @HappyValleyEditor: on some other articles related to AfD, so I cannot say that HappyValleyEditor is necessarily an innocent victim. I am concerned that we not make a rush to judgement. My suggestion is that for now, both stay away from articles the other has edited, and both probably need to avoid AfD unless it is an article they themselves have created or recently expanded. Montanabw^(talk) 19:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

And the first two letters of the email account are...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, if I'm not an "innocent victim", are you saying by extension that I deserve some of the harassment and hounding that has been happening? I don't think anyone deserves that. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I am taking no position as to who may be the guilty party at this point. I think you both need to stay away from each other. Montanabw^(talk) 21:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

My issue is that saying "stay away from each other" won't work. An interaction ban will just cause drama, and probably not be followed. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

In line with the note posts above froEndersoftlm softlavender and Montana, I too was sent a copy of the email they must be referring to here. I was astounded by the actual events that Fayette has been put through over the past 60 days or so. All of that said, between the contents of that email and the sickeningly detailed post by post intricate detail of what I and Fourth have been posting and discussing all over Wikipedia is concrete proof that happy is guilty of WP:HOUNDING her. For him to say that her votes at AFD are malicious is weird. I have also been being seemed out by happy. I banned him from posting at my talk page. He has violated that request four times already. I asked for help from three admins to get him to stop posting on my webpage from three admins. AFAIK, no one one has even spoken to him about that. I told him on my talk page thwouldn't not want contact me. His response was that only being able to communicate through admins us not ideal. I told him to figure something out. I had no idea it would be another waste of time and where he gives his own testimony of stalking and hounding Fayette and now myself. The most serious violation that has been done by far, is his behavior at the AFD s. I am alleging rather than accusing thathappy is causing disruption at multiple ADDs primarily by commenting on editors and not the merits of the articles. I think maybe he is attempting to influence the AFD outcomes, for whatever his real agenda is. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybeparaphrased, perhaps you could explain this edit? It's strange that an email address ended up at the top of your 3rr report.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd support blocks for Fouetté and Maybeparaphrased at this point. I'd also support an SPI investigation to settle whether it's meatpuppetry or something more. The nonsense arbitration request that Fouetté just opened caps it. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, so now you are attempting to out an editor right here in an ANI. Attention @Softlavender your advice to happy went unheeded. Can you or some other admins. Delete this outing attempt at ANI by Happy valleY editor. This out is getting serious and out of hand. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to the edit above of 01:05 by HappyValleyEditor here [72], then it's not an outing attempt, the information was explicitly put on Wikipedia by you. That said, it may be worth deleting. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually emailed two admins and Oversight today with requests to delete the email address mentioned in the edit, but no one seemed interested in doing so. And, as Mr rnddude points out, I am not the one who put it there. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

May I ask why you would request the deletion, revdeling, and oversighting of an email address of someone harassing you, which you did not post, and which, in your posts below, you are now overtly using as ammunition to bolster your own case against them? Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

To cover my own ass. After the JytDog incident, I did not want to be accused of outing. So I cehcked with Oversight and admins, who all declined to delete the material. Since it is fair game, I posted it.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, this is getting ridiculous. We have three editors all alleging harassment by other parties, and relying on offwiki email chains that only a few people on each side are privy to. As far as I know, no one editor has actually seen all of the evidence. As an uninvolved admin, perhaps all involved parties could send me your respective evidence to Special:EmailUser/The Wordsmith? I don't see this getting solved with vague insinuations of harassment that can't be substantiated. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, in my opinion the very last thing we need is emails being sent to one party, off-wiki, who then unilaterally makes decisions about the case. The problem with this entire zoo is that while HappyValley appears to have made overt claims and provided diffs, Fouette has made claims that are, at least here, completely unsubstantiated. Everything needs to be out in the open, right here on Wikipedia (except for privacy-violating information). Fouette has made repeated claims of on-wiki harassment, and has offered not one single shred of evidence. If there's some sort of email issue, either user can simply block the email address of the other. What Wikipedia and ANI and this thread is concerned with are all the completely unsubstantiated claims, made by Fouette, of harassment. She needs to provide evidence/diffs, or stand down and shut up. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it's a great idea. The Wordsmith is a trustworthy admin, and would be a fair, uninvolved judge. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Just to speed things up, it appears that the email acidentally pasted by Maybeparaphrased above is directly connected to the email listed on the English Simple Wikipedia user page of Carriearchdale, who was permanently blocked a while back. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not the same email address at all, bears absolutely no resemblance to it, and even the provider is completely different. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

By directly conected, I meant that the two emails are operated/directed by the same person. 1. Google carriearchdale and @lollygirllou. (twitter accont provided on wiki by Carriearchdale here) 2. Google the name provided in that post and the earlthlink email. 3. Same individual. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• The amount of bullshit flying around in this situation, from all three parties, is extreme. Since none of the parties seem to be able to articulate a coherent and completely honest case, I'm going to suggest that an ArbCom case be opened by a neutral party, naming all three of these users as the involved parties, and that a thorough forensic putting-forth of actual evidence ensues. If there is wrongdoing, that appears to be the only way it is going to be accurately determined. And if no one is willing to file a cogent SPI, I think ArbCom is the only resort that will clear up this endless and very muddled war, since the users are obviously invested in interacting with each other and discussing each other and warring with each other no matter what. And by the way, I do realize that Fouette opened a bullshit ArbCom case request only recently, and it was rightfully immediately removed for complete and utter lack of evidence submitted and lack of any attempt to resolve beforehand. But at this point we've got endless serious accusations, and serious email nonsense from all three parties, and the only way to sort this all out is for all evidence to be put forth, all in one place, and examined by the team of Arbs. That's my opinion anyway. By the way, please excuse my language here but this entire situation really does deserve strong language at this point, I feel. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a sock here, see above.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If Fouette really is Carriearchdale, and I agree the pattern of behavior is similar, I'd like to point out that Carriearchdale was the most batshit crazy editor I have ever seen on Wikipedia, bordering on the sociopathic. She nearly drove a prolific new user off of Wikipedia by her non-stop inane attacks, hounding, bullying, and ridiculous accusations. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, I understand your frustration. However please slow down and look at what I posted above, ads the link is crystal clear. The earthlink email accidentally posted on wiki by Maybeparaphrased connects directly to Carriearchdale. Back in 2014 when you were part of the ANI that banned Carriearchdale, you called the user's actions "Scary, vicious, totally insupportable and unconscionable". (also, thank you for informaing me that is is OK to say "shit" on Wikipedia,a s it expands my vocab.) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of all of the above. Did you not read my post before you wrote that? I think it's you that needs to slow down and read what I posted above, and also please for heaven's sake indent your post under the post you are responding to. If what you posted was an edit conflict, please label it as such. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Threaded. We were posting almost at the same time.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of evidence

By now, I've received emails from (I think) all parties to this dispute and I've begun to review them. Since there's a lot that can't be posted onwiki, I'm going to continue to examine all the evidence (public and private) and, since all parties appear to find me suitable, will announce my findings tomorrow afternoon. We can handle user conduct issues right here without involving Arbcom as long as we just stay calm and have a little bit of patience. With any luck, this dispute will be resolved within 24 hours. If anybody else has diffs or other evidence, please either post them here or email them to me as soon as possible. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, I will send you some, hope I'm not too late. I don't feel comfortable posting anything after the Jytdog incident, so I am emailing you. Give me 15 minutes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The ARBcom case I recently filed was turned down because I have to have had a ani that I filed against happysad. My ani was quickly closed, and it said to combine or something. I would request that some admin or someone needs to move all the posts and evidence of all the edits and responses in that ani to this one to be fair.

Incoherent unattributed and unsourced multiple copypaste unsigned post by Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant Softlavender (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will leave you an expert . because Awiley warned happysad on hot page for casting aspersions about editors being socks. That was right after who ever closed my ani. I am afraid got mixed or lost. Thanks Tagishsimon! The smoke is going to clear shortly on these silly ANI's, and it will show that User:Carriearchdale is back. Eveything else is really peripheral. HappyValleyEditor (talk) Why is there a non-free image usage discussion being conducted at the COI board? That kind of discussion belongs precisely at FFD. Even if there was a COI at issue, how in the world would the logo image be a COI problem? This feels like dragging people around in separate places just to drag them around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 8:23 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) Hi Ricky81682... If you read the whole thread, it's bascially about one editor wanting to put the same Jesuit IHC monogram inside the infobox EVERY article he creates on Jesuit organizations. That's against WP:LOGO, and it amounts to COI/promotional editing as he is a Jesuit priest. the free/nonfree discussion is peripheral.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 8:26 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) I agree, but that's not a COI issue. It could be a COI issue if you want to frame it that way or else just call it a image usage problem and leave the COI dispute out of it. I agree that the usage is excessive but you'd be better off conducting an RFC on the file talk page or something rather than making it a "COI" issue. I closed similar discussions at FFD and we kept the COI issues elsewhere. It's just easier not to make everything into a personal attack. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 8:41 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) Ricky81682, can you link to the discussion you are talking about? Softlavender (talk) 8:39 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jesuit Social Research Institute et al. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 8:41 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) It was more than the image. It was the a) image use in the ofobox for branding, b) the extremely thin notability of many of the pages (about half get deleted on Afd), c) the use of bad sources, mostly SPS to publish the articles, and d) the editor's vow somehwere in there to create hundreds of these thin notability, visually branded articles and e) the fact that the editor is a priest of the organization he's trying to promote. All of those htings together made it a COI issue. There were actually two COI discussions, and it was never quesitoned as being the wrong place to discuss it. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 8:47 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) "Well, HappyValleyEditor showed me some evidence about a potential sock. It's fairly convincing, but as it is to a twitter account talking about Wikipedia, I'm not going to link to the page, per WP:OUTING. It is convinci≥§≥ng, though. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 9:10 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)" "Well platypus you are much brighter than you drawer companion unhappy. Kudos to you dude for observing WP:OUTING. But your fried may not be so lucky because outing attempt on Fouette have been report to OTRS by at least or three people. So are you brave enough to open the SPI? Just for fun add your name and happy. Put me down and the lovely Fayette too. Hell, put Carrie girl in too! Let some check user shake up the snow globe and let the snowflakes fall where they fucking may! Let's all find out who is who? I will tell you a secret though, the only two socks in the group of five or is it six are you and the sad guy. Check user away. I do have evidence and will post it at the hopefully upcoming extrava fuck in ganza. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 10:06 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"

@Softlavender, please be careful about slinging around the word incoherent in your work amongst the multiple anis this evening. You are being quite uncivil in two anis this evening. You are not showing AGF. Here is a diff for you, since you like on wiki so much. Of course, it looks like the evidence I presented in my ani, has already been archived. hatted, wabbed, and currently is AWOL, and its whereabouts still need to be determined. But only if this is a neutral and fair venue. I was given advice to file an ani on my own behalf as a precursor to the upcoming ARBCOM case. So the whitewashing has begun, or with AGF, I am sure this is just a coincidence. Please have a fine evening. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 05:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see this diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=729124768#toc]

NewyorkbradPlease see this diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=729124768#toc]

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, please sign your posts. Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I will try Softlavender, it you can get happysad to quit telephoning me. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Please also see User talk:Newyorkbrad#Robert Adrian. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Please note both currrent ani cases. When mine got closed with no help a ton of my evidence and diffs are missing. I"m a sure it be must be just some silly mix-up! Thanks Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

None of your "evidence" nor any of the text you have posted has been removed, Fouetté, as a diff shows. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Another bit of trolling by Fouette is here. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

And rightly removed by yourself. However I would advise against removing it form their own TP since they put it there. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." [73] Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 15:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Conclusions

Sorry for the delay, more evidence was submitted than I had anticipated. After careful and meticulous review, I've come to the following conclusions:

• Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as a sockpuppet of de facto banned user Carriearchdale (talk · contribs). The offwiki evidence linking the two accounts was compelling, but I also did my own investigation. After analyzing the userpages (including shared userboxes), patterns of behavior, and especially grammatical quirks, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the two accounts are owned by the same person. Therefore I have indefinitely blocked the account as per uh uhWP:DUCK.

• Regarding Maybeparaphrased (talk · contribs): There was a suggestion made that they were also a sock, possibly of a different user. I looked into it, but the evidence was weak so I am considering this one  Unlikely. It is also clear that Maybeparaphrased and Fouette have communicated offwiki by email, and from the similar edits to the same pages and identical tones it is  Likely that collusion took place per the standard established in WP:EEML#Improper coordination. However, this is not a proven fact. Given that, and given that Fouette is blocked indefinitely, there is unlikely to be further problems so I believe a block or other sanction would be inappropriate.

• HappyValleyEditor (talk · contribs), Maybeparaphrased, and Fouette have all engaged in edit warring, WP:HOUNDING, incivility, personal attacks, and general behavior unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is enough blame to go around, and after spending hours attempting to untangle things it is still unclear who started what. With Fouette now blocked, that leg of the issue is no longer relevant. To resolve this dispute with minimal drama so we can all go back to doing other things, I ask that the community approve a two-way Interaction Ban between HappyValleyEditor and Maybeparaphrased. They both seem to want the other to stay away from them, so I think formalizing that would be the best for everybody. After that, I don't see any reason why this dispute would continue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: I only became aware of this thread recently and if I knew about it earlier I would have commented sooner. Soliciting and evaluating private evidence runs completely afoul of our blocking policies. The community has firmly established that administrators may not base blocks off of evidence that cannot be peer reviewed. I strongly urge that you get in contact with the arbitration committee to sort out this matter. On a second note, please avoid using the {{confirmed}} templates. They are almost entirely used by the checkuser team and carry the connotation that technical evidence was considered in making an evaluation. Mike V • Talk 05:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The evidence had been passed around to several unrelated editors, crossing the boundary into "semi-public" as per EEML. Their content wasn't anything more than collections of diffs and further explanations of things that were posted onwiki. Even if I disregarded them, the publicly available evidence is more than enough to sustain the block, so the block is not based off "evidence that cannot be peer reviewed." A duck is a duck, there was nothing in the emails crucial to the determination. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

EEML pertains to how the committee considers evidence. It has no bearing on how administrators should handle non-public evidence. Even if the evidence is considered "semi-public", an administrator cannot take action on it because it cannot be reviewed by the community and administrators. Non-public evidence falls under the purview of the functionary team and the arbitration committee. You've stated that the content "wasn't anything more than collections of diffs and further explanations of things that were posted onwiki", yet it contradicts what you stated a day ago, "By now, I've received emails from (I think) all parties to this dispute and I've begun to review them. Since there's a lot that can't be posted onwiki, I'm going to continue to examine all the evidence (public and private) ...". If the information was not meant to be posted publicly, why was it circulated to other editors, particularly those who cannot take action? If the block was sufficiently supported by on-wiki evidence, why haven't you compiled it and presented it? Mike V • Talk 17:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one who circulated it, the three parties evidently passed their own emails around to several people, as can be seen above. My earlier statement was when I had just given a cursory glance at the emails and hadn't fully read them, so I was mistaken initially. However, as I have already said, since you are a functionary if you email me, I will forward you every email I received. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• I truly appreciate your Herculean efforts Wordsmith! I think the outcome is correct in terms of Foueetté, however I am a little concerned by Mike V's comment above. I do hope that the info you used can be moved quickly to an oversighter ASAP to be confirmed. As to the second part, where you say "There is enough blame to go around, and after spending hours attempting to untangle things it is still unclear who started what", the original dispute was between Fouette and I, and then she recruited Maybeparaphrased to the effort. In other words a confrimed sockpuppet and I had a dispute. I'm therefore not interested in being punished in any way for the treatement I received from a sockpuppet, or for the treatment I received from people that sockpuppet recruited and who colluded with the sockpuppet to harass me; I OPPOSE the interaction ban proposal. Can I propose something instead here-- a 7 day block for Maybeparaphrased?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose block and favor Iban in the interest of deescalating and bringing this saga to a conclusion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

With respect, I do not see how you can penalize a volunteer editor, who has just suffered a long round of harasssment from an editor described as "sociopathic" above, with an interaction ban. You recognize that Mapybeparaphrased likely colluded with the sociopathic sock. I'm not interested in paying for that in any way. Why would any unpaid volunteer want to pay for the doings of a malicious colleague? It amounts to "sorry that person terrorized you, but we are going to have to Iban you... In any case have a nice evening!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The IBAN isn't really a punishment, it's simply a "I stay away from you and you stay away from me" deal. Just that breaking the deal is sanctionable. You're both free to edit any page (except each other's user and user talk pages, obviously) or be involved in any discussion, so long as you do not comment to each other or interact in any way. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have bedbugs and you get rid of most of them, you stil have bedbugs. The Wordsmith, could you please advise if a checkuser or other technical check was run on MP and Fouette? ThanksHappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a one-way IBAN? I think that was proposed by Softlavender way above. If you're talking about bedbugs, then a one-week ban doesn't do much, if you get rid of all the bedbugs and put a repellent to bedbugs that lasts for one-week, you can still get bedbugs after the week is up. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not request a Checkuser. I considered the possibility that they might be the same person, but when I looked at their editing histories and writing style it was clear that they are unrelated. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not so savvy about how this process works, but when you stepped in I figured that you were going to pass the information to checkuser or Arbcom or something like that. Can we do that for the relevant parties as suggested above by @Mike V:? There are at least two other accuonts that resemble Fouette's irraitonal behaviour that are still active and acting like Fouette. I'm sorry to be such a pain about this, but I think it is important to be thorough given the history with Carriearchdale and the lengths that editor will go to to terrorize the wiki with false accusations and general shenanigans. So, how do we go about requesting a Checkuser? I would have filed an SPI but I am unclear about how to explain the rationale for running the CU. Pinging @Bbb23:..... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Carriearchdale had a history of unfoundedly attacking a completely random, completely innocent editor (nearly to the point of driving them to leave Wikipedia), without any prior interaction. Since they merely repeated that behavior as Fouette, and either socked as or recruited MBP, it seems the burden of the IBAN should fall on MBP. Perhaps a one-way IBAN would be more just. Unless it is obviously abused by HVE, in which case it should be a two-way. I also believe that a block of MBP is in order, for this egregious and blatant campaign of attack. I don't know how long the block should be, but I'd say at least three months to indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  I can back the one-way IBAN, this is clearly warranted. Three month block, I'll have to think about. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• The_Wordsmith You're an admin, but not a check user, so how can you confirm this individual is a sock ? Further, you state The evidence had been passed around to several unrelated editors, crossing the boundary into "semi-public" as per EEML . Wouldn't this run afoul of outing ? If your proof is as compelling as you say it is, why not open up a CU and have this done by the book, after all, we did | have some one else do their own investigation and it didn't turn out so hot for them . Just a thought. KoshVorlon 10:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  On this topic one thing is bothering me, there is a lack of one behaviour that Carriearchdale has, "ciao!!". on every. single. post. of hers that I saw on AN/I she writes "ciao!!". Mr rnddude (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Carriearchdale was crazy but she wasn't stupid. She wouldn't repeat that very obvious tell in a block-evading account. Fouette did similar things though, such as occasionally randomly saying have a nice day (or whatever) at the end of negative posts. Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Take a closer look at their userpages, particularly the infoboxes. There are a few very obscure ones that both of them share. They also share a habit of UNFORTUNATECAPSLOCK and question marks and exclamation points in inappropriate places. There are also other similarities regarding sentence fragments, idiomatic language, word choice, unusual verb tenses etc that I won't go into for WP:BEANS reasons. It is more than enough that I have no doubt. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, fair enough, I don't doubt your research, it's just, some habits are hard to let go of. Note, Softlavender mentions that Fouette slipped up with "have a nice day" comments at "the end of negative posts". That's more of what I was hoping for, slip ups. Although obscure rarely used userboxes are just also good indicators. In any case, if a CU wants to run through it, that's for them. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I spent several hours poring through the contribs of both accounts, and I did catch two instances of that, but I purposely didn't mention it. If you publish exactly how you concluded that it was a sock, all that does is teach the sockmaster to be careful not to make those mistakes next time they create an account. That's why I was purposely vague and only gave enough details to firmly establish the sockiness. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN and 3 month block It's a good idea, as MBP has also been attacking HappyValleyEditor, and was clearly communicating with Fouette. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• @KoshVorlon: Checkuser would be useless here. Carriearchdale has been blocked for over a year, and the IP data isn't retained that long. An account can be a confirmed sock on behavior alone. For example, if an account suddenly started moving pages to variations of "H A G G E R ? ? ? ? ? ?" we would know that the account was a sock of User:JarlaxleArtemis. This case, while less obvious, is still clear based on behavior, history, unique grammatical tells and their userpages alone. Regarding the emailed evidence, all of it was either collections of diffs (which are publicly available), or rewordings of points made above regarding connections with the email addresses, or allegations posted without any actual evidence. In short, nothing that violates the rules on nonpublic evidence because it was already published here. the "private evidence" all parties were mentioning weren't really all that private after all. There's a reason we have a policy for blocking without running Checkuser, at WP:DUCK. However, if MikeV or another CU/Functionary wants to email me, I can forward them all the emails I received to reassure the community that everything is compliant with policy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Since a CU Has not been run against Fouette, MBP and one other account, and it obviously should have ben run, I am going to request one. Could someoenue suggest the best avenue for that? (SPI, or approach Checkuser directly, or oversight)HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• A Checkuser would be helpful in determining if there are sleeper accounts out there. If a CU is run, I'd be very interested in the result of it run against the now blocked sock accounts of Wordseventeen and Jilllyjo. JJ turned out to be a sock of WS and that sockmaster's behavior was eerily similar to what I was seeing in Fouetté (as well as someone else who has a drawer full of socks, but one sock at a time, I guess). In regard to running a CU to check for sleepers, it should be noted that Carriearchdale was still active when the Wordseventeen account was created about a month before CA's block. I think that someone as obviously determined as Fouetté likely already has at least one sleeper account at the ready (and probably already editing). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Winkelvi also The_Wordsmith, you example could be Jaraxle Artemis or an imitator (i.e: A Joe Job). We have checkusers for a reason. If your evidence is as strong as y ou say it is, then his account can be confirmed to be a sock. As of now, there's behavior evidence, but nothing beyond that. I would move that the "sockpuppet" tag be removed from his page as CU has verified that this individual is a sock. KoshVorlon 14:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep up ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, a Checkuser would be useless. Carriearchdale was blocked well over a year ago, and we simply don't keep IP data for that long (data is destroyed after three months). Behavioral evidence is the only thing we have for a sockmaster that old. That said, I wouldn't be against an SPI to look for sleepers. @Winkelvi: If you have evidence, you're the one who should file the SPI. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If a SPI is opened, I would appreciate it if MBP was included. Even though it was evident that Fouette had emailed MPE (and MBP copied the email in its entirety to create an ANEW report), MBP's writing style is more and more resembling Fouette's of late. It's not impossible that they are the same editor, rather than merely meatpuppets. Softlavender (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Evidence is to be submitted in the form of diffs in SPI reports. If someone is to be included, there must be decent evidence to present in order to include them. Start digging... Doc talk 15:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• KoshVorlon, to me and several others it was overwhelmingly obvious that Fouette was Carriearchdale. An administrator does not need permission or an official SPI to block an obvious block-evading sockpuppet. Nor is there any reason not to have the "suspected sockpuppet" template on Fouette's userpage -- after all, that's why she has been indefinitely blocked. For the record, however, it was not The Wordsmith but rather ThePlatypusofDoom who placed that template on Fouette's userpage, and it was malformed. Softlavender (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Concerning SPI: There is certainly very strong circumstantial evidence that more sleeper accounts are out there. For instance, the Carriearchdale account was registered in November 2007, but did not start editing until January 2014. Softlavender (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's another oddity: Bob the goodwin (talk · contribs) opened an ArbCom Case Request to extremely vociferously object to Carriearchdale's block: [74]. When that failed, he stopped editing completely, for all intents and purposes. Softlavender (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: The SPI called it WP:MEAT rather than socking, but there's certainly a connection...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am bob the goodwin, my name is bob Goodwin and I live in mercer island. I thought the indefinite block was too much and advocated but hardly vociferously and lost and backed away. I have given up on Wikipedia because of the personal attacks, and no longer edit. But want to remain in good standing. My experience with Carrie differed from others who ganged up on her to get her blocked

