Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Right Hand Drive (talk | contribs) at 05:11, 21 February 2016 (→‎Continued harrassment by User:Herostratus: I rest my case.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:NMMGG. Persistent refusal to stop suggesting my editing at Ezra Nawi has personal motives.

    At Ezra Nawi, I thought on a WP:BLP article, it was obligatory to get the precise nature of the conviction clear as given in reports of Israeli court records which judged the relationship ‘consensual’. Every attempt to explain this necessity has been met by personal innuendoes as to my putative motivations. In repeating these innuendoes User:Bad Dryer was indeffed (see here).

    The author of the innuendo, User:No More Mr Nice Guy persists in alluding to this, and suggests I am embarrassed by what I have written, embarrassed to the point of backpedalling, and too embarrassed to report him. The record is:

    WP:NPA Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. . . Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks.

    These insinuations, fishing expeditions, challenges, and suggestions that on the topic of statutory rape I am 'embarrassed' or 'backtracking' and 'justify' it are as repetitive as those made by Bad Dryer. The editor some years ago tried to put it over I was an anti-Semite, and the case led to his banning from WP:AE. In both cases, the behavior is the same, language crafted to provoke some personal exchange by insinuating I have some dubious personal fixations. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the statement I was responding to. The discussion is about a minor who was the the cause of a statutory rape conviction against the topic of the article. I think the statement speaks for itself. I will only note that there's not a single source that makes this argument (unsurprisingly) or that puts the word "victim" in quotes (again, unsurprisingly).
    As for the AE case, if someone wants to look into how a single admin closed an harassment case within 24 hours based on an assumption of bad faith, I would welcome that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • NMMGG's diff shows Nishidani adding a comment, but let's start from the beginning of that section, namely the first post at Talk:Ezra Nawi#NMMGG WP:OR. That post shows this diff of NMMNG editing the article to insert "statutory rape" at the beginning of a list of reasons for the BLP subject being convicted. Problem: the source does not mention "rape", statutory or otherwise. The source (nytimes.com) uses Nishidani's text that NMMNG replaced with rape in primary position. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    NMMGG construed (a) as personal advocacy (b)and said I repeatedly asserted this (putative)personal advocacy when I was, on the talk page, justifying an edit by citing what the sources stated (not my views). He then furthered suggested my position was identical to that of NAMBLA, an organization I'd never heard of.
    The text he cites for my views is a patchwork of paraphrases and quotations.

    'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him. And it was consensual, as his minimal sentence indicated. A victim is 'person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else. : a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else. : someone or something that is harmed by an unpleasant event (such as an illness or accident)', which, from the sources does not appear to be how the Palestinian saw this. In five years he never laid a complaint.

    I let this pass, but leaving it go, has only lead to a follow-up train of nudging insinuations about what he fantasies to be my personal views. I can't see how this is not talking about the editor, rather than focusing on the content, as is required under WP:NPA. I am not calling for a ban. I am asking the board to get him to drop his puerile attempt to be a psychologist, which is proving disruptive to editing that page.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A. Those are indeed your views. Not a single source says the minor was not a victim or puts quotes around the word "victim", not to mention argues about the dictionary definition of "victim". B. Anyone following the diffs above can clearly see that every single time I was responding to you bringing the subject up. All you have to do is drop it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'?Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't have consensual sex with a minor, so regardless if it was "consensual" and the victim allowed it, and there was not enough evidence in the court of law to convict, just because the victim didn't testify doesn't mean there was no victim. What is the age of consent? Victims often times don't testify because they are scared or because they don't want to relive the rape. That doesn't mean that there was no victim. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the point. It is obvious Nawi broke the law and deserved a prison sentence of at least 6 months (unlike the 30 IDF soldiers who had 'consensual' sex with a 12-13 year old Israeli girl for 2 years, and got 3-6 weeks camp detention. They got off lightly, being neither homosexual or human rights activists.)
    NMMGG said I repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old (sic=37-8 year old) having sex with a 15 year old.All we have is a link to my summary of sources. He is obliged to document where I (suppoadly) repeatedly did this. If he can prove his claim is validated by several remarks I made, fine. If he can't then he has been engaged with a decidedly serious piece of calumny, which he repeated above, in the face of my objections ('Those are indeed your views.').Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be because you still say you should put victim in quotes. Just because the kid didn't testify doesn't make him not a victim. That is all I'm saying. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh good grief. I made an argument for that proposition. When the consensus said no, I didn't engage in a revert war or persist ('still'). I think the word 'victim' contradicts the word 'consensual', since it implies 'violence'. But, nota bene, I did not erase it, or substitute it with another term. It was a WP:BLP fine line call. Everyone in this area should know I am extremely finicky about niceties of usage. If, we have only Nawi's word for it, the 15 year old persisted in phoning him and wanting to stay at his home, then that doesn't fit the normal sense of 'victim'. Massie for one says there was 'no real victim'. John Costello and Dearbhail McDonald instead say the minor was a victim. You have a split in opinion in the sources, and when that occurs one has a simple choice, battle over 'victim' to keep or excise it according to a POV, or, as I did retain 'victim' in inverted commas, to signal the controversy. It's as simple as that, so simple NMMGG, convinced he has some specialist insight into my personal outlook, thinks he can smear me as pushing some NAMBLA agenda, when I am simply trying to edit a difficult article according to commonsense. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bad Dryer was blocked indefinitely by Drmies, and the block upheld by both Liz and HighInBC, for insinuating that Nishidani's BLP concerns at Ezra Nawi are motivated by some kind of paedophilic tendency.

    Sir Joseph maintains the blocks result from Wikipedia's "shameful" bias against "pro-Israeli" editors [1], and No More Mr Nice Guy agrees. Despite this, NMMNG has themselves, at talk:Ezra Nawi, three times repeated the gross and insulting ad hominem that insinuates Nishidani's somehow pro-NAMBLA editing. NMMNG also defended Bad Dryer's insinuations before that user was indeff'd - which isn't surprising since they've repeated this themselves.

    If NMMNG can't accept how disruptive it is to approach this topic while accusing other editors of some kind of paedophilia, they should not be editing here. -Darouet (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am coming here in response to the ping. In my opinion trying to gain advantage of a content dispute by accusing someone of child abuse is about the most egregious violation of WP:NPA that I can think of off the topic of my head. This includes hinting at it and slyly(or not so slyly) insinuating it. It was an easy decision to decline that unblock request.
    I find it difficult to imagine a context where this would be appropriate, however as I have not looked into the context I will leave it for others to decide. HighInBC 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA when someone is using scare quotes around 'victim' in order to whitewash someones criminal acts. That last diff you posted was in response to this comment - "'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him." - that is straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A good example of what happens when persistent loose insinuations by one established editor feed in to our work, and set up a whispering campaign. Now I am accused of 'whitewashing' a criminal act for using an orthographic device to bring people's attention to an issue requiring discussion.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    'Scare quotes'?!! Oh dear me, look I'm a philologist. One of the primary functions of inverted commas is 'to mark off a word or phrase that is being discussed' My edit suggestion was accompanied by opening a discussion on the talk page, for which I was insulted. Has the precise instruction on grammatical and verbal niceties been wholly lost in the past decades? It looks like it, and one of the consequences is that, not reading closely, editors tend to read into innocent words or devices all sorts of weird psychological conjectures, as here.Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In an isolated environment you would probably be correct. When you follow it up with arguments that seek to deny victimhood and excuse rape of a minor, I am more skeptical of the motives involved. "They didnt make the complaint" is not an argument you want to be making when talking about rape victims. Oh and "Its a philogical matter" is also equally suspect. When you fall back on grammatical technicalities in order to advance an argument, it generally indicates the actual position has very little weight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    'Fall back' (i.e. NMMGG's 'backpedal').In a WP:BLP article. I used no arguments to excuse the rape of a minor, and I would ask you to retract that. I cited sources that state the minor, throughout the case, was 'reluctant' to testify against the man with whom he had a 'consensual' relationship. Nawi himself admitted immediately he was guilty, apparently, so it would be absurd for someone like me to deny what sources confirm. You, like NMMGG, are attributing to me positions in the source literature which I cite, which is slipshod reading and, worse still, damaging. You are not helping clarify this issue by making frivolous and offensive quips that pretend to 'read' into my remarks some private bias in favour of abuses of this kind.Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to maintain to make arguments that because a minor didnt make the complaint and was reluctant to testify it means their victimhood is in "discussion", feel free. You will however be judged accordingly. You have a preferred content version, you have made arguments as to why it should be that version, if it wasnt your opinion you are either playing a devil's advocate or you are misusing sources to push a POV. Since none of the sources deny he was a victim of a crime, using sources that indicate he was unwilling to testify to imply he wasnt a victim is OR. Either way muttering about orthographic devices just makes you look like you are making excuses to distance yourself from your previous remarks. I suggest if you dont want to be seen to be a rape apologist, stop making arguments rape apologists make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    'stop making arguments rape apologists make.' That makes you at least the fourth person to take up the slur introduced by NMMGG, and further evidence as to why he should retract an insinuation that questions my integrity. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps you should listen. Generally if multiple people have an issue with you, the problem is not always with them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I knew this kind of mudslinging against Nishidani would occur. This is why I suggested that these things be not treated with a sledgehammer. This is a delicate matter, and discussion should be focused on content, which was mostly what was happening on the talk page. In such an issue, it is hard to separate out personal feelings from the issue, some of which happened.

    I have opened a block review of Bad Dryer on WP:AN as well. In my opinion, the block was unfair and harsh and only serves the drama god.

    In contrast, in this discussion, Only in death has stated multiple times that Nishidani is a "rape apologist", or is simply mouthing arguments that "rape apologists" make, and cast aspersions on Nishidani's motives. This is much more of an NPA that Bad Dryer has engaged in. And more importantly, it only inflames the issue. Only in death is free to think whatever they like of Nishidani, but commenting at ANI does not give one a license to engage in serious personal attacks with abandon. There are many people I don't like here, and there are others who don't like me.

    No More Mr Nice Guy should be warned (at the very least) about personalizing disputes with Nishidani. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It is well known that NMMNG does not like Nishidani (some of the background has been given by Nishidani above), but there is no reason to be needlessly inflammatory, especially in a delicate matter like this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "NMMNG does not like Nishidani." It would be interesting to see whether NMMNG could provide the name of a single ARBPIA "political opponent" whom he doesn't treat contemptuously.     ←   ZScarpia   23:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Nishidani is making the exact same arguments people who try to excuse sex with minors make. If he doesnt want to face accusations that he may be editing from a sympathetic viewpoint he shouldnt make the same sympathetic arguments. NAMBLA always bring up the victims lack of 'victimhood' in this situation because the argument *only* serves their agenda in attempting to push the viewpoint sex with minors is permissable. Just because Nishidani supposedly has more integrity, does not excuse him when he makes the same sympathetic arguments. Like I said, dont want to be accused of being sympathetic to a point of view? Dont make shitty arguments that proponents of that POV make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: Have you heard of the term "guilt by association"? You can address the argument without associating people with organizations they have never heard of, who happen to make the argument for their own reasons. If I oppose smoking due to cigarettes causing cancer, are you going to associate me with Nazis because they were among the first to make the argument? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilt by association is not the same as sharing a sympathetic viewpoint. If you started editing articles in a manner that suggested Jews were not victims because of <insert Nazi argument> I would expect you to be called out as being sympathetic to the Nazis. Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments. If they didnt expect to get grief over that they are either unaware of what NAMBLA advocates (in which case they shouldnt be touching content that involves sex with minors) or they are just incredible naive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the third time you have asserted:' Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments.' Retract it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I tell you what, I won't say you are using NAMBLA arguments and in return you stop trying to justify a minor wasn't a victim because he didn't complain about it, deal? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    After being warned multiple times by multiple people, Only in death refuses to comply. Admin action is needed, this is WP:ANI after all. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think it's clear that both No More Mr Nice Guy and Only in death need to stop their aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks immediately (including here and on that article and talk page and anywhere else on Wikipedia), or face immediate blocks, topic bans, or IBans. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC); edited 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still asking for a reply from NMMGG to a legitimate query. He said:
    Not a single source says the minor was not a victim. No More Mr Nice Guy 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He was implying that many sources used in the article state the minor was a victim, and that I was evidently in flagrant defiance of that source consensus.
    I therefore requested him to clarify:
    'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'? Nishidani 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from clearing my record of an ugly insinuation that has gathered some converts to the calumny, the point is that whatever language goes into a text must reflect the balance of sources.
    So NMMGG. Please address this query, and possibly explain why, in a compromise edit when I reintroduced the word victim without inverted commas, your next edit erased it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why people are questions things. A minor can't be not a victim. There's no such thing as consensual sex under the age of consent. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Are people expected to believe that the likes of NMMNG and the person who operates the Bad Dryer account or the kind of right wing Israel supporters who are attracted to Wikipedia, editors with long histories of advocacy and patently biased editing, are showing concern for the well being of a Palestinian child, their treatment in the real world and here on Wikipedia? I hope not because that notion is absurd as anyone familiar with these editors should know by now. None of this drama would have happened if Nawi had been an Israeli soldier and shot and killed the boy. What we have here is faux concern for the way Wikipedia treats a Palestinian child used as cover for the cynical exploitation of an opportunity to target a BLP of a perceived enemy of the State of Israel and harass Nishidani in a vindictive and cowardly way, all done behind masks of anonymity. Genuine issues with the content will not get sorted out in a drama-free way by collaborating with people whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right. Only Palestinians should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I am not right wing, or an Israel supporter and have no history of advocacy (or even editing in any meaningful way in the IP area), so I guess I'm exhibiting faux concern too? I assure you if Nawi had shot and killed a boy and editors started scare quoting 'Victim' in Nawi's biography we would be having a very similar conversation about their motives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know you or your editing so there is no reason to think you are exhibiting faux concern. Maybe you can help improve the article since your priority is not to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. If Nawi had been an IDF soldier and shot the boy there would be no biography. But if there were, it would be nominated for deletion by an editor whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony of Sean's statement above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is drifting. Stay focused, and kindly reply to my request above. Chat just buries a serious issue.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which request? For sources that call the minor a victim? Here you go: victim, victim, Nawi's friend Norris calling him a victim, and a Norris supporter calling him a victim. That took one google search to find, and some of those are already in the article.
    The reason I thought you were discussing your opinion rather than that of sources in this edit is because of the fact the only source you reference is a dictionary, your use of "ostensible victim", and your claim that it doesn't "appear" the minor saw himself as a victim, when no source whatsoever brings any kind of statement from the minor, only the fact he didn't testify. Rape victims often don't want to testify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's replying to something I did not ask. You wrote:Not a single source says the minor was not a victim.
    You can't see the equivocation in your sentence. This place is the despair of grammarians or precisians. You sentence implies:'every source says the minor was a victim', which is obviously untrue.3 small circulation Irish sources (in a country whose press never breathed a word for several decades of their own dirty linen, the widespread abuse of children by priests and Christian brothers) and one by an Irish correspondent for the English tabloid The Daily Mail, limited to the period of one week in 2011 when the aim was to shipwreck Norris's bid for the Presidency of Ireland use 'victim'. The numerous English-language Israeli sources for Nawi we use do not adopt 'victim' as the default term. They say:'statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy/minor'. Sources say the Israeli court found the relationship 'consensual', correct or not, and I stand by my point that, however morally contemptuous sex by an older man with a 15 year old may be, using from a short list of sources the word victim, when the indication so far is that it was consensual, is improper. You of course never explained why, when I reintroduced, after talk page discussion, the word 'victim', you immediately elided it from the lead.
    It is true that Palestinian minors sexually abused or sodomised by Israeli soldiers while the latter hold them in detention are reluctant to denounce the fact for fear of retribution. In 1990 the boys' parents had no qualms about reporting it to Israeli courts, but the boy wouldn't apparently testify against him. When S.Hoyland talked of editors' nationalism, I presume he means that when an Israeli civil rights activist has a dark mark in his distant past, it is played up by many editors with a nationalist POV agenda for all its worth as they express outrage. But when the same kind of abuse (mass rape of a minor) is reported in army bases, of eminent diplomats, the same editors keep mum: it is not for our Wikipedia. They don't rush to edit in the scandal, as they do if the issue touches an activist for Palestinian rights, even if it occurred 25 years ago, and, since then thousands of Palestinians have trusted him not to molest their children as he takes them on those summer camps which the Israeli army would otherwise forbid them to enjoy. Unlike Sean, I think it both inevitable and not necessarily all bad, that many editors will defend their own countries' image and interests, and don't object if they have sharp eyes and high standards for sources and texts. I object when their concern spills over into patent smears, niggling, jabbing away, trying to play on the nerves (pointless at my age, when most of them are dead) which is the case here.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I'm required to engage with that long SOAPBOX. You asked for sources. I provided them. I explained why I said what I said. At least one person who has no connection to the IP topic has also said he found your comments, shall we say, outside the mainstream, so all these attempts to claim there's some kind of nationalistic background for this fall flat. If any uninvolved editor has any questions for me, please ping me. Otherwise I'm done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay you refuse to listen. All I am asking for is that NMMGG be asked to strike out or retract the personal insinuations he invented from his fantasy about my ostensible ulterior motives. The adoption of the calumny he started led to one indeff, because the person kept repeating it until well past the brink. Two other editors here have taken it up. He is responsible for this crap, and he should shut up and focus, and do useful editing, like finding this source which I found to be deadlinked. It's worth reading. The man who wrote it lost his bid for the Presidency of Ireland, just for expressing an informed clemency for Nawi. That smear was big time, and NMMGG's is peanuts. But I have to work here, with him, and this means he must learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos every other time we encounter each other,Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos" like the time you told a group of editors that we lack "capacity for pity and horror" that is not "ethnic-exclusive"?[2] That's a fine thing for one editor to say to another. Not sleazy at all. Would you like to elaborate on what ethnicity you were referring to, before you take the beam out of your own eye? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Content issues are not usually discussed on WP:ANI - the article talkpage should be used. Regardless of who is right, stop saying that Nishidani justified child abuse or use guilt by association with NAMBLA. That is the bottom line. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What's a content issue? My capacity for pity and horror that is not "ethnic exclusive"? Was that a joke? The bottom line in this case is that your concern about NPA seems to be quite selective. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We're under an obligation to edit in such a manner that both sides are duly represented. Thus, I, for one, am obliged to edit in tragic material not only re Palestinians but Israelis as attested in RS. I've done that everyday for years, i.e.,here,here,and here. It may be a defect of cursory knowledge but I only see you editing to minutely control material deleterious to Israel or editing articles re Palestinians when there is something negative to be showcased (Ezra Nawi, 2000 Ramallah lynching. You're not alone, and it reflects the fact that mainstream Israeli papers focus intensely on whatever violence affects Israelis or settlers, but generally ignore what happens to Palestinians. This exclusively negative or defensive focus in editors breaks no rule. But the pattern of refusing to consider that there are two sides to any question and accept that one must strive to see both perspectives, is obvious.
    In the present case, you made an extraordinary set of claims about my bias.You stated:
    You asserted a claim re sources which I showed was false. What was your reaction?
    Excise;revert out;delete;erase
    No real argument. Just repeated removal of information that contradicted your assertion. In an empirical world, one adjusts one's ideas as new information shows them to be inexact. In a partisan mindset, one suppresses any information which contradicts one's beliefs. At least do me the courtesy of retracting your assertion that I repeatedly justify sex with minors and the insinuation I act as a proxy for an obnoxious paedophile organization. Two people who took this up have since retracted. You ran that hare and ought to do the same. There is no evidence for it. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a good laugh when you said you strive to see both perspectives, considering I caught you more than once falsifying sources to push your POV. As I said above, I'm not going to engage with your soapboxing, and you can add strawmen and self-righteous bullshit to that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That tone and misrepresentation only serves to underline my point that some admin should sum up the general community comments here, take notice of the fact that you refuse to withdraw a remark one person was indeffed for, and 2 others withdrew or dropped from repeating, and ask you to simply retract it. That done, one can get back to serious things, like editing. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Any admin can read the discussion that resulted in your personal attack against me here and see if what I said above is a misrepresentation. It includes two quite straightforward examples of source falsification to push a POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course there's a content dispute involved, but Nishidani should not be expected to have to continue participating with respect and patience when doing so means being repeatedly slandered with allegations of support for paedophilia, and a generally sneering attitude. That is the cheapest and most egregious form of ad hominem, obviously contrary to WP:NPA, and it rightfully got Bad Dryer banned. Kingsindian, HighInBC and others have requested that you quit it, No More Mr Nice Guy, and you refuse. Unfortunately your conduct is living up to your chosen user name. This kind of behavior is rare among regular editors but when it appears makes Wikipedia a toxic, unpleasant and unproductive place. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you look up where Nishidani quoted someone who wrote that there was no real victim. That is the issue, that while it was consensual, there is still a victim becasue the kid was underage, even if it was consensual. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My attitude towards Nishidani reflects his attitude towards me. I can give dozens of examples like the personal attack I mentioned just above, which you for some reason are completely ignoring. Also nobody said he's supporting pedophilia. That's ridiculous. Pedophilia involves prepubescent children, not 15 year olds. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact my point is not about personal attacks, which are a dime a dozen in I/P area. I know that, you know that and Nishidani knows that. But there is a world of difference between different kinds of personal attacks. It is routine to have personal attacks accusing that someone is biased to one side, people just shrug it off. What is not acceptable is to use guilt by association with a pedophile advocacy organization and saying that X tried to justify having sex with a minor. That is a low blow. Please don't give me any stuff about pre-pubescent children. NAMBLA advocates pedophilia in general. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think telling another editor they are incapable of human emotion towards anyone who is not of their ethnicity is an accusation of bias rather than an outright accusation of racism (with some pedigree, but never mind), then you may need to step back a little. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be digging up a single one of Nishidani's edits from 8 months ago to justify your repeated, unrepentant, ad hominem slurs against them now. And if nobody is particularly convinced by your invocation of WP:BLP to slander an Israeli anti-settlement activist, or your loud indignation on behalf of the Palestinian boy who refused to testify against him, your own tone and editing history speak for themselves. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify. This is an Aristotelian distinction, as I recall noting at the time, related to the intensity of affect caused by kinship bonds (and all mankind is prone to the bias). That you are still twisting this into an accusation I was being 'racist' (your gloss, 'with some pedigree' in context means 'the history of anti-Semitism) is another example of misreading and your apparently obsessive conviction about my putative ulterior motives. Your accusation in this regard was examined and dismissed. Your continual returning to this, and insinuations I am pushing an agenda of sexual license with minors, suggests to me you have a problem in editing with me, and need to be told to retract the statement, and focus on editing.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal so that we can move on

    This over-lengthy thread has merely devolved into content disputes and further aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks (and self-justification thereof).

