Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Admin assistance request: Removing a duplicate thread from an archive

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 91#Spacious and others
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Spacious and others

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)

Iaritmioawp, I think preventing this current thread from being auto-archived, twice [1], [2], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [3], [4] (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)

Arbitrarily stripping the context from a protester's earlier arrest. Citobun (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

uninvolved user comment -- I have to agree that this [5] 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)

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[6], and even Ecuador/Guatemala(!)[7]. 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) (Striking input by blocked sock.)

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)

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)

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)

I welcome your input on the content dispute. STSC (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [8], [9] 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.[10] 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) (Striking input by blocked sock.)

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)

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)

Many of your edits don't even have edit summary at all, and how about this c/e from you?[11] And many others I just cannot be bothered. STSC (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

STSC has now asked [12] 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) (Striking input by blocked sock.)

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)

I am going to continue beating this particular horse, regardless of how dead it is. Look at STSC's reaction[13] 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) (Striking input by blocked sock.)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[14], 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) (Striking input by blocked sock.)

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)

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)
• 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) (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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".[15][16] 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)

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)

To change the 'searched' into "broke into" has got to be intentional. STSC (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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.[17][18] They've been persistently disrupting my enjoyment of Wikipedia and must be stopped. STSC (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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 [19], 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 [20] [21] [22] [23]. When I reply to him, he says that I annoy him. [24] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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." [25] I used POV pusher because many other WP editors use it.[26]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• @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)

  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)

• 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)

  Those who reported me were themselves abusing multiple accounts. I was also wrongly reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive [27] 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)

• 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)

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

• 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 [28]. 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 [29], [30]. 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)

StanTheMan87 is making WP:personal attacks here and everywhere (e.g., using the word "nigger" [31], [32]). 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. [33] 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)

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 [34]. 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 [35]. And there are many many more where that came from. StanTheMan87 (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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" [36] 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)

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 [37]. 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)

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)

Boomerang: Proposed Topic Ban for Krzyhorse22

After reading through this saga here, noting:

1. This recourse to WP:ANI and others [38],[39],[40],[41],[42], 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 [43],[44]
3. WP:BATTLE mentality at Talk:Mohammed Omar
4. WP:NPA Personal attacks at Talk:Mohammed Omar [45]

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. WCM_email 12:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. WCM_email 12:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• 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 [46]. 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. [47] For these reasons, WCM's proposition should be denied.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• 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)

  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" [48]).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

  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)

  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, [49] and he often reports me, he's connected to User:LanguageXpert. He has used dozens of socks [50] and continues to use more. [51] 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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 [52], The New York Times, BBC News). Who is against this factual finding?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note - despite this user knowing this ANI debate is underway, he continues being uncivil to users who, it seems, who he disagrees with: [53]. 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)

  That editor stated: "Again, I have little desire to be drawn into a discussion based on edits I made eight years ago..." [54] and I told him: "We're not asking you to discuss anything, you may go without needing to come here again." [55] 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)

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)

• 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 - [56]. 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)

  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)

Yes Krzymeme22, just as you accused User:DocumentError of being a sock to my account (diff here [57]) ...without providing any evidence. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@StanTheMan87: Stop mocking their username. It's obnoxious and does you no credit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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 [58], 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 [59],[60]. 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)

  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)

Karma's a b!tch. StanTheMan87 (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't impress me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to here that Krispydream22. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

  I've warned you about WP:HARRASSING me and to WP:DROPTHESTICK. [61] 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. [62] [63] 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. [64] 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)

  • Honestly this view is in error. If you're not happy with the Independent or the Carnegie Center, try [65], [66], [67] and [68] 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)

    • 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)

• 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))

  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 [69], New Zealand [70], Pakistan [71] and I believe one is in the EU (likely Norway).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  I'm not impersonating a police officer.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

  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))

  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)

  @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))

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)

• SPI: User:Krzyhorse22 has been reported as a possible sock-puppet of User:Krzyhorse222 and User:Najaf ali bhayo at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo. As i, myself did not interact with him much, anyone is welcomed to present further evidence for this case. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

(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)

• User:Krzyhorse222 is clearly not me but someone who was impersonating me, the admin who blocked him will quickly verify that. [72]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

??? I see no attack on female editors in that diff... Thomas.W ^talk 16:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The implication that "female editors" are thin-skinned by virtue of their sex is undoubtedly an attack. RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lol, next, he is going to expose your sock-puppets! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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". WCM_email 18:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@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)

Again may have passed you by but Buckshot06 actually opposed my proposal and he responded with this personal attack [73], 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. WCM_email 19:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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))
• 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)
• 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)

  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." [74] That explains everything about that user. She is also playing around with my comments. [75]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

  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)

  I had that admin hopeful all along, look at the left [76]. 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)

• 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)
• 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)

  @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))

• 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)

  For the record, IP 118.93.77.246 is in fact User:Buckshot06. [77] Buckshot06, that was a year ago. Saladin1987 (talk · contribs) (who was blocked 4 times for being disruptive and POV-pushing [78]) 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)

  • My apologies Krzyhorse22 thankyou for catching that; I've signed in now. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support one year ban: After seeing this WP:UNCIVIL diff. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• 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))
• 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)
• 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)

Please don't refer to yourself in the third person. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Procedural Note: this matter is still open and does need to be addressed by a closing admin. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

• [79]
• [80]

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)

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) }}

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)

• 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 [81] [82] [83], and repeatedly made the same uncited edit [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90].

As well as the false accusation of "trolling" made above, he has now issued false warnings for disruption [91] [92]. As advised in WP:DE and WP:HA, I am reporting this here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC); edited 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

142.105.159.60 has also inserted this WP:UNSOURCED change, [93] 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)

Now you're just trolling.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang

Andy Dingley's personal attacks against Hengistmate are continuing, [94] and are now being extended [95] 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)

Let us also point out that Hengistmate vandalized [96] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [97] 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", [98] [99] [100] [101] 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 [102] 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)

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)

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 [103] 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 [104]. I fear that closing this thread with no action will result in more of the same. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No one cares what you "believe". You've made it clear that you don't, but under policy, all editors' valid concerns about policy should be taken into consideration. Once again, you are pushing your interpretation of the OED that is contradicted by other Oxford dictionaries. Sources do not "all" use 'fuze'. See [105] and [106]. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, if your reading of the OED entry for "fuse" is that it only applies to powder-train fuses, [107] how can you claim "The OED supports fuze" [108]? You can't have it both ways. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, the above commentary on this diff is a complete misrepresentation of my edit, and the OED. The entry for "fuse, n.2" says "Forms: Also 17 feuze, 18 fuze." The key to these abbreviations is freely available here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