I just now saw that ... although no CU was run. It's just odd that someone would get that worked up over, and go to such extreme ends to try to undo, what was a very legitimate block. Softlavender (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"There is certainly very strong circumstantial evidence that more sleeper accounts are out there." - I'm not sure about a sleeper account, but if a check user or someone involved in this could drop me an email, there's an account I think might be worth flagging up. Three reasons: It's voted in a number of AFDs as Fouetté the same way recently, usually when the consensus is going the other way; It started to edit regularly at the same time as Fouetté; and it started out roughly on topics relating to subjects of French origin or with French connections. I'm not sure it's the same person and it might be nothing, but I have a strong suspicion they at least know each other from the AFD input. Because it's only a suspicion I don't want to name them on-Wiki right now, so if someone can email me I'll link you the details. KaisaL (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC) hi

Maybeparaphrased

Now that the block evasion of has been dealt with, I think we need to look more closely at Maybeparaphrased. I am convinced that s/he is not here to build an encyclopedia. S/he joined in February 2016, and has made ~400 edits, of which 141 have been with Twinkle (about which s/he has already gotten into trouble [75]). Out of those 400 or so edits, s/he has AfDed several notable articles that HappyValleyEditor either created or was the main contributor on: Eric Deis, Peter Flemming (artist), Andrew Dutkewych, and Tony Scherman. In addition, s/he has spent large amounts of time disruptively editing HappyValleyEditor's articles (along with Fouette) -- all four of those AfDed articles, plus Robert Adrian. S/he has been Fouette's meatpuppet at other AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renegade Party, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jörg Colberg. By the way, I'm not entirely convinced s/he is a new user, as s/he put the {{bots|DPL=bot}} notice her talk page after being here for only 10 days: [76]. There is something seriously problematic about her/his behavior and I believe we should be discussing a block if not a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

A block could be for a matter of hours. A site ban? It's not exactly an "either/or" comparison. Doc talk 12:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I assumed an indef block vs. a siteban... still not the same thing but slightly closer to each other. Clarification from OP please! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well: Making no immediate judgement, and sympathetic to Softlavender's point; but, automated or not, I have to note that 61% of those edits are at least in article-space. Which does compare favourably to some, of course. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:26, 11 July 2016

(S oftlavender if you might recall everyone is new at one time. Also if you look back and recall. At the time some IP was mad about reverting some vandalism. The person was really combative . You helped and led the team in discovering.that two or three of the wrestlers or boxers _,Maybeparaphrased (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved your edit, Maybeparaphrased, to separate from FIM's comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybeparaphrased, your interactions with HappyValleyEditor are not good. You've hounded them, tag-teamed with another editor on AfD's about their articles, banned them from your talkpage for no reason, made inaccurate accusations. One example is about this edit[77] where you accused HVE of OUTING[78]and it was you who had done it![79] (on which I called you out). These aren't conducive to a good environment to say the least. I am not unsympathetic to Softlavender's comments, do I particularly want a three month ban, no to be honest, it seems too much. This is a first offence, egregious, but a first, perhaps 1 month or 2 weeks. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This is far from a first offence. It is a long-term unrelenting campaign of attack and abuse, equally as bad as, if not worse than, Fouette's. It was MBP who AFDed all of those articles, and abusively edited on those and others, and filed a spurious ANEW report against HVE. Softlavender (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Others? I am not aware of any others... I noted the link you gave for the AN/I discussion, while the attitude isn't great... know what, I'll look at it again. Also, due edit conflict, wait what? an ANEW as well... I'll take a look at it as well then. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, a completely inaccurate edit-warring report. I know newbies make mistakes, but, to take somebody to ANEW for edit-warring, claim to have followed the required procedures and to fall far short of that. Perhaps I should extend a little more sympathy to you Softlavender, this isn't simply one mistake, it's a pattern and all directed towards one editor. Why? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the point where I knew something was up with coordination betwen MBP and Fouetté: all of a sudden MBP became the attack dog/spokesperson of Fouette. I was thinking "Whoa, where did that come from?"HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• This edit contains evidence of meat-puppetry/off-wiki collusion between Maybeparaphrased and Carriearchdale, as MBP's AN3 report against HappyValleyEditor was clearly copy/pasted from a received email. ~Awilley (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• SPI filed here. Regarding the above discussion, I might note that it is not that hard to find an autobiographical article in Linkedin on the subject of a certian Wikipedia user being blocked. The article discussed gaming Wikiepdia, posting to Jimbo's page and the joys of paid editing and being blocked at ANI by the community. And it had two authors. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, see the block proposal at the end of this thread. I think half the editors on this page have suggested something similar at one point in the thread. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Interesting that the article mentions Daniellagreen, the user that Carriearchdale relentlessly attacked. Softlavender (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• CU was negative. Let's wind this up! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

As MaybeParaphrased has attacked HappyValleyEditor multiple times,I propose that MaybeParaphrased is blocked for 6 3-6 months, and is permanently banned from interacting with HappyValleyEditor (one-way IBAN). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support permanent 1-way IBAN and a shorter block (3 months?).HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per ThePlatypusofDoom and HappyValleyEditor: The block should be no shorter than three months and no longer than six. Although respecting the latter's magnanimity in offering his attacker a reduced block, I note that defence of the project is even more important than defence of an individual. But whatever the community decides that takes, gets my +1. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support a very long block (and one-way IBAN) due to this editor's behavior, which in my view is unconscionable. Softlavender (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support A short block (1-3 months) and indef one way IBAN.Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support A block of no longer than 3 months and an indefinite one-way IBAN (Maybeparaphrased banned from interacting with HappyValleyEditor). Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support a three month block and indefinite one way interaction ban (MP=> HVE). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support It is unfortunate that HappyValleyEditor has been dragged into what has become a rather messy issue. It is very clear that Maybeparaphrased has posted this post at WP:AN3 on instruction from another user. The giveaway clue is: that the post has obviously been copy pasted from an e-mail and unfortunately Maybeparaphrased inadvertently included the e-mail header in the post. AFAICT the e-mail address is linked to the blocked user Carriearchdale, identified via the twitter accounts posted above. Carriearchdale in turn has been identified as operating the sock account Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant on behavioural evidence, so my original suspicion is at least confirmed in part. This warrants a block and as the OP has !voted for 3 months in spite of suggestions of longer, this seems not unreasonable. A one way IBAN is also justified (a two way IBAN is not reasonable as HappyValleyEditor started out as an innocent party in all of this - anything subsequent is clearly the result of frustration). --Elektrik Fanne 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support a six month block at the very least (is a permanent block not an option?) and an indefinite one way interaction ban. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support the one way IBAN. Oppose a block any longer than a month. MBP has a clean block log. Jumping straight to 6 month block is draconian. Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite one way IBAN. The hounding was unconscionable, and despite their contentions, MaybeParaphrased is not a newbie. As for the block, one-month is probably enough, if this would indeed be the first block. I note they haven't edited for the last three days, i.e. since the Fouetté SPI was started. Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support A long block and permanent interaction ban. Coordinated tag-teaming with a sockmaster in a harassing manner needs to be stomped out. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I motion to snow close. No one seems to object to the IBAN, and likewise everyone seems to think that about a month block at minimum, though three seems to have support as well. Either way, this has gone on long enough. --Tarage (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. We don't haggle on the lengths of blocks here like some punishment board. At least, we shouldn't be. An IBAN is one thing, but a 3-6 month block whittled down to "about a month block at minimum" is just not on. Doc talk 06:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not advocating anything beyond what has been voted on above. All I'm doing is summarizing the general feeling and asking for a close. This has been going on for weeks. --Tarage (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Observation It is worth taking into consideration that this experience has succeeded in driving away an otherwise productive editor. --Elektrik Fanne 10:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

If HappyValleyEditor is retired, then this proposal isn't going to prevent any disruption and should be closed with no action. 172.56.36.28 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that if we do not put in place actions to protect editors from the sort of harrassment faced by HVE, we are deliberately not providing the sort of platform to which we can hope that editors such as HVE will return. In essence you're arguing that if trolls are successful in driving editors away, they should receive no sanction because they were successful. That's kinda stupid. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP editor

• User_talk:79.113.133.11 -- Special:Contributions/79.113.133.11

Editing at: Black Sea campaigns (1941–44)

I also suspect that these IP addresses belong to the same editor who is avoiding a block:

• User_talk:79.113.133.80 --Special:Contributions/79.113.133.80
• User_talk:79.113.130.4 -- Special:Contributions/79.113.130.4
• User talk:82.79.47.192 -- Special:Contributions/82.79.47.192
• as well as
• Special:Contributions/79.119.91.223
• Special:Contributions/79.113.129.156
• Special:Contributions/82.79.46.80
• Special:Contributions/82.79.46.173
• Special:Contributions/86.123.121.21
• Special:Contributions/86.123.123.74
• Special:Contributions/79.113.130.255

Please also see discussion with the editor at: Talk:Black_Sea_campaigns_(1941–44)#IP_edits, where the editor would not answer my questions on whether they have been blocked, and whether these addresses belong to them. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging The ed17 and Sturmvogel 66, who have dealt with this person. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• What's also concerning is that some of these addresses have been creating articles on non-notable subjects. Some of them I've nominated for speedy deletion:
  • Romanian gunboat V12
  • Battle of the Chilia Branch
  • Battle of Sulina. There are possibly more. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It may just be me, but non-notable does not meet WP:CSD. Perhaps an AfD nomination might be preferable. Kleuske (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • P.S. The articles were created by an anon who has never been blocked and went through the WP:AfC procedure. It seems to me the onus probandi is on you to show that the above IP's are (probably) one and the same person. I suggest WP:SPI. Kleuske (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
      • For the record, the IPs are all socks of the indeffed user User:Romanian-and-proud. Ed, Sturmvogel, and I have been dealing with this individual for some time now (see for instance the threads here). Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me look into a rangeblock. Katie^talk 13:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Clear block evasion. These ranges all geolocate to the same Romanian city, have no contributions other than the blocked editor's since May 1, and have been blocked for one month:

• 82.79.46.0/24
• 86.123.120.0/22
• 79.113.133.0/24

The two IPs outside these ranges, 79.113.130.4 and 79.113.130.255, make that last rangeblock too big and would catch too much collateral damage. They're stale right now, so they'll need to be blocked individually if they return. Katie^talk 13:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies and KrakatoaKatie. We've been dealing with this IP for quite awhile. He or she unfortunately can't seem to get the points we're making. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Still socking, just blocked User:82.79.45.82. Doug Weller talk 05:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way: Romanian-and-proud = Iaaasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GAB^gab 14:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Back again as User:86.123.126.231. Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Whois is coming back with "Romania Targu Jiu Rcs & Rds Residential" with all of these IPs, and in the same location (as KrakatoaKatie has already pointed out above). I agree that a rangeblock would be huge, in that many IPs would be caught in the net and become potential collateral damage. The connection with the ISP and the location (not to mention the articles created) definitely speak that there's a connection and that these IP edits are (very likely) the same person. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said, the rangeblocks I placed had zero constructive edits in the last 60 days, which is unusual. I almost always find a few good edits in there, but not this time. The larger ranges, a /20 if I recall correctly, did have lots of edits about football and sports, so there's somebody else using that ISP who's here to contribute. If we give our sockmaster enough rope, he'll give us more info for a narrower block. Katie^talk 14:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

For the past couple of months, this IP has been pestering me at Talk:Galați shipyard‎ to move his drafts into the mainspace. I thought it strange he refused to get an account, and said so on several occasions, but grudgingly went along. Now that I've found out the true nature of the situation, I obviously have no intention to continue doing his bidding. The individual in question has taken to dumping drafts into the mainspace - see Galați shipyard‎ and the page history. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits as Special:Contributions/86.123.126.231. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, can I say something? First of: I'm not disruptive. I may be blocked, but the overwhelming majority of my edits are constructive. The fact that I'm blocked doesn't change it. Second of: Do you really think you'll get what you want if you keep destroying my work? Look, I get it that I'm banned. I don't intend to avoid it forever, it's just that I got some work to do. The sooner I finish, the sooner I will start my 6-months hiatus. I don't want stupid pointless wars, just let me do my part and I go. Finally, all I ask is to stop deleting my edits just because it's /me/ who makes them, because you deprive the Wiki of genuine informational value that I bet no one else is willing to provide, and please, just give me a week or so to finish my projects. Give me a few days, stop destroying my work, and I will take my block for all it's worth. 86.123.126.231 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked 86.123.120.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• K.e.coffman, Katie, Parsecboy, GAB, Ed, Doug Weller, Callanecc: Is this situation sufficiently resolved for the time being? My understanding is that this is block evasion. Is it sufficiently resolved at present for this thread to be closed? Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not so sure. He's pretty determined, and he may be back in another range, but others may feel differently. Katie^talk 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not really familiar enough with the situation. But I agree with Katie, looks like this editor is very determined and won't give up, like another we had to range block a few days ago. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Back as Special:Contributions/79.118.113.18. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Verbal abuse

User:Ambeinghari has made an extreme verbal abuse against User:Cyphoidbomb (diff) while editing on Kasaba (2016 film). The personal attack was without any provocative response from Cyphoidbomb or the result of an edit war. The user has not apologized or responded on the issue. Later, he again made a personal remark about Cyphoidbomb on Hammersoft's talk page (diff). This indicate that he has no regrets on his profanity. Behaviors like this is a bad influence on other editors. --Charles Turing (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I came here from the Kasaba (2016 film) article; and would've lodged this if CT hadn't got here first. I recommend Propose a short break from the project to alllow User:Ambeinghari the opportunity to calm down. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The user was previously implicated as a sock of WillShowU, a temperamental editor who was known for abusive ramblings. The CU results were confusing to me, ranging from unlikely to possible. Not sure what that's about, but this sort of antagonistic editing, jumping quickly to calling someone a "motherfucking idiot" is consistent with sockpuppetry. Mike V, Bbb23, any of you sockthumpers got any thoughts on this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 48 hours for the personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There's not much to go on, since the technical evidence for WillShowU is stale. Based on the geolocation, it could be  Possible. I'd recommend any extended block be based upon behavior. Mike V • Talk 22:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Charles Turing, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, thanks, by the way, for being considerate of your fellow Wikipedians (i.e. me in this instance). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A 48 block seems a little lenient for such clearly abusive behaviour and will not dissuade the individual in question from doing so again in future. Propose one month block on Ambeinghari (as a minimum). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Mass changes of England, Wales, etc to United Kingdom

124.106.242.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making a host of changes of England, Wales, etc, to United Kingdom. I am pretty sure this behaviour has been seen before (but can't remember details). Thought admins might want to take a look. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I remember something about this too, but I can't place it. Wasn't there an ArbCom case way back when about the British Isles? Katie^talk 00:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie - That does ring a bell, but I can't place it either... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I tried to do a search for Arb requests with a "United Kingdom" parameter but couldn't find any clear connections with previously-acting editors...will keep poking around as it is ringing a (very) vague bell for me as well. Shearonink (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Found it! The case you were looking for, I believe... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No...don't think that's it. I've had to deal with a lot of WP:TROUBLES crap in the last couple of months and this doesn't really fit that pattern. Maybe it was an AN thread, a topic ban or something. At any rate, he's moved on to adding unsourced content and changing dates and genres, so I've given him a final warning. Katie^talk 09:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it was an Arbcom thing, I think it was someone with an account making lots of these changes, then going on to edit as an IP after a block or ban. Would we be justified in going through the contributions and rollbacking them on sight? DuncanHill (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log are the sanctions KrakatoaKatie is referring to, but seem to be narrower in scope.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, good find, Jo-Jo Eumerus. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the IPs contribs, it doesn't appear that it is making any more of these changes. Is there still an issue that needs attention or fixing? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he keeps adding death dates without citation. "January 17" seems to be his favorite. He spans multiple calendars for events both pre and post Gregorian. I don't know enough to say it's vandalism, but it's odd behavior with absolutely no citations. --DHeyward (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

England, UK or just England? is related. There was a follow-up at England, UK versus England; on mass changes. An IP hopper kept adding UK and wouldn't talk about it. I reverted lots of his edits to drag him to a discussion, but it didn't get very far. Last I looked he simply carried on doing it. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

PS. Also discussed at ANI. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User who only has edits that are disruptive