    I propose that No More Mr Nice Guy now strike all of the aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks noted by Nishidani on Talk:Ezra Nawi. And that both No More Mr Nice Guy and Only in death immediately desist in making any further such aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks, either here on this thread, on any talk page, in any edit summary, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Failure to abide by both of these proposals will result in immediate blocks, topic bans, or IBans. I also propose that content discussions cease on this thread and instead, if necessary, be resumed (without the aforementioned PAs and aspersions) on Talk:Ezra Nawi. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support striking and admonishment to desist, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, how would you respond to someone putting victim in quotes because the sex was "consensual" (even though the kid was 15)? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Updated with arguments below.[reply]
    • Oppose, this is a rather one sided proposal. It is as if Softlavendar has not read anything up above, nor anything of how Nishidani treats any of his interlocutors. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose But largely irrelevant since its unenforceable. Personally I dont edit in the IP area so topic bans are an empty threat and if *any* editor makes edits on a BLP and uses justifications like these, they will be reverted and called out for the immoral and unethical arguments they are making, regardless of who they are (BLP violations take precendence remember). Lastly attempts to muzzle comments on editing behaviour (and motives for such) doesnt work when you have policies like NPOV at work. If no one felt free to call out disgusting comments like the above (he literally says a rape victim is not a victim because they didnt complain about it, which is not only wrong, but morally objectionable) we would end up in the situation where those with less ethics skew content towards their own POV with no ability to call them out on it. So, SoftLavender's 'proposal' is rejected in its entirety. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the need to point out that Only in death is continuing the PAs and aspersions here: "immoral", "unethical", "disgusting", "he literally says a rape victim is not a victim because they didnt complain about it", "not only wrong, but morally objectionable", "those with less ethics". I'm not inviting a whole new discussion here (and I'm not going to comment further); I'm merely pointing out that the behaviors are continuing. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, the problem is that I believe putting victim in quotes for a child who is 15 just because the kid says the sex is consensual is a problem. Do you not see the issue with that? That is the problem. On a side note, are you working on running for administrator in the near future? My ESP says you are. Personally, I think this thread should just close with no action on both sides. Nishidani should just realize that he should be careful with his words. Both in terms of this, and also in terms of putting people down who disagree with him, or when he tries to show how better he is with English, or when he thinks he's better at English than everyone else. At a certain point we need to move on. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Suffice to say I have zero hesitation about about pointing out objectionable arguments and attempted victim blaming. But glad we are clear where you stand on minors not being rape victims because they didnt complain. Also you might need to read WP:Aspersions again and note the part about evidence. I have provided evidence as did NMMNG as to why we take offence at their rationale for editing. That you seem to be ignoring it is your problem.
    Actually wasting my time responding here, last time an editor made a fuss about issues related to minors on wikipedia they ended up banned by ARBCOM and the person they complained about ended up SanFranBanned(tm) by the the WMF. I will just forward any complaints to the WMF, since they at least take this stuff seriously. This place has the bad habit of not only shooting the messenger, but also his horse and then setting fire to the message. In future you can expect zero comments regarding this on-wiki. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your efforts to slyly label another editor a pedophile-sympathizer in a content dispute is viewed by others here as a disruptive personal attack, not as a defense of minors on Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging No More Mr Nice Guy since they asked to be pinged if they were being discussed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • SNOW Support for No More Mr Nice Guy at least. Only in Death's case is a little more ambiguous, but there is nothing ambiguous about the nature of NMMNG's behaviour, the community's position with regard to that particular behaviour, nor indeed what he should have expected the likely community response to be, Brad Dyer was indeffed immediately for making the exact same comments [3], by Drmies, who noted how indefensible the comments had been. Then two more broadly respected admins (Liz, HighInBC) then upheld that block ([4], [5]). Finally, a review of the block at AN led to a unanimous decision to uphold that block. NMMNG was fully aware of how the community had decided to classify these comments--most of the diffs which Nishandi provided in their complaint above come from Brad dyer's talk page--and his decision to pick those comments up where Brad Dyer's block forced him to lay them down is WP:Disruptive in the extreme. Indeed, this "go ahead, make my day"-style comment seems to give every indication that NMMNG is actively baiting this discord as a means of registering his dislike of Nishandi and displeasure with how the personal dispute between Nishandi and Brad Dyer unfolded.
    I support this proposal only because it is the one that was tabled. I'd have supported an indef block without reservation if that had been put forth, as an editor who has no singificant prior experience (that I can recall) with the parties/combatants involved here; I fully expect most editors coming to this situation with similar "fresh" eyes would view these PA's in the same light. NMMNG should himself embrace this proposal with both hands and consider himself lucky that he got off so lucky for behaviour which resulted in a swift indef for another editor. But if he instead persists in acting like he is in a defamation relay event with a blocked user, echoing the very comments that lead to the user's block, he should share that user's sanction--for the sake of equal application of our policies and the best interests of the project alike. Honestly, I think it's hard to know what Brad Dyer thinks of all of this--whether he is happy that someone is pressing forward with his aspersions or if he gobbsmacked that someone else is getting away with saying exactly what he did, over and over. Snow let's rap 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't unanimous, just those in bold and drive by were noted. But again, regardless, you as well, fail to read Nishidani's comments, as well as his behavior and tone when dealing with other editors. As I posted earlier, I think both editors need to take a chill pill, but Nishidani should also realize that when he posts that "there is no real victim" he should expect blowback. Do you think a 15 year old boy having sex with a man is not a victim? That is also an issue. Nobody called him a pedophile, at least to my recollection. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "It wasn't unanimous, just those in bold and drive by were noted."
    I encourage anyone who has doubts as to my characterization to read the thread themselves. The consensus was pretty overwhelming to my eyes.
    "But again, regardless, you as well, fail to read Nishidani's comments, as well as his behavior and tone when dealing with other editors."
    Why do you feel comfortable assuming that I did not look into Nishandi's behaviour as well? In any event, your argument is a complete non-sequitor. If any party feels Nishandi's has also failed to comport themselves appropriately, then that party can present evidence to that effect and make an argument for sanctions for Nishandi as well. But Nishandi's conduct, no matter what it consists of, does not alleviate NMMNG of a responsibility to conduct himself within community expectations with regard to our civility standards. Nor is there any question as to where the community has decided that line is in this instance; NMMNG is parroting, part and parcel, the comments which just got another party indeffed--with multiple admins and a community review validating the action. The community has already decided, regardless of the present context, that is not acceptable behaviour. If NMMNG wants to act as a proxy for Brad Dyer in reasserting the exact same comments, it should come as no surprise to him when the same community inevitably hands him the same sanction. And it certainly is inevitable if he can't back down here.
    "Nishidani should also realize that when he posts that "there is no real victim" he should expect blowback. Do you think a 15 year old boy having sex with a man is not a victim? That is also an issue."
    Yes, that is an issue. It's a content issue. See here's the problem with the position that Brad Dyer and NMMNG have forwarded as justifying their incivility: those personal attacks are unnecessary to undermining Nishandi's position on these issues. Point in fact they are counter-productive to that aim specifically because they shift focus toward a battle of personalities and away from the actual policies that govern content. Nishandi putting scare-quotes around "victim" was inappropriate because the WP:WEIGHT of our sources will obviously never support that position. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and our own personal moral evaluations are not meant to be a platform upon which we argue here. You and I may have views on what consent consists of which are drastically different from what Nishandi has espoused--even so completely different that we find them objectionable. But the reason he was wrong to try to implement those changes on this encyclopdia has nothing to do with our differing outlooks and everything to do with the fact that Nishandi's perspective is a fringe one that, being so far removed from modern social consensus, cannot be substantiated by sourcing which reflects those morays. This was a perfectly solid and unassailable platform upon which to tear down Nashandi's position. On this project, we argue the point, not the "opposition".
    But that is not what Brad Dyer and No More Mr. Nice Guy have done. Instead they decided to launch repeated WP:ad hominem attacks at Nishandi himself, rather than his arguments. That is a violation of our WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA and WP:AGF policies under any circumstances. It is absolutely unacceptable when those comments take the form of the kind of implication they are leveling in this intance. And I'm sorry, but I am utterly unmoved by your "they technically didn't call him X or Y" argument; it is beyond any doubt what they meant to imply (see line 153), and I don't feel compelled to split hairs over exactly which terms relating to violent sexual pathology they used in relation to Nishandi. This is really simple: all of us who are not sociopaths have strong feelings about this topic area, some of us very strong feelings because we have special reason to know the human cost. But if one cannot control their conduct in a given content area such that they keep their comments concentrated on the content and instead feel compelled to denigrate the character of others because they view the issue differently, they simply should not contribute in that area. And if they can't show the self-control necessary to either A) keep their impressions of another editor's character to themselves or B) leave the discussion altogether, they have to accept the consequences when their behaviour becomes disruptive to the project. Especially when that behaviour takes the form of casting these kinds of allegations, no matter how certain said editor is that they reflect "reality" and not just the product of their own animosity. Snow let's rap 02:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first post that actually addresses the issue rather than repeating "bad words are bad", so I would like to respond to it.
    First of all, Brad Dyer has a whole lot of extra baggage as can be seen both by the explanations for why his unblock requests were rejected and the AN thread. So that comparison doesn't work here. I also after it came to my attention he was indeffed I did not repeat what I said to Nishidani.
    Second, the scare quotes around "victim" was not a matter of WEIGHT, it was a matter of V since Nishidani at the time did not supply a single source supporting that kind of language. So he did that as WP:OR. But that's not even what triggered my response which brought us here. The trigger for that was this. Please read it carefully. This is quite obviously Nishidani stating his opinion rather than relying on what sources explicitly say. He is using his opinion to try to convince other editors to support the scare quotes around "victim", which again, had no source. Notice he does not refer to any sources except a dictionary. He calls the minor the "ostensible victim" (again, not referring to any source that makes this claim) and he ends by saying the fact the minor did not complain and was not willing to testify makes it "appear" he doesn't see himself as a victim.
    That is the evidence (per WP:NPA and WP:Aspersions) for why I made an accusation (it was more of a "really?! Is that the line you're taking?" before he replied with "Why yes, yes I am"). Not a single editor has addressed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop it. Repeating that my use of inverted commas was an example of 'scare quotes' and not, as I stated a week back, a means of drawing attention to a word I thought problematical, is absurd. It has nothing to do with 'my personal views'.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All of which are reasons why Nishandi should have (and did) lose the content dispute, but not in any sense a blank check for the disruptive and defamatory conduct you then engaged in. You are entitled to challenge Nishandi's reasoning for the purposes of the content dispute. You are not allowed to go further to attack his character. You made repeated and loud attempts to associate his name with an organization which promotes an ideology of violent sexual exploitation of minors. That behaviour could serve no legitimate purpose in the content discussion, except to defame, raise acrimony and needlessly personalize an issue which could only be decided on the sources and our policies alone, not the outlook and motives of editors--which is why Bad Dryer was instantly indeffed for that behaviour and why you are super lucky to have avoided that consequence thus far.
    Furthermore, you then took those accusations to other spaces--including the talk page of another editor. When Nashandi decided to make a statement to assert his moral opposition to statutory rape, you accused him of lying to save face. That's a personal attack under any circumstances, even if you weren't implicating that another editor was possessed of the kind of reprehensible associations you were unambiguously suggesting; no matter how certain you are of your "evidence" of his "true" disposition, you can't look into his mind to know his true outlook, and speculation about it isn't relevant to any matter at hand, even if you were still in the space for a content discussion, which you weren't. There's not even a hint of any productive purpose to this comment--you were just continuing to register your low esteem for another editor as part of a personal dispute, by way of comments which the community regards as way over the line into unacceptable territory.
    Nor is ignorance any defense here--you had just watched Bad Dryer banned for the very same comments, so you knew at the very least that these comments were not considered appropriate by your fellow contributors (including numerous admins) who had weighed in on the matter. You didn't just refuse to WP:Drop the stick, you picked up the stick exactly where it was left by another editor who had to be indeffed for refusal to drop that very same stick! How to your mind can that possibly not constitute WP:disruptive behaviour at the very least?
    Look, you seem to have suggested above that I'm the only editor here who has spoken to what you view as the core issues of the dispute. So I maybe I can avail of that position to convince you that I'm giving you my honest, best assessment as an uninvolved party when I say you don't look good here, and the situation isn't improving. The only position you've advocated above which does make an argument that you shouldn't suffer the same consequence as Bad Dryer is that you don't have his history of sanctions. But that's not going to be enough here if you can't back down on whether those comments were appropriate. Remember, Bad Dryer wasn't indfeffed for his block history; Drmies blocked him for the comments (the same comments you are repeating now) alone. His past history only came into play when his unblock request was denied. If the outcome of this is that you get indeffed, but then are allowed back on, is that price really worth sticking by those comments. Why not just apologize to Nishandi for going to far. No one expects you to pretend to like him, to approve of his editorial approach or share his perspectives. But your fellow Wikipedians (even the ones who agree with you on the content issue) are telling you, under no uncertain terms, that you crossed a line here, and a serious one. Don't you think it's worth re-examining your conduct in that regard before you run the risk of ending up with a block history like that which you have compared your own record against? Snow let's rap 03:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never encountered you before so have no reason to doubt you're giving me anything other than your honest opinion. Doesn't mean I have to agree.
    I think you are mistaken about Bad Dryer and his history. I doubt Drmies would have handed such a fast indef to someone else in similar circumstances. You are also mistaken if you think I'm trying to read Nishidani's mind or whatever. I told him he made an argument that resembles those made by a certain organization. Is that a false statement? If it's not false, then there's no personal attack. Is it false? Yes or no?
    Do editors have some kind of right to incessantly SOAPBOX and treat Wikipedia like a FORUM and not be called out on it because it might make them look bad? Do you want to see some more examples just from that one talkpage? Stuff I let slide just because I don't usually feel like getting into this ridiculous drama? But when someone suggests that in a exploitative relationship between an adult and a minor, the minor was not a victim because he consented or wouldn't testify, that just sticks in my craw. And this without even the pretense of a single source. Am I the only one here who has kids?
    Anyway, I hope any admin who closes this is familiar with the IP topic area. They will see that other than you, Softlavender, and Only in death, every single person who commented here is knee deep in the topic area. It's not like there's an overwhelming consensus of uninvolved editors here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think you are mistaken about Bad Dryer and his history. I doubt Drmies would have handed such a fast indef to someone else in similar circumstances."
    Well, we can certainly ask him; @Drmies:. In any event, is that really the standard you want to adopt here, to be spared a sanction on the technicality that you haven't got as disruptive a history even though you absolutely shared this disruptive act with someone who does?
    "You are also mistaken if you think I'm trying to read Nishidani's mind or whatever. I told him he made an argument that resembles those made by a certain organization. Is that a false statement? If it's not false, then there's no personal attack. Is it false? Yes or no?"
    Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly, and I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain this, but here goes: On this project, it doesn't matter what group his comments remind you of; that's not relevant to a content discussion in any shape, manner, or form. Again, you are allowed to assess whether his arguments are consistent with the sources or policy. You are not allowed to imply he has solidarity with a group of organized sex offenders as such defamatory comments have no value to the content dispute process and can only serve to inflame and disrupt discussion and the project at large. Your argument is non-sequitor; a statement doesn't have to be untrue to be disruptive. So his comments reminded you of that group--that doesn't mean it was a WP:CIVIL or a smart thing to say, and it certainly doesn't mean that this community can't find it utterly unacceptable--which it clearly does, since another editor just received our highest sanction for saying the exact same thing.
    "Do editors have some kind of right to incessantly SOAPBOX and treat Wikipedia like a FORUM and not be called out on it because it might make them look bad? Do you want to see some more examples just from that one talkpage?"
    As far as I can tell, Nishandi was not soapboxing. They were making what they viewed as a legitimate content argument. You and I may find that argument completely untenable, even absurd, but that doesn't mean Nishandi is barred from making it, so long as they try to form consensus and then abide by the decision, which it seems they have here. Anyway, even if Nashandi acted improperly, that would be another topic for the community to consider, for which anyone can present evidence, if it comes to that. But their actions do not alleviate you of your responsibility to follow our behavioural guidelines, certainly not with regard to the comments you made, which go too far beyond what we can set aside as a mere consequence of a mundane clash of personalities.
    "But when someone suggests that in a exploitative relationship between an adult and a minor, the minor was not a victim because he consented or wouldn't testify, that just sticks in my craw."
    That's fine. You're allowed to be bothered. You're not allowed to say just whatever you want because you are bothered. You certainly aren't allowed to call anyone names, no matter how attenuated you make that name calling by way of talk of "resemblance", the meaning of which we all obviously see. Bad Dryer used that same intermediary and he still got blocked, why do you think you should be immune to the same community sanction for the exact same device directed at the exact same editor in the exact same context?
    Look, I understand. Believe me, sexual assault is a topic that presents me with difficulties in discussing dispassionately, and I'd be lying if I said there weren't times when my blood has boiled. There was one occasion when, as part of a strategic attempt to dodge their attacks on another contributor, a particularly incivil editor repeatedly accused me of indifference to the topic of rape; my partner had to physically take my laptop away from me and get me into some fresh air--I was almost in tears, I was so angry. So, yeah, I get it--some of us don't ever care to hear these acts or their consequences minimized. But I also know that Wikipedia demands something more from me than that I let my passions completely govern how I approach my fellow editors on a topic--that it's my responsibility to control my response to the presentation of ideas I don't like, because it's a critical part of our important mission to share the sum total of human knowledge that we be able to discuss and vet things at length, without resorting to personal recriminations against those we disagree with.
    Nishandi is allowed to hold an unpopular opinion or one you and I disagree with. Nothing in our project's community consensus prohibits that in any way. You are not allowed to associate them with criminals and sociopaths because you disagree with them about the nature of consent in this case. You just aren't. And again, this isn't just me talking subjectively here. The community has already spoken by banning another editor for making these exact same comments in the exact same context. You're not in a position to overturn that community consensus just because you feel differently about it. The only question here is whether you will be handed the same sanction for the same act directed against the same person. And that is going to turn in great part on whether you can show an understanding of why that act stepped outside our community's perspective on this matter. Again, I am urging you to try to re-evaluate this situation in the light of what others are saying here. In my opinion, sometimes there are circumstances wherein nothing will show your clarity of mind on a matter like owning up to a misstep to someone whose broader perspective you deeply dislike. Snow let's rap 07:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the last time - Brad Dyer and I have vastly different history. He was on the community's radar already. He had previous blocks. He was widely suspected as being an sock of a blocked editor. He pissed a lot of admins off. The fact I'm still editing while he got an indef 20 minutes after being reported should be enough evidence of that.
    Nothing in our project's community consensus prohibits people from holding unpopular opinions. That's true. But it does prohibit them SOAPBOXing and using Wikipedia as a FORUM and inflicting their unpopular opinions gratuitously on other editors, and that's exactly what an editor who states an opinion without relying on reliable sources is doing. If you think people can make content related arguments without relying on a single source that makes the argument, we have a vastly different understanding of WP:OR.
    What do you think the Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence part in NPA is about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you want to predicate your assumption that you won't be given a sanction for making those comments (in the context of a discretionary sanctions topic area, no less) on the fact that your co-commentator had a more extensive history of blocks than you, then it's clear at this point that there is nothing we can say to disabuse you of that notion. Nor indeed does there seem to be good reason to try any further if your disposition is that the behaviour in question represents a civil editing mindset, since (if that is genuinely your belief), further such disruption is probably inevitable--more's the pity for everyone involved, yourself included. Snow let's rap 03:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit unfair. All I said is that I disagree with your statement that it is inevitable that I would get a sanction because Brad Dryer got one. But I think we've reached the point where we should agree to disagree and move on. Thanks again for being the only editor to actually engage with the issues.
    As I mentioned above, NPA explicitly allows for accusations about personal behavior if evidence is supplied, which I believe I have provided. As I also mentioned, other than yourself, Softlavender and Only in death, the other editors who commented here are all very much involved, so there doesn't seem to be a consensus of uninvolved editors supporting your position. I have thousands of edits in a very contentious topic area and have been able to maintain a clean record so far, so I think my reading of policy and guidelines is usually fairly within the community consensus here, but I am open to being told otherwise. Let's see if more uninvolved editors comment or what a closing admin might say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support admonishment not ANI mandated striking or Support blocking I support the admonishment and moving on but I can't support the ANI mandated striking. It's almost like a forced apology. Seems more like a great effort to make it look something big has been done while nothing has been done. Would also support a block -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, given that Bad Dryer was indef blocked a week ago for making only a couple of the exact same comments that No More Mr Nice Guy has made multiple times and in multiple places, it seems logical (to me personally, at least) that the only way No More Mr Nice Guy can or should avoid a similar block, even an indef one, is to strike all of the sorts of comments that Bad Dryer was indeffed for. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I can't support an ANI mandated striking. It's utter and incomprehensible nonsense. Much like a forced apology. ANI is not here to appease offended editors but to end disruption. An ANI mandated striking or redaction serves only to appease offended parties. An official admonishment from the community serves an actual purpose. In the event that they fail to take this warning and do the behavior again they can be blocked, banned, or etc. We can either give leniency or not, but I disagree that we should only grant leniency here if they kiss the communities proverbial bottom when mandated to do so. This is some Mickey Mouse bullshit better suited for saturday morning cartoons.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe, I'm not asking to be "appeased". I have a strong record for not running to A/I or AE to whinge over a decade. I dislike it. NMMGG implied that if I didn't report him, as he implied I should, it was because I would be embarrassed. He wanted this, not I.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to like my choice of words. Choose another word to replace that reflects your word preference. Here is the proposal, admonish them and mandate they strike the offending comments. The admonishment serves a purpose. Mandated striking does not. I'm not for a court mandated ass kissing that serves no purpose. If you or someone on your behalf wants to collapse those comments, I think there's policy on your side to do so. If you want to seek more than admonishment, have at it. I do not support an ANI mandated striking.If you wish to push for and support an admonishment I think that's fine. If you want a mandated striking you are going to need to justify it and the above rant about Brad Dwyer is not a justification.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For your part, you have not "redoubled the insults," but originally wrote the following to Nishidani: "Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material?", and What's in the sources? That's it's not so bad for a 45 year old to have sex with a 15 year old if there's no coercion involved? That's exactly NAMBLA territory. Show me a source that puts victim in quotes", and "Considering you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind". While it' true that you haven't repeated these personal insults since Nishidani filed this complaint, you've also not apologized and accepted that this was a low and insulting editing tactic. If you do acknowledge it sincerely, without in any way needing to give ground on the content dispute, I would change my opinion here.
    Only in Death by contrast has repeatedly tried to justify the slur, e.g. "Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA... straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'," and "Nishidani is making the exact same arguments people who try to excuse sex with minors make. If he doesnt want to face accusations that he may be editing from a sympathetic viewpoint he shouldnt make the same sympathetic arguments. NAMBLA always bring up the victims lack of 'victimhood' in this situation because the argument *only* serves their agenda in attempting to push the viewpoint sex with minors is permissable". -Darouet (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So when you said that stuff about me, you were lying. Not for the first time in this thread I might add, I just didn't bother to point the other ones out.
    You have not addressed any of the evidence I provided per Wikipedia policy, so any admin closing this should ignore your !vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For a moment I thought you might approach something resembling contrition. My comment referenced both of you, I gave you your WP:ROPE, and see you'd rather hang on your original statements. Plus ça change. -Darouet (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I supplied evidence per WP:NPA for why I said what I said. Not a single editor addressed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a recap. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because people have responded to it doesn't mean they have seen it. "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." -WP:IDHT.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I agree with Sir Joseph. It looks to me like some bad behavior and personal attacks have occurred from all sides. Rather than taking sides, an admin should warn all participants to refrain from personal attacks and should monitor the discussion henceforth to enforce the warning.Homemade Pencils (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you go from having 105 edits adding or removing commas to making a pronouncement at AN/I? -Darouet (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't wait to reach the 500 edits required by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 by adding or removing commas before getting involved in an WP:ARBPIA related issue would be my guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like there was a recent block for "gaming the system" for someone who had sped thru making menial edits so that they could edit there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Serialjoepsycho is right. I believe it was User:HistoryWrite who was blocked for gaming the sys. I think this is the link to the discussion and the decision to block (scroll down, or up, to Case #5 on HistoryWrite). IjonTichy (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support imposing the same sanction for NMMNG and anyone else -- i.e., the same that was imposed on Bad Dryer. Giving a green light for this sort of behaviour is really not to the benefit of Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What I would judge most useful is something such as a probation period during which NMMNG has to be at least as polite as the editors he is interacting with. In my experience, it is not solely Nishidani that he has a problem with, but any editor who does not share his, obviously deeply held, political beliefs. It must take either real dedication or a patholigical level of animus to be so relentlessly obnoxious. Pleasant it would be to have relief from NMMNG's stock-in-trade snide remarks and tone of contempt.     ←   ZScarpia   13:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a nice suggestion. I wonder why this is proving so hard to conclude... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that an example of how to be polite? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A suggestion: substitute the word 'civil', familiar from Wikipedia policy, for 'polite'.     ←   ZScarpia   13:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Globally NMMNG's bitterness against the wp project is so deep that he will not change. In the current case, his animosity towards Nishidani and the contributors he sees to be anti-Israelis is not acceptable and he should be sanctioned with an automatic doubling each time he repeats his attacks. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are reasons why sanctioning these attacks and hostility is problematic, I'm genuinely curious to read them. The absence of even one iota of remorse, recognition, or understanding by NMMNG - when an apology is the least that would be required - appears to make this case straightforward. -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Pluto's 2nd !vote in this discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And speaking of animosity towards other contributors, check out the last paragraph of Pluto's talk page comment here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you know how this works: if you want to ask for action against another editor, start a separate section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be easy to find examples of civil interactions between Pluto and those who don't share his political beliefs (in the linked to example, the correspond happens to be in the same 'political camp' - and I suspect that Pluto wasn't guilty of raising the temperature of the dispute). Can the same be said of you?     ←   ZScarpia   13:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I like how you're trying to excuse that. Apparently civility and politeness aren't always that important to you? Anyway, since you're obviously going to return here every day or two in an attempt to keep this open, and we wouldn't want anyone to mistake you for an uninvolved editor, here's a diff of you telling me that you revert my edits because of me personally and not because of any particular Wikipedia policy. I just noticed that's from a few years ago, you can sure hold a grudge, eh? I'm not going to be responding to you further, so feel free to get your last word in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin assistance request: Removing a duplicate thread from an archive

    The former was unarchived, responded to, and then archived in its modified form by a bot as the latter. It no longer serves any purpose and should be pruned from the archive as per common practice to prevent clutter. I did it but my edit was reverted, which I believe to have been an honest mistake by an editor unfamiliar with how the unarchival procedure works; I've attempted to resolve the issue through discussing it with the reverting editor but to no avail; the discussion can be found here. I'd appreciate it if some reasonable administrator could remove the obsolete version of the thread from the archive; it can be done by clicking on this link and then saving the page. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Iaritmioawp, I think preventing this current thread from being auto-archived, twice [6], [7], is inappropriate. I'm removed that coding; please do not replace it. The fact that no admin has responded to this request in 9 days should tell you something. I'm going to suggest that you either let it drop and let this thread be auto-archived normally; or (1) post this on WP:AN, where it more appropriately belongs, or (2) approach any admin of your choice on their talk page and make this request (that way you will at least presumably get an answer if they decline your request). Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The instructions at WP:AN are clear that specific issues are to be posted at WP:ANI, i.e. here. I realize the matter is of low importance and thus won't be handled immediately; that is okay as I don't have a deadline and don't mind waiting. Why you, or anyone, would get impatient with my patiently awaiting assistance with this minor issue is anyone's guess, but be advised that you're not being helpful. Please reinstate the content you removed from my original comment so that the section doesn't get prematurely archived; you can do it by adding {{subst:DNAU|7}} just under the section header. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason this request hasn't been implemented is that admins reading it have determined or decided it does not warrant being done, and that the archives should remain as they were even when a previously archived thread was revived and re-responded to and then re-archived. If you'd like an official explanation from an admin, pick one, and ask them on their talk page. Do not however delay the bot-archiving of this thread. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entitled to your opinion. You are, however, not entitled to force editors with genuine assistance requests out of this noticeboard based solely on the fact that they weren't offered assistance in what would constitute a timely manner in your opinion. You have said your piece; I have re-added the {{DNAU}} template. Now I'd advise you to move on with your day as I move on with mine. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DNAU removed again, no admin seems to care enough about this to act upon it, keeping it open any longer is unwarranted. Fram (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not the kind of admin response I was hoping for but I suppose it'll have to suffice. As there has been no opposition to my request for the ten days it was allowed to remain here unmolested, I've implemented it myself with this edit. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (redux)

    Hello. For the most recent ANI discussion on this user, please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#User:STSC_and_WP:NOTHERE. Pinging previous nominator User:SSTflyer.

    The last discussion was archived with no administrator input or action. Predictably, as has been the case for years, User:STSC's political agenda editing has continued. As I stated in the previous discussion, though he (or she) seems to be active in any article related to controversies surrounding the People's Republic of China, I only happen to run into this user in Hong Kong-related articles, since Hong Kong is my main editing interest. So my analysis is always skewed toward Hong Kong issues but STSC is active in basically any controversial China-related subject such as Falun Gong, Taiwan, Japanese war crimes, disputed territories, Tibet, etc.

    Anyway, I post here because STSC is once again censoring reliably-sourced content from articles related to political demonstrations in Hong Kong – in this case, 2016 Mong Kok civil unrest.

    Often this behavior consists of subtle tweaks to the wording, which is not very harmful although the usual misleading "ce" edit summaries can be problematic: [8], [9] (many other examples in the last discussion)

    But I really object to arbitrary censorship of reliably sourced content like this. This is STSC's modus operandi – to pull reasons out of a hat to censor reliably sourced information (and sometimes photos) that may reflect badly on the government, and generally to subtly push the viewpoint of the government.

    This edit selectively censors certain details:

    * that Lam was departing on a planned family trip. The effect is that Lam appears to be fleeing Hong Kong to escape prosecution
    * that the police have not commented on his arrest, which does not really reflect well on the police
    * that Lam's school, a respected university, have called on the police to release him and to offer a comprehensive explanation. This is obviously unusual and has received coverage in local media

    Details of this arrest are not "undue weight" if the case has received particularly heavy coverage in local media, which it has. It's not our job to judge what's important and what isn't – what matters is the level of coverage in other sources. I hate getting bogged down in the details of any particular case because it doesn't really matter. This is just one of thousands of political edits by STSC that serves to promote the viewpoint of the government and censor details that could reflect badly on the government. It is emblematic of a long-term pattern of agenda editing.

    He is also continually leaving inappropriate warning templates on others' talk pages. He chronically places a warning for "personal attacks" on my talk page (today) even though I have only ever expressed grievances over editing behavior.

    This has been a headache for years and I have no interest in edit warring with this user. Could an admin please look into this? A search of the archives here, and of STSC's talk page will reveal a pattern of years of low-level contentious agenda editing, in violation of our policies on NPOV and WP:NOT. Thank you, Citobun (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrarily stripping the context from a protester's earlier arrest. Citobun (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    uninvolved user comment -- I have to agree that this [10] diff by STSC is concerning. I do actually think that Citobun would have done better to use the word "remove" rather than "censor." That said, on the whole I found Citobun's tone to be measured and factual, not the sort of thing that would justify a level-4 NPA warning from STSC. I haven't looked at this extensively and don't plan to, but this sort of over-templating suggests to me that Citobun's concerns could be well-founded.CometEncke (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    more from the same uninvolved user -- glutton for punishment that I am, I looked into this more, after saying I wouldn't. The arrest of Derek Lam Shun-hin, which is part of what led to this dispute, has been reported from far afield, i.e. the Washington Post[11], and even Ecuador/Guatemala(!)[12]. Again, Citobun appears to be right on they money -- this is obviously highly notable, and in an article about the protests specifically, lengthy coverage would be WP:DUE. CometEncke (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Citobun has in the past constantly attacked me as a "long-term agenda editor" whenever there's a content dispute, therefore the level-4 warning was issued. Regarding the content about Derek Lam, unlike Joshua Wong, he is a little-known member of Scholarism, and the excessive detail that is seemingly defending Lam would be undue. STSC (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you see this cited content as "defence" is problematic. It isn't a "defence" of Lam that to add that Scholarism said he planned the trip to Taiwan - it's simply a fact that received significant coverage in the media. Likewise, when you added that he was previously arrested for "assault" I did not view the word "assault" as an "attack" on him. It's just the facts of the story. I do not view Wikipedia as a venue to "defend" anyone. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclosure: I commented on the previous ANI that Citobun raised against STSC. STSC does exhibit a certain level of zeal when it comes to performing copyedits particularly if the loss in context can lead to a misinterpretation in some readers, particularly if they view things with a political slant. In this instance, the diffs do not seem to support, in my eyes, that there is a significant political POV in STSC's edits. Excessive pruning, yes, and ultimately a content dispute. Whether the coverage of this particular arrest is DUE or UNDUE coverage should be sorted out on the talk of which there is none. Coming straight to ANI without any talk page discussion is likely only to result in this being closed as a content dispute. If STSC and Citobun are not opposed, I'd be more than happy to look into copy editing the section that is being disputed to maintain context. Blackmane (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcome your input on the content dispute. STSC (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opened up a discussion on the talk page about the section that is being disputed. As there has been no discussion to date, I would invite @Citobun: and @STSC: to join in as well as any who would be interested. Blackmane (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Blackmane. It's late here so I'll keep this message a bit short. First, I didn't raise the last ANI against STSC. It was someone else who independently made the same observations about this user.
    Secondly, as I mentioned above, I don't care to get bogged down in the details of this particular content case because if it isn't one thing, it's another. I have found STSC unreceptive to discussion in the past, and once he moves on from a certain issue he goes and censors something else. It's endless and exhausting. The root of the cause - STSC's long-term, low-level political agenda editing - needs to be addressed, and here is the place to do it.
    I know I seem prickly. But this has been an ongoing issue for years, with seemingly no administrator scrutiny, and it is really getting tiresome and sapping my enthusiasm for this project. Wikipedia is not the place for political advocacy and countless other users have come to the conclusion that STSC's edits serve to bolster the viewpoint of the Chinese government/Hong Kong SAR government/Chinese Communist Party. I would name some of these users but I think I would be accused of canvassing. Evidence can be found in ANI records, in his talk page history, and scattered around countless article talk pages.
    All I ask is that administration please scrutinse STSC's past for evidence of political agenda editing and take action in accordance with Wikipedia policy. This has gone on far too long and I am sick of picking through diffs to try to prove my point. His edit history speaks for itself. He has gotten away with Wikipedia:Advocacy for years by being very subtle about it, but the pattern is clear. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just minding my own business editing the topics that I choose but you've been Wikihaunting me for a long time and you don't seem to give up. Just stop using an ANI to silent other editors who don't share your POV. STSC (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like you to stop accusing me of stalking you and harassing you. You know just as well as I that we only run into each other on Hong Kong topics and I am not monitoring your editing. Please stop making these accusations and address the concerns we have raised over editing behaviour. Citobun (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    same (formerly) uninvolved user again Starting a discussion on that is fine. But I took a look at another portion of the underlying issue, and for the third time, it appears to me that Citobun right is on the money. I have no idea if these two edits cited by Citobun are appropriate in regards to the sourcing or not. [13], [14] But what is certain is that in both cases, an edit summary of "ce" is highly misleading. "ce" is supposed to be used for cases where you are not changing the meaning. A brief glance at each of those edits shows that a lot more than just "ce" is going on. The prior ANI discussed the "ce" problem.[15] Here we are, two months later, and it is continuing. Obviously, admin inaction did not solve the problem. Apparently, STSC has acted inappropriately in three different ways, there was a prior discussion, yet the problems have continued. That suggests that problems like this will continue until there is sufficiently strong admin action. CometEncke (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. My "ce" usually refines and makes an improvement on the content as per "five Cs" to make the article clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent. (WP:COPYEDIT) STSC (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last ANI dispute I provided numerous examples where you used a "c/e" edit summary inappropriately. SSTflyer also provided many examples. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of your edits don't even have edit summary at all, and how about this c/e from you?[16] And many others I just cannot be bothered. STSC (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes I don't leave edit summaries because I don't think my editing is particularly contentious. According to X's Tools edit counter, 82.8% of my edits have a summary, but I'll try to raise that figure in the future. There's nothing inappropriate about using "c/e" in the edit you linked to. I didn't change the meaning of anything, save for changing "incontinent" to "inconvenient" which I think was the intention of the original author.
    Anyway, rather than simply making unsubstantiated counter-accusations would you care to comment on the countless misleading "c/e" summaries I linked to? That most often subtly bolster the viewpoint of the government? Citobun (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're required to input edit summary for your edit if you still don't know by now. And I just don't have your disgraceful habit of digging through other editors' edit history. STSC (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So my "c/e" edit that you linked to – what's wrong with it? If you're going to accuse me of misconduct then at least substantiate your complaint. Or are you just trying to distract the discussion? Citobun (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    STSC has now asked [17] on my talk page if I am a sock, without providing any similarities of my posts with any other user, or any suggestion of who I might be a sock of. This is further evidence of a pattern. Just as STSC reacted to Citobun's concerns with the NPA template, STSC is reacting to my analysis of those concerns with the sock quetion. STSC correctly notes that my account is relatively new and that I do, however, appear to have some experience on WP. The curious thing is that despite my posts above, there *were* actions STSC could have taken to at least lessen my concerns, though likely not allay them altogether. Asking whether or not I am a sock, however, was not such an action. CometEncke (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I "admire" you not sounding like a new user having just created your account on 27 Dec 2015? The way you pushing things here as an "(formerly) uninvolved user" seems you have a premeditated motive. Come on now. STSC (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to continue beating this particular horse, regardless of how dead it is. Look at STSC's reaction[18] to the "ce" concern two posts above. Although there are two users making the point, STSC fails to acknowledge the issue, and instead says "not at all," and making an assertion that his "ce" edits improve grammar. But that's not the issue, is it? A "ce" edit should improve some form of presentation without altering content. But if an admin examines any of the various linked "ce" diffs above, he or she will surely notice that the diffs marked "ce" make considerable alterations to content, often to the point where the meaning is changed entirely. This is yet another example, as if any were needed, of the pattern where STSC fails to respond to substantive concerns in a way that gives others confidence that the problem will not recur, which, of as multiple posts above demonstrate, is precisely the problem. Will an admin handle this situation, please? CometEncke (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My "ce" doesn't just correct grammar, it's meant to correct any misinformation in the content. Basically you're just trying to make a meal out of this. STSC (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't copyediting if you're changing the meaning of the text or arbitrarily removing content. Citobun (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Rather than addressing concerns head-on STSC simply skirts around the issue and peppers others' talk pages with frivolous warning templates, accuses others of "attacking him", "harrassment", "starting ANI with a pack of lies", perpetrating "hate campaigns", being "Falun Gong editors", harbouring a grudge, being "pro-colonialism", being sockpuppets – just a host of attacks meant to bully people into shutting up and deflect attention from his own behaviour. Sadly it seems to work. Citobun (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you're the bully one who tried to use an ANI to silent other editors who don't share your POV. STSC (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another example, User:Marvin 2009 has made a grand total of three edits at Epoch Times so far in 2016 -- on Jan. 23 and 26, and on Feb. 6. STSC reacted to the third one with DE warning[19], stating that Marvin could be blocked. In all fairness, Marvin has had some edit warring blocks, and some of Marvin's edits at Epoch times were edit-warrish in nature. That said, three edits at an article in the first 37 days of 2016 is not DE by any measure. So what's up with the DE template? CometEncke (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you're in a position to make that criticism as you're not a regular editor on that topic and you don't know the background as to why I issued that warning. Maybe you just wanted to ping him? STSC (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Has an admin looked at the evidence presented in this thread? If someone looks and thinks there is nothing here, that would be one thing. But it would be unfortunate for it to simply get archived without any investigation from anyone who has the power to take action. CometEncke (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Community topic ban proposal for STSC

    Per User:STSC's repeated violations of the WP:NPOV and WP:NOT policies, I propose a formal community ban for STSC to be prohibited from making any edit of whatever nature to articles of topics related to the People's Republic of China, broadly construed.

