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

The Banner

Unfortunately, The Banner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has in the past, and also recently, been casting aspersions in the form of unsupported claims of misconduct against me in various areas of Wikipedia, stating that I have a COI, that I add improper sources, etc., which is not the case. This has been an ongoing pattern from the user. The user also performs actions against consensuses that are determined at deletion discussions they initiated, by afterward unilaterally redirecting articles that were closed with a merge result at AfD, without performing any merge of content whatsoever. This comes across as a means to realize their desired result of content removal when articles they nominate are not deleted. The user sometimes continues to do so repeatedly, regardless of consensuses that were determined. The user also has a poor habit of making repeated ad hominen statements that are uncivil and harassing in their overall nature.

I've also noticed a long-term ongoing pattern of sometimes reckless editing by this user in various pageant-related and other articles. The user routinely strips large swaths of content from articles, but this sometimes creates problems. For the record, I'm not against all of their content removal edits, some of which are useful and appropriate, but I often get the impression that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Sometimes it comes across that the user is simply here to remove as much pageant-related content as possible, but this is often performed per their own subjective opinions, rather than based upon guidelines and policies.

Requesting community input regarding these matters. I'm particularly concerned about the casting of aspersions, dishonesty and lying, uncivil and harassing behaviors, and actions the user performs that go against the consensuses of deletion discussions.

1. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
2. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
3. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
4. Casting aspersions of COI and blatant lying and dishonesty at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Diva - 2015

   The Banner: "I have told you before that you have to declare your Conflict of Interest. You are now again filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft to protect an year-article while there is not even a link to a parent article about Miss Diva." (diff)

   "My response: "There is no COI; improving an article is not COI. Here's the edits I have performed: add sources, add more footnotes template with Twinkle, move template, add an image. Please familiarize yourself with the actual COI guideline. None of these edits require sources (should I add more sources to qualify the sources I added, like referencing a reference?) and none constitute "fancruft", not even adding an image. It is sad that your characterization of me as "filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft" is so dishonest; I guess you'll just say anything regardless of the actual truth of the matter. How disappointing." (diff, and some minor copy edits after this diff)

5. Casting aspersions: diff . The user's wording here falsely suggests that I restored content with "dodgy sources", but the content actually had no sources at all to begin with. I added several reliable sources later.
6. Casting aspersions and false statements: here ("Yes, I know by now that you prefer related sources instead of independent sources or none at all."). My actions in editing the article afterward clearly indicate that this is simply not the truth: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.
7. Casting aspersions and false statements: diff ("you often add related sources to prove something ...""). Notice that my actual source additions to the article afterward are entirely contrary to this false statement of adding "related sources" (e.g primary sources), particularly the "often" part): diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Of course, the user left their impugning statement on the talk page after all of my edits that utilized reliable sources.
8. Uncivil behavior: A discussion on my talk page, that is now archived here. The user orders me to perform edits or "shut up", makes false, harassing statemets about my editing, and states that a supposed "halfway mess and confusion" was created. No mess or confusion of any sort was created whatsoever. It comes across that the user posts these types of statements in efforts to contiuously mar my reputation, done through the presence of the content regardless of the actual non-validity of it.
9. Performing unilateral actions against consensus at their AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Spain 2004: States that a merge was performed ("merge completed"), but one was never performed (diff), unilaterally redirects again against consensus (diff), and yet again unilaterally redirects against consensus (diff, see this diff following the user's edit for more information). In the first two diffs, the user comes across as attempting to circumvent the consensus at the discussion to get their way, after their desired result of deletion was not realized.
10. Performing unilateral actions against the merge consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miss World hosts and invited artists: twice redirects without performing any merge (diff, diff), against the consensus and editorial decisions of other users at the AfD discussion. The user again appears to try to get their way when the AfD they created was closed against their desired result of deletion.
11. Reversions that introduced factual errors: blanket reverts swaths of content, creating factual errors, twice in a row: diff, diff. I had to correct this twice: diff, diff. It comes across that the user does not bother reading edit summaries left by other users, and simply comes along and presses the undo button, regardless of consequence. This type of behavior is damaging to the encyclopedia.
12. Blanket removal of properly verified content I added to an article per their subjective opinion of "irrelevant fancruft": diff. Wikipedia content is based upon what reliable sources report, which has more weight compared to subjective opinion. This blanket removal had a poor side effect of removing a reliable source I added to the article that had to be rescued by AnomieBOT (diff). I then restored the content (diff). These types of actions make it difficult to improve articles, because after improvements are performed in accordance with guidelines (e.g. using reliable sources and citations), the user just comes along and presses the undo button, basing the removal upon personal opinion rather than guidelines and policies.
13. Blanket removal of reliable sources in the references section of this article: diff. The edit summary left used a generic copy/paste rationale that did not address this aspect of the content removal. This created unnecessary work in having to restore the valid sources I added to the article, which again, were removed for no logical reason.
14. Removal of sourced content using a generic copy paste rationale that stated in part "WP:OR": diff. The content was all verified with inline citations to a reliable source; as such it's not original research.
15. Casting aspersions and false accusations of my sincere efforts to improve an article being "close to vandalism" and adding "related sources" and "not reliable sources": User talk:The Banner/Archives/2016/January § Miss Earth 2015 I responded with a summary of the wholly reliable sources I added, but the user then continued along the same line, stating, "...you add or defend related sources". I did not add any related sources, nor did I "defend" them. Notice in the article's Revision history circa this time period that I actually removed many unreliable sources from the article after adding reliable ones. It comes across that the user very likely didn't even bother to actually view the sources added to the article, nor noticed my removal of unreliable sources I performed, instead simply sticking to their pattern of making baseless ad hominem false claims. This also comes across as intentional obfuscation, rather than a discussion of facts.
16. Uncivil tone toward another user: diff

More examples of these types of behavior exist, but hopefully this provides an adequate summary of the ongoing pattern of problematic editing and behaviors performed by this user. I have consistently remained calm and civil with this user despite all of this, stating my case in various discussions in a collegial manner, but the user does not tend to act in kind. It would be nice if the user would stop casting aspersions, stop being dishonest, tone-down their rhetoric and abrasive statements and behaviors, and instead try to work in in a collegial manner with others. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(Addendum) – Additional evidence of these types of ongoing behavior patterns by the user is located at the following past ANI discussions listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

1. WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner
2. Persistently making contentious actions during discussion

Mr. North America is very enthusiastic in adding irrelevant info to articles about pageants. He does that so often, that he gives me the idea that he has an undeclared Conflict of Interest. Most recent on Miss World where he ignored the lack of relevant info in the to-be-merged-articles to add a massive load of stuff to the articles. Part of that is "sourced" with photo-sites or galleries, not exactly sources conform WP:RS. Mr. North America has a clear lack of distinction between notable and not-notable, claiming that something is notable when you can prove it with a related website. By and large, this is a good section about his opinions, strengthening my believes: Talk:Miss_World#Merger complete. The Banner talk 12:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have only used one "photo site" in the article, specifically Getty Images, not plural as stated above as "photo sites or galleries". The site is used four times in the article, and is done only when I am unable to find any other sources to verify content. I explained why in part on the article's talk page: diff. Here's a more recent comment: diff. Also, I have not used any "related websites" in the article, as incorrectly accused above. Getty could be considered as somewhat of a primary source in that the photographers were physically at the event, but primary sources are allowed to be used moderately for verification. Getty is not "related" to the Miss World pageant. Getty's images cover a diverse range of topics and are used by reliable newspapers all over the world. Overall, just more inappropriate aspersions (e.g. another baseless COI accusation, "claiming that something is notable when you can prove it with a related website", etc. etc.) I'm not "claiming that something is notable" or making any type of claims at all, I'm verifying Wikipedia content to improve articles for Wikipedia's readers. Other than the four Getty sources, all other sources I added are reliable, secondary sources. Your strange statement above of "... lack of distinction between notable and not-notable" carries no weight; each and every fact in an article does not have to stand up to notability tests, as though if any mention of anything and every snippet of content has to qualify for its own article. This is not how Wikipedia functions. You seem to be confusing verification with topic notability. It appears that the "lack of distinction between notable and not-notable" is solely applicable to yourself, rather than me. All of these aspersions are getting quite old. It needs to stop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nor does a tiny snippet of a source make a subject notable. The Banner talk 19:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand the difference between verification and topic notability. Verification of content is a different concept, which is used to confirm that content is accurate. Again, every bit of information in an article does not have to pass WP:N as though if it has to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think that everything that is verifiable is automatically notable. At least, that is the way you act. And in the mean time, you just continue with adding irrelevant unsourced info, like this. The Banner talk 08:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ - I have nothing against The Banner but personally it seems like they want to get rid of every pagent article on the project, I admit about a year or 2 ago I would !vote Delete on every pagent AFD on the basis of this place didn't need them however I begun to realize this was extremely disruptive and goes against what the project is ... which is why I no longer !vote on them, TB however seems to nominate them on a daily basis and without searching for sources (and when sources are provided they refute every single one), and then we have fact they redirect articles even without consensus, Personally I believe TB should be topic-banned from pagents altogether but that's just my honest opinion, –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

AfD Statistics for User:The Banner. 75.3% is deleted as I had suggested. The rest is kept, still open or merged. The Banner talk 22:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I am prepared to stop working on pageant articles. To my opinion, that is not in the best interest of Wikipedia, as it also means stopping with hunting down sockpuppeteers/meatpuppeteers and AfD'ing substandard articles. But if that is what the people want, I give in. Good luck with all spam that will be coming. The Banner talk 18:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with your editing or nominating of these articles, in fact I agree to a lesser extent with your position on most of the content. The main issue I see is the accusations towards Northamerica of having a COI. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Temporary topic ban? This might work and calm things down. The Banner could work elsewhere, hopefully productively. A temporary break from the subject matter of pageants would allow things to cool down and for perspective to be gained. Say, three to six months? Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Both ways? Then I can agree with a three month ban. The Banner talk 07:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What does "Both ways?" mean? This thread is about you and your disruptive editing in the topic of pageants. You already agreed a few paragraphs above that you are "prepared to stop working on pageant articles". Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume that you guys at least take a look at what NorthAmerica1000 what triggered this sequence of events. Admin or not. The Banner talk 18:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No, of course it's not a topic-ban proposal for NA1000. That's clear from the wording of my proposal. Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from a somewhat involved editor. My involvement comes from the fact that I originally merged the articles into Miss World[1][2][3][4][5] following the various debates that closed as merge. Northamercia1000 reverted some of these which showed up on my alerts, and lead to this conversation and this statement of disapproval. As far as the content aspects go I fall very much in line with The Banner, for example this was how it looked when I made my comment.

I must admit I found the COI claims strange. Northamerica1000 is a dedicated editor in a range of topics, and his editing habits here do not seem any different than at any other articles he takes an interest in. Not sure what COI is suspected, maybe he is a contestant. Anyway that should definitely stop. Points 9 and 10 above I do not see as a problem. In fact I had already merged the information from 10 (not to Northamerica1000s satisfaction, but merged nonetheless), so I don't see that as being against consensus, but more a disagreement on how much to merge. The other points are in articles I have not frequented so do not know enough background. Some look like content disputes, although civility could be better from The Banner. AIRcorn (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, Aircorn. I was working on a daily basis to remove crystal balls, irrelevant info fancruft from pageant-articles. And then it is very annoying to see somebody on a regular basis restoring unsourced fancruft and/or irrelevant info. So yes, a break from it could be a good idea to restore a fresh look. I might have lost my cool. The Banner talk 07:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: What seems to be happening here is the interaction of a deletionist and an inclusionist. Accusations of "COI", "spam", "fancruft", and "unreliable sources", and the various general aspersions, are entirely inappropriate and need to completely stop immediately. I think a cool-down period for The Banner of three months' voluntary or enforced topic ban would allow the situation to cool down. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am a bit confused about the labels deletionist and inclusionist. I am certainly not someone who AfD's everything he can nor do I want to include everything what is on offer. But I do belief in WP:RS, with independent, reliable and prior published sources present in the article to prove notability and relevance. The Banner talk 23:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of pageants, you are a deletionist and NA1000 is an inclusionist. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have been somewhat involved in these AfD's by The Banner involving many of their pageant AfD and speedy nominations, including issues on Miss America 2017 where instead of working on sourcing, just asked for constant speedying of the article until we had a solid source it was occurring (in that case, the signing of a television deal) despite the fact that most pageants almost always occur year after year outside of being affected by civil unrest, natural disasters or the organizing institution going bankrupt. The nom for Nuestra Belleza México 2015 (which ended up in 2016 due to various Trump/Miss Universe issues) was the same way with a very spare deletion reason you'd expect from someone who was new. The problem with pageant sourcing is it's a case where we have to deal with the best we can; pretty much almost anything but the most major pageants are either news sources happy that 'local person makes good' by winning a pageant, "drama" stories (most involving the Miss USA/Miss Universe organizations and said former owner of them) or just raw PR that has to be digested in a sanely written form with neutral sourcing; like most entertainment topics, finding a sober, completely neutral, and dull source for pageant stories is a needle in the haystack situation. We have to make do with what sourcing these have, but Banner has been unable or unwilling to compromise, even when I said in the Miss USA 2017 AfD that I would personally look after that as a redirect until we have sourced information and that continually bringing pageants to AfD is a waste of time that could be better spent on other projects. I agree with Aircorn that a topic ban for Banner is appropriate unless they can find a middle ground between sourcing things well, understanding that WPBP has a right to their article purview, and taking anything with a "Miss (x)", "Mr. (x)" or "Mrs. (x)" off to deletion straightaway. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: Just for the record I was not advocating for a topic ban or indeed anything else against any of the editors. My presence here is simply as an editor who became involved in one of the incidents. I was just trying to express my reading of the situation as an experienced and relatively impersonal (about this topic at least) editor. Did you mean Softlavender instead perhaps? AIRcorn (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That I did, thanks for noticing it; my error, and apologies. Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Interesting that you start about the Miss USA 2017 AfD, where you completely ignored the point - and not only from me - that redirected articles will be restored multiple times before they are salted and that an admin needs a sound base to salt such an article. Like having an AfD to build on. An opinion based on experience... The Banner talk 09:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Nate's analysis of the entire situation is quite accurate and neutral. In terms of the Miss USA 2017 AfD, it's you who are ignoring Nate's point above (and indeed the consensus of the AfD). Your argumentativeness in this ANI thread does not speak well for you. If this is the sort of attitude you are going to maintain about pageant articles, the proposed topic ban will likely turn out permanent (at least two editors, Davey and Nate, have supported that on this thread) instead of short-term. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have the right to defend myself, my friend. And I hope that you have noticed by now that I obey the voluntary topic ban from the day NorthAmerica filed this case. The Banner talk 08:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user in question is extremely hard to work with. As a recent example, see Template talk:Michelin stars in Drenthe, Netherlands, where a discussion about removing (and restoring) an empty line devolves into accusations of "editwarring". WP:BATTLEGROUND? Kleuske (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please note that due to the disruptive behaviour of Kleuske on the Dutch Wikipedia, the ArbCom put in place a total interaction ban (on my request) upon us. See nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Projectverstorend gedrag van The Banner. She is now introducing the same mentality and behaviour here. To avoid any future problems I request a permanent interaction ban between Kleuske and me to serve the peace. The Banner talk 23:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I noticed that it is less stressful to stay away from the pageant misery. So I keep doing that. Not just for three months, but most likely longer as I am clearing out my watchlist. The Banner talk 20:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment @The Banner: either being barred from working on pageant articles or his voluntarily walking from them would be a horrible loss to wikipeia because this particular WikiProject is a mess. Fancruft, unreferenced, trivia, make believe pagents/hoaxes, the Project has seen a lot of it (and more problematic editing) and Banner tries to clean up the messes but people come back and recreate the messes again or recreate totally new ones. Banner is a bold pushy editor, sometimes he does dazzlingly close to the precipice, but Wikipedia needs him. Collegiality is great but aggressiveness is needed around here sometimes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think NA1000 has a COI in these pageants, and that was a poorly made accusation--but I agree that Banner's edits in this (and other) field is very, very helpful. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I do not agree with ...User:William's description of Banner coming "dazzingly close to the precipice" pertaining to this discussion. Imho, Banner seems to have lost objectivity and has gone way past the edge on what is acceptable editing on Wikipedia. After reading through this and checking out the diffs and getting a sense of the editing behavior(s) of NA 1000 and The Banner - - no editor has the right to cast aspersions and tell another editor to "shut up". Also, consistently operating unilaterally against consensus is also unacceptable editing behavior. This is not how this project is supposed to work. I don't see being overbearing or uncivil and so on as being constructive. At the same time, it speaks well of him that he is willing to take a time out voluntarily. Because I can Respect that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have a lot to add here and will try to find time to do this soon. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Topic ban on COI or interaction ban? I wasn't going to comment here, but seeing as this still hasn't been settled, it is worth mentioning The Banner's overall behavior is not just a problem in this topic area. We've dealt with them over at GMO/organic topics too. They do have a tendency to cast aspersions to try to win content disputes and otherwise in general lash out at editors they don't agree with for some pretty extreme battleground behavior. That includes references to cabals, accusing others of COI, tag teaming, etc. This is detailed pretty well over at their last ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#WP:CIVIL.2C_edit_warring.2C_and_user_talk_page_violations_by_The_Banner where they were warned to stop this behavior (some diffs and edit summary examples[6][7][8][9][10]).