Every single edit of Jinyushuang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive edit of reversion. This has continued despite a warning. I don't think they've technically breached 3RR but the account seems to exist solely to disrupt. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) Can I ask why you reverted them here LibStar? You restored something which I'd hope in many editor's opinions is not acceptable encyclopedic prose, seeing as it contained sentences such as "[...] in China but NOT in any Western countries, if it was cult why it has not been stopped and shut down in Austrialia?" -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In my defense, I had wrote down my points in the talk page, but these believers from Lu had continually just deleted the information I translated from government press release. The believers are not interested in creating an encyclopedic entry on Lu but rather are more interested to create promotional materials instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• They're new, but that section they're trying to remove is pure opinion and probably ought to go. This is a defensible edit. That said, talk pages and edit summaries are important and we should encourage him to use them. Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mackensen, it would be if they hadn't removed the sources first. Fully protected article for two days to stop current edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note also that the editor has repeatedly created the article DRAGON GUARD. I'm not holding out much hope that this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Aggressive and hostile response at Talk:Elizabeth Dilling

As an editor with a longstanding interest in political biography here at Wikipedia, I thought that it was great to see the Elizabeth Dilling article awarded GA status. There were, however, a number of areas where I felt that the article could be improved, and so I made some properly referenced additions. User:Signedzzz repeatedly removed any and all of my edits (even in an instance where I appended an academic reference to a direct quote that lacked a citation, although they subsequently relented on this point). Repeatedly they provided no explanation for their actions in their edit summaries. I believe that they are motivated by their own sense of personal Ownership over the article. I tried reaching out to them at the Talk Page, and despite my frustration I tried to be conciliatory and friendly, but instead have received aggressive and demeaning responses such as:

"Because you, nevertheless, think it is so obviously shit that it suddenly needs a massive rewrite. So the whole GA and DYK process is a complete fucking waste of time, because you can come along and say they all got it totally wrong and the article has to be rewritten by you. You couldn't wait til it was off the main page: it was so fucking shit that you had to rewrite it immediately. Why is there a GA and DYK process, do you think? Do you think they should be discontinued? Or do you just think the reviewers in my case should be sanctioned for doing such a shit job?" This was then immediately followed with: you have zero respect for other editors or their opinions, yet you talk about "collaborative effort". It is a disgrace"

This use of aggressive and hostile language – a clear contravention of Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and possibly Wikipedia:Harassment – should not be tolerated here at Wikipedia and frankly I'm not really sure how to proceed when this is what I'm up against. Any attempt that I make to present a reasoned argument for changes and/or additions on the Talk Page are met with this kind of response. I thus feel that this is probably an issue that should be brought to the attention of administrators or others who may be in a position where they are capable of intervening. Thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being unfair in bringing this up, but according to Signedzzz's block log, they were given a temporary block for a similar edit last September. Over the past two years they have also received three further blocks for other inappropriate behaviour. Clearly, this isn't an isolated incident. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: Totally independently of the issues raised here, Signedzzz has also been brought before the administrators' noticeboard for personal attacks that they have made against another user in a separate article, see here. We are clearly seeing a pattern of behaviour. Unless administrative action is taken to put a stop to this, it will continue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: Signedzzz's behavior continues. An RfC was opened several days ago to discuss the proposed changes to the article (all of which Signedzzz opposes). At least two uninvolved editors, User:TonyTheTiger and User:Pincrete have come along and given their opinions, and in most cases they have endorsed those changes. Rather than responding to their comments, Signedzzz has now closed the RfC in an attempt to stifle debate, declaring "it was clearly biased". Signedzzz is displaying very severe ownership issues over this article, is militantly deleting any and all additions to it by others, is abusing those who do so on the talk page, and now is unilaterally shutting down an RfC that is showing that most contributors disagree with them. Administrators will be aware that this is unacceptable behavior, and measures should be taken accordingly; an article or topic ban, perhaps?. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)-

nb, I have reinstated the RfC, which was not closed, simply deleted. Pincrete (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And again the RfC has been deleted by zzz despite GRuban having also expressed agreement with many proposed edits. It seems that not only is no one allowed to edit the article, they aren't allowed to edit an RfC on the talk page unless zzz says so.Pincrete (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Signedzzz has now deleted the RfC a total of four times, edit warring in order to so (4 reverts over the course of 24 hours: 00:54, 19:40, 22:30, and 22:53 on 15 July). Administrators, please step in and do something. The personal attacks alone should surely have been enough for a sanction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Signedzzz is now preventing any of the changes agreed upon in the RfC from being incorporated into the article itself (see here). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

And surprise surprise here's some more edit warring from Signedzzz, refusing to accept the legitimacy of the RfC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• "Very severe ownership issues" - no, I just reverted your rewrite, which was of course full of factual errors, while it was on the Main page in DYK. I would have done this on any article, as adding factual errors en masse to the Main page makes a mockery of the encyclopedia, and the efforts of volunteers to maintain any standards of accuracy.
• "is militantly deleting any and all additions to it by others": no, the only edits I have ever deleted on that article are yours, and one other edit by an IP while it was on the main page. (There have been some very helpful edits made by several users, both before and during the Main page slot. And 1 last night.) This is therefore another blatant lie. It is a mystery to me why it is ok for for some users to blatantly lie about others like this. zzz (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

(Non-administrator comment) Both of you are edit warring since yesterday from what I see in the article history. Kleuske (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think protecting this on the m:Wrong version for a few days would help. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to see the page protected. What I want is constructive dialogue on the Talk Page, not edit wars, nor abuse. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why this user can't see that rewriting an article while it's on the main page is unacceptable. The user's actions were worse than vandalism, as the factual inaccuracies added appear to be genuine, and remained for several hours. Thousands of readers were obviously let down by this. zzz (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC) This was done after zero communication, and the user had never edited the article previously. Instead of discussing on talk when I reverted, they immediately opened an RFC, while the article was still on the main page, where they attacked both me and the article. zzz (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

signedzzz, looking at the talk page, you clearly have ownership issues with it. The level of accusations you're flinging and the tone of your writing, not good enough. There's a long set of questions you haven't responded to either. Midnightblueowl, you performed an extensive set of changes, while any article is open to edit and many of your changes are quite minor, some of them appear unnecessary, creating sections with one sentence in them for example and the change in citation style. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I answered the questions, which revealed another factual error added to the main page. zzz (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally willing to acknowledge that changing the citation style was quite unnecessary of me; the sections I created which contained only a single sentence were something that I was working on creating and building until Signedzzz undid each and every one of my edits. I'm not necessarily here to argue over how to improve the article (although I opened an RfC at Talk:Elizabeth Dilling where other opinions on the content additions would be most welcome). In this space, I just want to ask for advice on how to deal with Signedzzz' responses to me, which have been consistently un-civil and subsequently quite aggressively hostile. It's very difficult to even have reasoned discussions about content on the talk page when these are the sorts of responses that I am receiving. The impression I'm being given is that my opinions and contributions to the article are completely unwelcome (despite the fact that I am a Wikipedia veteran with over 80 GAs and 10 FAs under my belt) and that there is an attempt to effectively bully and demean me to such an extent that I will just go away and leave the article under the sole proprietorship of Signezzz – and that's not okay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, I fully agree, my comment about your contributions was more directed to the edit-warring. As far as WP:CIVIL is concerned, Signedzzz, you crossed the line with your comments, but, thank you for seeing a little sense and removing them. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I answered the questions, and the one which was a factual error, I replied: "From an encyclopedic gender neutral perspective, it is not at all clear that this is "valuable information". More importantly, what you added is factually wrong. The cite states "He soon acquired two new mistresses, and the Dillings separated twice before divorcing in 1943." And you omitted the mother's role in the break-in." Mid has now repeated the same question in the RFC section below, stating "I don't know why they would want to omit this information from the article, although its omission might suggest a desire to avoid mention of incidents which paint Dilling in a less-favourable light, in which case we have a neutrality issue at play". zzz (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

None of this is at all relevant here. This is a section to discuss your abusive behaviour. Content dispute is being dealt with at the RfC on the article Talk Page here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm just wondering whether it's ok to civilly suggest I am a Nazi-sympathizer, or whether that is a personal attack. zzz (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I was also pointing out that I gave a response, and then you pretended that I hadn't given one. (And used that as evidence of my fascist POV). zzz (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That's just silly and hyperbolic. Nowhere did I suggest that you were a Nazi sympathizer. I merely pointed out (on the RfC) that deliberately omitting one aspect of Dilling's life (particularly that which casts something of a negative light on her) raises neutrality issues. How did you jump from that to "Nazi sympathizer"? My position is being completely and utterly misrepresented here, in what I believe is an attempt to switch attention away from Signedzzz's own clearly abusive behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You pretended that I hadn't given a reason, and then presented that as the evidence of my pro-whatever POV. zzz (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What? You repeatedly gave no explanation for your reverts in your edit summaries. Moreover your reasons at the talk page were at times vague, unsubstantial, and lacking in any argumentation; there are still arguments on that talk page that you haven't addressed at all. But anyway, that's not the point here. This section is about your abusive behaviour. Stop trying to change the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You pretended that I hadn't given a reason, and presented that as the evidence of my POV: "I don't know why they would want to omit this information from the article, although its omission might suggest a desire to avoid mention of incidents which paint Dilling in a less-favourable light, in which case we have a neutrality issue at play". Do you admit that? (Of course, I had already pointed out that the material was factually inaccurate, among other things). zzz (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

And I thought RFCs were supposed to be neutral? zzz (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, as frustrated as I may be at your abusive, hostile, and belittling behaviour, I will take the opportunity to apologise that my comments ever gave the impression that I was accusing you of being a Nazi sympathiser. I still think that that's a bit of a stretch from what I wrote, but if that's the impression that you gained from my words then I'm sorry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, I'm just pro-this-Nazi: because I refused to explain why this false information should be removed. And you wrote that knowing full well that I had explained. I.e. this is yet another personal attack, with a blatant lie to back it up. zzz (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others. - Not done, opened within minutes of discussion starting. And apparently they are supposed to be "neutral and brief"zzz (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We're really not here to discuss whether I was too hasty in initiating RfC or not (and even if I was, it's hardly a big deal, is it?). Stop derailing the topic of this section: we're here to discuss your abusive behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• The RFC is totally illegitimate, as is completely obvious to anyone. zzz (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Sabotaging a GA by rewriting it while on the main page with false information throughout is definitely "abusive behaviour", as is opening a biased RFC after no discussion. I hope "abusive behaviour" does get discussed at some point. Meanwhile, there's a RFC I'm excluded from, containing personal attacks against me, opened within minutes of "discussion" starting, about how best to provide a desperately needed rewrite for the article that just passed GA review after months of work - because I dared to revert this user's 5-minute rewrite while the article was on the main page - "ownership issues". Can an admin please do something about this? zzz (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

zzz, the RfC was complex, and therefore difficult to answer, I fail to see how it was 'biased' or 'illegitimate'. Even if it were biased, isn't it a bit irrational to insist on discussion and simultaneously unilaterally delete an RfC discussion? How were you excluded from putting your arguments at the RfC? Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC) … … nb I have restored the RfC, which was deleted rather than closed, so that others can judge whether it was 'biased' or 'illegitimate'. Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, I have removed it. Bias is fundamentally obvious: mbo claiming I have ownership isssues because I reverted her errors off the main page, claiming I clearly refuse to discuss - after 1 hour, in which I had already begun answering questions. Removed again. Please don't restore personal attacks. Thanks. zzz (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

zzz, MBO makes a few complaints about 'ownership' among a lot of calmly argued proposals. Asking her to strike them out might be justified, deleting the whole RfC, twice is outrageous. I have never known anybody on WP go to such lengths to stifle the opinions of others, others who like myself have no emotional investment one way or the other, but simply come to an RfC to judge the arguments made. Pincrete (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The RFC is obviously inappropriately worded. What zzz should have done to minimize drama was to approach an admin or veteran editor and ask them to close it and help to formulate neutral wording. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict. MBO added a load of errors onto the main page, I removed them. End of story. RFC should say that. zzz (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(Anyone who wishes to investigate this allegation will soon be able to find that this isn't actually in any way true. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC))

I already mentioned a couple of factual errors on article talk. Significantly perhaps, you got the article subject's name wrong, in the first sentence of the lead section. In the lead section you also added that she was born "to a highly religious Episcopalian family", which you also just made up. Why, I wonder? zzz (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"You got the article subject's name wrong"? What - where on earth did I do this? I see no evidence for this claim whatsoever. "to a highly religious Episcopalian family"; the sources make it clear that she was born to an Episcopolian family and that she was highly religious. Okay, granted, my wording slightly misrepresents the sources and I would have been happy for you to change the wording with a brief explanation in your edit summary as to why you are doing so (but of course, that's not what you did). By making claims that I added a "load of errors onto the main page" you are deliberately misrepresenting my contributions to the article, knowing full well that almost all of my proposed additions have received support from three uninvolved editors at the RfC. Given that you have been unable to convince people at the RfC that my edits are somehow bad, you have resulted to making outright falsities about them here at the incident noticeboard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

MBO thought her 5-minute rewrite is clearly better than the version I spent months writing, and had been passed at GA and DYK, which is why it was on the main page, which is why she even saw it. This is the most insulting and childish behaviour i have ever encountered, and shows a complete disregard for Wikipedia's readers and other editors (e.g., me, the GA reviewer, the DYK reviewer, etc, etc) zzz (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why I should be insulted endlessly because I removed a bunch of ERRORS off the MAIN PAGE! zzz (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"A bunch of ERRORS"... erm no. I used the term "Soviet war heroes" when the source used "Soviet heroes". An error yes, not a horrifically colossal one. Rather you removed anything and everything that had been added to the article by myself; the vast majority of these proposed changes have since been supported by impartial observers at the RfC - at which you decided to simply delete the RfC because the impartial opinions weren't concurring with your personal attitudes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No: I wasn't including that. zzz (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I had pointed all this out here on the admins noticeboard, multiple times, I even said "Can an admin please do something about this", but nothing happened. No one (except Pincrete, apparently) can claim it's not completely illegitimate, with personal attacks, bias, etc. zzz (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You want a RFC, User:Pincrete, about changing a newly promoted GA, because it's not up to your standards? Do you not want to discuss any of your changes first with the article's author, first? Why not? zzz (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest Pincrete and MBO start a Good Article Reassessment. See if the GA reviewer fucked up, and the article is actually shit, like they are saying. zzz (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Since no one has said the article is 'shit' your comment is pointless. Hyperbole is no answer for why specific sourced info, which three incoming RfC-ers think should be included, is excluded. Because you say so? You even delete the RfC, twice. MBO made a point of saying several times that most of your work on the article is very constructive, but no one is it seems is allowed to dare to suggest it might be improved. Maybe we're wrong, but the only reason offered is you say so. I've asked for what the supposed errors/bias/PA's are here and on talk, no answer to date. If you want to own your masterpiece, don't work on a collaborative project like WP. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously she thinks it's shit, or she wouldn't have done a massive panic rewrite while it was on the main page. And then launched a biased RFC immediately, attacking the article and me personally. Either that, or she enjoys vandalising the main page. Or she hates me personally. Have I missed anything out? zzz (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• "Obviously she thinks it's shit"? "A massive panic rewrite"? "She enjoys vandalising the main page... or she hates me personally"? What the dickens are you talking about... this is complete and utter poppycock. It really is. It's hyperbolic nonsense. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Why did you rewrite this GA, and in doing so, add a load of errors to the Main page, then, Midnightblueowl? And why the "obviously inappropriately worded" (NeilN, above) RFC one hour after your errors were reverted? zzz (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• I see you've taken up my suggestion of discussion. See Talk:Elizabeth_Dilling#Comment_on_RFC for Pincrete's idea of "discussion". zzz (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Have I missed anything out? Errr yes, the possibility that 4 other editors (3 neutral) might think that in whole or in part MBO's suggestions might be an improvement. Perhaps we're wrong, then argue that at the RfC, or agree a rephrase of the RfC as actually advised by an Admin here. Deleting an RfC 4 times speaks volumes about your inability to imagine that the article might be improvable. Pincrete (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

{Signedzzz you appear to have been edit-warring (4 reverts in the space of 24 hours; 00:54, 19:40, 22:30, and 22:53 on the 15th of July) to keep the (admittedly invalid) RfC off the article talk page. A inappropriately worded RfC needs a re-word, not complete dismissal. Stop, edit-warring. Can I point out, that NeilN's actual comment quite clearly states "What zzz should have done ... was to approach an admin or veteran editor and ask them to close it and help to formulate neutral wording". In other words, don't remove it yourself, get an experienced editor or admin to reword it or restart it, whichever is the more suitable. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, see [80] zzz (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Really? Pincrete, you clearly did not warn them. You took them straight to ANEW without warning them. ANEW is not a warning, you take people to ANEW after you warn them. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC) I see on further inspection that you want them to receive a warning about edit-warring. You can do this yourself, warning template for edit warring is; {{subst:uw-ew}} . Mr rnddude (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"get an experienced editor or admin to reword it or restart it, whichever is the more suitable" - or just delete it, as I did, since, per WP:RFC, "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others." Barely any discussion has taken place, so deletion is "more suitable". However, I have restored the obviously inappropriate RFC as advised per 3rr complaint. zzz (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, thankyou for the strike-thru. I was most concerned with getting the RfC reinstated and felt, still feel, that removing it constituted a blatant attempt to suppress, not improve, discussion and a blatant attempt to 'tamper with the evidence', which any warning from me would not cause zzz to reinstate. It was restored by zzz only when EdJohnson gave him the choice of restoring or being blocked, so I believe I acted properly. Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"a blatant attempt to 'tamper with the evidence'" -explain. This is the edit in question. Blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence. That is a serious personal attack. zzz (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I do regard anyone deleting an entire RfC as blatant tampering with the evidence. Partially mis-quoting ANI advice as an edit reason, doesn't change that. No involved party gets to close an RfC. No editor gets to delete an RfC ONCE, doing it 4 times is outrageous. If an editor chooses to do it when the input is going against them, it inevitably leads one to think they don't want discussion, don't want others' input, can't be bothered to put the other side of the case, but simply 'delete' what they don't want to read. What you don't seem to want to read, but only take umbrage about is that I and other RfC-ers think many suggestions in the RfC would be improvements to what is a pretty good, but improvable article. Pincrete (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright Pincrete, but what's the evidence? the evidence that other editors want to participate and make changes to the article? I ask because "tampering with the evidence" has unusual implications attached to it, we're not exactly discussing a federal crime here, but, a content dispute on the article talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, three RfC-ers (inc myself) responded to what I agree is a very poorly formed, but IMO sincerely phrased RfC. Most of us agreed with zzz about one point, all of us broadly agreed with MBO about many other points. Maybe we all missed something, maybe zzz is right, but he made no attempt to put his case at the RfC, or elsewhere on talk. The 'evidence' is that others are trying to work toward a constructive outcome, while zzz deletes anything s/he doesn't want to deal with. Since the issue here is 'ownership', that evidence is relevant. 'Destroy' might have been better than 'tamper with'.Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete I was merely referring to the accepted connotation that "tampering with the evidence" invokes (a federal crime in the US for example). The RfC won't be removed again, or, if it is, it'll be met with a block. That's been clarified at AN/EW as I recall. Destroying is in fact no better than tampering in this sense, since the evidence cannot be destroyed only removed (or in some sense hidden). Unless you have the ability to rev-del, it's still accessible to anybody. If needed, diffs can be provided though that will likely not be needed. My main concern now is, since we've dealt with the issue of edit-warring (AN/EW issued a warning) and the RfC has been re-instated until or unless an admin or veteran editor goes over and fixes it, the issue of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Does action need to be taken or is action being requested? outside of ensuring that a discussion happens at the RfC and the content dispute is resolved. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Short answer, I don't know and I am not the prime mover here. Since zzz clearly knows the subject, it would be a dreadful shame to exclude them from the article, but in my short experience s/he has classic 'ownership' problems. I leave it to others to judge outcome. In the end I'm just an RfC-er who got sucked into a wholly unnec. drama. DRN might be better than an RfC Mark 2. Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete:

So removing this rambling PA by MBO - which I "claim" was done so that further users don't turn up and get the full POV anti-me speech - is "blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence"?. What "evidence"? Evidence of what? "Tamper" how exactly? Since this is a particularly strong personal attack, I demand an explanation. Because, for one thing, I still have no idea what you are talking about. zzz (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

In no way, shape, or form does that constitute a "a particularly strong personal attack". Indeed, it praises you on several points wile raising concerns about some of your actions in an even-handed manner. Moreover, Pincrete is right, you are clearly deleting the RfC because it is producing a result with which you disagree; the term "tampering with evidence" is perhaps not the most accurate description of the situation but the point being made is still quite valid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete:So removing this rambling PA by MBO - which I "claim" was done so that further users don't turn up and get the full POV anti-me speech - is "blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence"?. What "evidence"? Evidence of what? "Tamper" how exactly? Since this is a particularly strong personal attack, I demand an explanation. Because, for one thing, I still have no idea what you are talking about. zzz (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No answer. So can an admin look at this decide if I was "blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence" by removing this, and whether Pincrete (or any one else) could reasonably state here that I was blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence. zzz (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