    • Support topic ban as proposer. sst✈(conjugate) 08:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, due to persistent violations of WP:NPA and flagrant POV pushing. Plenty of evidence for both elsewhere in this thread. User apparently did not get the message from the previous ANI thread. Enough is enough. [Topic ban Wording might need improvement. Do we typically say "of whatebver nature"?] CometEncke (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban This is way too broad, and unnecessary. Having pro or anti leanings in politics is normal as long as it doesn't cause any impact on the article quality. I agree that STSC should strive to improve the transparency in their edit summaries but I am yet to see concrete evidence of them pushing their POV into an article. If one has political leanings that are counter to STSC's then I can certainly see how their edits could be construed as violating NPOV from the opposing perspective, but as someone who looks at the politics from outside the country I am yet to see it. From my dealings with both parties in the 2016 Mong Kok riot article, both parties bring reasonable points to the discussion and that is the important point, there is discussion. Intractable political opponents would fall back on personal attacks, nationalist edits, edit warring and filibustering tactics on the talk page. However, both parties are willing to compromise when a middle ground is proposed, as I have been seeking to do. I would be satisfied if STSC made a firm commitment to ensure their edit summaries clearly reflect their edit to avoid future misunderstandings. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban per Blackmane's observation above. STSC appears to have a pro-government tendency, while his opponents appear to be pro-protesters. There's no right or wrong here, simply an intractable dispute reflecting the real world. And Blackmane has been doing a good job mediating the content dispute on the article talk page. I fail to see how STSC's behaviour warrants a topic ban: he has not edit warred in the dispute, and has engaged in civil discussion on the talk page. Much of the evidence above is about his misleading use of the "ce" edit comment, and he should be admonished for being lazy, but a topic ban would be gross overkill. -Zanhe (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This goes beyond a simple difference of opinion. I have provided evidence here and in the last discussion that STSC's editing behavior demonstrates a consistent pattern of subtle POV editing through inappropriate means including misleading edit summaries and arbitrary deletion of reliably-sourced content. Nobody has actually refuted this in detail. No administrator has looked into it. And how can you brush the "c/e" edit summary off as laziness? If he were lazy he would not leave an edit summary at all. He does it to mask controversial edits.
    Let's focus for a moment on a couple diffs I provided previously. For starters, this one. The first revision is not perfect, and sentences like "the police's violent abuse of power" are not particularly NPOV. It needs work. But STSC's edit adds the sentence "The debates over China's vision of granting Hong Kong full democracy [my emphasis] have escalated into diplomatic rows between China and the United Kingdom" which totally obfuscates the actual reason for the protests - a desire for universal suffrage and a view that the Chinese proposal is not true democracy. These are basic facts reported in every international news piece on the 2014 protests. Does this repeated change really help build Wikipedia as a neutral and accurate source of information?
    How about his repeated addition of Putonghua as the "national language" of Hong Kong? For those unfamiliar, Hong Kong's official languages are "Chinese" and English. Putonghua (Mandarin) is the language spoken and promoted by the Chinese government in Beijing, while Cantonese is spoken by 95% of Hong Kong residents. Again, is this a constructive edit? Can anyone say that it helps build a neutral and accurate encyclopedia? STSC is an experienced user and he knows better than this.
    What about this edit? Is changing "Treaty of Nanking" to "British occupation" really in line with our policy on NPOV?
    I know I am repeating myself but I have clearly provided evidence for a consistent pattern of subtle POV editing over a very long period of time, so I don't think it is warranted to simply brush off these concerns as disagreements from "pro-protesters" (or "pro-colonialists", as STSC previously accused me of being). All signs point to WP:NOTHERE. Citobun (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You accused me as "pro-CCP" in the first place, and I have to put up with your constant personal attacks on me as "agenda editor".[20][21] In the 2nd diff it also shows you lied that "police broke into Lam's flat" while the source clearly says 'police searched Lam's flat'. STSC (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was wrong to write that the police "broke into" his flat. At the time, when the news was fresh and information sketchy, somehow that was my impression of what happened. I did not intend to lie, it was just a mistake. Citobun (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To change the 'searched' into "broke into" has got to be intentional. STSC (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I initially read the words "broke into" somewhere on social media and so that's what was on my mind. Wasn't intentional, just a mistake that I apologise for. I don't have a pattern of making such errors. I still think that the other changes you made in that diff basically represent arbitrary deletion of reliably sourced content, serving to make the protester look like he is fleeing Hong Kong to evade police capture. Citobun (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You yourself actually supplied the source, it's very clear that you knowingly put 'searched' as "broke into"; and you also insisted on that lie by reverting my correction. STSC (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I have to disagree that the first diff is any sign of POV. If anything, the diff shows a very orderly restructuring of the section compared to the previous version which was a total hodge podge. The section is "Tensions with Mainland China" and yet the first paragraph is about CY Leung's basement? How in the world is that NPOV? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a tabloid. The other diffs were bold edits but obviously controversial so should have been discussed on the talk page. This is absolutely a difference in political view point causing tensions. They way Hong Kong politics is reported is often laughable mainly because of how serious trivialities are blown out of proportion. Blackmane (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For that first diff I have no problem with the removal of the bit on Leung's basement. It was extraneous given the context. As I specifically mentioned, I object to the arbitrary deletion of the causes of the 2014 protests, and I object to the misleading reference to "China's vision of granting Hong Kong full democracy". I don't know why I need to spell it out like this, but: China does not intend to grant Hong Kong full democracy. So that diff represents STSC adding an outright falsehood to the article – under a "ce" edit summary. Citobun (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as ANI submitter. But I am not experienced at ANI and I am not familiar with the typical approach used by administrators in similar cases. Basically I support any measure that would solve this long-term issue. Maybe it is just a temporary topic ban to send a strong message. But above all I would like to see some acknowledgement that there is a consistent pattern of subtle POV editing going on that violates the WP:NOT and WP:NPOV policies. I am very willing to compromise and listen when it comes to content disputes, but my experience with STSC is that if it isn't one thing, it's another and it is generally just getting tiresome. I would also like STSC to stop placing warning templates on my talk page when it is not warranted. Citobun (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If anyone has any issue with me, they should discuss it on my Talk page. If there's any content dispute, it should be discussed on the article's Talk page. Unfortunately, some users, namely Citobun and SSTflyer, view me as their enemy because I don't share their POV; and they abused the ANI process just to silent an opponent in content disputes. Particularly, Citobun's constant personal attacks on me are quite disturbing.[22][23] They've been persistently disrupting my enjoyment of Wikipedia and must be stopped. STSC (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be true if you had a history of responding to reasonable complaints in a reasonable manner. However, plenty of evidence in this thread shows that you have instead often gone out of your way to counterattack.CometEncke (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban per Blackmane as overkill. STSC's behaviour of using "ce" to describe controversial edits is concerning, but I also agree with Zanhe's assessment that some of the edits only look POV in the eyes of those with an opposite pov. Parties with different points of view should be encouraged to find consensus, this is how Wikipedia should work. At least in this case, Citobun and STSC should back off from each other. Content disputes should be taken back to the appropriate talk pages, not here. _dk (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Buckshot06

    User:Buckshot06 is asserting that I made a personal attack by starting a topic at Talk:Mohammed Omar with the heading "Unsourced POV pushing by User:Sundostund". I know this belongs at SPI but I also want to say here that I have reasons to believe that User:Sundostund is a sockpuppet of User:Toddy1 (and possibly also a sock of User:Be Black Hole Sun, User:Im a Socialist! What Are You, User:Trust Is All You Need, User:StanTheMan87, StanMan87 [24], and User:TheMadTim). The evidence I have is based on behavior and location. The issue here is that I try to avoid User:Buckshot06 everyday but he's refusing to leave me alone. See [25] [26] [27] [28]. When I reply to him, he says that I annoy him. [29] When I don't reply, he WP:ADMINSHOPS in order to get me blocked. This behaviour of Buckshot06 must stop.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Users interested in the ongoing behaviour of User:Krzyhorse22 should review, this time, Talk:Mohammed Omar and also my request for a second admin opinion at User talk:Nick-D#User:Krzyhorse22 before going to my warning at User talk:Krzyhorse22. I am not entirely sure why ADMINSHOPS has been cited, given that I myself have the power to take administrative action. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I cited ADMINSHOP because perhaps you wanted a written comment from Nick-D (so everyone can see it) as a support to justify an unjustisfied block. I've been online since early 1997, I know alot about how people behave. Based on your recent behavior, I think your "power to take administrative action" should be taken away from you. No offense but you behave more like an edit warrior.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have absolutely no connection to any of the users mentioned above. That claim is just ludicrous. Any SPI would confirm that. And, I see no problem in Buckshot06's actions. The whole problem here is that Krzyhorse22 can't accept that his controversial edits are opposed by other editors (namely me and Buckshot06). And yes, I see it as a personal attack if someone accuse me of "unsourced POV pushing" just because we have differences in opinion about an article's content. I've already said, and I'll repeat - Wikipedia is built on consensus, and Krzyhorse22 must have it if he wants to implement his versions of articles in question. I hope admins will resolve this issue quickly, and let me say that I don't plan to post further responses here (or at Talk:Mohammed Omar) - I've stated my opinion there, and I'll just wait and see what other users think about Krzyhorse22's edits, and what admins plan to do here. Cheers everybody. --Sundostund (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you made Mohammed Omar a president of Afghanistan without citing a single source makes you a WP:POV pusher. This is especially so when Encyclopædia Britannica states that Omar "was emir of Afghanistan." [30] I used POV pusher because many other WP editors use it.[31]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Krzyhorse22: You have managed two rounds of personal attacks, first, in your choice of heading and secondly, in making allegations of sockpuppetry without evidence. I suggest that you change the heading to a neutral one and retract your allegations of sockpuppetry pretty damn quick lest you find yourself blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I have the evidence to prove the sock connection but will not post it here, will start SPI when I'm free. If you think that is a personal attack then the accusations against me are also personal attacks.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've been doing some clicking around, and I've just discovered Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive, which mentions this user a number of times. The CU was declined, but what it does show, looking through the page, is that other users have had serious concerns with this user's conduct dating back some time. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Those who reported me were themselves abusing multiple accounts. I was also wrongly reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive [32] and a number of other SPIs. Please perform a CU on me if you wish, this is the one and only account I use.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh?! I've been inactive as of late, as you can see you by my WP contributions. I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, and I'm a good contributor (or was :p) to Wikipedia, even if I sometimes suffer meltdowns. I don't want to be involved in this discussion any more than I have to, but when that is said and done, I've never (or at least very litte) edited the Omar article. I know about Afghanistan's communist past, I know way to little about its Taliban past.... Of course, if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them! :) --TIAYN (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Call it a feeling, but the bent piece of wood is on its return journey. Blackmane (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Krzyhorse22 is a joke. I have been away from Wikipedia largely since July 2015 (Though I have made 5 edits between then and now). I will however take this time to offer my analysis on the user who has mentioned me in this discussion (Of which our encounters have been plentiful). Krzyhorse22 doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. I am actually surprised he has managed to remain on Wikipedia this long and it really is disappointing that no one has blocked him yet. His very first edit (that's right, first edit) on his account was filing a bogus ANI against me for no reason in September 2014, diff here [33]. He has filed a couple of other ones against me, again for no reason other than disagreeing with me on certain pages we both edited, see [34], [35]. Even if I was in the wrong over copy-right (We all make mistakes), his first action would be to waste the time of Wikipedia administrators and file an ANI. It was just ANI filed after ANI, accusation after accusation. He has accused me of sock-puppetry before. And his signature move (which he has mentioned in this very discussion) when faced with the burden of proof is to resort to a tried and true bs tactic along the lines of "I have the information proving you are a sock-puppet...but I don't have time to find it right now." Seriously, he pulled that exact same line on me, though in a different context. He is a disruptive editor and loves to cause trouble, particularly when it comes to editors that have different opinions to him. He loves nothing more then to own a Wikipedia page in the literal sense of the word and despises having to contend with the additions of other editors even if they are constructive and help the project. If you don't believe me, just take a look through his contributions. The diffs showing his hostile and partisan nature are a treasure trove. I urge all editors reading this to dismiss Krzyhorse22 and all claims that he makes, both in this ANI and in any future ones. He has demonstrated zero credibility as an editor and contributor to Wikipedia. I can't help but feel sorry for Buckshot06 who is the latest target (and hopefully the last) of this idiots harassment. I know, because I was the first and had to contend with it for all to long. My advice is to just keep editing despite his tantrums and completely ignore him. He has shown he dislikes the opinions of others, so give his opinion no merit. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    StanTheMan87 is making WP:personal attacks here and everywhere (e.g., using the word "nigger" [36], [37]). For the record, I've explained many times in the past that my first edits were in fact nominating images, which were deleted along with my edits, I have 37 deleted edits. [38] I'm surprised to see StanTheMan87 still allowed to edit Wikipedia. I want to point out that this discussion in this thread is about User:Buckshot06 WP:HARRASSING me everywhere, including on my talk page. I warned Buckshot06 (on my talk page) but he continues to harrass me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You forget to mention that my mirror account, StanMan87 which made those inflammatory and offensive remarks was banned at my request due to being breached, diff here [39]. I no longer had access to it, and the last time I had access to it was early February 2015. Take a look at the contributions of the accounts activities. It went from making constructive edits on the ISIL and other middle-eastern based articles to vandalizing the Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Holocaust articles in October 2015 onward to January 2016 which I have never edited before. You however have made offensive remarks yourself when you stated that "Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much. The same goes for Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians and etc. " diff here [40]. And there are many many more where that came from. StanTheMan87 (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that in October 2015 a stranger came across your account and hacked it? He then wrote on your talk page: "Get off my talk page you weeaboo degenerate" [41] When you were making this November 2015 edit, you didn't realize anything? You were using StanMan87 without revealing it. The nonsense about me, you're bringing over 2 year old discussion, that is not what I say, it's what mainstream media says about Afghans in general. It's simply saying corruption is widespread in that country. I've been to all those countries, and I personally saw how widespread it is. I was lied to 24-7 and cheated everywhere I purchased something.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying the last time I logged on and edited was in early February 2015. I don't see the correlation between the edit that the compromised StanMan87 made and the constructive one I made in November on this account (After being away largely since July 2015). I had no need for the other account so I stopped logging on and editing. With that being said, I also stopped having anything to do with it entirely. I was only informed of its new erratic and disruptive nature when I logged in to this account, checked my talk page in January 2016 and saw a message from the 20th of October 2015 from User Kusma that it was vandalizing pages. You seem to have a history of insulting people and countries in Asia it seems the most disgusting thing to see on Afghan pages one person removes Pashto while another removes Persian, it's like what's the point in this? No wonder why many of these countries in Asia are so backward diff here [42]. Anyway, with luck you will be forgotten history on Wikipedia once this ANI concludes. Good riddance to bad rubbish. StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That 2014 issue has been resolved with no action because everyone knows that it's disgusting to see people behave bad in WP (removing language from pages that they don't like). I've seen many like you gotten banned from WP, I'm sure I'll see you end up the same way one day (if not today). Like I said, you don't impress me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang: Proposed Topic Ban for Krzyhorse22

    After reading through this saga here, noting:

    1. This recourse to WP:ANI and others [43],[44],[45],[46],[47], asking for sanctions against other editors he is involved in a content disputes with.
    2. Previous ANI visits where this editors competence has been questioned [48],[49]
    3. WP:BATTLE mentality at Talk:Mohammed Omar
    4. WP:NPA Personal attacks at Talk:Mohammed Omar [50]

    I tend to conclude that Krzyhorse22 is not engaging with editors appropriately in area of controversy and his actions are disruptive. Hence, I would propose a community topic ban for at least one year on all aspects related to Afghanistan broadly construed. WCMemail 12:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support As proposer. WCMemail 12:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) presented here is fundamentally unfair. 1) I'm one of the top experts on Afghanistan; 2) the accusations levelled against are all untrue; 3) those who reported me at ANI were indef-blocked for being disruptive [51]. I have a feeling that those who don't like me are plotting (by emailing each other) to get rid of me. Their physical location supports my suspecions. [52] For these reasons, WCM's proposition should be denied.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Since, he is an habitual personal attacker as he has accused me of POV pushing in the past as well but what I was doing was merely asking him to refrain adding unsourced content. He also acts like he is a scholar on Afghanistan matters and his opinion should be given weight over what the sources say. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      That's because you were POV pushing, see Talk:Ashraf_Ghani#Residence_in_Pakistan.3F. You attack those who are not from your ethnic group (e.g., you stated: "He has Pashtun nationalistic agenda and tries to bump up figures related to Pahtun ethnicity and Pashto language" [53]).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, it's there to see for everyone (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#SheriffIsInTown is vandalizing pages and pov pushing), once you saw the tide turning against you, you closed the ANI, you were proven wrong there, you were told that it was a mere content dispute and not as such you painted it to be and some editors even voted for your block due to your behavior and given the list of ANI's opened by you prove that you are a habitual accuser and personal attacker and you should be actually banned from opening any ANI's in future. As for the edit disputes you referred in your comment, they should be evaluated on their merit. There is no place for unsourced POV content on Wikipedia and i still maintain that i was in both circumstances in my rights if i asked for proper sources for the content which was being pushed in or if i removed unsourced content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no policy that limits the number of ANI reports, you aggressively argued that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani held Pakistani national ID card and that he lived in Pakistan but it turned out that this was a completely fabricated story. You were disrupting WP and I reported you. Like others, when I suspect a disruptive editor I can't help it but to report him. You can see from my edits that I'm not deliberately breaching WP, concentrate on your own actions. I've noticed this one serial sock-maker who is editing from in and around Islamabad, Pakistan, [54] and he often reports me, he's connected to User:LanguageXpert. He has used dozens of socks [55] and continues to use more. [56] You're also Pakistani and now you're WP:HARRASSING me here, just hope you're not related to that guy.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Lol, I didn't call you a habitual accuser for nothing. You are so quick to accuse people. You are proving me right with every statement you make. What i get from your statement is that every body whose page will say that they are from Pakistan and they would report you or vote against you would be the same user. You are hilarious, someone rightly said above that "you are a joke". Ashraf Ghani, holding a Pakistani national ID card was proven by a source and i still stand by it. Your opinion does not go over what the sources state. So many people cannot be wrong about you. It was not me who was disrupting WP, it is you as several editors pointed out in this ANI as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You're a habitual accuser calling me a habitual accuser. You may call me anything because it doesn't affect me. It's your overall behavior that makes me suspecious. I've been online since early 1997, just imagine all the people I've encountered. Online, you're the most famous guy on earth. It's not what others say, it's what my WP contributions show. Like I said, worry about your own actions.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      My overall behavior makes you suspicious? Like what? For example, I am editing Wikipedia or i am supporting your ban or what else? Not sure why you keep mentioning that you have been online since 1997, Wikipedia started in 2001 so you cannot be on Wikipedia since 1997, it seems like you are mentioning that you have been using internet since 1997. What do you think others have been doing since then? Do you think you are the only person in the world who have been using internet since 1997? I have been using internet since 1998 but i am not saying that it gives me an authority to judge others. Why do you think being online since 1997 gives you an authority to judge others? I mean who ever opposes you or have an edit conflict with you is a sock-puppet of somebody? What is this all non-sense about? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose based on unsubstantial evidence: the ANI reports provided variously end in Krzyhorse22's favor, against, or by and large, undecided; all with a large amount of people making a large amount of fuss, so if disruption is taking place, it seems unlikely to be coming unilaterally from Krzyhorse22, including by judging this incident above this sub-section. LjL (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - at the moment, despite repeatedly engaging with this user to try and counsel him on appropriate behaviour, NPA, CONSENSUS, use of sources, I do have to agree that he is engaging in BATTLEGROUND and disruptive behaviour. Unfortunately, he's not a 'top expert' on Afghanistan, he's just pushing some very strange interpretations of data without being able to consider that, for example, should traditional Afghan kings and the Taliban's interpretation of their caliphate be conflated? He's also pushing them over and over beyond the point where he should recognise that consensus is against him. I tend to believe if a topic ban or other ANI action is not put in place, he will remain coming to administrators' attention, as he has done, and this will result in administrator sanctions at some point. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Discussing (peacefully, respectfully and intellectually) a world leader's "official title" at Talk:Mohammed Omar is not in anyway engaging in BATTLEGROUND or disruptive behavior. That is what the talk page of the article is designed for. My WP contributions prove that I know more about Afghanistan than all the editors in the discussions I'm involved. The Taliban created a new form of government in Afghanistan in 1996, with Mohammed Omar being the first emir. I cited 3 most reliable sources for this (Encyclopaedia Britannica [57], The New York Times, BBC News). Who is against this factual finding?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - despite this user knowing this ANI debate is underway, he continues being uncivil to users who, it seems, who he disagrees with: [58]. Telling a user, in effect, to leave a talkpage discussion is not civil in my book. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      That editor stated: "Again, I have little desire to be drawn into a discussion based on edits I made eight years ago..." [59] and I told him: "We're not asking you to discuss anything, you may go without needing to come here again." [60] What's wrong with that? My usage of the word "here" was obviously not referring to WP but just that specific discussion. I can't help people who can't understand my American English.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a real stretch: the other person was saying they didn't want to be dragged into a discussion, and Krzyhorse22 basically told them that they don't have to. They didn't tell them to leave. LjL (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. After everything what happened during this discussion (and many previous discussions as well), I see no other way than to support this topic ban proposal. Based on Krzyhorse22's general conduct - battleground mentality, ignoring of consensus, paranoia ("email plots" against him), uncivil behavior towards other users (including personal attacks and ludicrous accusations against me), etc it may be the only solution to finally put this problem to rest. And, what to say about this: "I'm one of the top experts on Afghanistan"... I'm sure this edit "confirms" that claim - [61]. Making no distinction between kings of Afghanistan and the leader of the Taliban speaks enough for itself. --Sundostund (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You and everyone who're supporting this illogical/fundamentally unfair topic ban are doing it as a revenge. It is obviously clear because you're all repeating the same groundless accusations. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that email messages about me are passing around. Since 1709 Afghan kings rose to power like how Taliban rose to power in 1996, see Politics_of_Afghanistan#Brief_timeline_of_Afghan_politics. When I'm free I'll file an SPI and try to prove that you're connected to User:Be Black Hole Sun and his socks.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Krzymeme22, just as you accused User:DocumentError of being a sock to my account (diff here [62]) ...without providing any evidence. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @StanTheMan87: Stop mocking their username. It's obnoxious and does you no credit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That was in September 2014, I was very new. I was also accused of being a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irapart/Archive.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you cannot claim newness anymore, you accused people in this very thread and continued to do so even to the people who supported you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whole-heartedly support but I suggest a one year (if not indefinite) IP ban I cannot succinctly summarize (There would be many diffs and many paragraphs) why not only this user account should be perma-banned from Wikipedia indefinitely but the person behind it should have his/hers access restricted as well. The behaviour this individual conveys hasn't changed one iota since he started filing off ANI's against me in September 2014. He will just keep on wasting administrators time calling for editors who disagree with him to be blocked [63], ranting that new editors who make innocent harmless mistakes are in fact devious vandals (Every single ANI he has dragged me into), and accuse multiple accounts that oppose him as sock-puppets with a nefarious agenda against him/her [64],[65]. I urge the Wikipedia community to just wash their hands of this sad human-being and be done with it. He/she brings nothing to the community but divisiveness and conflict. I'll also note that this user was very knowledgeable of Wikipedia protocol (e.g he/she knew how to file an ANI against me as their first edit) which suggest that this person has been on Wikipedia before under another alias. There would be nothing stopping Krzyhorse22 from doing just that if the punishment isn't severe enough because this individuals behaviour will not change. --StanTheMan87 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Notice that nothing but WP:personal attacks are coming from the supporters of this illogical and malicious topic ban.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Karma's a b!tch. StanTheMan87 (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't impress me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to here that Krispydream22. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend my view re proposal of one year ban Probably against my better judgment, I would not support a one year if not indefinite ban immediately, but if the editor in question does not improve while editing topics less close to his heart, it might come to that. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I've warned you about WP:HARRASSING me and to WP:DROPTHESTICK. [66] You're not allowed to propose illogical bans of editors you simply dislike or disagree with their view. I think your admin power should be removed because I find you no longer fit, and at the same time you ahould be topic banned from Afghanistan-related pages. You obviously have very little contributes to those pages. It is also proven that you have very little knowledge about Afghanistan and Afghans. [67] [68] You're still saying that an official title "Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan" existed in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 when no such official title existed. [69] Therefore, I correctly filed this ANI against you. Regarding the topic ban against me, it must be denied because it is not only illogical and malicious but against WP's policies, see, e.g., WP:BRD.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly this view is in error. If you're not happy with the Independent or the Carnegie Center, try [70], [71], [72] and [73] One of these sources is the Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought - do you really consider that they would have copied a title from wikipedia? It's your persistent defence of propositions that are not supported by reliable sources, plus your uncivil behaviour - to women and anyone else - that makes me wonder whether editing this site is right for you. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • From where do you assume Princeton might have gotten that title? It is an established fact that the title was first (in April 2008) presented for the entire world at WP. These sources you presented don't prove anything. The first one (www.afghan-bios.info), copies entire WP content to its website. Britannica, BBC, and the New York Times, intentionally chose not to use that title because it is unverifiable information.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I may appear like an outsider right now, but I have edited under a variety of IP addresses because they always change. While I too have been attacked for my geographical location by Krzyhorse22 in the past, I engaged in a lengthy discussion with @Krzyhorse22:. We ultimately came to a conclusion with the help of Iryna Harpy and the dispute over the two templates, Template:Asian Americans and Template:Middle Eastern American ceased, not straight away but eventually it did. While I know the diabolical dispute at Afghan Americans has spiralled out of control into something that is bigger than what it should have been and it can't compare to the dispute that occurred last month. I believe that a one year ban on topics relating to Afghanistan for Krzyhorse22 does not sound good but I think we should wait for them to give a proper reply and not an attack or unjust reply. Yes, it may seem outrageous especially with what has happened and I too was taken aback by the number of times they vilified users on their geographical boundaries and subsequently on other matters but I believe that this ANI report in itself is something that might make Krzyhorse22 stop doing all of this. There appears to be heated animosity between Krzyhorse22 and every other user involved from their past and present but I think some of this has also affected the way this user has behaved towards others here on Wikipedia. I know this sounds silly but maybe when they see these messages on this page they may stop, I think we should wait and see what this user has to say whether they appear to change for the better of they continue to carry on with the unconstructive messages and replies on talk pages and here on ANI. Krzyhorse22, your replies to other users seem to be out-of-line in fact they appear to be quite personal, you should stop acting like this on Wikipedia, Iryna Harpy told me I should not "barrage editors with accounts (such as Krzyhorse22)" on your talk page last month, I took that seriously and decided that in fact it was barraging and I guess you seemed to be a respected user but with all of this it seems not. I opened that discussion for you and asked for your thoughts and yes you did that but not in the right way you seemed to attack Buckshot06 when you opened that discussion. I think you should stop with the bad remarks and improve your behaviour and be the "user" Iryna Harpy seemed to liken you with, because as of right now I can't see it and nor can anyone else. (121.214.57.157 (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
      When someone merely mentions your country that is not in any way an attack. WP editors are located in different countries. So far all those who support this illegal ban are from Australia [74], New Zealand [75], Pakistan [76] and I believe one is in the EU (likely Norway).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      What are you suggesting here Krazy, that all the people who support your ban are based somewhere in the world but you are out of this World? I didn't understand your logic behind the last statement that one is based in Australia, another in New Zealand, another in Pakistan and another in EU possibly Norway? Why are you playing this guessing game here? Above somewhere you seem to be linking me with someone called LanguageXpert who according to you is based in Islamabad. Not sure what are you achieving by changing your accusations from time to time? Are you suggesting that we should ban people from all these countries from opposing you? Or are you suggesting that others belong to these locations on Earth but you are out of this World? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm showing the intelligent community (not intelligence community) the possible motive, i.e., that I may be harrassed based on my country (location, nationality, political view). You pretend to be an American police officer but you can't figure out my simple message?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not pretending to be anything, that's just my user name. Same as your user name does not make you a Krazy Horse, my user name does not make me a Sheriff and nor i am into disclosing my real identity here. That's why we have usernames here on WP so people's real identity cannot be compromised. It seems like we will have to bring intelligence of aliens to understand your messages because your messages are beyond this community's comprehension. They are definitely reflective of your user name. Did somebody else understand his message about talking about other's locations or any other of his messages as a matter of fact? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not impersonating a police officer.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly @Krzyhorse22:, to me it seems nothing sank in, none of the words I told you seemed to sink in. It was an attack you did not merely mention someone's country, you did not say, "hey, you're from Australia!" did you? You can't just declare someone's edits invalid based on the origin of the user or IP user and you did that, you said "You're from Australia, that means you know little about America", that's very far from what you claim to have done. You did not say it only four times you said the same thing to Iryna Harpy as well, that's more than four times. Did I say that I support this ban? I said "oppose" and then I said a lot of things that you should have thought about but obviously you didn't. You're reply shows me that you do not want to change as you continue to justify your actions without being able to accept the fact that your actions are not justifiable here. (121.214.34.141 (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
      Who are you to judge? There are no admins here other than Buckshot06 who I reported to other admins. What you biased non-neutral/non-admins have said are pure nonsenses, false accusations, and revelations of your personal feelings toward me. You also revealed that you may be friends of Buckshot06 because all you do is attack me without even considering the accusations I leveled against Buchshot06.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Krzyhorse22:, I am not friends with anyone on Wikipedia. I only highlighted the incorrect way you presented your points, did I make you the centre piece of my argument when I opened a discussion on the Middle Eastern Americans template last month? No, I didn't I presented it in a neutral fashion. (121.220.43.53 (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