The main problem seems to be that The Banner appears to be unable to remain civil and not attack editors when there is a dispute. In this particular topic where it appears people agree they do some good content work, it seems better to target the behavior problem rather than just remove them from the topic. Removing the ability to comment on COI at all could be worth consideration as a first step. There seems to be enough here for a one-way interaction ban imposed on The Banner too. Taking away their ability to comment on editors entirely seems to be where this is heading though in terms of WP:ROPE, so I would suggest that any this and future incidents reported here have a very low bar for one-way (or two-way if appropriate) interaction bans at the least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that you have to go back that far to find something naughty. But it is true that I am highly critical how MEDRS is used. And because I know quite well that I can not win that, I have largely abandoned that field. The Banner talk 03:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• User:Gidonb (and anyone else with final comments), please comment now as this thread appears to have otherwise run its course and needs closing. Fences&Windows 18:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

When this is closed, it should be mentioned that The Banner has previously been warned for this type of behavior at ANI referenced above. I don't see any action coming out of this specific case, but it does seem like we're to the point per WP:ROPE that the next time will result in sanctions. Otherwise we're just going to have a string of ANIs that just repeatedly warn The Banner with no apparent improvement in their behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• No action. The Banner is valuable editor, and is here to improve the encyclopedia. I do think The Banner should move accusations to the user's talk page or whatever the COI rules tell us to do that, and agree to refrain from further accusations of COI on the talk pages of the article. That should solve the problem. I trust Aircorn's assessment. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

CurlyTurkey unilaterally deleting good article nomination

Every user has the right to attempt to nominate an article for good article status, and it's up to the reviewer to decide whether or not the article will pass. However, Curly Turkey, who has made no contributions to discussing the content of the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, has been doing nothing whatsoever on the article's talk page except unilaterally edit warring to delete my nomination.[11][12][13][14] Deleting the nomination would be unacceptable under any circumstances, but I think every single Wikipedia editor should be able to agree that deleting a nomination without even bothering to give a single reason on the talk page is completely unacceptable. Curly Turkey has never stated any specific reason why the article is not good article status, or stated anything else for that matter, on the article talk page. Curly Turkey has never sought to gain any consensus for his unilateral actions, and he is in clear violation of Wikipedia's rules on assuming good faith because he keeps going around telling me and other users outright that I'm not editing in good faith.[15][16] For a long time now, he's been making hostile comments against me wherever I go.[17][18] I've been working hard on improving the article and Curly Turkey has given no evidence that any of my work on this article was done in bad faith. However, I could work collaboratively with Curly Turkey if he was capable of speaking to me in any way except threats and insults. What's more, Curly Turkey has already been banned three times for edit warring, and edit warring to delete talk page comments is especially bad. In fact, Curly Turkey seems to be in the habit of deleting my talk page comments, because he's done it before. This sort of behavior is obviously harassment.TH1980 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I think this is also of concern; It seems that you removed the POV tags without getting consensus to do so. [19][20], the first removal of the tag was reverted with the edit summary of "That was sneaky. Do not remove this again without talk page consensus." I agree with that assessment given your own edit summary was "Added more bibliography". More importantly then that I'd also add this into the discussion for consideration if only for the summary [21]. Note that only a few edits were made after this and that they were nearly all minor (at least two of the major edits were reverted over consensus issues). I have my doubts about the above report. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone is going to revert a nomination, shouldn't they at least say what's wrong with the article so that I can fix it? CurlyTurkey has never mentioned any reason on the article talk page, and even when I asked him on my own talk page he did not.[22] I have already dealt with all outstanding issues concerning the article, but his edit warring has been going on for months.TH1980 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Questions and comments: (A) I'm not familiar with GA nomination procedures. Can someone point me to the relevant guideline or policy which indicates that an article cannot be (re)nominated for GA without some sort of consensus (and where and how that alleged consensus is to be achieved or denied)? (B) In terms of the maintenance tags at the top of the article, CurtisNaito removed the hidden comment underneath them (<!-- Do not remove these tags again until the issues with this article have been resolved. The first (enormous, highly dubious) section ("Art") remains largely unchanged since the AFD. ~Hijiri88, May 2015. -->), on 26 May 2016: [23]. After one intervening edit by CurtisNaito, TH1980 removed the maintenance tags themselves on 26 May 2016: [24], without acknowledging that in the edit summary and without Talk page discussion. He did the same thing two more times after they were restored: [25], [26]; still no discussion or permission on Talk. (C) If there are problems with the article, what are they? Could those opposing the GA nomination please indicate the problems? (D) I myself would be extremely skeptical about sourcing such an article. Any source which derived from Korea or from anyone of Korean descent would have an obvious COI and be suspect, in my mind. Therefore it would be most important to find unbiased sources. Softlavender (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well @Softlavender:, I have something even better. [27] How about this for some sleuthing, there is AN/I consensus that CurtisNaito is not to propose a GAN until consensus is formed. Read the entire closing statement, its in Archive906. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely no one except CurlyTurkey has ever told me, in any manner, that I need "consensus" before nominating the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, or for that manner any article, for good article status. CurlyTurkey cannot provide any diff that would show any other user telling me this, because that never happened. Even so, I'm absolutely willing to seek a consensus with CurlyTurkey on this matter. What I need to know is how I can reach a consensus with him when he has never stated anywhere on the talk page what his objections to the current text of the article are. My main goal in being here is to convince CurlyTurkey to tell me what he objects to about the content of the article so that I can deal with it before nominating. He still hasn't said anything. As CurlyTurkey points out, I did edit the article History of Japan, but I was not the one who nominated it for good article status. CurlyTurkey seems to mistakenly believe that my edits to that article were disruptive, but the admin IJethrobot explicitly told CurlyTurkey that my edits there were not disruptive. Another user says that CurlyTurkey has a history of deleting the talk page comments of people he is angry at.[29] Either CurlyTurkey is keeping his objections to the article a carefully-guarded secret, or else maybe he is just deleting the nomination because he doesn't like me personally.TH1980 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Bottom line: There is no known stricture on nominating or renominating an article for GA. If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions, if there are any. Here [30] he eloquently laid out some serious concerns, which he can repeat during the GA discussions, if they happen. Or, he can post those concerns preemptively on the article's talk page right now. I personally have no opinion on the merits of this article, although Curly Turkey's statements there are indeed worrisome, especially when noted alongside TH1980 and CurtisNaito's repeated removal of maintenance tags with diversionary misleading edit summaries, and I agree that sourcing such an article must be done very very carefully to avoid Korean-COI POV. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Softlavender, I don't believe that I removed tags improperly. I removed the tag mentioning art because my very next edit was a rewrite of the section on art with the edit summary "art". I must have done a good job editing it, because even though concerns were raised about parts of the article later, none of it related to the section on art. When I did remove the POV tag, I used the edit summary "It might be better to tag just the specific section you are concerned about. The large majority of this has never been objected to." Although I discussed the matter with Curly Turkey on my talk page [31], Curly Turkey did not give a reason for tagging the article and did not argue against it in the talk page. It seems to me that I removed the tags in an open and proper manner. Also, note that the article was last nominated one year and 2.5 weeks ago.

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

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

Though I was not involved in the recent edit warring, naturally I supported nomination. I have nominated numerous good level articles, and when I noticed that TH1980 had been heavily editing the Korean influence on Japanese culture article while I was inactive, I told him he should consider fixing the article's remaining problems and nominate it. I never suggested to him that he add in any sources that (at the time) were described on the talk page as being controversial. From the talk page, we see that TH1980 was able to correct a number of important errors Nishidani made.[32][33] I'm sure each of them corrected each other on occasion. I noticed that Nishidani was warned by an admin about potentially driving users off the article because of his rude comments, but it seems like the two of them still managed to work together. TH1980 often pointed out in the talk page that the wording he used matched the preferred wording of the sources, which mostly were peer reviewed articles and academic books.

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

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

No, as I already mentioned above, he nominated it one year and 2 weeks after. It seemed to me that he was responding quickly whenever Nishidani raised a concern.[34][35] Personally, I think that discussion was progressing well, and if more work was needed then discussion should have continued.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Most of Nishidani's posts were disputing the reliability of "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan", a peer-reviewed academic article written by a team of leading scholars, including a prominent American historian. I offered to bring the source to the reliable sources noticeboard just to be sure it really was a good source,[36] but I never received a response. As was pointed out by three users in the talk page, Nishidani is a researcher but as a result has some tendency to lean towards original research. The academic article Nishidani disputed is at least not original research, but it could be original research to create, as Nishidani did, an entire paragraph, in an article on "Korean influence on Japanese culture", and cite it entirely to the Nihon Shoki, an eighth century work of history.[37] I appreciate that I could discuss things with Nishidani, but it is through discussion that we can identify and eliminate original research like this. I still think that re-nomination is fine as long as the current issues on the talk page are responded to and edited. TH1980 did not nominate until he had done that.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For that matter I have a serious question. If theres an issue with the Nihon Shoki, why, has this not been implemented; [38]. @CurtisNaito: made a request for a better source, @Nishidani: offers up a recent secondary source, and @TH1980: states quite literally that they'll put it in and then doesn't do it. how about some actual conflict resolution and not just conflict. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know that there are varying definitions of primary sources, but I had thought that on Wikipedia it was fine to use Wikipedia's in-house definitions: the ones from the policy page. Many of the Nihon Shoki's sources are still extant, like the Wei Zhi, which is directly quoted in the Nihon Shoki[39], and many temple records including Gangoji Engi[40]. Obviously the Nihon Shoki is far more than "one step removed from" most of the events it describes. As you know, the point I was trying to make earlier is that we should discourage using the Nihon Shoki alone as a source for entire sections. No matter how we classify it, I think we should realize that the Nihon Shoki's information is not always reliable. If you still insist that the Nihon Shoki is reasonable as the sole source of information for a paragraph of potentially controversial material, you can have that view, but maybe we can discuss that on the article talk pages on a case-by-case basis, rather than here.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He added the source as the citation in question, not just in the references section, immediately after saying that he would.[41] TH1980 was correct in saying that he did not nominate until after he had executed all existing recommendations posted on the talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to User:Mr rnddude's request.

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You haven't understood anything."

"you are a one-eyed POV pushing editor"

"You shouldn't be on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ricky81682: CurtisNaito and TH1980 removed the maintenance tags, without permission and with diversionary and misleading edit summaries. This has already been noted several times in the discussions above. CurtisNaito removed the hidden comment underneath them (<!-- Do not remove these tags again until the issues with this article have been resolved. The first (enormous, highly dubious) section ("Art") remains largely unchanged since the AFD. ~Hijiri88, May 2015. -->), on 26 May 2016: [42]. After one intervening edit by CurtisNaito, TH1980 removed the maintenance tags themselves on 26 May 2016: [43], without acknowledging that in the edit summary and without Talk page discussion. He did the same thing two more times after they were restored: [44], [45]; still no discussion or permission on Talk. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I edited the Art section right after I removed the tag recommending that the art section be edited.[46] I asked in my next edit summary why the tags could not be put only over the part of the article in dispute(if there was such a part)[47], but got no answer. No one disputed the removal of the tags on the article talk page at the time. I did discuss the matter on my talk page[48], but I never heard any reason to maintain the tags. Recently, an experienced user commented on the article talk page, "At present, I do not see any arguments that would justify tagging this article or reference with POV/RS tags." There are issues currently being discussed on the talk page, but I never heard a single editor argue on the talk page that the whole article needed to be tagged.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

It looks to me like the contents of the talk page and article over the last week mostly involves other users like Nishidani asking for things and TH1980 by and large doing them. Nishidani complained about a certain source being used for 30% of the article[49] and TH1980 decreased it to 7%.[50] Nishidani wanted book links[51] so TH1980 added book links[52], and so on.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War of Attrition

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

The most recent thread, should have ended shortly after this with a resolution to the problem; [53], that thread is still going and currently looks like this [54]. It's impossible to have a resolution to any dispute like this.

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

Three minutes later, TH1980 accused Nishidani of not pulling their weight[56] which is frankly, bull.

By 17:07, July 16, Nishidani comes back to inform of bad-faith editing on the part of TH1980 [57].

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

to which CurtisNation weighs in to defend TH1980 15 minutes later [58]

an issue that did not even begin to be resolved until 22:28 [59].

This then spiraled out into a behaviour discussion for hours (from 23:38 July 6 to 05:05 July 7) and was only brought back on track by me here [60] and would be derailed again within the hour, the first attempt at about 7 minutes after my post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nishidani said in the article that Hyeja was from Baekje.[61] No source anywhere in existence, including the one Nishidani cited, says this. I pointed this out on the talk page[62] and eventually I fixed this error myself.[63]

Nishidani wrote in the article, citing Mikiso Hane, that "many from these kingdoms fled to Japan and, according to Mikiso Hane, later contributed significantly to the implementation of the Taika Reforms and the Taihō Code". The source in question does not say anything about Korean influence on the Taiho Code. I pointed this out on the talk page[64] and eventually I fixed this error myself.[65]

Nishidani wrote in the article "the Japanese continued to prefer employing open-hearth ovens"[66] even though the source only said "In cooler regions of the northeast, however, the kamado's limited capacity as a room heater discouraged its use". "Cooler regions of the northeast" is not the same thing as "the Japanese", so I pointed this out on the talk page [67] and fixed this error too.[68] No matter what the problem is or who added it, I always fix it. An honest person would have to give me credit for that.TH1980 (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Widefox disruption

I'd appreciate it someone uninvolved could have a look at Widefox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in connection with the article Kinetic degradation fluxion media. He's been disruptively adding maintenance templates against consensus (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), and also edit warring to restore them after they have been removed, and good faith efforts made to address his concerns. I count a total of four reverts during the past several days: [69], [70], [71], [72]. In the process of conducting these reverts, he was careful to "warn" me (despite the fact that I was adding content and references, and indeed am mostly responsible for rescuing the article from certain deletion): [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. This is WP:HUSH behavior. When I asked him to stop posting harassing messages on my talk page, he continued commenting on my actions on article talk. I asked him to stop this as well, telling him to "focus on the content, not the contributor". Subsequently, he posted yet another warning on the article talk page (after himself conducting another revert of the article).

User:Widefox has engaged in tendentious arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinetic degradation fluxion media (2nd nomination). Prior to my own involvement in the article, User:Toddst1 has also had interactions with this editor over the article in question, and also seems equally exasperated with his behavior. He believed that Widefox must have a COI editing in this area.

My own observation is that User:Widefox has already made up his mind that the subject of the article is bogus, and that no amount of reliable sources will change that assessment. I do not believe that this is consistent with an attitude that will result in a better more neutral article.

I submit this for the community's assessment because (1) I no longer wish to receive harassing threats from the editor under discussion, (2) Widefox, who has done very little constructive editing at the article, has in the process created an environment at the article and talk page that are not conducive to constructive editing, and so fits the definition of disruption. I am aware of WP:BOOMERANG, and at this point I don't really care if one or both of us is sanctioned. But the threats must end, and since Widefox is apparently unwilling to follow through on his threats, here we are. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for diffs for 4R as asked on the talk and offered to revert if I've made a mistake by going over as I'm aware I was close and did everything I could to work out and go by the book on the talk page. I've exhaustively attempted to reach consensus/compromise on the AfD/talk on terms such as RS, MEDRS, edit warring, section names etc . WP:BOOMERANG Editor has been encouraging me to take him/her to ANI [78] [79], and I've said it's better handled elsewhere. Partly content issues actively talked about on the talk Talk:Kinetic degradation fluxion media by the parties that does not belong at ANI. Partly disruptive editing. Partly edit warring with me involved (mia culpa). I've already given an offer on the talk to cool off and not edit (before this was taken to ANI). This is baiting when editor has been warned for their disruptive editing (all exhaustively discussed on the talk and AfD). This is the second time this editor has been at ANI for MEDRS sourcing issues, and doesn't agree with with basic terms in MEDRS (see AfD, and talk). Widefox; talk 11:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The prior visit to ANI "for MEDRS issues" was a completely different, and unrelated matter, regarding a completely different page, more than six months ago. I corrected you one this point once before. Here it is just an obvious ad hominem. I don't think that helps your argument, and indeed illustrates precisely the kind of WP:HUSH tactics we are here to talk about. Also, I find the attitude rather problematic that one can go exactly to 3RR, and no further, while "warning" others who are not reverting but attempting, in good faith, to resolve issues. That is one of the reasons we are here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) User:Sławomir Biały when you accuse "COI", do you even have any shred of evidence for that unfounded accusation? Repeating what someone else said is hearsay! Please provide anything, e.g. a diff. (for context, you know I'm active at WP:COIN which was my first edit to this article as COI work! [80] ...coming to this article from the dab [81] (and for the record, nope I have no connection in any way [])...I even have an essay about COI WP:BOGOF which details the exact dichotomy here of two valid editor views - a systemic bias issue with trying to rescue WP:TNTs like this article (as was) - Toddst1 for example disregarded copyvios exposed by me and another editor in trying to save it [82]. That's not COI.) All these accusations are not backed by diffs, so either provide evidence or withdraw. In terms of consensus, there's rough consensus for my editing with another editor being "100% in agreement with me" [83] as seen by the discussion at the talk with another editor - i.e. specifically these content issues - of maintenance templates etc. Widefox; talk 11:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of COI, but noted that other editors involved with you on this issue have raised that suspicion based on your tendentious behavior. You'd have to take up the matter with User:Toddst1. From my perspective, it does not really matter. If your behavior at the article is inconsistent with WP:NLOV, whether it's due to a COI or not isn't the main consideration. I am merely noting that other experienced editors have noticed the same behavior and suspected a COI for that reason. Similar conflicts with unconnected and univolved editors is a sign of WP:TE. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait a minute! When Sławomir Biały says "exactly to 3RR" does that mean this is at ANI and there's not even the bright line crossed combined with exhaustive attempts to persuade collaboration on the talk and prevent 3RR violation?! Together with my evidence of baiting to bring to ANI, why is this here? BOOMERANG. Last time editor was at ANI for MEDRS [84] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive905#User:S.C5.82awomir Bia.C5.82y keeps changing Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources without consensus] where someone said to Guy "My advice would be to simply ignore this nonsense. You have better things to do. Don't feed the trolls". Trolling is strong, but I agree. As for "My own observation is that User:Widefox has already made up his mind" - first see WP:AGF - as for mind-reading - even I don't know what's going in my mind half the time! If you read WP:BOGOF you'll see I respect both sides as valid (just one more healthy!). Widefox; talk 12:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Irony: That was advice to me, not Guy. You are now apparently accusing the editor who wrote most of the current content at Kinetic degradation flux media of trolling, while the bulk of your contribution have consisted of placing disruptive maintenance templates, contentious and non-neutral sectioning, and issuing bogus warnings. I say we just let the WP:DUCK test prevail, when an uninvolved administrator investigates your editing history in connection with this topic. Agreed? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have notified the editor that Widefox quoted, since they are apparently now involved in this discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You're the troll or Guy? It's not clear to me from the context but I give you the benefit of the doubt (struck). but I do know that what Guy said is exactly what's happening here (difference being that's a guideline, this an article) "Slawekb, you weren't "discussing things on the talk page". You were discussing things on the talk page while at the same time repeatedly editing the guideline and being reverted. I asked you to stop doing that, you refused, and so here you are at ANI. The personal attacks above make it clear that you have no intention of stopping, and thus my asking ANI to stop you was the right decision". The closer is right ..."...reminded that other dispute resolution processes are available here, and that making use of them can be just as productive as raising the matter her at WP:ANI." . It's BRD not B (R&D). Widefox; talk 12:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

As for "I did not accuse you of COI, but noted that other editors involved with you on this issue have raised that suspicion based on your tendentious behavior." - so you don't mind repeating hearsay at ANI (I'm still waiting for evidence or withdrawal), providing no evidence to back, and making out as if it's consensus, as a kind of chilling effect - exactly what you are accusing me of? An uninvolved editor said that reflected on Toddst1 not me. "I also think Toddst1 that making veiled suggestions of COI against a another editor simply because that editor disagrees with you, and on no other basis, is deeply concerning and the suggestion should be redacted. " Talk:Kinetic_degradation_fluxion_media#Claims and sources.User:Velella (pinging, and yes I notified Guy as we talked about him) Widefox; talk 12:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I am merely reporting that other editors have had issues with your disruptive behavior. It isn't just me. That's explicitly discussed at WP:TE. I've notified Toddst1, and of course he us free to add to this discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

In summary, you don't mind repeating hearsay, you can mind-read, you've selectively notified those that you hope may agree with you, and you brought a content disputes to ANI. This has strayed so far from 3RR. Is there a 3RR violation or is this whole ANI bogus? Why did you bait me to bring to ANI? You were brought here before, identical edit behaviour that Guy took to ANI. Why is this still going on 6 months later, and 2 ANIs? You've been warned L1, L2, L3, L4 disruptive editing on this article - same as Guy - yes using the talk page, not waiting or attempting to build consensus disruptive editing - not using the talk page to attempt to build consensus/compromise for contested edits, refusing to recognise RS, MEDRS, WP:CSECTION, removing content, and not attempting to build consensus but continuing to repeat edits disregarding rough consensus at the talk. As proper notification has been given for edit disruption, the next step would be a block here (although bless any admin willing to wade through the verbatim and timings). Widefox; talk 13:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a request for an uninvolved administrator to investigate your disruptive behavior. The request specifically mentions edit warring, harassment, and tendentious argumentation at the AfD and article talk page. It is explicitly supported by diffs and links to the relevant guidelines, and your interactions with other editors. The request has nothing to do with mind-reading. These are serious behavioral issues, and should be investigated by the wider community. Your veiled accusations of trolling, "mind-reading", and dredging up completely unrelated ad hominem discussions are not helping. I suggest that we let the community decide. All this "you don't mind repeating hearsay" is just more tendentious lawyering. The first law of holes clearly applies.

I agree that the next step us a block. This request contains ample evidence of disruption, edit warring, harassment, and tendentious editing. It is supported by diffs of your reverts, diffs of your harassment, diffs of you continuing to comment on editors not content after being politely asked to stop. It contains evidence of prior disputes of the same kind with other editors. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Fact - the talk page has someone agreeing with me "100%" repeatedly. In contrast for you, there's nobody agreeing with you on the talk. The COI accusation reflected on Toddst1, now on you for repeating. You were made aware of boomerang before coming here. Widefox; talk 13:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is unrelated to content issues. If there is support for your disruptive behavior, please provide diffs. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Widefox: If you have been reverting while being careful to stay just within the confines of 3RR, that is not only still considered to be edit-warring, but is also wikilawyering and gaming of the system to boot. Cut it out now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Repinging User:Widefox as I misspelt their name. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I've repeatedly asked for where I am as I do not know and offered to revert if mistakenly over. I am aware that edit warring doesn't need 3RR. So no, there's no gaming but the talk does have my attempt to prevent 3RR/edit warring violation by cooling off and discussing etc (per above). As I haven't counted, I can't cut it out, or do I misunderstand? But specifically 3RR, above there's "4 reverts" in "several days" so which edits are specifically 3RR in 24hr I don't know, so can't defend myself. Think I read the nom editor doesn't mind being blocked for edit warring along with me, but I don't know what the 3RR is yet! (it is also clear to me from the noms comments that they only consider reverts, so they are armed with too strict a definition of revert for 3RR, which may mean more/less reverts i.e. "part/whole undos" have happened for me I don't know, and presumably many more for them than they realise). Widefox; talk 13:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No idea where on the article talk page you offered to self-revert. However, this edit clearly shows that you believed this to be a revert, which would have put you over 3RR. I did not include this diff in the above, because it was not actually a revert. Sławomir Biały (talk)

"If you show me the 4RR I'll revert." [85] "... I'm trying to reach consensus here to prevent edit warring. " [86] Yes, reverts is more broadly defined than that and I've told you that here [87] - see WP:3RR. Repeatedly removing the same content rather (e.g. link to copper antimicrobial) counts.so I was desperate to get you to discuss on the talk. Widefox; talk 14:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały, before coming to ANI I asked which were the 3RR and I offered to revert. I still don't know which 3. It only takes a quick look at the talk and timings to see I've been trying to build consensus for controvercial edits/this controvercial topic on the talk (for us all). Widefox; talk 14:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

A bit of general advice to both of you:

When discussing an issue at ANI, long back-and-forth discussion like we see above have a tendency to not have the intended effect, What you are hoping for is and admin carefully reading the long series of comments and ruling in your favor. What you usually get is an admin concluding that the two of you are an annoying time sink at ANI, are likely annoying time-sinks elsewhere, and applying an interaction ban or topic ban to both of you. This happens even if one of you has a far better argument.