First, my comments in opening the RfC very clearly do not constitute a personal attack as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks so that accusation is totally and utterly fallacious; compare them to your own expletive laden attacks on me which very clearly are personal attacks according to Wikipedia policy. Second, you know all too well that Pincrete's use of "tamper with the evidence" was a reference to the fact that when the RfC wasn't going your way, you deleted it four times, edit warring in order to do so, and only stopped when User:EdJohnston threatened you with blocking, so please quit trying to play the innocent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No answer. So can an admin look at this decide if I was "blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence" by removing this, and whether Pincrete (or any one else) could reasonably state here that I was blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence. Because from where I am sitting, the answer is that I "blatantly" was not. zzz (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I just gave you an answer, in plain English. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Can an admin determine if I was "blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence" by removing this, and whether Pincrete (or any one else) could reasonably state here that I was blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence. zzz (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

zzz, people come to an RfC to give good faith responses to questions. Most of us aren't stupid, we try to ignore any 'bad blood' on the talk page between editors unless it is SO extreme that it becomes impossible to see the question. There are a few 'snipes' by MBO, but nothing that I would characterise as an attempt to invite anyone to 'hate you', no mention of 'shit', 'Nazi' or the other gratuitous terms which have all been introduced by you. We RFC-ers don't know if our opinion is going to be followed, but we do expect that the discussion will be closed and ultimately archived in order that a permanent record is kept. Deleting an RfC, even a flawed one, by-passes that process. It would never occur to me to go to a talk history to see how many RfCs, or other opinions have been deleted from the record. It doesn't happen, EVER and it especially isn't done by an involved party. That is destroying, rather than tampering with the record, as I correct above. You show not the slightest contrition about sabotaging the discussion process. You restored only under threat of a block. Pincrete (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

So you now claim that I was also "sabotaging the discussion process" by deleting this text, is that because users obviously couldn't discuss any more without that comment on the page, and the section heading? Well, that is another interesting theory, but I still want an admin to determine if I was blatantly tampering with the evidence. zzz (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

What we have on that talk page, is a "Checklist" of questions, which I answered, before the questions were repeated below, so that users reading the biased RFC could discover immediately that it is not worth trying to discuss anything with me, and then not notice or ignore my answers. Pincrete states "I don't even know which text you actually object to, nor specifically why." (although I had just restated most of my objections), and the above two users proceed to again added factually wrong material based on a misreading of the source, which I had already explained, stating "You appear to not object to these additions on talk". zzz (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Given that I was responsible for initiating this post on the incident board, I am not the right editor to put forward suggestions for how to deal with Signedzzz's behaviour. However, we now have clear evidence that not only have they launched an expletive-filled nasty WP:Personal attack ([81] and [82]"), posted false accusations ([83]) and behaved in a generally aggressive and hyperbolic manner toward various editors throughout the debate ([84], [85], [86] etc), they have also deleted an RfC a total of four times, edit warring in order to do so ([87], [88], [89], [90]; it is noteworthy that they only decided to delete the RfC after the responses to it began supporting proposed article changes with which they disagreed. Their deletions were an attempt to shut down debate). There are very clear and troubling WP:Ownership issues at play here. It would be appreciated if uninvolved editors or administrators could propose a sanction appropriate to the situation; in doing so I would hope that they take into account the fact that Signedzzz has been blocked four times over the past few years for a range of other offences, among them personal attacks and edit warring. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been following this tangentially, and all I've seen so far is people going back and forth at each other – some who are trying to be civil, and one who needs to calm. the hell. down. I don't know how Signedzzz got it in his head that once a GA is a GA that it's somehow sacrosanct and gets magic GA Immunity from Editing. It. Does. Not.

The content of the article is irrelevant, and further rehashing of the edits in question is not part of this problem. This is about Signedzzz's behavior. I don't think we're to the level of a block yet, but I want Signedzzz to tell us he understands WP:OWN and that he's way, way over the line here. Katie^talk 21:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Emphasis on "yet".142.105.159.60 (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes: I understand WP:OWN and that I'm way, way over the line here, with the tone of the comments. zzz (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And yet there's no apologies for the use of language used or the personal attacks, and you have continued to edit war on the page to prevent the RfC conclusions from being implemented in the article? Even if you understand WP:OWN you are not taking the concerns it expresses on board. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

A Conflict

While I haven't been directly involved in many of the events that led to this filing, I'll try to give the short version. User:Kamel Tebaast made several edits in a short amount of time, possibly to be able to edit WP:30/500-protected articles. After several edits of his were reverted by two editors (User:Zero0000 and User:Sepsis II), one of them posted about it on his talk page. Kamel emailed me for help in the matter, but, because of the private nature of email, I'm not sure if mentioning that conversation's specifics would be considered outing or not. (I will say he didn't follow my advice, other than some bad advice about meatpuppetry that I gave him before I could dig further into the conversation.) Anyway, that conversation got nowhere (other than incivility) and, after a while, one editor posted on the Arbitration Enforcement talk page for 30/500 here. After that, Kamel made a rather uncivil edit to his user page titled "Wikiwashing". I'll admit that I haven't kept up with the other two editors as well as I have with Kamel. I am notifying all three editors via the required ANI template. What should be done? -- Gestrid (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional Comment: I just realized that Kamel knew about WP:30/500, as he made note of it on his talk page under the section July 2016. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like this belongs at AE to me. John from Idegon (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I came here mainly because of the incivility involved, not because if the 30/500 issues. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Users have a fairly liberal free range on their own userpages. I view that userpage as a Wikipedia commentary, probably within the bounds of legitimate Wiki-criticism, and in my opinion not really to the level of WP:POLEMIC or a WP:CIVILity breach. It just looks like a personal opinion to me. On the other score, I recommend never engaging a new user via email -- always keep your advice and interactions on Wikipedia. There's really no reason for anyone to be emailing anyone anyway, unless it's just social. Looks like your other concern is being addressed at the AE link you provided. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll just let the AE play out, then. -- Gestrid (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This user's page is pretty much talking about me and other users. When he wroted "whitewash unfavorable views by redirecting, consolidating, deleting, and renaming articles...redirecting nearly all articles dealing with Israelis as victims of Palestinian terrorism to List of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2016 2015, 2014, 2013…" He reffered to an AfD discussion I started. When he saw the discussion, he changed his user page and blamed those who disagree with him for what he calls "wikiwashing" which is his name for WP:CENSOR, WP:POV and probably WP:IDONTLIKEIT combined.

He was also engaged is some edit conflicts in what is seen by me as his POV pushing, where he modified a legitimate sentence to remove information he didn't like and refered to what he changed as "Self-serving propaganda". After the edit was reverted by another user, he made the edit again some days later, without any explaination or making any discussion about it, and the edit was reverted again, until he made the edit again a day later, with a strong POV edit summery: "It's the Security Fence, not "separation barrier; no relevance to piece, propaganda". He then self reverted himself, probably because he realised he broke 1RR rule, only for making the same edit two days later.

He was also involved in a similar debacle in Palestinian Liberation Organization article, there he made an edit, realised he broke 1RR and reverted himself, only to re-make the same edit two days later.

All of these are from the last 1-2 weeks, I didn't go deeper into this user's contributions. He needs either a warning or a temporary block in my opinion, his behavior is completely unacceptable.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Mop needed on a CHU

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

---

On 30 Jan 2013 Happypantsdude requested a name change to Sassqueen which was done within minutes. The rename appears to have left behind a redirect from User talk:Happypantsdude to User talk:Sassqueen.

He then, within an hour, created a new Happypantsdude account which he has used since then. Nearly all the notices directed at Happypantsdude since then have been placed on Sassqueen's talk page.

This could be explained away as simple misunderstanding caused by the redirect. In considering how to tidy up please bear in mind that Happypantsdude is definitely WP:NOTHERE. All the contributions I can see are self promotional, Peric Lee, User:Happypantsdude, & 李偉. for (;;) (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

...and User:Happypantsdude/sandbox/李偉. for (;;) (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolved for (;;) (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• For (;;), please don't use the "resolved" template on ANI (I've stricken it). Please let us know how this situation was resolved, in your mind. Failing to do so means that other editors must go through a lot of deciphering and evidence-chasing to see what has changed, why, and by whom. Looking at all of those accounts and their talk pages, none of them has been blocked, and he is still creating an article on Peri Lee (User:Happypantsdude/sandbox), so I'm not sure what was "resolved" here. The user now has two different accounts (perfect for sockpuppeting), and is still creating COI articles. Softlavender (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been dealt with. Any further explanation would be totally out of keeping with the level of assistance offered at this forum in the 48 hours the item was live. for (;;) (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, that's not acceptable, especially since the matter was certainly not resolved when you initially pronounced it so. I have summarized my current findings below, for admins and other editors who may read the thread. Softlavender (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I have re-checked now, and the primary and all of the related accounts have now been indefinitely blocked, and the sandbox version of the COI article has been deleted. Softlavender (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

The issues, as reported WERE resolved at that point. It was subsequent WP:DE from Happypantsdude that led to his block and of the alternate account. for (;;) (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and failure to collaborate in capital punishment

• An earlier archiving of this thread seems to have been an error [91], so I restored it. Urutine32 (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I have seen earlier in this page a discussion involving Signedzzz about Talk:Elizabeth Dilling.

I am currently in a similar dispute with Signedzzz. We engaged there is one month in edit war in Capital punishment for which I was blocked. I recognize that my behavior before the block was wrong and I apologize for that.

But since the end of block, I believe to have patiently and obediently tried to follow a proper dispute resolution process as administrator Richwales recommended to me (see here). I first tried for third-opinion and after the DNR, but both times Signedzzz gave very few explanations for issuing important deletions, and the two process only resulted in what the neutral moderator called "personal attacks" (see here and here). More I tried to find a compromise, more Signedzzz reverted other contributions coming from me, just a way to say "renounce, or I will make your life a nightmare".

In Capital punishment in the United States, for example, he even re-created a section whose almost all infos are already in another section of the same article, the History one (see here).

I don’t want him to be blocked (that would solve nothing), in fact I don’t know what to do. I would like to engage with him in a formal mediation for all content on which we disagree, but he will likely decline it, or engage in it in the same way he engaged third-opinion and DNR. Maybe someone of persuasive can convince him to engage in it seriously?

Urutine32 (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You just closed the RFC at Capital punishment in the United States, before anyone could respond. If you think anyone might possibly agree with you about your edits, that would be a way to find out. zzz (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Our disagreements are about too much content (and now in two articles) to be solved by Rfc. Urutine32 (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Urutine32 Explain this edit you proposed recently at Talk:Capital Punishment (hidden in the middle of a long list of inconsequential edits):

• "Most countries having abolished the death penalty have done so "in spite of public opinion rather than because of it""

The source says

• "Many European countries, for example, abolished the death penalty in spite of public opinion rather than because of it" zzz (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you are now beginning to discuss but you can have done so in Talk:Capital Punishment: I created the list (at the express request of the editor coming for third-opinion) for this very purpose. If you want I replace "Most" by "Many European" there is no problem. (You say the other edits are inconsequential, but in the talk page you said that "none of this is going in the article"). Urutine32 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If I made some mistakes I ask only to be corrected: but the content you restored by reverting my edits include many completely unsourced materials, and I will not here ask you to explain about them because that's not the purpose of this board. Urutine32 (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a typical response. zzz (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe, to the contrary, this response is helpful to understand the issue. Urutine32 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that this was not the only bad, POV edit (see [92]) in that list, about which Urutine32 said: "I agree some changes I made previously to the contemporary era section were badly sourced, and I thank Vanamonde93 for having explained that to me here and in his talk page. That’s why I have worked to a better version." (my emphasis) zzz (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The comment you emphasis is about the contemporary era section, while the diff is about the modern-day public opinion section. The earlier version you restored has many unsourced text. Urutine32 (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The thread is called Personal attacks and failure to collaborate, but no evidence is offered either of personal attacks or bad behaviour. This thread (and much of the talk page) is people talking past each other in a way that is incomprehensible to an incomer. IF this is a content dispute (or even a series of content disputes, which appears to be the case), the way forward is RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. Nobody is going to wade through an ocean of bickering. User:Pincrete16:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope this will not deter an administrator to scrutinize the issue. "Personal attacks" is what was said by the DNR official moderator (who deleted it for this reason). Failure to give explanations other than superficial is obvious in Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion and in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion.. Urutine32 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for botched signing. I see no PA's on the linked DRN, merely standard reminders to both parties to avoid them and a single 'redacted', which I presume was unconstructive at least. At present that DRN is still open, it is waiting for you and zzz to indicate that you wish to proceed. Technically starting an ANI is not a good idea while DRN is hardly opened yet. As far as I can see you are both 'sniping' on talk, there and here. It may seem unjust, but you need 'clean hands' at an ANI, nobody is going to spend hours working out who is more 'snipy', or who started it. Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, "personal attacks" is what the moderator said, not me, and I believe my hands are clean. I just ask someone to convince Signedzzz to engage in formal mediation. At DNR, the moderator two times asked Signedzzz why he opposed my edits (at 22:30, 11 July 2016 and 20:07, 12 July 2016), and he just answered he opposed them or nothing at all. Urutine32 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, I have seen zzz launch very aggressive personal attacks against myself on another page, and they have been blocked for personal attacks in the past, so this would be keeping with their wider pattern of behaviour, but it would be best if you could provide specific examples of what constitutes a "personal attack" in your encounters with them? Can you give us specific quotations; clear evidence will be useful. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the diff where the DNR moderator redact "personal attack". It is the first sentence Signedzzz wrote at DNR, and he used it as "summary of the dispute". It was just a reiteration of his last sentence at third-opinion, see here. Urutine32 (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm more frustrated personally by the failure to collaborate than by the personal attack, but the PA is part of the failure. Urutine32 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Poodleboy edit-warring on Scientific opinion on climate change

[93] [94] [95] [96] [97]

Slow edit-war but after I warned them about discretionary sanctions today they still reverted.

There is a discussion at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Where they keep giving their thoughts but the main impetus seems to be they want to say it is only the IPCC rather than a consensus. Dmcq (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

From Poddleboy's talk page, they were warned of edit-warring on 3 July 2016,[98] and at 10:00, 4 July 2016, notified of discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, per decision here.[99] . . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It isn't an edit war, when a good faith edit is reverted once by a fly by. Note the dates. And note that Dmcq is incapable of parsing the rigorous english language being used in the scientific reports, so merely repeats wikilawyer language.Poodleboy (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I also repeatedly pointed them at WP:OR and following sources rather than doing their own analysis, in particular they should look at secondary sources for interpretation. Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Fly by? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE? They seem to have ignored the DS alert I gave them. And resorting to personal attacks.... Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, "Dmcq is incapable of parsing the rigorous english language being used in the scientific reports" is not the sort of language that promotes harmonious editing. Comments like this, and frequent accusations of others being "flybys", are par for the course. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, the parsing comment was on this page where personal attacks are allowed. After all, accusations of violating the rules, and wikilawyering are personal attacks, many of those here end up being unjustified and/or by those in the actual heat of the warring. For them it is just another part of the war when they aren't succeeding on the merits. Look at all the references to "them" up above, yet I'm the only listed here, because they can't address my proposals on the merits. Poodleboy (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Poddle removed a comment on that article's talkpage, which is a BIG no-no.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Is that policy or an unwritten rule that is part of the culture? Because WPA specifically stated that any editor could remove personal attacks, the edit the anonymous one mentioned, removed a personal attack against me and one I regretted following that up. Poodleboy (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The edit I linked to wasn't you removing a personal attack. It was you removing a perfectly valid comment.142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, accusing someone clearly in the consensus per Doran, et al, of being a denier is perfectly valid and not a personal attack? How is it addressing the substance rather than the editor? Poodleboy (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Moves by User:Ykvach

Continued undiscussed moves of articles about Ukrainian cities though the moves are controversial. First, he moved Donbass cities remained by the Ukrainian parliament, though Ukraine has currently no authorities over these cities. I warned him twice. Today, he moved Kirovohrad, though this is a big city, and discussion is needed. A block would probably be in order. The user does not disagree that moves are controversial, he agrees and continues to move. I also had a similar incident with him on Wikidata, where he was changing English labels even though articles were not moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's bizarre. They are an experienced editor with years of tenure. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes it happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding User:Yulia Romero to this request: He just moved it back providing the explanation that the city "was named by a regime which murdered millions of people" [100]. He is aware of the fact that this rationale is not based on our policies [101]. I am somehow starting feeling like in a mental institution.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that I care more about undoing the honouring of people (Sergey Kirov) who don't deserve this (by people who don't deserve us doing them favours (Stalin)) then Wikipedia policies. But in my mind this is not a bad thing.... Besides 1 only moved the page one time because I was angered by Ymblanter unwillingness to open a discussion on the talk page of the Wikipedia-page of the city about a name change. I would like to know why Ymblanter did not do so because it seems very logic to do so.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick question- what the heck has Stalin got to do with it??? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In 1934, after the assassination of Sergei Kirov the city was renamed to Kirovograd as part of a Stalin propaganda campaign. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Excellent demonstration of applied history, cheers Yulia Romero. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not my responsibility to open a move discussion. IMO, any person who wants to move the page should do it, like e.g. it was done in Talk:Dnipropetrovsk (which did not succeed) or Talk:Myrnohrad where it did.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to open this discussion... Hence in my move my edit summary was "Pending discussion". But before I could do this I found my name on this Administrators' noticeboard.... I just did do make this request. "Pending discussion" I was intended to keep the page named Kropyvnytskyi because I care more about undoing a Stalin propaganda campaign then Wikipedia rules.... (I still do not see this (placing undoing a Stalin propaganda campaign above Wikipedia rules) a bad thing.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, Ymblanter! But could you explain me, please, what is the problem with this move? the city is renamed today. Whats the problem? What is the discussion need? You are trying to organasie same situation as with Dnipropetrovsk, when the title of the article is not connected to the current name of the city. I can find only one explanation: you just do not like these changes. But if you will entitle the articles cv the actual names of the cities, it is distructive policy. And this is a problem of yours, not mine! Because my changes is in accordance with currant names of the cities. Teh, I can agree with you in the case of cities on the territories, occupied by Russia, because Ukrainian law doesnt not force there. But, it is not related the city you call Kirovograd! In most of cases, when the city were renamed in Ukraine, the articles were renamed in wiki: Horishni Plavni, Varash, Chornomorsk, Podilsk. What's a problem with, particularly Kropyvnytskyi? --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What you say has absolutely nothing to do with our policies. In addition, it is written in bad faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Honest question: if the city has been officially renamed, shouldn't it be a fairly open and shut issue of WP:COMMONNAME, and preference for post-name change sources per WP:NAMECHANGES? Why should a discussion really be needed? TimothyJosephWood 15:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We see that recently Dnipropetrovsk was not moved (I did not vote, for the record), because RM was closed as no consensus. Kirovohrad is a regional center as well, not exactly the same size as Dnipropetrovsk, but one can reasonably expect that there could be some objections to move it. It is much safer to wait for a week and move it as an RM result, that move it now without discussion and then get move warring between people who have strong opinions about the name of the city. We even run a RM for smaller cities, and they were moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw your changes in Dnipropetrovsk, so dont be surprised on bad faith! I also did not voited there. I am making accent on the fact, that my changes are not cv the rules of wiki. I also hate this stupid new name of this city, same as in the case of Dnipro. But this is not related to the names of the articles in wiki. Both cities have no traditional names in English. If anyone will say that Dnipropetrivsk or Kirovohrad, are traditional English names of these cities, I will laugh! So, I cannot find any explanation, why did you revert the name of the article to Kirovohrad! "People who have strong opinions about the name of the city" is not an explanation is the case of the article title. I cannot find in the wikirules "People who have strong opinions about the name of the city". The name of the article must be connected to official name of the city, this is mandatory! The strong opinion of people you can add in the text. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you completely misunderstand the policies. First, if you do not assume good faith, you should not be editing Wikipedia but should enjoy an indefinite block. Second, we do not have a policy that the name of the article about the city should be an official name of the city. In fact, we have plenty of examples where the name does not correspond to the official name. Third, uncontroversial moves are ok as soon as nobody objects. If somebody objects, or if one can reasonably assume that there are users objecting, an RM should be filed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Ykvach and Yulia Romero, do you both now understand that controversial moves and contested moves require a WP:RM? If you do not understand this, you are facing a move-ban or a block. Softlavender (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes; and I learned my lesson. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about Adam9007 declining speedy deletion nominations

I am concerned about Adam9007 (talk · contribs) continuing to patrol articles nominated for speedy deletion for not asserting importance (CSD#A7) without understanding the criteria. He is removing CSD#A7 tags from articles that have no reasonable assertion of importance:

• Shreyansh Jain SK
• Reuben Haines III
• James E. Wolfe
• Imitiaz najim where in the ensuing AFD , the editor quickly commented "Snow delete:" after declining speedy

Several Dozens of editors have tried discussing this with this patroller on his talk page:

• User_talk:Adam9007#Credible_assertion_in_speedy_deletions
• User_talk:Adam9007#Secrets_of_how_starting_your_own_business
• User_talk:Adam9007#CSD
• User_talk:Adam9007#Removing_CSD_deletion_tag_in_Imtiaz_najim
• ...