* 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• Oppose. This is a content dispute and edit war. Deal with it via WP:DR, WP:ANEW, and WP:RFPP. And please sign your proposal. Softlavender (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's far from a content dispute - have you read the talk: page? (and Glrx's rather extensive addition of sources today). When one editor simply changes refs he doesn't like to their inverse, then that's behavioural. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You've provided no diffs as evidence of that statement. There is more than one editor on each side of the opinion divide. It's a content dispute; settle it as one. The fact that many of the disputants are using the content dispute to cast aspersions or seemingly settle or revive old scores simply compounds and prolongs the content dispute, which could have been resolved days ago if WP:DR were used. Bringing these disputes to ANI just wastes everyone's time and energy and compunds the problem further. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive913#MFD_relistings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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. –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

• I have created Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?. Cunard (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

"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)

I am so watching that page. I know it's going to become blue one day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Careful what you wish for, Ricky81682 [109]. EEng 07:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Also testing good faith is this. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What is salt in this context? 400 Lux (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@400 Lux: WP:SALT. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeated abuse of editing privilege by User:Roman Spinner

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

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:

• January 2008: discussion (initiated by @Jwy:)
• April 2012: discussion (initiated by @Boleyn:)
• December 2012: discussion (initiated by @Ubcule:)
• April 2014: discussion (initiated by @Boleyn:)
• June 2015: discussion (initiated by @Midas02:)
• February 2016: discussion (initiated by User:Swpb)

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. —swpb^T 20:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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 [110]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Katie^talk 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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. —swpb^T 23:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(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. Katie^talk 23:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, Lindsay^Hello 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

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

• Seems reasonable. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that a topic ban from disambiguation pages seems necessary here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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. —swpb^T 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @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)
• 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)`

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)

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. —swpb^T 17:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

• 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)
• 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. —swpb^T 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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. —swpb^T 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I too agree with making dab talk pages explicitly part of the topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, i also; thank you MarnetteD for pointing out my omission: I should have stated it explicitly; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 14:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

• 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 [111]. 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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, Lindsay^Hello 16:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, [112]. 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)

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)

• 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)
• Support topic ban per NinjaRobotPirate's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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[113][114][115][116], 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 Vial^Holla 04:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

@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 Vial^Holla 12:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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 [117]) 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)

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)

Thanks for being so understanding. Also, sorry about reverting your edits. I should've left that for you too do. Boomer Vial^Holla 01:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

Yes he was, and with that, I have no problem. He was also removing people under the pretense that the consensus was clearly in favor of your proposition, when in fact it isn't. 15:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: there is no determined consensus yet either way, so I could simply invoke IAR and/or BOLD, but I decided to desist in good faith until this matter is resolved. Please don't make me regret or reconsider that decision. As it is there are other editors doing the same thing (see May 22, for example), so don't be a hypocrite. Also you forgot to sign your previous post. Quis separabit? 15:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting note by @Boomer Vial here:, to wit: "I am, about to admit defeat on this one, seeing as I'm outnumbered, and there are other editors out there that feel that days of the years articles should be trimmed based on notability."

(edit conflict)Thank you for doing so, but May 22 really opened my eyes to the fact that there are alot more editors than I realized that agree with User:Deb. I'm starting to come around to the idea, but I don't think removing content based on notability is acceptable yet, or at least until a consensus is founded. Boomer Vial^Holla 15:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that primary opponent (sole opponent on this page) to trimming the DOY articles has had a rethink, I propose that reasonable, conscientious and logical pruning of pages continue (and to be honest have already started doing so). I would prefer if only seasoned and experienced editors took part but I know that this is not the case and not enforceable, although vandalism should be treated as it always is. Quis separabit? 18:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism? How do you figure this? Also, I have no problem opting out of this decision, if that's what you and other editors want. Boomer Vial^Holla 22:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course not, @Boomer Vial, stay and contribute. My reference to vandalism was just to the fact that DOY pages are often vandalised by nonsensical or OR additions, etc. Not sure if you thought I meant something else. Quis separabit? 23:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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" [118]. (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 [119], 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.[120][121]

Ten days later, User:Sundayclose completely emptied both categories with the edit summary "too few articles for redundant categories".[122][123][124] 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.[125][126] 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."[127][128] I did as asked and took it the talk page of Live at the Greek Theatre 2008[129] while placing notes on the talk pages of the two categories.[130][131] 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.[132] I replied to his message on my talk page, requesting that they not remove categories out of process.[133]

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.[134] Because I did not create the category, I removed the tag saying the category was emptied out of process in the edit summary.[135]. User:Sundayclose readded the tag saying I didn't follow the proper procedure for contesting speedy deletion.[136]. 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. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How is it doing that exactly? --John (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• It takes two to edit-war. We are not a bureaucracy. Is there an actual problem with the merge? --John (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

That doesn't answer the question. --John (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

What admin action are you seeking here? It looks like a content dispute to me. --John (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

@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)

• 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)

• Thanks Richhoncho for that. I would suggest closing but I worry that with stuff like this we are veering into red flag territory, certainly enough to want to still keep this open lest some action be required. Per Only in death does duty end I wonder if this might be an example where the curved Australian projectile might need to whirl? I do hope not as the matter is capable of extremely easy resolution. --John (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

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)

Well indeed. Enjoy your break. --John (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Endorse block I'd be open to the standard offer, which will give Shootingstar88 ample time to understand the copyright policies. Katie^talk 03:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• Overturn block. Backing up Carrite; I can't see how these sentences count as plagiarism. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• (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)

• (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)

• 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)

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)

(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)

• 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 ([137]), 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)

• 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)

You are not the victim here, sorry. Your behavior is atrocious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

@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)

@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)

• 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)

@EvergreenFir: Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Look at the things people said in that report (including you; you even used the same language to describe the people you disagreed with as a tag-team.) But also see the comments from other users, including one that your behavior there was a mirror image of your behavior here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Those diffs solidify my suggestion for a-ban. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