A far better way to get the result you desire is to post a single paragraph concisely making yor case with diffs and then to stop commenting other than to answer direct questions. This is true whether you are the one filing an ANI report or the one the report is about. Key point: you don't have to point out any flaws in the other person's arguments, ask for diffs if they are missing, etc. The adnins on this noticeboard do this a lot and don't need to be told that someone made a claim without evidence. Just make your case briefly and succinctly, and let the other fellow go on and on until he rediscovers the law of holes --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

For what little it may be worth, I have also been involved in editing this article trying to work out if the article describes a real useful product or or something else. All the aggravation I have seen has come from the complainant here adding trivial and primary sources and then complaining of harassment here in response to an exasperated exchange of messages which are well within the normal give and take of a Wikipedia talk page discussion. A very short extract of some of the edits from the complainant include:-

• Adding a primary source from Journal of Dentistry here but does also add a robust source from a well known institute here.
• However, he then introduces an M.Sc thesis as a sourcehere . The thesis simply copies KDF literature . Not peer reviewed.
• He unilaterally removes notability tag here. This is marked as unreliable (which it is) but he reverts the unreliable source tags from two unreliable sources here.
• Re-introduces the M.Sc thesis reference here with the explanation ".....this Master's thesis contains a nice (and uncontroversial) description of the mechanism.)"
• Removes the unreliable source tag against the M.Sc thesis ref here with the explanation "(implemented compromise)". The compromise is a one sided compromise and consists of a talk page sentence here saying"I still don't see why the source can't just be left in? Is there a reason that it must be removed? I have looked at WP:RS and can find nothing about removal of sources. Yet your entire rationale for removing the source appears to be "A masters' thesis is unreliable, and therefore must be removed." It is the second part of this sentence that I can find no justification for. The actual article content is not challenged, so what is the harm in the source? "

And so the saga continued. My personal view is that the complainant has, at best, been persistently unhelpful to the extent that I have stood away from the article to wait for the air to clear. Widefox has taken a different approach and tackled the issues head-on but I see the cause as great frustration rather than edit warring to protect an entrenched position.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Similar to Velella, I was involved in editing this article, but eventually withdrew from discussion with Widefox and editing the article, after I felt there was something else going on here. Widefox is far too entrenched in this and I felt like I was banging my head against a wall. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you Toddst1 that I've been too closely editing the article (now stopped). Toddst1 don't you think it's important to explain your level of involvement? Toddst1 accused me of having a COI but provided no evidence (detailed above for which User:Velella advised Toddst1 to retract), but at the same time Toddst1 removed the WP:SPA creator's COI template on the talk saying no evidence! Toddst1 removed a copyvio template, dismissing copyvio out of hand - in total two copyvios were reported by two of us. I correctly recognised this as an copyvio unsourced orphan (a WP:TNT) and CSDed, that was removed. I took to AfD and I withdrew it under duress. Now an expert has taken to AfD a second time. I just came here from the dab I was fixing up! What started as a run-of-the-mill cleanup of a small dab KDF [88] which due diligence means checking if the WP:PTM KDF-55 should be included or not. Hardly COI. Widefox; talk 01:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that I have been "persistently unhelpful". This is obviously a dramatic improvement in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Summary and offer for all editing parties: Good intentioned editors above have unwittingly been drawn into a contentious topic. Due to a lack of rigorous sources for the full scope of the widespread primary claims this is not easy to write. See my summary in KDF Inc.'s own words the product was originally contentious so this is understandable [89]. The driver is WP:Verifiability, not truth vs WP:TRUTHMATTERS [90] which has resulted from the equally valid polarised positions I describe in the systemic bias essay WP:BOGOF. There's been no edits in 24hrs. ANI isn't the place to solve this. If all parties agree to refrain from accusations, and work out each contended edit on the talk e.g. WP:BRD then do we have a way forward acceptable to all without a poor admin having to mop up? I'm confident an admin could put a template on the talk to help enforce, is there one less strict than a 1RR? Widefox; talk 11:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. I think we can mark this as resolved. For the moment, I have no further interest in editing the article, but agree to abide by 1RR in the near future. I would appreciate Velella's greater involvement if possible. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

By "less strict than 1RR"...how about putting {{Controversial}} or {{Editnotice-controversial-issues}} on the talk, rather than 1RR. In the meantime, User:Sławomir Biały is the only editor (24 edits [91]) and my caveat is I'd like an assurance from Sławomir Biały about what they consider a "revert" (per 3RR / edit warring) to close this. Widefox; talk 14:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It's strange that you're apparently complaining about the addition of dozens of high quality references to the article under consideration, apparently attesting that I've made 24 edits that you do not approve of. If you want to add more references, please go ahead and do that. I've already invited you to do just that on the talk page, and as a show of good faith, I even added the single reference that you were able to find on the subject! Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Per Help:Reverting: "Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it." In particular, adding new content (especially references in response to template messages, that also remove the templates) is not a revert. During your disruption at the article in question, you "warned" me more than once against adding references and removing a template. I think this is a reasonable principle, since it is clear that you were actually reverting without adding content to the article, while I actually added almost all of the references that are currently there. There is a clear difference here between a "productive editor" (myself) and a "disruptive editor" (you) in this matter. I'm willing to work collaboratively, if you're willing to adhere to this pretty straightforward guide. You can revert once, but other changes must be substantial. This requires that you also do a bit of work. I know you wrote WP:BOGOF to head off any responsibility when it comes to adding content. After all, it's easy to revert, but hard to do research. So why not just revert productive editors and "warn" them, instead of coming up with references that meet your own rather high standards? Absent any evidence to these proceedings on your behalf, as far as I can tell in the entire history of my edits to the page, I have made precisely one revert, while you have made at least four reverts under the strict definition, while disruptively "warning" me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree to the actual policy at WP:3RR An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. (emphasis own) ? and just to be clear this is 3RR & BRD not 1RR (which I've never suggested or agreed to). Widefox; talk 16:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree that adding new content is not a revert? Also, do you agree that your warnings consistute harassment under the WP:HUSH guideline, and your edit-warring to include maintenance templates was disruptive according to the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS policy? Do you agree to work productively, rather than continue your campaign of disruption and harassment? Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if User:Widefox could identify an actually substantive contribution to the article since the time I made the first edit to the article. I think that would add to the case that he is not editing disruptively. As anyone can see, the difference between this revision and this revision is enormous, and almost entirely due to me, in spite of Widefox's attempts to threaten and harass me. Here he seems to pay lipservice to the idea of "collaboration", but I do not see evidence of it, and the latest round of Wikilawyering does not fill me with confidence. If his behavior does not improve, since productive editors (me) have identified his behavior as disruptive, then I think the community should consider a temporary ban on his editing the article under discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Sławomir Biały Are we all agreeing to 3RR policy or not? Simple question. Widefox; talk 10:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to continue abiding by WP:3RR. Understand that if you do not start abiding by the guideline, you will probably be blocked without warning. What's not clear is that you agree to abstain from the other behaviors that resulted in this inquest. Do you agree to follow WP:HUSH and WP:DISRUPT policy, in addition to WP:3RR? Remember that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and petty bullshit like the behavior that I have shown in the diffs of the complaint simply will not be tolerated. If you agree to abide by our behavioral guidelines, then I am willing to mark this as resolved. However, so far you have not done so, and your latest posts do not fill me with confidence. I do not think we can yet mark this as closed. I presented some clear diffs of disruptive behavior in the original complaint, and so far this noticeboard has not followed up on it. Given that they are serious allegations, and you have not yet agreed to abide by our behavioral guidelines, the complaint still stands. 11:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There's one editor of the article now - 34 edits [92]. WP:DEADHORSE. Widefox; talk 12:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE? Seriously, what the fuck? Maybe your time would be better spent improving articles rather than obstructing others who are here *gasp* *shudder* to write an encyclopedia. And, ANI, why is this obviously disruptive editor still free to roam around making scurrilous accusations (see below)? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm still waiting for administrator intervention. Widefox has done a good job to try to derail the discussion, including the thread below which contains a tendentious accusation of hounding, based on zero evidence, as well as a blatant admission to WP:NOTHERE. This thread has been active for almost a week, and the nastiness continues. The diffs in support of the original WP:HUSH and WP:DE complaint are given in the original post. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hounding

A three year old uncontroversial disambiguation edit of mine on Wikipedia:Reliable source examples [93] has been part undone [94] by User:Sławomir Biały. This was just after Sławomir Biały's first edit to the article above [95]. Please can someone else undo this fantastic coincidence (which I contest, but cannot edit due to the chilling effect above). Together with my diffs above proving ANI baiting here, I now do not assume this is a good faith ANI listing, and this is the smoking gun for what I've felt - an obvious attempt at WP:HOUND. Widefox; talk 13:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I honestly had no idea you had placed that questionable disambiguation. But, whatever, this is obviously just clutching at straws. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Questionable? why would such a disambiguation be questionable? a single letter to divide two very different pages is hardly a difference so it makes sense to put the link in. Note that WP:PATENT has a disambiguation link to WP:PATENTS immediately at the top of the page. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:NAMB. But whatever. It is being asserted that making a small change to an edit that someone made over three years ago is "hounding". Note that this is the only diff supporting Widefox's complaint against me, in contrast to a dozen diffs that directly support allegations of WP:HUSH, WP:3RR, and WP:DE, despite his unsubstantiated allegations against me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done, clearly somebody may either mis-type or not be sure of whether they need the S at the end of PATENT or not. I assume good faith, so I provided a clear explanation for the revert. Have a good day, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing I thought odd about the disambiguation is, why would someone typing PATENTS (with an "S") expect to land at Wikipedia:Patent nonsense? If this were in article space, it would fall firmly under WP:NAMB. I don't feel that your edit summary addresses this, although the disambiguation from patent nonsense to WP:PATENTS is appropriate, and this is the direction that I feel your edit summary applies to. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair comment, I took a second look at both pages, and yes, my edit summary applies to what you're referring to (PATENT -> PATENTS). I had seen the two articles backwards. I imagine leaving it doesn't hurt at all thought, so whether or not to re-revert, I'll leave that judgement to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

As you say, it's not really a big deal either way. But a trivial matter of a hatnote is now the "smoking gun" of my supposedly disruptive behavior. I think we're well into WP:TE territory now. I leave it for the community to decide. Unwatching ANI. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

1. User:Sławomir Biały incorrect to assert "fall firmly under WP:NAMB". It's not the differing by a single letter, but by differing only by plural WP:D If the titles of two articles differ only in capitalization or the separation or non-separation of components (as per WP:DIFFCAPS or WP:PLURALPT), the articles each should contain a hatnote to link to each other. e.g. WP:PLURALPT If separate primary topics are determined, add a hatnote from the plural page to the singular form (or vice-versa).
2. You could have at least asked the editor who created the shortcut and created the ambiguity WP:PATENTS i.e. me (or used the talk page, or dab project)
3. My essay edit is uncontested and lasted years, and the talk has me asking for objections before editing (each editor has their own style)
   1. You've been here at ANI for unilaterally changing policy, and now effectively unilaterally editing an article and changing essay disambiguation (coincidence or not, unluckily for you it's highlighting the same issue to the same editor i.e. me)
4. Diffs are above for goading me to ANI
5. I really want an assurance that this style of lack of collaboration stops now (as I'm assuming good faith again, and just careless editing and following my work solely through using my shortcut) Widefox; talk 14:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

1 is a red herring. "Patent nonsense" is not plularized as "Patents nonsense" - that would patently be nonsensical. 2 Typically someone might add a hatnote to both pages, when only one is required. I don't see that it is necessary to go through years of diffs to identify the editor that added it, especially not something as trivial as a hatnote. 3.1 so what? It's a bloody *hatnote*, nor a rewrite of the damn policy. I think the fact that you cannot tell the difference between a substantive change an changing a hatnote speaks for itself. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The titles "Wikipedia:Reliable source examples" "Wikipedia:Patent nonsense" are not ambiguous and need no disambiguation I agree. "WP:PATENT" and "WP:PATENTS" may reasonably be assumed to be ambiguous. Conflating pluralisation of titles with pluralisation (or minor variants of) "WP:Primary topic" shortcuts and assuming those who use shortcuts know exactly the spelling of the shortcut, and assuming that all shortcuts are somehow arbitrarily grammatically correct for pluralisation of the titles is another (hint they're just shortcuts). Assuming all this knowledge before using the shortcut (a priory) I agree with you. That's a lot of assumptions! Sure there's an argument to remove one side, care to make it next time for policies and essays especially, and article where several editors can't work with you due to this lack of collaboration? There's various fallacies in the ad hominem arguments against me above, which centre around missing collaboration. Widefox; talk 10:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I like how this was supposedly a "smoking gun" that I am hounding you. Now you've apparently taken the complaint down a notch, and are asserting that a single edit to a hatnote on an essay is now supposed to be the definitive evidence on my lack of ability to collaborate.

In fact, I'd love to collaborate with you (or anyone) on the article in question. It means that there is less work for me! But collaboration actually requires work from all parties. Think of it as a partnership: if I write an academic paper with a coauthor, I don't necessarily consider that we will do an equal share of work, but the coauthor should at the very least do some of the work. I don't view the addition of maintenance tags, and "warnings" on user talk pages, as part of a "collaboration". That seems more to me like "obstruction", particularly when one party is actually doing all of the writing and research, and the other is doing all of the useless templating and warning.

Collaboration is doing things like writing content, finding sources, correcting grammar, etc. That is, writing the article. To give you an example of article-building, take a close look at the 34 edits that you complained about above. There you will notice that about a dozen reliable sources were added, including several government reports, and articles indexed by library information services, that took me several hours to find.

Buried among those edits is also an example there of your sought-after "collaboration": you found a source (which was not very high quality), and you proposed it on talk. I added it to the article. In fact, I would not have objected if you had added it either. After all, we are here to write an encyclopedia! If you want to find other sources, and add more content, go for it! But finding one poor source compared to dozens of high quality sources requiring database searches and library access isn't exactly parity, and I don't think it is fair to characterize article-building as a lack of willingness to collaborate. I am willing, but I recognize that collaboration actually takes work. If you feel left out of the "collaboration", it's probably because you don't have as much to offer to the article. If you want to collaborate, I would suggest going to the library. (E.g., there are state-level water filtration certifications that can be looked through, as well as the associated lab results, which I do not know how to find. Manufacturers can be contacted for more informations, etc. I had a source about pH dependence, but lost it, and I think that would be an important addition, particularly of concern to areas like Flint, Michigan. etc.) However, I do not see how it is possible to "collaborate" with disruptive templates and harassing warnings on my talk page.

If by "collaborate", you mean "comply with threats and intimidation", well... that's why we are here. Edits that do not contain any sort of article-building content provide a poor basis for collaboration. If you want other editors to collaborate with you, then you need to have something to add to the discussion. Simply citing rules, without regard for how the article is improved through the applications of those rules, while marginally better and somewhat rooted in WP:PAG, is also not a very strong basis for collaboration. Remember that all of our discussions on the talk page should be for discussing article improvements. So-called "warnings" and other types of bullying do not facilitate collaboration. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

TLDR, It's clear Sławomir Biały's not WP:LISTENing about feedback "persistently unhelpful" above (two of us agree), their contested edits not following BRD WP:IDHT (2+0.5 times at ANI). The content may be good, who knows as (despite claiming not to want to edit it anymore) there's only one editor of the article WP:OWN. This is DEADHORSE. Widefox; talk 14:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"The content may be good, who knows as (despite claiming not to want to edit it anymore) there's only one editor of the article WP:OWN." Wow... This is totally WP:NOTHERE. Clearly, you have no interest in actual improvements to the encyclopedia. Objectively, the difference between the earlier revision of the article and the version of the article that I wrote is massively improved, with far far better references, including peer reviewed literature. You have systematically avoided discussing content, though, and instead resort to threats and disruptive templates. This is clear WP:DE. Even here at ANI, you're saying that you "want to collaborate", yet the one post where I discuss a possible role for your collaboration is dismissed as "TLDR", along with a whole series of massive article improvements, including adding half a dozen sources to peer reviewed journals, references to medical textbooks, and EPA reports.

This latest post really suggests that you have not even read the article. I do not think this gives you the right to demand (rather threateningly) that others "collaborate" with you, and then dismiss any posts that discuss what collaboration entails.

Now, let's get back to your accusations of editing in bad faith and "hounding". Do you continue to hold this complaint, or should we mark this sub-thread as "resolved"? Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem with the added of the link of the youtube page at the article Propuesta Indecente‎

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

---

Hello, a few days ago I added the link of the official video of "Propuesta Indecente" because I think relevant because already reached the billion of visits, but reversing they arrived a couple of users.

Between these, @Sundayclose: that reverses, saying that violate WP:ELNO, but I read the 19 rules and I believe that none of these infringe on video.

Also send them a message here, here and here at 2 users who manage a bot (which initially also reversed me), for further explanation, but yet did not I get any response. And long after one of them (@Beetstra:) decided to reverse without giving explanation as mentioned above.

My request is: Why I can not add the video link of the official website of Romeo Santtos on YouTube, to the article of the same?, as this is feasible and is not a link file type that may be subject to the copyright policy in Wikipedia, as they say. Thank you.

Sorry for the pronunciation of English, but I do not use it repetitively. --186.84.46.227 (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Also note the many edits of 186.84.46.227 that have no effect on the page rendering, and quite a few edits that break links, templates, etc. When I asked him to stop his null-edits, he reverted me and responded with an generic warning on my talk. Note the edit summary claiming Twinkle use, I doubt it. Maybe CIR ? 80.132.69.36 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Because in some edit summaries I say: «fix», because they are minimal but beneficial editions; And that "break links" is a lie because I can see that I have not done such a thing . Wikipedia for what I do I do not consider harmful because as you say, " have no effect on the representation of the page". --186.84.46.227 (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@186.84.46.227: Stop making edits that only add or remove space, re-order template and otherwise have no visible effect on the page. Now. Please. You've been asked several times. There are three reasons:

• They're not improvements to the articles.
• They add noise to the page history and make it much harder to find where significant changes were made.
• They make it look like you're just trying to make your edit count bigger. No matter what your actual intention is, that's what it looks like.

