Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 185.188.6.168 (talk) at 03:00, 4 May 2017 (Undid revision 778595879 by 2600:1002:B103:3A02:99D6:5BA0:C529:BA3D (talk) unexplained refractory of other user's comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Roman Spinner editing dab pages in breach of ban

    Roman Spinner (talk · contribs) was banned from editing dab pages in February 2016. They are currently involved in a messy repeated AfD for a dab page, in the course of which they substantially altered the content of the page while nominating it (for the 2nd time) for AfD.

    Perhaps their ban on editing dab pages should be extended to a ban on nominating dab pages for any sort of deletion (CSD, PROD, AfD), to keep them away from this area of editing in which they seem to cause problems for the encyclopedia. Failing that, they need to be reminded that editing a dab page is editing a dab page, even if the same edit nominates it for AfD. PamD 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blatant breach of ban, so I have blocked for 48 hours (although I don't think adding an AFD header as part of the nomination process should be considered on its own as enough to break the ban on 'editing'). I support extending the ban to nominating for deletion too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe he could look at archiving that massive talkpage when the block expires. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarification, as Roman Spinner seems unclear about it too, the diff I cited in the initial post was not just adding an AfD header: he made substantial changes to the dab page in the same edit. PamD 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Roman has now explained below that the substantial edit was accidental. It illustrates the importance of checking the effect of any edit, including those which are automated or shortcuts. PamD 12:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest an amendment to the original ban. I believe it left him able to edit on disambiguation talk pages. This has led to many move discussions, and I think the ban should included deletion discussions and talk pages. One example of my concern is Katharine Blake which Roman nominated for speedy deletion three times [1] (it is a redirect to a dab), and created move discussions (see Talk:Catherine Blake and Talk:Catherine Blake (disambiguation), keeping on and on despite lack of support. Roman just doesn't seem to be able to stop himself. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well at that point you might as well make it a topic ban from all DAB pages/discussions. Very little wriggle-room there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, perhaps explicitly covering redirects to dabs too. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support extending this ban to "Wikipedia disambiguation, broadly construed". That ought to clearly cover the relevant areas being disrupted: if it has to do with disambiguation, it's off-limits. The problem seems at the core to be WP:IDHT: when told explicitly that what they're doing is wrong, Roman Spinner ignores the advice and does the wrong thing anyway, often repeatedly. Immediately renominating Ivan Saric for deletion after being told that AFD is the wrong venue to propose a merge is just the latest example of this years-long pattern. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Boleyn, i believe you misremember the result; the linked discussion, while the initial proposal was not specific about talk pages, modified the proposal to explicitly include them, which Katie's close clearly states. That minor point aside, however, i would fully support the proposal above, to ban Roman from disambiguation altogether. Some of his work is useful, but the continued wrong actions, even after being shown they are wrong, is not helpful at all, and the project should be protected from them. Happy days, LindsayHello 11:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    LindsayH, I appreciate your kind characterization at the start of the sentence, "Some of his work is useful", however the remainder of the sentence, "but the continued wrong actions, even after being shown they are wrong, is not helpful at all, and the project should be protected from them", leaves me puzzled. Other than this unfortunate sole exception over the entire course of the year and two months from the time the dab page topic ban was imposed, what are those "continued wrong actions" that threaten Wikipedia's integrity and where/how has it been "shown that they are wrong"? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's fine by me. To my mind, a ban from editing disambiguation pages includes a restriction from discussion processes which affect their content, such as suggesting that two dab pages be merged, but if that is not the intent behind the topic ban (I have not read that discussion in great detail) then no further sanction is required. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I disagree, PamD, Ivanvector, Boing! said Zebedee, LindsayH. The original ban stated: Consensus is clear: Roman Spinner is banned from editing disambiguation pages and their associated talk pages (closed by KrakatoaKatie. This includes creating new dab pages. Although no alternative mechanism to allow RS to propose changes to dab pages was discussed, I suggest that Roman Spinner create a sandbox for that purpose if he so desires. Roman has continually broken this ANI by editing their 'associated talk pages', more than a dozen times in the last month. This is not a one-off infraction of the last ANI. I suggest if Roman sees something of concern, he picks an editor to drop a line to and ask to look at it. This is a persistent violation of the original ANI - I propose simply that he is made to keep to the original decision of the original ANI. Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Roman Spinner's reply

    After seeing the proposed draconian editing sanctions mentioned above, I must at least remind all participants in this discussion that, in the one year and two months that my topic ban has lasted, this is the first and only dab which I have edited. Thus, even the section header, "Roman Spinner editing dab pages in breach of ban", may be modified to "…has edited one page…"

    Since it wasn't mentioned in the above discussion, I should also indicate, for the record, that the topic ban was solely related to length of dab page entries and did not involve any interaction infractions such as incivility, harassment, edit warring, etc. In fact, during the 11 years and 3 months that I have edited Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis, the February 2016 ANI and the related one above, are the only instances that I been taken to ANI. Also, the 48-hour ban that has just ended is the first and only time that I have been banned.

    The regrettable and impulsive decision to edit the Ivan Šarić dab page stemmed from frustration at my inability to call attention regarding the need for a merger of the Ivan Saric and Ivan Šarić dabs and, after being informed that Talk:Ivan Šarić#Requested move 6 April 2017 is not the appropriate venue and, subsequently, after the deletion of the merger tags I had placed at the two dabs, I decided to try the AfD.

    Even though this decision brought me the 48-hour ban and the above threats of editing sanctions, if there is at least a bright spot in this, it is that the resulting attention brought help from Ivanvector who did exactly what needed to be done. If not for that, there would still be two dab pages where one would suffice.

    The only other complaint mentioned above appears to be related to my earlier nomination of Catherine Blake which seems an odd choice to bring up as an example since Boleyn was the first editor at that discussion who offered to support a variant of my nomination. My proposals at those nominations also had some additional support and there was no suggestion of any wrongdoing or inappropriateness on my part.

    Taking a wider view, a single-page violation of the topic ban over a period of 14 months, with the violation (insertion of AfD template) not even related to the reason for the ban (length of dab page entries) should not bring forth threats of a much-wider editing ban in areas (nominations, voting, discussions) where I may be able to contribute. Those areas are completely unrelated to the very-narrowly formulated ban and no arguments above specify why, in addition to the 48-hour ban, I should be further sanctioned in such a harsh manner. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment on the above The diff I cited in the initial post here was not just "insertion of AfD template": you substantially altered the dab page at the same time. PamD 16:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In attempting to make my reply, above, as brief as possible while including all the key elements, I omitted an explanation relating to your lead paragraph mention that I "substantially altered the content" of the dab page. As I previously indicated, I made no edits to the content of the Ivan Šarić dab page and the addition of the AfD template represented the sole change I made there. Unfortunately, however, instead of adding the AfD template manually at 19:05, 23 April 2017, I took the shortcut of clicking on my earlier edit of 05:27, 23 April 2017 without realizing that in between those two timestamps, three edits had already been made to the page. Thus, I accidentally restored the page to its 05:27, 23 April 2017 form and did not know that it also automatically resulted in those changes until you pointed it out. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. That illustrates the importance of checking the effect of any edits one does, especially using any sort of automation or "shortcut". That substantial edit of yours, accidental as it may have been, was the main thing which triggered this whole thread. PamD 12:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Response from another editor

    Just looking at your edits for the last 3 weeks, I saw 13 separate bits of editing around dabs from you: 2 AfDs and 11 move proposals which involved moving dabs - There was the proposed move of 7 dabs at Talk:Kalinin, Talk:Pamela Lee (disambiguation), Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Talk:Dennis Johnson (disambiguation), Talk:Don Mason (baseball). Of the 13, 12 were closed as a straight no or no consensus. I warned you some time ago that you were breaching the ban, but you replied that you were allowed to when it came to these types of discussions and I took that at face value without re-reading the ANI.

    I would also say that the behaviour that led to the last ANI was not so much the overlengthy entries, but that you just wouldn't listen, over a period of years. Your response gives me no indication that there has been a change. Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I participated at the Talk:Ivan Šarić RM, and I agree that Roman messed the followup badly – instead of just redirecting one dab to the other (a routine action that emerged from the discussion, and that just nobody took upon themselves to execute), he opened no less than two consecutive AfDs. Still, I think the complete topic ban on dab pages is a bit of overkill. Those RM proposals were all within reason, and the last two were closed in favor of his proposed move, while the Talk:Kalinin one was rejected largely on procedural grounds (that mass nomination was inappropriate). I am not aware of history of his topic ban. No such user (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for mentioning the RM proposals. As for the Ivan Šarić AfD, I did indeed mess up badly on that one and I apologize to all participants here for having to spend time discussing it as a result. In my frustration at being prevented by the topic ban from merging the Ivan Saric and Ivan Šarić dab as was ultimately done so quickly and easily by Ivanvector, I took the unwise and rash step of re-adding the AfD template, instead of the wise step of posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation and asking other Wikipedians for help in unifying the two dabs.
    However, I would like to assure participants that such rashness is very atypical of me and represents a nearly unique occurrence. In my entire 11 years and 3 months on Wikipedia, I have never engaged in edit warring, 3RR or incivility and certainly have no pattern of any such behavior. The topic ban (with length of dab entries as the sole reason) has already lasted a year and two months and this single unfortunate incident should not be used as a reason for expanding the ban and barring me from editing in ever-wider swaths of Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Roman Spinner topic ban modification proposal (edit break)

    • Support modifing TBan to "broadly construed". This is crazy stuff. Those RMs were a complete waste of time. There is really no sound or logical reason that any editor cannot stay away from dabs. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that the current issue, as it was brought to ANI, had been entirely focused upon the editing of a single dab page — Ivan Šarić — with no complaints raised regarding the length of individual entries on that page. Moreover, creation of RMs or participation in RMs had no connection with the reason for the topic ban which solely concerned the length of dab page entries. Nor has anyone had any complaints regarding the content of argumentation within the RM discussions. In fact, among the five RMs mentioned above, two (Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball)) are not even dab pages. Another one among those five RMs mentioned above — Talk:Dennis Johnson (disambiguation) — I did not even initiate. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat what Boleyn said above, "Just looking at your edits for the last 3 weeks, I saw 13 separate bits of editing around dabs from you: 2 AfDs and 11 move proposals which involved moving dabs - There was the proposed move of 7 dabs at Talk:Kalinin, Talk:Pamela Lee (disambiguation), Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Talk:Dennis Johnson (disambiguation), Talk:Don Mason (baseball). Of the 13, 12 were closed as a straight no or no consensus. I warned you some time ago that you were breaching the ban, but you replied that you were allowed to when it came to these types of discussions and I took that at face value without re-reading the ANI.

    I would also say that the behaviour that led to the last ANI was not so much the overlengthy entries, but that you just wouldn't listen, over a period of years. Your response gives me no indication that there has been a change. Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)". Despite your claims to the contrary, all of those very definitely were directly about disambiguation pages. You should not be initiating, participating, or editing in those matters. As I mentioned above, there is really no sound or logical reason that any editor cannot stay away from disambiguations. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support this proposal - closer please note I've both proposed this and retracted the proposal above, but on reading the additional comments posted by Boleyn and Softlavender afterwards, as well as reviewing the original close, I have to agree that a more broad Tban is necessary. The original topic ban restricted Roman Spinner from edits to dab pages and their talk pages, but did not address discussions related to disambiguation pages in other locations (such as in XfD venues or requested moves), and in effect this has left a loophole through which he has been able to continue editing dabs by proxy. However, it is clear from that discussion that the community expressed frustration with Roman Spinner's edits related to the disambiguation function rather than specifically from disambiguation pages, which is not covered in the wording of KrakatoaKatie's closing statement. It's clear from this discussion that his edits regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem. Modifying the topic ban to "Wikipedia disambiguation, broadly construed" makes very clear that Roman Spinner may not participate in changes to disambiguation pages by any means. The only exception I propose is clear permission to create or modify a wikilink to a disambiguation page, as editing could be quite difficult otherwise. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Roman was banned from editing dabs and their associated talk pages, but has continued to do so. I again point out that this ban was put in place because Roman just refused to listen, despite many warnings over a number of years, which unfortunately resulted, eventually, in ANI. I would also say that edit warring and incivility are present, from my perspective. Refusing to listen to other editors and continuing to change pages to how you want them is not civil. If warned about editing for one dab, stopping but then doing exactly the same on another dab the next day, is a form of edit warring. Bearing in mind that the topic ban was not kept to by Roman, I think he is lucky the proposal is just to make the wording clearer. Although I pointed out the 13 infractions in the last 3 weeks, he has persistently edited dab talk pages over the time of his topic ban. I also fail to see how he has struggled to avoid getting involved with dabs when there is so much else to do on Wikipedia. I support the rewording of the original ban to 'broadly construed', as the original ban on editing 'associated talk pages' has been ignored and Roman is returning to the issue of disambiguation, often several times a week, despite the topic ban. I wish him well in other areas of the encyclopaedia, but this has been going on for years and is absolutely ridiculous. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response from Roman Spinner. Although I posted a general overview below ("Additional statement from Roman Spinner"), it did not directly address the misperceptions mentioned immediately above, which do require a specific explanation.
    1) The initial proposal for the February 2016 topic ban concerned solely dab pages. During the discussion, another participant proposed expanding it to include dab talk pages, but no one went any further. The closing of that topic ban mentions dab pages and dab talk pages, but no other pages. Thus, even if it is confirmed that the topic ban does indeed extend to participation in RMs on dab talk pages, it should still be obvious that I violated neither the letter nor the spirit of the topic ban by participating in AfDs or other dab-related discussions which are not situated upon dab talk pages. After all, the intent of the ban was never to bar me from all dab-related pages and topics, but only from editing dab pages and their talk pages.
    2) As I previously pointed out, there are only five titles presented above as examples of my RM participation, and two of those — Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) — are not even dab pages. My pointing this out brought the response, "Despite your claims to the contrary, all of those very definitely were directly about disambiguation pages. You should not be initiating, participating, or editing in those matters.", which can be countered with the simple question, "Why?" After all, the topic ban never indicated that I did anything improper outside of dab pages and therefore there was no reason to ban me from other pages.
    3) Another contention, "The original topic ban restricted Roman Spinner from edits to dab pages and their talk pages, but did not address discussions related to disambiguation pages in other locations (such as in XfD venues or requested moves), and in effect this has left a loophole through which he has been able to continue editing dabs by proxy. However, it is clear from that discussion that the community expressed frustration with Roman Spinner's edits related to the disambiguation function rather than specifically from disambiguation pages, which is not covered in the wording of KrakatoaKatie's closing statement. It's clear from this discussion that his edits regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem.", is particularly mystifying since there is no such loophole. AfDs do not take place on dab talk pages and are concerned not with individual entries on the page, but with the deletion of the entire page. RMs, which do take place on dab talk pages, also are not concerned with editing of individual entries, but solely with renaming the page's main title header. Thus, there is no manner through which the content of a dab page may be edited by proxy.
    4) Continuing with 3), I am not aware of any complaint during the 2016 ANI regarding disambiguation "function" — the entire topic ban was based solely upon the length of dab page entries. Finally in 3), how is it clear that my issues regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem? A mistake upon a single dab page and participation in RMs situated upon dab talk pages are the sole problems mentioned. That single dab page edit (placement of AfD template — nothing related to length of entries) caused me to receive the first editing ban in the entire 11 years and 3 months that I have edited Wikipedia. As for dab talk page-based discussions and RMs, if the closing admin decides that those are part of the topic ban, then I will no longer participate in anything that is based within dab talk pages. However, as for "his edits regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem.", which edits are those? Other than participation in RMs, which edits are in question and what is the problem?
    5) Lastly, Boleyn's complaint that "Roman was banned from editing dabs and their associated talk pages, but has continued to do so", disregards that the single edit which brought this discussion was a one-time occurrence that resulted in a 48-hour ban, and the RMs involved strictly discussions and no editing of dab page entries. As for, "this ban was put in place because Roman just refused to listen, despite many warnings over a number of years, which unfortunately resulted, eventually, in ANI", between my first edit on January 22, 2006 and 10th WikiBirthday on January 22, 2016, only 4 Wikipedians posted on my talk page, leaving, in nearly every case, gentle reminders, rather than warnings. I responded to each of the 4 editors, explaining how I measure the length of my edits and other details and was not issued any warnings — certainly none that would indicate that I was in danger of receiving a topic ban.
    6) The following statement certainly needs to be addressed, "I would also say that edit warring and incivility are present, from my perspective. Refusing to listen to other editors and continuing to change pages to how you want them is not civil. If warned about editing for one dab, stopping but then doing exactly the same on another dab the next day, is a form of edit warring.". I sympathize with these feelings and regret that my edits led to the point that such sentiments needed to be expressed. However, we cannot start redefining what edit warring and incivility mean in Wikipedia terms. Wiki editors hold a variety of differing views and disagreeing on this topic with only 4 Wikipedians in my first ten years of editing, should not be made to seem that I was opposing a groundswell of opinion.
    7) Honest disagreement on an issue cannot be classified as incivility, although our disagreement regarding the length of dab page entries has not existed since February 2016 and I furthermore regret not accepting Boleyn's arguments posted on my talk page three years ago — not merely because it would have prevented the ANI problem, but basically due to those arguments standing on their own merits. As for edit warring, in my entire time with Wikipedia, I have never engaged in such behavior and, unlike the social, political or scientific edit warriors who clearly violate NPOV by favoring their own viewpoints and reinserting those viewpoints using 3RR, when, in the past, I edited dab pages, no one ever complained of NPOV violations or reinsertion of text in a manner consistent with edit warring.
    8) Ultimately, however, other than the element of punishment for the length of my pre-2016 dab page entries, what is the reason for the insistence upon a pound of editing flesh beyond the recently-concluded 48-hour editing ban. No one has even specified whether or how my participation in RMs, including those located within dab talk pages, has in any way impacted Wikipedia's integrity or caused distress for any Wikipedian. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat, Despite your claims to the contrary, all of those, including Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) very definitely were directly about disambiguation pages. All anybody has to do is click the links and search for your name to see that. Moreover, in addition to that repeated misrepresentation, your interminable walls of text here are not helping your case. Softlavender (talk)
    Since the word "misrepresentation" has been put forth, it needs to be pointed out that it is, in fact, a misrepresentation to submit the edits I made to Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) as examples of my violating the ban against editing dab pages. Since neither one of those is a dab page, therefore I did not violate the ban by editing those two pages. When walls of text are needed to counter unfounded accusations, then walls of text have to be submitted. The explanation here, however, is as short and simple as it needs to be. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was and is a misrepresentation to repeatedly claim (three times now so far) that those posts are not very definitely directly about disambiguation pages. That is why it is being proposed that your topic ban wording be changed to add "broadly construed", because you seem to not be able to resist editing disruptively concerning disambiguation pages, whether directly (on the page or talk itself) or indirectly (via RMs and related discussions). Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not simply claiming, but stating directly, that without any doubt, the two pages in question are not disambiguation pages and that therefore I did not violate the wording of the ban on editing disambiguation pages by editing those two pages. Of course, there is a disambiguation element inherent in the discussions on those two pages, but there is no indication that the narrowly focused ban was meant to bar me from editing non-dab pages or participating in dab-related discussions since I was never accused of being a general disruptor of dabs, but simply of creating overlong dab page entries.
    As for the constantly-repeated unsubstantiated charge of "editing disruptively", I challenge anyone to point out a disruptive edit I have made. If the length of my dab page entries prior to the February 2016 ANI is considered to be disruptive, then at least any allegedly "disruptive" edits I am supposed to have made in the year and three months since then. The single dab page that I have edited since February 2016, Ivan Saric, is of course an unfortunate exception for which I have apologized, but a single exception (which was unrelated, it needs to be stressed, to the length of dab page entries) cannot be considered to represent a pattern of disruption. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The 13 items in just the last three weeks alone, mentioned by Boleyn, were disruptive and wasted the community's time. They all involved dabs, that is why we are requesting that the TBan be reworded to include the words "broadly construed". Softlavender (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, Roman, you're just not listening. The original ANI found your edits disruptive. You were given a topic ban you have not kept to. Although I pointed out the 13 pages you have edited in violation of editing dabs and their associated talk pages, that was just for the last three weeks. Looking back in your user contributions shows you regularly, usually weekly, editing dab talk pages. There is no point re-debating the original ANI - there were concerns about your editing of the talk pages and that's why it was explicitly banned. If you had refrained for a year and then asked for that to be lifted, that would be different. Instead, you ignored it. You keep saying there was a single exception - it has been every week! Ignoring an ANI decision is disruptive, full stop (exemplified by the fact we're all wasting our time here). You mention that only 4 editors sent you messages about your editing of dabs against consensus - that excludes the many which were on the talk pages of the dabs themselves (I remember, as I left several). You just don't listen to other editors. Can we just wrap this up now? After years of interacting with Roman, I see no attitude change and no chance he's going to really reflect on this, so rewording of his ongoing topic ban is the only option and not a harsh one given his persistent breaking of the ban on editing dab talk pages. Again, I genuinely wish you luck in other areas of the encyclopaedia, but you need to let disambiguation-related topics go. Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose expanding the ban; this would effectively bar Roman Spinner from participating in requested move discussions where dab pages may be affected. They have routinely contributed to the RM process constructively before and after the ban. I'd go so far as to suggest that the condition that they avoids dab page talk pages be removed altogether. The crux of the problem was edits to the pages themselves (and not listening to criticism), not talk page edits.--Cúchullain t/c 15:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My thanks to Cúchullain for his very kind words. I also feel that after years of interaction, I must reply to Boleyn's above comment.
    Again, Boleyn, I regret that you feel everyone's time is being wasted here (there are 25 other items on today's ANI agenda), but there is nothing to be gained for yourself or for Wikipedia by pursuing the call for a pound of flesh so relentlessly. Yes, of course, all you want is for me to keep to the conditions of the ANI, but there is really no need to make it into a personal crusade. As you well know, search as you may, that other than this single unfortunate miscalculation (which did not involve the reason for the February 2016 ANI — overlong dab page entries), I have not edited any dab pages for a year and three months. At a point when everyone else in this ANI was satisfied, it shouldn't have to have been necessary for you to go into punishment overkill mode.
    However, for you, everyone else reading this, as well as for the closing, I do need to address the points you have made above. First of all, the original ANI was exclusively about overlong dab page entries and not about the broad topic of "disruptive editing", since I've never engaged in such editing. If that phrase was used at all, it was because some editors may have declared the overlong entries to be disruptive. As you well know, I addressed you directly at that ANI and declared that all my future dab page entries will be pared to the bone — basically two to four words — thus making the point of the ANI moot — other than for punishment, of course, with the ban against editing dab pages imposed nonetheless. Dab talk pages were not mentioned in the ANI submission and were added as an afterthought mid-discussion. There were no "concerns", other than the overlong entries.
    Most inappropriate, however, are your repeated attempts to influence opinion here by submitting inaccurate statistics. Such statements as "You keep saying there was a single exception - it has been every week!. and, repeated by Softlavender, directly above your statement, "The 13 items in just the last three weeks alone, mentioned by Boleyn, were disruptive and wasted the community's time. They all involved dabs. All of this content is deeply misleading since it all refers to a single venue, WP:Requested moves.
    Other than the mentioned single exception, the only complaint seems to be my participation in a handful of RM discussions which were held within dab talk pages. Only 5, not 13, examples of such RM participations were submitted and, to inflate even that small number, two of those were non-dab pages — Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) — but were nevertheless supposed to represent examples of my violating the topic ban. In actuality, although referenced as a "topic ban", that ban is very narrowly specified as solely referring to "dab pages and their associated talk pages", not to every page with a parenthetical qualifier in its main title header.
    Another attempt to influence opinion is through a misreading of the past. When you state, "You mention that only 4 editors sent you messages about your editing of dabs against consensus - that excludes the many which were on the talk pages of the dabs themselves (I remember, as I left several). You just don't listen to other editors., what you really mean is that I don't listen to you. You would be hard put to find a single editor who left a dab talk page comment relating to my edits. Even you, yourself, left no more than one or two dab talk page comments, occupying yourself primarily with deleting all my dab page and talk page contributions using WP:TWINKLE, without even bothering to read them and incorporate any of the additions and corrections (such as duplicate names or circular redirects) that I had made. A number of those mistakes which you restored to the dab pages (such as the circular redirect at The Young Lovers#Other) are still there — uncorrected years later, even when I specifically pointed it out on three separate occasions in that page's revision history. I will leave it to others to decide the disruptive aspect of such editing.
    In retrospect, however, I do sincerely regret not complying with your heartfelt posting on my talk page in 2014, not merely to have prevented the two ANIs and moved forward the ultimate inevitable compliance, but because the points that you made were reasonable and sensible. You have been one of the most productive contributors to Wikipedia and I thank you for having devoted such a major portion of your life and time to its expansion and improvement. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional statement from Roman Spinner