None of us appear to be making any progress in convincing him that his wholesale removal of CSD#A7 templates is not constructive so I'd like some additional comments here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There are many people who agree with me when I remove A7 tags. Just because you don't, you think I'm being disruptive. You're not the first person to think that. I am seriously getting very close to quitting Wikipedia over this. I follow consensus to the best of my ability. I really hate being branded disruptive over it. Adam9007 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Branded or not, there are dozens of folks in your talk page archive that have brought this to your attention and you refuse to get the point. It is now disruptive in my opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

So removing A7 tag from articles that has what consensus has decided (strong associations with someone or something notable) is a CCS is disruptive? Adam9007 (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Adam9007 James E. Wolfe and Shreyansh Jain SK are clear A7 deletions – they do not assert significance, plus they're unreferenced. When we talk about association with notability, we're not talking about someone's husband or wife unless that person is notable on their own. Reuben Haines III claims significance as a founder of the Franklin Institute but there's no reference to support that. Please explain your reasoning for removing those first two A7 tags. Katie^talk 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. If working with such a person is a CCS (and i have had people agree with me on that), then being married to in addition to that most certainly is a CCS. References? Irrelevant for A7. Credible (plausible) claims are enough. Adam9007 (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced is not a CSD criteria. It is a criteria for BLPprod, but if people are tagging articles for speedy deletion because they are unreferenced then at present it is OK to decline those CSDs. perhaps in some cases replacing with BLPprod or AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 09:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007 is one of the few editors I've come across that could inject a little more WP:IAR into their editing and little less absolute determination to follow policies and guidelines to the letter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A7 is purposefully a lower bar than notability, and Adam9007 does a lot of good work removing improper tags (e.g. this A7 tag removal that was later overwhelmingly kept at AfD), though like those who apply A7 overzeaously, can also remove them too frequently. The first and the last in the four should absolutely have been speedied as A7. The Wolfe article said he had been a hip-hop music pioneer in Tennessee, which is one of the most important US states for music, so without doing a Google search it could be seen as possibly above the A7 threshold, but a quick Google search of those claims shows that it's likely hyperbolic and non-credible. But the Haines article explicitly stated that he was a founder of two prominent Philadelphia institutions, both of which had articles, and is certainly above the A7 threshold. I don't see a need for sanctions beside a reminder to raise their A7 threshold a bit, check for the likeliness that A7-passing claims are hoaxes or otherwise exaggerated, and to use PROD more when declining A7s. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Patar knight nails it on the head, in my opinion. I have disagreed with Adam before, but I have also seen him properly saving several articles. Speedy deletion operates in a spectrum, and I think it's healthy to have a range of opinions on its application. That being said, I do hope Adam recognizes that he sometimes runs too close to the edge of the spectrum and accept some feedback.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am in the middle of writing an essay in the hopes of avoiding discussions like these. Although it's not finished yet, shall I link to it here? Adam9007 (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope you know that CCS is an Wikipedia:Essays. Not a policy or a guideline. Ayub407^talk 20:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course I do, but Toddst1 seems to be treating it as policy today. Adam9007 (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you provide evidence that "There are many people who agree with me when I remove A7 tags" Adam9007? I don't see any indication of this. At least one page that you removed the A7 from had no reliable sourcing on it. I am uncertain that you understand the criteria for WP:BIO. Early on it is mentioned that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" You cannot establish that notability without references. MarnetteD|Talk 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There have been various discussions over the place where people have agreed with me, not just on my talk page. And A7 is not about notability, who do so many people think that? Adam9007 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If these discussions took place then you should be able to provide links to them. MarnetteD|Talk 20:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Some were a while ago; I'll have to go hunting for them. Adam9007 (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

'Significance' doesn't mean one can claim anything about anything and have it withstand A7. :For the Wolfe article: a local musician, married to a notable musician with whom he provided support on recordings. Is that significant? No. On the Jain article: local politician, belongs to a party, has an unpublished book. Is that significant? No. And I'm not sure the Haines article isn't a hoax. Katie^talk 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Katie, it looks like the Haines article is legitimate. I'm going to see what I can do to tidy it up, add some sources and improve it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Adam, you removed the A7 tag from Shreyansh Jain SK and said there is a credible claim to significance. Can you please explain what the credible claim to significance is in that article? -- GB fan 20:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

He's a politician and member of a major political party. That is significant because it could (not necessarily would; an all-too-common confusion) cause notability. Adam9007 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. By that logic, every county official in my state has a claim to significance. Katie^talk 20:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

But not just any old official has the potential to be notable. Adam9007 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

*Katie's head explodes* Katie^talk 20:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Katie, it's worse than that. The text says he joined a political party. That's it. Don't millions of Americans join a party when they register a preference? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Really?! WikiP does WP:NOT do articles about people that may have notability some day in the future per WP:CRYSTAL. Also you need to read WP:INVALIDBIO. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• I hate to pile on, as I feel that Adam is ultimately acting in good faith, and a net positive to the project...but yeah, he sets the bar way too low when it comes to "credible claim to significance". He gave me a hard time about deleting "Brain freeze challenge", an unsourced stub article about a segment a Youtuber does on Youtube, which asserted in its (short) body that it was created because said Youtuber asked his fanbase to make it. Not only an easy CSD choice, but an obvious WP:TNT choice. Two other Admin have speedy deleted it besides myself as well. If he wants to continue this sort of interpretation, I feel like he needs to start a discussion and get a consensus supporting it, because right now, he's the only person I've come across who draws the line so low. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's one of the links I was telling MarnetteD about. You'll see that a strong association with someone or something notable is considered a CCS. Adam9007 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Is that what you meant in your close? @Sergecross73 and NeilN: Good faith or not, this is nuts. It's creating unnecessary work for scads of editors who then have to PROD or AFD these articles, and he's even !voting delete on some of them. Unless he's willing to change his behavior, I think a topic ban is in order here. Katie^talk 20:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

So it turns out Shreyansh Jain SK is a student. Seriously. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In other words, significance can be inherited, but use common sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think what we really need is a consensus on what does not constitute a CCS. As far as I'm aware, there is none. Adam9007 (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

More (edit conflict)s. As I suspected there is nothing at the discussion linked to about people "many or otherwise" agreeing with the removal of A7 tags. On top of that some of your removals do not meet the criteria set there. MarnetteD|Talk 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh? They agreed with my ideas, not a specific tag removal(s). Adam9007 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh? You stated "There are many people who agree with me when I remove A7 tags" - That thread does not support that statement. BTW the outcome at that thread was not unanimous. MarnetteD|Talk 21:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I ought to ping the involved parties: @VQuakr: @Appable: @Peridon: @DESiegel: @Oiyarbepsy: @Thryduulf: @Bazj: @MrX: @Tigraan: @FoCuSandLeArN: Adam9007 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Adam, I'm pretty sure its rather evident there already is a consensus in place. Why do you think 3 separate admin deleted the article in my example, and yet only you opposed? Why do you think you have so much opposition in this discussion? You're setting the bar far lower than anyone else. Too low. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Then why hasn't it been written into policy anywhere? Was there a discussion, and that's what was explicitly decided? Or is it that a certain number of people think it? If there's consensus, it should be documented. This is one of the things I've written about in my (unfinished) essay. Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Don't bother writing an essay because we already have enough guidance on the subject. Your opinion is clearly out of step. The discussion you cite is a small sample size and not representative of the larger community. All you're succeeding in doing is making us use AfD to delete junk that you've prevented from going through CSD. Do you see how that's not constructive to the project? If anything, WP:A7 needs to be tweaked to clarify. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Better ANI all those who !voted yes there too then. Adam9007 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I took a very brief look at some of Adam's removal of CSD tags. "Strong association" as stated in my close is a threshold far above what you've been applying, Adam. Merely being a member of something notable does not constitute a credible claim of significance. I think this is made clear using the example I provided in my close; receiving a notable award does not provide one a credible claim of significance, but creating a notable award might. "Strong association" is a largely undefined term and there is some degree of "I know it when I see it" there, but an obvious test anyone can use would be along the lines of "Could more than a dozen subjects claim this association?" If the answer is yes, then it's definitely not a strong association. (There may not be a strong association even if the answer is yes, though.) There must be something unique or unusually strong about the association that is not carried by the "average" person associated with the notable subject for the association alone to constitute a credible claim of significance. A president's daughter, yes. A president's third grade teacher, no. Or, as NeilN put it, common sense. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • James E. Wolfe was another declined speedy by Adam, and this one is probably a good example of a "strong association" which had consensus to constitute a credible claim of significance. Both working with and being married to a notable singer is a "strong association". (Also, note that I'm not saying I agree with this interpretation of "credible claim of significance", just giving my neutral assessment of the discussion as closer.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• I also had some issues with his CSD decline. My only encounter with Adam9007 was at Majid M. Al Gethami Al Otaibi, where he declined the speedy with an edit summary "credibly asserts significance" I pointed out that AFC declined the version that was very similar to the version that was CSD tagged. Then he said significance was inherited because the individual is a professor at a notable university, which by extension makes the subject significant. I asked for a policy page explanation and all this user did was throw some policy numbers around without actually explaining how those policies apply to this page. The article didn't survive the AfD a month later. To me, the user uses a really liberal interpretation of the policies and when asked how it applies, he only cites policy numbers without explaining why it is applied. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Adam9007, you realize that thanks to your absurdly high A7 standards, Wikipedia has an article about a person who graduated Senior Secondary School last year, stating that he's a "Politician , Businessmen , Writter, Story Writter and Social Worker." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think what a lot of people don't realise is that just because I remove a CSD tag, doesn't mean I don't think the article should be deleted. I'm merely trying to preserve the deletion process's integrity. For example, what's the point in having PROD if just anything that's simply not likely to survive an AfD gets CSD'd? Adam9007 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The integrity of the deletion process? Are you kidding? Katie^talk 21:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I see invalid CSDs all the time. Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Because of your commitment to the integrity of the deletion process, I just had to BLPPROD that Jain article. How is that helpful to anyone? Obviously, there are A7s that need to be declined. I do it all the time. The problem is that your view of what should and shouldn't be declined is very ungood. Katie^talk 21:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Katie, you're lucky that the page didn't contain a link to the subject's blogspot page. Else Adam9007 might remove it. I speak from experience. Adam, you need to have more faith that admins will decline inappropriate speedies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's funny, I was just asked for help the other day on my talk page regarding A7. This is how I explained it. Perhaps it may be useful or helpful here as well. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I was pinged here, and although I can't remember the hinted-at previous discussions, I'm glad this topic has been bought up once again, as it's one of the core issues NPPers face on a daily basis. In my opinion CCS is a shady provision, and it often causes headaches. Having said that, it can be useful in particular cases; as in everything, common sense is oft underused, and that's why we've ended up here talking on harsh terms. I suggest Adam9007 voluntarily withdraws from assessing CSD candidates for a while, as he appears to have acted on good faith. He can then slowly come back to this task as the community sees fit. Some of his actions are obvious misjudgements, even though he appears to have acted out of an excessive penchant on technicalities which ought to be reviewed given their inherent dubiousness - in other words, CCS needs to be more clearly defined to avoid such situations. On the other hand, admins are sentient beings and as such can assess most dbs rationally and consistently accurately, incorporating pragmatic judgement other editors unfamiliar in this area might not possess. There will be editors who complain of excessive tagging, or quick tagging, and ironically there are editors who complain about not tagging or in this case inappropriate untagging. We've all been there once. What we all need to do is learn from this and improve our editing from the experience. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Adam9007 usually does good work in this area so how about this: If an experienced editor has concerns about a deletion tag removal, and it's not on an article they created, they and Adam can have a quick chat, and if the editor still disagrees, Adam reverts himself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Excellent suggestion. Can we get consensus for this? Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Confession: I have a confession to make. I believe my asperger's has got in the way of my judgement. I tend to take things too literally and expect (not just wish) others to see things from my point of view. I believe I have got too involved with this whole thing and a wikibreak is long overdue. I think this is certainly one of those cases. I'm sorry I've got everyone worked up; it wasn't intentional. Why, only the other night I dreamt I got blocked here! I hope that wasn't a premonition; but I realised then that maybe I'm taking this all too seriously. I'm taking some time off to clear my head and all that, and I hope return with a fresh perspective (this doesn't mean I don't stand by what I wrote in my essay; just I'm taking even that too literally). Adam9007 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment When Adam9007 first came to my attention, I began to feel despair. However, after quite some discussions involving me, him and @MelanieN:, I began to see where he was coming from. He had a desire for things to be absolutely clear in policy so there is no room for wriggling. He also had a very strict idea of what significance was. It isn't easy for him, as I see it, to accept the 'wriggle room' that is the core of applying Wikipedia policies in day to day business. Believe me, he has lightened up since then. There's quite some way to go, but I think some day he would make a good admin. Go on, laugh. I don't care. Rather than backing him into a corner and shouting at him, take time to go over some cases in discussion with him. Calmly explain things, bearing in mind that he takes things rather literally and may have difficulties with humour. Pick cases that he was involved with, and also explain why you deleted (or tagged) some other things. He's a lot further on than he was - help him get there. There's no way the policies can be written to cover every little detail, and there will always be those on the strict side, and those on the lax side in interpreting them. And there's always AfD if you don't want to retag - there's nothing in WP:CSD so far as I can see that forbids retagging. In WP:PROD, it is specifically stated that replacing a declined prod is not allowed. (Removed AfD tags should be replaced until the discussion is closed.) Peridon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I see Adam's said what I was skirting round... Good luck, Adam. Have a break - I'm having one soon myself (not through stress - I'll be out of touch for various reasons). Peridon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: I'm writing that essay in the hopes of explaining my views clearly. If anyone challenged me over an A7 tag removal, I could just point them there instead of having a great big song and dance. But of course, things don't always go according to plan; for this happened before I could finish it. I shall of course finish it when I return. Adam9007 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I haven't looked at the articles linked above, nor any others Adam9007's untagged lately (my time is very limited at the moment), but I have spot-checked a couple dozen of his untaggings each time he's come to WT:CSD to complain, perhaps around a hundred in total. I've gone ahead and speedied maybe five of those, so clearly I think his judgment is mostly ok. On the other hand, I'm concerned about his statement above at 21:23 about untagging things he thinks should be deleted. Making people argue for things you already want done is disruptive - it used to be the one-line summary for WP:POINT around the time I started editing - and shows contempt for other volunteers' time. If you think something needs to be deleted but doesn't quite fit the speedy deletion criteria, leave it for an admin to decide whether it truly needs discussion. Or at least nominate it for deletion yourself instead of just untagging it. —Cryptic 22:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• I have also been concerned about this recently because, it basically outweighs the benefits of any apparent "claims of significance"; take Camp Lahti for example, he removed it because of "Programmes are events" which are not only thin thoughts but also not an explanation to not at least pursue deletion. I know DGG has had a long history about this recently going as far as to re-examine Adam's declines and nominate them himself; I know I also took several of these articles to AfD also. I know that DGG also suggested Adam at least consider deleting one path or another, by either AfD or PROD. I notice Adam has, but it's still being outweighed the removals. I believe some time away from this and, again, carefully examining how CSD actually works and should work. Once we start keeping these without pursuing forms of deletion, is then causing damage to the fluidity of deletion. I for one was being stressed by this very behavior because I along with a select number of my best colleagues were having their speedies removed. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333 removed that A7, not me. Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Since I was pinged on this discussion, I had a look at the article in question. I think it was simply the presence of some references and a template that appeared to show a bunch of other summer camps as bluelinks that meant I didn't feel comfortable deleting it on the spot there. I notice my edit summary was "try PROD or AfD" which to be honest carries an implication of "I can't be bothered to improve this article and don't care if it gets deleted". I think the PROD was correct in this instance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• As I've said many times before, I'm a hard-liner on WP:CSD. I looked at three of the examples cited here. Shreyansh Jain SK, not well written, at least as far as English grammar and diction goes. Since it is well known that we have bias towards anglo-european topics and native English speakers, I'm especially conservative about articles like this. There's a claim that he's a Politician , Businessmen , Writter, Story Writter and Social Worker. It's not unreasonable to say that's a claim of importance, and thus excludes A7. Reuben Haines III. Again, not well written, but about somebody who lived in the 18th century, and given our overwhelming bias for current events, I'm inclined to bend over backwards for historical figures. So, yeah, I agree that's not an A7. James E. Wolfe, has four published singles. Again, the article is poorly written and missing sources, but I think having four published songs is enough to get past A7. All of those might go down in flames at AfD, but there's enough there for all of them to deserve a full hearing. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry Roy, but just claiming that someone is a politician, businessman, or indeed alien ambassador from the planet Zanussi isn't a claim of notability unless there's at least one source supporting it, which there wasn't (thus failing BLP as well). I'd say that Adam really needs to brush up on what A7 actually means. Shreyansh Jain SK actually had no claims of notability at all, it was just an article written by someone about themselves (oh aye, I deleted it A7 a few moments ago with a bit of IAR, there was clearly no point in letting a PROD drag on for 7 days). Otherwise I could write a one-sentence article about myself saying "Black Kite is a politician, lion-tamer, shapeshifter, works for MI5 and likes cider" (all true by the way) and expect it to pass CSD. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• WP:SIGNIFICANCE explicitly says, A claim of significance need not be supported by any cited sources, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• You're citing an essay... And according to your criteria, almost anything that states, 'X is a [profession]' cannot be A7'd. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• WP:A7 says the same thing. "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". I'm surprised that so many people in this thread seem to think that references are needed for a credible claim of significance. Omni Flames (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm surprised you don't think that. It's credibility we're talking about here. The claim still needs to be credible, and like the example I gave above, any claim out of the ordinary (in this case being a politician, in my case being a lion-tamer that works for MI5) is not credible without a source. Any politician, regardless of country of origin, would have such sources. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)There's a difference between a credible claim and a credible claim of significance or importance. The Jain article claimed he was a writer. How is that significant or important? I'm a writer too. Am I significant or important? No. Is my local mayor significant or important? No. This is an encyclopedia. Significance has to be judged in that context. Katie^talk 00:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A reliable source helps the "claim of significance" be credible. Are all writers significant? No. So "John Doe is a writer." can be A7'd and I would delete that. "John Doe is a writer."[link to newspaper review] This, I would decline as John Doe is credibly significant. Same text, two different outcomes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that This is an encyclopedia. Significance has to be judged in that context. makes sense. I think we all agree on that. Where we disagree is how and where that judgement should be made. I'm saying if there's any doubt at all, it should be made at AfD. If I say, Fred Foobar is a politician, clearly it depends on what level of office Fred holds. A member of my local community board is probably not notable. The president of a country probably is. Figuring out which applies is a job for AfD, not a job for one person, deleting the page in anonymity and obscurity. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Cider! Now there's a thought for a bleak Friday. Suggest a few people around here could use one. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Pinged here by Adam9007. Of the 2 (out of original 4) diffs in the OP that I can still view, the A7 removals are quite defensible. My impression is that @Toddst1: has done an exceptionally poor job of demonstrating that there is a problem in need of community action against a single editor (ie, that all other actions that he could take have been exhausted). I encourage him to (re)start instead at the policy talk page, WT:CSD, and work on wordsmithing better definitions of CCS either within the policy or getting some of the essays that support said definition linked from the policy. I also think several editors could use a reminder that speedy deletion exists to reduce the load on AfD; A7's are rarely urgent and anyone except an article writer should be able to contest them without getting flak. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr:, perhaps you would have been happier if I had spent more time looking through the dozens of complaints other editors have made about this user's CSD judgement on his talk page. Why don't you review his talk page archive and tell me if you disagree that there is a pattern of complaints on this subject about this editor? Toddst1 (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Pinged here some time ago, not sure if my comment is still needed; we argued (User talk:Adam9007/Archive 1#Incedo ) about my db-inc tagging of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incedo. --WikiHannibal (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Time to close?