Yes indeed, the rules seem to have changed very much recently. Incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, and even the case of a lone tendentious editor continuing to push his case when everyone else disagrees have always been frowned upon but now we seenm to have a rule against supporting the majority position against a handful of editors now seems to be forbidden. It is all very worrying. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 to Mr. Magoo's answers. The rules are very clear, no personal attacks. The sock/meat/tag accusations will 'obviously lead to nothing' because they are void of any evidence or even much logic, ditto the accusations against the IPs. As far as I can see 'concensus' in your posts (which editors are supposed to have edited against), refers to your own interpretation of the opinion on an unclosed (and very flawed) RfC. Unless the opinions expressed in that RfC were universally, policy-based, evidence based, support, such a personal interpretation by an involved party could not possibly be described as 'concensus'. Pincrete (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have mostly ceased from personal accusations towards you at the talk ever after the failed SPI (other than when the discussion happened about the removed section which you might remember from me claiming twice that you lied about the time it had been part of the stable version), but I apologize for it being a different matter here at ANI. I explained my reasoning for bad faith with the lister of vandalism example. The lister is automatically guilty himself, is he not? The personal accusations I've made at the talk and which have been presented were towards the IP. I explained how the likelihood of the IPs being the same is close to certain. My intention here was not to re-ignite the team conversation. I have to reiterate that I'm discussing in a foreign language and it takes a considerable amount of brain power just to not mess the grammar up. I'm grateful for you not voting against me and I promise not to bring up the teaming again. You know I hold my promises to the letter. I hope this problem can be solved with my promise. Again, my intention was to focus on the removal of the Dubious tag which I thought I'd be able to win back. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, your promise of good behaviour might be more convincing to me, if similar ones had not been made before: I've learned my lessons about wild accusations … in the future I will refrain from accusations and at worst only accuse of bad behavior when it's overt and not covert.. A promise made on 17th November on a prev ANI, followed on 30th November by the 'baseless' SPI referred to previously and umpteen talk page accusations, including within the RfC plus others saying I lied (which I fairly plainly did not). You admit to starting an ANI in order to get a tag restored (without asking why it was removed, which was for a good reason IMO). Other editors on the page find you impossible to work with and do not consider you an asset. Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but we've already talked about this before. I keep my promises to the letter. I promised when it's overt and not covert and we weren't talking about the team accusation that followed after but the earlier kind. This time it's absolute. And I didn't need to ask why the tag was removed because it was already explained in the edit summaries. And the only other editors other than you who think so are A and F. Where as how many have now agreed with my point of changing the adjective? 6? And look what was written below. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Apology for the team accusation

I apologize for the team accusation, and I promise not to bring it up again. My intention here was not to bring it up. I brought it up solely as ammunition for my claim of the Dubious tag returnal, but people interpreted this notice to have been about it rather than the Dubious tag. Since it was brought up so casually many people's feelings were hurt, which I apologize for. In the past I have shown that I keep my promises to the letter. This promise is fairly absolute, without leaving doubt. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a history of sometimes making large posts that cover every little aspect over focusing only on the basics, which is why the accusation grew to a big paragraph instead of just a quick quip. I had originally intended it to be a background sidenote, ammunition as I mentioned. But again, I apologize for bringing it up. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

*Comment: As someone who tried to find a compromise and left because it just got too tedious, I have to say there is unfortunate behavior on both sides of this argument. In what should be among reasonable people an easy compromise on content (the use of the word 'often' instead of 'primarily' in a point that is CLEARLY disputed) the editors in agreement with one another have all simply refused to compromise to the point that they have indeed driven off other well-intentioned editors. The complaining editor here loses their cool regularly. And everyone involved seems to be unable to communicate briefly. valereee (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Compromise?

A number of comments above criticise the article editors for 'quibbling' over one word, somewhat unfairly IMO. This is not the place to discuss content matters, so I have started a section on talk to which editors are invited to contribute. I have started this section partly to clarify the problem, but primarily hoping to find some MEANINGFUL way out of the impasse. Pincrete (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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 [138]. 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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

• Please note that the likelihood of that being necessary is incredibly low. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

• I'm pretty sure you could listen to this. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

@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)

Continued harrassment by User:Herostratus

User:Herostratus is harrassing me. I asked him to disengage ([139]), but he continued to make statements about me. So I asked again ([140]). 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)

Please provide diffs when reporting harassment or other conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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.)
3. 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)

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? ([141] (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)

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)

Well jeez I didn't open the thread. I'm entitled to defend myself and include diffs and so forth. If it's too much for you to read that's fine, but others do have that ability and let them do it and decide what, if anything, to do here. My hope would be that admin corps will vouchsafe that brand-new WP:SPA are encouraged to "learn the ropes" a bit before dragging 10-year editors to ANI and that this could be a learning experience for you. We'll see. Herostratus (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on having been a Wikipedia editor for 10 years, but I don't think that should mean you get preferential treatment. I hope that when an admin finally looks at this situation they will find that I have been trying to move a dispute forward constructively and that you have been rude, disingenuous, obstructionist, and harrassing. And based on your comments here, you have no intention of stopping. I would just like to be able to edit here without being harrassed. Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm an admin. I see no evidence of harassment by User:Herostratus of User:Right Hand Drive - you didn't even present any, just diffs to you asking him not to comment about you. Herostratus is hardly the only editor to note that RHD is a single-purpose account and to question the motive of RHD in opening the RFC at Talk:A Free Ride. You cannot stop Herostratus commenting at the RFC: they are not making personal attacks or being uncivil to the extent that any action is needed. There is no need for an interaction ban. My advice would be to calmly discuss at the several RFCs and not open any further AN/I threads about people who criticise your comments/actions, unless there is actually something actionable. Fences&Windows 00:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. I was pinged here by Herostratus.

• I object to Herostratus trying to label my edit an "accusation" when I said I see no indication of abuse by Right Hand Drive.[142]
• Herostratus's first edit here was to abusively attack Right Hand: such people are trouble, period; they're generally trolls just here for the LULZ (or for the darker purpose of actually embarrassing and damaging the project. I've been here ten years and I know: this is just a fact.)[143] Herost continued editing with that attitude. Right Hand was entirely justified in telling Herost to disengage and issuing a "final warning". Herost is unwilling or unable to back off when given a multitude of polite warnings that they are digging themselves into a hole.
• I object to Herostratus's assumption of bad faith they cast against me here. They posted above you can't necessarily unilaterally shut down an RfC you initiate just because you've realized it might not go your way - referring to me. They are wrong on policy, and they are wrong on asserting bad faith motives against me. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs states There are several ways that RfCs end: (1) The question may be withdrawn by the poster. There were zero !votes on the RFC, other than my own. I withdrew my RFC because I'm very NORUSH / There is no deadline about getting an article to the "right version", so long as it gets there. There was no need to run virtually identical RFC's at the same time. I cooperatively left the article at the version Herostratus preferred, and I even mentioned that I might drop my intent to change the article if the Free Ride RFC reached a consensus clearly against my position.[144] If there was a clear outcome at the Free Ride RFC (in either direction) then maybe we could have come to agreement that a second RFC wasn't needed.
• Herostratus deleted my comments from the Talk page (see the bottom half of the diff[145]), in violation of Talk page guidelines. I pointed this out and politely suggested they fix their error.[146] Herost plead a lack of competence and told me to "clean if up yourself".[147] Note that Herost is a former Admin with ~35k edits... it made me seriously wonder if some newbie might have "inherited" the account. Herost's behavior is appalling, and their knowledge and respect for policy seem almost nonexistent (further exemplified below). They seems unwilling or unable to get the message when their problem behavior is politely pointed out and they are offered a "free pass" avenue to fix or avoid the problem.
• Herostratus editwarred a properly closed[148][149][150] and withdrawn RFC. They continued that warring even after I said I can't stop you from opening your own RFC, but I do suggest you take a breath and try to work with us.[151] They seem unwilling or unable to get the message when their problem behavior is politely pointed out and they are offered a "free pass" avenue to fix or avoid the problem.