    1) The above comments have left the completely unfounded impression that I must be a serial violator of disambiguation page content, that I must regularly disregard numerous postings of advice and warning addressed to me, that I must repeatedly do the wrong thing, that I simply don't get it and that the only way to maintain Wikipedia's integrity in this area is to completely bar me from having any contact with dab pages, including banning from participation in voting and discussions related to dab pages.

    2) Since the comments don't directly address the details of my ban, let me reiterate once again that the sole reason I was brought to ANI in February 2016 and ultimately topic banned was the length of my dab page entries.

    3) At the time I made my first edit, on January 22, 2006, dab pages were fairly unstructured, with a number of entries presented in an overlong manner. I took the more-detailed entries as a model for creating my own dab page entries, but limited the length of my entries to three-quarters of a single line of text, as it appeared on my screen. Between January 22, 2006 and my 10th WikiBirthday on January 22, 2016, only 4 Wikipedians posted on my talk page, mentioning that my dab page entries tended to be overly long. I responded to each of the 4 editors, taking care to explain in detail my dab page editing style. Even more tellingly, during a four-year period, between 2008 and 2012, when I edited hundreds of dab pages, not a single Wikipedian communicated with me on the subject.

    4) In fact, the first time I encountered sustained opposition regarding the length of my dab page entries was 3 weeks after my 10th Wikibirthday when I was taken to ANI and the discussion participants roundly disagreed with the length of my entries and voted to ban me from editing dab pages.

    5) As can be seen in that February 2016 discussion, Boleyn made a comment which ended with a question directed at me, "Are you going to stop editing dab pages in this way? Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)". My reply was, "Yes, of course, I will stop. Judging by the comments, I am on the losing side of this argument. As I wrote near the end of my April 2014 lengthy reply to your posting, "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect. All my future entries will be pared to the bone -- vital dates/defining date, nationality and profession/function/venue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)".

    7) My reply, however, made no difference and the ban was implemented.

    8) On a purely objective level, other than for the element of continued punishment, there has been no need for the topic ban since the day it was imposed, and the notion that I "don't listen" or that I "can't help myself" stems from conflating the topic of longer entries with the experience of typical topic bans imposed upon the social, historical, scientific or linguistic edit warriors who constantly spar over abortion, genocide, annexation of territory, climate change or diacritical marks over names. Since no continuing complaint, other than the length of entries, has ever been lodged against me, and (other than this single unfortunate occurrence which did not involve length of entries) it has been more than a year since I edited a dab page, if/when the topic ban is lifted, it would be extremely simple to determine whether my dab page entries are sufficiently brief to fall in alignment with my reply to Boleyn's question in the 2016 ANI.

    9) As for "I warned you some time ago that you were breaching the ban, but you replied that you were allowed to when it came to these types of discussions and I took that at face value without re-reading the ANI.", my reply was actually more nuanced and conciliatory, indicating that if you feel I am incorrect in my assumption that I am allowed to participate in RMs and that the topic ban is total, please feel free to visit the ANI and I will comply with the decision there.

    10) In the end, what should be stressed most forcefully is that other than lengthening dab page entries in the past, there have never been any accusations of incivility, edit warring or breach of talk page etiquette [see comment by No such user (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC), above, regarding my participation in RMs]. Thus, there is simply no basis for proposing broad-based bans on taking part in dab page discussion and voting when no evidence has been presented that there had ever been any problem or dissatisfaction within those venues. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel

    Establishing a case of WP: Tag team I think. They have established a two-editor consensus, that declares sources unreliable in their personal opinion. They insist and deleting swathes of information, and retaining a tag of "unreliable sources", with no support from the historiography. I am hoping for some sort of resolution, nothing more. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)c[reply]

    This is part of an editorial war already reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dapi89 reported by User:K.e.coffman¨ I suppose its better if all matters are resolved in one forum. Otherwise, I think its rather a case of WP:OWN on behalf of User:Dapi89, proven by such statements by him as: Editors opinions count for nothing and I will do as I please. There are three editors who agrees. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Dishonest. I said I will do as I please on my talk page, not the article. Also, our collecrive opinions dont matter, its the sources that should prevail. That is the point i made quite clearly. Please dont lie. Dapi89 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dapi89:, you are required to notify users when starting a discussion about them, see the big orange edit notice at the top of the edit page. I have notified them both for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I feel I am involved. I did not edit the article, but contributed on the talk page. I notice that Dapi89 has voiced the first accusation of tag teaming on 4 April 2017.[2] Since then the editor has made no attempt of WP:DR, but confined him/herself to short comments speaking of a possible "destruction" of the article that he/she has to prevent. Thus the editor seems to perceive anyone who is not with him as being against him.(from WP:AN3RR). The editor routinely resorts to accusations. From today [3]--Assayer (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the administrator who look into this case: Wikipedia editor Creuzbourg (person who started to mass remove material on the Rudel page) tagged the article as containing excessive intricate details and contains unreliable sources even though is a GA article that requires to meet the comprehensiveness criteria and is throughly reviewed, has also tagged with the same tags these following pages:
    → FA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Kesselring&type=revision&diff=777161722&oldid=776657232
    → FA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Mölders&type=revision&diff=777174753&oldid=776113712
    → GA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Galland&type=revision&diff=777163959&oldid=776113388
    → GA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erich_Hartmann&type=revision&diff=777160461&oldid=777010274
    I don't believe Creuzbourg editing of these articles is being done in good faith, he acts as if he have consensus for tagging and removal of sourced material on these Featured Articles and Good Articles. In other words, from my observations he is biased and agend-driven editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IP 104.237.XX, please log in to your account if you wish to attack people on ANI (or for that matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history). Nobody believes you don't have one. Evading scrutiny on noticeboards is inappropriate. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    I do not believe that Featured Articles and Good Articles are beyond criticism. I am not driven by any agenda. I do not normally write about WW2 German military history or biography, but tried to improve an article that I found faulty. I tagged it and started a discussion on the discussion pages. I did not want to do, what most WP-editors do, i.e. just leave a tag and run; however the tag was immediately removed, the discussion thwarted. I am immensely disappointed with Wikipedia that such disruptive behavior can go on and on and on, and extremely tired of the whole thing. I am perfectly willing to be banned from editing Rudel or any of above articles, as long as Dapi89 also will be banned. The articles are faulty, and the tags should not be removed before consensus is reached. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update and request: Dapi89 has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring (in a conflict which is relevant to their OP complaint of tag teaming). They ought really to be able to comment here without any cumbersome please-move-this-to-ANI system, so I've offered to unblock on condition that they edit nothing other than this ANI thread for as long as the block would have lasted. They're not online and I have to go out now. If they agree to the condition, I'd appreciate it if any passing admin would kindly unblock, with a note about conditions in the log. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Response by Dapi89: Then no, on principle. I'll agree to leave the Rudel page alone for 72 hours, if the same rule is also applied to the tag team operating there . Dapi89 12:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC) (Diff). Assayer (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Assayer. So much for that, then; he'll remain blocked, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Boomerang proposal: 30-day topic ban for User:Dapi89