• The editor who people are discussing here has stated they're taking a wikibreak. It's obvious that no admin action is necessary yet. At this point, the thread serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the drama. Can we just close this thread with a warning that POINTy removals of CSD tags to "preserve the deletion process's (sic) integrity" are likely to wear out the community's patience if his views of what constitutes a credible claim of significance remain so far outside community norms? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose any close that implies the editor was being purposefully disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think he's being deliberately dense. I think this stems from a view of A7 that's way outside what's practical and acceptable to the community. Katie^talk 00:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't consider POINTy behavior to be universally intentional, but feel free to remove that. My point is that this should be closed; I don't really care how it's closed. It's served its purpose. There's no ongoing disruption. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with a close, but I don't believe a warning is needed. Peridon explained well that Adam's declining of A7 is already coming a bit closer to community norms - and I think it's perfectly fine for your views to be more hard-line than others as long as it's not completely astray of consensus. RoySmith also explained well that "preserving the deletion process's integrity" can be valid in some cases. Many articles will probably not survive AfD at all, but that doesn't mean that they should be removed under CSD. It's good to have some editors with more strict interpretations of CSD on Wikipedia. Besides that, I also haven't seen any real consensus emerge with regards to a topic ban, though it has been suggested briefly at some points. Appable (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I do not see consensus for such wording in the discussion above. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Before I go on my wikibreak, feel I might as well link to what I have written so far. The most important bits are the one about NOTINHERITED and "implicit consensus" vs explicit. Don't forget, this is all based on (explicit) consensus to my knowledge. I stand by it, even if I take it a bit too literally. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN's comment about the close. Earlier in this thread N also stated that "If an experienced editor has concerns about a deletion tag removal, and it's not on an article they created, they and Adam can have a quick chat" which is an excellent idea. I would add that "if several editors show up with concerns about an editing pattern" that Adam could listen to those concerns as well. That is better than digging in ones heels. It also helps to avoid ANI threads like this one. I don't know if this is feasible but I am hoping that Adam will take it under consideration. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

In response to something in that essay, significance can be inherited, but it isn't always inherited. That is explicitly part of my close of the significance RfC. Additionally, a credible claim of significance does not mean that something might be notable. It means that something has a reasonable chance of being notable. I think this is a large source of the issue. "Reasonable chance" is a much higher standard than the "might be notable" you wrote in your essay, and if your thinking about that doesn't change, I think it's likely you'll be here in another couple months. That would be regrettable, because I think you are trying to benefit the encyclopedia. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh? "Reasonable chance" is the same as "might". Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. "Might" means any non-zero chance, whereas "reasonable chances" is considerably higher than zero. A random author might become notable (it's possible), but a random author doesn't have a reasonable chance of becoming notable (since very, very few authors become notable compared to everyone who's ever considered themselves a writer). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the term "reasonable chance" is a bit too subjective. At least the term "might" is more objective. Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No. "Reasonable chance" is not too subjective for reasonable people. You've admitted that you've been taking a pedantic approach to the rules here. I think that's the crux of the issue. It's clear your heart is in the right place, but your judgement is not. Toddst1 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1: But Todd, what defines a reasonable person? You're just using recursion! (This is humor, folks. Don't take it too seriously.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. What precisely does "Reasonable chance" mean? 20%? 30%? 40%?.... It depends on who you ask. Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I know it when I see it and the Duck test apply. If you can't get comfortable with ambiguity like that, then you should recuse yourself from any actions on Wikipedia (among other places) that require reasonable judgement. Seriously. Toddst1 (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you must have a number say 55% (slightly more likely than not) although if you are unable to manage the fuzzy logic that goes into making a judgelent call I would recommend that you, as you have said you would do, step back from this type of activity. If there were hard and fast rules we would have a score sheet and/or checklist which could be applied by rote or even by bot to make content decisions.

CSD is, by design, a two step process 1) editors of varying experience tag an article {{db-something}} because they think it should be speedy deleted 2) an admin, who has been vetted by the community and who is expected to understand speedy deletion criteria decides to delete or decline based on their experiemce.

Except in very clear cases of misapplication of CSD tags, my very firm opinion is that non-admins should not be making the call to remove the tag. I know that is not policy but if you are concerned about "the integrity of the deletion process" the final decision should be left to an admin - the community has vetted them and trusts their judgement about what should and should not be CSDed. Articles do not need to be "saved" from CSD by bypassing step 2 above. By removing the tag yourself you have taken the decision from the community vetted editor and substituted your, not only non community vetted but community-objected opinion, in its place. Making the process 1,!1 instead of 1,2. Which is less than optimal. Jbh^Talk 03:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually our CSD policy does not prohibit anyone except the account of the article creator from removing the tag, even in cases where a DUCK test would say it's the creator logged out. You just have to assume good faith unless it's obviously not the case. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. If CSD essentially bypasses consensus-based decisions that generally govern Wikipedia in cases where the article would universally be deleted anyway, I think any editor in good faith should absolutely be permitted to remove any CSD tag they feel does not meet criteria within reason. Of course some editors are more hardline about CSD, but I think that's a good thing for the project. If we start to use CSD too liberally then it bypasses consensus in times where the article could be improved, though of course if CSD is declined too often it does clog AfD. Appable (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: I think there is general agreement here that your idea of a self-imposed wikibreak for you is a good idea but we all want you to return to the generally good contributions you make (outside of CSD). Perhaps you'll agree to either steer clear of CSD upon your return or at a minimum, apply a different approach that takes into account the problems discussed here when considering removing CSD tags. What do you say? Toddst1 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's agreement at all that Adam should steer clear of CSD. Yes, I think that Adam may be a bit too hardline for A7 compared to the consensus, but at the same time I think there's huge value in having editors that see CSD as fairly strict criteria. RoySmith explained well that some of the pages linked there probably shouldn't be A7'd, even if they'd go down very quickly at AfD. Appable (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: nobody said there was agreement that this discussion proscribed him avoiding CSD. It was a suggestion. Even you with, so few edits, agree that Adam has had problems in this area. How about you come up with a more constructive solution if you don't like the suggestion? Toddst1 (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: I don't know why my edit count has anything to do with what I wrote here (though I've never discussed anything on ANI). I've run across Adam multiple times before, as I too sometimes patrol speedy deletions to help clear the backlog of articles that comes up on CSD by removing incorrect nominations, correcting nominations (sometimes G11 isn't valid but A7 is, etc). And, like Adam, you can see on my talk page that I've also had debates about speedy deletion declines (I've backed off a bit because of those). So naturally, while I may not have as long a history on Wikipedia, I've run into Adam often. Many times, I agree with his removal of speedy deletions as well. That being said, I do think there are some cases when the tag should probably stand because it's not much of a credible claim of significance.

I did misinterpret you regarding your suggestion, as I thought you were saying there was "general agreement" that he should steer clear of CSD; upon rereading I can tell that's not the case. My constructive suggestion is that there is no need for a real warning - Adam's declining of CSD is clearly coming closer to community norms (though of course more hardline than others, which is completely all right), he plans to take a wikibreak, and at least a few editors here believe that at least two of the four articles in nomination contain CCSs. With all that in mind, I think Adam's work in CSD is absolutely valuable and that while his approach may be a bit too strict of an interpretation of A7, having those editors who are reasonably strict is important. Appable (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt a summary.

• I hope everyone would agree that the proper way of nominating for deletion is to find an optimum balance; the question is what balance is optimum. Removing hopeless material at CSD is necessary, and the criteria have been tuned over many years to try to eliminate any definable group that might need more attention, or where one person cannot reasonably decide, or where the deletions are usually contested. For example, we do not have A7 for products, because it's hard to recognize something that is likely to have sources out of one's own field, nor for books, because many people might not recognize any particular title, as was shown by a great many failures to recognize famous books. But sending articles to AfD that are certain to be deleted does not help either, because for every unnecessary AfD there means we cannot pay the proper attention to the ones that do need discussion. An example of balance is the inclusion of web content in A7. When this was proposed, I opposed it, until it was shown to me how the overwhelming proportion of the great many submitted articles in that class was altogether hopeless.

The definition of A7 has proven tricky., In my early years here I proposed several modifications, none of which were adopted, nor have most of those proposed by others. I think this is right, because there is a long history of interpretation at AFD and DRV based on the present wording, and this gives a certain degree of stability, and aids the admins in decided which to actually delete. I interpret a credible claim of significance to means a claim which if verified, would lead someone who understood the purpose of an encyclopedia like WP to think in good faith that the subject might possibly justify an article. No sensible person , for example would really think that being on a high school football team belongs in a encyclopedia ; but someone might think that being on a state championship team does, even if we usually do not consider that notable. (That's the difference between notability and significance. Most authors of a single book are not notable, but for someone to think they might be, is not absurd (except for a self published book, which is obviously not a CCS). No body could reasonably think that an artist who has not yet even been part of a group exhibition is notable, but if they have been, someone might think otherwise--even though that by itself is not enough, and such claims really need to be looked at by someone who knows how we judge artists. There's another factor:an article about someone not very important is usually either by a naïve new editor, or a promotional editor. Such articles need to be examined carefully to see if the claims for significance are made in good faith: I consider undeclared promotional editing in violation of the TOU not to be good-faith editing. At the least, such articles should be considered for tagging as G11. It's part of deletion policy that once an article has ben tagged for speedy, it may be deleted under any applicable criterion; if one comes across a A7 & isn't sure, it's usually worth considering it it falls in G11.

I don't want to go into the specifics of the articles mentioned above: I also have a list of the misinterpretations. There is one general point: relationship is not encyclopedic significance. Nobody could rationally think that someone should get a separate entry in an encyclopedia just because their spouse is notable, except for very special circumstances. And certainly not for children, parents, schoolmates, business associates, and political sympathizers. (For the sort of special circumstances that can apply, see WP:EINSTEIN.) And possible future significance is not significance. Everyone who isn't dead might possibly become significant.

Numbers were mentioned; it's hard to define what they actually mean. to the extent its meaningful, as a tagger or deleting admin, I wouldn't use speedy an article if I thought there were only a 2/3 chance I was right; it's equally unrealistic to expect 100%. WP being WP, there's going to be a good deal of variability. And the standard is not whether I think I am right, but whether I think that the community standard would think it right. It's not as much a matter of personal opinion as trying to understand what the consensus is.

The most important point raised is that when one comes across a A7 tagging that does not apply, but the article should be deleted, it very much helps to change it to a Prod or an Afd. If one just thinks it's questionable, then at least a notability tag. Not just Adam, but other people should be doing this more often. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) From what I can see, Adam made at least two good calls out of four. The two articles that are live at present very clearly asserted the importance/notability of their subjects. The fact that they didn't prove this importance/notability with citations of reliable sources is irrelevant, as we are not talking about shutting down an AFD discussion where sources were requested but not produced. PROD should never be used where the only apparent problem with an article's visible claim to notability is that it is unsourced. Even if the two articles that I can't see at the moment actually should have been speedied rather than AFDed, that only means that Adam made two minor mistakes; whoever PRODded the two articles that remain actually made two far mor significant mistakes. Pinging User:Tazerdadog and User:JesseRafe to get their opinions on the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping didn't work for whatever reason, but I'm here now. I think the A7 tagging on the article I was involved with was correct but thin - it's certainly defensible to claim that a credible claim of significance is made in the article. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• If you're going to pontificate about what people are doing wrong, it's generally a good idea to actually know what you're talking about. Three out of these four articles were BLPs and as such can (and should) be PRODded purely because they don't have any sources. Obviously in many cases it is trivial to find such a source, but if you can't, it must be PRODded. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• One is dead, the remaining non-deleted article had a reference at the time it was tagged and from recollection of looking at the deleted ones before they were nuked, one of them also had a (questionable) reference. So 3 out of 4 would have failed BLPROD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I know, I was merely pointing out that Hijiri88's quote that "PROD should never be used where the only apparent problem with an article's visible claim to notability is that it is unsourced" is totally wrong when it refers to a BLP. It's surprising how many people don't realize this. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• You can PROD for any reason you like, including things like "This article reads like it was written by an uneducated drunk with two fingers". If it's not challenged, it goes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look at the articles presented at the top of this discussion, and I absolutely agree that the article on Wolfe was not a valid A7. Haines is arguable but where there's doubt it's better to untag and let a discussion happen. Another was tagged simulatenously as A7 (valid) and A3 (not valid), and both tags appear to have been removed in error when only the A3 tag should have been removed. I don't see enough disruption or malice here that justifies the continuing existence of an ANI discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC).

• Apologies for being late to the party on this discussion. I didn't expect it to be on the verge of wrapping up overnight.

I've previously discussed the A7 removals with Adam (under my previous username, Bazj) and tried to clarify some of the points around A7 - though in retrospect that seems like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

In pursuit of that discussion I took an RSS feed of Adam's A7 removals for a month or so...

At the time I stopped the RSS feed (6 Jun) I sorted the data into live & deleted. The peppering of redlinks through the list shows the attrition since then.

For a while I took the WP:AGF view that the removal of A7 indicated that Adam would have reason to vote keep in the ensuing AfD. However my experience has been that Adam seldom follows up his A7 removals with any further participation in discussion or improvement of the article. Effectively his actions have resulted in shoddy articles being given a free pass through the WP:NPP process.

WP:AGF is a two-way process - those editors tagging articles A7 can't be expected to continue assuming Adam's good faith when he obviously makes no such assumption about their efforts that led them to tag the article.

While Adam is scanning CAT:A7 and removing the tags with a vigor he effectively renders that CSD criterion ineffective meaning dross survives or is inappropriately tagged under some other criterion.

My 2¢. (formerly Bazj) for (;;) (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with removing A7 even if you would vote delete in the resulting AfD, For (;;). While Adam may apply too strict a definition of A7, there are also articles that definitely do not have a credible claim of significance that are deleted under that criterion. That being said, I would recommend (not formally) that Adam does two additional actions (which DGG has mentioned here and to me directly) - make sure to nominate the article for AfD (as a procedural nomination) or PROD assuming the A7 wasn't applied incompetently (e.g. article not only has a CCS but also probably shows notability), and reply in the resulting discussion if it was a procedural nomination. Doing this would ensure articles nominated for speedy deletion go through the proper deletion venue and don't get a free pass through NPP. Appable (talk)

Appable Following your recommendations would go a long way to restoring mutual AGF. A ping to the tagger would also help but, in my experience, Adam is already pretty good on that point. for (;;) (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Regardless of the fact that Adam9007 is currently taking a wikibreak, I propose that he be topic-banned from removing CSD tags, or at the very least from removing A7 CSD tags. This is no way implies that he is acting in bad faith. However, he is causing much disruption and time-wasting on the encyclopedia, and causing much rubbish to be left on Wikipedia. He is essentially performing an administrative function even though he is not an administrator and does not have an administrator's perspective. Removal of the tags is contentious, unnecessary (admins review before they delete), and disruptive. In addition, not only has he not conceded that his actions have been improper, he is writing an essay of self-justification in defense of his actions. For all of the above reasons, I think it's time for him to turn his attention on Wikipedia to other tasks, of which there are millions. Softlavender (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"Rubbish" in whose opinion? I have been calling out bad speedies for years, overturning several to take them to DYK and getting a positive reception for it. Some GAs of highly notable topics were once marked for speedy deletion. So while Adam may need to slow down a bit, his heart is in the right place. Remember that a new article is many new users' route into Wikipedia editing, and if you scare them away calling their good faith edits in disparaging terms, we will never retain editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Referring to articles unrelated to Adam9007's CSD removals is irrelevant. He's not a new user -- he's been here over a year and has made over 12,000 edits. I have specifically already noted that he is acting in good faith. Softlavender (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I hope you're not implying I broke policy? Not all "administrative functions" require admin privileges. I realise that just because we're allowed to do something doesn't mean we should (don't forget that also applies to articles meeting CSD; contrary to popular belief, it does not mean they have to be CSD'd), but if my contributions are unwelcome, then never mind when, I'm not even sure if I'll return. Adam9007 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has ever stated or implied that your contributions are unwelcome; there's no need to throw your toys out of the pram. Just stop removing CSD tags; allow admins to make the call whether to keep or delete. You are more than welcome, and encouraged, to continue your contributing to Wikipedia -- and there certainly is a need for good and dedicated users. Softlavender (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

By formally proposing a topic ban, you have stated you feel my contributions are unwelcome. And what's to stop this happening in other areas? It's only happened here because it's an area I am (was?) heavily involved in. Adam9007 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

To repeat: I have never stated or implied that your contributions are unwelcome. This issue is not being brought up here because it's an area you are heavily involved in. It's being brought up here because other editors are concerned that (in addition to being unnecessary) it is disruptive and detrimental to the project, and you are being requested to edit in other areas instead. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any real consensus that editors here feel that his actions are "disruptive and detrimental to the project" as a whole, though some removals may be too strict of an interpretation of the CSD rules. Some editors, like RoySmith, have also explained how hardline CSD reviewers are also valuable to the project. There's definitely a variety of opinions here, but I personally think Peridon nails it on the head - if we're concerned about Adam's removals of speedy deletion tags, the important thing is that that is improving and Adam can still be very valuable to the project by working on CSD reviews with a reasonably strict (less strict than now, but perhaps a bit more strict than the average editor) view of the criteria. Appable (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Came here via Adam9007's ping. I cannot tell I remember having interacted with him before though I have A7-ed plenty of stuff. I did not read the whole thing, but from the four links at the top, two are inaccessible (likely deleted articles), and from the other two, one is a totally legit tag removal and the other (the rapper) is at least disputable (I probably would have tagged it if I was doing NPP, but I do not see a problem with de-tagging). Of course, the selection bias might be at work here; if the two deleted articles were correct A7s, a 50% correct record is not something exactly impressive.

If someone regularly detags with an accuracy under 80% and continues after warnings (not saying this is or this is not the case here), I would easily support some form of de-tag restriction. Everyone can make mistakes, but not too many after the alarm went off.

Oh, and I do not know how the lucky pinged ones were selected, but if the objective was to prove that "others think like me", Adam9007 should probably read WP:CANVAS. (ANI threads can turn to !votes about sanctions against an editor, so it fully applies...)

Re-ping me if my input is necessary (I will not follow the thread). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I pinged everyone involved in that discussion, not just the people who !voted my way. Adam9007 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Tigraan I feel bound to say that Adam9007 may be a PITA but I've always found him to be 100% conscientious and above board in his dealings. I wouldn't even start to suspect him of selection bias in his pinging. If you want more examples of Adam's A7 tag removals check out the collapsed box above. for (;;) (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, redacting accordingly. (Saying which discussion it was from the start would have helped.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the removals 1 through 7 in the collapse box (except 3 which was deleted). They all look good to me. Only this one has a disputable rationale (though I agree with it). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)]

@For (;;): I'll go thorough and explain each one if necessary, but after a quick skim through them, a lot were obvious out-of-scopes, and should be unambiguously valid tag removals. You may have just proved that I can and do get it right a lot of (if not most of) the time. Adam9007 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I think disputable rationales are absolutely fine (to me it's far better to remove a speedy deletion tag and have the article go through another deletion process if it doesn't seem notable than to bypass consensus in situations where consensus should not be bypassed), so that's good. As a general note to Adam9007, besides what I've said earlier, I've noticed that a lot of your edit summaries are simply "article asserts enough significance". Some summaries are more explanatory, though, and I think it'd also be helpful if you explained that in the edit summary briefly. Appable (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• I came across Ziadie family on my usual sweep through CAT:CSD and declined it after I found the family name-checked in The Independent and the Daily Telegraph. If it went to AfD I can't work out whether I'd !vote "keep" or "merge with Lady Colin Campbell", but I definitely wouldn't go with delete. In any case, Toddst1 should not be templating a user who hasn't edited in two years, that's just silly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Are we running out of templates? WTF?? It's considered being a dick NOT to notify anyone who created an article when prod/afd/csd tags are applied. How do you know if they have an email trigger set for their watchlist? When they edit is immaterial. C'mon Ritchie, you're better than that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If Adam Keller wakes from his slumber and starts improving the article, I will conclude a point conceded, but I can't see it happening myself, and my essay comes from years of experience. In particular, saying "If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article" to an editor who first registered in 2006 is rather nonsensical and comes across with all the charm and warmth of a bailiff reposessing a house. Consider a personalised message. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Mllturro

Mllturro (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock. S/he is not blocked directly; instead, the block was placed by Elockid (talk · contribs) on an IP address belonging to OVH, an ISP in France (I believe). Now, the particular IP address, 151.80.113.194, reverses to a block described as "Dedicated Servers". Mllturro believes s/he is not connecting through a dedicated server (for example, not connecting through a VPN), but it's certainly possible there's a problem with Mllturro's network configuration. Given the amount of spam I routinely get from OVH (I'm located in Canada, not France) and the complete unwillingness of their customer support and network administrators to fix that problem, it's quite plausible to me that OVH has their DNS records screwed up. That is, their netblock may not actually be used for dedicated servers after all. If so, we should soften the block on 151.80.0.0/17 to allow logged in users. Or perhaps, replace the single block with multiple blocks, if we can identify for ourselves which are dedicated servers and which are regular home users. I will inform both users of this discussion momentarily. Note that I may not have much access to the Internet for the next week, so I may have to leave it to other admins to take appropriate action here. --Yamla (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I see nothing wrong with the block; it's quite possible OVH has changed their configuration since the block was placed. And that's even assuming the IP address in question isn't actually a dedicated server. My point here is to figure out whether or not the block should be softened or tweaked. --Yamla (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggested an IP block exemption request, and Mllturro (talk · contribs) has made that request, though admittedly not in the form prescribed for this. But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, yes?