I'd like to draw special attention to Herost's I've been here ten years comment in that last diff. With a few searches I see Herost has been dishing out the same sort of attacks for ten years. It would take me at least an hour to pull together diffs, but Herost has been on a long term disruptive battle against NOTCENSORED policy.... and Herost's notion of "controversial content" includes G-rated drawings of Wikipetan. When consensus at an article goes against removing whatever Herost wants to remove, it's because a swarm of "trolls" and "low-IQ" editors showed up. Herost forumshops on EnWiki, and when that doesn't work they forumshop over to Commons demanding deletion. They railed against Commons admins, suggest Commons shouldn't be a part of the Wikimedia family and they they should go find their own funding if they won't help him defeat EnWiki NOTCENSORED policy, he's called for Jimbo to step in to overrule our NOTCENSORED policy, he's called for the Foundation to step in to overrule our NOTCENSORED policy. A decade long fight, where anyone who defends G-rated drawing in Fanservice or Lolicon is a "troll" or "low-IQ". And that is the attitude Herost abusively took against Right Hand.

• Herostratus just ran(oops, I just saw it was from 2011) an unhelpful MFD to delete the Help:Options to not see an image page which was unanimously rejected.[152] I don't know if it was deliberately Pointy or some twisted "good faith" product of their frustration with Wikiepdia's NOTCENSORED policy, but in any case Herost's disgust with our content policies is clearly manifesting in an unconstructive manner.
• With the the Free Ride RFC going against Herost, they proposed The person closing should go to Random.org and generate a random number to impose a random outcome.[153] It exemplifies the pattern of their disruptive behavior, an utter disregard for consensus&policy and seeking by hook or by crook any means to reach their goal of forcibly removing content against consensus. I really wish Herostratus would run for Admin again, just so I can cite that one diff as utterly disqualifying them from ever holding the position. Alsee (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, "Herostratus just ran an unhelpful MFD to delete the Help:Options to not see an image page which was unanimously rejected." This caught my eye so I looked it up.

1. I didn't run the MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Options to not see an image). Another user did without my knowledge or support.
2. And in fact I voted to keep the page, for crying out loud. I do think it could use some reform.
3. And FWIW I wouldn't characterize 2011 as "just [recently]" (OK, Alsee struck that error) - H
4. And besides that, if any of this was true, it's not against any rule to run an MfD. (I think the person doing it might have been trying to make some sort of obscure point, though, so if that's true (I'm not sure) it wasn't a good MfD.)

So that's just really mendacious. But I'll do you the favor of assuming you were combing my edit history (five years worth!) looking for goodies in a hurry and just made a mistake. So OK.

The rest of the stuff is a little more accurate, I guess. It's complicated. If there's anything more specific beyond "tens years of being, generally, the sort of person that I abhor" that the Admin Corps would like me to answer to, I'll give it a try. Tempest in a teapot and not calling for any action would be my call.

But returning back to the original plaintiff here (User:Right Hand Drive), if I was an admin here I'd probably think about asking User:Right Hand Drive: Have you ever had another account here? It's a simple question. Yes or no. Per Wikipedia:Alternate account it's not necessarily a deal killer if it's a yes, and we can talk about the circumstances and if it's legitimate or not. (If I may point out, at least a couple users, Alsee (diff) and User:Johnuniq (diff) have not questioned but flat out stated as being obvious that User:Right Hand Drive is a Wikipedia:Alternate account, so it's not like I'm plucking this question out of thin air.) I've been accused of malfeasance and I want to know who my accuser is. I think that's reasonable. So, User:Right Hand Drive, which is it, yes or no? Herostratus (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• The open-door policy of Wikipedia welcomes all comers. The downside of that is that we see cases like this where a crystal clear SPA returned user is using every trick in the book to push an agenda. I can't tell if RHD is trolling or is just a liberty advocate who desperately believes Debbie Does Dallas should have an embedded video because we can. What is obvious is that threads like this should be closed and RHD given firm advice regarding WP:HERE. There are too many useful things that could be done with the time that would be lost in discussion with throw-away accounts who will never change their approach. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • When did I go from just being an SPA to being a "crystal clear SPA returned user"? What "tricks" am I using? Starting a RfC to request comment from other editors? What is my "agenda"? Is my belief that the Debbie Does Dallas movie should be embedded in the article about the movie count as an "agenda"? Does that belief make me "an advocate"? Or a "troll"? Maybe it just makes me someone who believes that the Debbie Does Dallas movie should be embedded in the article about the movie, like other movies are usually embedded in articles. I don't mind disagreement, but why is it necessary to make accusations, call me names, and project strange associations on me? Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not seeing that the OP has provided any evidence (in terms of WP:DIFFs) of harassment by Herostratus. This seems like a non-starter unless the OP wants to stick around for a boomerang. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't think it was necessary to provide any further evidence once Herostratus showed up to demonstrate exactly the behavior that I was complaining about. If you need more evidence, here is the edit that made me warn him the first time ([154]). Herostratus said He's proposing something that he doesn't actually believe in or want to happen in order get an easy "win" here which he can then attempt to leverage over there. I'm not sure how that completely baseless accusation could be any more blatant. I am deliberately refraining from taking a side in the RfC, so I am neither proposing nor endorsing anything. Further, Herostratus claims to know what I am thinking in this instance even though I have not stated a position. Later, I warned Herostratus a second time ([155]) when he said I'm not counting the RfC initiatior User:Right Hand Drive, since he didn't vote; if you include him it's 10-7. Again, I have deliberately not taken a side and Herostratus has pretended to read my thoughts again. There are several earlier insulting comments but I don't feel like it's worth anyone's time to list them all.
  • More to the point, Herstratus's passive-agressive, tendentious, "gee whiz" walls of text are completely undermined by his statement But my real reason for opposing it is because I don't want us to host pornographic movies. He went on to start a bad faith RfC intended to exclude the movie based on hsi misunderstanding of both policy and technical details. I have asked for editor input on the issue; Herostratus has attempted to use any and all methods to achieve his goal. I have been civil and had reasonable disagreements with editors; Herostratus has been uncivil and disingenuous. If you choose to believe that black is white and up is down, I can't stop you. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick block on 180.191.143.176