    • WP:BOOMERANG: the reporting editor has a long pattern of uncivility and ad hominem arguments. Just today, at the WP:3RRN, he suggested that he can also provide evidence of Coffman of violating the 3RR rule on many occasions (diff). When I invited him to file such a report, he responded with On reflection, this is a case of Wikipedia:Tag team without providing any proof for this claim: diff. Substantiation is lacking from this report as well, which I consider frivolous & without merit.
    This has been an-going pattern with the editor, please see some of the edit summaries by Dapi89 from the Rudel article as well as others:
    This pattern of behaviour is disruptive and a topic ban from Luftwaffe / WWII articles (perhaps starting at 30 days, same duration as floated at the 3RRN) may be in order: diff from 3RRN. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Although this has many appearances of a content dispute, I agree with @K.e.coffman: that @Dapi89:'s POV edits and source disputes are problematic. This user has every appearance of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to preserving "their" sources and interpretations. They frequently accuse "opposing" editors of lying, rambling, dissembling, and incompetence. Their block log shows 6 blocks for disruptive editing, personal attacks, and/or harassment. This is behavior that has persisted and show no signs of abatement after these blocks. Examples just since their last block include, but are certainly not limited to (in no particular order):
    Dapi89 clearly has an issue with K.e.coffman and seems incapable of participating in any discussion of WWII topics, especially ones in which the latter is involved, without resorting to accusations of bias and incivility. Equally clearly, there needs to be some resolution of these issues. Since I am also tangentially involved, I refrain from suggesting any specific remedies but trust to the evaluations of the folks here. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dapi89 and coffman clearly have issues with each other;l I'm very reluctant to say it's on DAPI. I'd say it's a two way street. The discussion to which coffman refers is often not a discussion at all but a barrage of wiki-rules and wikietiquette and wikipolicies, followed by edit summaries, links to old pages, and so on. It is a brilliant use of wikipedia's user guidelines to obfuscate the issue, which is fundamentally that one editor wants to control and limit the sources relating to Nazi-era articles, and another wants to include a wider array of sources. One editorial group wants to trim articles of all details, including things that are important, that might be of human interest, and that relate to post-war activities, and another editorial group who think those details might be interesting. auntieruth (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've attempted to discuss issues with the editor previously, but it was not successful; see: User_talk:Dapi89#Edit summaries. I've also attempted to engage the user in the discussion at WP:Notability (people)#Current consensus, but apart from an erroneous claim, no dialog was offered. Another contributor pointed out the personal attacks (Talk page), but the response was: I'm not going to rephrase. There is a history of disruption with this editor and I will make the point in which ever way I like and the standard ad hominem about the suspect agendas of arch-polemicists. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- despite being warned about a potential block and / or while blocked, User:Dapi89 has continued to cast aspersions and belittle other editors, as in
    • cant seem to distinguish the wood from the trees (diff);
    • it appears as if you have taken sides (diff);
    • Dishonest. (...) Please dont lie (diff).
    He has offered no substantiation to the claims at this ANI discussion, while insisting that there's a tag team operating at the Rudel article. I have concerns that once unblocked in the next 36 hours, the user would continue this pattern of behaviour, and I thus reiterate my topic ban proposal. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TB Luftwaffe This argument between DAPI and 2 other editors seems to have degenerated on all sides, and I object to banning a professional historian who specializes in aerial warfare. auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just two other editors, as documented above. While this particular incident started with Dapi89's accusation of tag-teaming against two editors, but his bad-faith accusations over many, many WWII content disputes are not limited by target. The statement "degenerated on all sides" is also an apparent mis-interpretation of events. In this dispute, as in others involving Dapi89, his interlocutors have refrained from the personal attacks and incivility that are clear in his own statements. As to the professional historian charge, even professionals are expected to edit by consensus and good sources. Every time Dapi89's sources are challenged he becomes very, well, unprofessional. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
    • not sure who posted this, but I will say that the whole discussion is out of control. I'm more likely to support an "all fighters to their corners" approach to give everyone a breather. Including those of us who are trying to keep up with the opus-like volume of material posted on why such and such is bad, or good, or problematic. auntieruth (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I refer you to your own posts. This demonstrates incessant bickering. Every week I'm reviewing something that you're editing; some of your material is very good, especially on the Russian and Ukrainian fronts.--I like it very much. As for the "diffs", I don't have time. Papers to grade, exams to write, articles to edit, reviews to do. Anyone looking at the history of the pages in question can see it. As for degenerating, the name calling -- whoever does it-- needs to stop. The bickering is not helpful, No one has time for it, and I wish it would stop. auntieruth (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Auntieruth, I understand you may well have better things to do in real life than to provide evidence (diffs) for your accusations against K.e.coffman. But in such a case, the proper course of action is to refrain from posting those accusations. Seriously. I don't see how K.e.coffman is to be expected to answer something so unspecific as "your own posts ... demonstrate incessant bickering". Especially since uninvolved editors such as me can see K.e.coffman's posts, they're right above, and I don't see any bickering in them. Except indeed in their many quotations of bickering and intemperate remarks by Dapi89. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • As a comment, not all academic or other experts are able to properly edit WP. A professional historian obtains importance in their field by finding new data or original reinterpretations; aWP editor must do neither. An academic is expected to have a distinct personal POV, and to firmly defend their hypotheses as superior to those of other people; a WP editor must do neither. Some professional historians , especially those known for writing general textbooks, are able to write and interact in WP mode; some are not. The ones who cannot resist OWNership are usually banned from even a topic area where they are experts. Their ideas are not banned: they can still contribute by their published works, which can then be used by other editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, thank you for clearing that up. This all goes back to a discussion of whether a specific source is considered reliable: Just, Günther (1986). Stuka Pilot Hans Ulrich Rudel. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History. ISBN 978-0-88740-252-4. Schiffer is a private, family owned publisher. They have a wide array of books. I'm just not convinced that this is an alt-right wing publisher promoting fascism. There has been a focused effort by one or two editors to limit the publications that are considered neutral for this range of articles, and I just don't understand the problem with it. I don't think it's DAPI's effort--although he/she is sometimes a bit abrupt--but I also think coffmann can be off target on these things too. I'm concerned that a series of articles that have been collectively valued and reviewed by the project are being taken apart unnecessarily. Can they use some discreet editing? Probably yes, but not on the scale that has been happening. Two of the editors involved seem to expect instant responses to their posts, and that just doesn't happen. We all of us have "real life" and cannot be expected to drop everything because they have posted a question. I do appreciate that coffmann is now (most of the time) posting questions on the talk page before massively unilaterally deleting information, or bilaterally doing so with the other editor's approval. I'm just not convinced yet that this is the right thing to do. auntieruth (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor who routinely says things like: "I don't give a damn what you think," and "Your opinions are not important," and "Such an assumption is colossally stupid" is not "a bit abrupt". This minimizes and papers over the very persistent attempts by Dapi89 to bully and badger editors into acquiescing to his position. Couching this behavior in terms of the dispute over Schiffer is also inaccurate. As noted above, this behavior has involved other editors besides User:K.e.coffman and User:Creuzbourg. This is hardly behavior provoked by one content dispute. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As can be seen on the talk page, the "conflict" evolved with a discussion about "intricate details". It was actually me who first questioned the bias of Günther Just's work on Rudel on 2 April 2017, not because of its American publisher, however, but because of Just's close personal ties to Rudel, the NPD and, later, the DVU. In short, Just is a well known journalist of the extreme right and his work is strongly biased. A little to my dismay that did not become a major issue during the ensuing debate and it was never commented upon by Creuzbourg. Instead the discussion focused upon style, intricate details and GA criteria (i.e. question of "comprehensivenes"). There is one thread on "sources". But what has been reverted by Dapi89 ever since were mainly copy edits.7 April 2017 or 25 April all the while he only minimally contributed to the discussion. --Assayer (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning Dapi89's habits as a "professional historian" of aerial warfare I might point out that they recently made mutually exclusive claims about two different persons. On 10 February 2017 they claimed that Friedrich Rumpelhardt was Most successful radar operator in the Luftwaffe, part of the most successful night-fighting team in air warfare , whereas on 9 April 2017 they claimed that Erich Handke was The most successful night fighter operator of the war Both statements obviously contradict each other. Dapi89 still also found words to belittle K.e.coffman on each occasion.--Assayer (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban as proposed, i. e. from Luftwaffe and WWII, not just from Luftwaffe, for 30 days. 30 days, which would be a long time for a block, is short for a topic ban, in my experience, and I'd also support a longer ban, such as three months. Reverting an established and obviously good faith editor with an edit summary of "rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive" is pretty scandalous, no matter how much you disagree with them. It's the kind of aggressiveness that's likely to ruin the experience of Wikipedia editing, not just for the target of the abuse, but for other people who are deterred from discussion by it. As for the accusations above and at Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel that coffman has also taken part in "bickering", I can't see that they have any merit. I've noticed further examples by dipping into Coffman's userpage, which names no names, but is full of juicy quotes with links to who said them. That's far too much for me to go into, or indeed read, but for a recent example, check out the history of Günther Lütjens on and around 10 March, which is where the edit summary I quoted comes from. There we see coffman removing the external links with polite references to the talkpage, and Dapi reinstalling them with name-calling. (The talkpage discussion is also interesting.) The quotes offered by Eggishorn above add to the impression of a battleground editor. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support 3 month topic ban from WW2 broadly construed per Bishonen. Coffman is certainly a contentious editor within the WW2 field, but he is respectful and follows WP conduct policy and content policy. People's issues with his views on sourcing being Nazi propaganda, etc. are a content dispute not best handled at ANI. That doesn't matter here though, as those issues are content disputes. The question is whether or not Dapi's behavior in WW2 articles is enough for a topic ban. The name calling of editors who are perceived as being on the opposite side of a content dispute in WW2 is disruptive to the project. A topic ban would not be punishment: it would allow steam to escape and hopefully encourage future collaboration. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A topic ban as proposed, i. e. from Luftwaffe, for 14 days, should be enough time for him to be reflective and cool his heels, if one is to be imposed. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as auntieruth has said many of us have greater 'real life' priorities, and most of us can't keep up with the sheer volume of edits coming through. I can appreciate Dapi's level of frustration has reached breaking point. I acknowledge I also have history with coffman's practices and it has left me dispirited and resigned that quantity and rules-lawyering will win out a common sense approach on Wikipedia. As I was approaching a breaking-point, I did a self-imposed exile from the topic unwilling to put wasted time and effort to either compile and argue for a case or to write new material when it would likely be reverted without discussion. I also acknowledge that neither side can see merits in the other's case and I don't know how this can be resolved. I would prefer auntieruth's proposal that both sides be given a timeout instead of just one being singled out for punishment and reprimand when both have exhibited questionable behaviour by different means and methods. Philby NZ (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would consider editor Philby NZ to be involved given the prior interactions; for example, here's commentary from an AfD on an article that I created (AfD: J.J. Fedorowicz), where he commented on my editing reputation, while suggesting that the article's purpose was to act as [my] platform to show how shoddy its publication reliability is (diff).
    The disagreements that Philby NZ describes were due in part to copyvios on the Luftwaffe articles that he contributed to; pls see for example: User_talk:Diannaa:Copyvio (where he had described my contributions as sabotage). Likewise, past disagreements with Dapi included in part the placing of copyvio-revdel tags in articles. Dapi insisted on removing such tags, such as here: Talk:Gustav_Rödel#Copyvio, which also showed Dapi's rather surprising lack of awareness about how Wikipedia handles copyvios. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    yes and that it why I mentioned my conflict-of-interest. The copy-vios were related to some of my original writings on Wikipedia. The tribulations of dealing with you since have meant I have barely written any article-expansions since on this topic in the last few years. Philby NZ (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Poke The current 3RR block expires today so Dapi89 can contribute his understanding of concerns expressed the above. I'm poking this thread because it is currently unclear if his return at that time will be conditional or not. Aside from the standard conditions that apply to every editor, that is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not conditional. Dapi89 was offered an earlier unblock on certain conditions, but did not accept them, so those conditions are a thing of the past. His 72-hour block will expire in about three hours, with no conditions. He'll be free to edit all of Wikipedia after that. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Okay, below are a few edit diffs (my grading is finished for the week) that I have dredged up.
    • I don't think it's reasonable to expect an editor to respond in short order to another editors demands. see this conversation
    • I call this an unreasonable action on the part of another editor
    • acknowledgment of an editorial war here.
    • and here. Since these articles involve WP:MilHist, it may be that we have some housecleaning to do on our guidelines. Would you suggest that? I can bring it to the project's attention (again). auntieruth (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you posted the diff's you intended? It is very easy to get the oldid parameters mixed up when posting diff's, hence my question. These tend to document poor behavior by Dapi89 with the exception of the conversation with me on K.e. coffman's talk page (at worst general frustration with a wikiproject) and the changes to Sayn-Wittgenstein (K.e.coffman has made no secret of their disdain for romanticism in WWII German officer articles and doesn't do so disruptively there). In fact, some duplicate some of the earlier-posted quotes of Dapi89's behavior. I think that history is already well-established. Did you mean to add to the record or to support the earlier statements about "bickering"? If the latter, I'm very confused as to how these help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes, I guess. I don't like pulling up old edit posts, because it seems like water unbder the bridge. And yes I did meant to chose those, because they show another side to the story. auntieruth (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We had an edit conflict while I was adding this.
    • I realize that WWII is a contentious subject. I found a reddit page with all kinds of instructions about how to disrupt wikipedia's efforts to provide some coverage of the German military. I have it bookmarked and I could post the page here, but I'm not sure it would be productive. Its instructions were very clear on how to disrupt the wikipedia processes. One of the complaints was the the abundance of articles on the Knights Cross and lack of articles on Heroes of the Soviet. I'd like to see more of those. auntieruth (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- indeed, the romanticisation of the German WWII war effort is not only being discussed on the internet, but is also a subject of serious academic study. I would recommend:
    (Disclaimer, all these articles have been created by me). I would suggest either one as required reading to anyone who would like to edit on WWII topics as they related to the German war effort.
    Separately, I believe Auntieruth55 to be involved; please see: ANI: Attempted doxxing / casting aspersions by Auntieruth55 below. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The evidence in the first two comments under "Boomerang proposal" is compelling, as is the attitude shown at User talk:Dapi89#Blocked (diff if needed). Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TB I have my problems with Dapi's editing style as well as coffman's, but both editors have engaged in battleground behaviour, and have an unswerving certainty of the "rightness" of their views. As auntieruth has pointed out, the never-ending threads and streams of wikilawyering and pointy behaviour that come from coffman are hard to keep up with. WP would benefit from both editors showing a bit more respect for consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not just between User:Dapi89 and User:K.e.coffman, its also about User:Dapi89's behavior towards me when I tried to copy edit the Rudel article. When it comes to unsubstantiated claims of "professionalism" and hints of academic employment in the present discussion, that's just ludicrous. Any real academic, whether tenured or not, is swamped with teaching, trying desperately to get time to do real research, and publish real articles; not spending their valuable time writing and fighting rear-guard actions on Wikipedia. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peacemaker67 please provide evidence of battleground behaviour and streams of wikilawyering and pointy behaviour. Please also show how I've demonstrated insufficient respect for consensus. Otherwise, please retract your statement. (Such accusations from the user are quite typical, as in Yet more wikilawyering and pointy behaviour while apparently describing WP:BURDEN as an essay: diff).
    For the record, I make a distinction between community-wide and project-specific consensus; see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS -- more wikilawyering! :-) In the Rudel article where the tag team accusations have stemmed from, such consensus has resulted in an article consisting of talkative expositions and meticulous investigations of insignificant details (see Intricate details, with participation by Peacemaker67, MisterBee1966, Dapi89 & Auntieruth55). A similar protracted discussion took place at Hartenstein#OR. Talk page participants included MisterBee1966, Dapi89 and Auntieruth55 over a month's time. Likewise, see Gollob#Recent edits, in multiple parts, with participation by MisterBee1966, Dapi89, Peacemaker67 and Auntieruth55.
    The project coords might want to consider whether its best practices are in agreement with the wider community norms, or even with its own project members. In the thread that Auntieruth55 started as part of this dispute (Massive changes of FA articles), one member commented that the articles in question should be delisted because the sources are too old or too Nazi: diff. This is while the OP states: I don't know what the problem is with these sources , which seems odd for a professional historian. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to. Give me a couple of days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to misunderstand what I meant - you did not mean that I considered the sources inadequate, but that some editors considered them inappropriate. The complete failure to find any sort of consensus or compromise and the associated edit warring is what renders the articles unstable and prime for delisting. The strident appeals to ANI to try to get anyone who opposes you to be blocked or banned, and the twisting, whether intentional or not, of what others say to make your point, only makes the situation worse. (By the way, I thought that I was meant to be informed when someone involves me in an ANI discussion).Nigel Ish (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TB Never had any interaction with any of the participants here. After a quick review I am incredibly unimpressed by User:K.e.coffman's approach to the "content dispute". For instance He raises the reliability of the source "Obermaier, Ernst" on Talk:Werner Mölders#Tags. Obermaier is a source for tens of articles on Wikipedia, a handful of which have now been tagged. Very frustrating that instead of choosing raise this issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, he is on here trying to knock out a fellow editor Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bosley John Bosley:, it hardly seems fair to accuse K.e.coffman of being "on here trying to knock out a fellow editor". This ANI thread was started by Dapi89, trying to "knock out" (if you like to put it like that) two fellow editors, K.e.coffman and Creuzbourg, on a charge of tag-teaming (which has yet to be substantiated). Those two editors should reasonably be permitted to respond. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    This ANI thread was started after K.e.coffman initiated the WP:Blocking Games Here. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - while I have had my problems with Dapi in the past, I don't believe his behavior is any more problematic than Coffman's (in fact, I said as much in the ANEW post that resulted in Dapi's block, though that was seemingly ignored). Coupled with behavior like this (deliberately hiding my rebuttal of his deletion rationale as "off topic"), I actually have more trouble with Coffman's activities than I do Dapi's. Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that I'm one of the people you're discussing, Assayer, I figure I'll respond. I didn't come here so much to defend Dapi as to oppose K.e.coffman. Coffman's behavior is classic - edit-war over an article, then head to the drama board first to get the other side blocked (carefully framing the case to omit any wrong-doing on his own part). Why we reward this behavior has always amazed me. Why Coffman (and Creuzbourg) was not similarly blocked for his edit-warring on the Rudel article over the course of the past month (or even admonished) is, frankly, inexplicable. Which is to say, if 1, 2, 3 reverts in eleven minutes, followed by a 4th a very cautious 31 hours later (after Dapi was already blocked) is not edit-warring, we have a very serious definitional problem. And since you seemingly acknowledge that both sides are pushing a POV, one wonders why you (and others) tolerate one and threaten the other with a topic ban. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thread is about a proposed topic ban for Dapi89, because of his long record of uncivility and ad hominem arguments uttered against various editors on various occasions. So far you and other editors opposing such a ban have mainly pointed to K.e.Coffman as being the (at least as) guilty party. And, yes, that argument is construed to defend Dapi's behavior. You might perceive it as if you were adding context to that conflict. I perceive it as apologetic. It gives me the impression that you tolerate Dapi's behavior, or somehow even approve of it, as if certain editors deserve that kind of treatment or have asked for it. If you consider K.e.Coffman's behavior to be disruptive, start a thread about it, present your arguments, support it with difflinks and make your suggestions, how you think that the community should deal with it.
    Re:POV I am of the opinion that anybody has a point of view and that neutrality is acchieved within a collaborative process defined and guided by the various editorial guidelines, for example WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:ONUS and so forth. I have stated this point before and the reaction was kind of "He said Jehovah", or, in the words of Dapi89: That encapsulates the problem Assayer, with you and K.e.Coffman: "I think" and "IMHO". Editor opinions count for nothing. Assayer and K.e.coffman have used Wikipedia to attack sources about any German serviceman who served in World War II if it dares to complement their personal bravery or service record. I did not threaten a topic ban, btw, I merely would like to see that pattern of uncivility being stopped. What's your suggestion? So far I perceive your argument as something like: Make Coffman disappear and everything is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assayer (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dapi's incivility is not limited to this topic - if your problem is his uncivil behavior, a topic ban is not the solution.
    • I am categorically opposed to sanctioning one editor in a conflict and allowing the other to get away with the same behavior, simply because they ran to the drama boards first. That is why I'm here. I am no friend of Dapi - this is the last time I tried to help save him from himself, and you can see what I got for my efforts. Frankly, I'd be happy to see them both indef'd, but unfortunately we're probably not there yet (and to return to my earlier comment, why the community allows this level of disruption for as long as it does is beyond me). Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy:, the narrative you laid out above fails on the very basic fact that user:K.e.coffman did not start this thread, user:Dapi89 did. Also, Dapi89's problems are not limited to K.e.coffmann. They are consistently incivil and insulting to any editor they perceive as an enemy. I see no recognition in your remarks so far in your thread that you are taking consideration of the actual facts involved. Statements like Coffman's behavior is classic - edit-war over an article, then head to the drama board first to get the other side blocked seem to be motivated instead by personal prejudgments. Dapi89's initial allegations of tag-taming were never supported and seem to have been rejected by most here. K.e.coffman's accusations of incivility and personal attacks, however, are amply supported by statements above and even trivial searching will find more. There have been additional accusations of K.e.coffman's poor behavior, again without evidence. I would think an admin would at least attempt to substantiate ANI postings about another editor. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eggishorn:, as someone else pointed out above, and you either missed or ignored, Coffman went to ANEW before Dapi started this thread. No evidence of Coffman's poor behavior? Are you bothering to read anything I've said? Try the bit I am bolding for your attention now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy:, I might reasonably ask the same of you, especially since the "someone else...above" was me. I am quite aware that I posted about Dapi89 being reported to 3RR. I note that such reporting was reviewed, accepted, bocked, and then the block was also reviewed and endorsed. Holding K.e.coffman's feet to the fire over a report that 3 admins had a hand in seems really unjustified, not to mention disrespectful. If you want call K.e.coffman's edits gaming the 3RR rule, well, I can't tell you otherwise. I note that the full history actually stretches out over five days, involves at least four editors, and was accompanied by talk page posts. It seems like edit warring and WP:BRD playing out simultaneously, making the behavior of anyone not crossing bright lines a matter of interpretation. I also note that this thread has gone from accusing K.e.coffman of tag-teaming to accusing them of incivility to accusing them of bickering to now accusing them of edit warring. Are we going to keep moving goalposts until we can find something to catch them on? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eggishorn: - I was referring to Bosley John Bosley's comment directly above my original statement, not yours. If you were aware that Coffman went to ANEW first, on what basis did you challenge my "narrative"?
    Obviously I cannot comment on why the other admins ignored Coffman's behavior on the article - but surely you would not subscribe to the idea that admins are infallible? On the article in question - take a look further in the history, and you'll see that the three editors have been reverting each other for over a month now.
    As to the rest, where have I accused Coffman of incivility, bickering, or tag-teaming? Surely you cannot insist I defend arguments I didn't make, can you? Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy:, I challenged it on the basis that you said: ...then head to the drama board first. I have always seen "the drama board" refer to this one. I cannot recall any expansion of that phrase in general use to refer to 3RR. Perhaps "the drama boards" (plural) including all the WP:AN sub-boards is what you meant. The narrative of events on this board, however, clearly started with Dapi89's unsubstantiated complaint.
    I don't, obviously, think admins are infallible or else I would not have challenged your postings, would I? When three admins, including one as respected as @Bishonen:, agree on a set of actions, however, I tend to think they might be on to something.
    I did take a look at the history. I would not have made the 3RR/BRD comment unless I had. The history shows it is not a case of simply reverting and re-reverting. Different formulations are added, refactored, reverted, partially re-added, etc. Combined with the talk page discussion, that means calling a three-party edit war is missing important qualities.
    My last point above refers to the general trajectory of the thread. I'm not asking you to defend Dapi89's or auntieruth55's comments. I do think that continually adding new charges for an editor to defend to the same thread is unfair. I get that K.e.coffman is out of step with a number of MilHist editors (and I honestly don't know if you are one of them) and that creates disputes. I think I documented that Dapi89 has crossed very clear lines of behavior. I also think that K.e.coffman tries very hard to "color inside the lines," so to speak. If walking up to the line and not crossing it repeatedly is itself sanctionable, however, then there are rules I'm not aware of in play. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eggishorn: - argue semantics all you want, the point that Coffman ran to a drama board to present a one-sided version of events that resulted in Dapi's block stands.
    I tend to think that means they just didn't examine the situation all that thoroughly. No one is perfect, whatever their reputation is.
    Look, you can split all the hairs you want, but the long and the short of it is, the three editors were editing over each other, trying to force their version of the article in for the past month. It doesn't matter in the slightest that they reformulated things as they went—in fact, 3RR specifically states "whether involving the same or different material".
    {{xt|" If walking up to the line and not crossing it repeatedly is itself sanctionable, however, then there are rules I'm not aware of in play." - indeed there are. From the intro to WP:EW: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". And when Coffman made 3 reverts, and then waited a full day to make a 4th, it seems blindingly obvious he knew what he was doing. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, stating some-one is "arguing semantics" and "splitting hairs" is a classic hair-splitting semantic tactic to dismiss arguments and avoid addressing their merits. You were the one that spoke of a repeated pattern of K.e.coffman "running to the drama board" and then changed what that meant. You were the one that posted all of one example of this supposed repeated pattern. You were the one that imputed motives to K.e.coffman that you expect others to accept just because it's what you think happened. This is all uninspiring evidence of your version of events, and I think I am well within the rules to point it out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit - you dismissed my claim because I didn't make clear exactly what drama board Coffman ran to, when you yourself admit you knew exactly what I meant. Want more evidence? Look a few threads down, for another example of Coffman running to this drama board, trying to get another editor sanctioned for a ridiculously false doxing claim. There, you will see two other similar cases linked, where his activities succeeded, at least in part.
    Ironic that your reply, where you accuse me of dismissing arguments rather than rebutting them, completely ignores my point about Coffman's edit-warring. Pot? That's an awfully dark shade of black you're wearing. Parsecboy (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could k.e.coffman provide one evidence that his contributions to Luftwaffe articles on Wikipedia (topic ban k.e.coffman wants for Dapi89) have been made for any other reason than for the advancement of article quality. We would like to see contributions to Luftwaffe articles you improved, contributed or developed. I could provide the opposite. I would like to ask for your action on an Luftwaffe article: Otto Kittel. This article was rebuild by Dapi89 and MisterBee1966 starting with 16 February 2017 (it was rebuild with different sources as k.e.coffman raised the question about using kurowski and community accepted that he is unreliable) and since then until Dapi89 was blocked, the article was stable. Once Dapi89 was blocked you edited the article and remove literally everything. See the difference: [4] Could you please explain your action on just this article. You removed literally everything, all sourced material including Obermeier, Bergström, Constable-Toliver, Trautloft etc. Are really this source non-reliable? Can you provide here or on the Otto Kittel talkpage sources that state that? This discussion is very important for you conduct here on Wikipedia as some persons raised the question for a topic ban for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, did you miss this from above? IP 104.237.XX, please log in to your account if you wish to attack people on ANI...Evading scrutiny on noticeboards is inappropriate. This post makes it impossible to believe that you are new since January (as the IP contributions would imply). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on timeline: For anyone who's keeping score on who has reported whom and to which board, here's the timeline: At 16:46, 25 April 2017, Dapi89 posted to this board over a dispute at his talk page, requesting that Creuzbourg be "blocked from his Talk page" [5]. Shortly thereafter, I posted to 3RRN, at 16:55, 25 April 2017. Dapi immediately used that forum for spurious claims directed at Creuzbourg and me (see the hatted section of the post: link to 3RRN archive). At that point I invited him to post to ANI, which he did, at 17:18, 25 April 2017. Hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the proposal: I followed the link provided by Parsecboy, and then another -- this was quite illuminating. Sample diffs: "I will (as the greatest contributor to the article) change the altered passages as I see fit (...). I don't need to discuss it nor do I require your permission" [6]; "Weak Parky. (...) Understandable as it is a struggle to make sense of what you say. Careful how you write" [7]; "Yes it does Peter. (...) Please buy the Collins German dictionary" [8], etc.
    Although these predate my interactions with Dapi89, mine have been similar: "The Germans do not refer to the current air force as the "German Air Force"! I suggest some reading is in order for you" [9]. This dispute took a side trip to NPOVN to resolve.
    The diffs show that Dapi89 is quite passionate about WW2 topics and considers himself to be an expert. But, as DGG has pointed out, this often leads to the inability to edit articles neutrally or collaboratively. Anybody with different point of view is considered "ignorant", "disruptive", "dishonest", a "vandal", "tag team", and so on, as is obvious in this case.
    This can also lead to situations when the immersion in a particular topic leads to original research or fast & loose handling of citations. I can provide diffs/links if needed. Dapi's behaviour has led to on-going disruptions over many years and a topic ban is indeed needed, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Si Trew at RfD