So: IP block exemption? Any objections to this?

Piet van Nieuw Holland aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I had forgotten about that possibility. I've dealt with the request. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV pushing by IP

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

---

91.242.184.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been editing Crimea with their own point of view without citations since yesterday. Since NPOV pushing is not considered vandalism therefore not eligible to be added to WP:AIV, I thought I'd add it here. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: Also raised at AN3 by another user (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:91.242.184.88 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: )). Probably best dealt with there. --Elektrik Fanne 16:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Endless bickering on Ferrari P

Two parties have for several years now been fighting over the authenticity of a Ferrari chassi, using Ferrari P, both the article itself and its talk page, as the arena for their endless bickering, with the current SPAs in that fight being Miurasvjota from Italy and IP 71.167.174.211 from the US, the latter with occasional help from other American IPs. After seeing the latest wall of text posted on the talk page today I tired of it, hatted the discussions there, which are almost unreadable and full of insults and accusations of lying, from both sides...) for being blatant misuse of the talk page as a forum ([102], you'll need to check the hatted section on the talk page to see the size of it...), and also removed a wall of irrelevant and utterly unencyclopaedic text from the article ([103]), but the American side refuses to give up, and keeps reverting the text back in again. So since I can't revert any more without risking violating 3RR I would appreciate if an admin or other experienced editor would take a look at the article, and do what needs to be done. Or trout me if you feel that I shouldn't have removed it... Thomas.W ^talk 16:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Since noone has commented here, or done anything to the problems I see in the article, it's obvious that I am the only one here who feels that unencyclopaedic bickering in articles, with multiple inline links to external websites and all, is a problem. Which is good to know, because then I won't have to bother with similar problems in other articles, but can just leave it... Thomas.W ^talk 10:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W - I'm looking into this. Stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Shinkazamaturi personal attacks and WP:CIR

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

---

In 2013, this user was warned for changing Big Show's name to The Big Show without a reliable source, he was also warned for personal attacks.[104] His argument was that an announcer had called him that so we should too. In 2014, @Bishonen: wrote a detailed warning on exactly what he was doing wrong and how reliable sources are more valuable than what an announcer says.[105] His most recent warning over this issue was in January of this year.[106]

Last month he received warnings, including one for edit warring, over changing Vince McMahon's name to Mr. McMahon.[107][108] His defense is the same as before with Big Show,[109] and today he continued his edit war over this.[110] Also today, he argued that another wrestler's name should be changed during a discussion at Talk:List of WWE United States Champions#‎Carlito Caribbean Cool for the same reason. He again resorted to personal attacks during this discussion, calling someone a "stupid flamer".[111] When warned, he said this was "a fact" and denied it being an attack.[112]

He's been disruptive to the encyclopedia for years despite ample warning.LM2000 (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The user Shinkazamaturi also has a habit of telling people what to do. They never ask for the changes, but rather tell users they need to undo an edit they've done, or explain an edit when they've already done so, etc. Not to mention their poor grammar when posting (on talk pages at least). CrashUnderride 17:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Administrator NUMBER57

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

---

Please would some other administrator act accordingly to bar Administrator 57 from making disruptive edits to my page, Curacao 2016 General Elections. Especially since he has to use my page to obtain the information for his page or whatever page or page series he is maintaining. Twice I have warned him and he still has turned back around and delete my page content which is all original information and information that has not or would be released officially next week. My Page have over 600 times as much information relative and pertinent to the topic and discussion and yet this Administrator is intentionally vandalizing my page even after the 2 times I post on his page the harsher warning. I am aware that there are persons that receive financial payments to cause disruptive behavior such as this and his ill advise attempts to coerce readers to his page which he supports or from all his attempts and actions to ensure that the news information cycle runs thru him or his site will, I am sure somewhere this is absolutely in contra to wiki rules. The most interesting point is that I am the journalist reporting on this topic and I don't know where he is located but if he has spoken with the principles on this topic then I will be more than happy to rescind my efforts however, there is a greater evil at risk and many times I have come to understand that persons are paid to unravel and disrupt information such as on wikipedia. So I appeal to those more senior administrators than Number57 to block him and others which now I feel the aggressive intimidating air of superiority that he is above the law and makes edits in the best of maybe what he maybe being paid for to do either directly or indirectly, that is something that needs to be investigated and if he or any associates of his are involved in such. Much like how it was proven that Facebook employees were intentionally disrupting news distribution. Curacao is involved in a National General Election and there are many ways that certain persons are trying to ensure that they can influence the distribution of news and hence assist in this process of selling their administrative discretion to try and disrupt the natural process of news distribution by deleting information or having users block. What Number57 has done is complete abusive vandalism and I beg to wonder how long has he being doing this. One bad apple does spoil a whole bunch and from his braggadocios flagrant disregards like their is no rule of law that operates here. Whatever his actions maybe it is definitely to disrupt and this is why I am requesting that Administrator Number57 be remove so that he no longer has the ability and power to wage his self intimidating abusive rights as an administrator, but knowing his deeds from the simple actions he has done with my page repeatedly to boost his own page and to delete and eliminate my page and it may be thought that he does not operate alone and maybe he is being compensated for such action directly or indirectly. Therefore this may not just stop here with him but maybe a collaborative effort that only intent is to cause hardship thru this type of disruptive behavior. As I explained Number57 intentionally and willfully deleted all of my content to ensure that his content is the only thing that exist. NUmber57 is actually quoting my work and taking information from my page and adding it to his 30 word count page and he wants to delete and erase my page that has far more information. Instead of trying to add to my page as a good administrator exerising ethically judgements, it seems that his ego or pocket maybe the underline reason for such unethical behavior. Ask that the editors and directors and managers seriously review my case and remove such administrators as Number57 and those of his kind for the good of wikipedia, because I seriously doubt that this is the first time that he has done something like this because he demonstrates a particular arrogance in his acctions like a season veteran who knows that nothing will ever come of any complaints, Well I say today this needs to stop now and forever, the evidence has always been there, it is just that no one took the time to lay the cold facts of this injustice of his and please be on the warning for those of his peers because the psychology of someone like what he demonstrated is to hang out in groups thereby getting support from his collegues and exercising vegenance from that unseen blindspot. Please put a stop to Administrator Number57 from editing my pages and all others remove him as an administrator and block others from intentional vandalism of my page Curacao 2016 General Elections. C2016GE is split into 2 categories a PSD and GED especially with the latest laws in place that has came from Parliament and the election commissioner himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefinaJosepha (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

If two administrators are telling you to stop, odds are you are doing something wrong. You need to stop, or you will be blocked. Though at this point, it may be too late. The boomerang has been thrown... --Tarage (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, it appears that 90% of your problems would be solved if you would just stop trying to edit the article with the wrong name. Your edits would probably be most welcome at Curaçao general election, 2016. What you are doing is editing on the wrong page. Do you have difficulty with English? --Tarage (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It sounds to me like we may be facing some confusion about how Wikipedia is organized, from this editor who clearly wants to add information to the site. We don't have "my page" and "his page" here; we aim to have a single page on a given topic that anyone can edit and work to improve. So if you created a second page on the same topic, the correct move is to integrate the useful information from it into the existing page. Also, you were eager to add material that wasn't yet officially available yet, as you describe it; if the information isn't available from some reliable source where people can go to verify it, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I can understand how that would frustrate a desire to make Wikipedia as informative as possible, but the goal of Wikipedia is not journalism, but basically to summarize the information that can already be found elsewhere. I bet you can make some good contributions to the main page for the topic with that in mind! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note I have blocked JosefinaJosepha for 48 hours for continuing to make the same disruptive edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: I think it's also worth a closer look at this user's edits. She is a writer for Caribbean News Now, and pretty much all her edits involve linking to that website (including creating the article about it) including promoting herself ([113][114][115]). I've advised her to read WP:COI but no response. Perhaps it should be a condition of her unblock that she does so and agrees to stop making such edits. Number 57 11:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Number 57: I've given her more details about our COI policy. We'll she what she does with that WP:ROPE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

I have nominated Caribbean News Now to be deleted as a result of investigating this case. The page itself has no good references and has serious COI issues. --Tarage (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User MarnetteD , user Sjö

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

---

There was edit war in reference desk - Humanities, started by MarnetteD screenshot . His helper was Sjö . After unfounded editings, I wrote to their talk pages. And as there were no answers^, I wrote to administrator https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=729596192 . But administrator also deleted my message with instructions to go to WP:ANI screenshot. I'm starting to think it's joking on me, which is inadmissible.

As I can see there is no such rule, that forbids table in questions in any place in wikipedia. Also in Sjö talk I wrote why plain text is bad. As I wrote in explanation screenshot previous my questions with table formatting were answered, so 'unreadability' of MarnetteD is completely his problem with his computer, other users read my questions very well and even answer.

In future I want to ask questions in reference desk with table formatting, and I beg community to prevent MarnetteD and others from deleting or editing. ________ ^ They gave answers but in few days, which contrasts with editings of my post within seconds. Username160611000000 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No one is going to prevent MarnetteD "and others" from deleting or editing things, or from commenting, Username160611000000 (talk · contribs). Doc talk 09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

1. While not strictly verboten, it does not help readability if everyone uses his/her own specific style of commenting. Using tables makes it (unnecessarily) difficult to answer your posts. It is a good habit to conform to local customs if there's no good reason not to do so. Tables are convenient for tabular data, not for discussions.
2. All edits in Wikipedia are preserved and can be referenced individually without resorting to screen-shots and external websites.
3. User:Sjö was actually helping you by reformatting your question. Why report them here?
4. As you can see at the top of this page, it is required that you notify the users you are reporting, if only for the sake of common decency.

Kleuske (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Username160611000000, you want to talk about rules?

• This page has a big orange box at the top stating: "You should notify any user that you discuss"

Was there something about that which you didn't understand?

• "His helper was"... Wikipedia is a collaborative website. Everybody helps. Your attitude seems to be that you WP:OWN your edits. If you wish to maintain that attitude please do it elsewhere.

MarnetteD and Sjö have been very restrained in the face of your poor conduct. You owe them an apology. for (;;) (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Many users (in fact most new users) do not notice that instruction. There's no need to disrupt a discussion by plastering the image here. I've removed the image but kept the wording. Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, Indeed, the whole point we're trying to convey to Username160611000000 is that you have an absolute right to do so. for (;;) (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• "Was there something about that which you didn't understand?" -- Users were informed on their talk pages:[116][117]Username160611000000 (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Username160611000000, those were notifications about the WP:ANEW board, not notifications about your report here at WP:ANI. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It does not specify that I should notify about all boards. Discussion was to be in first place. Username160611000000 (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Username160611000000, as with any organization, on Wikipedia you need to abide by Wikipedia's methods, formatting, layout, guidelines, policies, and best practices. You have chosen from the outset to demand that your own layout and formatting be used instead. That is clearly untenable, and if you continue in this vein you will be blocked from editing for disruptiveness and for not being here to build an encyclopedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Rather than a block, I think all we need to do is make it clear to Username160611000000 that (a) they should not use tables in their Reference Desk questions, and (b) any posts they make in table format will be reformatted so that the posts are readable; this is an acceptable practice per WP:TPO. Blocking should only be contemplated if 1606 engages in disruptive behaviour, such as reverting from readable to tabular format, which has not (as far as I know) been an issue with this user so far. The incident mentioned above involved 1606 reverting a complete deletion of their question, which (formatting aside) I would not consider disruptive. (Neither would I consider MarnetteD in the wrong for deleting it in the first place, incidentally.) Tevildo (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

If you sincerely think this is user is here to build an encyclopedia and moreover is not disruptive, then we probably disagree. Within his first 12 edits he has reported two longstanding editors on two different noticeboards. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that the editor does not actually want to be here at all.... _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• MarnetteD is one of our most experienced and respected editors. Username160611000000 would do well to abide by Wikipedia conventions and apologise - rather than these tiresome complaints. David J Johnson (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Your all suggestions are mostly based on non-material or biassed explanations (e.g. reputation). I don't understand why should I imitate others formatting. I did not break anything. I follow WP:BOLD. And please don't intimidate. I understand you all want to block me, so we are not equal in editing rights. If I will edit your post you just block me, right? MarnetteD is one of administrators (or something close), so other administrators must be unprejudiced or don't take part in discussion. E.g. you have already used manipulations, saying I didn't inform users. Why? Username160611000000 (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Being bold is fine, but it is beaten by consensus. So when your boldness is reverted and the consensus is that you should not do it, you need to stop doing it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, so far, your thread here has escaped the gimlet eye of the administration; not for long, I fancy. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There's a disconnect here. Fluency in English is a skill that is paramount when editing the English version of this encyclopedia. There's nothing xenophobic about it: you have to be able to write and edit fluently in proper English in order to successfully edit the English language Wikipedia. This user makes grammar mistakes that an elementary student wouldn't. Doc talk 11:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's more formatting problems than grammar issues and so far they haven't edited any articles yet. Outside of articles, grammar only matters as far as it affects communication. Or, "grammar ain't matter nuthin s'long as y'all knows what I'm sayin." That said, it's all the forum shopping after that's starting to get disruptive. Otherwise, 24 hours for this? :P Ian.thomson (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Twenty-four hours for what...?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It was a joke (hence the :P ) about "This user is makes grammar mistakes," though I provided the diff where Doc9871 corrected it (because it was easier to see there). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The user is not fluent in English. There are "definite articles" missing in the most basic sentences. Like "the" and things like that. It's kind of important. I personally know lots of people born in other countries that are now fluent in English. They would never say, "So federal government must pay these money back to Treasury" and not expect to be looked at like Yakov Smirnoff setting up a joke. There's an obligation to the readers here. No offense to the OP, but competence is required. Doc talk 11:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: V. good :) sorry bit early for humour here! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Bbb23 and Drmies -- this smells like a returning user stirring up trouble. Any idea who it could be? If none, still needs an attitude/NOTHERE/DE block. Care to do the honors? Softlavender (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Username160611000000:WP:TPYES advocates "using standard formatting and threading." This is described more fully at WP:THREAD. Those represent community consensus on how things work. You've been bold, you were reverted, and we've discussed matters -- the discussion has not gone your way, Wikipedia:Let it go. I don't want to block you, but you are the one making a mountain out of a molehill (and have made no contributions to the site except for arguing over this). Tables take up more room and are less efficient, even if they're pretty. MarnetteD is not an administrator, but does a lot of work, mostly in article space. Now, even if you are in the right here, which user is objectively helping the site more? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that 1606 did post several reasonable (apart from the formatting issue) questions to the Reference Desks before registering their account, so I don't believe their lack of logged-in contributions should be an issue in any decision about sanctions. Tevildo (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Where and under what IP did the user post several reasonable questions to the Reference desk before registering an account, and how do you know it was him? Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_May_1#US_debt_2 and Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_April_18#US_.28external.2C_foreign.2C_public.2C_intragovernmental.2C_total_etc..29_debt, as 37.53.235.112. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Umm, yeah. This might actually not be the best thing to disclose here, as there's zero sockpuppetry evidence, correct? Editors are allowed to transition from an IP to a named account. This might need to be oversighted... Doc talk 12:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yup: a checkuser wouldn't link an IP to a registered account. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a given. It wouldn't hurt to ask @Username160611000000: if that the IP was or was not him. Doc talk 12:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User made the info public in this edit summary. If they wish to withdraw it, I will remove my posts. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Username160611000000 linked to those two edits in the "table" he kept placing on the RefDesk: [118], [119], so presumably they are his edits, being as they also use the same tabular formatting. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This particular user is just too incompetent to be editing here.[120] I will leave it to the rest of you. Doc talk 12:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Searching consensus I agree not to use tables. But I still think replies need better demarcation. What can I use for this? Can I use hr -tag . Example:

text1

---

text2

Username160611000000 (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

What then? Only text? When I have used line break in this discussion, someone have edited this. Username160611000000 (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Username160611000000, this is not the place to try to re-work Wikipedia. What is your purpose for being on Wikipedia? We don't need new formatting. Please take your skills elsewhere. Softlavender (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I will edit my messages as I wish for comfort reading by myself. It doesn't violate rules. And if you will edit them, I will write complaints. Complaints are not forbidden.

"What is your purpose for being on Wikipedia?" -- For now it's just reading articles and asking questions in reference desk. For comfort demarcation answers from my questions and replies, I will edit latter as I wish. Username160611000000 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

We generally try to avoid being a jerk to make a WP:POINT. When everyone is telling you that it is a bad idea to start littering pages with novel formatting ideas, and you're a newbie, it really is in your best interest to listen hard to what people are saying to you. You would be far better advised to edit your messages for the comfort of others; and to do so, would be best advised to follow the house style. To do anything else would be arrogant stupidity. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That's actually a very good idea if you want to get blocked indefinitely. Keep it up. That way you'll save everyone time and aggravation. Kleuske (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Bottom line: Username160611000000, if you alter the formatting in the Reference Desk again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Is that clear enough for you? Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I endorse Softlavender's comment. You are editing community pages and are expected to follow community norms. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have left a final warning on the user's talk page. I think this thread is ready to close. Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• • Community norms are too blurred. Plain text is just suggestion. Username160611000000 (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I would guess that MarnetteD was correct and suggest you move on. A very experienced editor with excellent judgement usually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor impersonating others / misusing templates

• here they impersonate Theroadislong;
• and here they do the same under the guise of Nepali keto62.

A suspicion of socking has also been raised; but this behaviour alone, I suggest, is sufficiently abusive of, and disruptive to, the system to warrant an immediate block. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I suspect the editor is initially just copy-pasting warnings given to them. I will reinforce the need to explain themselves here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Good explanation: it would at least mean it was accidentally disruptive rather than intentionally so... _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarojupreti, which I opened before seeing this. Impersonation of Nepali keto62 was a feature of previous socks in that case. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep: the SPI result will frame Neil's thoughts above. In the meantime, see here for a so-called asdmission that he also controls the Nepali account. Which is either a bizarre confession, or an attempt at implicating an innocent editor with whom he has already edit-warred. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note MasterPiece2016 now blocked by Boing! said Zebedee. Good block. Now just awaiting the SPI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Battleground editing and personal attacks by IP 62.168.13.98

62.168.13.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in battleground mentality and edit warring on the Czechs article. Moreover, he has made repeated personal attacks [121] [122] (I don't read Czech, but translate says he's calling me an idiot), asked or demanded I give my real name [123] (again in Czech, so a little unclear on the context), repeatedly called me a liar [124] [125] and "holy warrior" (not sure how to take that last one). He's been repeatedly warned, but persists in his behavior. Obviously I can't take an action of my own, as I seem to be his favorite target. Seems likely he is somebody's bad hand sock.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

* To idiot: I asked Mojo hand, why delete the word Czechia? If it's only lack of information or intention? He didn't answer.