You've been asked to stop it several times now, so please stop. If you don't, I expect a block will be forthcoming and we'll see if that gets the message through. GoldenRing (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Is shifting the topic. The problem itself, is on the validity on YouTube urls to be added to the articles of songs by artists, and if they violate the rules or not in Wikipedia. --186.84.46.227 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• The relevant guideline is WP:ELOFFICIAL, if the YouTube channel is controlled by the subject and is directly relevant to the article, thats where it falls. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• If it's the song's official video from the official channel, then of course it's allowed and people should stop removing it. Personally, I think the video would be better placed at the bottom in the External Links, however. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE to IP: The reason the bot kept reverting you is because only WP:AUTOCONFIRMED users are allowed to post YouTube videos in External Links. If you want to do that, you need to register an account. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have restored the official music video to the article's infobox, per Template:External music video. I think this thread can be closed now unless there is more edit-warring. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: 48-hour Block

@186.84.46.227: You've been asked repeatedly and with a long explanation why to stop making null edits, but you keep on doing it 7 8. We also don't need another editor making personal attacks. I propose a 48-hour block to immediately prevent pollution of edit histories and (hopefully!) get the message through that this type of editing is disruptive and not welcome. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most of those diffs were valid and helpful corrections, not null edits (or even dummy edits, which by definition are used to make edit-summary statements). The IP does need to remember to use edit summaries in all of their edits, and clearly explain what the edit is. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what? How is an edit that only changes the amount of space in template arguments "valid and helpful"? GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You posted 8 diffs by 186.84.46.227. Most all of them are valid and helpful corrections (and many of them are exactly the same as thousands of drive-by editors do all day long with bots or tools). The IP does however need to explain their edits in edit summaries, which would perhaps cut down on the confusion. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Threats issued by User:Kzl1948

The user in question (Kzl1948 (talk · contribs)) seems to be a football fan intent on presenting his view on the article PFC CSKA Sofia. In the process, he has made a number of threats and threat-like edits such as this one, reading "Touch the page again and I will get you out of anonimity" as well as this one, reading "Just dare touch the page again" (It is clear that this is the same user although editing under IP). Furthermore, his username is a very nasty slur in Bulgarian, one that I will not write here, but it has something to do with inserting a penis into another person. --Laveol ^T 18:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Notified user of this thread -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Kzl is a nasty slur in Bulgarian? What an efficient language! EEng 18:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Its shortened from the word for penis and also a notoriously popular football chant :( Unfortunately, the language is efficient only when it goes for such stuff. --Laveol ^T 18:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Kzl is a radio look this, I don't know for what "inserting" of something he talk. PFC CSKA Sofia page is under mass vandalism every day. Deleting information from page every day and I and other users fixed it countless times, how you can see from View history. The best will be if page can be protected. -- Kzl1948

The fact that WAVE is a television station does not impact on the fact that it is a hand motion used in greeting. But that is all a red herring. Kzl1948, how about you address the crux of this report, that being that there is documented evidence that you threatened another editor with WP:OUTING? John from Idegon (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see threat, but ok, block me. Lets continue with their vandalism at page. -- Kzl1948 —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not going to continue in this discussion because doing so is impossible unless one can read the Cyrillic alphabet language that the OP, the reported editor and others are writing back and forth in. If nothing else comes from this thread, perhaps it can be made clear to all involved parties that this is English Wikipedia and all communication needs to be in English? If you want to communicate in Bulgarian, use email. John from Idegon (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to read our conversation, it was a very calm conversation. I understand his point, he is a fan of the team, there are 2 teams fighting each other right now, so for now its good to keep the page. I would suggest to lock PFC CSKA Sofia for a week or two, until the situation is cleared. We all know the reference of "kzl" from a CSKA fen, but i won't comment this. As I got the "threats" from the user, I would suggest to not ban him. We had a talk and everything is alright. -Chris Calvin (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"No need to read our conversation"? I'm sorry but policy is clear. All communication is to be in English. How the hell do you figure it is up to you to decide who gets to read your conversation and edit summaries? That is OWN in the extreme. YOU are saying that unless you speak whatever language that is, you have no right to participate in the discussion, which is completely counter to every principle Wikipedia is based upon. You are 100% wrong. John from Idegon (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ment "Don't read our conversation", I ment that there is nothing more in our conversation helping that case. I asked him to be calmer and to stop make this edits, since its not quite sure is he right or others. Then he write me that he is sorry, that he is a fan of the team and its hard for him to read all this "vandalism" he need to delete every day and propose to keep PFC CSKA Sofia for the renamed team of Litex - now CSKA-Sofia and to make a new one for the original club. I respond that this is not the way its going to happend, since wathever he believe there is no way a new team to gain the title and the history of other club and more, to move this team on a new article with no history. Here, thats what we have spoked about. We used bulgarian since we wanted to clean up everything fast, I didn't expect to be opened a case. -Chris Calvin (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you had discussed the matter, but still, such threats are unacceptable. Even more so, coming from passionate sports fans. --Laveol ^T 07:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Coat of arms: Edit-warring, introduction of edit-protection and refusal to participate in discussion

User:Gryffindor has introduced an edit protection for the template, after edit-warring through a disputed change of the status quo, without participating in the discussion. Wikipedia policy surely can't allow for this: the edit protecion should rather have been applied for this version, i.e. the status quo before the discussion was started. Please make this change. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ssolbergj: Who is to say which is correct? Have you asked Gryffindor (talk · contribs) directly? In fact, have you even notified them about this ANI as you are required to do? See also your thread at VPM. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically it would be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Gryffindor acted in an administrative capacity in a dispute in which they are a party. The problem for *you* is that the question first asked is going to be 'Would any other non-involved admin have done the same?'. Given you were edit-warring against the consensus on the talkpage (your last insertion of the material was on the 4th, by which time it was clear on the template talkpage consensus was against you), a request at RFPP or the Editwarring noticeboards would have been highly likely to have ended with the same result and possibly a block for you. With the caveat that when a page is protected at RFPP it will often be the WP:WRONGVERSION for someone. Which is a reason why admins should not protect pages they are involved in a content dispute on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like you made a whole lot of changes between March 9 and June 10 [96], you got reverted by Sandstein, you replaced some of your changes, and then an edit war ensued between you versus Sandstein and Gryffindor. They could have have blocked you instead (you made at least 9 reverts in 15 days, and you were warned on your talk page [97]) to stop your edit-warring, but I don't think you want a block on your log, do you? So I think he/they did the right thing. It's never a good idea to edit-war with an admin, much less two of them, and they were protecting the integrity of the template as it has existed for years. The RfC consensus even now looks pretty clear, and both Sandstein and Gryffindor have participated in it and in the previous discussion from the very beginning. And no one has to answer your repeated questions or demands in the RfC -- they just need to state their opinion once. Softlavender (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hm, although I agree with Gryffindor on the content issue (whether to use the oddly-named and potentially deficient images created by Ssolbergj in coats of arms across Wikipedia), they should not have applied protection to their preferred version of the template because they are involved in the content dispute. But if I were not myself involved, I would be considering a temporary block of Ssolbergj about now. Their insistence on enforcing the use of their own images through edit-warring, even though nobody agrees with them in the RfC I started about this, indicates a lack of ability to contribute to Wikipedia, as a collaborative project, in a productive manner. So do conduct issues such as repeatedly changing talk page comments made by me in the RfC ([98], [99], [100], [101]) despite warnings to the contrary.  Sandstein  13:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: The RFC you set up had attracted no relevant relevant comments IMO. A few excerpts, or rather the essence, of the respons to the rfc: "I realize this doesn't address the images themselves", your lovely comment "I do not trust the competence of Ssolbergj", and A.H king's rather pointless "support" comment "Every country has smaller/lesser version of their COA, and Wikimedia has files for the escutcheons of COAs only". These were not really about the subject in question. Therefore I think you are completely wrong to pretend that wikipedia is a democracy and refer to these rather off-topic comments as some sort of vote. - Ssolbergj (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't like Gryffindor's use of protection in this instance. Sandstein's probably right that another administrator would have done it, but there's a mechanism to request that sort of thing and it wasn't done. Ssolbergj, nobody in that RfC agrees with your position and you shouldn't be edit-warring in support of it. I'd like to clarify one point here raised by Softlavender: edit-warring is improper regardless of who you're doing it with. Sandstein and Gryffindor were (yes?) acting as editors in this case, save for Gryffindor's improper use of page protection. Administrative status doesn't matter in a content dispute and we shouldn't privilege it. Had either issued a block while involved in a content dispute that would be a significant impropriety. Apologies Softlavender if I'm misconstruing your position. Mackensen (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"nobody in that RfC agrees with your position" Please read what I said above. I was supporting the status quo in the discussion. Sandstein and Griffyndor have abandoned the discussion, without being engaged at any point in trying to build consensus, and simply persist in edit-warring without giving any arguments. The subject is heraldry, so the discussion ought to be on that subject. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ssolberg, your massive changes between March 9 and June 10 are what interrupted the status quo. And nobody is required to opine more than once in an RfC (or indeed in any discussion). Casting one !vote and then remaining silent is not "abandoning" the discussion. On the other hand your repeated demands and remonstrations in that RfC are very beligerent and battlegroundy. WP:CONSENSUS is based on the majority view, and your view is the minority, so the consensus is clear. Softlavender (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I didn't mean to imply edit-warring is OK when dealing with non-admins; what I meant was it's stupid to edit war with an admin, not to mention with two admins. (That's why I said "not a good idea" rather than "not OK".) I was trying to be polite. Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment "your massive changes between March 9 and June 10 are what interrupted the status quo" I probably created 98 % of this template, so it's not right to say that there was any more consensus before my last few edits than after them. WP:notdemocracy explains that the quality of discussion trumps "voting". "primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting".- Ssolbergj (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Ssolbergj, in my opinion it's always best if you are planning to make a massive change to an existing set-up if you mention, discuss, and describe it beforehand on the relevant talk page first. That way people can let you know before you spend a lot of time and energy on it whether it is a good and acceptable idea/change. Springing a massive unannounced change on people is not fair and creates a lot of work, headache, investigation, and cleanup. Moreover, if you don't inquire beforehand, your massive changes, and the time you spent creating them, is likely to go for naught and need to be undone. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and therefore although we are encouraged to be BOLD, bold doesn't mean making massive sweeping changes without notice. As it stands, both your artwork and your filenames may not end up being used. If you had run things by other editors first, you may have gotten feedback that could have saved you trouble. You may have discussed things on Commons (I'm not sure), but if so you also need to discuss on English Wikipedia if you are going to place tons of new images or non-English filenames into English wiki. Plus you always need to use an edit summary to describe what you are doing in each edit, even if you are the only one who has been editing the page recently. Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. I have half a mind of simply blocking per boomerang for disruption and wasting everyone's time. Ssolbergj keeps arguing that the situation they established is the status quo, which is nonsense, esp. since they never explained what they were doing in June, neither in edit summaries nor on the talk page. I don't care how many times Ssolbergj says "there is the discussion, contribute there" while pointing at Commons; we're here, we're not there. The RfC is clearly not going their way, and I think we have a serious case of a refusal to listen.

  Now, what Gryffindor did is clearly not OK either, first because INVOLVED (duh), which damages their credibility too, and second because this is not so serious an edit war that full protection is warranted (I just lifted it). Gryffindor. Please comment here and make it better.

  Now, given that there's an RfC, heavily leaning toward the non-Latin versions (still don't have a clue why these changes were made--maybe Ssolbergj is a member of Schola?), and given that their actions are broadly deemed to be disruptive and we're here again wasting our time, I propose that any further revert by Ssolbergj or any edit that Latinizes these file names in the template without iron-clad talk page agreement be reverted and followed by a block. (Not a block by Gryffindor, obviously.) Drmies (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"an RfC, heavily leaning toward the non-Latin version" Well there are two "support votes" that are completely off-topic, and the one who set up the rfc clearly has no interest in discussing. Again, WP:notdemocracy. Therefore I think the edit protecion instead should be applied to this version, until some effort is made to actually build consensus for replacing a big bulk of images. - Ssolbergj (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well its slightly further back than June. The changes go back to March and Ssolberj has been editing the template for a lot longer than that. As for the underlying issue - from what I gather (and it is difficult to tell) Ssolberj has been making Heraldry-compliant coats (from what I can tell, for use in smaller sizes) from the Blazon to replace the already existing full coat-of-arms. See Coat of arms of the Czech Republicvs Ssolberj's Blazon derived latin-named version. It looks like current usage (which is what Sandstein and Gryffindor prefer) is to use scaled down versions of the more detailed full coats. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth the figure at Coat of arms of the Czech Republic is a correct interpretation of the blazon "Quarterly: first and fourth gules, a lion rampant double-queued argent armed, langued and crowned Or (Bohemia); second azure, an eagle displayed chequy gules and argent armed, langued and crowned Or (Moravia); third Or, an eagle displayed sable armed and langued gules crowned of the field and charged on the breast with a crescent terminating in trefoils at each end with issuing from the centrepoint a cross patée argent (Silesia)." The English blazon on the commons page omits details of the crescent, but these are included in the French version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

In accordance with the template description: the lesser version of the Czech arms (only one lion) has been used. If the objective of Sandstein and Gryffindor is to alter the premise of the article, then they should have proposed that. - Ssolbergj (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@User:Drmies, I agree with your suggestion. May I please ask you to volunteer to step in and keep an eye on the template and prevent any further reversion by User:Ssolbergj until there is consensus on the respective talk page? It's not as if User:Sandstein and I have not tried to be reasonable, but enough is enough. Gryffindor (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Gryffindor, I'm not so keep at constant surveillance, but I'll be glad to have a look if I'm pinged. Ssolbergj, you seem to be suffering from that well-known thing called I Am Always Right. You can't just ignore the RfC; in a collaborative project, that's one of the worst kinds of disruption. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Simpleshow foundation

A brief video summary about Michael Jackson.

A simple video explanation of German reunification.

I am not sure what to think of some videos being placed all over by the Simpleshow foundation. I am very concerned with OR and neutral POV with some of these clips. These clips have not been vented by anyone from what I can see. Not sure the child like format is what we are looking for aswell.....looking for more input here. !!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are correct about your concerns. However, other than a no-bad-feelings username block or rename on Commons, there is not admin action that currently needs to be taken. Village Pump is a better place to discuss this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Village pump for OR? Will post at the OR noticeboard. -- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This feels a lot like spamming. I suggest we advise the editor to consider posting on the talk page of each page instead and seeing if others would be interested in including the video. I could possibly imagine a way that a particular video could be useful but frankly this feels no different to me than someone wanting to including their own personal youtube videos that supposedly explain subjects. The key is there is no evidence that this foundation is a reliable source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble determining the organizational structure of Simpleshow Foundation (i.e. "foundation" usually connotes non-profit). What I do see is that the same people are involved in an apparently for-profit enterprise called Simpleshow which you can pay to make similar videos. That makes these videos seems like advertising to me. That said, given they're licensed with cc-by-sa, we could just edit out the credits at the end of the video, but that still leaves open the question of whether the style and content is appropriate for Wikipedia. I would say that yes, it is appropriate for Commons (not that we're deciding that here), but they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. A video should supplement, not stand in for, the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI I think I removed all the rest (at least temporarily). In doing so I noticed that Sandstein removed one from food waste back in May with an edit summary that nicely summarizes one of the reasons we don't want a video standing in for the article (vs. supplementing it): "This video is encyclopedia content unable to be edited for NPOV, V, etc; it is unsourced. Also contains watermarks, whereas our content is not inline-attributed." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like they were part of a workshop at Wikimania 2015. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's ping the participants from that workshop who are active on enwiki: @Bluerasberry, Fuzheado, Spinster, and Satdeep Gill:. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI Moxy started this thread Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Simpleshow foundation so those of you who commented here may want to post there as well. I know that things can get lost/misinterpreted etc when more than one conversation is going on about the same thing. I would hate to see that happen with something this important. MarnetteD|Talk 01:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

IMO there are WP:COI and WP:SELFPROMOTIONal aspects of these videos that make them problematic at best. even as an EL they may have problems with no. 8 of WP:ELNO. MarnetteD|Talk 01:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this being discussed! Their video at Sleep hygiene was removed "temporarily" today. I've been pondering what to do about it. It starts well (internal biological clock, the hormone melatonin), but the claim that "Simon" has trained his "body" to know that "it's only time for melatonin when Simon is in bed" is nonsense. The pineal gland starts secreting melatonin at least a couple of hours before bedtime. The video is IMO childish; it is, as they claim, simple. It contains at least this one gross error. It does not belong on Wikipedia. --Hordaland (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said to Norma.jean, the uploader, on my talk page, my chief concern is that this is a way to get around the collaborative editing environment. The creator of a video inserted into any article has sole control of that video's content, and no one is able to refute it or edit it. And for goodness sakes, do we really need a video explaining Mother's Day? Or how to write a cover letter? If the WMF partners with this group or makes an official arrangement, it's out of our control. Until and unless that happens, this is spamalicious to me and I don't care if it's from a non-profit or a for-profit. Katie^talk 03:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The credits at the end mean that these are promotional videos. The content lock is highly problematic as mentioned. I can't see how it would be appropriate to use any of these videos on any article... maybe on a Simpleshow article would be ok, but others: no. Every time one of these videos plays there is a commercial message, in the form of a brand indication, at the end. Non profit or not, these do not belong here.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems like most of the comments come back to a fundamental aspect of what is or is not appropriate use of video in an article: a video should supplement an article through illustration, example, etc.; it shouldn't explain the subject in the sense of standing in for article content. We have access to countless recorded university lectures on various topics, but they don't exist in every article on an academic subject because the instructor would be doing the job of the article (i.e. if the lecture is so good, let's use it as a source). Regarding If the WMF partners with this group or makes an official arrangement, it's out of our control -- I'm not so worried about this. Production would be out of our control, but I can't imagine a scenario in which WMF requires content in articles for reasons which are neither technical nor legal (oh the wikiriots we'd see). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your attention to my recent edits. There were many questions and claims and I'll try to address them in this post. First of all, re simpleshow foundation: this is a non-profit organization that produces explainer videos to all kind of topics. The foundation doesn't do any commercial projects and there is no purchaser (neither WMF or whatever =). Instead, it has a community of volunteer authors and experts including some wikipedia editors that "donate" their knowledge, while simpleshow foundation supports them to put their know how into short explainer videos that are published under a free license (CC) and can be used as Open Educational Resources. Due to legal organization there are two accounts on Wiki: one for simpleshow foundation - that is being used exclusively for uploading the videos on wikicommons, and my personal account Norma.jean that I use for edits. My former colleague had a discussion about this a year ago. Indeed we've run several workshops with Wikipedians, including last and this year's Wikimania and talked to many editors about the initiative. In most cases the reaction was very positive that's why I decided to insert some of our videos into articles. So, it wasn't meant to be like spam and I'm really sorry that it came across like that. The most important question is whether such videos enrich the articles or not. Sometimes it depends on the topic and it's definitely a matter of discussion. However, I won't agree with you if you're against such videos on Wikipedia in general. Think of e.g. illiterate people or if someone doesn't want to read the whole article, but just get a short overview. Basically it's a kind of video summary of the article that explains the basics with the visual support. Apart from that there are some topics that could be better explained in such way. And there are different learning styles: some people prefer to read, some are more visual / audio-visual types. What do you think of the explainer videos on these articles: HIV/AIDS or Zika virus? My opinion is that they help the articles and make them more understandable for general public. Re the Katie's concern about the collaborative editing: actually this is possible to edit the video, especially this type of animated videos. There are some free available online tools that enables everyone create and adapt such videos. You're right there is no environment in the moment, but we're trying to create this with our foundation. If you have further questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you for your support --Norma.jean (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Norma.jean: Thanks for this detailed response. Some follow-ups for you.

• "The foundation doesn't do any commercial projects" - Are you saying Simpleshow does not do commercial projects? Or that it's an unrelated entity?
• "Think of e.g. illiterate people [...] And there are different learning styles" This is a very interesting line of thinking. We do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, but there's certainly a conversation that could be had about other ways to present information to people who do not or cannot learn as well from a standard encyclopedia article. Introducing this in a video format would require such a discussion first, though.
• "if someone doesn't want to read the whole article, but just get a short overview" This is what the lead is for, though -- a lead which is created collaboratively and based on citations of reliable sources.

So far this thread has been largely negative. Let me be clear about something: a non-profit making explainer videos that it shares for free with an open license is a very good thing, and has a mission that would clearly appeal to your average Wikipedia editor. So let me throw out a couple ideas for ways I think this style of video might be helpful.