    user:SimonTrew has been flooding RfD with up to 70 nominations a day (see any RfD log page in the last week, or from shortly before Christmas. e.g. all-but a handful of the 74 nominations at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20 are by Si Trew), in almost all cases without having done even the most basic of WP:BEFORE checks to see whether they should be deleted or not, and ignoring feedback about what consititutes a good redirect regarding WP:DIACRITICS. [10] is a good illustration of the mentality - trying to nomiante as many redirects as possible in as short a time as possible, regardless of the disruption it causes.

    I have asked him on his talk page to slow down on several occasions, e.g. User talk:SimonTrew#Relax in December and user talk:SimonTrew#Please slow down today. He's been instructed to do basic WP:BEFORE on multiple occasions, but has repeatedly refused to do so sating that "it's not my business" (see user talk:Thryduulf#Slow down for example).

    Examples of problematic nominations: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 21#64 Oozumo, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Log/2017 April 22#Marten Trotzigs Graend, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20#Keflavikurflugvoellur and many others.

    It's also worth noting that my intention to bring this here was described as "bullying" [11] [12] [13].

    What I'm seeking is either a full topic ban from RfD or a limit of 20 nominations per day, each demonstrating that WP:BEFORE has been carried out. I will be linking to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That is simply not true. I time my nominations very carefully, actually. I am on different time zones from other regulars at RfD. User:Thryduulf does not own RfD, but seems to think he does and wants to bully me because of "other contributors". I have a good memory. User:Champion, who hardly ever contributed, came back this morning and bunged in a few. Several new editors I have encouraged to contribute. Because of this admin bully, User:Thryduulf, we will never get anything done. I have said at my talk page, you are not the only admin. User:Tavix got nominated and became admin mainly because of his work at RfD. There is no requirement for this bully admin to come to RfD. It is purely voluntary. "Flooding" is a joke. I split list 11 into chunks and got through 5000 of them listing about 50, that is 1% of what was on that list. I probably rcatted about the same amount and the other 90% were fine as they were. Sheesh, flooding. I am not a bot. I find this nomination absolutely ridiculous from an admin who pops his head around the door, finds he has work to do, then lists me at ANI. Don't do it, go and contribute somewhere else. Why are you an admin? I dunno. I thought to do that kind of work.
    As for doing basic "WP:BEFORE". I cannot do that. The User:Eubot redirects the redirects the articles are not going to have RS are they, they are redirects. I don't care whether the article has RS but whether the redirect makes sense. I sift through the language redirects and go keep, delete, RfD. I took another route earlier today to just nominate the redirects at CSD to see what happened. Would be easier. Certianly easier than arguing with a bully admin who has to do a bit of work as an admin. Shouldn't be an admin then. And try to get my name right. Si Trew or Simon Trew. Not SiTrew. I am not some kind of meme. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I counted 8 personal attacks in this post alone. 2600:1017:B021:5EB5:995B:EC9D:49E5:E6F3 (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The example "problematic nominations" are still open for discussion. That is why I bloody well brought them there because I was not sure. The first is Finnish but a bit iffy, in English Wikipedia, the second is still open but the speedy keep is by this involved admin [[User::Thryduulf]]. That's ff--- WP:INVOLVED if I ever saw it. Si Trew (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Actually, most of the redirects ST has nominated range from the ridiculous to the actively misleading, and I wish they could be deleted without having to go through RfD. (As a fairly seasoned editor I don't question the need for due process, these are just my personal reactions as a professional linguist and a Scandinavian. (Then again, as a Scandinavian, I was brought up in a very consensus based culture, so...)) Anyway, the underlying problem seems to be that there is not enough participation in the RfD discussions so I should put my money where my mouth is and try to participate more. --bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is for Germanic ones to be kept, including Scandinavian. I listed a couple yesterday for A, Sweden and O, Sweden I think. You may have an opinion on those. All I can do is sort and go that's all right that's a bit iffy that needs a delete. I'm just the card dealer not the players. Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As a counterexample, I put Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_26&action=edit&section=6 this in saying "Ladies ang Gentlemen this is the kind of thing I keep". Good job I did. Nothing wrong with it. Just some bully admins seem to think I am trying to harm this project. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because I don't say I haven't done WP:BEFORE does not mean I have not done it. Do you want my listing to be sesquipedalien? I am wordy enough as it is. Take WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_22#Kestal.2FGoeltepe for example. Did you think I did not try to find that WP:BEFORE I listed it? Fucking ridiculous ANI by Thryduulf. Just because he can't be bothered to work doesn't mean others can't. Should have his admin stripes taken off him. YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Consensus is that the German and Scandinavian ö → oe (and ä → ae, etc) redirects should always be kept (but you still nominate them, e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 22#Schwyzerduetsch), not that ones that are not ones which are not German or Scandinavian should always be deleted. For almost all of the Turkish redirects you've nominated I've found uses in sources indpendent of Wikipedia that demonstrate that transliteration is used, which is a reason to keep them. This is the sort of thing you should be finding before nominating, not relying on other people to find for you. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't nearly a full-time job keeping up with your nominations - hence the request for a rate limit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Si Trew the point I'm trying to make is that I'm putting in literally hours of work (e.g. on 24 April I worked on RfD from 12:44-14:07, 14:45-15:05, 17:43-17:53, and 21:37-22:31 dealing solely with the nominations made on 19th April (almost all by you), I then worked until 23:35 on 20 April nominations (see Special:Contributions/Thryduulf, all times UTC). Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And how many hours of work do you think I put in to make the encylopeadia better? How many? Two? I have to go that's OK, that's iffy, that's a delete. We don't have an WP:X1 concession. "Three years" in your words, I will get it done in ten days, promise, if you let me, but I must flood RfD and I haven't time to do WP:RS, and RS doesn't apply to redirects anyway, I have to go keep, delete, iffy. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So I don't even get to state my own defence, it seems.
    Take this little beauty for example, 15_fevrier_1839. What are you going to do with that. It's a French date that has the accents knocked off but it is not an Engish date. What are you going to do with it? Hmm? It isn't 15 February. What are you going to do with it? You're the admin, you know better than me, you bully. I would list it at RfD, but do what you want with it. Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking three years without flooding RfD is much better than 10 days of flooding RfD. My opinions on redirects have nothing to do with my being an admin. As for 15 fevrier 1839 that's an obvious keep per WP:DIACRITCS as it's the original title of the film without diacritics. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its the title of the film without diacritics. Its common for non-native language speakers to search for a foreign language title without diacritics for the simple reason they may not be able to actually type the diacritics without difficulty. Nor may they be able to actually translate the title into whatever language they speak. It not being an English date has nothing to do with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a problem with Si Trew nominating a huge number of redirects per day. Many of the redirects he nominates are genuinely bad, and he's doing valuable work bringing them to RfD. But... Si Trew, if you stopped including several paragraphs of unrelated, barely related or repetitive text in so many discussions, that would save you enough time that you could have a deeper look into (and deeper think about) every redirect you nominate without slowing you down any overall.
    Also, Thryduulf is not a bully; on the contrary, he's probably the single most valuable editor in RfD's history, and pretty much everybody else on RfD gets along with him spiffingly.
    Also, this is pointy and you really shouldn't do things like that. And please stop nominating redirects that are identical to an obviously good redirect except for the straight lack of diacritics, unless really special circumstances apply; redirects like that are kept 99% of the time (like 15 fevrier 1839 would be), and nominating them just creates needless overhead. Sideways713 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Support throttling restriction of max. 20 nominations per day, per Thryduulf's suggestion, and further that SimonTrew must carry out the most basic of checks when nominating these redirects and make a sensible argument that discussion of the redirect on its own is required, and not mass-nominating redirects for the sole reason that they were created by a particular user or bot. Many of the nominations he's made since I've been back hanging around RfD in the last week or so have been somewhere between not well researched (e.g. Vikor) to completely obviously not necessary (e.g. Correao, Impact de Montreal) to basically nonsense (JZ series 664). These include one he nominated while arguing in the nomination statement that it should be kept (i.e. he acknowledged it did not need to be nominated at all but did so anyway, making administrative work for no reason). These nominations are disruptive to other editors at RfD, but the problem truly is that Si is completely shut down to any criticism of his actions, doubling down as he has here with angry attacks any time anybody attempts to address this situation and further insisting that his way is both the right way and the only way. You can't participate in a collaborative project if you are not open to collaboration, as Si is regrettably demonstrating. Nevertheless, some of the multitude of Si's nominations do result in redirects being modified, however the signal-to-noise ratio on these is exceptionally poor. If Si can learn to nominate only the ones that need nominating, we'll do much better at RfD. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case and I have not read Ivanvector's comments, redirects are usually open for "about seven days". Says at the top of RfD. There is no great hurry for a bullying editor to spend five minutes to close them. Some of them may want comment from other editors. Si Trew (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. Your reliable sources probably lead back to the shite Eubot created if you look a bit closer. And as usual I'm the one being accused of being the arsehole here. Now, as for asides, I put them in on purpose to try to lighten the load, bring a little humour in because I know it is a burden. Still, just fuck off. Get someone else to do your hard work. Give me a fucking three year ban cos I have had enough of this shit. Si Trew (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    None so deaf as those who can't hear. There are far more newcomers and others that contribute to RfD than when I went on a break in January, from me listing these Eubots. Yes, I do a song-and-dance act. Sometimes I am even quite witty. Sometimes it's not your kind of humour. You have on your hands just today a professional translator who says "I should contribute more to RfD" and I said on I think her maybe his talk page. Don't bother. Go to WP:PNT. You won't be thanked for it. What kind of recommendation is that for the fucking nonsense at RfD. Fucking nonsense. I am trying to get a job done. If you don't like it, do the other thing. I don't mind R's being retargeted, that is exactly why I bring them to RfD when I say I am not sure. that is how we make the encylopaedia better. Now, when I say it should be kept, I would just keep it but it is another way of saying I am not really sure, I should like others' opinions on this. What else am I to do? Si Trew (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When numerous editors in good standing have problems with the way you do things, you need to accept that it is likely you who are the problem. Blaming everyone else for having a problem with the way you do it is unproductive. You can either keep doing it the way you do and keep being brought to noticeboards (this is what, the 3rd, 4th time in as many months?) until everyone gets tired of it, or actually do what people ask you to do. Without the unnecessary attempts at wit and humour - no one is here to stroke your ego. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are just taking the piss. If you think "Gyergoscsomgalva" means something in Hungarian or English, tell me what it is. Please. I should be glad to hear it. It is not a straight R from dias it is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. I was quite proud that we had got through half of the eubot redirects I thought everyone at RfD should be proud of that. I also created {{R from nonsense}} to put the rest of the fucking thirty thousand into. I don't see any barnstars coming my way yet. Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The article itself Ciumani says in the first line it is Gyergyócsomafalva in Hungarian, the redirect you nominated Gyergyocsomafalva is identical without diacritics. It is not 'nonsense'. Now you either have not read any of the information about redirects regarding diacritics which people have told you about repeatedly, or you didnt actually look at the article Ciumani which would be a massive failure of BEFORE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no way he looks at the articles before he nominates them. As an example, he nominated Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 25#Bogus Linda with some nonsense rationale, referring to the subject with feminine pronouns. Literally a 5 second glance at the target article would be all you need to find out that Linda is, in fact, male. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was notified of an "Officially notified incident at RfD". Administrator User:Thryduulf puts in in his own words a lot of time at RfD and the two things he nomintated he specifically put his hands in at RfD. The clean hands doctrine only applies in real life does it. I have no idea what [[User::JJbers]] is saying, because he or her is never at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SimonTrew: I was citing a RfD you made earlier today, here is it for reference. —JJBers 15:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The title of the section on Si Trew's talk page where I placed the required {{ANI-notice}} template is user talk:SimonTrew#Formal notification of ANI thread (the template doesn't provide a standard section heading). I don't understand what the rest of the comment is trying to say. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban from RfD at minimum. Frankly, I'd be inclined to indef and throw away the key unless a spectacularly good explanation was forthcoming for "I have a feeling the author of Eubot was Jewish.", and I have a strong suspicion that topic-banning SimonTrew from one area will just cause him to go be disruptive elsewhere. However, since there seems to be agreement between those who deal with him the most that the problems are primarily RfD-related, hopefully separating him from the area that's causing the most problems will allow him to do something useful in an area that won't provide a venue for his inappropriate attempts at comedy. The comparisons between Neelix and Eubot isn't valid; Neelix's edits were (in part) actively inappropriate and needed to be cleared up as soon as possible, whereas some of Eubot's redirects may be invalid, but aren't actually causing any harm, so there's no urgent need to rush through them that that would give SimonTrew any kind of "on urgent work" exemption from Wikipedia's usual written and unwritten rules on disruption and basic courtesy. ‑ Iridescent 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • If he does turn to disruption elsewhere then that would lead to a block. Hopefully it wont be necessary, but the spirit of WP:ROPE applies here I think, and his methods are wrong and the results significantly less successful than desired he is intending to improve the encyclopaedia so I think he should be given a chance to do that elsewhere first. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Iridescent: I believe "I have a feeling the author of Eubot was Jewish" was stated because the bot created redirects related to Judaism. Neelix presumably created redirects related to Christianity. I don't think it was meant whatsoever in an antisemitic manner based on having read many comments by SimonTrew regarding a wide variety of topics at redirects for discussion over the past couple of years. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support RfD ban. Competence is required, and I'm afraid SimonTrew just doesn't have it. The egregious violations of WP:BEFORE, the nonsensical ramblings that don't pertain to the discussion at hand, the uncivil behavior every time someone tries to reason with him, and the sheer amount of work that RfD regulars have to put in to clean up after him is frankly exhausting. It's at the point where it's simply not worth it anymore. I'd bring in more examples, but I'm busy IRL at the moment. I'll just say that I endorse Ivanvector's analysis wholeheartedly. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking "RfD" and recommending full ban per Just fucking ban me. Just do it. Not from RfD. From all of of it. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to restrict it to twenty a day, then get a WP:X1 concession. The consensus of the community was that we didn't need one. You can hardly then stick it on me that I list things. What else am I supposed to do? I dunno, shove it up an already WP:INVOLVED admin or what? Tell me what else can I do with them. Where else can I send them. Tell me. Si Trew (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubling down. What do you expect me to do do. I am taking personal attacks about making the encyclopaedia better. How would you like it? Doubling down. Just fucking ban me. Just do it. Not from RfD. From all of of it. Then at least I know where I stand. Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And as for JJBeers remark, since I can't seem to reply to them individually. You may have seen straight after that "I am fed up with the bot. I am not fed up with the person. I can be fed up with the bot because it is a bot." or words like that. You do your WP:BEFORE on it. Si Trew (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SimonTrew: I wasn't pointing out the redirect you nominated, but the content of the nomination, which shows you made personal attacks to a bot, which still violates that policy. —JJBers 17:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    not that i condone SimonTrew's behavior, but one can't make personal attacks against something that's not in any way a person. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Writ Keeper: I disagree. Any personal attack of a bot is in effect a personal attack of its operator. It's not at all conducive to a good editing atmosphere, and so I don't see why it should be tollerated at all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thrydulf: It's effectively very much not. If any thing, it is criticism of the edits (the work the bot does) than the editor (the creator of the bot). Writ Keeper is absolutely right. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's kind of a moot point, since as I said, I don't condone SiTrew's behavior regardless of whether it's a PA or not (which is why I put it in the small tags). But I would argue that a bot is the work of its author in much the same way that a Wikipedia article is the work of its author; if criticizing a bot transitively criticized its author, then I would argue that implies that criticizing someone's edits or articles also transitively criticizes that person. Which of course is contra the whole idea of NPA: to comment on the contributions, not the contributor. I'd argue that a bot is an extension of the author's contributions, not an extension of the author themself. Granted, in this case, the criticism was not at all constructive or civil, and thus it's totally reasonable to call SiTrew out on it, and even sanction them for it. I just wouldn't do so in the name of NPA; in my mind, NPA is a fairly bright line, and I wouldn't want to see it eroded in the way that civility has. Maybe just me, though. I don't mind continuing this conversation if you'd like, but perhaps it should be elsewhere, since it's not really germane to this discussion? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time now, but I'll think about your points and if I want to continue discussing it, I'll find somewhere more appropriate (WT:NPA perhaps) and ping you as I agree it's not really the best place here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pretty clearly a comment directed at the creator of the bot. Is it an attack? Depends on context I suppose, but consider the rest of the comment is comparing the bot's behaviour to the "sins" of another editor. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll argue against you. You may have noticed I have never mentioned the nbot author's history but I did some WP:BEFORE and had made a total of fifteen edits mostly minor before this bot was allowed to run. I don't have the problem with the author (retired) nor the bot. That is a sorry state of affairs in 2008 that after a test run of 14-- yes, 14-- successful edits it was then allowed out to wreak havoc. Now, you don't see me naming names. I can have a go at User:Eubot because it is a bot, that is like kicking a kitchen cupboard when you've cut your thumb. It is not like kicking your wife when you've cut your thumb. I am not just allowed but I think entitled to moan about Eubot because I am the one editor here on Wikipedia that is actually methodically trogging through these things. Look at my contribution history today. I must have rtagged and rcatted at least twentyfive as keepers. Of course the ones at RfD are going to cause trouble. I do have a braim in my head. The admin who brought this here is WP:INVOLVED so it surprises me to see making further comments. Si Trew (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I can be pissed off with the bot but I am not pissed off with he or she. They did what they thought right. That is what we all have to do. Sometimes we get it wrong. But that doesn't make you a bad person. I can have a go at the bot because it has no feelings. I would have a pint with the person who created them and say what were you thinking of? You're wrong but you're not bad. The creator only made about fifty edits. Dutch it seems from the name. Well, someone has to clear up the shit. Still, I would have a pint. I am never angry with a person. I am only angry with what they do. Those are different things