    Congratulations, Krzyhorse22 - you managed to get into fight/argument even with this IP, who is one of the very few people who opposed your topic ban. Magnificent... Buckshot06, you have every right to change/amend your view, but I really must ask you not to do that. This user definitely needs some serious sanctions for his overall behavior (I think even indefinite ban would be really justifiable in this case)... Of course, my view for topic ban (Support) remains as I stated it above. --Sundostund (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) An SPI-report that has already been closed by Bbb23 as being without merit ("There's no connection between Najaf ali bhayo and Krazyhorse22. Krazyhorse22 has been accused of being a sock of several masters (do a search), and they never go anywhere. Closing."). Thomas.W talk 16:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Krzyhorse222 is clearly not me but someone who was impersonating me, the admin who blocked him will quickly verify that. [77]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – I don't know anything about the dispute that's going on here, but seeing this attack on "female editors" is more than enough for me to vote in favour of a ban. RGloucester — ☎ 16:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? I see no attack on female editors in that diff... Thomas.W talk 16:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The implication that "female editors" are thin-skinned by virtue of their sex is undoubtedly an attack. RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not, it only reflects old-fashioned thinking, from the times when boys och men were taught to be polite to women, open doors for them etc. Before good manners started to be seen as sexist. Thomas.W talk 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been considerable Wikipedia-related fuss that has resonated in the media about how, apparently, (some) female editors feel an unwelcoming atmosphere on Wikipedia due in part to the widespread "masculine" war-like fighty atmosphere. So I find it somewhat... interesting that when it's female editors, and big names within Wikipedia, effectively saying that editors need to be "softer" in the presence of women, that's some admirable anti-sexist attitude, but when Krzyhorse22 says it, it's a sexist personal attack. But I'm sure you'll now consider mine a sexist personal attack, too. LjL (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What a bunch of utter tosh. Politeness is one thing, but it needn't be restricted to women. Opening doors for men is just as polite as opening doors for women. "Good manners" are not sexist, provided they are given equally to all human beings. What is sexist is implying that women are weak and require a softer hand than men. In this case, the remark was directed at a woman and was clearly a snide personal attack. RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why, exactly, is the whole debate I mentioned centered around the fact that this "lack of good manners" allegedly results in specifically women not editing Wikipedia, with 90% of editors being men? If the implication were not that women require a softer hand than men, then this whole theory wouldn't explain why women are put off from editing a lot more than men. I find that hypocrisy is rampant. LjL (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had no participation in the Wikipedia-wide debate, and have no desire to get into it. You'll find that I'm not on the side of those who push the "civility" business in the manner that you mention. I do not agree with the arguments you've cited. However, none of that matters in this case. What I object to is a direct remark targeted against a female editor who was acting in good faith on a talk page. This was clearly an attack, and a gender-based attack launched directly against any editor is absolutely inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 17:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to say I'll be polite to female editors, beyond normal polite. Wikipedia is based in the United States, American terms and phrases trump others.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not be "more polite" to "female editors". You should be equally polite to everyone. More importantly, civility is not just about politeness. It is about engaging with other editors is a professional manner, something you've shown you are not capable of doing by making such snide gender-based remarks against an editor acting in good faith. RGloucester — ☎ 17:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well no Krzyhorse22, no they don't. That's a very silly claim. This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, and I think you'll find that where specifically the Foundation is located has no bearing on the English varieties used here; in fact, the same foundation hosts Wikipedias in entirely other languages than English as well. 17:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
    For example, suppose I were serving a sentence under U.S. probation and all my online activities were monitored by my probation officer, and I was required to say certain terms/phrases and avoid using others. If I don't follow the conditions of my probation, I could go to prison for that.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now you're just talking nonsense. I'm defending you based on the fact that you seem to be picked on and piled on in a not particularly sound way, but this way, people like me will wonder why they're wasting their time even typing "oppose". LjL (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, next, he is going to expose your sock-puppets! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he just accused you of being a sock maker. This discussion makes everyone a suspect, it's like hearing Fred Rogers' voices coming out of the puppets in Neighborhood of Make-Believe.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, i didn't. I meant, do not say anything against Krzyhorse22 otherwise he will find your sock-puppets as well as he has been linking everyone from the onset of this discussion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose boomerang. The proposal is just yet another attempt by a small group of editors to get rid of an "opponent", with endless forum-shopping, including frivolous SPI-reports. Thomas.W talk 16:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I really resent that remark Thomas.W, I've not had anything to do with this matter before and started this proposal based on an evaluation of what I saw. You may have missed it, this editor kicked of this thread with a frivolous WP:ANI complaint against Buckshot06 to get rid of an "opponent". WCMemail 18:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wee Curry Monster: I'm not defending either side, would be equally opposed if sanctions were proposed against Buckshot06, and see Krzyhorse22's accusations about sockpuppetry when starting this thread as a borderline personal attack, since he AFAIK hasn't filed an SPI; so let me clarify: I see this whole thread as just attempts to get rid of "opponents" through forum-shopping and accusations about sockpuppetry, etc. Reports about sockpuppetry should be filed at WP:SPI, and be accompanied by credible evidence, unlike the report against Krzyhorse22 that was quickly declined, and that even a minute or two of sifting through their histories showed was without merit. Just like multiple previous reports against them. Thomas.W talk 19:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again may have passed you by but Buckshot06 actually opposed my proposal and he responded with this personal attack [78], I don't see how you conclude from that this is an attempt to get rid of an opponent. He's also argued with another IP editor who has opposed this. Given the battlefield mentality he is displaying here I'm surprised he hasn't been sanctioned before. WCMemail 19:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My report against Buckshot06 (all the way at the top) is not frivolous, I did it to avoid unjustified block. He said that I was 5 seconds away from a block. What would you do in such a situation? I quickly came here so other admins could be witnesses to what was going on. About the SPI, I know this is not the place for it (and I've explained that) but I still felt that it was necessary to note it so admins could have a better understanding about what was going on.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, my behavior may be misconstrued as battlefield mentality, I'm not fighting or attacking anyone but just defending myself against an unjustified topic ban proposed by a complete stranger. I'm sure every honest editor who enjoys WP would do what I did here.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend my view - a penalty should be enforced So you do not care @Krzyhorse22:, do you? I actually thought you might change but you have not shown anything to prove that you will. I tried to be nice to you since that discussion I had with you on your talk page last month and I tried to be nice to you yesterday by letting other Wikipedia users know that maybe they should give you a chance and see if you will change. I opposed the topic ban against you but instead you decided to argue with me. My views were not biased, I was only trying to highlight the faults that you are committing that is making everyone seem to turn against you, a little criticism or the highlighting of one's faults should not be a ticket to argue with anyone. You do not care Krzyhorse22 and nor do I. @Wee Curry Monster:, I'd like to amend my view, some sort of penalty needs to be enforced against this user, they obviously do not care even after I opposed this topic ban against them they do not show any sign of changing instead they want to argue. Wee Curry Monster, I do not want to support a user who will continue to argue with every user here on Wikipedia. While a one year ban may seem lengthy it might be the only way to make this user stop, I however believe some penalty of some sort should be enforced because I think this is the only way that will make this user stop. I think a penalty, not on the lines of a one year ban, should be enforced because it might just be the thing that will finally teach them a lesson. (121.220.43.53 (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    • Amend my view - support one year ban - following continued battleground behaviour and constant incivility from this editor, I do not now believe a topic ban is enough. I should note that some of his incivility may be unintentional; his comments to Iryna Harpy on female editors may reveal some lack of social nous, which is needed on this worldwide website. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban with bells on, and without any rubbish being tossed around about mitigating circumstances. The editor is WP:NOTHERE, and has tampered with templates and articles concerning anything about Afghanistan or Afghanis making unilateral decisions as to how subject matter should be treated. Considering that I am the female editor who was at the receiving end of multiple WP:PERSONAL attacks by Krzyhorse22, I really don't care what the "Mr. Politenessman" variables to how females should or shouldn't be treated here are interpreted. This has nothing to do with just being a female: the fact of being a female just happens to be something I am prepared to disclose about myself, nothing more. However, the comment about being gentler with females editing Wikipedia alone is an affront to anyone who edits here, be they male, transgender, young, Chinese, bipolar, etc. Most editors do not disclose anything about themselves, therefore none of us should ever make any assumptions about any other editor. Essentially, what is being promoted is that it's okay to attack anyone if you've decided they're a peer (a peer in what sense, anyway?). Personal attacks are never acceptable, and I responded to Krzyhorse22 in a manner I've never done before: using a couple of mild expletives. I deserved the trout slap I've given myself for that, and smell of fish as a result. Whatever I am, I am not a fluffy-wuffy female who can't hack serious abuse. If I were, I would have stopped editing here years ago... and Krzyhorse22 is a remorseless abuser of other editors, as evidenced by his removal of the closest thing he's ever come to being prepared to apologise to anyone only a few hours ago. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Just the other day, after I said: "I'll try to be more soft when approaching other editors", Iryna Harpy stated to me: "You, sir, are a patronising arsehole." [79] That explains everything about that user. She is also playing around with my comments. [80]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You don't appear to understand the fundamentals of WP:TPO. The edit you are referring to changed the entire complexion of the thread (i.e., redacting and removing your own comments well after the fact of their being read and responded to by other editors is a conscious attempt to misrepresent the discussion/argument). Secondly, you are misrepresenting your own comments here, at the ANI, by means of WP:SYNTH... or should I just call a spade a spade and characterise your actions as lies. Other editors are perfectly well equipped to see what is happening in the second diff you provided. The entire statement you are referring to was "I'll try to be more soft when approaching other editors, especially female editors.". You also entirely removed "No idea what you're up to this time but you don't impress me, and I'm sorry for that." Added to this, you've omitted to note that I struck the comment with an apology to you at 00:43, 18 February 2016 (and I did ping you from there). Or have you not noticed that, given that this took place before you posted here, and that I struck it after a deserved reprimand and deliberations with Buckshot06 as to my behaviour. While my comment is regrettable, I take full responsibility for having allowed myself to be WP:BAITed by you after you attacked me on my OWN talk page, and on the relevant talk page. Having to try to work in a collaborative environment with editors such as you is truly toxic. The saddest part of all of this is that, in the midst of this ANI you have added an admin hopeful userbox to your user page. Are you truly that oblivious to how disruptive and combative you are that you don't feel embarrassed about believing yourself to be a potential candidate for adminship? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I had that admin hopeful all along, look at the left [81]. About the WP:TPO, I carefully removed completely irrelevant parts of my own comments and made note of that in my edit summary. You saying pure swearwords to me is collaborative environment? It seems that anything I say to you is an attack. I hope this message is not an attack. I accept your apology, let's cool down. Anyone can become an admin one day, many admins started off bad but eventually improved.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend my view - support one year ban. This editor's battleground mentality, desire for personal attacks and incivility is really astonishing (not to mention his sexist remarks, which are totally unacceptable - no matter whether they are intentional or not). His readiness to go into fights even with people who opposed his topic ban is really beyond my comprehension. Therefore, I think that a topic ban isn't enough here - one year ban would really be justifiable in this case. After everything what I saw during my encounter with him, I truly doubt that a topic ban would have some particular effect on him. --Sundostund (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is a perfect example of WP:HARRASS and WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I wonder who is behind that IP and who told him to come here? All the negative things said about me are untrue that's why you don't see supporting "diffs". I'm obviously a normal editor (since 2014) who tries to improve articles or correct information so WP remains a reliable source. I successfully did that at Afghan Americans. As you can see above, there are some who're against me. They want to see me banned for a year. What will that accomplish?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Krzyhorse22:, no one told me to come here, I came across the Afghan Americans page after visiting the Central Asian American template which ultimately brought me to this. I opposed your block but you argued with me, this is not harassment. How can you argue with someone who is trying to oppose a block against you, shouldn't you be acceptive of that. Instead you called it harassment and argued with me that's unbelievable. The fact that you argued with me after I opposed your block makes me think whether you can change. It's really baffling, one does not expect to be argued with by the user they are trying to defend. Your behaviour is so shocking that it has even managed to capture users who have not even been involved in any dispute with you because your behaviour is that shocking they too have been equally shocked. Your behaviour @Krzyhorse22: is outrageous you have discriminated users on a variety fields and now I know you will never change. (137.147.16.237 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    • You want yet another diff showing that you have severe problems with WP:CIVIL? How about this? 118.93.77.246 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, IP 118.93.77.246 is in fact User:Buckshot06. [82] Buckshot06, that was a year ago. Saladin1987 (talk · contribs) (who was blocked 4 times for being disruptive and POV-pushing [83]) told me: "Learn how to speak first, you are an uneducated Afghan which is pretty common amongst u. Dont waste my time and take your racism in ur own country which is a heaven at the moment..." You see I'm constantly attacked based on my nationality but what's funny is that I never even revealed my nationality.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one year ban: After seeing this WP:UNCIVIL diff. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend my view - support one year ban against this user. That's it @Krzyhorse22:, I've had enough of you and that was the last straw. There were no need of diffs, I showed one when I first published an argument but I didn't need anymore because I tried to oppose a block against you, why would I need diffs for that? I tried to show the other users that maybe you might change if we wait a little longer, but I was seriously mistaken. Isn't it shocking that I managed to have a positive attitude towards you just last month and I continued to have that positive attitude towards you just a few days ago when I opposed a block against you, but you managed to show me that you will never ever change, in fact you said that I actually supported this ban by publishing this, the discussion I had with you last month, did you not read what I published, I said "oppose"? I didn't say I supported the ban. It's really shocking that I opposed a block against you but now I'm here, a few days later, asking for this ban to go through. @Wee Curry Monster:, I'm amending my view again, this user needs to be blocked. @Krzyhorse22:, you asked "what will that accomplish?" It will hopefully teach you a serious lesson that you can never ever behave like this on Wikipedia again. The discrimination and attacks against multiple users including myself, is absolutely repulsive and disgusting and you deserve this ban! (137.147.16.237 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support the one year ban. Looking through this entire ANI thread and the evidence presented throughout, I believe that this is the best course of action. It will allow this editor to contribute positively to other subject areas while say "enough is enough". ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions - It's fundamentally wrong to enter sanctions against Krzyhorse22 because he didn't violate Wikipedia policies. He correctly defended himself. It looks more like he's a victim of bullying, harrasment and personal attacks. I suggest capping the BOOMERANG section.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't refer to yourself in the third person. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    2607:FB90:170F:F01:0:18:8552:701

    2607:FB90:170F:F01:0:18:8552:701 (talk · contribs) is simply a vandal, see his contributions. Please block. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Debresser - If this is the case, you should report the IP to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - this way, it will be visible to more administrators, and it will be handled faster. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Oshwah for the advice. And Materialscientist thanks for the block. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. He is back from 2607:FB90:A054:1B24:0:4D:3284:1701 (talk · contribs), vandalizing precisely the same two user pages. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP and added a short term protection on the two target pages. Please let me know if you want the protection of your user page removed/extended etc. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Add to these two: 2607:FB90:2BD:A641:0:3E:15F2:8C01 (talk · contribs), 2607:FB90:1700:A7A1:0:49:4881:3301 (talk · contribs), 2607:FB90:29B:5AC6:0:4C:9846:A401 (talk · contribs), who for unclear reasons vandalize only me and 117Avenue (talk · contribs). At WP:AIV they only do ad hoc blocks, while it seems here we need to block the whole 2607:FB90:etc. range. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: I undid my (non-admin closure) as this seems to be ongoing and requires a bigger solution. I will allow an uninvolved administrator determine when this is closed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Debresser and 117Avenue: I would recommend seeking indefinite semi-protection for your user pages. It seems like the anonymous editor will only continue after temporary protection has expired. There are few reasons another editor should edit your user page and even fewer for an anonymous editor to do so. clpo13(talk) 19:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at a rangeblock here but it is would block an entire ISP, which is way too big. As soon as I hit save here, I'll indef protect both user pages. And I do rangeblocks from AIV reports all the time. Just can't do this one. :-) Katietalk 17:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And I see that semi-protection is already done. If either wants it done longer, ping me. Katietalk 17:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ponyo and KrakatoaKatie: Make it indefinite, there's no reason an IP should be editing my user space. 117Avenue (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Done.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also edited the userboxes so that only the correct one works on my userpage. 117Avenue (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Debresser, would you like your userpage to be indefinitely semi-protected (like 117Avenue's is now), so that IPs cannot edit it? If so, speak now. If no one hears from you this thread will probably be wrapped up, and if you have any trouble in the future you can request indefinite semi-protection from any admin (no ANI thread needed). Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling again from Hengistmate

    Hengistmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Plasticine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I recently fixed a minor spelling in Plasticine from fuse to fuze. This is a specialist term in military history. The correct spelling is somewhat contentious (see long past discussions at Talk:Fuze and related articles) as the z spelling is specific to that field and widely accepted within that field. It is usually seen as the correct spelling, "fuse" being either incorrect or at very least confusable with fuse (electrical), and fuze is never seen as incorrect for these devices. Nor is this an ENGVAR issue.

    Hengistmate rapidly reverted my correction. When I restored it he reverted it again in minutes, removing the relevant link too (as [[Fuze|fuse]] piping "fuse" to link to "fuze" was presumably beyond even his chutzpah).

    With any other editor, I would have taken pains to explain the significance of the spelling, with reference to the past Talk: discussions, and the fact that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for use with this term. However this is Hengistmate – a self-declared expert in military matters (see User talk:Hengistmate) who is certainly already familiar with the subtleties of this issue. An editor with whom I've also had extensive past problems, including his blocking for repeated socking: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive.

    This is not edit-warring. This is not a content dispute. This, given the editor involved and their past history, is simple deliberate trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I seem to have unwittingly blundered into this content dispute having made (what I believed to be) a legitimate revert. Judging from the discussion currently taking place at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse there does appear to be a valid and proper discussion over the spelling of fuse/fuze. Without commenting here on who is right or who is wrong, on the basis that there is an ongoing discussion, I would suggest that this ANI be closed as no further action. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC
    • Re-opening this. Thanks to Ed Johnston for closing this (below), but the issue has kicked off again.
    result=No action needed. Please continue to discuss at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse. Hengistmate has not edited the article since 31 December. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC) }}[reply]
    This issue was raised on 30 December and was ignored for some time. An independent editor, 86.145.215.191, restore the fuze spelling, which was again reverted by Hengistmate. They took no part in the discussion at Talk:Plasticine, nor responded to the ANI issue here. They were active, they continued to edit other articles.
    Minutes after Ed closed this, Hengistmate again reverted and even inserted an inappropriate wl to the DAB page at fuse.
    This is an editor who knows the technical background to this issue, that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for the major articles, and who has a track record of blocked repeated socking simply to troll me. For them to ignore an issue for the duration of their exposure at an ANI posting, but then dive straight back in within minutes of that going away - especially with an edit so simply unconstructive as to replace a correct link with a DAB link (whatever the spelling issue) - this strikes me as sheer BF editing.
    Those interested are invited to read the discussion at Talk:Plasticine - but this is still here as a behavioural issue about one editor, not a content matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • De-archiving this. I have tried to help out with the content dispute, and it has become clear during extensive discussion that there is an issue with the conduct of the OP.
    Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has misrepresented sources [86] [87] [88], and repeatedly made the same uncited edit [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95].
    As well as the false accusation of "trolling" made above, he has now issued false warnings for disruption [96] [97]. As advised in WP:DE and WP:HA, I am reporting this here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A little reminder, you're required to notify other editors if you raise them at ANI. Why didn't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC); edited 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOOMERANG, by bringing this back here User:Burninthruthesky is ignoring established consensus and is trying to turn a content dispute into an AN/I matter simply because he dislikes said consensus.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    142.105.159.60 has also inserted this WP:UNSOURCED change, [98] claiming there is consensus for it. Suggest Boomerang served in the form of a warning. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC); edited 08:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC); edited 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're just trolling.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang

    Andy Dingley's personal attacks against Hengistmate are continuing, [99] and are now being extended [100] as well to Ymblanter after they kindly protected the article (and who apparently speaks seven languages). This is unacceptable, please block this user. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Let us also point out that Hengistmate vandalized [101] the article on artillery fuzes in an effort to push their views on the matter. No one is innocent here, you least of all.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I didn't. I edited the article so that it reflects the sources - the "real" O.E.D., as recommended by A. Dingley. Please discuss this calmly, without attacking other "editors". Plenty are already doing that. Hengistmate (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't believe that this issue is still rumbling on after several months.
    I'm also surprised that Andy Dingly and several others contributing to the edit war and discussion are not aware that when an admin protects an article, they are not endorsing the version of the article so protected but are only forcing discussion on the talk page (of which, in this case, there is no shortage!). If an admin changed the spelling and then protected the article - that would be an abuse of admin privileges (protecting an article to enforce his prefered version, though I have seen it done in a case where the admin was directly involved in the edit war - very naughty). 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving along: Request closure of his thread as a content dispute

    The spelling of "fuze/fuse" is a content dispute. The content dispute needs to be worked out with some form of WP:DR, not an ANI discussion. If you need a suggestion of which WP:DR to use, I suggest WP:RfC. If there are any repeated or longterm behavioral issues that have not been able to be worked out via collegial discussions or WP:ANEW, I don't see them presented here by either side of the issue. All I see is a clear content dispute and edit-warring. If there are further sockpuppet allegations to make, make them at WP:SPI. Can we close this now with no action? Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Both sides seem to agree that WP:This is not a content dispute. The actual content dispute is trivial – there are sources that support both spellings. Andy Dingley admits [102] that one of them is military WP:JARGON, but chooses to ignore what the MOS has to say on the issue and keeps rehashing his view that one of them is "wrong", [103] [104] [105] [106] despite the fact the spelling he dislikes is supported by the OED. I expect the dispute would have been settled before I got involved if he were able to satisfy WP:Verifiability with his view. The failure to do so is WP:Disruptive. He says himself [107] that we don't reword cited text to follow our own POV, yet there are 7 diffs above showing him doing just that. Furthermore, he started this discussion with his baseless accusation that his opponent is "trolling". Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter what "both sides" (and that includes you, on one of the "sides") want to characterize this as, it is a simple content dispute and edit war. Not one single effort at WP:DR has been made. The full protection of the article is going to end in 10 hours, at which time the tiresome edit-warring will resume. I would like to request that this thread be closed and the disputants advised to handle it via WP:DR. The closing admin may or may not want to indefinitely full-protect the article until such time as some form of WP:DR has been implemented and completed. In the absence of that, edit-warring should be dealt with at WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    From DR, this is the forum for resolving a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. WP:Disruption is a behavioural guideline and WP:Edit Warring and WP:No personal attacks are conduct policies. It's clear to me this is a long-term behavioural issue, so unfortunately I'm not surprised by this user's block log. The content dispute has been exhaustively discussed at Talk:Plasticine, but not only there. The last diff above is five years old, and relates to the same argument [108] suggesting the full OED (which not everyone can easily check) somehow contradicts other English dictionaries, including those from the same pubilsher. Protection of Plasticine has not put a stop to this [109]. I fear that closing this thread with no action will result in more of the same. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The return of Hengistmate

    I expanded this, with an additional source (Hogben) and with a corrected quote from Jappy. On a single page, Jappy uses the "fuze" spelling 11 times.

    As anticipated, Hengistmate then promptly edited the page, "Have corrected spelling of fuse to reflect sources." He deliberately broke the direct quotes given (scans are available) to yet again, push his agenda of the "fuse" spelling. Now whatever the virtues of the two spellings in general, in this case we have verbatim quotes from two sources about the same very specific item, using the fuze spelling and using it widely throughout two books.

    This is simple trolling. Hengistmate has a long history over some years of such attacks against me and has been blocked in the past for his socking in doing so. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Both edits above are inappropriate. There is no clear consensus for changing the spelling, and DAB links are not generally correct. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We work according to the sources. Both sources here very clearly use "fuze". Why are you advocating going against these sources? Your own edit mis-represented Jappy as a source for "fuse" by quoting a bit of random blurb from the Amazon website, in direct contradiction of what the book actually uses. Why would you do that? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jappy synopsis displayed by several booksellers led me to believe the original (August) edit was already supported. Regardless of sourcing (there are sources supporting both), I still believe there is a valid question over use of either the technical spelling or the dictionary spelling. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No one cares what you "believe". We work here by what WP:RS authors (Hudson, Hogben, Jappy) have stated in reliable media. They have all widely used "fuze" for this context. If you can find any comparable sources showing "Y fuse" in relation to German air-dropped bomb fuzes of WWII, then please show them.
    A carelessly quoted publisher blurb on the Amazon website is not RS and is not evidence to contradict the very book it is describing. Jappy uses the term dozens of times in the pages in relation to this issue, always as "fuze".
    I see that you have changed your past false statement that the OED gives "fuze" as an 18th century variant spelling for powder train fuses and you now give it as the spelling for the sophisticated mechanical fuzes introduced from the 19th century. Although you're still missing the point that this was the introduction then of mechanical fuzes, not merely a variant for powder train fuses.
    There is a broad issue, hammered out long ago at Talk:Fuze, Talk:Contact fuze and Talk:Fuse (explosives): fuze is correct for devices of this type. Even that though is over-ridden here by the simple fact that the RS describing this specific use and the fairly brief and narrow events in question were all described using "fuze", for which we should then follow suit. Even if this had been some WWI / WWII difference, or an ENGVAR issue, we would favour "fuze" here because that's what the RS for this event all use. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that Hengistmate included some quotes from references in his edit which actually supported the 'fuze' spelling, but then followed the words 'fuze' in each case with '(sic)' indicating that he believes the author used the wrong spelling. This must qualify as editing while ignoring what the references say because you think you know better. If that is not trolling, and clearly edit warring to edit against the references that he himself provided, then I don't know what is. If we all edited what we believed to be a corrected version of any references used to support articles, Wikipedia would soon be in a mess. Hengistmate should be blocked for pure trolling. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    * Proposal *

    Hengistmate (talk · contribs · logs) is blocked from editing Wikipedia for clear trolling on the grounds that he uses a source to support his edit, but deliberately misquotes it to support his trolling. Further, he marks the quotes from the source claiming that the respected author of the work does not know his craft.

    User:SmokeyJoe reverting MFD relistings

    Ok, I'm getting tired of this. I'm trying to close the giant backlog at WP:MFD and my relistings keep getting reverted by User:SmokeyJoe. If this was AFD, CFD, TFD, RFD, anywhere else, anyone who would be blindly reverting an administrator's choice to relist a discussion would be treated as disruptive editing. Is it disruptive if it's done at MFD? The reason this matters is largely because relisting will move it from the bottom of the MFD page to today's page just like what is done with relisting at AFD, CFD, TFD, RFD. If SmokeyJoe wants to re-write the admin closing instructions to disallow relisting, that's fine but that's a severe policy change that requires more than just blindly reverting an admin's attempts to deal with these discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • From what I've seen of this, SmokeyJoe has explained the issues, so perhaps Ricky81682 could do more listening.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that reverting a relisting notice in the MFD (like in the diff provided) is disruptive. In this example, there was only one vote and consensus was not reached. I don't understand what he means by "pushback against mindless relisting by a self-declared deletionist", as you weren't deleting anything. Ricky81682 - Are there more instances of him doing this that you can provide? Have there been discussions between you two about this? Where can I find them? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive913#MFD_relistings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only best solution to this is simply for Ricky to stop relisting the MFDs and simply moving on....., MFDs don't need to be relisted in any shape or form. –Davey2010Talk 02:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SmokeyJoe, I am both acknowledging and noting the previous ANI discussion you provided. It appears to be recent, and was started by Ricky81682. Let me read the discussion and find out what consensus (if any) was reached. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the ANI discussion. There doesn't appear to have been any consensus reached; just opinion and discussion on both sides. In my opinion, relisting an MFD seems perfectly logical (even if there aren't many voters that participate there) if no consensus appears to have been reached. In the example provided above, with only one vote made to the discussion, I think that relisting it was a completely appropriate thing to do. But I don't participate at MFD, so I can't provide much context with the typical number of voters or input that discussions accumulate (and starting today, I think that will change; I'll start participating if you'd like :-D). I think that the best solution to this is the RfC that was created below. Without any documentation or policies on relisting, reverting, etc. in MFD - it can be argued that no violation has occurred either. Lets get a consensus going and change that :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this is the best solution moving forward from this ANI. Since there is no policy regarding it (which is acknowledged by everyone here), lets fix the root of the problem and see what should be done :-). Thanks for doing that, Cunard! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually there is a policy (or at least clear instructions) in place since 2009 and Ricky is following them. Says either closed or relisted above':

    Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, well, there you go. Adding this into perspective, I stand behind my original response in that reverting an administrator's relisting of an MFD is disruptive to the process. It should be discussed, not simply reverted. Using an edit summary with "pushback against mindless relisting by a self-declared deletionist" seems to me like there's a grudge or something here. WP:IDONTLIKEIT maybe? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to pretend that this hadn't been discussed.  I took a look at the diff.  A poorly prepared MfD nomination, a clear discussion that explained how the nominator could have handled the issue rather than bind the time of MfD volunteers; but that wasn't good enough for Ricky because he is also busy adding articles to MfD, so he posts an effete relisting, to give Legacypac a chance to "win" the MfD.  I've seen this often enough to know what is going on, and I've seen the problem with Legacypac not getting the proper corrective feedback from administrators in preparing deletion discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not look at the provided diff until now because I know Smokey hates relistings. Please don't make this about me, cause all I did was nominate junk for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not hate relistings. I only hate empty relistings. Usually, at WP:AfD, I only review relisted discussions. Comment-less relists on empty discussions are frustrating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What comment would you expect? There's the nominator saying delete, and you voting blank on the basis of "no need to do this" which is fine and all but is "no need" really a policy rationale here? "Hi, go take some more time here"? "Hi, I'm relisting because it's a 1-1 ratio now"? "Hi, I'm relisting and going to give my personal opinion here so that someone else can drag this to DRV under the guise of its a SUPERVOTE and I'm biased"? Now, you're going to my talk page, and at the RFC talking about "roving deletionists". Is the issue my closes? Are you saying that I'm biased in closing these as delete? Why not take these to DRV? Is it just that there's so many people voting delete and you're in the minority and you want an admin who will WP:SUPERVOTE them to blank? This feels like a way to drive out an admin simply because they have different policy views that you do and rather than actually trying to achieve a consensus ("no relisting at all" is clearly going to fail as a proposal) it's simply about pushing and pushing me around until I leave MFD alone and you can harange the next admin who is stuck with this backlog. I get you, you think this whole thing is a waste of time and are less immediatist than the people proposing these. Fine, that's a fair but I'm not closing my discussions. My MFD nominations are fairly specific and not of these types so I don't know what you want done here, a power-hungry admin who just blanks all these under the guise of WP:STALE and all the other policies are wrong because you think so and then see if that goes to DRV for further discussion? That is already going on and it's basically the same issue: everyone agrees that one vague quiet MFD discussions aren't ideal, everyone thinks more people should offer an opinion, there's a minority who oppose deleting these, there's a number of people who support deleting these, the "deletionists" (fine) are in larger force at MFD and if admins close these as no consensus, they get re-nominated and deleted, if admins relist them, you'll just revert without discussion, so what exactly do you want done? Do you just want everyone who is nominating these pages perfectly correctly under the current policies and currently having them deleted to all be topic banned from MFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that I'm biased in closing these as delete? Yes. You are self-declared deletionist, as supported by AfD stats, and you, and others from WikiProject:Abandoned drafts, are overwheling the MfD reviewer with worthless harmless pages. Then when things are ignored, appropriately even, you really try to break the process by wholesale relisting, purportedly to hide the fact that there is a backlog.
    Why not take these to DRV? Because the specific page is not worth undeleting. Better to discuss it. You even asked for discussing it in one place, but you keep posting different ideas in different place, and in general are not listing. Of particular relevance, is you close of the previous ANI thread, you don’t want to talk about it, but then go back to the same thing, indiscriminate relisting messing up the only list. Why not DRV? There is a certain absurdity to having yet another of level of discussion over things not worth the first discussion. Have you yet read busywork and do you see how you are creating it?
    “This feels like a way to drive out an admin simply because they have different policy views”. When closing, you should not reflect your personal views.
    I am less immediatist than the people proposing these? Absolutely. Now lets be rationale. If the rate of nominations exceeds the rate of reviews, is that not an obective measure of a problem? What is your response to the problem? To make reviewing more difficult by scrambling the only list?
    “a power-hungry admin who just blanks”. No. Blanking old things, or redirecting to the superior page, is an any-editor action.
    I don’t know that I have ever haranged an admin closer. Further, I have never hanged you over a close. Fistly, it is the busywork nominations. Secondly, it is the indiscriminate relisting that makes reviewing harder.
    The "deletionists" (fine) are in larger force at MFD. I guess that is true. Recently. I think it is due to recent invigoration at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts.
    I reverted your relist due to you ignoring attempts to discuss and going back to the same challenged behaviour.
    Do you just want everyone who is nominating these pages perfectly correctly under the current policies and currently having them deleted to all be topic banned from MFD? No, I want Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts to consider which of the tens of thousands of identified so-called abandoned drafts should be nominated one-by-one at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want all of MFD to stop in favor a project that's barely active and where you've never been involved? Why do you care so much about that project? It's hardly active. Why not propose something over there rather than volunteer that project with a giant workload that you clearly have no intention of actually helping out at? I've been active there since June 2014 at least and it existed because prior to the creation of AFC there was no G13 mechanism to delete the thousands of drafts coming out. The issue was first brought up in August 2014 with 40,000 stale drafts then and I jumped in when it got 47k. It's been nothing but complaining from all around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you and others are in the process of listing all 40,000 stale drafts on MfD. And then when the reviewers can't keep up, or stop commenting on unimportant things, you are going to scramble the list order, meaning that important things will get through without systematic review.
    "So you want all of MFD to stop in favor a project that's barely active" Again, it is as if we are speaking different languages. I want MfD to work efficiently, while you are making it harder. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then propose something, something more concrete than "don't relist things at MFD". However, there's no evidence that there's any consensus for your "slow down" for whatever reason approach. Besides would relisting these things to have more discussion be better at slowing these down than just deleting them? I honestly don't get what you want here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unscintillating, your accusations not only sound absolutely ludicrous, but they are not supported with any evidence. Do you have evidence supporting your accusation that Ricky81682 is relisting MDF notimiations for the purpose of allowing Legacypac to vote correctly on them so he can appear to correct his statistics due to "not getting the proper corrective feedback from administrators in preparing deletion discussions"? Because this is a strong accusation, and making such accusations without evidence isn't just unwelcome to do, but it can also be seen as uncivil. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Unscintillating is exactly right. I count three editors recently active at MfD with low standards for rationales/criteria for deletion how are, unintentionally by coincidence or due to mustering at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, tag teaming in nominating an overwhelming number of worhtless harmless pages and supporting each others nominations. Evidence? Look though MfD for things like: Draft already elsewhere (NB more often than not, the draft pre-existed, making the nomination technically incorrect), "Delete as unlikely needed", "Need to clear stale draft backlog" and who is using such bland statements nearly without discrimination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly would you like? To close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Janicerj/Sherman Oaks Antique Mall with "blank, ignore the people who voted delete"? Take it to DRV if that's what you want; if you offer, I'll restore it and move it wherever you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How much detailed rational is required from an editor to justify deleting a poorly written 4 year old stale draft about Hanna Montana, a roundabout in India, or some band that played some coffee houses in Spuzzum before breaking up 6 years ago? Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly would you like? With regard to this thread, for you to not relist without a better reason than it is in the backlog. Have a bit more patience and we'll get to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So are we back to "no relistings at all" again? At the RFC you demand no "indiscriminate and comment-less" relistings? Why is that relisting to get it back up on top (since most people are going from top to bottom) so terrible when Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Geography of Christmas/to do was relisted on the 25th and you didn't care? You even voted afterwards with no mention of any objection that I didn't put a comment there? Are you only demanding no relistings when you have commented? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SmokeyJoe, what actual evidence (diffs, revisions, URLs, anything?) do you have that directly support your statement and your agreement that this is occurring? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can we focus on the reverted relist. Was that an appropriate relist, given Ricky's close of the previous ANI thread to forstall the discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RELIST says in part "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the relist template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." A fair implication is that no comment is needed on the 1st and 2nd relist action. The template already states a valid reason for relisting:

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

    Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- This whole thread seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKERICKY81682. You can't just attack an editor for allegedly having deletionist leanings, and then invent some fanciful tale about them relisting MfDs just to give a tag team the opportunity to vote. Nobody's presented a shred of evidence for this wildly speculative attack, or for the idea that relisting MfD is disruptive at all. I suggest this discussion be closed under WP:NPA and WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS. Reyk YO! 07:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nobody's presented a shred of evidence for this wildly speculative attack, or for the idea that relisting MfD is disruptive at all" I'm telling you, as I told Ricky, having contributed to over a thousand MfD discussions, that indiscriminate relisting is disruptive to my systematic review of MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am so watching that page. I know it's going to become blue one day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Careful what you wish for, Ricky81682 [110]. EEng 07:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't hate Ricky. I actually quite respect his intention to clean up, and especially his efforts in closing many old discussions including some difficult discussions. Actually, I should not that I find his nominations deletionist, but have not been bothered by any close.
    I was frustrated that Ricky pulled the pin on the last discussion on these comment-free relists, saying he wouldn't continue, which is all I asked, and then suddenly resumed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Reyk the point of this section is the wholesale reverting of the relistings, not a complaint that the relistings themselves are objectionable. Can I un-do the revert and actually relist the discussion? Should I continue to go through and clear out the MFD backlog including relisting discussions? I'll await the RFC results but it doesn't seem like there's any idea on what relistings are appropriate and what aren't to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't send the listing back to the top unless there is a reason for previous reviewers to review it again. Note that reviewers, like myself, may review and choose to make no edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ignore relistings until there's an actual consensus on when they are appropriate. There's a combination of discussions about whether to relist, when not to relist and then there's Legacypac's closed RFC about nomination-only going for softdelete (which to be honest, all of these are, there's literally no chance I would object to restoring any of these pages). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit summary

    Let's put this whole MFD thing aside for a minute, if you don't mind :-). I would like to ask you, SmokeyJoe, about your edit summary here. You appear to have called Ricky81682 a "self-declared deletionist" - why did you do that? Where does he say that he is? You also use the term loosely to describe other editors here. What is this all about? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oshwah, that was a reference to his "this user is a deletionist" userbox that he had on his userpage until today, which I note matches his AfD !voting history. Intended as a suggestion of bias, not an insult. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But, SmokeyJoe, you said that the reversion was for "pushback against mindless relisting by a self-declared deletionist" - why wouldn't that be taken as an insult when you say that his edit was "mindless"? I would take that as kind of insulting if you said that to me. I still feel that there is some battleground/grudging going on here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. SmokeyJoe, please be careful with statements like that. I feel that this would be widely regarded as incivility by others that don't understand what you mean, leading to fueling negativity and anger to discussions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. "mindless" Sure, a bit clumsy. I later tried "indisciminate and comment-free". When something is relisted, I look for the relisting comment. I was thinking of the quality of the relist. Apologies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So I just ran into this. Your apology is noted, but I'm inclined to continue my questioning about your behavior towards Ricky81682 - what's this all about? You said that you don't think that his removal of that userbox "was a 'dumb joke'". You also tell him that his AFD history reveals him to be "a deletionist", and that "it matters, because I think you act with a clear deletionist bias". Your edit summary doesn't appear to me to be simply "thinking of a quality relist"; this appears to be battleground conduct. Can you explain your message on Ricky81682's talk page? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the first discussion on it was at WT:MFD like this so I've generally been called out personally for these things for a few weeks now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well it seems like no response is coming. As WT:MFD, concerns are expressed about relistings in general, "discriminate" relistings, "comment-free" relistings, the color of the relisting template, the placement of discussions following a relisting and numerous other grounds, none of which have any consensus supporting any proposals to change the status quo. As there's been no issues with any of my other admin actions at MFD, including closing the allegedly "mindless" relisting, can we agree that reverting a relisting is disruptive going forward? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It is an appropriate response to you shutting down the conversion with a "screw it", and then days later resuming the same practice that you were politely asked to stop. Very significantly, I begin asking you politely. You have generally been not listening (evidenced by you repeating the same questions), and not replying to important questions. Important questions: (1) Is there any systematic approached to your effort to "clean" 40k plus so-call abandoned drafts largely by feeding them through MfD?; (2) Do you not see that your efforts by requiring community participation "cleaning" these worthless but harmless pages, in separating a few good pages, is causing others more work than the job is worth; (3) Do you admit to begin an immediatist and a deletionist? (3a) Doesn't an immediatist and deletionist frequent nominator of pages that are generally not harmful in any way have a problematic bias when relisting similar pages, in response to a slow review rate of MfD reviewers; (4) do you not acknowledge that shifting old nomination to the top of list hinders the systematic review of MfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion to date has been terribly fragmented. For example: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Draftprod, Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Policy_discussion:_When_is_it_appropriate_to_delete_stale_drafts.3F, Wikipedia talk:User pages (several sections), Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion (many threads). Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Remove_STALEDRAFT probably caused the splintering. (I have no idea who the IP is).