1. What if the videos were an illustrated extension of the spoken Wikipedia, working with the community on the talk page of a particular article (probably a Featured Article) to develop the lead to the point that it could provide the basis for a video. How to come up with/develop visuals would require some conversation, too (perhaps a storyboard posted to the talk page for discussion), but at least sticking with what's written in the article avoids most of the original research, reliable sourcing issues, etc.
2. What about focusing on an aspect of a subject rather than the whole subject? One thing we could use more of, I think, is effective illustration of technical/scientific concepts. Of course, the style of such an animation is typically radically different, so it might not make sense.
3. I don't have much experience with Simple Wikipedia, but it may very well be that they are more welcoming of subject explainer videos like this. (I do see that you mentioned you've done some work there).
4. It would be less controversial to include it as an external link (or further reading?), perhaps even with a dedicated template to add to relevant articles without actually embedding the video. I say "less controversial" but it would still be best to have an RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Thank you for your constrictive suggestions. They are very helpful. I'll try to answer your remained questions:

• "Are you saying Simpleshow does not do commercial projects? Or that it's an unrelated entity?" - yes, these are two different organizations. simpleshow is a commercial company, while simpleshow foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization in the United States with the mission mentioned above. Sometimes "simpleshow" is used to describe such type of videos, as they were one of the pioneers in this field. However, I tend to use the term "explainer video" in order to avoid COI and not exclude other video formats.
• "Introducing this in a video format would require such a discussion first..." - agree. What would be the appropriate place on Wikipedia to discuss this?
• "This is what the lead is for, though -- a lead which is created collaboratively and based on citations of reliable sources." - agree. However, most of our explainer videos are actually based on Wikipedia articles or/and other reliable sources that we state in the description of the video on Wikicommons. We also try to stay as neutral as possible and avoid very controversial topics, like e.g. Brexit etc.

Regarding your ideas:

1. Very good idea! So, I could suggest this on talk pages to some featured articles. Do you have any recommendations? Wouldn't it be reasonable to start with the topics that we've already explained. To change or adapt a video is easier than to create a completely new one.
2. I'm aware of this need, but you're right. This type of animation isn't very suitable for this. It works better for explaining the concepts, history, biographies, general physical laws, etc.
3. Yes, I've uploaded a couple of videos on simple english Wikipedia. Now, we're about to check if there is need for such videos by talking to people and by tracking the views of the article compared to the views of the video. This would be actually very useful to analyze also on en Wikipedia, but I didn't really have the chance to do this.
4. Interesting idea. I agree, that now the infrastructure isn't optimal for embedding videos like this. It would be great if there were more or less clear regulations for that. Whom can we address this question? Or again go through the talk pages? (I didn't have much experience with talk pages, but if I asked once I never got the answer: this was the article about "sleep hygiene" - hope it was an exception=).

Thank you again for your support. --Norma.jean (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have indeed attended a workshop given by the Simpleshow Foundation at Wikimania 2015. I very much enjoyed it and learned a lot from it, in terms of how you can create accessible videos and do effective online storytelling in general. I can confirm this is a non-profit foundation with goals that are aligned with ours and I see a lot of potential of them collaborating with us. However, the argument that the videos need better factual checks and sourcing to be suitable for an encyclopedia are very valid IMO. I am quite certain that the people from the Simpleshow Foundation are very interested in working on this together with editors. Please assume good faith and let's approach this in a productive way. How about creating a project page with a wishlist for videos that we do need, where volunteers can work together to establish good and correctly sourced scripts/scenarios that can then be turned into Simpleshow videos that are considered suitable for Wikipedia? Spinster (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Spinster: Thank you, Sandra. Can you please tell me more about the possibility to create a project page?--Norma.jean (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on the response by N.j I feel that WP:NOTADVICE and WP:NOTWEBHOST should be mentioned. MarnetteD|Talk 13:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important to note here that there are two companies involved: Simpleshow the for profit corporation, and Simpleshow the non-profit foundation. The companies are essentially indistinguishable to anyone watching the videos. If we support using the foundation's product, we are supporting the corporation. If you have any doubt that this is a profit venture, then call up the Simpleshow people:

We offer transparent fixed prices per clip for a simpleshow classic. So there are no hidden costs. We’ll be pleased to send you our current price list after an initial telephone consultation. Write to us via our contact form, we’re happy to call you back. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@HappyValleyEditor: Thank you for the note. I've just made some clarifications on the difference between simpleshow and simpleshow foundation above. Talking about the videos - yes, you're basically right. There is no difference as we're talking about the standardized "video learning format" that we as a foundation want make available (by providing our know-how, experience and productional resources BUT NOT CONTENT!) for public for free and not only for companies that are able to pay for this. This is the idea behind the foundation. Let me please know if you have further questions.--Norma.jean (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I was not able to attend the session at Wikimania but just now I see Simpleshow.com mentioning Wikimania 2016 on their website. It is quite confusing how can there be simpleshow non-profit as well as simpleshow commercial company ? --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope no more confusing than how there can be a Jimmy Wales Foundation non-profit that sends its administrative director to Italy for a vacation in the Alps, as well as a Jimmy Wales commercial enterprise that awards money to an autocratic government's operative seeking to replace the Kazakh-language Wikipedia with a state-authored version? - 172.56.29.91 (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Satdeep Gill: I hope I could answer your question about the difference of two organizations in my previous comments. And, yes, "simpleshow" is allowed to mention "simpleshow foundation" in their communication, but they always distinguish between these two different entities. There are different logos and CI and simpleshow foundation is working right now on its online presence in order to communicate these points more transparent and clear. Apart from that one of our missions is actually to promote the idea of free knowledge and Wikipedia in general - especially among younger generation. So, I don't see any bad thing in writing and sharing news about Wikimania and our workshop on it. --Norma.jean (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• The "foundation", and the spamming of its slick videos onto Wikipedia, seem to simply be an obvious free advertisement for the for-profit company. I suggest we blacklist this site and their videos. I suggest we instruct the user(s) uploading them to desist on pain of being sanctioned/blocked. Norma.jean, the current user in question, works for Simpleshow Foundation [102], and so has an obvious COI, and this is blatant spamming. Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Satdeep Gill: Thank you for your comment. There is no need to block my account as I don't intend to insert further videos into articles (I apologized for this mistake twice) - at least if they haven't been discussed properly on talk pages. I also can't understand your point about the black list of videos by simpleshow foundation. In my previous comments I gave detailed explanations on that and was trying to find a constructive way to deal with such videos. My previous experience showed actually that such video are welcomed by the Wiki community. One of our videos (and I repeat here that simpleshow foundation doesn't influence the content of these videos) was above the finalists of Picture of the Year 2015 on commons (as the only video actually above all photos). I do have a question: weren't there some other discussions on this issue that could be precedent-setting? I found other explainer videos on medical topics (e.g. HIV/AIDS, Zika virus) produced by openosmosis. As soon as I could understand this is an initiative by the commercial company osmosis. So, pretty the similar situation like simpleshow & simpleshow foundation. It would be interesting to learn how does the community deal with them. @Bluerasberry:: maybe you know better? Thank you --Norma.jean (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Norma.jean, your post above is nested under mine and seems to be a reply to me, but it is addressed to Satdeep Gill. If it is meant for Satdeep Gill, please move it to nest under their post. If it is meant for me, please strike that username using WP:STRIKE codes, and add mine. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

A few things:

1. Our readers have requested we provide videos
2. If there are organizations interested in donating good videos than this is excellent as videos are hard to make
3. We have been collaborating with Wikipedia:Osmosis for some time on the making of medical videos. There was one video that contained some content that was not that clear. Following user feedback they updated it. This is really perfect collaboration.
4. I bet SimpleShow Foundation would be willing to do this aswell. There is no reason to throw them under the bus. Those who are interested should be collaborating with them.
5. We have a process were Osmosis provides the scripts for feedback BEFORE they produce the videos as seen here. SimpleShow can you do the same?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Additionally we do not require references for pictures and we definitely should never require references for pictures. Videos should contain references at the end but the WP article could even be the reference. If a video or picture is seriously wrong we simply remove it and request an update. Or if it is only a little incorrect request an update.

I like simple. This is one of the biggest criticisms we at WP receive is that our content is too complicated. Highly educated people who speak English as a first language already have many excellent sources at their disposal. We should be working to generate more accessible content.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to take a look at the videos in question. Most all of these are not medical videos. To quote KrakatoaKaie above, "do we really need a video explaining Mother's Day? Or how to write a cover letter?" The answer is, no. These things are embarrassing, simplistic spam. Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Israeli Channel 2

At least the above ones are simply commercial. This week, a number of videos from the Israel TV Channel 2 have been uploaded to some enwiki articles. Apart from the question of whether Hebrew language videos are of much use in the English language Wikipedia, I believe that uploading a 2-minute video to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict with the news from one side of the conflict violates WP:NPOV in a serious way (I have watched the video, and it is very one-sided in its images: I don't understand the text). Commercial videos like the above are bad: propaganda (or at least serious POV) videos about delicate situations of life and death are a lot worse. There have been more videos of the same news channel added to enwiki articles, perhaps some check and cleanup is needed here as well. Fram (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, those definitely violate NPOV, at least when applied to any article or section about Israeli conflicts, and possibly on other articles as well. I've removed a couple of them; someone else can look at and judge the appropriateness of the rest. Fram, who has been adding them -- is it only Hanay thus far? Anyway, I propose a ban/blacklisting of Israeli Channel 2 videos. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, you removed File:Channel 2 - Israel–Jordan peace treaty.webm - how exactly it's violate NPOV? What should be on the video that he do not have? The video opens with King Hussein words, and cover the ceremony with footage of Clinton, Hussein, and Rabin. Same thing with File:Channel2 - Oslo Accords.webm that it's a summary of the ceremony in Washington - not even related to the Israelis nor the Palestinians --Itzike (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fram, nobody said this is the only video that need to be on article. As footage from the Palestinian side is own by the local press outlets/international channels and not by Channel 2 (although they have this footage and they broadcasting him also). According to Commons rules, they need to own the copyright rights in order to release the footage, so they gave us what have been photographed by them and they have the copyright to do so.

We will never have video that shows both sides, as such one will need to be take be the same person/company/organization on both sides - and this is rare. Of course that if we can have another video, taken by the other side - it's important and need to be on the article. But I don't think we should avoid adding video on articles only because there is not a free video from the other side. --Itzike (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I got a notification about this discussion, and therefore commenting here: the videos are a result of a partnership between Wikimedia Israel and an Israeli news company (in other words: for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia/Wikimedia reached out to them and asked for these videos, not vice versa). While I was not personally involved in the project, from what I understand special effort was made to remove Hebrew audio so that the videos can be used in other language Wikipedias, of course not to mention the great effort that went into getting the company to agree to release some important footage under a free license. Therefore any blanket ban or removal of these videos is unwarranted, and extremely counterproductive. Some of them are very useful in the articles they represent, and most are not related to the conflict—a removal/ban would probably stop the news company from donating any more free videos, which would hurt Wikipedia in a significant way in the long term.

Now for the issue of videos being used in conflict-related articles: it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. I have heard numerous complaints throughout the years that pro-Palestinian views get more exposure on English Wikipedia because pro-Palestinian organizations are willing to release their content for free while pro-Israeli organizations are not. There were probably similar complaints on the other side when the IDF released their images for free, and of course this complaint we are discussing now. None of this is a valid reason for deleting this content from Wikipedia of course: we work with what we get, and if a video is valuable then it should be used. If the video violates NPOV then it should not be used, obviously. However, just because it came from Israel does not signify any kind of NPOV violation in and of itself. I watched most of the videos and almost none of them have Hebrew audio or show anything controversial. The specific one mentioned above (2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) might violate NPOV if used as a "banner" video for the article, but not if used in context (i.e. Israeli news footage of the conflict). So even in this one (extreme) case it's not really as much a problem as it's made out to be.

Finally, a procedural note: WP:ANI is not the place for discussing content issues. It doesn't appear that there are any complaints about user conduct here, so can we move this discussion somewhere else?

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Frankly, if users cannot understand how having a video of an Israeli news source embedded on articles involving Israeli conflicts is not a violation of NPOV, then something is seriously wrong I think. This is even above and beyond the fact that the videos are in Hebrew and should not be on English Wikipedia. Thirdly, the items are news reports -- news reports should not be embedded on Wikipedia -- news reports are to be used for citations. I note that thus far in this discussion the two editors in favor of the videos (Itzike and Ynhockey) and the person adding them (Hanay) are Israelis -- more COI and POV. Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, frankly I don't think you should be commenting in this discussion with such discriminatory views. If anything here does belong to ANI, it's behavior like this. What would you say if we disqualified a news report about Barack Obama because it was made by an African-American reporter, or because an African-American user added the video to the article? Or even if you were called out for "COI and POV" for editing articles about the United States? Please stick to the topic and not personal attacks against other editors. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

She did. COI and NPOV being the topics at hand. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ynhockey. This discussion does not belong at ANI. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The mass-insertion of NPOV and unsourced material with no consensus established or discussion having taken place, has always a place at this board. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I was amazed to see the a Short video about Israel–Jordan peace treaty that show Hussein of Jordan sign a peace treaty with Israel was renmoved. You can see both sides, instead of welcoming such a videos, some user rejected it with no good reason, The same the short video on Oslo I Accord that soews Yasser Arafat with Bill Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin shake hands and sign an agreement Hanay (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hanay, please stop embedding these videos into Wikipedia articles. They are not in English, they are news reports, and they are from one side in a highly contentious and ArbCom-sanctioned topic. Softlavender (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender you should check carefully when it was done. Really what is the probleme in the video in the article Israeli legislative election, 2015. This is Israeli election, who is the other side? Hanay (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender Agree with Hanay here, it does seem like some of the removals are for non objective reasons, judged by the source of materials rather than the actual added value to the articles, which is immense. The fact that they used to be news reports is, in my humble opinion, even a good reason to make them valuable - this is commercially produced material that was openly licensed by Wikipedians. I'm disappointed by this conduct, it seems like censorship. Alleycat80 (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Alleycat80, have you actually watched the video in Israeli legislative election, 2015? Its "immense added value to the article" is next-to-zero on the English-language Wikipedia. It gives English-language speakers interested in this election nothing. The numbers shown (29-24-14-11-10-8-7-7-6-4 in the video vs.30-24-13-11-10-8-7-6-6-5 in the article) don't even match, so I presume the news report had preliminary results. This means that basically the only value the video had for me, turns out to be incorrect information. Removal of this apparently incorrect and otherwise for here useless video is not censorship but improving the article and removing unwanted clutter. Fram (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Alleycat80, you are a board member of Wikimedia Israel, the people who requested these videos from Channel 2 in the first place. User Itzike, who commented above, is also a board member of Wikimedia Israel (head of the executive committee). An Ynhockey, who also commented above, is also a board member of Wikimedia Israel. What a coincidence... Fram (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a board member of Wikimedia Israel (anymore), thanks for pointing it out so I could update my page. I actually don't even know how I got notified about this page, I think it was actually by you (Fram), wasn't it? (I'm really not sure, apologize in advance if it was by someone else). The point is, it's not helpful to invoke personal affiliations instead of addressing the real issues. You have pointed out some real issues which I'd like to look into (even though I will be looking at each video separately so this will inevitably come up in any case)—but no real argument about why none of the videos should be allowed. Two other editors here are talking about COI, but I have a feeling they don't understand what COI really means on Wikipedia—it is obvious that people who create a free content project will be the first to push for its inclusion, this isn't COI, it's how Wikipedia works and has always worked (and I repeat that I am not personally involved in this project, but did talk about it to Wikimedia Israel). I'm sure other people want the videos but weren't informed of this discussion (not many people visit ANI regularly). This is why the first step is to take the discussion to each relevant article, which I encourage everyone here to do. There you can present the arguments for and against each video separately, and then we can see if other editors involved in each content area actually want the videos or not. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't contact you at all. And the first discussion should be whether we want these videos full stop. Only then does it make any sense to discuss individual ones, if no general "not wanted" conclusion is reached. While some are obviously completely unwanted (like the one in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict), I don't think we should have these on enwiki in general, as they provide very little information for an English-speaking audience. The fact that some of them are incorrect (see the election example) and/or too partisan is an additional reason to just issue a general "no, thank you" for these. Fram (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

So let's deconstruct the arguments:

• "While some are obviously completely unwanted (like the one in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict)" – not wanted by whom? I agree that it shouldn't be in the lead section as a video representing the article, but check out this other article. Makes sense to put it there, no? It's actual direct media coverage we can include on Wikipedia (this is very rare). It's actually the most appropriate thing to put there, especially if you want to write something about this coverage.
• "I don't think we should have these on enwiki in general, as they provide very little information for an English-speaking audience" – why do you think so? So far you have provided the same example (the video about the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) as an example of a non-English video, and then implied that all other videos are in Hebrew. I'm not sure how many of them you watched—most of them are not in Hebrew, and at least one is actually 100% in English (the one about the Israel–Jordan treaty).
• "The fact that some of them are incorrect (see the election example) and/or too partisan is an additional reason to just issue a general "no, thank you" for these." – again, you provided two examples, one where there is a factual error/no context (I'll be happy to look into that), and one which is partisan. There are 30 videos so far and the project has promised more videos, including a way for Wikipedians (like you and me) to request videos directly. Most of them are not partisan and have no factual inaccuracies from what I could gather (and it would be easy for me as an Israeli to spot such inaccuracies).

Therefore it is my opinion that none of these are real arguments for why we don't want any of the videos, especially why we might not want future videos. I have however provided some arguments for why we should have them—the lack of video is a big problem on Wikipedia, and one of the reasons is that creating video is more difficult than creating still images and video professionals don't give away their content for free. So now we have a project where they do, and you want to kill it? This just seems unfathomable to me. Are you aware that you can personally request a video from the company's archive? This kind of partnership is something that Wikipedians all over the world have worked for years to achieve. I can understand opposition to specific videos in specific articles, but really don't understand the blanket opposition. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"at least one is actually 100% in English (the one about the Israel–Jordan treaty)." Not true. It has one sentence in English, an on-screen text in Hebrew, and the remainder is a typical promo newsreel (release the balloons) with very annoying music throughout. Additional value of this? Zero. Can you please give the video-article you believe is the best example where the video really gives additional value on enwiki? So far, I have seen none that should be included, but I obviously haven't seen them all. Fram (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And 'coincidence' begins with C-O-I... _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And Hanay, the fourth to comment positively and the one who added the videos in the first place, is also a member of the executive committee of Wikimedia Israel. So, allright, we get it, Wikimedia Israel wholeheartedly supports the inclusion of this videos of immense value. Please don't ask further members to join this discussion, it's not a vote. Fram (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Can someone propose the immediate removal of all Channel 2 videos from being embedded in mainspace under pain of sanction please? I think we've heard enough to indicate they present no benefit to the project in their current form, and, in many ways seem a net negative and divisive to say the least. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

All Channel 2 videos? Just by watching one you concluded that all of the videos from Channel 2 should be removed? How can you propose banning the entire production of a Channel because of one video? Isn't that assuming (where's the good faith?) that all their production violates NPOV? --Maor X (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have seen more than one (as should be evident if you had read the above). I don't see how the Hebrew news reports have enough additional value to be included in enwiki articles (even if one of them has 'one sentence in English), and the two examples I explained above both have very good reasons not to be included. So yes, unless you can provide good evidence that some of the videos would be a really good addition to some articles on enwiki, I remain convinced that none should be used here. Fram (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, can you generalize and assume that, because of the examples (how many? Be precise, please) you saw don't have a NPOV/add no value to enwiki, this means all videos from Channel 2 should be banned? In any case, it should be treated on a case-by-case basis, not generalizing. --Maor X (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