    (edit conflict) Template:Replto We're not complaining that you are listing things. We are complaining that you are not taking enough care with your nominations, which combined with the volume of your nominations is causing significant disruption. I'm not at all sure what the lack of an X1 concession (which I would agree is not needed, as the proportion of bad redirects is so small and there is no urgency) has to do with anything. As for "doubling down" what we would like you to do is to listen to the complaints that people have about your actions and change your behaviour accordingly. Instead what you have done is made personal attacks while carrying on doing exactly the same thing people are complaining about. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're WP:INVOLVED, User:Thryduulf. You were the one spouting off at RfD and you're WP:INVOLVED. clean hands doctrine please. Stand off. Si Trew (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how it works, SimonTrew. INVOLVED is a policy that relates to administrative actions, i.e. actions that involve the actual use of admin tools--it would only apply to Thryduulf if they were actually going to block you or something. It doesn't apply to everything an admin does, just because they're an admin. Bringing an issue up on ANI, and continuing to discuss it, does not involve the use of admin tools, and so INVOLVED doesn't apply. We're neither the police nor the court system, and the clean hands doctrine isn't Wikipedia policy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NO it wont ((edit conflict) I don't give a shit about Wikipedia's [[[kangaroo court]] system. I am being treated unfairly. I worked not "five minutes" like the prosecutors says but hours and hours and hours over these fucking things. I sometimes can't remember what language I speak. I have worked so damned hard over them that sometimes I literally can't tell left from right. Then I am told to do WP:BEFORE. I take it as implicit that I do it. What am I supposed to fucking do, list every eubot redirect as "WP:BEFORE I listed this I checked on Google and could not find anything, and it is still WP:RFD#D5 nonsense". In any case, as I have said many times, WP:BEFORE does not apply to redirects it applies to articles. I have no requirement to do WP:BEFORE at all. I have a requirement, in my head, to make the encylopaedia better by making it easier for people to get to the information they want. Not pissing about at ANI by an editor who has a grudge against me. Now, shall I get on to try to make the encylopaedia better are all you all little admins going to waste more of my precious editor's time? Si Trew (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to stop wasting peoples time with RFD's that are obviously pointless and where you have done zero checks to see if it is a valid redirect? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If your time is so precious, why are you wasting it on increasingly pseudolegalistic arguments defending a practice every other editor commenting here has cautioned you about? Why not use some of that precious time editing in one of the literally thousands of other areas? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not pseudolegal. I am one of the very few editors I imagine who has actually stood up in court and said yes your honour and no your worship. I know that this is WP:NOTLAW. It is not a kangaroo court either. Si Trew (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also do actually find its slightly offensive that [[User::Thryduulf]] even in listing here could not be bothered to get my name right. Si Trew (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support RfD throttling - I don't care about redirects really, as long as they redirect to an appropriate target I'm happy. What I do care about is people creating extra work for Wikipedia editors - who are, after all, volunteers, not paid for our time - especially when they're told that they're creating extra work and they pig-headedly refuse to cooperate. Redirects are like the bits of a building between two walls, or between the ceiling and the floorboards of the room above - there's a lot of crap in there but it really isn't worth worrying about. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf is not the only admin at RfD. Other admins such as User:Tavix have got their adminship from RfD. Thryduulf don't own the shop. The accusations of bullying still hold. I think it is just a simple case of bullying. "I'm an admin do as I say, love, Thryduulf". Well, some people stand up to bullies. Now, let me see how many things Thryduulf has listed in his adminship at RfD.... er.... sorry I don't have a finger to count 0. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I care about exactly what you care about User:Exemplo347. This is a storm in a teapot. And it's a bit ridiculous to suggest throttling it to 20 a day. I am the only editor doing it. I don't see anyone else doing it. There are spits and spats but I go through the lists because we don't have, by amazing consensus, a WP:X1 concession. The very admin who is now nominating me said it was not needed. I forget the greek word but in English it is, um what is the word, when you say one thing and do another. I better check on Wiktionary. I could have got on and done some real work and made the encylopaediae better were it not for this fuss. I will try to start doing that right now. It is the last I have to say on the matter. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, 31 hours is lenient given the block log. That being said, I think this is further evidence that a full ban is necessary, given this took place outside of RfD. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure a full site ban is necessary over those personal attacks, but he might need more than a 31 hour block. You might even want an indef block until he at least says he understands the problem with this behavior and that he wont repeat it. -Obsidi (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban from RfD Sigh, maybe he will find something better to do with his time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban from RfD - Frankly, I agree with the comment above that, given this editor's stance he's likely to move to another area and cause similar problems there, so an indef or site ban would be justified, but since we don't do preventative blocks of that nature (but probably should), we can start where the immediate problem lies, as shown by both ST's editing behavior and his comments in this very discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe we have enough people in support of a topic ban that we can implement it at this point. Thoughts? —JJBers 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • note I've renamed the tread and changed all instances of "SiTrew" in my comments to "Si Trew" per his comments above and on my talk page. I have not changed any other comments. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't bold vote an opinion, because I don't frequent RFD and don't have a good feel for this. I just want to ask a question to the RFD regulars who know him better than drive-by ANI watchers. Si Trew has been here 10 years and made 61,000 edits, much of it redirect related. Surely most of them valuable? Instead of an RFD ban (or a site ban), would it make sense to narrow the scope? Perhaps a 2 week ban from RFD until he calms down? Or a ban from nominating Eubot redirects? It depends on whether he's generally a help at RFD but is getting overwhelmed by the scope of Eubot's contribs, or if he's generally not a help. I get the sense that he's generally a help (I see @Thryduulf: saying nice things on his talk page from December, and I recall @Tavix: being pretty patient during a previous dispute because he does do good work). But it looks like when he gets a bee in his bonnet, he becomes difficult for others to work with. Maybe focus more on getting the bee out of his bonnet? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply put, Simon is a net-negative at RfD. Sure, he's got a lot of contributions, but it seems like every other one is an off topic rant, remark or what have you. I'll admit I've got a very long leash, but I feel it's been completely used up. The current flavor of the day is Eubot, before it was Neelix, and his obsession with Neelix didn't end until a months long block. I'm sure if it's restricted to Eubot, he'll find another situation to flood RfD with. This is, what, the seventh or eighth ANI thread dealing with Simon? At what point will we realize that he simply doesn't have enough clue to operate as a competent editor on this site? -- Tavix (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; I've blocked him more than anyone, so I'm not trying to be his Official Apologist or anything. Just seems a bit of a shame, after being complimented for his Eubot work a few months ago. Perhaps it's my knee-jerk reaction to people talking about a 10-year editor as clueless and incompetent. I do know what you mean, it just seems... a shame, like I said. I won't try to oppose anything here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A few years ago there weren't many problems with him though. They've gotten significantly worse as the years go on. It's like he's degenerating or something. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. I know I'm degenerating. Getting old kind of sucks (Speaking for myself, not Si Trew). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen to that. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) Currently the negatives (which have been increasing) significantly outweigh the positives (which have been decreasing). If he is to return to RfD it must be with a rate throttle, a demonstrated understanding of the point of WP:BEFORE and a requirement to demonstrate he has carefully thought about each redirect nominated. A restriction from redirects related to foreign languages, diacritics and/or mass-created redirects would be the minimum necessary before I'd consider his return. At the start of this thread I would have accepted just the throttle, but it's become clearer the more others have commented that the level of competence displayed has been worse than I was initially aware of. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full site ban, somewhat regrettably. In a nutshell, I agree with the ultimate conclusion Tavix made; if SimonTrew's gotten to a point where he's requesting a full site ban on himself, let's just do it. I recall in the past, SimonTrew was indefinitely blocked for legal threats, in addition to all the other RfD-related blocks he's had. At this point, as much as SimonTrew has been cordial (and the opposite) to me in the past, it's quite difficult to see how he's still a WP:NETPOSITIVE for the project with his recent serious lack of WP:BEFORE research on his recent nominations, plus his off-topic comments on RfD nominations are getting to a point where they are now throwing red herrings into the discussions. In addition, with SimonTrew's editing style and personality, I don't see how he could follow a "daily-limit" ban, and editors' daily monitoring of such activity from SimonTrew would be rather exhausting. In my conclusion, at the present time, SimonTrew's capability to provide beneficial additions to Wikipedia is nearly nonexistent, and he and the entire community need a break from his contributions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      In addition, I think WP:ROPE was referenced in regards to only banning SimonTrew from WP:RFD and not all of Wikipedia. My response to that idea: SimonTrew honestly has been provided "WP:ROPE" so many times now that the rope has been destroyed. The amount of editor resources it takes to reel him back in after any of his tangents, whether they contain malice or not, is too taxing on editors and admins. (I mean, legal threats and RfD are two exclusively-different issues.) This really shouldn't be allowed again ... since, at this point, the rope is figuratively broken. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a fan of "community bans" and in this case, I wonder if it is truly necessary. The proposal for a restriction on their editing in a problematic area is nearing a consensus and they are currently blocked for incivility and personal attacks. If they return and continue then there appears to be ample behavioral and policy grounds for extending new blocks of longer lengths, including indefinite, at admin discretion. Creating a site ban adds a layer of punitiveness that seems unhelpful and non-constructive. It is also harder to undo a community site ban. I recognize that the difficulty in removing a community site ban strikes some as a feature instead of a bug. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a fan of site bans either, but given the extent of what SimonTrew has done in regards to legal threats, bombastic off-topic outbursts and the addition of flooding RfD with nominations that lack WP:BEFORE research, I truly think that it is the best option in this case. I've been following SimonTrew's activity for about 4 years now, so I'm not making claim that he needs a full site ban without any knowledge of some hard evidence to back it up. Looking back on SimonTrew's block log, the indefinite block that he had for legal threats lasted for about 3 months (June 2016–September 2016) and after that was lifted, here we are at yet another issue created by SimonTrew that needs immediate attention and requires an ANI discussion. All of these back-and-forth issues are really becoming taxing for the community. And given the fact that SimonTrew is familiar with how to go through the venues to request getting unblocked when he doesn't have talk page access (such as WP:UTRS), and since he had to go through that since his talk page access was revoked during that time, he'd have to go through it again to get the ban lifted with the stipulation that lifting a ban takes more than lifting a block, possibly including consensus to lift the ban. Seriously, if I thought at this point just banning SimonTrew from RfD would prevent any further issues he may cause, such as legal threats, I'd be all for it. But at this point, it's almost like he's already used up any chances he had to redeem himself after all of these issues, especially with his mannerisms of interacting with others on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have obviously more familiarity with this editor than I. I hardly ever go to RfD, for example. I will humbly defer to your greater expertise on the issue. The only community site ban I have had previous familiarity with was SlitherioFan2016, who was banned for obvious and repeated trolling and block-evasion [14]. I didn't think this editor has raised anything like the trouble that one did, so I expressed caution. Especially since, as Softlavender says, they are currently unable to reply it seemed proper to wait until the current block expired to see if it has any benefit. Perhaps, though, they have reached that level of disruption that simple WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE indefinite blocks are not sufficient. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While I would support a WP:CIR block (I'm still thinking about whether I support a ban), a WP:NOTHERE block is not justified. Si Trew is attempting to improve the encyclopaedia, and I think believes that he is doing so with his RfD nominations - indeed some of them are beneficial (just not enough to be a net positive, at least at the moment). The problem is with the results of his actions, and refusal to act on feedback about them, that are the issue not his intent. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm inclined to recommend waiting until SimonTrew's short block has expired before any admin closes this thread. I'd like to see whether at this point he understands the problematical nature of his behaviors, and what he intends to do (or not do) to correct that. If he is unable to do (respond to) those two things satisfactorily, well, then there is indeed a WP:CIR issue and measures should be taken in accordance with an admin's assessment of the consensus in this thread and the nature of the overall problem(s). Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • COmment Y'all know I hate incivility, so I am more than displeased with an edit summary like this. If Si can't behave around others without resorting to rudeness, PA, and incivility, they shouldn't do work that requries them to work with others, who may have a differing opinion. L3X1 (distant write) 01:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    break

    Od Mishehu has extended Simon's block (based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#INVOLVED block of User:SimonTrew) to 3 weeks so that it now expires at 20:06, 18 May 2017. That is a very long time for a thread to be open at AN/I and I'd rather this not get archived without an actual conclusion, whether that is for a topic ban, indef block, ban, some combination of these or nothing. Personally I would like to see a topic ban from RfD (defined below) and nominating redirects for speedy deletion appealable separately to an appeal of a block or ban at least 3-6 months of productive collaborative editing elsewhere (at which either a conditional or unrestricted return could be discussed). I'm inclined, and to say that the three-week block is sufficient for the personal attacks yesterday. I don't know if it's been done before, but a suspended community ban that could be implemented by agreement of 2-3 uninvolved administrators in the event of his being blocked for disruption, legal threats, etc. is something I think worth considering. I'm not sure whether breach of the topic ban should be a trigger for such ban or not, but I'm leaning yes as it's an area that is quite easy to define (unlike say "Pseudoscience"). I would consider at topic ban from RfD to encompass:

    Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I support that definition pretty much. —JJBers 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JJBers: I moved your comment here. Your edit here has oddly duplicated the entire thread. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, the visual source editor is broken. —JJBers 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too would not like to see Simon blocked indefinitely. His passion for improving the encyclopedia is obvious, he is just unable at this point to accept that his enthusiasm for redirects is seriously impeding other editors who would also like to improve the encyclopedia, to the point that he needs to have a community-imposed break from that venue. I have seen no evidence that his disruptive behaviour here would carry over to other areas of the encyclopedia. As for the ban from RfD, I would like to see it defined as a ban from all redirect deletion, broadly construed. This would include RfD itself and all its subpages and templates, tagging redirects for deletion (speedy or otherwise), and discussing speedy deletion criteria related to redirects. I'm not sure what Thryduulf means by the discussion of a "suspended community ban": topic ban violations are normally addressed by blocking. I think it's already pretty clear that Simon's next block for a civility concern (NPA, NLT, etc) will be indefinite. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, where are these "lists" of Eubot redirects? I've not been able to find them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Champion/Eubot list. Sideways713 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather clear definition ... but will probably be breached at some point. Per my comments regarding implementing a full site ban on SimonTrew, given his history of blocks and actions, my ability to have confidence that such a ban will be followed is, unfortunately, very low. As I stated above that my opinion that SimonTrew should have a full site ban is "somewhat regrettably", it's because as Thryduulf and Ivanvector have alluded, he really is performing all of the edits on RfD in good faith and belief that he is making improvements to Wikipedia. However, the actions he takes following most edits he performs at RfD causes commotion that results in blocks (such as legal threats). If a RfD ban is the route that we are going to take (which I say is rather lenient at this point), then due to his history, after the first offense of breaking such a ban, the response shouldn't be a limited time or indefinite block ... it should immediately be a full site ban. Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request for Clarification: What about existing redirects? Would Si Trew be able to change existing redirects? For example: Let's say A redirects to B; would Si Trew be permitted to change A to redirect to C? Likewise, what about tagging for speedy deletion? --Darth Mike(talk) 18:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Steel1943, Ivanvector, and Darth Mike: I agree that including nominating redirects at RfD should be included in the definition of breaching a ban from RfD, I'll add it above. CSD is not part of RfD so should be specified separately, i.e. "topic banned from RFD (defined as above) and from nominating redirects at CSD". I strongly dislike "deletion of redirects" because RFD is Redirects for discussion and Si does nominate redirects there for retargetting or further input* and I don't want there to be room to wikilawyer that a nomination for retargetting was not breaching a "deletion of redirects" topic ban. Retargetting a redirect without involving RfD is not covered by the currently proposed topic ban, I had not thought about it before you mentioned it (thank you!) so I am presently unsure whether we do want to restrict him from that or not. If we do, it should be as a third bullet to the topic ban not lumping it in with the RfD bullet.
      * This is fine when done coherently, with thought and not rapid fire - see my nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 27#Foreign language redirects to Portugal (Group 3) from earlier today for how it can be done. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty neutral on whether Simon should be banned from editing redirects entirely. When Si does take the time to actually analyze a redirect and its background and utility, he's usually right, or at least his action can be justified. The problem of late has been that he is not taking this time and just rapidly nominating huge lists of redirects for discussions with no apparent forethought at all, and also the outbursts when he's confronted on this. I think it would be fine to allow Si to go off and edit redirects on his own where he believes that editing them improves the encyclopedia, to the extent that he can do so without interacting with RfD. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think Od Mishehu's extension of Simon Trew's block was a mistake that did not take into account the fact that Simon Trew's input is needed (in my opinion) to fully resolve this thread. Now he cannot comment on this ANI thread. If he was able to comment, he could possibly assure us now that he understands what he has been doing that is problematical, and propose what he is going to do to change his behaviors. We could also see if he has calmed down and is refraining from personal attacks. Now that he can no longer comment here, and there are so many proposals on the table including a full site ban or indef block, I don't feel that this thread is going to wind up in as productive a resolution as it could if ST were able to comment further. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Simon can comment on his talk page if he desires, and Ivanvector has made that clear after his block was extended. -- Tavix (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Simon has put some additional comments on his talk page which I can't copy over at the moment (my phone doesn't have enough memory). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon's comments from his talk page are below (copied by Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)):[reply]