< NO! I am the Victim of malicious blocking and unjust posts of Nihonjoe and John from Idegon! HELP! WORLDWIDEWEB! HELP! -Ms. Gemma Linas Buquiran

For self admitted block evasion and NLT at User talk:Nihonjoe. John from Idegon (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

May want to go ahead and hardblock Ms. Gemma Linas Buquiran Live At Hashtags, apparently the mother account. She is apparently quite upset that Joe gave her a soft block for too long a username. Some of her comments on Joe's talk seem quite DUCKish to me. -John from Idegon (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Just checking, but if the software has limits for length of username, and there aren't limits in the various guides *shown to users when they sign up* why is it okay to softblock? (If behaviour is problematic admins should be blocking for that behaviour. I'm worried that username "violations" are used as an easy way to block, rather than addressing any actual problematic behaviours). DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

And again here. Anyone home? John from Idegon (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

< NO! I am the Victim of malicious blocking and unjust posts of Nihonjoe and John from Idegon! HELP! WORLDWIDEWEB! HELP! -Ms. Gemma Linas Buquiran

• I think the person wants their name erased from that blocked username, rather than be unblocked as an editor: 1. It's possibly the person's real name and apparently the person is saying they don't want their real name to appear on a block list / blocked. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP user for 36 hours for making legal threats. I think that should be long enough to sort this out, but if any other admin thinks it should be longer, please go ahead.

Looking at the relevant policy I think this was a bad block - Ms. Gemma Linas Buquiran Live At Hashtags (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no edits at all, either live or deleted, there was no discussion with them about username policy - and will be telling Joe that. This will be after I explain to the IP user why that (a) they may have made a beginner's mistake in choosing a username and (b) why the have made a far, far more serious mistake by resorting to legal threats.

There may be more than meets the eye about this? (Putting a question mark at the end of a statement completely stolen from Elmore Leonard?)

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend the IP to wait after this. If nothing happens you should politely request removal of your name from the blocked username, perhaps some sort of revdelete. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Magoo..she is not asking her name be erased. Its pretty clear she's asking to not be labeled as blocked. And what you are suggesting cannot happen anyway. John from Idegon (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That's what I wrote, name appearing (labeled) as blocked. And usernames can be changed and users can also be vanished. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean this is what the person wrote: "the publishing of my name under a blocked category". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that there is no policy prohibition on having a long username - the relevant policy at WP:UNCONF says "Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames, which are highly discouraged but which are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action". It was a bad block, and unblocking the account would achieve its removal from the blocked category that this person appears to want. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Xezbeth

I find the long time Sysops responses concerning:

• "Are you fucking joking?"

Located at his talk page which he has both refused to respond and removed.

• "Unless you're trying to get me to block you, I cannot understand what you are playing at. Please explain. I'm starting to think you aren't competent enough to be using tools such as Twinkle."

located at my talk page

My actions though in error I do not believe should have triggered such a response. A note I have not notified the account in question due to their position on the site.

Krj373*(talk), *(contrib)  07:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So you won't leave them the required notification but you think this edit is vandalism and leave them a warning? I suggest you step away now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. However I believe assume good faith applies to admins as well as every one else. I made a attempt to discuss the "are you fucking joking" comment on his page. I got no response other than 'get lost' in a edit comment. I have some what stepped away as the power rests in his hand. I do believe what applies to one should apply to all. I have admitted my error however that does not change the basis of the complaint. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 08:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Where did Xezbeth say anything about using admin tools? You are the only one that mentioned blocking. Perhaps their words were not the greatest but edit warring without discussion over that was ridiculous. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The link provided takes you to the section of my talk page that has the statement about Twinke. I do not believe any thing either of us did could be considered edit warring & I have never claimed that for the record. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 08:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that it could be classified as edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries are important and perhaps you can understand my error due to his. However after review of the content I ceased. I have no issue with the edits. I have issue with the response & profanity used in the various responses. Assume good faith should apply to every one including admins. In this case I believe the comments "Are you fucking joking?" & "Unless you're trying to get me to block you, I cannot understand what you are playing at. Please explain. I'm starting to think you aren't competent enough to be using tools such as Twinkle." deviants from that policy. Which normally is of no issue however the account in question is a Sysops account. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 09:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Umm... You accuse someone of vandalism for noting that "Roelandts" is a surname. You do not (profusely) apologize for that, but instead try to get the user blocked using for a simple profanity to express justified incredulity over that action? Are you [insert profanity here] kidding me? Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Relevant: WP:TWABUSE. Krj373, you reverted good-faith edits without a edit summary twice. Then you template an experienced user twice (once with a final warning no less). And you wonder why that user reacts strongly and questions whether you should be using Twinkle? I doubt any administrator action is needed here other than to warn the reporter that they should be more careful when reverting edits with semi-automated tools. Read WP:VANDAL closely. clpo13_(talk) 17:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• I hereby warn the reporter that they should be more careful when reverting edits with semi-automated tools. I am grateful for Clpo13 for suggesting this verbiage, since I had something much more severe in mind. Also, "are you fucking kidding me" is more than appropriate; the response should have been "oops, sorry, I'll be more careful next time". Drmies (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Krj373: First off, don't edit-war with admins. Second, WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS. Third, why don't you let go of Twinkle and do some non-automated editing, and collaborate with other users? Fourth, please withdraw this ANI filing before a big fat WP:BOOMERANG smacks you squarely between the eyes. Try asking for advice from experienced editors, or at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Continuous undisclosed COI editing

Hi, Leoaugust is a single-purpose account being used by the undisclosed COI editor to push his agenda to malign the image of Raheja Developers and take the page away from WP:NPOV. After repeated warning to disclose his WP:COI, he declines having any connection with the subject. As I can not disclose his COI over Wikipedia respecting his privacy, I want to share some evidence with an administrator who then may decide whether he has a COI or not. Note: I'm also a paid editor who was requested to edit the page on behalf of Raheja Developers to properly address both sides of the scene. Mr RD 11:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You cannot disclose any personal information about another editor, either on Wikipedia or via email; if you do so you will be blocked from editing. See WP:OUTING. You also cannot personally force someone to disclose a COI that you believe he has. If you are concerned about a possible COI he might have, then that discussion should take place at WP:COIN. If you are concerned about possible repeated POV and disruptive editing, then please provide WP:DIFFs making your case here. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to the policy stating that you cannot post such information even via email? Email would seem like a medium of communication that Wikipedia cannot possibly have jurisdiction on. LjL (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The OP is talking about revealing personal information about someone else to an admin as a way of indicting that person. Read WP:OUTING. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have read WP:OUTING, but I came to no clear conclusion, in particular because it says "If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team."