    Can I suggest that WP:ANI is a particularly poor place to discuss process refinement, and that discussions relating to userpage guidelines continue only at WT:UP, and discussions related to MfD process, including nomination rationale standards, !voting standards, relisting and publicizing continue only at WT:MfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The question here I believe is on your edit summary. The discussions on policy aren't for ANI and are split partially because proposals for new ideas, changing to deletion policy. changes to MFD policy and the like are separate and should be on separate pages. Feel free to cross-promote all of them if you want. Otherwise, (1) It's not "my" project to review drafts (either userspace or draftspace) so I don't know what you want from me there. (2) I'm not requiring any community participation since it's not "my" project again. (3) I have no idea what you are referring to but that is clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. (3a) Do you actually have any evidence to support this continued "relisting MFD discussions are part of a deletionist scheme" argument? Again, WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here. (4) No, in the same way I'd say that shifting old AFD discussions when relisting to the current day's discussion doesn't shift any systematic review. And I don't know why you think there is some "systematic review" of MFD going on. It sounds like you personally only review everyone top to bottom once and seem very bothered that there's a possibility of something coming up twice since is fine and all but I don't see why the entire community should have to cow-tow to your idiosyncrasies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again you prove that you don't listen. I have told you several times that in systematic reviewing I go over every nomination from bottom to top. From oldest to newest. In order of listing. Shuffling the order by indiscriminately and without customised comment discussions from somewhere in the backlog to the top, to see them closable before they get to the bottom again, means that systematic review is disrupted. A bland relist gives another closer no reason to wait for further comment. A good relist reflects significant things, arguments ideas or new information, stated well into the discussion, and calls for past participants to have another look. I usually review every new comment. Again, have you ever done new page patrol? Is it an idiosyncrasy to review in the order created? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure

    • This discussion, like the previous one, is not an incident that requires the intervention of administrators or even discussion by administrators. Rather it requires discussion by the community and the appropriate place for that is WT:MFD, where some discussion appears to be underway. I suggest that this discussion be closed and participants move to WT:MFD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that we need more bureaucracy, but perhaps a solution here might be to set up a "stale drafts for deletion" process separate from (on a different page from) MfD, to avoid draft-deletion discussions swamping everything else that belongs on MfD? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Josephlalrinhlua786 and personal attacks

    Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    A few days ago, I posted on this user's talkpage regarding a potential edit war. Further edits to the article in question where made by this user including edit summaries with personal attacks one and two. This user chose to ignore the warnings and has moved onto the article for the film Deadpool (film), continuing with personal attacks against other users in their edit summaries: one, two, three and finishing with this four. His talkpage is awash with warning notices around personal attacks and copyright violations (they've been blocked before for the latter). I also see no attempt by the user to discuss the issues on their talkpage or anywhere else. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The personal attacks are mild and I wouldn't action anything on that - to me they come across as an angry teenager banging their first on the table complaining that things are so bloody unfair rather than actually lashing out at you specifically. The lack of communication looks like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but I hope that can be cured by dropping a note telling them to use talk pages. If they ignore that, we can block then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I call you a dipshit, that's OK, as it's only a "mild" attack? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the context, but in the case you mention it, no it's not OK. However, I believe charging in like a herd of elephants and handing out a civility block has a nasty tendency to blow up in your face, so I'd rather go for the harder but more rewardable approach of listening to them so they drop the incivility of their own accord. If they call me a dickface in response to my message, we can deal with it then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my mistake. I didn't understand the no part of No personal attacks. How many warnings is enough? One? Two? Three? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This user shows no indication of reading their talk page. They don't seem to believe in communication, other than to assert that they are right and everyone else is a meddling dipshit who should piss off and so some actual work rather than editing their brilliant additions. I see zero talk page edits out of the past several thousand, despite numerous requests to discuss various issues. I see very few edit summaries, despite requests to use them. Of the few edit summaries that do pop up, roughly 80% contain personal attacks.

    As for "charging in like a herd of elephants and handing out a civility block", their first warning for civility was two years ago. That's one sloooooow moving charge. Much discussion and handwringing on their talk page didn't end the misleading edit summaries, they needed a block to temporarily fix the problem. Repeated discussion of copyright violations did nothing. Only a block temporarily fixed that problem. Discussing edit warring on their talk page didn't solve the problem. A trip to the edit warring discussion board was needed.

    This editor does not seem to have an "I didn't hear that" problem. It's more like an "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, so fuck off" problem. After a couple of years of carrots not working and sticks being moderately effective, I'm getting the impression that we're wasting a lot of time and carrots on this one. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am equally amazed at how the user hasn't even bothered answering the ANI report. In fact, I also think they suffer from "teenager syndrome" as well. I am one myself, but I don't act as if I am always right and tell users to piss off and so on. Personally, just that the fact the user hasn't even explained their edits with no regards for the outcome, I'd consider a block. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    AS a general comment, we seem to be more tolerant of incivility these days. IMHO this is the wrong direction to be moving in. It is generating a battleground mentality to editing which currently appears to be un-checked. I have not looked into this case in detail, but if Josephlalrinhlua786 is showing a repeat behaviour they have been warned about, action should be taken.DrChrissy (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, an actual discussion raised on another user's talkpage. Obviously this thread has been viewed by the user at fault. Lets see how long it lasts. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: While I appreciate Ritchie333 pointing to this, considering that I'd never heard of Kevin the Teenager and got sucked into watching some videos of the character due to the YouTube link, I have to disagree with his posts above, except for the "angry teenager" part. Josephlalrinhlua786 does indeed behave like an angry teenager. But whether or not he is one does not excuse his poor behavior. He will not stop attacking editors, does not engage in talk page communication, and commonly edit wars. This has been going on for years now, and I don't see it ending in the near future. That stated, I'm not sure that Josephlalrinhlua786 needs an indefinite block. And, for whatever reason (maybe because it was his good days), he has yet to blow up at me with vile personal attacks, even though he has edit warred against me before. As for his copyright issues, Diannaa might want to check on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor making drafts/sandboxes(?)

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

    Noticed an IP editor making various draft pages by copy-pasting existing episode lists and editing them. I am not really sure what's going on, but Draft:The mystical adventure of deez nuts is testing my assumption of good faith. Can an admin please review these drafts and delete them if appropriate? Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I think these are disruptive. Especially Draft:The mystical adventure of deez nuts, knowing that it doesn't exist in List of The Annoying Orange episodes. I tagged the draft page for CSD as a G2. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User has moved to 72.82.164.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Pinging @Bbb23: who blocked the other IP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Salt request

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

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

    More IPs created Draft:Annoying Orange and Draft:Annoying orange. Can someone just salt them? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What is salt in this context? 400 Lux (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @400 Lux: WP:SALT. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated abuse of editing privilege by User:Roman Spinner

    Copied over from WP:AN. Blackmane (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roman Spinner has continually and knowingly violated a well-established consensus over a multi-year period, while (politely) dismissing separate complaints by no less than five editors, regarding hundreds of edits.

    The relevant consensus for disambiguation pages, from MOS:DABENTRY: "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." User:Roman Spinner has regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information, and has been repeatedly warned to stop. User:Roman Spinner has declined invitations to discuss changing the consensus, and has shown no willingness to change the behavior.

    A partial history:

    Some edit diffs: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

    These discussions and diffs represent a small sample, not the full record, of the behavior. User:Roman Spinner has also receieved many complaints about unsupported and incomplete page moves, and has dismissed these as well; however, these are not a focus of the current complaint.

    I am seeking a formal censure of User:Roman Spinner, making it clear that this behavior will stop. If the behavior continues, I seek a probationary ban, then a permanent ban, on all edits by User:Roman Spinner to disambiguation pages. —swpbT 20:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm embarrassed I didn't start this discussion myself years ago, but I hate confrontation of any sort. I have contacted Roman on numerous occasions and got sugar-coated responses which basically say that he knows, but he feels it is better this way and somehow fits in the spirit though not the letter of the guidelines. The spirit is to keep things brief, concise and easily readable, which he doesn't keep to. A case in point is [111]. You can see from the entries how far it is from MOS:DABENTRY. With many dabs like this, Roman created them or edited them to be like that, I then correct them. Roman would then copy his version to a page such as that linked, where he would keep copies of all his preferred versions. I've no idea what the purpose of this may be, but I felt like they were likely to be re-added at a future date, as some of them were, through not realising he had done the same thing before on that page or deliberately. He would also sometimes copy his version onto the Talk page of the dab, so it was still there in some form. I felt this was trying to bully his version on. I monitor the dab page changes, and so undo the majority of Roman's edits, which he must know, but this has been eating into my time for years and put me off editing dabs, as it's frustrating to see someone ignoring consensus. I have told him that he could start a discussion about the guidelines at the Wikiproject if he feels they need amending - I have said this dozens of times in edit summaries and messages - but he doesn't do it. I have told him how unfair it is to ignore consensus over the years and how it puts editors off editing, but no changes. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    My opinion as one of the people mentioned above, but primarily as an outsider looking in:-
    Even though I only tend to fix dab page issues when I come across them, I find dealing with well-intentioned but misguided dab bloating from inexperienced editors frustrating. In their case, it's forgiveable, so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and educate them.
    I think I'd assumed then that Roman was in the same boat and I hadn't noticed (a) he'd been warned several times before and (b) been on Wikipedia for many years already! I'd have been *much* less impressed if I'd known that.
    @Boleyn:; Snap. I saw that same discussion before you added your reply and had already intended saying something very similar.
    ""I remained within the spirit, if not strictly the letter of the guideline". Honestly?! If anything it sounds like it's the other way round, with him trying to rationalise edits way longer than necessary by explaining how they're within (or near) various technical limits. The "spirit" is that dab pages are *meant* to be concise!
    Ditto the way that he responded to you and others; pleasant, polite, respectful and acknowledging their input or opinion... while also not actually responding to or addressing the reason that issue was raised!
    Truth be told, I think that what he believes what he's doing is right- for whatever reason. Unfortunately, that *is* the problem because if after eight-plus years(!!!) he's still responding with the same apparent mixture of rationalisation, cognitive dissonance and managing to politely avoid the issue, then it's clearly an issue that goes beyond rational discussion with him.
    If he's still doing this to countless pages despite knowing that his changes are going to be reverted, that suggests some sort of obsessiveness. However, it's really not our place to get involved with personal matters like that.
    Realistically, then, that leaves us with only two options; (i) let things continue as they are or (ii) accept that- regardless of whether it's done in what he sees as good faith- Roman's editing in this area is a problem, and the only way of drawing a line (which, let's face it, probably should have been drawn before now) is likely to be some form of restriction or sanction.
    If this seems harsh, then please bear in mind it's also unfair to editors like Boleyn and many others to have to waste their time repeatedly cleaning up this sort of unhelpful and utterly counter-produtive bloat.
    Ubcule (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1) It is always a pleasure, regardless of circumstances, to engage in exchanges of ideas with user:swpb and User:Boleyn, two longtime contributors whose dedication to this extraordinary project is most admirable. Wikipedia would be a humbler place without their numerous valuable contributions. In truth, none of us veteran editors would dedicate such considerable portions of our lives to such a task if we were not convinced that our work had a convincing potential to improve lives by promoting and advancing the expansion of knowledge and scholarship.
    2) I also welcome the additional participation of User:Ubcule whose original comment on my talk page in December 2012 appeared to be a gentle reminder, rather than a complaint, as did the postings of User:Jwy in January 2008 and User:Midas02 in June 2015. In fact, only the later postings by User:Boleyn and the current postings by user:swpb, who initially communicated with me five days ago, on February 9, appear to rise to the level of complaints. While I would not presume to advise a user of such high intellect as swpb as to the most profitable dedication of time, it still seems regrettable that swpb instead chose to devote the last five days (February 9–14) to a search of my disambiguation edits over the past 10 years, in an apparent attempt to find sufficient evidence for submitting these accusations.
    3) As to the heart of the complaint, that I "regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information", my responses have always made clear that none of my descriptions have come close to exceeding a single line of text [I edit on a 27-inch iMac, using a 16x9 screen with standard fonts at 100% (normal) size]. As I explained to Boleyn in April 2012, "I realize many other screens employ various ranges of sizing and formatting, but such unavoidable discrepancies would, of course, be evident in the context of all entries under any circumstances." I am a bit puzzled, though, over swpb's above reference to "unhelpful information" — would information of the same length but phrased in a different manner or consisting of different content be more "helpful", or is any information of such length "unhelpful"? In the latter case would it not be more precise to state "excessive", rather than "unhelpful" information?. In fact, most of my descriptions, such as one of the most recent ones here, occupy at most half, but usually only a third of a line of text [on my 16x9 screen], thus turning the phrase "extremely long descriptions" into quite an exaggeration.
    4) Another accusation/complaint appears to be that I have "declined invitations to discuss changing the consensus". Again, as I have already explained, I do not feel that there is any need to change the consensus, since I agree that the descriptions should be short and also feel that one-fourth, one-third or even half a line of text, which is the usual length of my descriptions, fulfills the definition of "short". However, if a discussion were to be initiated with the aim of elucidating the term "short" by specifying the acceptable number of characters and spaces permitted as explanatory text, I would support such an emendation and adhere to such future consensus to an exact degree.
    5) I am gratified that swpb provided the various links to my edits, since those confirm that as valuable an asset as swpb has been to other areas of Wikipedia, consistency and attention to detail on disambiguation pages is not swpb's strong suit. Here are a few examples: In editing Thunder Mountain dab, swpb deleted all information for Thunder Mountain (British Columbia), leaving only the redlink, plus the unhelpful word "Canada". Boleyn almost immediately added the barely more helpful blue link, List of mountains of Canada, on which Thunder Mountain (British Columbia) exists, but only as a redlink, without any elucidation. The original link, however, which had been there since February 2014, was to Tsitsutl Peak, which does contain some specific information about the mountain. That link was ignored by both swpb and Boleyn even though it was easily accessible via my previous edit. Swpb also reduced the two films on the page to just the basic link, removing all information, without even leaving at least two words, "American western". On other dab pages, however, swpb, who is frugal with dab page verbiage, adds unnecessary duplication: at Death Trip dab, Death Trip (2015 film), top-grossing Chinese thriller, becomes Death Trip (2015 film), Chinese film [we already know it's a film, why not leave the genre instead?]. At Arizona Days dab, Arizona Days (1928 film), American silent western, becomes Arizona Days (1928 film), American silent film [again, we know it's a film]. At Another Dawn dab, Another Dawn (1937 film), American military love triangle, becomes Another Dawn (1937 film), American film and Another Dawn (1943 film), Mexican political thriller, becomes Another Dawn (1943 film), Mexican film [are these redundancies and genre removals supposed to help users?]
    6) Per mention by User:Boleyn, I also "hate confrontation of any sort". Since Boleyn has been such a valuable asset to Wikipedia, I also did not wish to issue any complaints, but as for "eating into my time for years and put me off editing dabs", it should be noted that Boleyn has been simply reverting my disambiguation page edits using WP:Twinkle [which hardly takes any time at all], without even bothering to peruse my edits for additions, deletions or error corrections. The very link presented by Boleyn above, displayed here as Boleyn's reversal of my edit is good example. If anyone wonders why the Michael Ames dab page has two entries, while my version of it had six entries, it is because Boleyn reversed it without [presumably] even looking at it or evaluating my four additions. Another example is here. Again, if anyone wonders why the Peter Godfrey dab page has four entries, while my version of it had eleven, again it was Boleyn's reversal without evaluation (a pointless addition by Boleyn [to "See also"] of "intitle" which displays "All pages with titles containing Peter Godfrey" comes to nothing since the missing names are not even there). Still another example is here. Once again, if anyone wonders why the Kevin McCarthy dab page has nine entries (not counting [the problematic] Kevin MacArthur, added by swpb), while my version of it had eleven, again it was Boleyn's reversal without evaluation (my additions, such as name changes, birth years and nationalities were also not re-incorporated). There are numerous other such examples which I will submit in subsequent installments of this discussion, if/when it continues.
    7) Because I value Boleyn's work, having to continue with this line is regrettable but, since Boleyn mentioned that I put my versions on disambiguation talk pages, it should be added that Boleyn has been deleting all such talk page additions as vandalism, although most of Boleyn's edit summaries (when performing those deletions) state that the talk page is the wrong venue. Since talk pages are intended for suggesting improvements, I contend that each respective disambiguation talk is exactly the correct venue for such an alternative dab page, each of which is inserted with its own explanatory notes, specifically focused upon that exact page. Thus, other members of the Disambiguation Project can weigh in on the relative merits and shortcomings of such a proposed page. However, almost all of them have been deleted by Boleyn, such as here, where Boleyn's edit summary calls it "vandalism". As a last item here [for now] I must turn to Boleyn's use of "how it puts editors off editing". The notion that I am driving away editors because my dab page entries may be considered (by some editors) a trifle too long is difficult to comprehend, although I suspect that Boleyn is applying this personally. However, since I have not been driven away by Boleyn's continuing deletion of my dab edits (and dab talk pages), then such a burden of guilt cannot be placed on my shoulders. In fact, since Boleyn has been submitting for deletion (justifiably or not) the work of various new editors, the initial accusation (for lack of a more pleasant term) is difficult to sustain.
    8) Finally, I could not conclude this phase of arguments [much more to come, if need be] without congratulating User:Ubcule for a highly skilled use of psychoanalytic parody. Wikipedia is fortunate to have a contributor with a such a keenly honed sense of humor. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Roman, I started completing reverting your edits when you wrote that if I felt they were wrong, I could always revert them. The majority I re-edit rather than revert. It is not difficult to sustain that you put editors off editing dabs - I'm one of the most prolific editors of dabs and I'm thoroughly put off because it's wasting my time. If you are unable to understand how your edits don't meet the consensus, then I can't help you - and I don't think you should be allowed to continue editing dabs. Talk pages are not a place to put an alternative version of the dab on, and you did this on dozens of dabs. Again, your sugar-coated response is an attempt to divert from the real issue. Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Roman Spinner: As noted above, my 2012 comment had assumed you were a helpful-but-misguided newbie and wasn't meant as a "reminder" to someone who had been an editor on Wikipedia for around six years by that point.
    To use that as an example, however, I don't understand what you feel this edit makes clear that the previous version didn't. Of course it adds (much) more information, but none of that is realistically necessary for anyone to differentiate the four and find the article they're looking for.
    It would very helpful to us for you to clearly explain your reasoning behind that specific edit (i.e. how it represents an improvement) with respect to the guidelines- it's a very typical example, and might at least make the rationale for your style clear. Because, with respect, that reasoning isn't at all obvious at present.
    Speaking as an end-user, I find with your versions I'm having to pointlessly *read through* material extraneous to the purpose of the dab page, less able to see the forest for the trees than the regular versions.
    You complain about your changes to the Kevin McCarthy dab page being reverted, but while your version had more entries, it also added a lot of bloat which (again) was not necessary to the purpose of the page.
    Beyond a certain point, if someone is repeatedly combining changes/additions which may be considered problematic with (arguably) useful additional material in the same edit, it's open to question how much onus is on others to spend their time sorting these out, leaving behind only the good aspects. If it happens on a regular basis, I can understand why Boleyn might feel entitled to revert the whole thing since- on balance- the negative aspects of the bloat introduced outweighed any improvement.
    As I've already commented, you claim to be acting within the spirit if not always the letter of the guidelines, but your argument that your titles technically fit within a single line on your monitor sounds like a technical justification that goes against the general spirit of "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." Which part of the guidelines is this apparent one-screen-line limit- or as you seem to see it, target- based on anyway?
    Ubcule (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ubcule: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain my disambiguation page editing philosophy as it is reflected in the That's My Boy dab page which was the subject of your posting to my talk page on Christmas Day 2012. Never once did I edit any dab page simply to expand the descriptions --- the reason had always been to add one or more entries, correct one or more mistakes or to add vital dates/release dates, nationalities and/or professions. In the same style as my 15-point comparison between the competing versions at Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page, this comparison will be at Talk:That's My Boy#Three versions of the That's My Boy disambiguation page. Also, below, I am responding to your query regarding the one-line descriptive limit. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roman Spinner: You may personally see your additions as "vital"; however, in my full response at that same talk page, I hopefully make clear- using that specific example- why your additions are extraneous and unhelpful as far as dab pages are concerned. Ubcule (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ubcule: A brief clarification seems to be needed here. As Wikipedians who attend to biographical entries on a more-or-less daily basis, we have no need to parse the meaning of the familiar expression "vital dates". Needless to say I made no claim that any other portion of each of my descriptions was "vital" per se, although I do feel that biographical entries should at least specify nationality and profession. As for Talk:That's My Boy#Three versions of the That's My Boy disambiguation page, my response to your comments is on that page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your kind words about me. But, @Roman Spinner:, STOP over-loading DAB pages. I am not an active DAB page updater as I used to be. Had I seen you continued that behavior I would have made it more clear I was complaining rather than suggesting. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I open an RFC on this?

    Side issue; would it be appropriate to place a "Requests for Comment" to get more input into this discussion?

    The only reason I ask is that- while the issues raised are perfectly legitimate and this discussion *should* be taking place- it already seems to be moving away from the type of discussion that belongs on the Administrators' Noticeboard page, and I don't know if it's appropriate to direct even more people here for a wide-ranging, general-input discussion involving non-admin users. Ubcule (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems like a WP:RFC/U. I believe that Wikipedia has discontinued that type of Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not that familiar with thes things, but I can't think of a better place than here. If others agreed with Roman and there were genuine disagreements as to what "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link" meant then RfC might be best. But this seems to be a case of a long-term editor refusing to listen to other editors or follow the agreed guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't deal with content issues here, only user conduct. If you want to discuss Roman Spinner's conduct, this is the place. For example, you could propose a topic ban or an interaction ban, or some other specific remedy, and we'll discuss it. If you want to talk about content or get consensus on how much text should be on the dab pages, you should probably start an RFC at WT:D. Katietalk 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be acceptable to add it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted? I can't see any other place where it would be appropriate, to be honest, as the other extant RFCs seem to be policy and/or subject-area focussed, which (going by KrakatoaKatie's comment) isn't appropriate here. Ubcule (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To editors KrakatoaKatie, Ubcule and Boleyn: I opened this to address conduct specifically, not content. The example edits point to a pattern of behavior, not a dispute over particular content, so this, not RfC, seems to be the right venue. If a remedy is to be discussed, it should be a "topic" ban on editing dab pages; I leave it to the admins to determine if such a ban is warranted now, or only in the event the behavior continues. —swpbT 23:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) @Swpb: So you're proposing that Roman Spinner be banned from editing disambiguation pages - is that correct? If so, start that discussion under a level 3 heading, like the one for this subsection. (There are myriad examples of how to do this in the AN archives.) You brought up the issue, so you need to propose the solution you have in mind. Katietalk 23:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps a discussion with the content experts at WT:MOSDAB first to clearly establish how the edits match consensus, then here if necessary? (apologies for going off topic above) --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I still think the only issue is conduct, content issue is clear. I'm not sure there's anything to be gained therefore by starting a discussion elsewhere, I think we have identified the problem and need a solution. I would propose that Roman is banned from editing disambiguation pages. I see no sign of any understanding from him, and he has not changed one bit after the numerous warnings he has received, not just on his talk page but on the talk pages of individual dabs. The level of obsession shown, by actions such as copying and pasting his preferred version onto the dab talk page, then into his userspace, and the fact that this has gone on for years, makes me think this is necessary. Roman can continue to edit productively in many other areas of Wikipedia. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly a conduct issue; the content (what is needed on DAB pages) is very clear and has been stable for a long time. I am merely an occasional editor of DAB pages and, while i wouldn't necessarily agree that every edit of Roman Spinner's to them is unhelpful, nor even every one linked above as examples, sufficient are that the conduct is not really acceptable from a long-term editor. I would be delighted if, in a very short time, Roman Spinner sees the error of his conduct and is willing to abide by community standards, which are very clear. Until that happens, i fear a ban is necessary. cheers, LindsayHello 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    To keep it as short & simple as possible, i propose that Roman Spinner be banned from editing disambiguation pages. cheers, LindsayHello 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Seems reasonable. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that a topic ban from disambiguation pages seems necessary here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a number of the diffs presented are, although not ideal, substantially better than what they replaced. This is an iterative process. People can edit his versions to make them shorter, however they should take into account additions of other appropriate pages and factual corrections. Reversion of his edits just because he made them looks a lot like vandalism or at least pointy behavior to me. Unless evidence is proposed of Roman Spinner edit warring over subsequent trimming, I don't see that a ban is necessary.--Jahaza (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may find these sorts of edits to be improvements, but consensus firmly disagrees with you. But more importantly, if Roman or anyone else wants to challenge that consensus, they should do so at WT:MOSDAB, not by simply ignoring the consensus and every warning to follow it over a years-long period. That behavior is inexcusable, no matter what your opinion is on the consensus itself. —swpbT 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jahaza: I strongly disagree that the modified versions were (on balance) better than what they replaced. As I noted elsewhere, there *were* aspects (e.g. additional entries) that if they could be taken in isolation were probably improvements. Unfortunately, those were lumped together with the counter-productive (and counter-consensus) bloat which significantly detracts from the agreed aims of a dab page. The fact that someone *could* in theory do the tedious work of picking apart the improvements from the bloat doesn't mean the onus is on them to do it (nor to leave it in an overly verbose state until someone decides to do it, if ever). Quite the opposite; if this is happening on a regular basis, it's acceptable to revert to the older- and, on balance, better- version even if it means losing minor improvements. Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose He seem at least sometimes to be adding useful and even necessary items, s for example at Michael Ames, where I do not think Michael Ames (actor) should have been removed, and I think the two see-also might justified as well. Whether the ones without WP entries should be included is a matter for judgment, if they are mentioned in WP articles--we do not seem to have a guideline that covers this specifically. (But of course all the descriptions are too long). O'f suggest instead that other editors should be more careful in what they remove, and that Roman Spinner finally realize that the current guideline is firmly set against long descriptions. There's a good reason for that--it normally do not help the reader,and it interferes with rapid scanning to find the right person. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)`[reply]
    Arguably true, but the amount of work required to edit out the long rubrics is annoying. If he wants to expand the descriptions then he needs to start at the MOS and change the way we do dab pages. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues is not whether Roman has "sometimes" added value; surely he has, and equally surely that is too low a bar to justify allowing him to continue as he has been. If we declined to sanction any editor who had ever contributed something useful, we'd never sanction anyone. This is a textbook case of sanction-worthy behavior; whether or not you find value in some particular bits of text that Roman has added (and those are surely few and far between), it is completely clear that he has repeatedly and blatantly ignored a very unambiguous consensus. This demonstrates a disdain for the community that we should not abide. —swpbT 17:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only alternative to a complete ban would be a restriction that states he may not add or edit any description on a disambiguation page that is longer than N (perhaps 6) words. I worry though that this would result in a proliferation of descriptions exactly N words long whether that many were required or not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: You've put your finger on that. He mentioned more than once that his edits fitted within a single screen line on his monitor as if the aim was to get as much as possible within that limit, and that the longwinded edit was acceptable provided it was no more than that. (Not that I'm sure where it even states that as a limit anyway, he hasn't yet replied to my question on that). Ubcule (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike the suggested limits for plot summaries of books, films, plays, etc, there is, needless to say, no stated limit, other than "make it short". The definition of "short", however, can vary widely, that is why a single line became my self-imposed limit. However, even I realized that a single line of text, in standard Times font, on a 27-inch screen, is still too much text. It's a moot point, however, judging by the vote. There is no reason to continue swimming against the tide. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roman Spinner: Fundamentally, the aim can be summed up as "no longer than it need be".
    FWIW, a full-width "line" is a *lot* of text on most widescreen monitors at typical settings. (For example, on my 22" widescreen I find the lines far too long to comfortably scan and shrink the window, implying that it's more than what most people would reasonably consider a single line.)
    Self-imposed limits are fine, but if the thinking is that "it's okay to put in as much as possible so long as it still technically fits under one (widescreen) line" then... sorry, that's still too much in most cases. Ubcule (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The diffs are not an improvement for DAB pages, which have a different purpose than "standard" pages: they are navigational, not primarily informational. Someone wanting information about a particular item is expected to be able to quickly find the page they are looking for without having to parse out long sentences. If Roman Spinner believes this is not the right approach, he should work on changing the consensus at WT:MOSDAB. Otherwise, he should stay away from the pages. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The responses here from other editors with previous contact with Roman make it clear that this is a major and ongoing problem, and that there has been no evidence of willingness to change behavior. If a ban is not imposed now, it's very likely we will be right back here in short order; I think justification for a ban now is more than sufficient. —swpbT 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. To reiterate Jwy's post R seems to not understand that DAB pages are directional and info on them is to be kept to a bare minimum. R might be happier working on list articles which are meant to be informative. MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Roman can contribute elsewhere to WP, but has consistently shown himself to act against consensus on dabs, and to show no understanding of the issues around this. Boleyn (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Roman has been on Wikipedia for around ten years and has had his attention drawn to the guidelines on many occasions spanning that time. He's an experienced user who at this point can't fail to be aware of the consensus-agreed guidelines on dab pages. Yet for whatever reason, he's continued to disregard them and manages to politely evade or distract from the issue whenever it's been brought up without ever having explained or justified this. It's not our job to understand why he's doing this, but it's obvious that he doesn't see what he's doing as a problem and after a decade(!!!) of this abundantly clear that he never will. The most that can be hoped for is that the problem can be stopped by some form of sanction or restriction in this specific area. Ubcule (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Solution is justified by evidence of a long term inability to abide by editing consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Anyone can make good faith mistakes. Someone who keeps making the same mistake after having the mistake pointed out to them for years is either being intentionally disruptive, or intentionally refusing to abide by consensus. ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment LindsayH I would like to suggest that the talk page of DAB pages be added to the ban. Otherwise we are likely to see things like Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page. RS continues to display a WP:NOTGETTINGIT mentality and IMO an extension of the ban to talk pages will be needed. MarnetteD|Talk 20:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this would be helpful; I assumed the talk pages would be covered by default. Extending the ban to the talk pages will reduce the temptation to try to skirt the ban, as it seems RS is already intent on doing. —swpbT 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I too agree with making dab talk pages explicitly part of the topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, i also; thank you MarnetteD for pointing out my omission: I should have stated it explicitly; cheers, LindsayHello 14:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with talk page block too. Would suggest we possibly advise him of some alternative mechanism for making legitimate complaints, however. Ubcule (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from Roman Spinner 1) Having already agreed (in response to Boleyn, below) that "[A]ll my future [disambiguation page] entries will be pared to the bone", I must still express dismay at this proposal to limit free speech on disambiguation talk pages. In the same manner that I have been pointed towards WP:NOTGETTINGIT, I would point User:MarnetteD to WP:Talk Page Etiquette for a primer on what constitutes offenses which may result in a ban. The proposal and its supportive votes are all the more surprising in that these emanate from veteran Wikipedians who must surely be aware of the project's fundamental principles and the fact that talk pages are not part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content, but represent a venue for discussion of improvements.
    2) My contributions to disambiguation talk pages were never merely copy-and-paste recreations of my main page versions. As evidenced from my two most recent submissions (Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page and Talk:That's My Boy#Three versions of the That's My Boy disambiguation page), each talk page submission is accompanied by specific numbered annotations which highlight each point raised, thus presenting opportunities for other Wikipedians to comment, criticize, suggest revisions, etc. No portion of my text on these two talk pages nor any of the other dab talk pages which I have edited in the past, can be in any way considered as violating Wikipedia's restrictions (wikilawyering, legal threats, incivility, abusive language, privacy/copyright violations, etc), none of which is at issue in this discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation would seem to be a sensible place for that, and it seems a fairly active page. Comments left there though should be limited in number so as to avoid overloading the page. Any use of that (or any other page) to propose unnecessarily long dab page descriptions, or to maintain alternative disambiguation pages, etc, will likely see the topic ban revisited with a view to extending it to a complete ban from the topic of disambiguaiton on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am concerned that as recently as yesterday, while discussion was ongoing, Roman created a talk page again listing all his preferred versions, see [112]. This is not the only example of this behaviour during the ANI. The discussion is here, and it feels like yet another way to sneak on his versions. I would definitely also support a ban on talk pages being explicitly mentioned. Boleyn (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of talk pages to propose [specifically enumerated and detailed] improvements is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and enacting such a ban would set a negative precedent. There is no claim of privacy or copyright violation, harm, humiliation, threat or injury. There has been no 3RR or edit warring. Even the occasionally submitted accusation of "tendentious editing" is invalidated by the fact that talk pages are precisely the venue for exchange of ideas and proposed improvements. As for the above-mentioned talk pages, those were specifically inserted as part of this discussion because of their mention during the discussion and at least one editor's request for an explanation of those edits. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I had asked Roman to explain his changes to the "That's My Boy" dab page as a representative example of his excessively longwinded edits. I guess- in this case- it's probably justified that he replied there.
    Even if it was a waste of time since he missed- or rather, managed to minimise and evade addressing yet again- the issue of the bloat, instead focusing on other issues that were more easily justified (since they were never under criticism in the first place). Ubcule (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure about the talk page ban? I don't have enough time to investigate in depth, and have no comment on the dab page ban, but on cursory review, this veer towards a talk page ban too seems unnecessary. Looks like the long posts being criticized were in response to requests for explanations; it doesn't seem fair to penalize him for explaining, and in particular, complaining he didn't just link to the versions isn't fair; you can't do side by side comparisons with links. If he creates an article that needs to be added to a dab page and can't add it himself, an edit request on the talk page should be allowed. If some new problem crops up (for example, lobbying to make a dab page long and detailed, which I think User:Roman Spinner now knows would be a big mistake), it would be quick and easy to add a talk page ban to the list. But let's not ban him from a dab talk page too quickly. Unless I'm seriously missing something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the concern, Floquenbeam, is the fear that Roman will see the talk page as a way of bludgeoning his long, overly detailed narratives of people or items which need to be disambiguated into play. Certainly, that is what i felt was happening on the page MarnetteD mentioned ~ Talk:Kevin McCarthy ~ in which, during this discussion as i read it, he still didn't seem to get the concern and consensus, argued for his way, and (by the by) offered a version with two wlinks in one line, contrary to the community's expressed desire. My feeling is that it would be fine for Roman to make a request on a DAB talk page; my fear is that he wouldn't hold himself to that; thus my support for that portion of the proposed ban also; cheers, LindsayHello 16:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Floquenbeam, you may be right for the last week, but not for the last few years. I would remove bloat on dab, then Roman would copy it onto the dab's Talk page. This was done on dozens of dabs, with something at the top like 'Posting this to start discussion' and then complete copy. I think if ban isn't very specific - no editing of dab pages, including their talk pages - this problem will continue one way or another. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The two well-meaning postings above require a response. First, Lindsay's mention of "offered a version with two wlinks in one line", which must be a reference to this entry: "Kevin McCarthy (entrepreneur) (born 1985), American internet media entrepreneur who co-founded local online news site and community publishing platform BostInno". The explanation is that at the time I posted my revisions to the Kevin McCarthy dab page, Kevin McCarthy (entrepreneur) was a redlink, thus leaving the link to his company, BostInno as the sole blue link. When I redirected Kevin McCarthy (entrepreneur) to BostInno, it also became a blue link, thus making the second blue link (to BostInno) unnecessary. When I now reprinted my original version on the talk page, the second link was unintentionally missed.
    2) I must also explain the succeeding issue raised by Boleyn, who has devoted years to the maintenance of disambiguation pages. I have never posted disambiguation talk page content which simply presents a longer version of the entries on the main page. In each instance of my posting dab talk page content (such at Talk:Kevin McCarthy), I strove to explain changes to incorrectly or ambiguously stated entries and to introduce new entries, all of which had previously been reverted [using TWINKLE] by Boleyn on the main page, without apparently reading it, reacting to it, acknowledging the new content or making any attempt to merge the new content into the existing dab page. Even if it was meant as a form of punishment for me in the sense of "unless you make it short, your entire contribution will be treated as vandalism", it also punished other users who were (and still are) deprived of the benefit of these revisions and additions.
    3) An additional explanation is needed as to Boleyn's statement that I would append to dab talk pages "something at the top like 'Posting this to start discussion' and then complete copy". A brief glance at the previously mentioned Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page would show such assertion to be incomplete and misleading. Each of my other dab page additions was done in the style of the Kevin McCarthy page, with a point-by-point list (15 points in the case of Kevin McCarthy) specifying the missing entries and the needed revisions or corrections for the existing entries.
    4) Finally, the potential of such a talk page ban disparages the basic philosophy of talk pages which are not part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content and serve to propose improvements. I would point those Wikipedians who suggest such a ban to WP:Talk page guidelines where offenses leading a ban are specified. None of those indicated (incivility, abuse, libel, legal threats, privacy or copyright violations, etc) is at issue here and neither are 3RR or edit warring. Let us not set such a pernicious precedent. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I was giving a concise version of what Roman was doing with dab talk pages - naturally when I looked it up they contained considerable more bloat. Here is an example of what Roman for a while did on Talk pages as soon as I edited the page down to fit with the agreed consensus and guidelines, [113]. For a while this was happening constantly, then died down. When I deleted it, it would often then be copied into Roman's userspace, e.g. User:Roman Spinner/C (disambiguation). It's the type of edit I would like him to be banned from making; I can only see it as a way of trying to get his version out there for a real attempt at discussion, the best venue would have been the Wikiproject or guidelines talk page, as I persistently said to Roman. As for grounds for banning you from editing dab talk pages, I think there are grounds. If after this ANI you still try to push your POV, not at an apporpriate venue, such as the Wikiproject, but on dab talk pages, I would consider that incivility would be a polite description of your conduct. I would also consider it a clear type of edit warring. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Response 1) Boleyn has been donating time to disambiguation pages for a good many years and Wikipedians should be grateful to have among us such a hard-working contributor. Such dedication, however, should not mutate into WP:OWN. Talk:Robert Healey cited by Boleyn above is, indeed, a typical example. Instead of responding to my contribution at that talk page with a comment such as, "although the content of the descriptions is correct, the length of each description is beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia dab pages and therefore each description must be severely reduced. I will be glad to discuss the specific wording of each entry", Boleyn deleted my entire comment in clear violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" (none of the exceptions: personal attacks, copyright violations, etc) is applicable here. Perhaps other Wikipedians may have been interested in joining the discussion. After all, talk pages exist to suggest improvements and, because such pages are not part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content, the main page is not affected by the exchange of ideas at the talk page.
    2) Boleyn's other example, The Call Girls is a much more illustrative model of Boleyn's disregard for content. If anyone wonders why the present form of this dab page has two entries, while my edit has six entries, it is because Boleyn eliminated it [using TWINKLE] without making any attempt to evaluate it, examine it or include any of the four additional entries from my edit (particularly egregious is the exclusion of Arthur Koestler's novel The Call-Girls which, unlike my other three excluded entries, actually has its own article. As for Boleyn's complaint that I put these entries in my own userspace — since Boleyn deleted me from the dab page and the talk page, what other venue do I have for enabling Wikipedia users to discover that among The Call Girls titles is, for one, an Arthur Koestler novel. The most ironic are Boleyn's complaints of incivility and edit warring. In all my mentions of Boleyn, I strive to praise Boleyn's dedication and persistence and various other good qualities. As for edit warring, it is the most ironic accusation, since I have never reverted a single one of Boleyn's consistent deletions of my edits, perhaps making it appear that I agree with such actions. While I ruefully accept the deletions, I do not agree with Boleyn's actions and deeply regret them, especially the talk page deletions. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Roman seems to have clear issues with following consensus on dab pages. If he wants to make edit requests on the talk page to add a new entry with a five word description, that's fine. But if he bludgeons the process, then his topic ban should be extended to talk pages, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per NinjaRobotPirate's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement from Roman Spinner