    @Ivanvector: OK. Here is my basic position. There are thirteen lists of User:Eubot redirectd on them. Many of them, as was said yesterday at the ANI by a professional translator, a new to me editor. (who to make it clear I did not magic up like I can magic up User:Plantdrew on botanical subjects or User:Mjroots on railways).)
    It's too many. We don't have a WP:X1 concession. What am I supposed to do, take each to WP:CSD? Then we would end up in the same boat with the admins at CSD saying I am flooding them. It's too many.
    User:Champion made the lists, I am going through them. If you want WP:RFD#D5 nonsense such as Thoekoely at an encyclopaedia, have it. I don't.
    My WP:BEFORE is to check the internal consistency of our encyopadia. Techinically WP:BEFORE does not apply to redirects anyway, but let's not get hung up on it like User:Thryduulf does. My job, as I see or saw it, is to go through the eubot ones and say "is this greenisholives" or is it "green olives"?". That is all I can do. Si Trew (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my secondary position. Apart from speaking French, English, a bit of Hungarian and some other languages, more than that, I have a kinda "connecting" mind. It just makes connections all the time I wish it didn't sometimes. I just "connect" things all the time. For example right now I just remembered it was E.M. Forster who said "Only Connect" and Victoria Cohen Mitchell has a tv programme. I can do that without checking. I am that good. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I got her name wrong. Alan Coren her father one of the funniest men you will ever read. See. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And as for personal attacks, the thing is that "Simon Trew" is my real name. So, yes, I do start treating it as a personal attack. I am an idiot for using my real name, I suppose, but I don't hide behind a veil. It is my stupidity nine years ago but if I switched names now what good would that do? Nobody's. As we all know, Wikipedia is not the whole world. I don't want "Simon Trew" to become a synonym for "idiot". Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know how to get started with something. You just get started. In the time this ANI nonsense has gone on I have painted a new hallway and fixed my house and various other jobs, all for no money. Oh and got meself a new house which is in about the same state as these redirects are. The way to get started is to get started. I am a bit fed up nobody else seems to join in, but you can hardly blame me for flooding. Five or six other editors could join in. The fact I am doing it on my own is some testament to why people don't like to edit at WP. Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My initial reaction to those comments is that they show he still doesn't understand what the problem is, and if unblocked today would just return to flooding RfD with poorly checked (or unchecked) nominations and rambling off-topic commentary. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Further comment from Si:
    "I think it would only be fair if you take out my hazardous contributsions you also take out all the {{R from other spelling}} and {{other language|fr|en}} or whatnot that I do from Eubot without bringing to RfD. Can you please copy that in too, User:Thryduulf? And I am sorry if it felt like a personal attack on you. It was not. I think you were wrong to bring it, absolutely and then go "Right, I've warned you, next time, you're at ANI" and then SMACK I am at ANI. That is not how Wikipedia works. Can you please add those comments at ANI because I can't. Si Trew (talk)" copied by Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of Simon Trew's usertalk comments now copied over: Although they are no longer outright personal attacks, they are still pretty much rambling self-justifying meanderings (one kicker is "I can do that without checking. I am that good.") Regardless of whether Eubot is a problem or not (that is a subject for another conversation and probably for another venue), I'm worried that we do have a CIR problem with Simon, and that his ability even to communicate clearly, much less collaborate and learn, is somewhat questionable. Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm increasingly now thinking we need a block or ban and a topic ban that will take effect if/when he returns. I'm obviously way too involved with this to close this thread but the topic ban (from RfD and from nominating for redirects for speedy deletion) at least looks to have widespread agreement. Whether it should be a block or ban is less clear, but I'm leaning towards the latter. It's such a shame how quickly this keeps getting worse. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support RfD ban of indefinite length. It is clear from the comments copied from their talk page above they have not heard any of the concerns expressed and intend to continue as before as soon as they can. It is conceivable that they will, after some period of time, realize why their RfD interactions were damaging and can request dropping the ban at that time. I'm of no mind to even attempt to determine what that length of time might be, however. I think it should also be made explicitly clear that their leash on civility matters upon return from the current block is extremely short. Is "civility probation" still a thing? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not, Eggishorn. ArbCom has had some unpleasant experiences of what's likely to happen if an editor has a target painted on their back by a "civility probation", and it's been a long time since they tried it. The community shouldn't either. They're cursed things. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Fair enough. Sounds reasonable. Thanks for filling in the blank space in my memory. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I just want to say that I !voted above for an RfD ban, and that Simon Trew's comments copied here from his talk page have not changed my mind one bit - in fact, they've hardened my position, and have started me thinking that an even stronger sanction might be warranted. My advice to Simon Trew would be: If you want to keep editing here, stop commenting, you're only hurting yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose full site ban - I cannot, regrettably, oppose a ban from redirects for discussion, but I don't think a full site ban is due at this time. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will endorse above statements above noting that Si Trew's refusal to do a WP:BEFORE check (technically not mentioned at RFD, but which definitely should be) for Eubot redirects is disruptive and a time sink. We have better things to do than perform simple Google Searches on his behalf. Unlike the Neelix redirects, which could impugn Wikipedia's reputation through having an admin redirect things like "tubular titties" to breast cancer, the Eubot redirects are mostly harmless. At worst, the transliterated redirect blocks valid DAB pages or has a better target due to changes since the bot was run. Many of them are perfectly valid redirects which Si Trew refuses to recognize because of his prescriptivist take on how redirects should work, because he seems to believe that all readers should be forced to perfectly reproduce any diacritic in the original language, which is at odds with WP:DIACRITIC. Some of the more questionable ones are at worst a redirect from a spelling which is a plausible pronunciation, and which can be deleted or kept without much harm either way. I would endorse Thryduulf's restrictions above, but also offer the following terms as suggestions:
    • A ban from nominating redirects for speedy deletion, which would circumvent the purpose of the RFD ban, and could be abused given widespread misuse of WP:G6;
    • A ban from retargeting (but not refining) redirects, Si Trew has advanced some rather implausible alternate theories for where a redirect could/should target to [15] [16], [17];
    • An exception for Si Trew to make one RFD nomination per day, notwithstanding any other part of the ban, provided that he supplies a clear explanation for why the status quo should not be kept and URL links to demonstrate that a Google News/Books/Scholar search has been done per BEFORE. This would allow some of the good work that he does to still be done (e.g. creating a valid DAB page, adding hatnotes, created a valid DAB page). If the proposed change would be at IAR levels of obviousness, then the RFD can always be snow closed to get the correct result. Any violation of this clause will result in its removal. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I included a ban from CSD in my proposal so I obviously agree with that. I don't agree with the one nomination a day, as while he does sometimes do good work, I think he needs a complete clean break from RfD and the restriction needs to be very simple so there there is no possibility of wikilawyering, indeed I prefer the restriction suggested by someone above from editing redirects completely over your second bullet for the same reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any indef blocks/bans, I think some Wikipedians are way too happy to swing the banhammer. From what I have seen of him prior to this incident, Mr. Trew is constructive and intelligent. Thryduulf, nominating a bunch of redirects for discussion is not a reason to block or ban someone. You are acting like it is your problem, but it is not. I have not encountered him outside of RFD, so I can't say anything about CSD or the like, but to do something as crazy as to indefinitely block/ban him would be a serious loss to RfD. I don't like this turning on him I'm seeing. I thought sanctions are not supposed to be a form of punishment, but instead are to prevent further damage. Guys, I just don't think kicking Si Trew out is the effective or moral way to go.--Mr. Guye (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any indef blocks/bans I fully endorse the comments above by Mr. Guye. Jschnur (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) I'm sorry, Mr. Guye, but I have to ask whether you've actually looked at the diffs and links provided in this thread and read his comments in response to the concerns raised and then his responses after getting blocked? This is not just "nominating a bunch of redirects at RfD" it's:
        • Flooding RfD with 50-70 or more nominations a day, despite repeatedly being asked not to (WP:IDHT).
        • Not conducting even the most basic elements of WP:BEFORE before nominating redirects, despite being repeatedly asked to (WP:IDHT, WP:CIR).
        • Continuing to nominate redirects without actually presenting a reason to delete or retarget them, and sometimes even arguing for keeping them as is, despite being repeatedly asked to (WP:IDHT, WP:CIR).
        • Repeatedly nominating redirects that are correct according to policy (particularly WP:DIACRITICS), despite being repeatedly asked to (WP:IDHT).
        • Repeatedly nominating redirects that there is a firm consensus to keep (e.g. ä → ae in Germanic language names/titles), despite being repeatedly asked to (WP:IDHT). Together these mean that he is causing hours (literally) of extra work for other volunteers who have to check his work and clean up after him.
        • Continuing to post off-topic rambles in RfD discussions, despite being repeatedly asked to. This and all the above are seriously disrupting RfD (WP:IDHT, WP:CIR) and has been ongoing (and getting worse) for months.
        • Responding to criticism with personal attacks (WP:NPA).
        • Creating article space pages to make a point or comment (WP:POINT, doubly so when the comment is being made in the wrong place).
        Links and diffs for all of these (and more) are in this thread, and it is everybody other than you who is seeing his actions at RfD as a very significant problem, which is why I wonder if you've been actually looking at the evidence provided. The good he does in relation to redirects is being very signficantly outweighed by the negatives. I didn't want to see him indeffed and banned from RfD - I wanted a rate limit and a requirement to do WP:BEFORE for each nomination, but every response he's given has made things worse for him as he's making it increasingly clear is not willing to work collaboratively with other editors at the current time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    April 19 was a relatively quiet day for Si's nominations at RfD as there were only 48 of them (it's rare that most people make more than 5 in a single day). 7 are still open and 1 has been relisted. Of the 40 that have been closed, none were nominated for retargetting:

    • 5 were withdrawn - 1 with a factually inaccurate nomination, 2 after complete failures to do WP:BEFORE were highlighted, and 2 where he replied to his own nomination with a recommendation to keep before anyone else commented.
    • 8 were deleted
    • 1 was retargetted
    • 26 were kept (2 speedily kept because the nomination didn't actually include a reason for deletion or retargetting) - over 50%. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I endorse the above reply by Thryduulf. Anyone with a similar track record of ignoring WP:BEFORE at AFD would already be sanctioned. Si Trew's actions require RFD volunteers to waste hours doing simple Google searches which he could've done himself, simply so valid redirects are not deleted. Given the vast number of nominations, I would not be surprised if some redirects that should have been kept fell through the cracks and were deleted. I would add that unlike AFD, mass nominations make the main RFD page slow to load, because it transcludes all the daily logs with open entries (the default assumption is that there will not be a flood of nominations). The slow load time has been brought up at WT:RFD a couple times already. [18], [19]---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mr. Guye and Jschnur: I second this endorsement. If it were just that he was making a lot of nominations, we wouldn't be here. If it were just that he sometimes makes poor decisions with regard to nominations, we could correct that if he would ever accept criticism. But he doesn't: you can see here and here and here (or above) the sort of non sequitur response you get if you ever try to suggest that he's doing something wrong, and always he continues to do those things. This has been going on basically continuously since the Neelix redirects came to light in about November 2014, other than at times that Si has found himself blocked for things like one of his rambles containing an explicit legal threat. Repeatedly doing things you've been asked not to do is disruptive, and banning him from RfD is to prevent any more of his disruption related to that venue. As an example of how this behaviour is specifically disruptive, observe this nomination which Si listed for no reason and then immediatedly withdrew, but he did not remove the notice of discussion from the redirect, breaking it. It's likely this has happened dozens or hundreds of times from his rapid and careless mass nominations, and it's likely he's creating a secondary cleanup project for the rest of us. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I endorse the comments of Thryduulf, Patar knight and Ivanvector above. I would only add that the problems at RfD aren't limited to Si Trew's own nominations; his off-topic ramblings have disrupted other editors' nominations, and his lack of competence and inability to take in what his fellow editors say has been on full display in discussions started by others as well. And as others said above, the big problem is that Si Trew responds to criticism by digging in deeper and descending to personal attacks and even legal threats; and that instead of learning from his mistakes, he has become more and more disruptive over time. Most regulars at RfD would be happy to tolerate (indeed, for years already, have tolerated) most of Si Trew's quirks; but it's become clearer and clearer that he's not willing to work together with other users, and that his failure to do so is causing too many problems to just ignore. No one's happy that he has to be banned, and anyone who's spent any length of time at RfD knows that he does do good stuff there. It's a pity that he can't stick to the good stuff and drop the rest; but unfortunately, he insists on drowning the baby in increasing amounts of bathwater, and his behavior has made it clear that isn't likely to change. Sideways713 (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bottom line

    • So what's the bottom line here? It seems like we have a mix of (1) full topic ban from RfDs, broadly construed, to (2) an indef or site ban. Is there any perceived harm in giving Si a bit more WP:ROPE and stopping at the TBan, or are his CIR issues demonstrably too far gone to waste time on that and therefore we should skip right to indef? Asking so that this thread can be effectively understood and closed by an admin. Is this thread ready for consensus to be assessed and closed? If everyone has said their peace, there's probably no point in repeating your !vote, but if you haven't !voted, do so now as I think this thread is nearing completion. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Effectively my support is for a ban from suggesting changes to redirects, but not from making changes. That covers tagging any redirect for CSD or xfD, discussing on its talk page, or discussing anything to do with RfD anywhere, but not from modifying an existing redirect. My observation is that Si knows how redirects should work and can make good decisions, but he doesn't seem to be able to do it without "looking busy", i.e. spamming RfD with completely unnecessary discussions. If he can just go do it, fine. Until it becomes apparent that that is a problem, I don't support banning him from that activity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case it isn't clear from my many comments above, I think topic ban from (a) RfD (as defined above), and (b) nominating redirects at CSD is minimum. I am neutral with regards extending that topic ban to redirects more generally, and oppose a topic ban more general than that. My first choice is for a suspended indefinite ban, my second choice is an immediate indefinite ban, my distant third choice is neither of these. Most of all however I would like to see this thread actively resolved rather than idle out without formal closure. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, can you clarify what a "suspended indefinite [topic] ban" means and entails? That said, it looks like you and Ivanvector are in agreement that Si should be able to change or modify redirects but should not discuss, RfD, or CSD them, or involve himself in any way with RfD, including discussing it. Is that correct? Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As described above as suspected ban is simply one that does not take effect immediately, but only if the topic ban is broken. And yes, you're right about my opinion of what Si should and should not be able to do regarding redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are requesting a ban on RfD, broadly construed (including discussion of redirects), and a ban on CSDing redirects. And in more standard Wikipedia terminology, you are also requesting a final warning that if further disruption occurs an indefinite block or site-ban will ensue? I'm asking because "suspended ban" is not a thing, and "indefinite ban" is not a thing (although indefinite blocks, and site bans, are). Softlavender (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I am asking for a topic ban with the explicit provision that if it is breached that a site ban is the only course of action available. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, @Softlavender:, there was a Arbcom case where a topic ban was placed in suspension. Look up RoslynSKP. A suspended topic ban was placed on her as a result of her behaviour in Ottoman/Turkish WWI related articles. I'll link the sanctions once I find it, unless someone does so before me. Blackmane (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha! Found it. here it is. Blackmane (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pattern of making controversial title changes without RM or discussion by user In ictu oculi

    In ictu oculi holds views that often differ from mine about article titles, which is no crime, of course, except he regularly engages in unilateral page moves, without discussion, that are in accordance with his eccentric views, but are often contrary to consensus view, or are at least clearly controversial. WP:RM is quite clear about potentially controversial title changes - they should be avoided, and requests at RM should be initiated instead. Anyway, IIO has been warned in the past, and I warned him yesterday, and he made some more moves today, so I'm asking for assistance. This has been an ongoing problem for the better part of a decade.

    A couple of recent examples:

    Warnings/discussions:

    IIO and I often clash on title decisions so I'm not the most objective judge, so I ask others to confirm there is an issue here. I'm hopeful a serious warning coming from someone other than me should resolve this chronic problem for good. --?²C ? 01:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    He probably moved To the Max! to To the Max! (Max Roach album) because there are two other entities named To the Max. These lack the wow sign. But except for the punctuation (which is not pronounced) they are identical. It is reasonable to say "These are enough alike to constitute essentially the same title". It's a judgment call whether to ask for a Requested Move in a case like this. But a Requested Move means asking your colleagues to drop what they are doing and consider your question. You don't want to do it if you figure it's probably just a technical fix. So I can see someone going ahead and doing it, subject to a Requested Move discussion if someone objects. In ictu oculi moves a lot of pages, so some of these are going to be disputed.
    On the other hand, moving Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film), are you sure he didn't do this to make room for an article on the actual Bombay Mail train or something? (Even if he did, he needs to say so in his move summaries). If not, this would be highly idiosyncratic and I'd be interested to hear about that. If there's a pattern of this kind of move (and not making way for a new article) then that's not good. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus, both situations mentioned by B2C are covered by WP:DIFFCAPS, a subsection of WP:AT IIO knows exists, and IIO knows a related-move can be seen as contentious. Although both titles are ambiguous, having To the Max! redirecting to To the Max! (Max Roach album), because there is no other "To the Max!" (in place of simply having a {{other uses}} or an {{About}}); and not creating an article about Bombay Mail train/office and preemptively moving it to "(1934 film)" when there is no other film with the same name are common problems with IIO. Bombay Mail (train) (recent redirect) just redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line where it is only mentioned as "he Mumbai-Howrah Mail via Allahabad is called Calcutta Mail between Mumbai and Allahabad, and Mumbai Mail (some still call it by its old name, Bombay Mail)". Other examples exist, they can be found on the public log, like Haco or Mercedes (film), Dt., or Nueva Era (this is just a redirection problem, but he never attempted to fix it), when enough time has past to have written an article to make disambiguation valid, but they solely are redirects to the article they were originally titled, or back in September when he moved Sivi Kingdom to Sivi (king), unexplained, despite the fact the article discusses more the kingdom than the homonym king, also note that he decided to move it to "Sivi (king)" and not to "King Sivi", "Sivi King" or "Kingdom of Sivi", which are more natural terms. The reason for a move I guess was to justify the move of Sivi to Sivi (film), but in itself you don't need to move A to justify B. And this is just for moving articles, there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates. At WT:Notability, my talk page and WT:CDS are examples of what I'm talking about, but these aren't all the examples. Unfortunately I don't have all of them, but it is a start. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm among editors who disagree with B2C's views on titling, as he says above. B2C's view against disambiguation and recognizability tend to be outliers, as his activity on guideline Talk pages shows.
    Occasionally we all get something wrong, and if there's a discussion or objection I listen and then that's easily resolved. I do a lot of work on disambiguation, and occasionally someone objects. Looking at the last ten:
    1. Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) ([Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) summary (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2017-03-12&end=2017-04-20&pages=Wild_Boy_(song)%7CWild_Boy%7CWild_Boy_(novel))
    Wild Boy 1934 film was getting 4 out of 72 views. A dab page was needed, can anyone see any problem with creation of a dab page here?
    2. Intrigue (film) to Intrigue (1947 film) summary (Intrigue (1942 film)
    There's also Intrigue (1942 film), per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.
    3. Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) summary (Bombay Mail (1935 film))
    As the summary says there is another film, WP:NCF, but there's also Bombay Mail (train), again Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.
    4. The Scandal to The Scandal (1923 film) summary (The Scandal (1934 film) The Scandal (1943 film))
    per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again
    5. The Mirage (film) to The Mirage (1920 film) see The Mirage (2015 film), a Canadian comedy-drama film
    per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again
    6. Sybil (book) to Sybil (Schreiber book) (Sybil (novel))
    The Disraeli "novel" is also a "book" Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)
    7. The Mirage (Al-Sarab) to The Mirage (Al-Suwaidi book)
    Per author name not Arabic word for "The Mirage", Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)
    8. Metahistory to Metahistory (Hayden White) (the term was in use decades before the book)
    The problem here were mislinks to 1973 book from the adjective metahistorical and generic term metahistory. The 1973 book Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe is an important book, but a book about metahistory, not the subject itself.
    9. Haunted London (1973) to Haunted London (Underwood book)
    We don't disambiguate by year Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)
    10. To the Max! to Talk:To the Max! (Max Roach album) (not always found with !)
    As already reverted and not contested. The context not mentioned above is that this was a third album after To the Max to To the Max (Con Funk Shun album) and To the Max (album) to To the Max (The Mentors album). These were clearly mistitled per WP:NCM. The ! isn't found in some sources per Drummin' Men: The Heartbeat of Jazz The Bebop Years by Burt Koral, but whatever that was an afterthought, the main job was fixing the partial disambiguation of two (or three) albums.
    We could go on to review the last 100 moves related to disambiguation or dab pages I have created or expanded. No need to stop at the last 10, but is the work of correcting incomplete titles contrary to naming conventions per se a bad thing? If it is tell me and I'll cease contributing to disambiguation pages. More than happy to do so if this work is not wanted by the editing community. I don't get paid, any more than the rest of you girls and guys. If it's not useful tell me. I'll go. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing here we can all agree is that if not about how useful or useless is your editing, it is about how you are doing your editing. With B2C's, this is the 5th or 6th user that has a complain about your editing pattern, how many users do you need to stop for a moment and ask to yourself "Am I doing this right?" Let's take Bombay Mail as the example here:
    You create Bombay Mail (1935 film), you move Bombay Mail (1934 film), and you created Bombay Mail (train). All OK but you missed one thing, which was the reason B2C could revert the move: you didn't create a disambiguation page. At least you now create an article to rely the disambiguation, months ago you used to move pages only because a similarly titled work existed and no single article was created. In this example, B2C moved the page back 3 hours later. Also, I'm quite sure you would have never created a disambiguation page and the base title would have been a redirect until someone else noticed it, like when this took 2 months, or this 9 months, or when you moved Haco, and it still redirecting to its previous article, or dozens of similar examples that you have not fixed, but instead of fixing them, you move to another article to continue doing the same. Or even worse, doing moves like this or this with no single reason given. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 16:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tbhotch: I can confirm that I have run across instances where IIO has moved a page to a title with a disambiguator, but in the process, doesn't create a disambiguation page. However, this wasn't always the case: The lack of creating disambiguation pages may be a recently-developing issue. I recall a few years ago, IIO moved quite a few song or album related pages from base titles to tiles with disambiguators and then created disambiguation pages at the leftover redirect's base title. However, such disambiguation pages were created before the consensus was established declaring that if an article about a song or album is the only article by that name that exists on Wikipedia, then it should be at the base title. (I can't recall where that guideline is at the moment, but I am sure you know what in referring to since I think we've crossed each other's paths regarding this in the past.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict, responding to the original complaint and User:Tbhotch) -- I am confused. IIO did construct another meaning for "Bombay Mail" -- "Bombay Mail (train)". It is just a redirect, true, but so? He had to move the article to make room for the redirect.
    The original complaint implied that IIO moved "Bombay Mail" to a title with meaningless, unnecessary disambiguation. Here I was all "Whaaat? What's wrong with IIO, to do something like that?"
    But that's not the deal at all. So can we get our facts straight please.
    So now that complaint seems to come down to "IIO created a redirect, and I wish he hadn't". I mean, I guess you could take it to Redirects for Discussion, and maybe that's where that discussion should happen rather than here.
    And there are two films named "Bombay Mail", one made in 1934 and one in 1935. Right? That is what IMDb says. So is it really so terrible to name your article "Bombay Mail (1934 film)" instead of "Bombay Mail (film)", considering that there is another film of that name with which a reader might get confused? True, it's not precisely correct (Unless IIO is planning to create an article on the other film) and that does matter.
    As to "there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates"... isn't this getting a little bit scattershot here? Can we stick to one thing maybe.
    So what is the desired end here? "IIO must initiate a Requested Move discussion for any and all moves"? And maybe that would be fine and is necessary. The claim is that there's a general pattern of misfeasance. I don't see it in those two tiny examples, but if there's a pattern it ought to come out with a little investigation. Can we get some actual examples of actual specific wrongdoing? This would help. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why sticking to one thing at the time? Sticking to one problem at the time is the reason why this edit pattern has not been revised, checked or even penalized through either ANI or even his ArbCom discussion, and how he has been being WP:GAMING since circa 2012. I literally gave you a link of how he in 2013 was trying to WP:POINT the speedy deletion criteria, something he still doing, yet I'm being a "little bit scattershot". Like you want me to open below a subsection of how he has been creating BLP WP:A7 articles before and after that CSD discussion, because I can do that. Or maybe you do not want me to do it because apparently we humans cannot focus in more than one problem at the same time. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 14:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Herostratus, the problem is not with IIO creating another meaning for "Bombay Mail" (a redirect named Bombay Mail (train) that redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line), but with him unilaterally (without discussion or RM) moving the article previously at Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) (it has since been reverted). The list above is just a list of a couple of recent examples. It was not mean to be exhaustive, but he does this stuff all the time. IIO shows little respect for the need to let others weigh in on these decisions; he does not recognize that his opinion on these matters is often contrary to that of the community. --?²C ? 16:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Note: Born2cycle's opening comment could give the impression that I have opened a thread about In ictu oculi at ANI before, in 2012, but this is not the case; instead my original comment was being quoted by another editor there. If you look at IIO's response to what I originally wrote, it's apparent that there wasn't really a dispute. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies. I did not realize you were being quoted there. I've stricken the reference to you and corrected it. --B²C ? 16:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also worried about In ictu oculi often renaming pages when unwarranted, and also disregarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as Born2cycle noted below. Extra DAB's in certain cases simply don't help at all and very needlessly go against WP:CONCISE. It might be a case of WP:IDHT in certain instances. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's look at one case, and extrapolate from there

    OK. The case of "Haco" is mentioned above. Let's leave "Bombay Mail" out of it because it's recent and articles are just now being created, so it's muddied; let's look at "Haco" instead.

    It's just one case, but the assertion is made that this is typical. So let's start there anyway.

    OK, the article Haco existed, being created 2006. It is about a singer.

    On March 10 2017, In ictu oculi [created the redirect Haco (king). It redirects to Haki, and indeed that article gives "Haco" as an alternative name for that king, and has for many years. So OK so far.

    One minute later on March 10 2017, In ictu oculi moved "Haco" to "Haco (singer)", which automatically left "Haco" as a redirect to "Haco (singer)". OK so far.

    In ictu oculi now had a choice to make. He could rewrite Haco as a disambiguation page, pointing to the article Haco (singer) and the redirect Haco (king), and possibly adding in Haco V (a redirect to Haakon V of Norway which has existed since 2005) and so forth, and possibly with a "See also" section mentioning Hako (disambiguation) and so forth.

    Or he could have figured that Haco (king) is the primary topic, and rewritten Haco to redirect there. Or he could have figured that Haco (singer) is the primary topic, in which case he should have not moved Haco (or moved it back if, after consideration, he concluded that the singer is the primary topic). In either case, if In ictu oculi thought that there was a primary topic, then the primary topic -- either the article about the singer, or the redirect to the king -- should have been named "Haco", and so his series of moves and article namings should have been different.

    But in any case, In ictu oculi -- if he wasn't going to create a disambiguation page -- should have added a hatnote to Haco (singer). This he did not do, as can be shown by this history. This was an error of omission.

    Couple secondary detail points

    (In ictu oculi did edit the (already existing) hatnote at Haki (which is now the target of Haki (king)), but only to change it from "for the village in Iran see Haki, Iran" to "This article is about King Hake. For the village in Iran, see Haki, Iran. For railway station in Japan, see Haki Station." (So no mention of "Haco (king)" which is OK, since "Haco (king)" does not redirect to "Haki"; if it did, a "Haco (king) redirects here..." note might have been in order. So this edit it OK, it neither breaks nor fixes anything, its just something In ictu oculi did while he was in the area I assume.))

    (This shows that seven pages link to Haco, which is a redirect page, while according to this only one non-redirect page targets Haco (singer). So the assumption is that link cleanup was not done. So this is likely another error of omission. It's not a capital crime, I have forgotten to do this myself on (rare) occasion and I think maybe bots clean this up (not sure). But still.)

    All this strikes me as rather odd. With no disambiguation page and no hatnote at Haco (singer), there isn't any way for a reader to access Haco (king) (and thereby Haki, if they know him as Haco). Yes sure she can type "Haco king" in the search box, but that's unnatural; more likely would be "king haco" or "haco of norway" or perhaps "haco mythology" or "haco norse" or "haco ynglinga" -- none of which will lead to reader the desired goal, Haki. (Haco (king) has no incoming links.)

    So this looks like a sub-optimal job. I don't see the gain. Neither is it terrible -- the ability of readers to get to where the want to is neither lessened nor increased, nor has any data been added or lost. It's a wash, but it did end with Haco now being at Haco (singer) when this isn't strictly necessary -- it follows from the decision to make no dab page and no hatnote at Haco (singer) that there was no reason to move Haco to Haco (singer) if nothing was going to be done with Haco (king). Haco (king), floating in limbo as it does, does not impinge on Haco continuing to be an article about the singer instead of a redirect to the article about the singer.

    You have to understand that unnecessary disambiguation drives people bonkers, and it is against our rules. I couldn't care much less, but for Haco (singer) to exist at that title when it could remain at just Haco makes some people claw the draperies -- and they do have the rules and accepted practice on their side, without question. Since they do, asking the admin corps for backup is reasonable IMO.

    No move was made wrongly, nor was there a case where a Requested Move should have been initiated instead of just moving stuff. Rather, the problem is that the moves were fine, but failing to make dab, or even a hatnote, afterwards is not OK. (Also link cleanup was not done apparently). This is not exactly just a content dispute, but a failure to follow optimal procedure.

    Coming into this analysis with no preconception, I do see where at least in this one case its problematical. As I said above, the assertion is this case is typical normal for In ictu oculi, and he doesn't care to follow optimal procedure, and some sort of warning or injunction about this is requested.

    So In ictu oculi, what's the deal here? Did I miss something, or what? Or was this case exceptional? Herostratus (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Good analysis and I hope you can now appreciate how time consuming this is. If you take almost any one of IIO's unilateral moves like this one in isolation it appears to be contrary to policy but not that serious; it's the pattern of doing this repeatedly that's the issue. You also hit upon a key point: "You have to understand that unnecessary disambiguation drives people bonkers, and it is against our rules." IIO demonstrates no respect for this community consensus viewpoint and others too (e.g., he seems to barely recognize WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Consistently and repeatedly. This is why I think he should stop making these moves. His judgement is off relative to community consensus. He can argue my judgement is off too on these matters, in the other direction. And I concede it might be - but that's why I tend to not make unilateral moves. He should too. --В²C ☎ 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted the move of Haco to Haco (singer) [29]. --В²C ☎ 22:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The info above is incorrect. This was originally a redirect to the Norwegian king, the insertion of the Japanese singer is a more recent addition, see Talk page of article. @Herostratus: as the summary says "Haco (king) see books" "Haco was" in Google Books. It's too far back to recall but typically if I didn't create a dab immediately it was because I was giving opportunity to anyone involved in the article to revert and let any link and templates settle. And then it was peacefully reverted and I didn't make any drama. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    But look at Bombay Mail closer because it's a good example

    Now, here's the point. These are both relatively obscure films, but between them, on the English WP, the American film is likely to be a bonafide WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Likely enough that no one should unilaterally decide it's not. But IIO did, and moved the article accordingly. Again, taken in isolation it's not a horrible crime, but he does this stuff all the time, and needs to stop. --В²C ☎ 23:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I dunno; reading that, my first thought was "train, ship, plane, or service?"...and it turns out it's all four. This was, and is, with a couple of m/b shifts, a ship route, the eponymous cargo, the train and a possibly even flying boat route. I expect, seriously, that the post service is far more important historically than either film. Disambguating them out seems a good call. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Except he left Bombay Mail as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Bombay Mail (1934 film), implying it is the primary topic. Well, if it is, then it shouldn't be disambiguated. But there are good arguments to made, as you did, that maybe there is no primary topic. That's the point; the issue of whether it is the primary topic is obviously potentially controversial, and precisely what needs to be determined, and that's why we have WP:RM, to make these determinations. It should not be determined unilaterally. You can't just look at each of these in isolation to see the pattern. --В²C ☎ 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because as has been explained before (a) it takes time for templates to adjust, (b) it allows yourself to follow me. I didn't delay so much before you started this. Bombay Mail is a pretty typical example of there being one major topic Bombay Mail (train) and two minor topics Bombay Mail (1934 film) and Bombay Mail (1935 film) the only thing preventing a dab page has been yourself. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Closer look at A True Woman

    Tbhotch linked to this this above; let's take a closer look.

    Is the relatively obscure book better known by its American title The Heart of a Woman, then by it's British title, A True Woman? Perhaps, but since the former requires disambiguation (conflict with Maya Angela book with same title), why not leave it at the latter? Well, if you prefer "more informative" titles, as IIO does, then the move makes sense. For him. So does making the move when you know if you put it up to an RM it's likely to get rejected, but if you do it unilaterally it might not get noticed (as it did not in this case for almost a year). I don't want to speculate about IIO's true motives, which even he might not be fully aware of, but the bottom line is that this is not a slam dunk rename. It's obviously potentially controversial, and IIO should know this, and know better than to make such moves. --В²C ☎ 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd have expected there was a guideline for this, that might be modified in occasional cases -MBE (as opposed to my own favorite, MBP). I'd also expect that a book by a prominent, if adopted, British author would go by the title published by in London, rather than New York. I think someone would have to make the case pretty strongly for it to be otherwise.
    On the other hand "might not get noticed" does cut both ways, it implies that this is a bit of a coin-toss. Anmccaff (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anmccaff, it "might not get noticed" because it's an obscure article with few if any watchers. And even if it is a coin-toss, that means it can go either way, indicating it is potentially controversial. Precisely the kind of decision that should go to RM - not made unilaterally by one editor, let alone by one with a reputation for often having opinions contrary to community consensus on such matters. --В²C ☎ 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of 10,000s of edits you are going back 12 months to April 2016? This is a level of forensic investigation that no active volunteer on the encyclopedia could pass. Yes Google Books indicates that the American title is better known, possibly because it is still in print in this title but out of print in the UK one. But really 12 months ago? Out of 10,000s of edits? A more common US title is suddenly urgent enough for ANI? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no CSI "forensic investigation" drama over here. The Heart of a Woman was the TFA for April 4, 2017. The original article included links to two unrelated albums, so I changed to to the dab page that already existed. There I noticed the weird title "The Heart of a Woman (Baroness Orczy novel)" as we shouldn't be using royal titles for disambiguations. Then clicking the article you find that A) it starts with "A True Woman (US Title The Heart of a Woman)", B) the infobox says "A True Woman" and it includes a book cover with this title, so why it had a different title? I didn't had to go further to know why. It doesn't matter if "Google Books [sic] indicates that the American title is better known". This is a British book by a British author, and WP:RETAIN applies. Otherwise Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is to be titles Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. This is the exact thing B2C is complaining (and others below not completely understanding), that you decide by yourself over and over again how to title articles ignoring policies and guidelines when convenient for you. WP:NCBOOKS, a guide you already knew by then, would have suggested "The Heart of a Woman (Orczy novel)", assuming it was a needed move, and any normal editor would have asked if original English titles are to be used over adapted English titles. The same applies to Sivi below. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 17:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Closer look at Sivi

    Tbhotch also linked to this above.

    No corresponding adjustments seem to have been made either. For example, the Sivi dab page still links to Sivi Kingdom (not to Sivi (king)). But wait, the plot thickens.

    Now, if we look at the relevant page view stats it's obvious that a strong argument can be made that the film (now at Sivi (film)) is the primary topic and should have remained at the base name, Sivi.

    Again, all this is for the community to decide, in a proper WP:RM. It's not for IIO or anyone else to make these decisions unilaterally. It's about the pattern. He needs to be told to stop. --В²C ☎ 01:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    September 20, 2016? 10 months ago? Again, how did you find this needle in the haystack? Before the minor Tamil horror was created, Sivi would have lead searchers to Sivi the king in the epic Mahabharata. look in books "Sivi" + India refers to "good king Sivi" "fabled king Sivi", 4000 results the 2007 Tamil horror film directed by K. R. Senthil Natha gets no book hits at all. It's simply in the wrong place squatting on a reasonably well known character in India's national epic. Do you see any India project editors objecting to the film being titled (film)? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to WP:AN?