We can ban them by default and make exceptions when it can be argued that a specific video in a specific article really adds enough value for enwiki. We know that some of them have been added where they don't add such value: we don't know of any that have been or could be added which really do add value. So no, the burden of evidence no longer lies with those wanting to ban these videos, but with those wanting to add them nevertheless. Certainly none should be added by Wikimedia Israel members, as they clearly can't look at them objectively. Note how Itzike added a video here, and then edit-warred to keep it in the article here, even though the video wasn't even about the same operation as the article... Fram (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• So basically Jews and Israelis have a COI from editing Israel related articles? Is that what I'm gathering from this? If that is what you're saying then you need to re-read the COI policy. This is approaching a line in the sand that is not to be accepted by Wikipedia, and since you're going to go on a witch-hunt on my account, I'll save you the trouble, I'm not Israeli and I don't live in Israel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No idea who you are replying to, but when four Wikimedia Israel board members (or three members and a former one) suddenly appear here to support controversial videos they requested at the TV channel and uploaded here to some articles, then I don't think someone claiming COI is so bizarre; to make this into some antisemitic withchunt reflects badly on you, not on those seeing a pattern in the comments here. Fram (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It was said above that they have a COI because they're Israeli. To quote your first post: "...are Israelis -- more COI and POV." To a simpleton like me that reads that they can't edit in the Israeli area because they are Israeli. Explain to me what else you meant by that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
      • That's why I said "no idea who you are replying to": I never said that, Softlavender did, but you raised it in answer to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and seem to think I said this. Next time make it clear who you are addressing and what the problem is. Fram (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I meant Softlavender, and I used the "*" so that it was a comment all to itself not as a reply to FIM. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are videos showing the truth censored from Wikipedia just because they are Jewish? Of course Israeli sources are neutral. The alternative are racist terrorist sources. Does Wikipedia also censor American sources in articles about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? This is further evidence of the extreme Israelophic bias of Wikipedia. It should also be noted that Fram frequently edits with an extreme anti-Irael bias and thus has a conflict of interest. Members of Wikiproject "Palestine" regularly corrupt Israeli articles with their Arab propaganda, yet nothing is ever done to stop them. But of course when Jews try to improve Israeli articles they get accused of "conflict of interest." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.130.161.162 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This is an IP who has never posted anywhere before. Not suspicious at all .... Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have a suspicion who it could be (the only editor I remember I ever clashed with in this topic area, and who was subsequently topic banned from it). I would love to see the evidence of "Fram frequently edits with an extreme anti-Irael bias", but I doubt it will be forthcoming, as it would be rather hard to find. Fram (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Israel#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2016 is also quite interesting, as this is about another video of the same batch, and the same arguments in favour are raised by some of the same editors, and the same arguments against it are raised by, well about everyone else. In such a disputed topic, including videos made by one side (either side) isn't a good idea, as it is very easy to introduce disputed aspects (like showing areas or places which are disputed whether they are in Israel or not). And the music in all of these is a completely unnecessary distraction, ugh. Fram (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to handle video addition

Should Wikimedia Israel chapter board members be allowed to add the videos in question to English Wikipedia articles? 23:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• No: These videos can stay on Commons, but since these videos were obtained through a collaboration with the Wikimedia Israel chapter, there are inherent WP:COI and WP:CANVASSing concerns in the chapter board members adding it to articles on the English Wikipedia. Other people can do it on an individual and case-by-case basis, with of course the burden on them to justify the addition, per WP:ONUS. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

See discussion above. Further comments can be added below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Please move this RfC off of ANI. RfCs do not ever belong on ANI. ANI is alreadly cluttered enough as it is, and this is a content issue, which ANI doesn't deal with. If you are calling this a policy issue, move it to WP:VPP. You can leave a link on this thread to let people know it exists. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the RfC header for now, while we discuss this. I do not think this is a content dispute: this specifically deals with user conduct. I am also not aware of any rule which says RfCs do not belong on ANIs. Proposals get voted on all the time at ANI; whether one calls them RfC or not is a minor detail. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Active vandal and sock

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

---

Please block Bayin0001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), vandalizing and reverting my attempts to repair. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vodkapoise for rationale. Brianhe (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Widr blocked the previous vandal. But I have reopened the case - sock has reappeared as Jenretch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - Brianhe (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism. It may well be a sock, but for now I'm focusing on undoing the vandalism. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ropening yet again, TamilTX515 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now doing it. This is a persistent one as noted at SPI it may go back years now. Brianhe (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

E.M.Gregory's latest actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Respond that I first met IP 70.27.162.84 and IamMacM here: [103] (top of page), and you will see how I took the IP for the alter-ego of a long-standing editor. I did not bring it to this board, merely to the talk page of the IP were I was frankly astonished to immediately have IanMacM immediately arrive Here: [104]. I had gone back to IP 70.27.162.84 's talk page to soften my comment by suggesting that the attack on me might have been not deliberate sock- or meat-puppetry, but a careless failure to log in. I did not leave such a remark because the response form Ian (not from the IP, only form Ian at that point) appeared to confirm that he was using the IP to make nasty attacks he had the good judgment not to do in his own name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment Over the years I have been involved in many AfDs, and this is the first time that one has led to a sockpuppet allegation. As stated above, 70.27.162.84 is Bell Canada so it isn't me and there is no obvious similarity in the writing styles. Sockpuppet allegations should not be made without strong evidence and a formal WP:SPI, otherwise they are just a way of badgering the user.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Respond. From my perspective, 2016 Ramadan attacks is an ordinary sort of article, similar to 2015 Ramadan attacks and in a sort of category with 2000 millennium attack plots; 2015 New Year's attack plots; Rizal Day bombings; 1919 United States anarchist bombings. I was surprised that it was brought to AFD, very surprised that the grounds were OR and SYNTH since the article was based on solid sources and other editrs had immediately started to help build it [105]. I only just now realized that the IP who showed up [106] and blanked material related to well-sourced 2016 Hamas calls for Ramadan attacks was the IP discussed above. Nevertheless I was genuinely surprised, not shocked, just surprised when ParsleyMan started the AFD. Parsley, as you will see from my occassional comments on his talk page, has been hounding me almost from the time he began editing, with what I then described on his talk page as unusual familiarity with Wikipedia and its rules for a new editor. Here: [107] is one of several complaints I have posted on his talk page. I am far from the sole editor to have posted such complaints on his page. His response has been to intensify his WP:WIKIHOUNDING of me. His behavior towards me meets the textbook definition of WIKIHOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." The discussion "Wikihounding and Disruptive Editing" on his talk page on Feb. 16-19, 2016 documents his behavior, and another editor weighs in to advise him to stop. I wish he would. Stop. Instead, he lurks, reading all of my thousands of edits and bringing me here when I, very occasionally, lose my temper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, about the recent edit on his talk page: [108]. I not infrequently suggest to editors who have started AFD discussions unlikely to lead to deletion that they change their opinions where, as here, the sourcing becomes overwhelmingly strong (usually as a result of WP:HEY - it saves a great deal of editorial time when editors do so. As for my other suggestion, I give charity regularly, and it is my routing custom to sent to a medical charity when a particularly distressing terror attack occurs. I find that it alleviates the horror, and, given ParselyMan's emotional involvement with these issues, I sincerly thought it might relieve his stress. I am more than a little surprised that my suggestion that he follow such a common practice elicited such a negative response.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Fan bias towards article

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

---

User:AffeL user keeps changing the reception for the Game of Thrones episode, Battle of the Bastards to universal acclaim when there are critics of the episode who gave it a mixed or lukewarm review. Multiple users, such as myself and User:Jack Sebastian have changed it back to widespread critical acclaim and provided reasoning, but AffeL keeps changing it back with no reasoning and obviously has a bias towards Game of Thrones Joef1234 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn't notify AffeL, so I've done that for you. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 18:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah...this molasses edit war has being going on for a long time. TimothyJosephWood 21:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do people care about this kind of stuff when there are so many other things wrong with the internet? I've been told that not every strain of weed marketed in Colorado has an article; can't they get on that? Drmies (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

They're too stoned to get the job done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

...can you see the little people on the ceiling...?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 23:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Because winter is coming, and things need to be done before the snow starts flying. Blackmane (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That makes for a pretty narrow timeframe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I only follow the article because of a previous post at WP:3RR. I don't particularly care at all. TimothyJosephWood 00:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure you aren't, Tim; you're a paragon of neutrality. You'd never make a non-neutral edit that would only complicate matters. Nossir - not you - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't figure out why this belongs at ANI. It looks a lot like another dime a dozen WP:Content dispute which should be handled via some normal method of WP:Dispute resolution which doesn't include ANI. If there has been sufficient edit warring to merit a block, that would be handled at WP:ANEW. The lack of notification is another sign this isn't an ANI issue. If I'm wrong, can someone explain what makes this an ANI issue? Edit: It's worse than that. I see zero discussion from Joef1234 on the article talk page. Maybe someone already said everything that Joef1234 wanted to say but even in that case, there should be some sign of agreement on the article talk page before bringing an ANI case. Edit2: And looking at the article talk page, I see mutual incorrect accusations of WP:vandalism by both AffeL and Joef1234 [109] [110]. This is a mess and neither side is coming out smell of roses, but it still doesn't look ike an ANI issue and probably not even an ANEW one. It would be good if people don't make it into one. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be correct that this is not a notice board issue. But here's diffs either way. Looks like over the past week or so the wording has been inserted seven times by Affel ([111],[112],[113],[114],[115],[116],[117]) and once more via mobile IP ([118]). Edits have been reverted variously by Joef1234 and Jack Sebastian. No other editors appear to have reverted. TimothyJosephWood 12:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

What should have been started was some discussion, which - clearly - the participants failed to initiate. Maybe instead of the 'liar, liar, pants on fire' argument revert warring, some discussion could have sorted this out. Of course, they could have turned into puddingheads there, too, but at least the right path would have been followed before esclating to RFC, DR, etc. This is the second to last step, not the first one. It is painfully clear that the two main instigators here were gaming the system to fuck the other person over. They might be in some serious need of WP:TEA or a cricket bat across the forehead.

I recommend that this complaint be closed and a request to use the discussion page be given. This isn't the venue for this problem. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

...I'm not instigating anything. I agree with you. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You stifled discussion in the immediately prior issue (wherein you made a boneheaded mistake under the guise of fixing it knowing full well it could never be repaired), which directly led these two to think that discussion wasn't necessary or effective.

Now, let's just stop talking now, and allow the nice admin to close the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your war and explicitly said that you need to get consensus. That is the opposite of stifling discussion. TimothyJosephWood 15:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We both know that isn't what you admittedly sought to do, and we've been over this on your talk page; stop playing innocent - it's frankly stupid and insulting. Now, just shush yourself, and allow the nice admin to close the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I admit it. I am part of the cabal. TimothyJosephWood 17:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no cabal. You cannot blame being a dick on anyone else. Any time you want to restrain your desperate (yet doomed) desire to sound off about how very, very fair and neutral you are, that would be just great. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what a cabal would want you to think. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian seems to have some serious problems with remaining civil, nearly every comment they make involves some sort of insult or assumption of bad faith. Calibrador (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comments: (1) I have given AffeL the official warning for edit-warring [119], so if he inserts the material again without clear consensus and/or without justification, please feel free to report him at WP:ANEW. It doesn't matter that it's a slow-mo edit war -- an edit war is an edit war. (2) AffeL nominated the article for GA at 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC) [120], and I doubt it is going to pass if these unfounded claims of universal acclaim are in it and/or if there is a slo-mo edit war going on. (3) There is finally a discussion on the article's talk page about the issue, which is a content dispute in the first place: [121]. (4) I think between all of those 3 things this problem is solved as long as enough eyes are on the article, and this ANI thread can be closed. Softlavender (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Disregard of closed mediation.

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

---

User:Ranapipiens is using the over-zealous edits of new user User:HerpSystematics as cover to ignore a previously closed Request for Mediation which was decided against them, here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rana_vs_Lithobates. User:Ranapipiens was been clearly violating WP:AXE throughout the prior discussions that led to mediation, and, once a newbie popped up who cited a new article, resumed with zero regard to the conclusion of the previous mediation, which was that WP:Secondary a secondary source, namely a particular database, would be the source for this information. I don't want to have the same damn fight as last time; what's the point of decisions if they can be voided upon a user's whim? HCA (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This is completely false. The previous Mediation was NOT decided against me. Rather, we reached an agreement that the relevant pages would cite all the relevant literature, and that updates would continue with new papers on the group. The changes made by User:HerpSystematics are completely in line with that Mediation decision. talk) has repeatedly reverted the considerable work of User:HerpSystematics to update the page, without citing any new papers that refute the new citations added by User:HerpSystematics. Obviously, the pages in question need to be kept up to date, and can't be reverted just because someone doesn't like the published literature.Ranapipiens (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"the relevant pages would cite all the relevant literature, and that updates would continue with new papers on the group" is not the same as "change the taxonomy without discussion every time a new paper is published", which is precisely what is occurring. The rules, shown here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles#Taxonomy use a taxonomic database to prevent exactly this - changing the entire page every time a new taxonomy comes out, and engaging in massive amount of WP:OR. Remember WP:Secondary? We're not supposed to be debating papers here, we're supposed to be relying on secondary sources, which in this case is the AMNH database. HCA (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Content dispute. The close of the mediation clearly states: "If mediation of this case again becomes necessary, a new request for mediation may be submitted." Request that this ANI thread be closed as being in an inappropriate venue. Softlavender (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Albiet unprovoked personal attack

Whilst I told User:Albiet that the next time they launched an unprovoked personal attack that I would report them, looking at the one they had done before that caution, I feel it should be reported, especially considering Albiet's failure to acknowledge it was such, and that such behaviour should be discouraged by action, either by sanction or administrator warning.

In response to me saying I would rectify a flawed piece of text, Albiet posted the following whilst also removing a lot of evidence that I had provided to support my viewpoint in the discussion [122]. Ignoring the personal attacks contained within, nowhere did I say I was going to remove sourced material and Albiet is guilty of gross over-reaction.

In response to my removal of this personal attack Albiet makes the following response "[123]", which amongst other attempts at justification states "MY ENTRY WAS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK AND WAS GERMANE CONTENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION." (the use of caps is once again by Albiet). In that same link they also make the following threat "IF YOU REMOVE THIS ENTRY FROM THE COMMUNITY DISCUSSION, I SHALL REPORT YOU." - however the removal was within remit as far as I am aware.

Personally I don't know how the stuff shouted at me in [124] is "germane for discussion" and nothing but a personal attack. My response is here where I make clear my rectify intention and also warn them on their conduct.

I must also make note that at the beginning of the entire discussion that Albiet made the following uncalled for incredibly sarcastic response [125], to which I cautioned them for [126]. They also posted the exact same thing on my talk page.

Mabuska ^(talk) 23:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Response of Albiet There is nothing inappropriate in my communications with User:Mabuska. Mabuska as one can easily glean from the talk page discussion at Kingdom of Ulidia is extremely intransigent. Not just with me, but with other editors who do not immediately conform to his opinions and acquiesce to him. I was simply attempting to urge a fellow editor to get a grip on himself before things got out of hand. I did this despite user Mabuska’s insulting pomposity towards me. Which pompous insult he began to unleash from his very first contact with me. Following as end to this response is a brief list of just some of the many pompous insults that Mabuska hurled at me during the few days discussion of just this single article and of which I have not myself formally complained. Please review them after reading my response. This is no way for Marbuska to go about attempting to reach resolution of an issue with another editor. I don’t know why Mabuska expects other editors to suffer this type of boorish behavior. I tried to humorously let it roll of my shoulders in hopes that Mabuska would himself then note how insufferable and pompously ridiculous he was being and dial it back. He didn’t. His attacks just escalated, and he became more increasingly intransigent.

This incident began because Mabuska attempted to unilaterally delete the Wikipedia article Kingdom of Ulidia without the appropriate community discussion. He first gutted the information in the article and imported it into the article Ulaid on which he was working (See edit history of both Wikipedia Articles). He then sneakily redirected the title Kingdom of Ulidia to the article Ulaid, causing the article Kingdom of Ulidia to become inaccessible to Wikipedians. Mabuska even admits having expropriate material from the Kingdom of Ulidia article and into the Ulaid article to cause the Kingdom of Ulidia article to become redundant so he could get rid of it, "I worked on the Ulaid article until this one became redundant, and it has become so." - Mabuska (talk) The article had been in the Wikipedia for some 3 years and has been edited by many, many Wikipedia editors besides me. I simply restored the article and noted in the edit comment that the proper procedure, if Mabuska wanted to delete the article, was for him to place it as an article for deletion for community discussion. I did no more. The article is not the best article in the World, but its quality is at least as good as other articles on these small medieval Irish kingdoms (See for comparison Wikipedia article Tirconnell , which subject matter is the medieval Gaelic Kingdom of Tyrconnell). The article Kingdom of Ulidia can be improved, of course. This is why Wikipedia editors edit.

I also in later communications with Mabuska opined that it was inappropriate for him to incorporate material on a small state or territory into a Wikipedia article on a nation of people, especially, where that later small remnant of the Ulster over-kingdom did not in majority any longer then contain this ethnicity of people nor was it then even any longer really ruled by them. The topic of the Wikipedia article Ulaid before Mabuska began editing it anyway was the Ulaid or Ulster nation of people not the territory in ancient Ireland that they occupied. This latter subject is covered in the article Ulster. Wikipedia had a separate redirect distinguishing the Ulaid (province) or the territory that the Ulaid occupied in ancient times from the article on the Ulaid nation. Ulaid (province) appropriately directed to the Wikipedia article Ulster. Mabuska has now turned the redirect page Ulaid (province) into a disambiguation page.

On the talk page, when User:Caeciliusinhorto, who tried to be very helpful in this matter, spot-on suggested to Mabuska that the separate subjects of the ethnicity and their territory might be better handled in separate articles, one on the ethnicity and one on the territory, Mabuska was simply dismissive of this editors, again, spot-on suggestion.

Mabuska’s entire edit of Ulaid is simply duplicative and muddling of that article on the Ulaid people. The article Ulster already contains a very, very well written discussion of the history of the Ulaid province. If one compares the History sections in the existing Wikipedia article Ulster and the new History section that Mabuska has inappropriately edited into the Wikipedia article on the Ulaid people, one finds that both sections are of about the same length and cover the same period of history (Ulster a little more). The difference between the two articles is that the Wikipedia article Ulster discusses the history of the ancient territory of the Ulaid, appropriately, in an existing article on that territory, whereas Mabuska’s edits incorporate the same material into an article on an ethnicity, muddling it.

When I, myself, brought this impropriety to Mabuska’s attention with a citation to the World renowned scholar of early Irish history, the University College Dublin’s Francis John Byrne, information that was also cited in the very Wikipedia article Ulaid that Mabuska was inappropriately editing, Mabuska then arrogantly retorted “Thank you for pointing out the flawed piece of text over at the Ulaid article. It will be rectified.” The only reasonable reading of this comment, especially, as it unbelievably refers to the scholar Byrne’s work as “flawed” is that Mabuska in his arrogance and intransigence on the matter intended to delete existing material in the article sourced to this renowned scholar, simply, because it was not congruent with Mabuska’s position, that he thought he, himself, knew better than Dr. Byrne. I then simply tried to sharply remind Mabuska of his responsibilities as a Wikipedia editor and get him to step back from the heat of what is obviously for him a fray rather than an intended constructive discussion. Mabuska now back pedals and states that he only “meant (he would) … give both sides of the meaning of the term Ulaid”. This statement is simply not credible in review.

Now listing a Few of the Many Pompous Insults and Threats That Mabuska has hurled at Me From His First Commencement of and During This Brief Few Days Discussion of the Kingdom of Ulidia, But of Which I do Not Formally Complain …

Mabuska’s very first words to me … Why have you restored a redundant article with no reasoning at all? All I can think of WP:OWN.

My reasoned response … Greetings Mabuska, My reasons are explained in my last edit. Wikipedia has a process for deleting articles. If you believe that the article Kingdom of Ulidia is redundant, then, please nominate it for deletion so the community has an opportunity to discuss the matter. In interim, I shall again restore directs to article. Sincerly, ~~Albiet

Mabuska’s retorts … No-one suggested deleting the article. Though if you want I will. (and) whole section is overly convoluted and unneccessary.

Then Mabuska moves the discussion to the Kingdom of Ulidia talk page, interrupting my Fourth of July holiday with this message … I highly recommend that you participate in the discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Ulidia. Failure to provide thorough reasoning for your view, or even any reasoning, will mean that you will have even less justification to revert my redirecting of the article. Mabuska (talk)

On the Talk Page … @Albiet: please give a thorough reason as to why this article should not serve as a redirect to Ulaid. ... I am taking it here to see if some form of amicable agreement can be reached. If not then I will proceed to an RfC or a RfD is needs be. Mabuska (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And then 4 minutes later preemptively before I could even possibly first respond to Mabuska’s request … In fact looking at your talk page I feel like a discussion may be pointless so I will instead instigate a RfC straight away for further input due to the feeling no agreement between us will likely be forthcoming. Mabuska (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And to me … You'd be better placed to post your edit here first for proper scrutiny, as well as easy access to your sources such as I provided Caeciliusinhorto above, because at this moment I don't trust you to interpret and use those sources accurately.

And to me … you are still showing a clear disregard and ignorance of Irish history

And to me … Also you are being incredibly deceptive and selective in your wording.

And to me … You may disagree however that is why Wikipedia has avenues for dispute resolution, and I will make use of each and every one as you seem unwilling to accept the facts. And even if we decided to keep this article, it is still a shambles with the all problems I listed above!