    1) Since this ANI concerns my disambiguation page editing pattern, it is obviously necessary that I present, at the very least, a view on the matter. My name is Roman Spinner and, as User:Roman Spinner, I have been editing Wikipedia on an almost-daily basis for just over ten years (first edit: January 22, 2006). I tend to make an average of five to fifteen edits per day and have accumulated (as of present count at preferences) 23,777 edits without a single use of an automated tool (I commend the utility of such tools as AutoWikiBrowser, but my editing pattern is too light to require assistance of that nature).

    2) As for the matter at hand, despite the description (above) of my attention to dab pages as "obsession", I tend to edit or create one or, at most, four disambiguation pages per month, with a monthly average of two or three dab pages. While, over ten years, such an average would still run into the low hundreds of dab pages, it represents a minute percentage of my total edits (a rough estimate indicates that I have a ten-year average of editing 2.4 to to 2.6 dab pages per month). My early interest in dab pages was spurred by the fact that many of them consisted simply of names and topics thrown together at random without any order, other than similarity. I started assembling such pages into a recognizable disposition by arranging the entries under section headers specifying professions or topics. I also examined each topic to ascertain vital dates, with addition of nationalities and key points of notability.

    3) The claim (above) that "User:Roman Spinner has regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information, and has been repeatedly warned to stop" is invalidated by the simple fact that none of my descriptions exceeds three-quarters of a single line of text (with most averaging one-fourth to one-half of a single line). It should be noted that in one of my previous communications with User:Boleyn, I explained that, while editing on a 27-inch iMac with standard-size fonts and resolution, "I realize that various users use different fonts, font sizes, screen sizes and formatting. Such matters, however, vary from user to user and present differing issues not simply for users of disambiguation pages, but also for users of all Wikipedia entries". As for "unhelpful information" (presumably meaning the "key points of notability"), as I mentioned above, "would information of the same length but phrased in a different manner or consisting of different content be more "helpful", or is any information of such length "unhelpful"? In the latter case would it not be more precise to state "excessive", rather than "unhelpful" information?"

    4) Regarding the contention I have "been repeatedly warned to stop" and "responses here from other editors with previous contact with Roman make it clear that this is a major and ongoing problem", it should be made clear what actual contact I received (all postings are linked above). In January 2008, User:Jwy made a friendly inquiry on the subject and had not contacted me since. More than four years later, in April 2012, User:Boleyn, sent a relatively benign posting which could in no way be considered a "warning". Later that year, in December, User:Ubcule sent a gently-worded message, also without contacting me again. The next posting, in April 2014 was, indeed, a lengthy complaint from, again, User:Boleyn, the majority (most?) of whose edits have been to disambiguation pages. Then, in June 2015, User:Midas02 sent a gentle reminder (not a warning).

    5) Most recently, on February 9, User:Swpb contacted me twice, first with a complaint, then a warning. I replied to all postings, detailing and explaining each point of contention. Thus went the "repeated warnings" — three gentle reminders from three users in eight years, then a gentle reminder followed two years later by a complaint from a fourth user (Boleyn) who is continually working on dabs, and, finally, a brand-new complaint/warning from the fifth user (Swpb), all of whom received immediate responses from me. Two of the posters, Jwy (from 2008) and Ubcule (from 2012), have joined this discussion to state here that they are now upgrading their earlier "gentle reminders" from my talk page to complaint/warnings.

    6) While it is painful for me to say anything negative about User:Boleyn who, over a number of years, has been one of the most productive, hard-working and valuable contributors to Wikipedia, Boleyn's use of the "obsession" in reference to me is, I regret to conclude, self-inflicted. Boleyn's relentless editing of dab pages of reverting my edits as "vandalism" using Twinkle, without even incorporating my changes (new entries, nationalities, vital dates, name adjustments) (compare my entry for Kevin McCarthy) and Boleyn's current version, Kevin McCarthy (my changes have been reverted twice without any of my additions being incorporated, despite my detailing those changes in the edit summary). For those who wish to examine the exact nature of the changes I made to the Kevin McCarthy dab page, may link to Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page, where I have prepared a presentation on the subject (unless Boleyn deletes it).

    7) There are numerous such examples which I will prepare for future presentation (depending upon how long this ANI continues). In the meantime, just one additional example of Boleyn's "vandal revert" (thrice) of my changes: this is my version of The Young Lovers dab page and, even though I detailed in my edit summary three times (5 February 2014, 4 August 2014 and 30 September 2015) that I was repairing the circular redirect for "Young Lovers", 1963 composition performed by Paul & Paula so that it indicates "Young Lovers" (song), composition performed in 1963 by American pop singing duo Paul & Paula as follow-up to their number-one hit, earlier that year, "Hey Paula"; "Young Lovers" reached number six on 1963's Billboard Pop Singles chart, Boleyn reverted me three times, once with the edit summary: "Can I keep editing Wikipedia when I'm wasting all my time with this?" After nearly two years (since February 2014), Boleyn never repaired it (probably never even read my three edit summaries) and it still remains as a circular redirect. In his second comment on my talk page, User:Swpb accused me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but wouldn't obstructing users' access to a link rise to that level?

    8) Finally, because I value Boleyn's contributions, I write this with regret, but I added the words "(unless Boleyn deletes it)" above, because Boleyn has been deleting my contributions to disambiguation talk pages where I compared my versions of respective dab dates with the currently existing forms and suggested improvements (for example, William Henderson). These were not simply copies of my "overlong" versions, but annotated versions, with a preface, detailing my proposed revisions and additions. Because, in Boleyn's words, "I hate confrontation", I did not complain, thus making it appear as if I condoned, tolerated or agreed with such behavior for years, thus putatively giving the appearance of handing Boleyn carte blanche to reverse my dab work. However, at this stage of the confrontation, all cards should be on the table, particularly in regard to talk pages, which serve primarily to discuss improvements. Wikipedia:Talk Page Etiquette specifies: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." None of the standard reasons for deletion — legal threats, abusive language, personal attacks, copyright violations, etc are applicable here.

    9) There is more, but I will conclude this (typically?) overlong statement and wait for additional contributions from other users. I thank all those who showed interest in this matter and commented here, whether for or against. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to above: I'll be brief, as this ANI is not about me. I started just reverting because you wrote to me, that if I disagreed with your edits, I could always revert them. In the majority of cases, I edited rather than reverting, or tagged for disambig-cleanup, which is how the nominator probably became aware of your conduct. But this ANI is about your conduct, not mine. Are you going to stop editing dab pages in this way? Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, of course, I will stop. Judging by the comments, I am on the losing side of this argument. As I wrote near the end of my April 2014 lengthy reply to your posting, "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect. All my future entries will be pared to the bone -- vital dates/defining date, nationality and profession/function/venue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roman Spinner:
    (2) By this point it's assumed that you're familiar with the intended purpose of dab pages. But, to reiterate:-
    Dab pages are navigational aids; they're *not* intended as potted one-line summaries, but your addition of (e.g.) "key points of notability" seems determined to take them in this direction.
    As the guidelines state, "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link".
    One might argue about how much *is* necessary for that, certainly- I'm sure I don't always get the balance right myself. But it seems that (newbies aside) this generally isn't an issue, probably because most editors keep things concise and usable enough not to be worth nitpicking over.
    However, it seems that many of your edits to existing material consistently add unnecessary bloat to entries that were already clear and usable, turning them into one-line summaries that make it *harder* to see the woods for the trees.
    Also, FWIW, I too try to separate and group pages with (would-be) intelligent use of subheadings (etc.), but I don't tend to add content unless I feel it aids or clarifies the page's navigational purpose.
    (4) You seem keen to maximise the distinction between benign messages and warnings. Some of those messages (mine included) were presumably sent in response to what appeared to be typical misguided newbie behaviour. The point is that you've been on Wikipedia for a long time and can't fail to have been aware of the guidelines.
    (6) I've already said this twice elsewhere, but when (what would otherwise be) improvements are repeatedly bundled up with bloat that's contrary to the consensus-agreed guidelines and counter-productive to the agreed aims of a dab page- then it's unreasonable to place the onus on other editors to do the tedious work of separating them out. Particularly when the new versions are- on balance- less useful (due to the aforementioned verbiage). This applies- for example- to your changes to the Kevin McCarthy article.
    Ubcule (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roman Spinner: I'd like to point out that being writing a line of text that fits on your 27in monitor at 100% zoom without regard for the effects on other readers is a discourtesy to readers. For example, depending on the situation I may read on my 15in laptop screen or on a 21 or 22in screen. On my laptop, the text is about 1.5 lines while on my monitor it is 1.25 lines. Consideration should be made to accommodate the reader not the editor. If 1 line on your monitor equates to 1.5 lines on a 15in laptop, then you should consider reducing your text from 1 line to 0.75 lines or less at 100% zoom. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On my desktop, with an 1024px wide window using monobook skin and 100% zoom (my default settings) the descriptions in the first linked diff above run to about 1.25-1.5 lines. On my mobile (a Samsung Galaxy S5 with default settings, I don't know what they are) they are 6-7 lines long. However the point is not how long they are on different devices, the point is that everybody else has been telling you for many years that your understanding of what constitutes a good dab page entry does not accord with consensus. The consensus, which has existed since before I joined Wikipedia in late 2004, is that only a very few words are necessary in almost all cases. Even with seven editors supporting a proposal to topic ban you from dab pages, you still are not listening. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Akash3141 (third request for intervention)

    Abusive insults to other users and blatant refusal to collaborate was outlined in the first two requests here ([114], [115]). WP:OWN antics have continued despite opposition from multiple users; my request for him to gain consensus has been ignored.[116] In a childish rage over not getting his way, he has vandalised other pages ([117], [118]). Article The Undertaker (the primary site of various users' conflict with Akash3141) was blanked by an IP at 19:40 UTC[119] and again at 19:45[120]; at 19:43, Akash3141 left this passive-aggressive attack on my talk page.[121] B. Mastino (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • The IP locates to Pakistan; that's a bit far-fetched. However, I have blocked them for a week for that nonsense on your talk page and for this pointy edit. BTW, can any of you wrestle editors explain to me why Bret Hart needs 157,148 bytes? We're talking about a rassler, right? Drmies (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Fan or not, Hart is one of the most internationally popular wrestlers of all time, so a sizeable article is to be expected. When you're on The Simpsons, you're pretty recognisable in pop culture. B. Mastino (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Popularity and being recognizable doesn't necessarily result in an individual having a huge article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily, but logic tells me that Elvis Presley's article will be bigger than the one for the editor of my local newspaper. Bret Hart has held championships in five decades, has headlined numerous major wrestling events, has pop culture renown, and is cited as a hero/influence by many younger people in the business. Makes sense that his article has substantial content. B. Mastino (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • B. Mastino, you're suggesting that Bret Hart (who, by the way, works in entertainment, not in sports, and whose titles were acquired by way of--wait, rasslin's not fake) is 20k more important than Martin Luther King, Jr.. And his article is a GA. I think that if all y'all were to make these articles more encyclopedic, you would offer less of an invitation to such editors to add trivia and more trivia, since it's very hard to distinguish between trivia and non-trivia. For the record, MLK was never on the Simpsons. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    John Cena is bigger than Bret Hart, and is a good article. Suspected this was a reason vs. a thinly-veiled "I don't like wrestling" scenario. B. Mastino (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all wrestling articles are filled with way too much information. Even so, what makes Akash3141's edits so extraordinary is that he takes that to a whole new level. The last seven threads on Talk:The Undertaker talk page are all about his behavior.LM2000 (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair the need for inline citations is a lot greater in articles about living people, and to Drmies' point above those can chew up a surprising number of bytes of text even if there's a comparable amount of actual content. Nonetheless, it does seem that recording every last belch and fart a wrestler let fly in and out of the ring both during and after his/her career (which isn't as hyperbolic a statement as I wish it was) seems a bit excessive, and I agree there's a serious problem with Akash3141's editing. A topic ban from this area seems warranted, not sure on length. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrestling seems to be the sole area in which he edits. User:Oknazevad proposed an indefinite block,[122] which I tend to support given Akash3141's glaring lack of introspection and remorse in his two recent "it's-them-not-me!" unblock requests. With no attitude change to mention, he will return in a week only to further disrupt the encyclopaedia. B. Mastino (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, Blade--but as B. Mastino's comment indicates, that amounts to a ban, basically. If you want to propose it to see if it gains traction, go for it. Right now, I don't wish to go that far, but any fellow admin (hey, like you!) is welcome to disagree with me. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon thinking about it I suppose it's worth waiting to see if the weeklong block has any impact, it's easy to come back if problems start up. Sometimes it works, and it'll be easier to find out if we give Akash3141 enough rope. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Definitely not enough rope, he's now editing while logged out, see this edit to Talk:The Undertaker. The IP is from the UK, which is where his bio on his user page says he is from. He knows that using multiple accounts in such a way is prohibited because he made another account, Akash Bedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which got blocked.LM2000 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that earlier account was blocked and the user page deleted, but that was 20 December; I don't see a note from the blocking admin on either talk page. This one single IP edit isn't the biggest thing in the world either. However, when you add it all up--the unreliable sourcing, the trivial edits, the edit warring, the self-promotion in user space, the socking, the namecalling, and whatever else I may have missed--we got NOTHERE as the only possible conclusion. Or perhaps I should cite WP:CIR since, after all this happened, they wrote this on their talk page: "Then again, having Hart (one of the greatest technicians) say that you can 'make a silk's purse out of a sow's ear' in his autobiography isn't worthy of being mentioned, but Rock appearing on five wrestlemanias is..!? It doesn't make sense to me." If after all this time this does not make sense, the editor simply cannot contribute. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, looking at any of these episodes without the big picture doesn't look particularly offensive, but the big picture does show major WP:CIR issues. Thanks for your help.LM2000 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Akerman LLP

    Problem has been discussed with user in question, who seems to be taking this well. Anyone who wishes to help in article cleanup is welcome to do so. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    I don't have much of a background in copyright but Akerman LLP has for the second time had its lede restored here to what seems like very obvious paraphrasing from [123]. Is that ok or should it be removed and deleted? It's being restored by User:Akerman1234 repeatedly including all the promotional nonsense which seems like a clear COI problem as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's close enough to be a copyvio, even though it's not a huge one, and it's certainly promotional. Recent edits by Akerman1234, whose name suggests an obvious COI, improve some sections ("Famous lawyers and alumni"-->"Notable Akerman Alumni") but other sections are way too promotional, like this "Community Partnerships" and "Commitment to Diversity" stuff. But that lead, yes, that cannot be. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for bringing up. The language in the lead is from Akerman's standard boilerplate that appears in the public domain quite a bit. Often, outlets such as U.S. News... simply cut-and-paste boilerplates when profiling companies. Also, not sure how highlighting charity work and a commitment to diversity is promotional in as much as it sells legal services. Granted, Akerman is proud of it's charity work - but not sure how that carries over to someone viewing the section and then saying, "Wow, I want those folks to work on my big merger." In comparison to other law firms' Wikipedia articles, the promotional aspects land in the little-to-none range. Thanks for opening the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akerman1234 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "Boilerplate" doesn't mean it's in the public domain unless it's expressly in the public domain. It's still copyrighted text until clear otherwise. It's more concerning that you keep reverting to that version rather than working with what other people have done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ricky and I will be happy to prune those other articles as well! Drmies (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which was immediately reverted. So we have WP:OWNership issues by a pretty clear COI here. Anyone want to explain the issues further or should we keep trying to work this out? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The additional revert suggests that User:Akerman1234's diplomatic efforts are now over. The next revert by them should qualify for a block. I've notified them about the edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm learning. I will not revert to anything, ever. I understand the concerns. The old lead that is back up just needs a bit of adjustment, because Akerman LLP is no longer headquartered at that address, and the stats from 2012 could stand to be refreshed. I do not want to create ill will or bad vibes. Also, in the name of full disclosure - I was advised by user Liz to change my username because the word "Akerman" appeared in my username and that's a no-no. I have changed, and it was approved. New name: Carefuleye7. "Akerman1234" is dead. Do I put the waves now? Where do those go?Carefuleye7 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Carefuleye7, you may not have liked the edits that Ricky and I made, but chances are--given our all-too long tenure here--that they are pretty much in line with our policies. In other words, it's not a good idea to simply revert not just because that constitutes edit warring, but also because there's other stuff at stake, like the neutral tone of the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Carefuleye7, thanks for the name change. It's a common mistake, especially when an individual from a company, either officially or unofficially, is asked to update a business' Wikipedia article. Edit warring is also a common mistake that can lead to your account being blocked. We have a rule of thumb here at Wikipedia that is called WP:BRD meaning Be bold, revert, discuss. So, you can make bold edits but if they are reverted, you need to initiate a discussion on the article talk page. Discussion is the favored method of dispute resolution here at Wikipedia. You've offered some explanation for your edits here which is a good step to take but now the further discussion about the content of the article has to go to Talk:Akerman LLP. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carefuleye7 and I had a discussion on their Talk page about COI and Carefuleye7 made a disclosure and understands what he/she should do going forward. Seems like a reasonable person and I don't anticipate problems going forward. The article does need some cleanup which I will try to get to. This ANI can probably be closed. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And i did just clean it up. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog, thank you for your edits. I hope we get to keep the promotional content out. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Administrator intervention required: User blanking lists of births and deaths

    Hello. I'm not sure where else to turn, seeing as I don't want to incite a revert war with this editor. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is removing a massive amount of actors, and other notable people from articles pertaining to days of the year. In their edit summaries[124][125][126][127], they quote this[see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year] discussion on the topic. The consensus of the topic, however is leaning in the opposite direction of which this editor is basing their edits. I've tried to explain this to the user, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. They are not seeming to get it. Can an administrator please explain this to this user, so they stop removing encyclopedic information? Thanks. Boomer VialHolla 04:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomer Vial you didn't notify RMS about this, I've taken care of that for you. I get the idea of what RMS is talking about, and I do agree , there is no consensus on the talk page for the action he supports, so no I don't think his revert is valid, however, I'd like to hear his explanation, as I'm sure the sysops would as well. KoshVorlon 11:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @KoshVorlon: Oh, sorry about that. It slipped my mind. Thanks for notifying the user about it. I've already left a few messages on their talk page regarding their edits, but got no response. I also tried in edit summaries to explain why their blanking is possibly incorrect, but got no result as well. Boomer VialHolla 12:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just logged in. Haven't been on Wikipedia since yesterday (my time, NYC/EST). @Boomer Vial did indeed express his opinion(s) but as the matter is still pending, as @Deb is still pursuing her globalization project, and as no consensus has been reached over "possibly incorrect" editing (see [128]) I did not realize that I was required to stop but I will do so if that is the community's interest. Term "blanking" is inaccurate, btw, IMO. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted the recent edits in question last night. Forgot to update that fact here at the time. Quis separabit? 15:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for being so understanding. Also, sorry about reverting your edits. I should've left that for you too do. Boomer VialHolla 01:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've looked at the project discussion pages, you'll have seen a lot of talk about this and a general consensus that we need a cleanup although admittedly there is a lack of agreement on exactly how and where we should start this cleanup. Note that Quis separabit?'s actions also include improving descriptions, where others have added unnecessarily long and often inaccurate descriptions of the names entered. Deb (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Citation spamming

    SalmanSaleemPK (talk · contribs) has added a number of new citations referencing tickets4pk.com and cricketticketexchange.com, and in some cases replaced existing citations. This seems to meet the definition of citation spam. I'm familiar with our WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM policies, but not so much with citation spamming (for which there appears to be no specific warning template), so it would be helpful if an admin could assess whether the user's actions are legitimate. It appears the user has received a previous warning for using Wikipedia for advertising. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, I gave them a level 1 link spamming warning, but it seems they've been adding these links quite a few times. Needless to say, none of these sources are reliable sources. I think it's a new user who needs help rather than a deliberate spammer though. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user's name gives off a strong impression that they might be related to the company, given the PK at the end of their name and the PK at the end of the business name Tickets4PK. I also note that the two ticket selling websites are identical and have their business in the same location, meaning that this is likely someone who was hired to add these links to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've given them a more in-depth explanation and a more stern warning about spamming, as well as the template warning about COI. They've been warned that if they try to add these sites again, they run the risk of getting permanently blocked and the site ending up on the blacklist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) They're spamlinks, and he's not the only one who has been adding them. I've removed all links to both of those sites, both for being refspam (replacing existing refs with links to sites like these is blatant refspamming) and for not being reliable sources, since blog posts on those sites (i.e. links to blog.* on those sites) were used as "references" on a couple of articles. Thomas.W talk 10:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tokyogirl79: Looks like they've removed everyone's warnings. I was thinking they were just a new editor who didn't understand relible sources, but [129] makes me think less so.
    • Although PK=Pakistan, so I don't see how that immediately implies a COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's not a good-faith editor, but has been warned multiple times for spamming and using Wikipedia for promotion. This is what his talk page looked like just two days ago, before he removed the warnings, showing that he's been doing it since 2009. It's also probable that he's been using other accounts between 2010 and reactivating this account a couple of days ago. Thomas.W talk 11:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fairness to SalmanSaleemPK, it should be noted that he reverted the removal of the warnings on his talk page just three minutes after he removed them (though, from the time stamps, probably while you were compiling your post). 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I don't really understand what we're doing here. User talk:IgnorantArmies, thank you for your report: this is clearly a spam-only outfit, and should have been blocked as seen as we caught wind of them. Now that they've been warned, of course, it's poor manners to block them, so I suppose we'll have to wait for the next addition of a spam link. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though it probably needs a formal consensus evaluation, there's nothing stopping us from using the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist tool to fix this. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's spamming, but IMHO not yet on a level that merits blacklisting of the sites he adds links for. Thomas.W talk 17:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - blacklisting is a blunt tool used as a last resort for persistent abuse. If the user resumes the disruptive spamming and link hijacking, blocks should be tried first. I have initiated a report of the urls at WT:WPSPAM in case blacklisting is eventually necessary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: can anyone suggest a possible valid use of these links on Wikipedia  ? DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    no, they should be blacklisted. We have enough to do without cleaning up after spammers who spam links into WP that we would never use as sources. If this was a link to a reliable source of course it would be foolish to blacklist but not in this case. But here there is nothing to debate - so Next! Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a valid use or not has generally not been an acceptable reason in itself to blacklist in the past. Per the guidance at WP:BLACKLIST, blacklisting should be a final resort after repeated abuse and where blocks have previously failed to stop the disruption. The only exception listed at WP:EL for blacklisting sooner would be if the site served-up malware. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a valid use is the blacklist :-) Guy (Help!) 15:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, they aren't spammed enough for the blacklist. Blacklisting is a better solution than playing whack-a-mole here. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree that they're not here to contribute, as he's been spamming since 2009. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fake citation access dates are a giveaway that this user is spamming and should have been blocked on sight. MER-C 02:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with MER-C. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kanhaiya Kumar - page watch

    Kanhaiya Kumar and Jawaharlal Nehru University are topics of heated debate in India at the moment. Can some admins watch list the pages, and advise the involved editors of the protocols? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure what you want us to do, but I suppose you are an involved editor, and I'm not sure what point there is in expanding "2016 sedition controversy" with responses and reports on demonstrations and whatnot. We're not the news. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Drmies. I'm not sure of what exactly you want us to do here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As somebody who frequently edits indic pages, I think I know why Kautilya is concerned; recent political events tend to draw hordes of POV warriors, and more scrutiny from established editors is therefore often necessary. I will watchlist this myself, for now. Kautilya3, I'm not sure why you're posting here, though, there haven't yet been problems that are too serious on this particular article. Wouldn't INB be the logical place? I'm not sure that admin scrutiny is needed, just from folks who know what they're doing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The IND-regular admins seem to be offline, except for RegentsPark, who seems to have too much on his plate. But the normal practice in this type of situation is for admins to slap on some notices to indicate the current event and controversial nature of the topic, advise people to stay calm, and warn them of sanctions. Even though this subject might look like just another controversy, it seems to go to the core of India's Left-Right divide and promises to get ugly. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to semi-protect the article for a week following the RFPP request--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Constant Editing at Madame Doubtfire

    Semi-protected for a week by JzG. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Over the past few minutes, 70.162.223.119 has made 300 edits to the above page. Some have been helpful but the vast majority have consisted of adding and removing a space, with no other effect. I posted at WP:RPP and also on the IP's talk page but the edits keep coming. It's not doing anything particularly harmful, but it's definitely clogging up the edit history. Is a block in order now? Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Absconded Northerner: I would suggest more attempts to figure out with the user what they are doing before going for page protections or blocks here. There may be some innocent explanations. I have responded to their comment on the talk page myself. Also, you didn't notify they on their talk page that you had raised an issue here at ANI. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for forgetting to notify them. This was really a request for help, not for a block. I didn't know what action would be best so posted here in case someone had a good idea of how to proceed. Looks like they've stopped now, and a brief SPP has been applied too. I'll keep chatting on their talk page to see if there's any help I can provide. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Semiprotected for a week. No idea what's going on but it ain't helping. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Sorry for being late to the party, but it looks like an attempt to circumvent the "500 edits rule" that applies to certain articles (requiring editors to have made a minimum of 500 edits on other pages before editing those articles), by just making a large number of nonsense edits. There have been many cases like that lately, so keep an eye on them to see what their real targets are, because that kind of editors are usually up to no good... Thomas.W talk 15:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Racist hate speech at 2016 Ankara bombing

    Would you please take a quick look at 2016 Ankara bombing and hide this edit summary consisting of racist hate speech. I expect the article to be very likely the target of further IP attacks, so some sort of protection might be a good idea. Thanks, --PanchoS (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit summary hidden...as for the protection, let's wait how it develops. Far from all IP edits are unconstructive. Lectonar (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response. You're right in that there is both, but from my experience this is only a matter of time for this particular kind of topic, so we'd better keep the incident open for followups. --PanchoS (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoax on Navay-E Asatid