This is only specifically mentioning material that was redacted from Wikipedia, not information that you may know from elsewhere (this is mentioned in previous paragraphs of WP:OUTING but then sort of forgotten about), but it at least makes a clear distinction between emailing an administrator, arbitrator or functionary, and simply repeating on Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That is referring to personal material volunteered by the editor in question -- in other words, self-identification. This is not such a case. Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This situation seems hairier than it appears at first glance; there's a whole lot of COI going on around Raheja Developers. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiaccnt1234/Archive (do Control+F raheja). -- Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war needs attention

Lyndon LaRouche

Not the original Jack Bruce (talk · contribs), an SPA, has devoted five out of his/her first twelve edits to re-adding material to this article when others removed it. I am fairly certain he/she is acting in good faith, but probably needs to be mentored or at least told how to use the talk page.

There haven't technically been any 3RR violations, and page-protection would probably be counter-productive when it's only one new account doing the edit-warring, so I figured asking for more eyes, preferably sysop eyes, here would be preferable to ANEW.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet plans to damage article

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

---

The latest sock puppetry by Vote (X) for Change has been reported but no action has been taken. In this edit the editor states his plan to add nonsense to the Year article. I request an administrator attend to this. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I just had a look at this. What the editor actually said was that s/he would add an agreed definition to the article if nobody objected. 86.149.11.242 (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you that editor? I did object because the paragraph by Vote (X) for Change did not add anything useful to the article. Dbfirs 17:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes they wuz. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks after final warning

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

---

Prestopotatoe commented on British people here, saying "You guys are aware of the fact that 90% British folk can trace their ancestry back for hundreds and thousands of years? How on Earth does that make it a multi-racial, multicultural or diverse society? Despite the fact that a couple of areas in London resemble slums in Nairobi, the vast majority of Britain is uniformly white and uniformly of a single English scots irish or welsh culture. I invite you to go down to Kent or Margate and see how diverse British culture is."

Snowded removed this, saying it was near racist. So they re-added it, with a comment -- "Remove unnecessary deletion regarding article by PC thug." I saw this, reverted it, and warned them, finding it unacceptable. They made another comment, which was again removed by Snowded as "racist nonsense." They then got a final warning. They did it once more, and were reverted again with the summary, "You are making a political statement not making any referenced proposal to improve the article. Last warning." They then made these two highly uncivil comments: [156][157]. They were then advised of Wikipedia policies. I would appreciate admin action to prevent any further disruption. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 16:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I was going to give the editor one more chance, but s/he is clearly not here to improve the encyclopaedia. A look at the edit history alone shows that in terms of reverts of nearly every contribution. Then we get the racist comments and the personal attacks.----Snowded ^TALK 16:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's unclear to me, if the editor-in-question is proposing such additions to the article, or if he/she is merely looking to start a blog. Either way, this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is trying to hard to be PC", "The vast majority of British cities are majority or wholly European and follow European culture. The vast majority thik mlticulturalism has been a disaster and the vast majority of the commonwealth follow a civilized anglo-culture." GAB^Hello! 16:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I've blocked for a week to show we have teeth, and I'll indef if this behaviour persists after the block expires Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruption, edit warring, and personal attacks by WillsonSS3

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

---

• WillsonSS3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WillsonSS3 arrived on racism today making bold changes to the lead sentence (a perennial source of contentious editing). WillsonSS3 joined discussions on the talk page after being reverted twice. WillsonSS3 continued to revert edits on on the article beyond 3RR despite warnings from Doug Weller ([158]) which they acknowledged (while saying they are warning another user). Next came accusations of ownership ([159], [160], [161]).

This user registered 30 January 2016. Within these 22 days the user demonstrated proficiency in using Wikipedia and wikicode, even reporting other users to AN3. They have been reported for edit warring and have amassed an impressive edit history of reverts of battleground behavior. It seems the likelihood that this user was just an experienced IP user is a bit low, but possible. However, even with that assumption of good faith, this user has demonstrated an antagonistic orientation toward editing that borders on NOTHERE. The current behavior needs addressing at least. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

pf... I'm an editor on wookipedia and the song of ice and fire wiki.WillsonSS3 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment of accused: On the (controversial) page Racism, 3 users, namely Users:Evergreen, Manaus and Doug Weller act as if they took ownership of the page. Their actions go back years, against multiple users. At least in the case of manaus/evergreen. They're adamant on keeping one definition of racism for the lead, and revert any new changes, including mine, in which I opted to keep both their definition and the ones given by the Anti defamation league and Oxford dictionary.

Their tactic is to bunch up on users and revert 2 a piece, if the can't give the reasoning as WP:RS violation as an issue, and if that doesn't work, wait until said user is over WP:3RR, and then report, as they did with me. Though I rationalized my edits/revert as unjustified removal of sourced content. My sources are [[162], [163]

User:Doug Weller attempted to intimidate and dissuade me with my history of edit warring in hich he tought I'd be intimidated because of his position as an admin, showing clear favoritism and possible clan behavior(don't know if that's s thing on wiki)

oh...and on my history of edit warring. I always resolved my disputes, except in one case, where my reporter was the one blocked. WillsonSS3 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Further comment: User:Manaus now accuses me of strong arming my definition of racism into the article. Odd since my definition didn't exclude theirs and is backed by the likes of Oxdord and the Anti defamation league. WillsonSS3 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• In addition to repeating the exact same argumentation offered by Nezi1111 (talk · contribs) who was blocked for disruptive editing yesterday, WilsonSS3 also has a history of editing the article Russell Wilson, specifically regarding the football players race. Nezi1111 also edited that aspect of the Russell Wilson article. Both accounts engaged in protracted editwarring with Aqwfyj (talk · contribs). It looks very likely that they are the same editor using two different accounts. I have filed an SPI to confirm the suspicion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

SPI located here. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Concerns about puppetry aside, I believe that the reason that so many editors have sided against WilsonSS3 is due to the facts that:

1. The lede has been argued over extensively for quite some time.
2. WilsonSS3 has instituted their own ideas to the page, without respecting the discussion on the talkpage. (While this is minor, it still contributes to how I, as someone who has never before seen that discussion see it).
3. When reverted, instead of following the process of BRD, Wilson has continued to revert.
4. When asked to support his changes on the talkpage, so that an appropriate discussion can occur, Wilson also includes the discussion of the conduct of other users. (ex. this, which should have been treated by explaining why, rather than just labeling it as OR)

Therefore, by the time that a proper discussion can take place, Wilson's own behavior invalidates his credibility.