And … The style of writing in this article is poor with various spelling mistakes, lack of pipe-links for readability, poor layout and formatting, creating a convoluted article that is hard to read, follow and properly detail the topic. …

And … I accept that as Albiet is the creator of this article and contributor to several other articles about the Donlevy's and MacNulty's (who descend from the Donlevy's) and it is not a nice feeling that after putting effort into making articles to have someone deride them or seek to replace/remove them, however WP:OWN is a poor reason to keep an article ‘’especially when it is surpassed by a more appropriate and applicable article (Mabuska’s own article of course).

And … Ulaid is an article that is properly structured, reliably sourced, flows much easier and details information specific to the actual topic of the article. It is also more thorough and detailed (Mabuska again speaking of his article, of course).

And … The same when it appears that the editor has an apparent conflict of interest as someone who appears to be related to that name or has some obvious investment in it. (This is simply unsupported ad hominem.)

And … The article shows a very poor and limited understanding of Irish history

And … Your response shows why your knowledge of the area is lacking.

And … Yes I took information from here to form the initial basis of a reworked Ulaid article, however there was very little useful stuff here

And … The Ulaid article originally was just as poor as this one (before Mabuska's edits of course)

And … All you have done is fail to show an understanding of Irish history Albiiet ^(talk)

Who is going to sort through this one? Whoever does deserves a Barnstar. Doc talk 05:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871 - I'm looking through it now. Albiiet, Mabuska: Give me a bit to read through your report, and I'll respond. Okay? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Filer's diffs seem sufficient to show disruption. The WALLOFTEXT just adds to that for me tbh. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Albiiet - Why are you shouting in all capital letters at Mabuska, as you did here? This interaction is uncivil and nonconstructive in my opinion. You came out at Mabuska guns blazing and demanding an explanation as to why he reverted your edit, which you believe references a source with unquestionable reliability. This mechanism of behavior does not aim towards consensus-building, and it appears that it has continued repeatedly. I highly recommend that you stop, take a few steps back, and focus on content and engage in an actual discussion with Mabuska if one needs be had. I'm also feeling that non-neutral connections or conflicts of interest may be occurring with you here, based off your interactions with Mabuska. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Mabuska, regarding your response here: You didn't do anything wrong... I'm simply pointing out things in your response that I think could have been better, so that you can learn and improve your collaboration skills moving forward. After an edit that consisted of heated shouting, saying things such as "edit histories don't lie", "He wouldn't make a very good professor of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin if he was such" - is only going to make the angry editor even more angry. The statement about the professor isn't a very stand-up rebuttal either. You could instead compare the source to Wikipedia's secondary sources and reliable sources guidelines and make a logical rebuttal citing these pages. Just make sure that you don't stoop to anyone's level, no matter how upset or "ridiculous" they may seem. We're all here to build an encyclopedia; lets act like we should, and like team players that are wearing the same jersey :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent analysis, Oshwah! It seems that this boils down to a content dispute, yes? Doc talk 07:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871 - Basically, yes. I would say that the content in dispute isn't a big concern here (unless Mabuska needs assistance with it? - Let us know!), but Albiiet's conduct and behavior on the article, as well as towards Mabuska. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. This report is simply about that personal attack and Albiet's justification for it. The content dispute is not what I am reporting about here, though at the RfC at the article page, no-one has backed Albiet's view, and any criticisms I have made of Albiet's knowledge in the topic area he is editing in is fully justified and will be reported on in due course if he continues to ignore reliable sources, ignoring questions posed to him, and attributing sources to statements that don't back what they are adding to the article as they have done within the past day. But that is for another discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I may end up needing it Oshwah. Without trying to distract too much from the point of this AN/I report, one user at the RfC requested sources from us to look at so they could come to their own conclusion. In response I provided online links and even went out of my way to get scans from books (now removed in case I'm accused of infringing copyright, but can again be easily re-uploaded if required simply for the discussion). Albiets response was to declare they will edit the article to prove their point, and did indeed add more text to the actual article but added the sources at the very end of each block so you can't tell what cites what, and without making the sources accessible for the user to look at themselves without any prejudice, even though the sources can be found at and are viewable on google books (most likely how Albiet found them). They also misused the sources they used, most notably in the last sentence of the lede where they state Contemporary Irish annalists ceased to even refer any longer to the kingdom as the Cúige Uladh or the Uladh province, but simply began labeling it as In Cóiced, the province. The source they cite this statement with is given as Byrne, F. J. (1993). The trembling sod. In Cosgove, A, (Ed.). A New History of Ireland (Vol. II) (pp. 2-42, at p. 17). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.. Here is the source at Google books, which clearly states (the annalists frequently refer to the reduced Ulster as In Cóiced, the province, par excellence.) How can you work constructively with actions and edits like that? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to note User:Oshwah I altered the above statement to include the evidence for my example at the end as I was on a mobile device beforehand and I couldn't copy and paste links. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It also appears that socking may now be an issue. No prior edits before or since and going by User_talk:Albiet#Gaming_the_WP:3RR_policy not the first time they have used IPs to further their view. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah - I am also of the opinion that mediation would be very helpful here. I don't think it prudent for Mabuska and I to even try to resolve anything directly any longer. What on earth is he doing insinuating to you and Doc9871 that I am concealing sources? Should this not be interpreted as insulting? Such scurrilous behavior is exactly what gets people so riled with Mabuska, well, at least me anyway. How can he say these types of things to and about people and then expect them to cooperate with him or for that matter even continue to interact with him. There is nothing sinister here. I simply drive a short distance over to the UCLA or the LA County Law Library to do my research. Is every book available on line? And how would I conceal these books from anyone anyway? I am not the Third Reich Propaganda Ministry. All Mabuska or anyone else who is interested has to do to look at any of these scholarly works is to drive over to a local research university and use its library. This is the trouble with these machines. People now hide behind screens and say horrible things to and about other people that they wouldn't dare say if they were standing in front of them. Albiiet

Albiet - People now hide behind screens and say horrible things to and about other people that they wouldn't dare say if they were standing in front of them., horrible things such as this??? Mabuska ^(talk) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Albiet, Mabuska: No problem. If you need me to help you with content issues or disputes, as well as provide mediation, I'll be happy to do that for you two. I suggest we take that discussion to the article talk page or my talk page; this will allow the ANI discussion to remain focused on the original issues reported (interaction, civility, disruption, edit warring, and policy violations). After this ANI closes, we can revisit this discussion and go from there. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah - This sounds great. If its convenient for you, I'd prefer that the mediation occur on your talk page. I'm an older man and its sometimes difficult for me to navigate all the different types of pages on the Wikipedia. When I took my professional doctorate and graduate degrees, they still taught courses on how to use slide rules. The first Texas Instruments calculator wasn't even invented until 5 years after I graduated and all it did was add, subtract, multiply and divide. Anyway, thank you for offering so generously to compromise your time to help us with our problem, hopefully, we won't consume a lot of it. At least, I shall make an effort not too. Best Albiiet

I would prefer to keep it at the article talk page so that other editors who may be interested can come across the discussion and participate, for example other than a dubious one edit IP, two other editors participated in the RfC discussion, one of which has a good level of knowledge in the area, the other one who admits they don't but has taken the time to try to to. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah - If the article talk page would be the most productive and convenient forum for everyone, that forum is also fine with me. I realize that it is a ways out, but if you would be so kind as to copy me the title that I need to enter to reach the page at later date, it would be very much appreciated. Also, after reviewing your earlier cogent chastisement of my behavior, I would like to apologize to user User:Mabuska to the extent and only to the extent that I may have shouted at him. I did not know that capitalizing text is interpreted as shouting. As I noted earlier, I began using computers in later life. I did not realize that when communicating on them, there is an etiquette beyond normal etiquette. My son informed me about same when I talked to him about this matter during a recent phone conversation. I was only trying to emphasize my comments. In future, I shall exclusively use bold type for this purpose. I don't know what characters to enter to underline Wikipedia text. Best - Albiiet

Yes, I agree that the article's talk page is the best place to have this discussion, as it allows for maximum visibility and community input and in a place that's relevant towards the issue. Albiiet, if you need assistance with Wikilinks (or internal URLs to other pages), please let me know. A shortcut link to the article's talk page has been placed on this response for you. I also acknowledge the apology that you made toward Mabuska - thank you for taking the right steps to end the heated argument and anger, and begin a positive and constructive discussion regarding the dispute. Mabuska, are you satisfied with the apology? Can we close this thread and move on to the content dispute on the article's talk page? Or do you still there concerns and issues regarding behavior and conduct? Albiiet, please understand that any future conduct that violates Wikipedia's guidelines on civility will most likely result in administrator action, since you've been warned about this and understand that it's inappropriate, given this discussion. Please let me know if any of you have any questions. Thanks again for taking the first step and offering an apology :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't accept Albiet's apology because they only apologised for "maybe shouting", however not for stating: ARE YOU THAT POMPOUS?! YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THIS WORLD EMINENT SCHOLAR! HOW MUCH OF YOUR ORIGINAL RESEARCH HAS THE ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY PUBLISHED?! YOU'VE GONE COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL NOW. YOUR NOT EDITING ANYMORE. YOUR DISTORTING WIKIPEDIA CONTENT TO FIT YOUR OWN BELIEFS AND THEORIES. YOU REALLY NEED TO REIGN IT IN NOW, OR SOMEONE NEEDS TO REIGN YOU IN BEFORE YOU MAKE MORE OF A MESS THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE. STEP BACK FOR A SECOND - shouting is the least of my concerns, and now stating that they will make emphatic statements in bold instead is just as bad! Most editors use italics instead when trying to emphasise a point. It is the fact Albiet thinks that such unsubstantiated and uncalled for statements are "GERMANE CONTENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION" and won't acknowledge or apologise for it is the problem and why this had to be reported. Unless they apologise for that, then no I can't accept it as it doesn't deal with what i have reported. Also that leaves the issue of their uncalled for overly sarcastic response also noted when I filed this report. None of this helps build good faith or helps lead to constructive discussion. Nor does claiming to be an elderly person or someone who did a doctorate excuse them from uncivil behaviour and making incredibly misleading statements that has nothing to do with Wikipedia etiquette. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I would also point out that Albiet accused me of "impropriety", which upon looking up its meaning and seeing what its synonyms are, I can only take as a baseless and uncivil allegations. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

To All from Albiet: Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, page 626, "impropriety … 2: the quality or state of being improper”, improper … c: not suited to the circumstances, design, or end” This was a comment on the propriety of including material on territories in a discussion on a different subject the Ulaidh nation of people, causing that article to simply become duplicating of the Wikipedia article Ulster. I don’t know what I have to apologize for here. Are editors not allowed to discuss the substance of an issue? Wouldn’t preventing such discussion be disruptive to the growth and development of the Encyclopedia? Albiiet

User:Oshwah - Though I was unaware of same, since internet etiquette does define capitalizing text as shouting, I again apologize for shouting at Mabuska without qualification, and I certainly did not mean to prior qualify my apology in any way. Such behavior if not actionable is certainly ungentlemanly.

However, User:Mabuska refuses to take any responsibility for his own personal attacks upon me, and his own part in disruption of the Wikipedia here. I have chosen not to formally complain, but I would think those attacks far more serious than shouting intended or not and greatly more contributory to this disruption of the Wikipedia.

Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Personal attacks defines the following behavior as a personal attack: “Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence”. As a single example of one of the more minor of Mabuska’s many, many personal attacks upon me that appear on the talk page of the article Kingdom of Ulidia, one, which he also insinuates to you, yourself, above: “Also you are being incredibly deceptive and selective in your wording.” "[D]eception … Syn … fraud … subterfuge, trickery mean the acts or practices of one who deliberately deceives” from Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, p. 322. If you carefully review the talk page at Kingdom of Ulidia, you will find many, many more and even far more serious examples of Mabuska’s personal attacks upon me. I have not listed them all here as I do not want to create a daunting wall of text.

To this point, I have chosen not to formally complain about the attacks in interest of progressing the Wikipedia. Should I file a formal complaint. If so can it be handled here by my simply listing and quoting the attacks or should I file a separate complaint. I would prefer not to do this. I have always considered such conduct as evasive of settlement of the real merits of a substantive dispute, like, one on Wikipedia article content. In my younger days when I practiced in courtrooms, I would always find that when a party began losing a case on its merits, they would attempt to get the other party sanctioned for something, so they could gain some leverage to get their way without prevailing on the merits of the substantive dispute. Aren't we all above resorting to this type of conduct. It is a terrible waste of Wikipedia resources. Albiiet

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy

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

---

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Putting this here as it seems eligible for COIN, AN3, and CP. (I will retract my post at CP.)

Article is a blatant copyright violation of bakerinstitute.org by at least two apparently connected contributors, one of which is currently edit warring. Samantha at BIPP (talk · contribs) seems to be the original COI editor, who was identified as such in 2014, and it looks like they've passed the torch to an intern, creatively named, BIPP Editorial Intern (talk · contribs). I posted the COI template on the intern's talk, but seeing as this is apparently a protracted campaign, I'm just going to leave it in ANI's capable hands. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Gave him the 3RR warning. His next revert should get him a trip to WP:AN3. Katie^talk 18:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm counting seven reverts today. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Timothyjosephwood for the heads-up over at WP:AN3- great minds think alike (or through 'stalking' Sro23's edits anyway!) _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Copyvios revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Non-free images on Commons added to articles here

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

---

Looking for some guidance on this one. Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uploads dozens of files to Commons, which all have been deleted (apart from today's batch). They then come here and then add said images to articles. These then get deleted on WP. Their talkpage on Commons has dozens and dozens of warnings about this, which they chose to ignore. Is this something that can be addressed here? I've never dealt with an issue that crosses Commons and WP directly. Surely it's disruptive to keep uploading images, only for them to be deleted, then to continue doing this over and over? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to ask a Commons admin to block them there so they cannot upload more bad images. The relevant noticeboard is c:COM:AN/B. BethNaught (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Beth. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked at Commons. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Large removal of 'Jewish' from ethnic groups in articles

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

---

Happy Thursday/Friday to everyone here. It is neither my pleasure nor my desire to be opening an ANI, but I believe that this situation warrants a discussion here. While patrolling recent changes, I ran into edits made by Gschofer. He removed the word 'Jewish' from multiple articles (see his contribs for July 8), and continued to do so despite my attempts to inquire with this user, and being asked to stop. After a discussion on my talk page, he now appears to be moving the word "Jewish" from ethnicity to religion on articles, and without discussion or consensus. I've reverted his previous changes (with the exception to those made to BLPs that had no references citing that the person is Jewish), but it's clear that this behavior will continue without action. I'm filing this report to ask for assistance regarding this matter. Thanks, everyone. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User has been notified of this ANI discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's anti-semitic to calll a jewish person ethicity JEWISH. I don't understand why you continue to call to call Jeiwsh people ethnic jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gschofer (talk • contribs) 02:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

its the fact that you insist on going against what seems to be a widely accepted community consensus. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Jewish is both a religion and an ethnic group. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's been decided by RfC that "Religion" is to remain blank on any given infobox. The only exception is when the person's religious practice is an extremely important aspect of their public life. If the editor is moving "Jewish" from Ethnicity to Religion, that is a distinct violation, and must stop immediately. If he objects to the ethnicity parameter in any given person's infobox being filled out as "Jewish", that might be plausible if the information were not substantiated in the article, or if the person were of mixed parentage and only half-Jewish or halachically Jewish, or whatever. But he would need to discuss these removals on the article's talk page first, not just make unilateral removals simply because he doesn't like it. Looking at his contributions [127], it seems that Gschofer is WP:NOTHERE, and probably needs to be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

He's continuing his "work" as we speak.142.105.159.60 (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• CAN SOMEONE PLEASE BLOCK THIS USER? My rollback finger is getting tired and I need to go to sleep. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You'll be glad to hear your RB finger has got 31 hours recovery time ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. Widr (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I suggest this thread stay open for several days because he will doubtless persist when the block expires, the same way he persisted despite clear and repeated warnings and dozens of rollbacks. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It'll be sooner than that: his block appeal is almost certainly going to be be upheld. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Note: editor now blocked indefinitely by Yamla after they made a border line Legal Threat --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• , not taking a side in this matter, but where is the legal threat? We don't block for "borderline" threats. Is it a threat or not? Block should be undone immediately, there is clear as day no legal threat. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as a side note, the block was not for the legal threat, but for continued disruptive editing as stated in the block log. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe the Boarder Line Legal Threat was what was considered disruptive editing it has/had a chilling effect --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Exhausted and Fed up

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

Here's what I have been up to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you are referring to the edit above of 01:05 by HappyValleyEditor here [128], then it's not an outing attempt, the information was explicitly put on Wikipedia by you. That said, it may be worth deleting. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Spam in edit summaries

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

---

IP 2606:6000:50C7:4200:2D58:A2BB:EA1D:81C0 has made a few posts with spam in the edit summaries, e.g. [129]. Maybe the edit summaries should be deleted. Willondon (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It is more than just spam. In fact Willondon picked one of the few polite ones. Most of them are like this. MarnetteD|Talk 03:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to add this is a WP:NOTHERE editor. MarnetteD|Talk 03:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned that some of the spam was putrid. Willondon (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the editor, User:NeilN is hiding the offensive edit-summaries. DMacks (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Revdels done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all for dealing with this. MarnetteD|Talk 04:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:MeanAsKaudien

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

---

Newly created user MeanAsKaudien (talk · contribs), created this morning, would appear to be a disruptive-only account. Edits to Fangbone! [130], Staples Inc [131] and Office Depot [132] would appear to be fantasy.

Given the user has created a redirect (Office Depot ♥ Fangbone!)edit: now edited to be a page, as the redirection target was deleted and a template (Template:Fangbone!) and has links to AIV and UAA and a search string on their newly created user page, this would appear not to be a genuine new user.

Some admin eyes appreciated, please. Gricehead (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User is now reverting genuine edits made by @Mean as custard: [133] [134] etc.

vandal and sockpuppet of multiple previously-blocked accounts. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User now blocked, pages deleted by Widr. Can be closed.

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

Not an explicit legal threat

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

---

Here, but still clearly intended to provide a chill factor. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

While maybe not a legal threat, seeing the section up here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Large_removal_of_.27Jewish.27_from_ethnic_groups_in_articles makes me think their block should be made indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur and will do so immediately. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

And if the user continues along this line, talk page privilege should be taken away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree, though won't remove talk page access myself, as I am the one who just extended the block to indefinite. --Yamla (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't see any legal threat whatsoever. He even further clarifies that he has no action at all. Admins need to stop being so trigger happy with the legal threat block. Are you going to block Jimbo? He made a similar comment regarding this. I have re-opened this section so people can chime in. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a good block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if it is not a "legal threat" by any definition it is clearly meant to have a chilling effect and if allowed would hurt our goal of having a neutral point of view. Our volunteers don't deserve to be intimidated. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The block was for disruptive editing, not for making legal threats however. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

He is now accusing Wikipedia editors of being all Christians and hence biased. That's one of the typical final ravings of a user with a personal agenda. Now would be a good time to freeze the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not a legal-threat situation. Definitely a idiot-needs-block situation. EEng 15:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Strongly oppose block. Recommend unblocking, and then immediately reblocking for WP:NOTHERE. That should satisfy all involved right? TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

He was blocked for "disruptive editing". That would seem to suffice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I would see what happens after the 31 hours are up. If they are clearly not here, then block, but to block for this as a "legal threat" just goes against everything Wiki stands for. You are actually the ones creating a chilling atmosphere when users are scared to share opinions lest a trigger happy admin blocks them. Read his comment, he clearly is not threatening legal action. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What part of "he was NOT blocked for legal threat" do you not understand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The part about "As you chose to ignore that warning and extend a borderline legal threat, it would clearly be inappropriate to allow you to continue editing. I have extended your block from 31 hours to 'indefinite'. " The second block was clearly due to a legal threat, since it's even in this thread where Yamle concurred with the threat and blocked for it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Borderline legal threat does not mean legal threat. They were blocked for being disruptive and this is entirely in line with the expectations of the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I read the thread and I read the talk page. The second block appears to clearly be because of the legal threat. There were no edits after the first block other than talk page comments, and they don't appear to be disruptive. As I said, if he's disruptive block him,but that should be based on real reason. The block should be undone and after his block expires, watch him, if he continues then block him indef, but this block was wrong. Even if you say it's not for the threat but for being disruptive, I don't see that either. The one or two comments on a user talk page is not disruptive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The block log says "disruptive editing". And his edit since the block is likewise disruptive. He should stay indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it does, it is, and he should. Can we close this again? -we seem to be basically repeating ourselves / going round in circles! _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering the user is still arguing on their page about the definition of Jewish, I think it's fair to say that they're not here to build an encyclopedia. There's also these two edits clearly done to prove a point. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor's long term history of personal attacks in edit summaries.