    Navay-E Asatid is currently edited by some IP-users inserting incorrect information regarding the artists name. It's the Javad Ramezani-crowd again. Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Emptying categories out of process

    This all started on February 7, when User:Sundayclose removed Category:Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band concert tours from the article Ringo's Summer 2016 Tour stating "no need for separate category" [130]. (The category had recently been created by User:U2fan01 on January 30.) As a regular patroller of Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories, I noticed the category came up on the list as being empty, identified the article that was removed and added it back to the category [131], based on the assumption that the category is one of the exceptions to WP:SMALLCAT, which states "avoid categories that...will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Per Category:Concert tours by artist, "Please note that all concert tour articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many concert tours the artist has performed". Therefore, I felt the emptying of such a category was done out of process. Upon further investigation, I noticed that there were also albums by Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band and created Category:Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band albums and populated it.[132][133]

    Ten days later, User:Sundayclose completely emptied both categories with the edit summary "too few articles for redundant categories".[134][135][136] Again, feeling the categories were being emptied out of process, I repopulated the categories recommending through the edit summaries that the proper procedure was to take the categories to CFD.[137][138] For the third time, User:Sundayclose emptied the categories with an edit summary this time that said, "Follow WP:BRD. I reverted. You discuss on talk page."[139][140] I did as asked and took it the talk page of Live at the Greek Theatre 2008[141] while placing notes on the talk pages of the two categories.[142][143] Because Live at the Greek Theatre 2008 was one I hadn't added previously and to avoid the category from nominated for speedy deletion, this was only my second revert to this specific page, but I didn't re-add other pages to the categories. Instead of discussing the matter as had been suggested, User:Sundayclose decided to send me a warning for edit warring instead.[144] I replied to his message on my talk page, requesting that they not remove categories out of process.[145]

    Finally, since I did not repopulate Category:Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band concert tours and despite my notice on the talk page to not request speedy deletion of the category for being empty, it was nominated for such anyway.[146] Because I did not create the category, I removed the tag saying the category was emptied out of process in the edit summary.[147]. User:Sundayclose readded the tag saying I didn't follow the proper procedure for contesting speedy deletion.[148]. My note was already on the talk page, so I felt I was in the right to remove the speedy tag again, although at this point I probably should have left it up to an admin who would have seen the note before deciding whether to delete the category. I don't understand why User:Sundayclose refuses to take part in any discussion, one in which they encouraged in the first place, or to simply nominate the categories for deletion via WP:CFD. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I wondered why I've seen these Ringo Starr categories on the Empty Categories list more than once. I've posted a message on Sundayclose's talk page asking that he explain why he emptied the category out of process. Unfortunately, although this is an improper way to get a category deleted (rather than nominating it at WP:CFD), it's more common than it should be. Doing it once is taking an unacceptable short cut but doing it several times means it is behavior that needs to be explained and addressed. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I was not aware that categories that are so redundant should remain unchanged. My initial goal was to consolidate into one category Category:Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band. I still feel that the it's overkill to have three categories that could easily have one category containing all of the related articles, but as has been said, I should pursue that through CFD, although I'll probably just drop the entire issue. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Sundayclose (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No disrespect, Sundayclose, but have you seen the number of categories revolving around U2? I think separate categories are just fine. U2fan01 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not interpreted as disrespect, just a difference of opinion. Although this is not the venue to debate number of categories for rock bands, I'll make response and then leave this alone. There is a huge difference between the fame, stature, and productivity of U2 compared to post-Beatles Ringo. And that's no slur on Ringo; I'm a Beatles fan (and U2 fan). But that difference more than justifies a larger number of categories. But if it is wiki protocol to allow overlapping categories with just a few articles in each, I will accept it and move on to more important matters. Thanks to all in this discussion for your comments. Sundayclose (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sundayclose:: the discussion here is not about whether these categories should exist or not, which is basically a content (or organisation of content) dispute. The discussion is about the way you approached this. You should not have emptied these categories repeatedly (perhaps not even once, but that would fall under WP:BRD probably) but should have sent them to WP:CFD instead. That's why we have that process, and you shouldn't try to avoid or override it by exhausting the other side of the discussion by reverting and templating them. If there is a genuine dispute, like here, take it to a wider audience, like CFD. Fram (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fram:: Thanks for your comment. As I noted above, I fully realize that the discussion is not about whether the categories should exist, and I fully acknowledged that I should have first gone to CFD, which I will do in the future now that I realize that is the way it should be done. Sundayclose (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethno-nationalist POV pushing

    IP awarded a free two-day vacation by Drmies. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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

    92.76.88.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tedious ethno-nationalist vandalism. Gets reverted by various users, but always returns. Constantly changing the marked ethnicity of Kurds (Yezidi Kurds) into Yazidis, refuses to discuss, as seen from the lack of response to my advice on his talk page, vandalizing even academic article titles [149] to erase any trace of Kurdishness from Yezidis [150] / Yezidi figures [151], [152]. Clear WP:NOTHERE case.--Dorpater (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Community ban for Nsmutte

    Banned by the community with none opposing. ElofoSho (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Nsmutte and their army of socks has been promoting a non-notable Indian physician, called (Y.) Srihari or Sreehari, for a couple of years at this point. The case is outlined in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte/Archive; their activities include creating a number of articles about the person (Y. Srihari, Dr sreeharii, Dr sreehari, Doctor sreehari, Dr y.srihari, Dr srihari, Hypnotist srihari, Doctor sREEHARI, Sreehari, Sreehari dr and maybe others). The original AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y. Srihari, was plagued with sockpuppets. They have also created articles about the Global medical association which Dr Sreehari is the chairman of, but which was also found not to be notable. In addition to this, there has been a number of edits adding the person's name and that of the association to various Wikipedia articles: [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], and [158] are some instances of this, where the oldest diffs are from April 2014 and the newest one's from yesterday (and a not-yet-blocked sock, who has however self-identified as a new account of one of the previously blocked socks.)

    The number of confirmed socks approaches 50, and among them are about fifteen recently created accounts with names that were clearly created to look like my username - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte/Archive#13 February 2016 and the section below it. There's a couple of others that were not caught in that sweep which have been active just now, [159] and [160]. There's also a very large number of IPsocks involved; they don't tend to use the same IP address for more than a few edits, so the numbers add up quickly. There is no doubt that this is one and the same person, they have some very distinctive stylistic idiosyncrasies (and the sockpuppet investigations have always confirmed that it's the same person as well.)

    After almost two years of this disruption, I'm calling for a community ban. I have been the target of some mild harassment, including the user accounts mentioned above, and various claims that I have personal reasons to keep the person out of Wikipedia - they have been informed many times that many different editors have been involved in the deletion processes, that the reason the articles were deleted was a lack of notability, and that I have no tools to delete articles in any case, so there is a certain amount of WP:IDHT involved. Because I've been a target I might be considered to be involved, and maybe that means I shouldn't be making this request, but I'm hoping that I've provided sufficient evidence to show that this is in fact a disruption that's been going on for a while.

    I will post a notification of this discussion on the talk page of the blocked sockmaster and on the talk pages of the (as yet) not-blocked socks whose diffs I have included; I assume that all the blocked sockpuppets don't need to be notified, but please let me know if I'm wrong about this. --bonadea contributions talk 20:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Superman blocked. I found no further sleepers. Sure, this is bannable, though they are de facto banned already. Don't worry about notifiying; I think you've done your part. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I was a little concerned about the fact that I've been reverting their edits on List of records of India a lot, and didn't want to seem as if I was violating 3RR when they weren't formally banned. (Looks like they have caught on to that, too. I'll leave well enough alone, there.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So long as you mark your reverts as reverting what are clearly this editor's edits, you're ok under WP:3RRNO. Use an edit summary like "rv User:Nsmutte sock" and it's pretty clear what you're doing. I don't know how others feel about it, but if a banned user tries to use AN3 to report you, I would just revert their noticeboard posting (with a similar summary) rather than respond to it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support de jure ban, although Drmies is right about it being a moot point, this user is never going to be allowed back and is ripe for an WP:LTA case. Is there anything else that admins can do to limit their disruption? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing that could be done is to WP:SALT all articles previously created. Mjroots (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think some of them have been salted, but the problem is the lousy spelling of these cats. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, almost all of the ones listed here are already salted. I was thinking more along the lines of an IP rangeblock. Of course I can't tell what the users' IPs are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if you make them right. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 02:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Since it's already an RBI situation, an 'official' community ban can't hurt. Besides, other options might become useful. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 02:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - this degree of disruptiveness is unacceptable. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the looks of things, it looks like Nsmutte is gonna get their brand new userpage soon enough, all of the votes support the idea of banning the user. So my question is if all of the votes for this discussion are unanimous, how much longer would this go before being closed? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Olamilay

    BLOCKED
    indefinitely by Only for Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Olamilay is repeatedly removing maintenance and speedy deletion templates from Olamilay, despite plenty of warnings at User talk:Olamilay. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Violation of WP:MERGECLOSE, edit-warring

    User:Richhoncho has formally proposed merging Fast Car (Jonas Blue song) to Fast Car. They proposed this on the 17th of February. They have already performed the merger (three times) despite only one other editor discussing the matter, in absolute blatant violation of WP:MERGECLOSE. WP:MERGECLOSE states that "if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or is unanimous consent to merge, any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger" - despite only allowing a single day of discussion they have performed the move themselves three times despite this clearly not being the case. They have also edit-warred on this matter here and here. They have also misleadingly and incorrectly marked their edit as minor. I have tried to discuss the matter without much success. They are justifying their behaviour based on WP:NSONGS. They have a point (and policy conflicts on the matter) which I am happy to discuss at the merge proposal but this hasn't been possible. I note this editor does have a history of conflict and edit-warring, as seen on their talk page and in their contributions. AusLondonder (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This objection is based on the grounds that I did not boldly make the change without adding the merge notification. If I had been bold then this fabricated incident would not be listed. Please check the edit history and comments at the two relevant articles - including an invitation to AusLondonder to continue the discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But if someone objects to the change surely the discussion can continue for the alloted time? It's be bold not be arrogant AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it rather amusing that you use this process when the bottom line is that you object to WP guidelines and this is your get-out-clause. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't mis-characterise my view. I think the song is independently notable per WP:NSONGS which says that songs charting at No.1 are presumed to be notable. It also says "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" AusLondonder (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For a third or fourth time. There is no dispute whether the song is notable, it is whether a different recording should have a separate article and WP:NSONGS says "No". --Richhoncho (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to say it but this is my understanding of NSONGS as well. But this is not a content board. I did see Chapman perform it once in front of a stadium in 1988. Mesmerising. --John (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I never raised the content issue, I raised the behavioural issue that is preventing discussion of the content issue. AusLondonder (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it doing that exactly? --John (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is @John: that there is no consensus for the move. That's what Wikipedia works on. AusLondonder (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't answer the question. --John (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so if I don't agree with the merge I should accept the desired outcome of one editor to prevent a discussion taking place? The problem with the move is it against the spirit of all policies. I think we both know what you're doing here John. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What admin action are you seeking here? It looks like a content dispute to me. --John (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So because one editor edit-wars longer and moves an article three times after a single day of discussion basically they win? So do I have a green light to revert the merge? AusLondonder (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Really disappointed someone would characterise this as a content dispute. Just to let other admins know John and I have disagreed on a content dispute at another article, which seems to be prompting such an extraordinary take on the matter AusLondonder (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    True enough. I wasn't going to bring it up, but you didn't show much clue in either of these instances about how to resolve disputes productively. You might want to read up on WP:DR, WP:RFC, and WP:3O. But in this matter, if you can't answer the questions "Is there an actual problem with the merge?" or "What admin action are you seeking here?" then it looks like a content dispute and you are in the wrong place. I suppose if one or both of you were to continue we could look at WP:AN3. Are you planning to? --John (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it bluntly, you're talking bullshit. This was a content dispute until the other editor forcefully and unilaterally merged the page according to his wishes three times after a day of discussion. Sure we don't need to be a bureaucracy. But we need basic standards of behaviour so this thing doesn't descend into a free-for-all and utter anarchy. I have explained that the problem with the merge is its a total violation of the spirit of our merging policies. I don't know why you find that so hard to understand. As to the content dispute involving you it wasn't between two people. Dozens of editors were involved. A consensus was established in two sections of the talkpage. You didn't like it. So you started throwing around bad faith accusations of "nationalism" and calling other long standing editors blow-ins, amongst other names. Regarding dispute resolution another edit dispute you were involved in about sourcing resulted in a RSN discussion that you refused to participate it. That discussion established enough consensus you didn't like and ignored in subsequent edits. It would have been nice had you shown the deceny to leave this matter to others given your patent dislike of me. AusLondonder (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh. I am sorry you think I don't like you. I assure you I like you very well to the degree you are a productive member of the community and (like me) a volunteer who gives up time to help this project. If you have any complaints about my behaviour it would be best to present it with diffs. I am sorry if using the word "blow-in" offended you; I do think that has been the recent problem at that article however, but I am glad a compromise solution has been found there. I repeat though, unless you are able to state what you would like admins to do to help you in this instance, it will be very difficult for them to do so. --John (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well looked like content dispute to me at least on one side. Rickhoncho thought it should be merged and provided a credible reason per NSONGS, another editor agreed with them. AusLondoner disagreed, provided no guideline or policy backed reason, then resorted to process-wonkery and dragged the dispute to ANI when it didnt go their way. If anyone has a behaviour issue it wasnt Rick here. NOTBURO exists. When you engage in by-the-book rules-lawyering it tends to make your arguments weaker not stronger. If you start arguing 'It isnt in the spirit!' when trying to use policy-backed discussion to avoid a content outcome you disagree with, its not going to go anywhere. Suggest closing this ASAP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the absurdity and hilarity of your suggestion that because I wanted decent input from other editors on a merge I oppose as the good faith creator of the article I am the one who is behaving badly. I provided, repeatedly, which you have chosen to ignore and then be deceptive about, reasons per WP:NSONG that this recording was entitled to its own article, namely that it charted at number-one in several countries, received significant coverage in reliable sources and NSONG also states that covers are "usually" covered in the main article. USUALLY. Not always. You say I took the dispute here because it didn't go my way. How the hell could it go my way when the other editor acted like a playground bully and merged it three times without allowing input from others. Shame on you for your deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. I have replied in more detail at Talk:Fast Car to your bizarre red herring that I am the one rigidly trying to enforce policy and explained my interpretation of WP:NSONGS. AusLondonder (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks guys. I wasn't aware of the 7-day rule regarding merges and for that I apologize to everybody, without exception, here and at the talkpages of the two articles. Not a mistake I intend to make again. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi John and all, AusLondonder has reverted my premature closure of Fast Car (Jonas Blue song), but has also left the Jonas Blue information at Fast Car. I have asked him to revert on his talkpage in view of the heavy snow, but has just resulted in further "discussions". It seems a petulant, pointy and pointless edit. As AusLondonder brought the matter here, I thought I would add a note here, too. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem here, all good consensual editing. Not impressed however by Auslondoner's pointy bits. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have never ever sought to be pointy. If a good faith creator opposes a merge should they allow it with input from only one other editor after one day of discussion? That doesn't seem fair to me. I think it's sad editors who have disagreed with me on other matters rush here to condemn my every move in a way that would never happen to other editors. I reverted the early close because I don't think one day and one other editor equates to consensus. That's such an integral part of the merging policy. I also can't understand the rush. Will the sky fall in if we allow a separate article to stand for a few days? But if an un-involved editor wishes to close as merge I will be disappointed but accept the community consensus. It's disheartening that when people put genuine work into content creation (as I do) other editors seek to rely on the most rigid reading of policy to delete that work. @John: I'd really be intrigued to know what I have done that you feel would warrant sanctions or raises "red flags"? Anyway I'm going to take a WP:WIKIBREAK for a couple of days after this. I feel a little dismayed with the way office politics and WP:WIKILAWYERING is allowed to influence so much of what goes on here. I'm not throwing my toys out of my pram and I'll be back soon, much to the disgust of many editors I'm guessing :). I just feel like I need a little break from the irritation and stress of endless bickering that gets in the way of building a good encyclopaedia for readers AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • People seldom do seek to behave badly, it is something that creeps up on us. That is why we need to listen to the critical feedback of others who we trust. When every single person who comments has disagreed with you, it is worth at least considering that you have got it wrong, rather than positing conspiracy, bad faith or whatever. Edits like this one (check edit summary) show disappointingly little understanding of how this looks to those of us who utterly do not care about the subject matter. I'll spell it out for you; you look ridiculous. The misunderstanding of NSONGS is forgiveable, but the shrill, strident, angry behaviour that has followed your misunderstanding is highly off-putting. Bringing the matter (in which you were completely wrong) to this admin board and continuing to argue that you were right when every single person disagrees with you, continuing to revert, continuing to insult your opponent even after he has apologised and moved on; these are the issues I would identify as "red flags" in your behaviour. It's not obligatory that you apologise as Richhoncho has done, but I think it is important that you learn from this so you do not waste everybody's time and energy on a future occasion. You did ask. --John (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, @John: thank you for showing off your startling lack of self-awareness. It actually sounds like you are recalling your bed behaviour about sourcing see Talk:British National Party#Tabloids. A discussion was began about the issues you raised at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Seeking clarification and remember what happened - the consensus went against you. Damn! But you weren't having that. Oh, no. You basically said "get stuffed" and kept editing directly against consensus to suit your own personal agenda. In your wise words "When every single person who comments has disagreed with you, it is worth at least considering that you have got it wrong". But sometimes it's important to remember the saying "Do as I say, not as I do". You talk about bad faith and being "shrill and strident". What an astoundingly ironic statement. Do you recall your behaviour at Talk:Terry Wogan? Do you recall when who failed to assume good faith accusing me and others of "nationalism"? Do you recall when you abused editors involved in the discussion, some having been here for 10 years, calling them "ignorant blow-ins"? On another note do you remember saying in that same discussion "A few days to finish the discussion won't kill you" - a principle that only seems to apply to discussions you are losing. When a consensus was reached at the talk page (in two sections) you again ignored it and used an edit summary to say "rv nationalist POV pushing; get a grown up to do this for you please". And then above you criticise me for my edit summary removing harassment from my talkpage, as I am completely entitled to do. Again, to quote one editor, "I'll spell it out for you; you look ridiculous". No one likes a hypocrite mate. AusLondonder (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review: Shootingstar88

    Shootingstar88 (talk · contribs) is an editor who got off to a rough start, including when it comes to interaction with me, but eventually proved to a valuable editor. That stated, Shootingstar88 also ran into trouble regarding WP:Copyright and WP:Plagiarism issues, with warnings and an indefinite block from/by Diannaa. Diannaa began monitoring Shootingstar88's edits and talk page, and, as seen in this section, has indefinitely blocked Shootingstar88 again. Shootingstar88 argued that effort was taken not to engage in a copyright or plagiarism violation again, and that there were limited ways to reword the latest text in question. In other words, Shootingstar88 believed the text was okay per Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing. I told Diannaa and Ohnoitsjamie (who turned down Shootingstar88's request for an unblock) the following: "Looking at the comparison between the texts above, I see a genuine effort on Shootingstar88's part to avoid copyright and plagiarism violations. It's certainly better than Shootingstar88's previous efforts. Furthermore, I commonly see Wikipedia editors (including the experienced types) reword such text in those ways. How does Shootingstar88's rewording not fall under Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing?" I pinged Moonriddengirl for an opinion, but Moonriddengirl is very busy these days and has already tried to help Shootingstar88.

    I understand why Diannaa has indefinitely blocked Shootingstar88, but I'm not sure that it's best for Wikipedia that this editor remain indefinitely blocked, especially since this editor is adding important content and is helping to balance out the POV-pushing going on at the sex differences/gender differences articles and similar. Shootingstar88 wants a review of the block from the community, which is why I brought the matter here. I suggested it, but warned Shootingstar88 that the community might oppose an unblock and the WP:Standard offer is likely the last chance after that. Since this topic is not just a matter of administrative opinion, and since WP:ANI is often more active than WP:AN, I opted to address it here instead of at WP:AN. Below is a comparison (by Shootingstar88) of the disputed text.

    Click on this to see the text comparison.

    Book: ...Man had right and duty to protect the "weaker" sex and woman had the right to man's protection.

    My edit: Although women had the right for receive protection from men and men the duty to protect women....

    Book: He granted women to be in charge of the household but spared her the weighty judgments for which was ill-equipped by declaring men to be in charge of running the world.

    My edit: Kant argued women's role to primarily be in the household and men in charge of running the world

    Book: According to Kant, only white men had the intellectual and moral capacity for political and leadership roles.

    My edit:Immanuel Kant declared that only white men had enough moral and capable intellect for leadership roles such as in politics

    Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Without commenting on the case: do we really need sections here? This isn't a "vote" like an RFA. only (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You or someone else can feel free to remove the section headings; I added them because such sections are common for cases like these and I felt it would be cleaner (especially as far as mixing arguments with the "Support block" or "Oppose block" material goes). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block reviews belong at WP:AN, not ANI. Please move this thread there, or have someone else move it, or someone reading this please move it. Softlavender (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen that it's the case that block reviews only happen at WP:AN. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block. Shootingstar88's command of the English language is way too incompetent to be editing English Wikipedia trying to add substantive content. The fact that they are an SPA pushing an agenda, and not comprehending copyright policy and what close-paraphrase consists of, only compounds the WP:CIR problem. Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: For what the aforementioned headings looked like, see this edit by Softlavender. Besides "Support indefinite block" and "Oppose indefinite block" options, I suggested a "Give a WP:Standard offer deal" option. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:STANDARDOFFER. It's part of any indef block (that's why it's "standard"). It also requires waiting for six months before requesting it. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I need to read that essay when I'm already aware of it? Editors commonly endorse standard offers instead of an indefinite block in cases such as these; I should know, considering how long I've been with Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STANDARDOFFER isn't "instead of an indefinite block". As I mentioned, it is part of any indefinite block, and one has to wait for six months before requesting it. "Indefinite" does not mean "infinite"; an indefinite block is "a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration". Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, do stop treating me like a newbie; I do not need to be told what WP:Standard offer states, and I do not need to be reminded that "indefinite does not mean infinite," especially since that is clear by the WP:Standard offer essay, and I have seen it stated by a variety of editors for years. I stated, "Editors commonly endorse standard offers instead of an indefinite block in cases such as these." I shouldn't have to point to threads showing exactly that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep saying "Editors commonly endorse standard offers instead of an indefinite block in cases such as these.", but that's not true. WP:STANDARDOFFER is not something proposed "instead of an indefinite block" (that wouldn't make sense, as one is a block and the other is an unblock request). WP:STANDARDOFFER is automatically part of any indefinite block, unless someone is site-banned and it is also explicitly stated that any attempts at a request for a standard-offer unblock will likely be refused. I think what you are recalling is people proposing "indefinite block with WP:STANDARDOFFER" (a way of deliberately re-affirming that if the user reforms they can possibly come back in six months). There is no "instead of". Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, since you don't know what I mean, even after it has been displayed by KrakatoaKatie (also simply known as Katie) below, I do not see the point in continuing this discussion with you. I didn't see the point from the beginning. Some editors will state that they do not endorse an indefinite block, but that they support a WP:Standard offer proposal. You may find that contradictory, but it happens. Other editors will state they support the indefinite block and are open to the WP:Standard offer. And then there are editors who will state that they support the indefinite block and are not open to the WP:Standard offer. That is what I mean, and it has been displayed countless times at WP:AN, WP:ANI and elsewhere. Any issue with how editors apply WP:Standard offer is not necessarily my issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. The wording is uncanny and it's quite obvious that the book was copy-pasted then a few words were taken out. As much as I appreciate Shootingstar's efforts, it's easy to call copyright on this one. Even I could had written better than that. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block I'd be open to the standard offer, which will give Shootingstar88 ample time to understand the copyright policies. Katietalk 03:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn block - The allegedly plagiarized lines shown above are totally fine so long as they are footnoted for the original source of the idea. I suspect the politicized subject matter is the actual cause of this rhubarb. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn block. Backing up Carrite; I can't see how these sentences count as plagiarism. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn If the block was made for those edits there is something wrong. You could switch a word around or two but in order to make it not resemble the original source at all you would have to make a ham-handed phrasing that would look terrible. Some information really does have a limited amount of ways it can be conveyed. The hatted phrasing seems a genuine attempt to avoid copyright/plagurism issues. No comment on previous conduct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from Diannaa, the blocking admin. I first issued a warning to Shootingstar88 on December 19 for copyright violations on Neuroscience of sex differences . The violation was noticed while investigating a report of copyvio by a different editor to that article that appeared on the bot report User:EranBot/Copyright/rc/17. I issued a second warning when the bot detected violations on Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test on January 17. I began daily monitoring of the user's contribs, and blocked on January 21 when I detected a copyright violation on Sex differences in crime. He was unblocked on January 23 after he assured me that he now understood copyright law and wouldn't do it any more. I resumed daily monitoring of the user's contribs. Further violations were noted on February 6, and another warning issued. Further violations were noted on February 10, and another warning issued. Further violations were noted on February 17, and the block issued. The edit in question is this one. The material regarding Kant is an example only. Here is a comparison of the full edit, with identical material in bold:
    • Aristotle. Source: "...resulting from their lack of heat. He claimed that women's coldness transformed male embryos into females, thereby thwarting their development into the pure human type. To Aristotle, women were essentially misbegotten males, cursed by nature with lamentable physical and emotional deficiencies, and useful only for reproduction." Shootingstar88's edit: "Aristotle argued that because of a lack of "heat", women's coldness converted male embryos into females and stopping their development into the "pure human" which is male. He further clarified that women were only useful for reproduction and had physical and emotional deficiencies."
    • Plato. Source: "...defined the primordial human state as male and declared that women, who exist several steps below men and the gods, exist to punish men for their sensual desires." Shootingstar88's edit: "For example in his greek dialogues Timaeus, he defined the fundamental state of human nature as male and argued women only exist to punish men for their psychological desires."
    • Kant. Source: "...man had the right and duty to protect the weaker sex, and woman had the right to man's protection. He granted woman control of the household, but he spared her the weighty judgements for which she was ill-equipped by declaring man in charge of the rest of the world. ... According to Kant, only white men had the intellectual and moral capacity for political and other leadership roles." Shootingstar88's edit: "Although women had the right for receive protection from men and men the duty to protect women, Kant argued women's role to primarily be in the household and men in charge of running the world. Known for his negative views on the abilities of other races and women, Immanuel Kant declared that only white men had the moral and intellectual capacity for leadership roles especially in politics."
    My opinion is that this is a copyright violation, as it presents exactly the same material in the same order, and uses wording that is only superficially changed from the original. Carrite's comment that the subject matter was the reason for the block has no basis in fact. — Diannaa (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented Diannaa's comparison lines to make it a little bit easier to read. Please feel free to undo if it changes the intent. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block but limit duration. I don't see any reason to believe that Diannaa's action was improper, and that would be the only reason to overturn this sort of block. However I'm not comfortable with this being a closed case. As far as I can tell several users have tried to explain our copyright policies to Shootingstar88 and they are obviously open to hearing criticism and trying to learn. This thread reflects what I see on their talk page: lots of "this is a bad edit" and "this is what the policy says" but I don't think anyone has ever attempted "here's how this edit would be better". Offer some examples of what would make the material better conform to policies. Everyone knows cut-and-paste edits are bad, but balancing content creation with avoiding plagiarism and close paraphrasing is a much trickier thing that can take some time to learn, not to mention finding the narrow space between copying a source and synthesizing/misrepresenting it. Hell I'm not really sure I even get it most of the time. Shootingstar88 is trying to learn. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block Given the number of times the user has been warned about this. As others have noted, the changes to the text were strictly superficial, and the user's comment Now I understand that wikipedia is like super super touchy about even the slightest form of similarity or resemblance even though you can probably get away with these kinds of stuff in college is telling. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block per Dianaa and Ohnoitsjamie. It says a lot about that college if it doesn't teach academic rigour to the point that plagiarism is something one can "probably get away with". Blackmane (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block, but remit to time served if someone can be found to reach out to the user and coach them in what is and is not permitted, more or less per Ivanvector. Plagiarism and copyright are quite difficult areas for some people. I feel with the right support this is a user who could be productive. --John (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Ivanvector - by unblocking this user, we are essentially teaching them that their behaviour was OK as they got unblocked for it in the end, which is ridiculous. I agree that the user should remain blocked, but for a shorter period of time, and if they continue to post copyright violating material, they should be subject to an indefinite block as they will have lost the community's trust. --Ches (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Conspiracy theorist in wikipedia.

    A complete non issue. User:Galgarian has not edited since a bunch of test edits in April 2015. Blackmane (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Galgarian spreads lies about some "global conspiracy" to just about everywhere in wikipedia. Please stop that nutcase user now.176.93.68.182 (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Rename "La Sallian educational institutions"

    Page moved. WP:RM should have been your first destination, but, this worked out just fine. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Summary: please swap "Lasallian educational institutions" with "La Sallian educational institutions", so that the article, as it always was until recently, reverts to "Lasallian educational institutions", with the other name a #REDIRECT, or deleted.

    Detail:
    The long-standing article "Lasallian educational institutions" was recently moved to "La Sallian educational institutions" because "more appropriate spacing and capitalization for title". This move is actually wrong, and is WP:OR; a quick glance at any of the Lasallian Web site shows that it the term is always "Lasallian"[1][2], never either "La Sallian" or, as had also got into the article, "LaSallian". I find I can't move it back, as the Move page for "Lasallian educational institutions", now a redirect, does not allow a new name to be entered. I would have:

    • temporarily moved "Lasallian educational institutions" to "Lasallian educational institutionsX",
    • then moved "La Sallian educational institutions" to ""Lasallian educational institutions",
    • and finally "Lasallian educational institutionsX" to "La Sallian educational institutions" (though this last redirect is not needed as it's never used, and could be deleted).

    This should be uncontroversial: there is a discussion in the article's Talk where there is unanimous consensus that the move should be made [i.e. mine is the only opinion expressed :-) ]. Consequently, could I please ask that the names of "Lasallian educational institutions" and "La Sallian educational institutions" be swapped, so that the actual article is "Lasallian"? Thanks.

    1. ^ Christian Brothers University - LASALLIAN TRADITION - Lasallian Mission (sic)
    2. ^ "Lasallian Education – Christian Brothers Conference (sic)".

    (I'd generally expect to do this sort of thing myself; if I could have done it I'd be grateful for information on how to do it without wasting others' time. I was unable to move the article to any name.) Pol098 (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm new to this, but I think I made the change you wanted. Let me know if I screwed up. Willondon (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, thanks. Pol098 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block evasion by Akash3141

    Goodbye indeed. IP blocked one week. (non-admin closure) 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Akash3141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indef blocked: [161]

    Akash3141 self identifies as 2.220.128.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [162]

    Akash3141 continues to edit: [163] [164]

    Can we get an IP block? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No
    Did I do anything wrong with my edits?--2.220.128.78 (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. By editing as an IP (which as Akash3141, you have confirmed is the same person as you), you are evading your indef block which is not allowed. See WP:EVADE and WP:BMB. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh shit okay.. I thought that only my user account was blocked. But oh well, I guess it's goodbye then :'( .. It looks like the UT page has been reduced to even more crap than it was when I started especially since the whole character section has been removed and someone even got applauded by media for it.. The only things it looks like was added to UT after all my edits was what Tom Fordy said about him and that he's one of the finest performers. What a shame. Maybe you guys should read other wrestlers' wikis and how they actually make the wrestlers sound like a big deal. What a shame that UT, arguably the greatest professional wrestler has a crap as f*** wikipedia page. Where backstage fights and trivial information is allowed to be on one wrestlers' page, prominent leadership roles and world records aren't allowed to be mentioned on anothers'. There's no flow, no rules. Only rule is that the UT page shouldn't make him sound good but every other wrestler's should. Anyway, i'm done. --2.220.128.78 (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    They are coming to get me, apparently

    Socks have been put back in the drawer. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Anyone know which particular group of numpties this is likely to be? [165]. I am assuming it's the same as [166], which I suppose means GamerGate or some such, but it's all so incoherent I don't really know (also ping @Gamaliel: who may know something). Guy (Help!) 13:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There's some minor chatter about your editing on Orpheus (band), but that's all I can find. Most of the obvious doxxing has gone underground in the places I usually check. Gamaliel (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Bizarre. All they need to do is present better sources, instead they seem to be determined to have a lovingly crafted advertisement. Fans of minor bands behave oddly on Wikipedia I suppose, they always have. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nezi1111 - Disruptive editing, edit warring, and personal attacks

    (non-admin closure) User was indeffed by Ian.thomson for "Disruptive editing: WP:EW, WP:NPA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, mostly at Racism and its talk page". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nezi1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Today Nezi1111 just got off a two week block by C.Fred for edit warring (3rd such block). User immediately blanks user talk page ([167]), reinstates repeatedly-undone edit on the lead sentence of Racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (today's edit compared to past ones [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177]) which constitutes long-term edit warring, and then makes unfounded accusations of socking against Maunus ([178]).