I would also like to add that having a clean block log is not the same thing as having a clean history. Multiple warnings, trips to ANEW, and this very ANI thread prove that it is not 'clean'. Should WilsonSS3 not wind up blocked, I suggest that the following restrictions be placed:

1. WilsonSS3 is prohibited from discussing the conduct of other users on article talk pages. He may do so on user talk pages, or relevant administrative noticeboards.
2. WilsonSS3 is restricted to following WP:1RR, excepting cases of clear vandalism. He is advised to not make any reverts to restore any material that he added, and instead open immediate discussion.

I believe that those restrictions will prevent further issue. I also believe that the best case is that WilsonSS3 follow these restrictions voluntarily to prove that he is indeed editing in good faith. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC) [Edited= 21:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)]

After WilsonSS3 said Maunus was edit-warring for just one revert I pointed out that he'd reverted, at that time if I recall correctly, twice, and mentioned WP:BRD. I then looked at his talk page history and saw that he had been told more than once about BRD but was ignoring the warnings. I also pointed out the 3RR was not an entitlement and that he might be blocked if he reverted again. That's a fact, this editor's behavior is exactly the type of behavior that leads to blocks. What I hadn't noticed is the sock issue. Anyway, off to bed now. Doug Weller talk 21:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

WilsonSS3 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Nezi1111 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nezi1111). clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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

User Jojhutton not accepting results of RfC

Some months back,Jojhutton (talk · contribs) and I were in conflict over the following statement on the Jedediah Smith article:

• The cowboy Jedediah in the Night at the Museum movies is said by the ship_manifesto to be based on Jedediah Smith, despite the disparity between a fur trapper/explorer and a cowboy. IMBD calls the Jedediah character in the movie "Jedediah Smith", but that he "he may or may not be based off the real life 'cowboy' from the 1700's Jedediah Smith." The Movie Pilot asserts that all the characters in the movie are based on real-life characters, including Jedediah, who is claimed to be Jedediah Smith.

I filed a Request for Comment on the talk page. Johutton did not participate on the RfC, and the general consensus was "Non-controversial information doesn't need to meet the same level of rigorous sourcing." The paragraph quoted above has been in the article since then. Now, Jojhutton has started taking it back out, stating that: "None of the sources that state that the character in NATM is the historical figure Jedediah Smith are reliable because they are from open Wikis" which is untrue. I'm not sure if one would call IMBD an "open wiki", but it's only one of the three sources, and if it can't be used as a source, a lot of information in a lot of articles are in jeopardy.

Other editors, who initially opposed putting this material in the article have accepted the RfC, but Jojhutton can't let go of the stick. I don't know where else to go with this.

Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

References

It's been two months since the last RfC. Jojhutton is free to open another one if he likes. The previous RfC was iffy/concerned about the sourcing, but there was no Survey or real consensus on whether to actually include the material or not. Perhaps an RfC with a Survey should be opened now. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, since he couldn't be bothered to participate in the last one, we'll see if he can be bothered to open one. Until then, I was advised to take my issues with this uncivil passive aggressive behavior here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I see he started a thread on the talk page of the article a few minutes before this ANI was filed; perhaps the two postings even overlapped. Technically (as was re-affirmed by several users in the RfC) he has the right, as does anyone, to challenge (and remove) material that is not supported by WP:RS. This is a content issue, that should be resolved on the article talk page. Since policy is actually on his side and there was no Survey or consensus to include the material, in the absence of a consensus otherwise, he has policy backing to challenge and remove material that is not cited by WP:RS. My advice: Everyone should go back to the talk page and establish consensus (either with or without a new RfC), and also find WP:RS. Again, this is a content dispute, not an ANI issue at this point, given the TP discussions. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I disagree. As I stated above, his reasoning is: "None of the sources that state that the character in NATM is the historical figure Jedediah Smith are reliable because they are from open Wikis" which is untrue. You are incorrect when you say that "policy is actually on his side". I consider not participating in an RfC, then reinitiating the conflict a short time later to be disruptive. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"... which is untrue". The place to make that argument is in the article talk-page thread which you quote and to which you refer, not here on ANI. This is a content dispute. Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Been there, done that on Jojhutton's talk page the first time around. I asked MONGO to move it the article talk page; he refused and told me to come here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Content issues never belong on a user talk page. They belong only on the talk-page of the article. There is a discussion on this content issue currently on the talk page of the article in question, so that is where the discussion should continue. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so tell MONGO that. Until then, here is the discussion. I have no desire to repeat it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

No need for either. Anyone who wishes to participate in the article talk-page discussion may do so. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest, given your intense interest, that you start. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Serious article or disruptive editing?

Is List of the largest cities in the Southeastern United States a serious article or is it just more disruptive editing by a twice-blocked editor? (See: [164], [165]; see also [166]). 32.218.39.178 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything initially wrong with the article other than perhaps some sourcing issues and layout, but it's not disruptive from from what I can see. Maybe you should start a WP:RFD if you don't think the article should be on Wikipedia. Other than that, it's not really an issue for ANI that I can see. JOJ ^Hutton 22:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I second Jojhutton. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• IP, if you are accusing AndrewExcavating336 of block evasion and sockpuppetry (by Jackosn7775), you need to file an WP:SPI, not an ANI thread. And you also need to notify them on their talk page about this ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Admins: Looks like the OP may be trolling and may in fact be the blocked user himself, in which case block (32.218.39.178, AndrewExcavating336, and FromJacksonville3643) and WP:DENY apply. Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like Softlavender may be trolling. If not, then such an accusation without a shred of evidence is WP:UNCIVIL. Please read WP:HUMAN and WP:IP!=VANDAL. 32.218.39.178 (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

IP, given that you are in Wisconsin, as are all of the registered sock accounts (with the possible exception of the gratuitously named FromJacksonville3643 who also edits Wisconsin articles), and you just started editing 6.5 hours before filing this ANI and have not edited the article in question, which you would have had no obvious reason to visit, I think it's obvious who's trolling here and who isn't. Softlavender (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

given that you are in Wisconsin - Wrong, not even close. Any decent IP lookup site would have told you that.

you just started editing 6.5 hours before filing this ANI - Wrong; I've been editing for years with a dynamic IP.