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

User:WWGB

I have not looked extensively, at the above user's comments in talk pages, this report is purely concerning personal attacks in edit summaries. To be fair, I shall assume that his actual comments outside of summaries are all polite, and that his breach of NPA/Civility rules only extends to edit summaries.

The user's talk page seems to have numerous civility related warnings, which were all deleted, so they are obviously aware of the rules regarding NPA/civility and the fact that their edits are a source of concern.

[135] "dufus"

[136] "useless dick"

[137] "lazy sod"

[138] "fugoff"

[139] "dick"

[140] "dick"

[141] "moron"

[142] "moron"

[143] "bugger off"

considering that this pattern of behavior has been going on for a while, and the usual method of informing the offending party with either a template or a message has not resulted in any changes in behavior, perhaps someone could help out a little.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I informed the user of this discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't quite get round to it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a 4im for violating NPA would be sufficient and if it happens again a block? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So I guess they've already had a 4im and just don't understand WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Seeing as those nine diffs go back two years (and tens of thousands of edits) and most of them are from the user's own talk page (where there is much freer reign, especially when reverting), I have to wonder how much time you spent on this? WWGB has been on Wikipedia 10 years and made nearly 100,000 edits. He's an editor in good standing and has never been blocked. This looks like a (very lame) trumped-up witchhunt to me. So why? What is your actual grievance with WWGB? I think this had better be convincing because I can feel a boomerang headed your way. NOTE: There's still time to withdraw this, so that doesn't happen. Softlavender (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• At least some of those diffs (i.e. [144] are perfectly correct when replying to vandals or idiots. Others are removing stupidity from their own talk page [145]. This can be closed. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree. This is trumped-up nonsense. Spacecowboy apparently couldn't take being called a dufus in an edit summary on WWGB's talk page (for posting a dufus-y and incorrect 3RR warning after WWGB had reverted him once on 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers), and so spent untold amounts of time trying to dig up a case. If "dufus" is the worst you've ever been called on Wikipedia, count yourself lucky and move on Spacecowboy. And stop posting edit-warring warnings to people who make a single revert. This ANI is going nowhere. Softlavender (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the above editors who have summed my situation very accurately. I don't recall a previous encounter with Spacecowboy until my single revert, and his/her subsequent 3RR warning. I agree that my comments can sometimes be forthright, usually when confronted with aggressive editing or commenting. I will just have to put that down to my Australian heritage. Thanks again. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Account switching

I have lost my main account's password, so could somebody block it so it can't be compromised by hackers. I also wish to move my alt account to the same username as my main account, if possible. Any help appreciated, --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (need to talk?) 15:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there an email registered to that account? You could try resetting your password if you haven't tried this already. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to add one. I didn't know this would happen.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (need to talk?) 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Aren't you on that account posting right now? I wouldn't support blocking at the moment as this set-up to too easy to misuse. Someone could easily create a new account and claim that my account is their main, it has been lost and they need it blocked right away. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682 - He's using his alt account (Tomandjerry211 (alt)). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682 - Ohhhh... I see your concerns. Yes, that is a very tough area as far as authentication and security goes. This is where a committed identity would have worked out nicely... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering the timing of the accounts - the main hasn't been editing for 1 year, the alt was created roughly 6 months after the main (1 year 1 month ago), and the alt's talkpage has been redirected to the main's since the account's creation, I'd be inclined to believe them. ansh666 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• This edit is fairly convincing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock experts, please?

I blocked two editors today for this edit warring, but it's clear that one of them, User:Clippers18, is continuing to edit logged out - [146], [147], [148], [149], [150]. I've blocked that specific IP, but judging by User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Block, it looks like they've been using others too. Would a rangeblock expert please be kind enough to examine the possibility and do the deed if appropriate? Thanks in advance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee I got an email from Exploding Toenails informing me of five instances where he spotted that IP sock: do you think that if that was mentioned during an unblock appeal by a third-party editor, it would help reduce the block? Mitigation- a bit like, 'helping the you with their enquiries' I haven't suggested it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I got the same email - all I think is needed for an unblock for Exploding Toenails is a commitment to stop edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Note: the smallest CIDR range I can come up with (for all the addresses together) is 2600:1008:b100::/41, covering 1.55E+26 addresses (8,388,608 /64 subnets) from 2600:1008:b100:: to 2600:1008:b17f:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff. Thats going to be a huge grouping of IP addresses. I'll look at trying to chunk them into smaller groups and see if that helps. Perhaps @Oshwah: can take a second look at my results? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Also the IP Addresses are registered to Verizon Wireless so a range block might not be effective. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

These are the IPs that I found in the history of each article listed in the diffs provided:

• 2600:1008:b106:6840:5829:a20d:ced5:f79d
• 2600:1008:b124:6298:b458:67cd:26e8:a1a2
• 2600:1008:b126:8599:548d:5a40:9a24:d4d9
• 2600:1008:b169:c006:3824:afd0:2b45:c6aa
• 2600:1008:b16a:a2a6:2454:ce28:7a74:2c83

The range I calculated for these IPs is 2600:1008:b100::/41 ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, there will be a large number of possible IPs under that range. I don't think there is any "grouping" that that can be done; mobile IPs like this (especially national carriers like Verizon) have very large ranges and subnets for each of their "areas" or "nodes". It's just how the cookie crumbles. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it sounds like the wide range and Verizon Wireless make it unfeasible - but thanks for the help, folks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee - Of course; any time. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Any time! Happy to help. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I put a demo of a tool calculating the range here (permalink). It's not very helpful, but it does confirm the situation, and it includes links to contributions in the last month. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951

I'm technically now an involved editor, and so I will not use my admin tools here.

There is a dispute at Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951 over the naming convention of the article which I am trying to discuss, but has been unsuccessful. This article, Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951, attracted attention in light of the C151A scandal that broke a few days ago. I've tried to ask for more editors to give their opinion on the discussion, but to no avail.

• Lee480 (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes references of "Changchun" from the article. These edit summaries were included in the edits:
  • "(This wasnt submitted as a JV as clearly stated in LTA's website. BEFORE DOING DRASTIC THINGS LIKE MOVING PAGE, PLS CONSULT OTHER WIKI USERS! I am going to request this page to be moved back to the original name!)"
  • "(The C151 were made by 4 diff manufacturers. Are you going to rename them to?!? It maybe be a join venture but the tender submitted was by ONE COMPANY! And now pasting values is against terms? Which terms? Can you refer me to it??!)"
• Lee480 also inserted material copy-and-pasted from another website about tender amounts which is not only inaccurate (not only included only certain bid amounts not reflective of the process, there is a discrepancy between the amount bid and amount awarded), but which may be copyrighted.
  • e.g. the bid amount highlighted in the article is $547m, but the amount actually awarded is $570m.
    • What you intentionally refused to mention to other administrators here that THIS LINK was by the Singapore government on the government's business opportunity website.
      • The $570.7m awarded amount is also from the Land Transport Authority in 2008. [151]. Furthermore, if you took something from GeBiz (government's business opportunity website), then it is a clear violation of their terms: "The information contained within the procurement notices/documents is intended for the sole purpose of suppliers preparing for their bids, and shall be used only for this intended purpose. They shall not be reproduced, distributed, adapted, modified, republished, displayed, broadcasted, hyperlinked, framed or transmitted in any manner or by any means without prior permission, other than for its intended purpose." - Mailer Diablo 05:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Lee480 accused me of "without consulting other editors around, this editor moved this page and made major change by adding what you think is appropriate, forcefully." [152] This is untrue. I filed a WP:RM back in April 2016 instead of making any further moves to allow for discussion, which was unopposed. It was open for comment for an extended period.
• Lee480 reverted me repeatedly, and then goes on to make incivil comments about me on Talk:Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951, possible WP:NPA personal attacks:
  • "A quick search in the editor's talk page clearly shows why he is emotional about the China linkage. However, we should be professional not emotional and come out with baseless conspiracies!" [153] (I have made no such edits on my user talk page).
  • "To exemplify my professionalism, I've edited this page to make it clear that this train contract was won by Bombardier (the canadian company) but built by your favourite: Changchun!!" [154]

Could uninvolved editors and administrators please have a look at the article and discussion and advise on the next possible course of action. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• • • Wait, you're labelling this as personal attacks? When edited the page you refused to some of my comments like: why are Singapore's first gen trains built by the four different manufacturers are you're not renaming it? Because it's not made by Chinese jvs? - Lee480

• The comments in question on the talk page (the last two paragraphs) are not acceptable. The policy is clear: Comment on the content, not the contributor. Putting them in caps is considered to be yelling too. If you want specific matters to be addressed, include them in the article's talk page and not merely in the edit summary. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Your Lee480 is a sock of the now-indef'd User:AgentSuperGuy, who originally moved this article (and fifty or so others).
• @Mailer Diablo: For example: compare this edit summary with the ones you cite above. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow. I'm a CU myself, but in fairness I would rather another CU to run that check. Do we have a CU colleague online right now? - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What did you mean, 'wow'? It doesn't look like it yet (acc. the blog log) _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Myself being surprised for missing this aspect. Thank you for pointing that out. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ponyo might be around- just saw them on the watchlist. I think. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I filed them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Profile101 already, sorry. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I replied there.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to turn off the 'CU=yes' bit! Sorry about that, I was only thinking in terms of the behavioural evidence. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note to uninvolved editors this can probably be closed now; it was a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants-experience while it lasted ;) but now it's over. Good work all. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• For the sock check yes, but it doesn't solve the underlying issues originally outlined in my original post. Can we keep this open for other uninvolved editors/admins to look at the remaining aspects. - Mailer Diablo 20:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Mailer Diablo, this doesn't look like the usual Profile101 sock, although it was my first suspect. From what I have seen before, Profile101 seems to be an account used by a kid (or a group of kids). I'm not aware of them posting long discussions on the talk page, unlike this account. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Lemongirl942, Let's put aside the thought if Lee480 is related to Profile101 or not, and think what should be done for an editor making incivil and snide comments as listed above. The result of the edits made is an article with inaccurate information and possibly copyvio content. - Mailer Diablo 21:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what's a sock account but nope, I'm not a group of kids trying to destroy Wikipedia. I'm trying make sure article relating to Singapore are reliable and accurate.

• You produced two primary sources from LTA, but no reliable secondary sources and there are discrepancies between the bid and award amount (which has since been removed). - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ninja724 is violating WP:NOTHERE and WP:3RR

As I said, he's violating those policies. He also seems to be blanking his talk page to hide the evidence. I opened a discussion at WP:AN3RR, but they suggested I report the user here instead. That discussion can be seen here. (I've copied and pasted part of my original post from there to here for convenience. Differences between the two versions have been italicized.) This user has continued to add inappropriate content to the linked page after being reverted several times. (Reasons for the reverts by other editors were given in their edit summaries, all five of which are seen in the edit history here.) He has been warned of unconstructive editing at his talk page, which he then blanked. Here's the diff for my warning and his blanking. Note that he has been warned several other times for various topics in the past, as seen in his talk page's history. Note that the article is a currently-developing event, so it is very hard to "screen" questionable edits.
He may also be violating WP:NOTHERE, as he seems to have no interest in listening to others' reasons for reverting his edits on the linked page. As I said before, he also blanked a warning and the WP:AN3RR notice I gave him earlier today. He also blanked a discussion me and another editor had on his talk page regarding whether to report him or not. (All of this can be seen in his talk pages history.) -- Gestrid (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Co-filing (prepared simultaneously)

• Ninja724 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ninja724 has been edit warring and being disruptive on 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Gestrid filed an AN3 report, but I think the behavior is more than just this one case of edit warring and evidence of NOTHERE. I noticed this account's behavior back on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting too.

Ninja724 has been:

• Edit warring for some reason about the wording of a link to the 9-11 attacks [155], [156], [157]
• They repeatedly remove or move content about Barack Obama (and add content about former President George W. Bush) [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164]. This seems to be some POV issue to me.
• Refusing to acknowledge warnings or engage in discussion, resorting to only blanking their talk page [165], [166], [167]

This pattern of behavior extended back to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting where they also blanked content about President Obama ([168], [169], [170], [171]) and blanked their talk page when warned ([172]).

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment The user has now been notified. You may have to look in his talk page's edit history to find the notification, as I suspect he may blank it as he did with the WP:AN3RR notification. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Let it be known that Bush's reaction is being excluded from that article and Obama's is being kept per WP:SOAPBOX. Ninja has also failed to provide any sort of rationale every time he/she has deleted Obama's reaction and/or added Bush's reaction. Parsley Man (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for edit warring and 3RR. Katie^talk 20:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, as I suspected, he blanked his talk page and removed both the ANI notification and the blocking notification. He seems to be wanting to hide what he's doing. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: Users are certainly allowed to blank their own talk pages, or indeed remove anything they like from their talk pages (with the exception of falsely re-factoring someone else's words). So that's not a problem. What is problematical is the disruptive and destructive editing across several articles. This thread could conceivably be closed since the user has been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring, and since he is a new user he may learn his lesson -- that he needs to listen and follow instructions. We may want to keep the thread open for a few days however, to see if the multi-article disruptive editing continues, in which case he should probably be indef blocked for WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I can agree to that. Besides, for whatever reason, someone undid the edit that removed the "You've been blocked" template. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree and to clarify, my comment about blanking the user talk page was about lack of acknowledgement or discussion. Blanking per se is not a problem. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe block notices are the exception -- I believe block notices need to stay, at least for the duration of the block. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought I was being clear. I meant what EvergreenFir just said. He just said it better than I did. And I agree with you on block notices needing to stay. If he blanks that out again while, he's blocked, his talk page access should be turned off. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Kinda surprised, but block notices are not mentioned as exception to WP:REMOVED. #TheMoreYouKnow #LearnedSomethingNew EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov's comments on my talkpage

I want to make a formal complaint about the behaviour of User:Alexis Ivanov. At this point primarily about his behaviour on the following sections of my talkpage, which were put there in the last two days here and here. While Ivanov doesn’t seem to want to clarify what this abuse is about, it has occurred after past conflicts here and here and here which eventually ended up in a DRN here In which Ivanov declined to take part. As Ivanov doesn’t seem to be particulary keen on divulging his reasons to edit, much misunderstandings again occurred here, here, here, here, here, in this matter, and also here, until this matter was finally clarified by the intervention of an administrator. Please note the edit summaries involved. During the initial matter Ivanov continuously intervened in conversations I and others had with third parties. here and on the talkpages of others I have been in conversation with here, here, here, more generally here, here and also here and here. This is not the first time there has been trouble like this concerning Ivanovs problematic interaction with other editors, as can be seen here, and I can frankly not be bothered to dig any further. The mention of his future projects, on his user page, that can be seen here also seems problematic to me as it is a direct expression of what could in the circumstances be interpreted as WP:HOUND behavior, towards me personally. Now to summarise, My only complaint at this point is his language on my talkpage, warning me that the “big eye” is watching me and other veiled aggressive language like :"Watch your mouth, son. I don't have to repeat myself again, I already told you and it's done deal. No go do your business." A sentence that basically triggered my action on this page. And then of course his failure to actually talk to me about what he is actually complaining about after repeatedly being asked to do so. My explicit question is: Why should I accept such behaviour from a fellow editor? Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, last May Ivanov decorated the top of Crimean-Nogai Raids with numerous citation requests, which are still there. I did not think it serious enough to start an edit war, but thought it strange since, to my knowledge, all the marked statements are common knowledge to people who know about the subject. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This article does seem to have a serious lack-of-reference problem, but I'm not sure tagging every third word with {{cn}} was really a solution. TimothyJosephWood 00:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems a lot like a bully who hasn't learned their lesson from previous bully-blocks. Also I have a bit of respect for Iryna Harpy from back when I worked 3rd shift (aka Australia time), and I imagine it takes quite a bit to have a beef with her. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any any point in my adding more diffs unless this thread is turned into a debate between editors who support Alexis Ivanov's BATTLEGROUND behaviour. For all of the blocks, there has been no attempt by the user to do anything other than to continue with harassing any editor who deigns to disagree with him, to pay attention to argument, to assume bad faith on behalf of other editors, nor to desist in using talk pages to deride, belittle, and to attack anyone and everyone who challenges his perceptions. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture. This doesn't mean that editors agree with each other on content, but that discussions can get heated. Throwing tantrums and hurtling abuse is not the equivalent of 'heated' discussion: it's heavy-handed, unrepentant WP:NOTHERE, and Alexis Ivanov is intentionally disruptive, POV, and is only interested in winning. The user has even refused to participate in a DRN opened in an attempt to move forward over an issue. I can't even see mentoring as being an option for someone this aggressive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Would appreciate an additional set of eyes -- harassment issue

I'd appreciate a second opinion and a second (or more) set of eyes.

I noticed a pattern of whitewashing going on at Brad Wardell -- an article subject to the GamerGate discretionary sanctions. My gut told me that it was from the subject of the article. There were four users involved -- two IPs, two registered. The two IP addresses involved geolocate to the approximate location of the subject of the article's business. I opened a Sockpuppet Investigation which found after a CheckUser that there is a possibility that the two accounts are also the same person and said "no comment" as to their connection to the IP. Draw your own conclusions.

I've reverted the blankings of the "Controversies" section. However, one of the two registered users is now harassing me. Keep in mind, I'm an uninvolved administrator who has not edited the Brad Wardell article, so far as I know, before today. User:Tandistir, one of the two registered users mentioned above, apparently is now issuing me warnings, and has stalked through my twitter history, digging up my sole twitter encounter with the subject of the article back in 2014 to try to discredit me and presumably out me or show that he can "know who I am" or some such nonsense. Diff, though it's been RevDeleted so not viewable to non-administrators. That's fucking creepy stalker bullshit. My first reaction was to indefinitely block the user -- it's clearly Brad Wardell himself, as anyone with a working brain can tell -- but I think it's better to bring it up here, so that someone else should be involved to keep an eye on this article. This is the exact kind of abusive behavior the GamerGate sanctions were supposed to prevent against. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't had time to take more than a cursory look at the behavioral evidence, but I did revdel one of the edit summaries Tandistir made - he put the same image URL in that he tried to put into your user talk. Should this article go under Gamergate 30/500 protection? Katie^talk 00:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

He just posted my twitter info again. I've blocked for 24h. Emergency measure. WP:OUTING even of people whose identities are nominally easy to discover, is not OK. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}

Is this a good candidate for WP:TNT? Almost the entire thing is self-sourced. TimothyJosephWood 00:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And that has earned him a NOTHERE block. Katie^talk 00:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Swatjester: I'm not thrilled that you, as an admin, are painting this content dispute as vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'd call what appears to be a concerted attempt by multiple accounts to whitewash an article, even before the COI. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

And how the heck is "it's clearly Brad Wardell himself, as anyone with a working brain can tell" is any way appropriate? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• This ANI report seems to be supporting edits like this at 00:42, 9 July 2016 which adds a mention of a non-notable person involved in a legal dispute with the article subject—a dispute that went nowhere. At WP:BLPN I would recommend reverting that edit and removing the "Controversies" section per WP:CRIT. I won't go into detail here, but as-is it is junk. If there is something to say about views on Gamergate, it should be integrated somewhere. If it can't be integrated, it doesn't belong. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Which backs up my earlier contention that removal is not "vandalism". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article is junk, and reads like a paid promo in a pop pulp magazine. The language throughout needs to be rewritten to be neutral. Half the sources are self references. The author may not be the subject, but there is a strong COI feeling to the wording and the sourcing.TimothyJosephWood 03:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

An IP-created sockpuppet investigation page

I'm unwilling to satisfy this edit request (currently in Wikipedia talk:) to move it to the Wikipedia space because there appears to be a deleted version of the target, deleted per G5. Thought it deserved sysop attention. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The alleged sock is way older than the alleged master. However, the alleged sock (Suitcivil133) is a confirmed sockmaster. See here. Was the IP trying to report this as a new sock, but got it reversed? GAB^gab 02:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Good evidence, yeah looks like it. I'll toggle the edit request, but an admin should take another look and delete the page if we bring the request over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suitcivil133. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)