* To holy warior: Mojo Hand, Doremo, Yopie, Dan Polansky, Mewulwe, Khajidha, -jkb- and Cimmerian praetor systematically and more then 10 years translate Česko (=Czechia) wrong as "Czech Republic" (=Česká republika) or "Czech lands" (= České země) and they delete every mention about "Czechia". I think it is regular "Holy War against the word Czechia". So any lack of information, but phanatic intention.

* To lie: Mojo hand again delete Czechia and wrote, that this word didn't exist in 1939. But here are sources http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=search&text=czechia#panel=search&search=1 or here https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Czechia&year_start=1830&year_end=2010&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CCzechia%3B%2Cc0 So I think it's a standard lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yopie 2016:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Czech_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=715380003
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tatra&diff=prev&oldid=719550028
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bohemian-Moravian_Highlands&diff=prev&oldid=719550163
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opava_(disambiguation)&diff=prev&oldid=715379089
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borovany&diff=prev&oldid=715379024
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%A0koda&diff=prev&oldid=715378721
• ....

Doremo 2016

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europe&diff=prev&oldid=729333281
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Diplomatic_missions_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=723053348
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%8Cesk%C3%A9_Bud%C4%9Bjovice&diff=prev&oldid=723053213
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highways_in_the_Czech_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=723053035
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outline_of_the_Czech_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=723052897
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kin-Ball&diff=prev&oldid=723052758
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petr_Fiala&diff=prev&oldid=723053429
• ...

Dan Polansky

• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Czech_Republic&diff=29082677&oldid=29081484
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%8F&diff=prev&oldid=32784698
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%8Cehija&diff=prev&oldid=29099364
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%8Cekija&diff=prev&oldid=29099363
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Tsjekkia&diff=prev&oldid=29099360
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Czechy&diff=prev&oldid=29099359
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Ch%C3%A9quia&diff=prev&oldid=29099358
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Cehia&diff=prev&oldid=29099357
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%8Ce%C5%A1ka&diff=prev&oldid=29099356

...

Topic ban removal request

A request by @Septate: for a removal of a topic ban is taking place at AN. Mentioning it here, because the original ban took place here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

IP's continued disruption

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

---

Resolved

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

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

Non stop disruptive overlinking. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Same editor as one I blocked a few days ago. Both IPs blocked, both articles semied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanx Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 20:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Administrator blocking for no reason, deleting unblock requests

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

---

Is such behaviour acceptable? Reading policies and guidelines leads me to believe not. But it is happening, so perhaps the guidelines and policies are out of date and should be changed. Please advise.82.132.243.236 (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you give us examples or are you just this editor. MarnetteD|Talk 22:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the nice IP that left this [126] message. I think we know all that we need to asses your ability to participate here. Acroterion (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Long term uncivil behaviour from PeeJay2K3

Today I noticed PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · logs) being aggressive against others again, and enough is enough so please do something.

On Manchester United F.C. he removed a blue link to an existing article several times ([127], [128], [129], [130]) claiming it is not notable and even accused the new editor of vandalism (dont bite the newcomers). The article PeeJay2K3 removed links to is Axel Tuanzebe now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Tuanzebe

The reason for this report is a long term pattern from this editor, where he is very aggressive towards other editors (both new and experienced) and I often react on the edit summaries like this threathening message: if you put one more template on my talk page, I swear to god I'm gonna bite you next and others like still nope, idiot, what a childish little asshole, grow up, cunt, who the fuck is Luis Nani, are you retarded? and many more just these last 10 days.

After an archive search, the editor has previously been reported in

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive273#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Blocked)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive91#PeeJay2K3 reported by Matty4123 (Result: Page protected )
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive284#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Declined)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive316#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:BDD (Result: Warned)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive77#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:86.156.215.77 (Result: Declined )
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive81#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by CroatiaShoes (Result: Page protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive282#PeeJay persistent personal attacks
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive249#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Both warned)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive272#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: No action)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive72#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: 24 hours)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Greenman (Result: Locked)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Hmdwgf (Result: No violation)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive268#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Hawaiifive0 (Result: Filer blocked)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive88#PeeJay2K3 reported by Grant.Alpaugh (Result: reporter blocked )
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive175#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by Longwayround (talk) (Result: No vio)

I know that this editor has been here for a long time but this is still a big concern that this many editors (including experienced editors) all have reported him. He is a good and big contributor, but I have a serious concern that he is making new editors leave wikipedia, due to his behaviour. Qed237 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, his is a good contributior with civility issues, my advice is to avoid profanity in disscusions. I'll propose a civility resriction on that user. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

What is a "civility restriction"? Is the editor restricted to acting as civil as everyone else is supposed to be? The editor has an extensive block log. Unless there's a good explanation for this repeated refusal to follow the civility policy, I don't see any point in doing anything but blocking the editor to prevent further abuse on others indefinitely until such time that the editor agrees to stop with the attacks. Especially in football articles, there's a host of new editors who don't know our technical criteria so being abusive is entirely unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but I agree with a indef block for making personal attacks. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 01:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note that a) the last block was September last year; b) that it was of a month's duration; and c) that the blocking admin noted it as being "third edit war block in 13 months."

Although, I also note that this report is not regarding an edit war. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User Chronus making personal attacks against me

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

---

I think the user Chronus and the user DanielGSouza are the same guy, or they are working in meatpuppetry,Chronus send a message in Portuguese threatening me and saying "WE will work against you". "WE"?

I need to advice that this user Chronus is an dictator in the Portuguese Wiki (No exaggeration), he is known to all users of the Wiki-pt as rude and possessive, preventing all editing in articles where he touchs. Already quarreled with multiple users both Wiki-PT and even here, always wanting to impose his point of view. He is also known for extreme ideological bias (he is communist) and collusion with Wiki-PT administrators. You should kick this guy over here forever. Tamakukan (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Tamakukan blocked one week per the below. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Serious personal attacks against me (again)

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

---

The editor Tamakukan (see above, a sock puppet from Bazaira account - see previous request) again utter serious personal attacks against me in portuguese (see here, here, here, above and below). Chronus (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

And you are a dictator in Wiki-PT, wants to be a Hugo Chavez here too? You and your dictator friend Teles destroyed the Wiki-PT. You should shut up. Tamakukan (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You are communist and have serioous mental problems, your "wiki pt team" decides everything out of the Wiki-PT place, in real life. You ban who you don't like, you don't follow any rule. Tamakukan (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

And keeps going... Chronus (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, in Wiki-PT you're an big asshole because Teles and the administrators protect you like a baby. Tamakukan (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Tamakukan blocked one week. Chronus, is Bazaira an alternate account of Tamakukan or are they two different people? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes, Bazaira is an alternate account of Tamakukan. The editor is a well-known creator of puppets accounts in pt.wiki (see here). Chronus (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Chronus, can you open a WP:SPI, supply the appropriate diffs (and translations) as evidence, and request a checkuser? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Done! Chronus (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruption and poor behavior by Baron d'Holbach II on Islamist related pages

• Baron d'Holbach II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First, pardon my brevity as I'm reporting from my phone. Baron d'Holbach II has been casting aspersions on the article's talk, making unsourced claims of conspiracy theories in violation of BDP, and editing against consensus or while discussion is ongoing. User keeps talking about ISIL paying the Nice attacker, intentional suppression of that info by newspapers, and that it would disrupt Obama's narrative. Some diffs: [131] [132] [133]

User has been disruptive in related areas too [134] [135]

When addressed on their talk page, they have a severe case of IDHT and puerile behavior (eg [136] [137])

User's pov appears to make them unable to constructively edit in Islamist terrorism related articles. I think this falls under the WP:GS/ISIL too. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not a conspriacy theory, it is official policy at the highest levels. EvergreenFir falsely accused me of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

At least now your reaction to me mentioning divorce makes a bit more sense. You don't think I'm "the liberal media", you think I'm Barack Obama. That's a relief. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

I encourage anyone reviewing this to look at the user's contributions. I'm unable to link all relevant diffs from my phone. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And I encourage everyone to review EvergreenFir's false claims of "vandalism" against me on my talk page. He filed this report after I asked him to apologize. The issue that EvergreenFir strangely refers to as a "conspiracy", namely the whitewashing of radical Islam as administration policy, is widely covered on Wikipedia, with the article on the 2009 Fort Hood shooting summarizing it quite nicely in the introductory section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere on Wikipedia does it say anything about InedibleHulk being Barack Obama. Coincidence? TimothyJosephWood 15:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The lede only mentions that a lawsuit has been filed. There has been no proof of whitewashing whatsoever. Looks like this is an editor who does not understand WP:NOTADVOCATE. MarnetteD|Talk 05:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Evergreen might be talking about the "ISIS pays truck driver" sort of conspiracy. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be clear, the conspiracy part was referring primarily to the alleged payments. But it does include alleged suppression. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm tired of explaining myself. I'm tired of false accusations. And I'm tired of Wikipedia. Please close my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 06:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• I reviewed this user's list of contributions yesterday after they were called a WP:SPA at Talk:2016 Nice attack and I can only agree with that assesssment, plus, add that they're not the good type of SPA, for the rare cases where that happens. Mainly just gratuitously inflamatory and verging on WP:NPA on talk pages. LjL (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Strange spamming attack

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

---

I've seen several spamlink additions by new users today to articles about travel destinations, all very similar format, all adding a link to http://wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com.xx (where xx varies - two cases of .br and one of .jp). The URLs redirect to http://www.123malikoki.info/, which doesn't actually include any of the article destinations spammed today, so it seems pretty incompetent. Two of the edit summaries are fakes of the form "Undid revision x by 2602:306:3357:BA0:8085:1A7D:CD7B:339B". They seem to make a few white space changes too, presumably to try to hide it. The three I have found and reverted are...

• This one by User:Napbihtre.
• This one by User:Stangradn.
• This one by User:Nezajivo.

Now that I've realized there's an organized spamming effort here, I've indef blocked all three. A Google search doesn't find any other occurrences, but there might be some that have not been indexed yet. Any thoughts? Blacklist wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com and the 123malikoki.info destination? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I caught this identical post from Davidmio the other day. Dawnseeker2000 15:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - they look like they're one-off throwaway accounts, but I've indef blocked that one too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a sneaky one by Titpaveli (talk · contribs); there's no such edit being reverted. Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, they're mostly like that - the "reverts" are completely bogus. Thanks for the ones you've found and blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A bit more Google-fu and I also found...

• This by User:Tankosava
• This by User:Themiloz
• This by User:Juzafriac
• This by User:Starikine
• This by User:Takicmil
• This by User:Jesamils
• This by User:Bokimrsa
• This by User:Letraket
• This by User:Pucerdom
• This by User:Sanacmoj
• This by User:Suocmigr
• This by User:Aguemilo
• This by User:Novipsopo

Spam URLs include http://wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.co.uk, http://mywikipediatravel.blogspot.in, http://wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com, http://wikitravelguidesnow.blogspot.hr, http://mywikipediatravel.blogspot.jp, http://mywikipediatravel.blogspot.com.br, http://mywikipediatravel.blogspot.ca, http://mywikipediatravel.blogspot.rs, http://wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.kr, http://wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com.au.

All single-use throwaway accounts, all now blocked (some by me, some by User:Mackensen). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• PS: I'm not posting ANI notices on all these dozens of user talks, for obvious reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) There's an insane amount of quacking, here. Could it be a duck farm? Seriously, this seems to scream for a sockpuppet investigation. Kleuske (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • They're obviously all socks, yes (and are all indef blocked), but I think the only benefit of an SPI would be to perhaps unearth any undiscovered sleepers - I'll probably start one soon. In the meantime, I'm hoping someone who knows how to do blacklists might be able to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • SPI started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tankosava. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Domains blacklisted. MER-C 01:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

IP edits to Don't Hug Me I'm Scared

• User:97.103.64.104 has made many WP:OR edits to Don't Hug Me I'm Scared and has not responded to requests or warnings on talk page or in edit summaries. A request to semi-protect was declined with a suggestion to post here instead. Please consider taking action to prevent edits from this IP to this page. Thanks. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 16:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:82.132.214.82 sock of recently blocked editor from the same IP range

Pending matters can be seen here and here. The editor involved has returned with an IP from the same range, attacking the same type of pages, but now in an accelerated speed (on orders of knighthood and honours) and since he has been reported has been wreaking havoc on several pages as can be seen here. We are dealing with an ongoing matter of massive block evasion at this point by an IP hopping edit warrior, who is the sockpuppet of the presently blocked User:82.132.231.181 who will not stop, whatever happens. Problem is that the above matters have only caused ONE of his IP alter ego's to be blocked, and one of the others isn't taking that very well. This is notably at the moment User:82.132.214.82. This matter is accompanied by snarky edit summaries like this one Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Who's the charming fellow who is editing from the 82.132.192.0/18 range? [138] Anyone know? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't seem to access that link... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, it might take a while to come up, depending on your browser and computer speed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

All of the IPs are likely sockpuppets of Qais13 (much like this one). The last IP mentioned by Hebel has recently been blocked, but given the history of pages like Juliana of the Netherlands and the fact that this user is still around I doubt that it will be very long before they're back on a new sockpuppet. The problem is that the only consistency in their edits is (1) something to do with orders or honours, and (2) that the IP is something along the lines of 82.132.2xx.xxx - at least, the ones that have been used recently.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That is also what User:DrKay seems to think, but there seem to be some difficulties establishing that. Which is a pity because it would be helpful if further incidents with the same characteristics could be traced back to a blocked user. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. There may be more than one block evader. There's also IPs like this --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's the problem: a rangeblock might be justified if this IP range was only used by the edit warring vandal, but the edits from that other IP don't look as if they were made by Qais13 or whoever else is behind all this - although neither of them is particularly civil.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I noticed earlier that one of the IP's I mentioned in my filings had an earlier edit history about unrelated matters and about two years ago. One had vandalised an article about pizza...... But we have seen similar attacks on pages about royalty and chivalric orders. Sometimes by IP editors, sometimes by named editors recently. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've anon-only blocked the /18 range for one month. If the problems persist after the block expires, I'm willing to extend the duration of the block. Mike V • Talk 20:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That Poppy: Info being deleted w/o explanation

A user by the name of GabrielMarx89 has been removing a large amount of information from the page That Poppy without much explanation, and when users have reverted his edits, explaining why he must explain the removal of content, he simply does it again. I have tried to start a discussion with him on the talk page of the article but he has not responded, and a myriad of editors who reverted his edits (Adog104, Sro23, C.Fred) have tried t discuss the matter with him on his talk page, but he has not responded to any of them. On top of this, the only edits he has made throughout the entirety of being on Wikipedia have been removals of content on the same exact page; that is, the That Poppy page. If someone could handle this situation accordingly, that would be much obliged. Benmite (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Gave them an edit warring warning. We'll see what they do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Repeated BDP violations by Dream Focus on Talk:Shooting of Alton Sterling

• Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shooting of Alton Sterling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dream Focus has made repeated WP:BLP (in this case WP:BDP) violations on Talk:Shooting of Alton Sterling ([139], [140], [141], [142], [143]) despite warnings and discussion (see the article talk page and the user's talk page). There is no excuse for this for a user of 9 years.

Examples (see diffs above) of the violations include accusing the person of:

• not paying child support
• raping a woman
• "certainly didn't care about them or help raise them at all"

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Kindly look at the current version. Talk:Shooting_of_Alton_Sterling#5_children_mentioned.2C_but_not_details I reworded it be statutory raping, instead of just raping, since that's the term used by the federal government, and the name of the Wikipedia article for it. I have shown news articles mentioning he didn't pay child support, and did four years in jail for having sex with a 14 year old he got pregnant. Dream Focus 20:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• I already eliminated "certainly didn't care about them or help raise them", and added references to the information I posted, before he brought the issue here. Dream Focus 20:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It took you 11 edits, multiple warnings, a mild personal attack, and an ANI to get you to adhere to basic policy? That's not acceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not acceptable you couldn't just state that you believed the information I mentioned needed a reference, despite people mentioning it in previous sections without references, instead of edit warring without explaining the reason why you thought it justified to do so. Are you going to go through the rest of the talk page, and start deleting valid discussions there too? Dream Focus 21:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn't know that contentious BLP material needs references? Katie^talk 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I've been busy IRL. That others violated BDP does not mean you're allowed to. I made it clear what I meant, namely that you need a ref. WP:BLP specifically says violations must be removed. I even asked on your talk page to ask your question without the violations being tacked on. That you didn't is not my fault. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That is not what you said on my talk page. [144] You didn't mention references at all there, just stated incorrectly that nothing offensive could be mentioned. Dream Focus 21:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't mischaracterize my comments please. I didn't say you couldn't say anything "offensive". I specified which items you wrote were BDP violations. You're correct, however, that I didn't mention the need for sources on your talk page. I mentioned on the article talk page here. Again... you didn't know you needed sources??? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And after you did that, I made some fast edits in a row, adding sources. So what's the problem here? I see no reason to bring it here. Also [145] you edit warred out my comment again after I gave you the first link to news sources of the information, I then reverting you and adding in additional ones to make it even more obvious how many sources there are. Dream Focus 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A google search link is not a source. See WP:3RRNO. Also you removed one of my comments in the process. The problem, now, is that you apparently don't realize why this is an issue and it took this ANI for you to fix your problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I had already added sources before the ANI started. This had nothing to do with it. And you removed my comment many times, so me hitting undo from your unfair removal that time, which took out something you said in the process, isn't anything you should be whining about. Dream Focus 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Do any of your sources explain which of those alleged crimes come with a death penalty? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

My question was "Why mention he had five children without mentioning he didn't pay child support and the mother of one of them was a 14 year old girl he was convicted of statutory raping? What point is there to mention how many children he had? Is that relevant to the shooting? Is it trying to gain sympathy for him? Since the news media does mention these other facts, why are they kept out, but not the information that might make people sympathize with him?" It seems bias to mention some information and not others. Since neither things have anything to do with the shooting, I removed that bit from the article. Dream Focus 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The message that info sends to the public is that somehow he "deserved" to be shot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Its just the facts. People determine on their own what they believe someone deserved. Anyway, I wasn't trying to get that in the article, just pointing out the bias by mentioning something that sounded positive about him, without mention the entire story about that information. Dream Focus 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's POV-pushing hiding behind "facts". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs is absolutely correct. This is indeed POV pushing, not unlike what's typically done after the stereotypical shooting of a black man by the police: any criminal record is broadly displayed, any previous arrest is mentioned, as if the shooting was deserved after all. That the man had five kids is easily argued to be pretty relevant, I think, and many editors are always eager to get the children into any biographical article; the circumstances of these children are not immediately relevant and speculating about them is easily a BLP/BDP violation. Saying something about how someone didn't care for their children is pretty vile, Dream Focus: such speculation on-wiki is a blatant violation. If it's about "the facts", then I expect you to start speculating in the same manner about the three police officers who were shot today, to keep it fair and balanced. I'm kidding, DreamFocus: that's a violation as well. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. Nothing DreamFocus pointed out in Evergreen's first two points is untrue at all and easily sourced (and has been). Way too premature for ANI. Capeo (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

the issue isn't that the comments are false or not (though the last one cannot be sources), it's that the editor wouldn't abide by policy when when informed of it repeatedly. A veteran editor should need 11 edits to get something this fundamental correct. I didn't call this a content dispute either. It's behavioral. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Where the hell you getting this "11 edits" number? Last I checked, he'd only made 3 edits to the page in question, each different and over the span of a week. Evergreen, I think you've blown this out of proportion. pbp 00:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Pay attention and you'll see it was on the talk page and those edits are linked above. You should read before you comment.--TMCk (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

He can comment on the talk page all he wants for all I care. No harm in doing so. pbp 04:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 I admit to sometimes blowing things out of proportion, despite my best efforts. Perhaps this ani was premature as capeo says. But there were more than the three edits on the article. Blp applies everywhere even talk pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89. You need to learn the basic (BLP) rules first - then comment (maybe).--TMCk (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

racist rant again

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

---

see posting at 19:36 17 July 2016 at History of African Americans in Los Angeles for a repeat of racist rant summary of 20:48 10 July 2016. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

All set. Also, the /64 IPv6 range received a much needed 3 month hard block. Mike V • Talk 04:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

VPP disruption

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

---

Isn't intentionally hosting RFCs that you know will fail disruptive? I think a warning is needed to prevent further disruption here. Hiyahoo1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) No. Kleuske (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Pandit Rathod

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

---

User:Pandit Rathod continues to use Wikipedia as a free webhost for self promotion,[146][147][148][149][150] ignores warnings.[151][152] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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