You didn't read WP:HUMAN and WP:IP!=VANDAL, did you? You can submit your apology here or on my talk page. 32.218.39.178 (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

At the least, the registered accounts are obvious socks of each other and likely of the sockmaster Jackosn7775, and they should be blocked (no need to waste time to go over to SPI since it's already here, mainly per WP:IAR). I'd also say that the article is borderline deletable per WP:CSD#G5, but it could be argued that some significant edits have been made by other editors. No comment on the IP, however. --MuZemike 03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive talk page discussions by User:Shkarter1985

Shkarter1985 has gone around starting these discussions on talk pages about how he's upset that the pages are being semi-protected. All of these discussions are rife with invalid complaints and claims that Wikipedia being free is "false advertising" because of the protections. I would go on and on about it, but I don't think there's anything else I can say about this that hasn't already been said.

Here are some links to the relevant discussions:

• Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants#Why was my question and criticism about SpongeBob SquarePants and Wikipedia's Protection Policy Removed?
• Talk:2016 in American television#Having the article protected and semi protected?
• [167]
• Talk:The Doors (album)#Why this article protected?

Should Shkarter1985 be blocked, on the grounds that he is doing nothing but being disruptive and wasting our time with these invalid and pointless discussions? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

He emailed Wikipedia, we're done for. Seriously, though, it's probably safe to ignore them and {{hat}} their rants. clpo13_(talk) 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like like Arrogant Wikipedians and so called WikiBots. Over the years I've gave other wikipedians heck after they removed some of my edits on various wikipedia articles and I wasn't happy about it. Something tells me this editor also has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Administrative Actions of Nyttend

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

 – Per request of IJBall. Mike V • Talk 00:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive new editor account User:Analyi

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

---

User:Analyi is a disruptive new vandal account, for example [168]. Modus operandi similar to User:XCONZ. Originally reported on [WP:AIV] but it was disqualified for not being obvious enough. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted numerous edits by this user as they are not constructive, and have given minor warnings. I am not sure how this user accuses me of being a bot, likely because I overlook recent edits and scan for articles in order to detect issues and tag them. I am presuming that looking at the mentioned user, this user may have tagged other human editors as bots or disruptive new accounts. Thank you. Analyi|(talk) 01:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess I should have reported this to WP:SPI instead, even though it's only 20% likely to be a relation to XCONZ? But I'm AFK for the rest of the day, so I'll have to leave it here. ANI can act or not as it prefers! User:Analyi only reverted one edit of mine before I complained on his talk page that he's a bot or otherwise disruptive new account. The only other user I've ever had to tag like this was User:XCONZ. Thanks, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Umm, this is WP:CIR. I'm going to dig through the rest of this user's edits to see if there is anything else that is problematic. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Legiallity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have posted CU results and blocked the account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Donald Trump Spinoff

I observed many complaints of POV / Recentism / Sync / and other issues. Examples here, here, here, here, here, etc. I submitted an edit to begin to address these issues through better use of transclusion. This dispute may best be resolved by an editor that is very familiar with transclusion.

A few editors are blocking the edit without providing reasonable arguments. I tried to work with others' concerns, but it seems I'm being stonewalled. I've asked for explanations, supporting Wikipedia policies, etc. The response is generally something vague/nebulous like "you can't do that" or "we have to approve your changes first" I've tried to alter the edit to better accommodate and still stonewalled with non-arguments that tend to violate consensus Wikipedia policy.

Here is the article before my edit. Here is the article after my edit. As you can see, they are essentially identical (the main Donald Trump article reads essentially the exact same). Here is the diff. I have taken all content within Donald_Trump#Politics, copied it to the new Politics of Donald Trump article, and transcluded that content right back into the main Donald Trump article with the {{:Politics of Donald Trump}} tag.

I should note that my first attempt had more targeted transclusion to better clear up some of the Sync and other issues I mentioned, but I compromised to help clear these editor objections.

Since the response from the few editors in the talk are largely non-arguments, I'm having trouble knowing what their objections might be or how to address. Maybe it's something else. Hard to say. To condense the talk, here's a quick summary:

• One editor has accused me of WP:BLANKING which is clearly not the case... content is transcluded.
• One editor said the edit creates a WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT issue, again clearly not the case with transclusion.
• One editor accused me of edit warring when I edited, reverted once, and created a different edit to better accommodate their concerns. view history

The editors involved:

• CometEncke
• Objective3000
• MrX
• Somedifferentstuff

I'd like to get a neutral party to either help guide me or help guide the others or both. I believe my bold and good faith edit improves the article. I also believe others' reverts are violating wikipedia policy such as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:IDHT and essays like WP:DRNC and WP:ROWN which are the consensus of wikipedia. I'm trying to build further consensus, but feel stonewalled. Otherwise, if I am in the wrong, I'd really appreciate gaining some understanding so I can do a better job editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs)

You attempted to move large swaths of material into a sub-article, and then transclude it back into the main article. Technically, the content is still available to readers of the main article, but now has primacy in the sub-article. This creates several issues and is not the way biographies of politicians are usually written on Wikipedia. There needs to be consensus for removing the substantial contributions of several editors from the Donald Trump article—an article which is read more than 200,000 times each day. Try seeking compromise and please listen to the legitimate concerns of your fellow editors. - MrX 02:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any idea of transclusion as a way of organizing content. That is fundamentally counter to policy here. People should not have to solve layers of code to figure out where the actual text is. An actual split is splitting the article contents into a separate page and making this a summary here. Just removing it and transulating it solves literally nothing. The talk page shows the opposition to the idea and if you try it again, you will be blocked as it is wildly disruptive. I'm redirecting Politics of Donald Trump until there is actual consensus for such a split. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Clausnitz

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

---

The Clausnitz incident has afaik drawn international attention. But i have never seen such a grotesk story, mainly made of vandalism, visible one and a half day in a wikipedia article... --Itu (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Drive-by vandalism edits from IPs. I've restored the corrected text, plus citation. Feel free to keep the article on your watch list, and other people reading this should as well. But this isn't really an ANI issue. If you'd like to request Page Protection, go to WP:RFPP. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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