    This user is disruptive and appears to be NOTHERE. Proposing indef block. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Continues edit warring while making sock accusation again ([179]) and reinstated sock accusation on talk page ([180]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See Talk:Racism#Definition for general poor behavior including starting the section with "Do not change definition. This is wikipedia, not a Huffpost/FoxNews blogpost. thank you." EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't blanck. I rewrote definition so it will be more in line with source given, Oxford dictionary.Nezi1111 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I don't understand the aggressiveness of your attack on me. Instead of looking in the reason why i suspect User:Steroid Maximus. I suspect it of the limited edit user:Steroid Maximus made in the last year. Literally 3 in 2015 and said edits were insignificant. Users appearance and subsequent disappearance after tipping the argument scale to which user:Maunus responded immediately is timely in a hotly contested concusses argument don't you think? Nezi1111 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I voiced my suspicion of a WP:Sock violation. My suspicion is that User:Steroid Maximus is a sock puppet account and has been used to tip the balance of a consensus argument. My comment on the talk page was reverted without my approval by User talk:EvergreenFir. Also, I have not be contacted by Evergreen to discuss my suspicion, instead I was instantly reported. Nezi1111 (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You accused User:Maunus of sockpuppetry. Did you contact him first to ask about it? That combined with your edits seems enough for an ANI report. And you are clearly edit-warring. I have just reverted you. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I accused User:Steroid Maximus of being a WP:Sock. I SUSPECTED User:Maunus being the hand in the socket, User:Maunus being the most aggressive advocate to redefine the word itself. Hence why i wrote possibly. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    i contacted him on the talk page. he hasn't gotten back to me yet. Also, you haven't contacted me either about your views on the issue. you simply reported me. Nezi1111 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see you commenting on that user's talk page ([181]) and the only mention of socking was today. You didn't contact them, you accused them without evidence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    i commented on the talk page the debate is taking place, the Racism Talk page. I also linked his username, so he'll definitely get a notification. Also, i didn't see you commenting on my talk or racism talk page before reporting me either. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Continuation of disruptive behavior within 24 hours of block release is usually grounds for immediate re-block. I chose ANI instead given your personal attacks. You had been given final warnings multiple times. There was no need to issue another. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Commment I would like to add that the edit war on said issue, the definition of racism has been going on since before i got involved. Also, user maunus, whom i initially suspected behind the sockpupet account had been warned by multiple other users NOT TO CHANGE the definition. I would like to point you to multiple Sections the the Racism talk page that ask either not to change the definition or not to use it as an activism page(if i recall correctly).Nezi1111 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Which "multiple other"? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    multiple. mostly indirectly, by asking editors, i even read the term SWJs, not to change the definition of racism. I can see multiple instances on talk page which this has been asked of editors, not knowing the crusade to redefine racism has been led by one or 2 very aggressive individuals, who have been edit warring over the definition since 2015 at least( I didn't bother to look further back). I also asked mainly user:maunus not to misuse the source used to reference the definition, of of course. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point to the requests... also you're using WP:BATTLEGROUND language... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gladly. I don't even have to go in the archives. The following Talk:Racism sections ask users not to change definition:
    1. .Practice vs. belief?
    2. .Editor Bias
    3. .Improper Definition

    these means at least 3 user over a period of time against changing the definition. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Reporting User:EvergreenFir is misusing source material to support his/her own agenda wich is in violation of WP:NPOV. Source given for definition says nothing about racism consisting of ideologies and practices that seek to justify or cause the unequal distribution of privileges or rights Nezi1111 (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to respond to Nezi1111 about how he should provide diffs when making accusations, about WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and so on, but then he reverted again while citing WP:BRD as if it was "BDR" or "BRRD," even though it should be pretty clear that he needs to just back away from the article. Indef blocked for disruptive editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Martimc123

    If someone here is familiar with User:Martimc123 (blocked or banned sockpuppeteer), they can perhaps check out the situation with User:WrestlingPS456 and User:Naitoelingobernable and take swift action instead of relying on a slower WP:SPI (considering that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123 has been opened since 12 February)? Fram (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and you can add User:109.49.161.139 to the above. I don't know enough about the situation or the topic o swiftly judge whether they should just be blocked, or whether their creations and edits should also be reverted / deleted or judged on a cae-by-case basis. Fram (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rushlocmllrudo is also going around the same articles removing speedy deletion templates. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Question regarding redacting multiple edits

    Edits have been readacted and page is protected, NAC RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In the past day or two there are a number of new accounts and IP editors that have been adding content to the page Dr. Luke calling him a rapist due to claims made by the singer Ke$ha [182]. While the claims are strong, he has not been convicted or charged with any crime as of yet. My concern is that having edits calling him a rapist is a direct violation of our WP:BLP policy, and may fit the definition of RevDel due to the addition of offensive or possibly libelous content. Can an admin have a look, and redact these edits if needed please? If I'm reaching with this, let me know as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear BLP violations, so I have rev-deleted them and semi-protected the article. I'll watchlist it and will act further if it continues after the protection expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that! RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Yo Gotti

    (non-admin closure) Taken care of. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This IP user continuously changes the infobox picture of Yo Gotti without any reason. The previous one is the cropped and the better version of the current picture. I gave the IP a warning but they ignored it and revert my edit. --Eurofan88 (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:TAGTEAM, WP:YESPOV and breach of WP:CONSENSUS at Political Correctness

    Currently, there is an RfC about the lead at Political Correctness, specifically about the term "primarily". The language RfC at talk is about changing it. All randomly browsing linguist editors voted for a third option to replace it with: "often".

    Yet a group of three WP:TAGTEAM hound this article: Aquillion (history), Fyddlestix (history) and Pincrete (history). Their modus operandi is revert warring together. No one can beat them in straight up control of this article. The only way to beat them is by a vote which is currently against them, yet even then they try their hardest to pretend the concensus is for them.

    The issue that ignited this ANI report is the fact that I now wanted to add a dubious tag to the "primarily" since the concensus is against it. I were reverted by Aquillion who claimed that "primarily" is long-standing (3 months now). The RfC is as old as the addition of the primarily, and random editors have tried removing pejorative altogether in the meantime. It's clearly a very controversial description. I did one revert of that removal of the dubious tag and explained that the concensus is against and that from the next revert I'd take the matter to ANI. I were blunt because I were more than certain I'd just get reverted again by one of the other meatpuppeteers, with them avoiding edit war but me being lead to one. I were then shortly reverted by Pincrete, stating that there is no reason for the tag since there is an RfC about it. If it is dubious then there is need for the dubious tag and it's to be talked about. Request for Comments is what RfC stands for, and there is "discuss" right next to the dubious marker. It fills the same niche but why would they override?

    The history of full of the three edit warring together and against people other than me. One reverts then another. It's such beautiful concert. At talk they have a history of appearing an hour apart from each other to vote, after having been away from the talk for 15-20 days with hundreds of posts and a large number of sections created in the meantime. The others don't need to argue when one handles it, but when you need to vote you of course need the whole gang. Someone even bothered to vote twice on a Kansas mobile phone IP at the talk. These three are the only ones opposing the change in addition to the mobile phone so I strongly suspect the mobile phone is one of them, especially since we haven't seen the mobile phone before the vote. Editing this article or even just talking at the talk is just a nightmare because of shady tactics like this.

    I had displayed bad faith in November (understandable in these circumstances) and an ANI report was made of me, with all of the three asking a block from editing only this article of me. The background to that ANI was that back then I noticed from the histories of the other articles related to Political Correctness that Aquillion had made similar POV edits. He had removed large, sourced chunks of text. I did reverts on multiple articles, and I were put up here for hounding and bad faith. None other but the three came forth with accusations. A Wikipedia employee then stepped in and warned me to stop hounding, which I weren't even familiar of before as a banned behavior. Of course I've never done anything similar after that. I also later swore to one of the three to never accuse of bad behavior when it's covert like I had but only when it's overt. But what is currently happening is very overt. In addition at one point I had actually made a meatpuppet report at SPI about the three, but the admin who closed it hadn't really read through well because he thought I had made the ANI report I just mentioned. I always bring the mistake up when one of the three (always the same one I argue with really) brings up that we already went through the investigation. I mentioned all of this because otherwise it would have been more than certainly guaranteed that they'll mention it and clutter it with untruths. None of what I wrote in this paragraph is an untruth. You'll see it because none of this paragraph's text will be denied. In addition my large numbers of edits to the talk will absolutely be brought up. Most of them edits are tiny typo edits since I usually just rush to post without looking for typos. In addition each is a reply to one of of the three...

    I request the dubious tag be added back for the duration of the RfC vote/discussion. There is strong opposition against the "primarily". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Brief reply by Pincrete The three editors Mr Magoo mentions (inc myself) are virtually the only regular editors on the page, therefore to speak of 'concensus' when all three oppose most of Mr Magoo's edits is nonsense. Since his arrival at this page, Mr Magoo has repeatedly made accusations of 'puppetry', lying etc. This has been the subject of a number of ANI's and an SPI, the closing editor on that SPI, Bbb23, said This is a baseless report brought by an editor who failed to obtain the results they wanted at ANI and then came here. The filer's spin on the evidence they've compiled is remarkably long but devoid of quality. Closing.. There is an open RfC on the disputed text (the second instigated by Mr Magoo on almost the same subject), the RfC has not yet been closed, but I defy anyone to conclude that there is anything remotely like a concensus to alter the disputed text.
    I will give a fuller account of any issues if anyone should wish, in the meantime I ask that someone close this ANI as peremptorily as did Bbb23.Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I wrote above, you always bring up that SPI about meatpuppetry. And like I just wrote, he hadn't really read through it because he thought I had listed the ANI mentioned there twice not to have been by me. And there is not as clear concensus in the RfC but there is blatant concensus that it is dubious whether it's primarily. In addition, there have been many editors who have tried to become regular editors of the page. Notably Valereee who opposed primarily but didn't want to fight. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, it seems like it was originally Valereee who tried to put "often" in the lead: 1. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Zezen was also scared off as he was tag team edit warred against, even after having my support. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't followed this particular situation but we all know the members of this WP:TAGTEAM and which admins give them cover. I expect one will be along shortly to close this request before any meaningful examination can take place. 107.107.56.19 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest Boomerang - The accusations of POV pushing and tag teaming are baseless, and absurd. As Magoo has repeatedly been told, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're part if a shadowy conspiracy. But Magoo has continually refused to assume good faith, despite multiple requests/warnings. They have been bludgeoning the discussion at Political Correctness for months now, exhausting others' patience to the point where pretty much everyone but Pincrete has basically tuned out the "debate." Not only are Magoo accusations here totally baseless, they're just the latest stunt in a very long, very severe pattern of disruptive behavior. This needs addressing. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Then why have all of you remained but as I mentioned the ones opposing you like Valereee and Zezen have been scared off? Consider the possibility that it's you three bludgeoning the discussion and tag teaming any disagreer. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Comment I don't have much time so I'll be brief and come back later to expand. Since I participated in the RfC in November (it's been that long) I noticed there were issues between at least Magoo and Pincrete, and kept an eye on it as a disinterested editor. In fact, that RfC which is finishing its third month (for comparison, all of WP:RFA2015 took 4 months from the idea RfC to implementation), is largely unreadable because of the bickering between Magoo and Pincrete on pretty much every single comment. This is a much more longstanding problem than the dubious tag, and think editors trying to resolve this, should look more at the long term issues between the parties than this isolated incident. I've got to go, but should be back to give a few more specific thoughts, and feel free to ask me questions or to clarify in the mean time if need be. Wugapodes (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Looking at how the discussion has progressed, I don't think I can add anything that hasn't been brought up. Wugapodes (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing of the adjective was brought up in the former RfC. It was a compromise suggestion. "Often" as a compromise was suggested by Valereee last October, as in long ago. All I'm fighting for anymore is even a compromise. They won't budge the slightest. On another note: If you look at my history I have taken a great liking to doing sometimes exhaustive research on WP:AfD and have largely forgotten about this article. What does this translate to? The bickering is largely solved if the compromise is met. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Magoo, could you please supply the evidence that … a) A consensus exists to support your proposed edits (other than your own interpretation of an open RfC) … b) any evidence that anything improper unites the three named editors, or that they share anything in common apart from a disagreement with most of your edits, (and a distaste for the waste of time incurred by your bludgeoning methods and personal attacks, which this ANI is the latest example of).
    This is not the place for a content dispute, but the lead should be a summary of the article, where in the article is there any evidence of extensive non-derogatory use of the term 'PC' (based on 2ndary RS studies of use, not personal interpretation of primary sources or anecdotal evidence). We cannot conjure compromises out of our head which bear no relationship to the article, nor to studies of the use of the term. I proposed an alternative compromise based on 'came to prominence as a pejorative term', (since everyone recognises that the term CAN BE used ironically and in many other ways, even though these may not have been studied) but you dismissed the proposal. Your appeal for 'compromise' is completely at variance with your behaviour.Pincrete (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Where did I claim support for "proposed edits"? I claimed there is concensus for it being dubious, which is plain. Your argument in reverting was that both dubious tag and RfC can't co-exist. Where's the logic in that? And if you look at the article's history I'm not the only one you have edit warred or bludgeoned against. Before me you were shooting down plenty of people on talk. Didn't I list like 8 editors before who had disagreed with you?
    And I agree this is not the sort of place for this sort of discussion, so why continue it yourself? We should close this discussion in one of the green folders, but I think it would be rude if I did right now so maybe you can follow up with it. And the article has numerous examples of non-pejorative uses, merely describing it as the mentality of censoring based on politics. In fact there is a dearth of pejorative examples. We even have a big section for Right-wing political correctness, listing cold usages of the term to describe political censoring. And when did you suggest that prominence bit? Where I saw you talk about that you only talked about the history of the term, leading me to think you were talking about the history section. You have before written that the article lead should not be about the current day usage but about the historic, right? What can I even respond to that? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A-ban from political correctness - A skimming of the talk page makes me think (1) this is sour grapes on the part of Magoo vis-a-vis the RfC , (2) this feud has been ongoing for many months, and (3) Magoo is treating the article as a battleground. Their behavior has been beyond poor. Back in November Magoo found it "funny" that Aquillion and Fyddle soon after each other on the RfC and suggested they were "telepaths". This is thinly veiled sock/meat accusations. Additionally Magoo replied to nearly every "often" or "primarily" response to the RfC, suggesting to me that they are approaching it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not a method of forming consensus. They also accuse an IP editor of voting twice in the past RfC and being the same person who commented in the Plane Art section. The IPs are related, but not identical and to suggest they are the same person is accusing them of socking without evidence. Moreover, Magoo segregated those two RfC comments by (1) putting them under a header and (2) specifying their location. Between the comments and behavior on the RfC, the November SPI closed by Bbb23 as baseless ([183]), and this ANI make me think Magoo should banned from the article. Magoo's other edits seem constructive and as far as I can tell there's no specific topic that's being disrupted or targeted here, just this specific article. For the sake of the editor and the encyclopedia, removing this editor temporarily from this article seems like the best course of action to me. I think this would be more effective than an i-ban given the number of editors involved and what appears to be the lopsidedness the problem behaviors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IPs are from the same part of Kansas using the same phone company posting at nearly the same time of the day and in a rare fashion also always adding a period after a vote. The talk page has very few partakers. I don't know how much more clear you can get that it's the same person. AND since you mentioned something I had written about the two named editors I also happened to now remember that the first and the last began editing the article days apart in May 2015, cracking up hundreds of edits without bothering each other. And it's silly to only accuse me of battleground behavior when I'm been a victim of it as well. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not the victim here, sorry. Your behavior is atrocious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explain why? I point out the obvious and I get punished for it? The ones reported plainly participating in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TAGTEAM behavior in baiting me to edit war you see nothing wrong with? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: Could you expand on why you think an i-ban wouldn't be an effective option? I understand your point a bit, but would rather hear a bit more from you because I'm not entirely convinced. Wugapodes (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes: In my understanding, ibans are for when two editors simply cannot get along or they antagonize each other. One-way ibans are for when one editor hounds/harasses/antagonizes another. But that's not what's going on here. There are multiple editors "against" one. The issues seems to be more the article itself and Magoo's behavior on it than the editors' interactions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I exhibited bad behavior in November on this article but not since? It's been incredibly quiet since December. Just look at the number of messages on talk, not edits (I make lots of typo corrections). What exactly are you accusing me of? What message in particular? The only ones that been pointed were the ones towards the two IPs which I showed have such similarities that if you fed it through an odds calculator you'd pretty much end up with only the possibility that it's the same editor (you can do this. Same principle as at https://amiunique.org/. Just visit that site and you'll find that you're most likely unique due to so many little things attributing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead itself is a content dispute. The bigger issue here is Mr. Magoo's behavior on talk, which I feel has been fairly WP:TENDENTIOUS, focused on WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. The actual disputes are often relatively minor (sometimes focused on as little as one-word differences), and there have been some compromises; but he refuses to drop anything for good, ever, constantly bringing up old disagreements, and has made it clear on many occasions that he feels that he's there on the talk page to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by fighting what he views as (as he implies above) as a cabal of POV pushers. He mentions that few people participate on that talk page now, but I think that the reason for this has more to do with the way his intransigence on even the most minor points have reduced it to a sprawling, unreadable mess. While the page has been relatively quiet recently, some examples of recent edits he's made on talk that illustrate the problem include his failure to WP:AGF here and here, his tone here, and his hostile focus on irrelevant details eg. here. I also think it's worth pointing out that he's been involved in another dispute nearly identical to this one on Talk:Veganism (where he has since agreed not to edit); see the report here for discussing regarding it. I feel the fact that the exact same events played out there between him and unrelated editors shows that the problem is him and not us. I particularly invite people to compare his behavior as reported on Talk:Veganism with the behavior I described in an earlier report about this here (with many more detailed links). Based on all this, I'm suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG. I don't doubt that he believes he is fighting the good fight against a tag-team of POV pushers, but I think that the way he goes about conducting these disputes (and his unwillingness to WP:AGF about editors he strongly disagrees with on certain political topics) is at the root of the problems on the page. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd first of like to point there were people who disagreed with me in the first RfC, other than you three. I didn't bother any of these people. Why is that? Where is your suggested WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here? Why have you made numerous editors run away from the article in the past, having won arguments against them by bludgeoning and by sheer numbers? And when it comes to dropping the stick, I originally I disagreed much more strongly in this matter. Generally nor often were my choice originally. They are the compromise. You have pretty much never ever dropped the WP:STICK when against anyone. And when it comes to the other article, it was about WP:EDITWARring over a mention of animal products. How is this in any way related to this matter? You just went digging for dirt to sling, didn't you? In addition, I'm still allowed to partake at the talk there since it was about edit warring (per discussions with hander). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Those diffs solidify my suggestion for a-ban. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did use that term that after I had learned it at the ANI about me you had made in your own WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality but only vaguely and not like now as a report and the reason was that they were actually plainly talking about tactics on user talk. You don't think that's team-like behavior? And is that your only relation? Wait, after that you point out a bit where they say I made a large number of edits there as well, pointing out the Fyd quotation where he says I made the hundreds of edits to the current article's talk. Is the matter at hand the number of typo corrections I make? Is it against Wikipedia's rules to respond to every reply you get? Notice how they don't point out anything else. The subject matter was the edit war that had taked place and only because I had accidentally partaken it at the end. If you notice the last edits weren't even about the warred bit but of citation templates and that bit was just got taken on a ride. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE!

    I'd just like to point out that this notice is not about seeking any punishments for some vague tag-teamism — I know blocks aren't handed out for anything vague — but just the return of the dubious tag. I listed the tag-teamism because I may easily go overboard in my arguments for something more petty, according to some. This request got lost in the mess as I hadn't thickened it or anything. If you were gracious you'd let this bit be at the bottom so it can be seen what the request was and was not. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You committed 90% of your text to complaining about users and titled the section about them. This was not about the dubious tag. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because otherwise it looks like multiple editors removed the dubious and superficially it looks like concensus. I had to prove why it's not. I do get carried away. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The subject of this ANI aside, after being pinged, I can only confirm that after my sourced edit with the historical usage of the word which was trimmed down 90%, I do not touch this entry with a barge pole nor follow its Talk page. Zezen (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • ABAN for Mr. Magoo. On Wikipedia, consensus does not mean keep asking until you get the answer you want. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I'm not alone? You have completely misunderstood the situation now. I'm pinging SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢, Bryan Henderson (giraffedata), Kerdooskis, BurtReynoldsy and Martin Hogbin who all voted for often. I'm not asking any of them to talk about what this notice is about but about the fact that they voted for often. Again, I am not alone here. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to begin with what am I even supposed to be guilty of this time? Everything is by the book? Talking too much? With the same logic my counter-arguer is just as guilty? Are we all just supposed to agree? That's 1984's version of concensus. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A crazy witch hunt Mr. Magoo and McBarker is indeed not alone. I have just been banned! for... Talking too much? Editing by the book? Are we all just supposed to agree? That's 1984's version of concensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently they now punish for talking to two people at once at a talk page? I looked at the Talk and you've only been replying to people, nothing else. And they wonder why editors are leaving — these rules are bizarre! To top it all of you were right there because most people have voted NO in the vote. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This notice is just about the return of the Dubious tag, not about any actions for the vague teaming. — — I'm moving this at the bottom here again because people posted in this subsection (I shouldn't have made it a subsection). Please post above this. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Magoo, I am unclear from your postings whether you STILL believe that Aqu Fydd and I are part of some sock/meat/tag arrangement. You seem to be implying that it really isn't important to you any longer and only a tag matters. If that is the case, … a) It is important TO ME, I take great offence at having this accusation thrown around like confetti, literally 100s of times now, towards me and others, despite you having been asked, told and warned many times to either present the evidence or drop it, to 'put up or shut up'. … …b)Are you really saying now that this whole ANI was started by you in order to restore a tag? Without even asking anyone why it was removed? Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked people to post above the bit... And vague tag-teamism will obviously lead to nothing as we've already been through. And the whole concept of bad faith is incredibly vague as well because when someone commits blatant vandalism and he is listed here then does the lister not show bad faith? It boggles the mind how the rule is supposed to be applied. And I brought it up this time because the reverts happen in plain team formation. I'd at least expect a discussion first but you always revert before even discussing anymore. You're just stuck to the formation now. The article is dead in the water pretty much. Remember that extra section I wanted to add? The two appeared at the talk who even seemed to support it. But they don't want to argue. You and me are the only ones who have the energy to argue but you've got the backing of a team to vote and revert. The two do pretty much nothing else anymore at the article. How you do imagine it simply feels from my perspective? I try add a well-sourced Baa Baa Sheep of my own but it gets removed instantly. No one wants to edit this article or talk at the talk. I create an RfC not even believing I'll get much support but then I do from all who appear. Yet even then you act like it's not concensus. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I forgot to mention that yes it was supposed to be. It was meant to be one of those short ones but then it grew and grew as a I built my case for the tag. At some point it had grown so big that I couldn't really map it out in my head anymore and that's why it looks a bit messy and broken and it doesn't list the names of the supporters to begin with or something. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    inappropriate NAC

    Please note that I have reverted this wholly inappropriate nac, by a random ip who has made no other edits. A sanction has been proposed and is gaining some support, I don't think the nac was appropriate and frankly find it suspicious. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think it was inappropriate as well. I don't dare to suspect any IPs anymore because apparently it's against the rules. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I apologize if this isn't the right noticeboard. I'm not that familiar with "listing rules". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed your link Fyddlestix. (Non-administrator comment) This issue is far larger than just that "primarily" upon which it started. I don't believe it can be solved so simply. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 20:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the NAC was incorrect. In my opinion, an incorrect NAC of an RFC is any NAC when the RFC is properly formed and has been running for less than 30 days. The suggestion to take the content dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard would have been a reasonable one if there weren't already an RFC. DRN doesn't accept a dispute that is being resolved elsewhere, such as RFC, and RFC trumps DRN. The IP should be warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Isaiah Richardson Jr.

    And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please see Isaiah Richardson Jr.. --109.144.170.232 (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Restored article text and added to my watchlist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Random Blanking of Pages (SPI Needed!)

    All accounts have been blocked indefinitely. (non-admin closure) Exempted (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On articles such as Wikivoyage, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc. The following accounts (and possibly more) have been blanking these types of articles at random: Note that they are all most likley the same user:

    *UPDATE: The majority of these accounts are already blocked, but an SPI could confirm any sleepers via Checkuser, etc. Exempted (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Zurarirurero (talk · contribs)
    Jyoninjin (talk · contribs)
    Vikunrit (talk · contribs)
    Skoobikiw (talk · contribs)
    Dorondori (talk · contribs)
    Quiukqri (talk · contribs)

    If an admin could take a look into this (and possibly create an SPI) that would be great! Thanks! Exempted (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mathews Plamoottil appears to be unrelated to the rest. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, thanks for the correction. Exempted (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible veiled threat by IP editor on my user talk page

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

    A few hours ago, I received a series of weird messages on my user talk page (and I replied to them as well). Here's the diff of the full exchange [184]. The whole thing reads like some kind of a veiled threat (disguised as a caring voice) to discourage me from editing any articles about politicians connected to the ruling party in Singapore. (For context, ISD refers to Internal Security Department (Singapore) which can detain people without a trial). Looking back, I realize that at the time when I received the messages, I was coincidentally also involved in a (heated) discussion at Talk:Calvin Cheng (an article about a Singaporean politician).

    I am not sure how to react to this since I am a relatively new editor (3 months). I would have loved to forget the whole incident, but after reading WP:NPA, I am erring on the side of caution and reporting it. While the threat might just have been frivolous, it still worries me since it involves my offline life. I do not want to open myself (or my family) up for harassment by the government. I'm not sure of what steps to take further and would be glad to receive some advice. In addition, is there any way to check if this IP is a sockpuppet being used to harass me?  Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Those messages are beyond weird. I don't know if this follows WP:NPA, WP:NLT or WP:COI. I have replied to the IP if that's okay with you. Also, you forgot to notify the IP about the ANI thread. I have done so for you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Callmemirela: Thank you for your help and support. Apologies for not notifying the IP involved. Yup, it is perfectly fine to reply on my talk page. The reason I did not reply any more to the IP was because I was feeling a bit distressed at that moment.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the intent is for you to be distressed. Therefore, it appears as an attempt to create a WP:CHILLING EFFECT applied in the form of a threat on your personal safety. That is unacceptable. I advise that you be careful in editing, but do not stop editing unless there is substantial reasoning as to why not, so long as it does not exist in the form of a threat. If you feel a strong threat to your own personal safety, do not hesitate to contact emergency@wikimedia.org -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that the likelihood of that being necessary is incredibly low. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're wise to report it, and should always exercise caution editing biographies. From looking at the histories, I'd be tempted to wonder if it might be 203.125.172.2 (talk · contribs) and 59.189.180.12 (talk · contribs) hopping onto their mobile phone. More than tempted actually.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP has been given a warning about giving threats on Wikipedia. Further threatening comments from that IP (or in that IP range) should be treated with WP:RBI, or WP:NLT given their context. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Voidwalker: Thank you. This seems good for the moment. In case any further harassment attempts are made, I will let you know.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued harrassment by User:Herostratus

    User:Herostratus is harrassing me. I asked him to disengage ([185]), but he continued to make statements about me. So I asked again ([186]). Even after those two clear and polite requests, he has made another statement today which insinuates some unspecified political motivation ("we understand what you're doing, and... let's just say this: there's nothing wrong with politics, necessarily, but the person closing this RfC is not required to honor anyone's political ploys"). Herostratus seems to be an opinionated, tendentious editor who is taking a particular issue very personally and thinks he can read my mind. Can an admin please ask him to stop referencing me and perhaps suggest that he disengage from Debbie Does Dallas altogether if he cannot restrain himself. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs when reporting harassment or other conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, truth is a defense in this case.
    1. First of all User:Right Hand Drive is a WP:SPA, in fact a classic single purpose account. WP:SPA are allowed, I'm just pointing this out. I think it matters in this case.
    2. Second of all, User:Right Hand Drive has an interesting edit history. In no way shape or form am I suggesting that he might be sockpuppet -- I'll leave that for others to ponder. I do think he's an admirably quick study for picking up the nuances of Wikipedia policies, and I do wish he'd turn his talents to working on articles. Brand-new WP:SPA in particular are discouraged from dragging editors to ANI, as a general guideline. If anyone wants to point this out to him it might be a kindness.
    3. Third of all, I accused User:Right Hand Drive of manipulating the RfC process for his own end -- or trying to. This is not illegal or even that terrible a thing to do, and I never said it was. Many of use have done stuff for political advantage now and then, including probably me (not this overt, though), and one might even consider it clever and admirable, I suppose, depending. But it's true. Since it's true it's reasonable to point it out. ""we understand what you're doing, and... let's just say this: there's nothing wrong with politics, necessarily, but the person closing this RfC is not required to honor anyone's political ploys" is neither insulting nor false. It's just something that's worth pointing out to the closer IMO.
    How I know that User:Right Hand Drive is playing a political game? Well, without digging up the difs (I can if you want me to), let's see:
    1. We know for a fact that User:Right Hand Drive very very very badly wants the article Debbie Does Dallas to feature a click-to-play thumbnail of the film in the body of the article rather than as a link to Commons in the External Links section. It doesn't really matter, it's a minor issue, but without dragging out terms like "obsessive" let's just say that User:Right Hand Drive's entire Wiki-career is focused on this issue with laser-like intensity.
    2. We know for a fact that User:Right Hand Drive opened an RfC at a different article (A Free Ride) on the question of whether the click-to-play thumbnail in that article should be replaced with a link in the External Links section. Why? Ask him. It's very simple: "User:Right Hand Drive, why did you open that RfC at A Free Ride? Do you believe in the proposition that the click-to-play thumbnail should be replaced? If so, how do you jibe this with your opposite position on Debbie Does Dallas? If not, then why did you open the RfC?" These are question that need asking if we're going to proceed further, I think. They're reasonable questions I think. I can't ask these questions, but since User:Right Hand Drive decided to come here, maybe an admin will ask him? (I concluded that the answer to these question are self-evident, that User:Right Hand Drive is expecting the usual no-consensus-no-change result at his RfC (as I said, User:Right Hand Drive is a very fast learner about the mechanics of the Wikipedia for a brand new user!), which he can then leverage over at his favorite article (Debbie Does Dallas) to force a change.)
    We know for a fact that User:Right Hand Drive shut down another editor's RfC (!) (very bold for a brand-new editor!) at Debbie Does Dallas. Why? I'll leave it for wiser heads to contemplate whether or not this was to make sure his desired scenario went as he wished. (N.B.: the editor who did open the RfC there did close it, and I opened an idential one.)
    OK? Any other question, I'm here. Herostratus (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW here's a diff.... "You asked to be notified if there was an RfC on including the movie in Debbie Does Dallas. I have started an RfC about a similar case which has had a hardcore pornographic movie embedded since 2012. I believe the result of this RfC could be helpful in moving the discussion forward on Debbie Does Dallas" and so forth... I you want to believe take this on face value you are entitled to, I guess.. at the risk of repeating myself the question I would have is if you want to "mov[e] the discussion forward on Debbie Does Dallas then why fight to prevent an RfC there? ([187] (as I noted, after this User:Alsee, who is a regular editor, got the drift and shut down the RfC claiming privilege as the initiator (which isn't automatic and doesn't apply in this case -- you can't necessarily unilaterally shut down an RfC you initiate just because you've realized it might not go your way -- but she was stone adamant about it to the point of striking thru her (supposedly irrevocably released) contributions, so no use fighting that.) Hmmm... I see here that User:Alsee avows (I'd say accuses in this case) User:Right Hand Drive of being an alternate account. Is he? Let's ask him! I'd say that using an, er, alternate account to troll the Wikipedia to the point of trying to drag editors to ANI is not what we want editors to be doing here. Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Herostratus has just repeated the harrassment with a wall of text above and then come back over a hour later to do it again. Can someone please deal with this? I do not want to be the target of his obsession any longer. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting revdel

    And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This contains a very slightly modifided version of an edit revdeleted just before per RD2. Could a nice admin come and revdel it? 96.237.27.238 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    RD6ed. BethNaught (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin Mike_V making unexplained user right changes

    Duplicate of WP:AN#IPBE - IP block exemption removals. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    Mike_V (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appears to be making significant numbers of userright changes without notifying users, either in advance or at the time the rights are changed. He also does not seem to be consulting with the admins who previously issued the rights in question. Does his "maintenance" of userrights have consensus? Is there some pressing need for Mike to be removing rights issued to users years ago, particularly when they are still needed / being used? Nathan T 01:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're talking about IPBE, there's already a thread at WP:AN#IPBE - IP block exemption removals. Just as an FYI, if it is regarding IPBE, Mike did contact me regarding one of the accounts I added IPBE to. Elockid Message me 01:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    hurry up

    Edit revdeleted; user indeffed. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Block user:Jasonbourne213333 2602:306:3357:BA0:35FE:4761:3FC0:A24A (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Why?? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert McClenon, because of this. Quick, before some BLP-protecting admin hits rev/delete. Seriously, if someone posts here, look into it; don't break out Robert's Rules of Orders or whatever it's called. Thank you Materialscientist. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=706056024"