    Born2cycle, the thread is going to be archived very soon. This message that I'm writing would stall the archiving of this thread. May I move the thread to WP:AN please for bigger attention? George Ho (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No George Ho, you may not move the thread to AN. This is the correct venue; AN isn't. In addition, AN gets less attention than ANI. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks George Ho, but I think this is the right place. Not sure what to do here. We could provide (many) more examples of the disruptive behavior, but I don't know if that will help. --В²C ☎ 18:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... titles are getting messier. Discussion about titling the Fabergé eggs, which doesn't involve IIO, led to using parentheses for precision (via parenthetical disambiguation?). Also, after the discussion about notability and ambiguity at the "Notability" talk page, I see IIO expanding some articles, including ones that he started: [34][35]. Conflicting principles are... weirder or entangled or something? But actions based on such principles... I think there's enough evidence of his renaming things. As said before, I don't want to get too involved in IIO's contributions, especially after the Faberge egg discussion. However, I see the proposal below, but I'll hold off until I'm ready to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC); already did. 01:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Informal Collaborator

    I just found a note on In ictu oculi's talk page asking him about his unexplained/undiscussed move of Informal collaborator to Informal collaborator (East Germany) [36]. Typical. I reverted it. [37]. --В²C ☎ 05:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact when you check the history of the article you will realize that that this was a revert to the longstanding title of the article which was only recently changed. WP:BRD covers this case. The next revert (yours) goes into editwaring territory. The change to Informal collaborator should have been subject to a WP:RM. Agathoclea (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agathoclea is probably correct in this case, User:Born2cycle To go over the sequence of events.
    And, you know, fine. It was just a second reversion, things happen fast here, it was different editor who made the first move, it's hard to always do the exact right thing by the letter, sometimes one forgets to check the move log, and so forth.
    But here's thing: you stand by this and avow that you'd do it again. That's very different from "Oops, sorry".
    At User talk:In ictu oculi#Your "informal collaborator" move, we've discussed the title of this article. My conclusion is that possibly "Stasi informers" would possibly be the best title, but that Informal collaborators (East Germany) would be at any rate be more informative than Informal collaborators... it's all at that linked thread. It's a point that reasonable people could disagree on and discuss, and to your credit you have engaged and explained your thinking.
    But you appear to be standing by your point "I am correct, period, and thus justified in rolling back".
    As far as I know, we're only allowed to edit war on WP:BLP grounds. Expanding that to "WP:BLP, and titles with parenthetical elucidation further explaining what the article is about" would be a hard sell I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Born2cycle's move was the first reversion, not the second, given that In ictu oculi changed the article to a different name than the original one. Also, I didn't think my page move was that bold, since putting "(East Germany)" at the end of a name that doesn't require disambiguation is a clear violation of Wikipedia naming conventions. My rename was an obvious fix. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp OK then. "Obvious fix", okey-doke. Herostratus (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus and Agathoclea I can understand your reaction to my choice to revert in this case, but there are a few missing key pieces. I'll copy and update Herostratus's timeline accordingly.
    As I noted below, if it was anyone else I almost certainly would not have reverted IIO's 27 April move so quickly (if at all). It's fallout from repeated similar behavior on his part, and his ignoring repeated reminders that he not engage in this disruptive behavior. Maybe this one time it was arguably a legitimate revert on his part, but given his reputation (read the Support !votes here), I hope my choice is understandable. That said, I hear what you're saying and I'll try to be less hasty next time, even with IIO. --В²C ☎ 00:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: ban In ictu oculi from moving articles without going through RM

    Proposal: Per the above discussions In ictu oculi doesn't recognize or ignores when article moves are potentially controversial and does it often enough for it to be disruptive. In addition, he tends to create unnecessary and trivial dab pages. I hereby propose an indefinite ban on In ictu oculi from moving articles (changing titles) without going through the process at WP:RM.

    • Support as nom. I don't think anything else will stop him from continuing to engage in the disruptive behavior which he has done for years. --В²C ☎ 18:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Too many controversial moves without discussion, concerns have been raised on his talk page for years and no changes. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, having undone some of his controversial/"what the?" moves (most were months ago) myself. Ss112 04:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, largely. Must use WP:RM (including Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves), unless:
      (1) The page is under 100 days old and he is the sole non-minor author.
      (2) The page is in his userspace.
      --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that's reasonable. That would mean he can still create dab pages too, with the (disambiguation) parenthetical. He just can't disambiguate the title of the article at the base name to make room for the dab page at the base name without an RM discussion to establish a lack of primary topic. --В²C ☎ 05:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Bold moves of low-traffic pages has long been considered perfectly acceptable, and this seems to be the case with eivirtually all, if not all, the examples listed above. No page move is controversial until someone opposes it, so the moves in question would only be controversial if IIO was edit-warring over them, or was moving them against the consensus of a previous RM. I know from personal experience that IIO has more respect for discussion and consensus on these matters, and if anytging is overly careful when it comes to following the proper process. I seem to recall an incident from four years ago when I BOLDly moved a page, and a sockpuppet of the banned user JoshuSasori RMed the page back (because IPs and new accounts can't unilaterally undo page moves), and IIO, despite himself, actually supported the RM on procedural grounds, even hough he agreed with my unilateral move on the substance and knew that the OP was a sock. Forgive me if I'm misremembering; I'll find the exact diff if anyone needs it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes @SmokeyJoe: I've dropped in to read them, but what can I do. It's the same couple of editors following me to pages they have no interest or involvement in and hunting for something from 10 months or a year ago to offend among 1,000s of edits. I can't win. If I wait for the templates to readjust and leave a decent period for someone following me to revert then I'm guilty of having not yet made the dab page, if I make the dab page I'm guilty of making the dab page. You can see from B2C's edit history that a substantial proportion of his limited contributions to article space are following my work. With the system being that repeated bites of the cherry will eventually "get" someone, what would you have me do, defend and justify in detail the last 1% of my dab work. Yes I'm tired, but more tired of having B2C's shadow. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait ... what!? What about naming conventions? Our article titles are not all automatically perfect. If they can be improved, they should be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Incessant fiddling of titles, of article urls, in pursuit of the nebulous concept of perfection, especially when by editors with no interest in the actual articles concerned, is disruptive. Fiddling of the title, url, links, lengthy narrow-focus discussions, repeatedly, in the absence of a non-trivial good reason, is disruption. The relevant policy line is found at WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfection is a goal or direction, not a destination that can ever be actually reached. But the alternative to aiming for perfection is not aiming at all, but instead going every which way, haphazardly. It's chaos. And, in the context of WP titles, much more resource and time consuming. In this context we have two very different concepts of perfection: 1) every title meets WP:CRITERIA as well as possible, including concision and being recognizable to those familiar with the topic, or 2) every title is recognizable to everyone, even those who are not familiar with the topic. These two destinations are incompatible. From Chicago we cannot head towards both Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. And if some of us are trying to go to one while others to the other it's not going to be pretty, while those who are fine with staying in Chicago are going to wonder what all the bickering is about. I think trying to make every title recognizable to everyone is too nebulous a destination to even aim for. Not that WP:CRITERIA is perfect! But at least in most cases we get a solid answer out of it. With "make it fully recognizable to everyone" there are a myriad of valid choice for almost every title. It's unworkable. That's why I push us to aim CRITERIA compatibility. It's not perfection, but it's doable. --В²C ☎ 00:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The operative word in WP:TITLECHANGES is "controversial". Nothing there applies to changes that are not already controversial before they are made. WP:AGF takes precedence here; unless it can be demonstrated that IIO probably knew that one or more of his changes would be controversial before he made them, then unilateral BOLD changes are not a problem meriting a formal sanction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have the ban with my exceptions apply to every user. BOLD page moves on old or other people's new pages is at least confronting, and worst disruptive. Better to ask the author for agreement, if they agree it will not be a unilateral bold page move. If it is old, lay out the one paragraph proposal in a formal RM, and encourage non-admins, even if involved, to close and enact all one week old unopposed RM proposals. An articulated rename proposal made after a week is way better that a bold move with no real explanation that anyone can respond to, short of this sort of drama. There are some few expert editors, particularly with DAB pages, who this shouldn't interfere with, but I think it is clear that IIO can attempt everything he wants to do more collegially by using the RM processes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support until demonstrated While it is more work, better to set them up for success by restricting them to RM's then allowing to fail by either doing what they want or preventing them from moving at all. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, unfortunately. This has been a recurring problem for In ictu oculi for many years now, and it appears to be escalating. At the center of this is his idiosyncratic preference that most articles be given parenthetical disambiguation, which conflicts with how most others view the recommendations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DAB, etc. He's been making undiscussed moves to unnecessarily disambiguated titles - and leaving the base name redirecting to the disambiguated form - since at least early 2014.[47][48][49] He's said his intention is to allow others to object before creating a dab page,[50] and to be fair he follows through in many cases, but in many others, the problematic title just remains in place forever.[51][52] I've spoken to him about this,[53] and many others have as well. I've also spoken to him about the fact that when he does create dab pages, he often (almost always) neglects to format them correctly.[54][55][56][57] Unfortunately, In ictu doesn't take such discussions well; he accuses others of following him around, aggressive behavior, picking fights, and even stalking.[58][59][60][61][62][63][64] I take this as an indication that he's avoiding the RM process and just unilaterally making controversial moves to avoid scrutiny. He's told me[65][66] and others not to post on his talk page, so unfortunately dialog isn't going to resolve this issue and further steps are necessary. Considering the vast scope of the problem - there are likely thousands of articles that he's moved to problematic titles - I think it's wise to restrict In ictu's move privileges as proposed. This is unfortunate, as In ictu oculi is a valuable editor when working on article content, but this has been a problem for a very long time. His input will still be valuable to the RM process when he uses it.--Cúchullain t/c 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I once had a similar interaction with In ictu oculi, where my Patliputra Medical College and Hospital page move was reverted by In ictu oculi because it "appeared" to them that there exists another college with a similar name. I requested them to provide a source for the same and after recieving no reply, I reverted their page move. Now having read the thread and gone through contributions of In ictu oculi, I do think the user has an unwanted special affection for disambiguations. I feel the user has good knowlege of the wikipedia policies (including page move policies) but they prefer to game the system. The ban (if imposed) will still allow the user to use their experience and make page moves using RM, while at the same time prevent them from gaming the system. Pratyush (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose All this is trivial in terms of content. WP is edited for our users, and I see no case where the titles would confuse a user; some of the specific ones like Bombay Mail have a reasonable justification . Yes, it's technically against our rules, but with so many real problems at WP, this does not seem worth bothering with. A little more tolerance from others would solve the problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were really trivial, that would be the end of it. But with thousands of these changes every month, over the course of many years, becomes a serious problem for others to clean up. As someone who has devoted much of my time to the RM process so that readers can locate our content, I don't consider the vast amount of time I've spent cleaning up after In ictu oculi trivial. And there's no indication it will stop through our normal mechanisms of discussion and consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 19:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctantly support - Even with the titling mess in general, and even when IIO does a lot of good, I hate to admit that IIO's unilateral moves are becoming more troublesome and tiring. I trust ourselves the community to resolve this matter immediately. --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I do recall this editor in past, unilaterally moving articles from non-diacritics to diacritics titles. These unilateral page moves, seem a continuing pattern. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually incredibly surprised it took so long for anyone to explicitly name the elephant in the room. No, that is the opposite of what happened. Back in the bad old days of the "diacritic wars", several users (now mostly sitebanned; Kauffner, JoshuSasori, LittleBenW...) were going around unilaterally removing diacritics in contravention of Wikipedia's style guidelines. IIO frequently responded by opening RMs to move pages back to their properly (and stably) diacriticized titles. If there were instances of the reverse, I would hazard to guess they were exceptions rather than the rule, and I would need to see evidence to believe otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember him creating many articles (without diacritics titles) and then immediately moving them to diacritics titles. Several years ago, I described IIO as a train gathering speed (partially due to support from others & partially due to little opposition) during those disputes. I suggested that should he come to a sudden stop, it would be a quite a train crash. It appears that 'crash' is now in progress. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait ... so you are complaining about him creating articles with the wrong titles, realizing his mistake, and self-correcting? Who are you to criticize him for that? I thought you had created articles without diacritics in their titles, and had good, PAG-based reasoning for doing so, and IIO had come out of nowhere and moved the articles without discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm continuing to support the proposed page move ban & will not be changing my stance. You're free to continue trying to persuade me to change my recommendation. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as I have interacted with IIO in the past and have a great deal of respect for this editor. I haven't sifted through all the moves in detail, but from what I can see this thread is an over-reaction by B2C. Naturally there will be disagreements among editors about what is best in any given situation, but I see nothing here that merits any kind of ban. IIO and B2C have different views on titling, which is a more complex subject than some would have it. Omnedon (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could be called an over-reaction by B2C, and I think I usually agree with IIO and disagree with B2C on traditional titling battlelines, but here B2C is right. There is a simple principle: When asked to stop doing certain BOLD things, you must stop. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnedon: Actually, opposing this proposal based solely on the principal that IIO is a respectable editor whom you like is not a good idea, as the proposal is not all that restrictive to begin with, and most reputable editors have found themselves subjected to such sanctions at one point or another anyway. I think B2C's actions in this thread have been ... somewhat questionable (honestly I didn't notice it because I was active on ANI and a familiar name showed up -- I noticed it because of the insane number of subheadings), but that also is not the best rationale for opposing the limited sanction. Note that this advice comes from someone who actually is opposed to the sanction, for what it's worth. I think a strong warning about making potentially problematic moves, and perhaps unnecessary disambiguation, would be more appropriate. I'm just speaking my opinion because if I only spoke my opinion when it undermined "support" !votes (see above and below) that would make me a terrible hypocrite. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiriji88, you don't seem to have quite gotten what I wrote; my oppose is not based solely on my opinion of IIO. I have looked and I see nothing here that merits a ban. I've expressed my view here briefly. This does not belong at ANI, and IIO does not deserve a block. That many editors are subjected to sanctions at one time or another doesn't make this acceptable. Omnedon (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The link is malformed, so here you go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BoybandPH naming and Hollyckuhno ([67]). --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It should probably be noted that PogingJuan is lucky he wasn't site-banned for some of the shit he pulled a few months back on a certain BLP talk page and a couple of ANI threads spun out thereof (veiled threats of off-wiki violence, insincere claims that said threats totally weren't meant as the threats they looked like, despite repeated refusal to strike them as allegedly unintended threats). He really shouldn't be !voting to apply sanctions to other editors, especially not based solely on personal opinions and general principals that aren't widely accepted by the community. If Hollyckuhno deserves a TBAN, that's Hollyckuhno's problem, not IIO's. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, after looking into this a bit, I suggest that both plaintiff and defendant be enjoined from moving pages without permission. If not that, then neither should be enjoined, as that implies too much fault for one side in an ongoing squabble where it's not clear where the main fault lies.
    After all no one should be moving pages without a discussion, if there's any chance that someone might object. Both plaintiff and defendant seem to have a tendency to conflate "looks fine to me" with "no one could object" (which is a common human failing). Points against User:In ictu oculi are well taken, but at the same time User:Born2cycle is on occasion a little rigid and sometimes of the mind "there's no dispute here, and we won't have a discussion: I'm just right, is all" when there possibly is reasonable basis for discussion. In fairness to User:Born2cycle he has thought about these issues a lot, and cogently. That doesn't necessarily make him always right though.
    All this is a violation of WP:RELAX as User:DGG points out. I would suggest to all parties that titles aren't that important, as long as the proper redirects and hatnotes are in place. I don't think that that will be taken to heart, though. I honestly don't know know how to solve this difficult and distressing standoff between two veteran, productive, and respected editors. But just an all around reminder as I said: no one should be moving pages if anyone might object, and "anyone might object" should be considered liberally. Herostratus (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus: I understand what you're saying, but I want to reiterate that the problems of In ictu oculi's edits go well beyond any dispute between him and B2C. We're talking about thousands of bad moves and all the problems associated with them: misnamed articles, misleading redirects, hindered navigation, and poorly formatted dab pages, plus all the community time spent cleaning up after (if it's ever cleaned up at all). Individually the issues are minor, but when compounded thousands and thousands of times, despite repeated requests to stop, it's not a minor problem anymore.Cúchullain t/c 14:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe you are right, User:Cuchullain. I just worry that the line between "misnamed article" and "article named differently from what I, personally, would prefer" is getting a little muddied. If I move New Orleans to the The Big Easy, that is a misnamed article. Disagreements about what might or not not be the best way to elucidate or expand on the information in the title, and if so what format should be used... that's a different thing. Herostratus (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus, the point you keep missing or overlooking is that whether expanding a title for elucidation is acceptable is a well known point of contention (or "likely to be contentious" in WP:RM parlance), but IIO regularly makes such title changes unilaterally anyway. I don't. --В²C ☎ 20:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you don't but at the same you reserve the right to, since you refused to agree not to when I suggested it informally as a peace compromise. And I mean look at #Informal Collaborator right above. It was you who was move warring and demonstrating an attitude of "There'll be no discussion, I'm right and that's an end to it" even when IIO's move supporting the original page name demonstrated that there was opposition to your version, from him.
    I mean... if, has been avowed by you and others, IIO just off the reservation, then it is understandably maddening to have to engage him over and over on stuff he's never going to get his way on anyway. However, I'm not convinced it is that simple, is all. Herostratus (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus, I think that's the ticket. The problem seems to have gotten worse lately with Iio making more and more moves of the type that fail when they go to RM or face scrutiny. And there have been some that aren't just misnamed, but are flat wrong (ie this). At any rate, under these sanctions, he'd still be able to propose and discuss any move he wanted through the process.--Cúchullain t/c 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Herostratus, of course I agree to not makes unilateral moves that are potentially contentious, which is all I've ever asked IIO to do. But I reserve the same right that everyone else has to revert undiscussed/unsupported moves (including reverting alleged unexplained/undiscussed "reverts" of well-supported moves made two months earlier, which is what happened at Informal collaborator). IIO has repeatedly demonstrated either an inability or an unwillingness to make distinctions between potentially contentious and clearly uncontentious title changes, and often ignores requests to provide explanation. --В²C ☎ 21:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you don't make unilateral moves, then what's this? I gather that your feeling is "well, that's not really a possibly-discussable move, it's just a correction, like fixing a spelling error". But it's not that simple I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Herostratus, what that is is a revert of yet another unilateral move by IIO that came to my attention when I saw it questioned on his talk page a few days after I opened this AN/I. It was just a few weeks after he deleted (without responding; not even in the comment summary) another reminder from me for him to stop making potentially controversial unilateral moves[68]. Perhaps it's a bit unfair but hopefully understandable: if it was anyone else I almost certainly would not have reverted it so quickly (if at all). It's fallout from repeated similar behavior on his part, and his ignoring repeated reminders that he not to engage in this disruptive behavior. Maybe this one time it was arguably a legitimate revert on his part, but given his reputation (read the Support !votes here)... again, I hope my response is understandable. Does that answer your question? --В²C
        • Yes it does, to some degree. Yes this diff (IIO blanking a talk page thread instead of responding) is something I hate to see (although, heh, you did it to me just recently (no hard feelings)). It may be justified if person feels they were being hectored (which I'm not accusing you of).
    Yes, though, I get it. As a practical matter, it is both human and functional to treat people differently based on their history. You're saying you wouldn't have rolled back if it was someone else... OK. That is reasonable if justified. Whether it is justified I'm not sure. You guys are having a difficult time getting along and respecting each other's point of view, I guess. This I think is a problem that needs to be resolved somehow, and I'm not sure that you "winning" is the best way forward.
    One reason I'm not sure that you "winning" is the best way forward is than on the merits I have have issues with some specifics of your approach to titling in general, and I fear that your "winning" this case will further valorize that point of view... But also, the sight of two veteran, dedicated, able, and highly respected colleagues at loggerheads in the manner distresses me, and I would prefer a win-win to a win-lose outcome. That may not be in the cards, but lose-lose may be the best option available... Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ☎ 23:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Neutral as proposed, but support SmokeyJoe's proposal. As I said above, the move-pattern is just the tip of the iceberg. There are more serious problem with his editing, but they were decided to be off-topic, so I will assume this ban (if applied) will reduce the gaming from his part. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 17:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this user has already way too often renamed pages when unwarranted (particularly to add unnecessary parentheticals) and should at the very least discuss controversial moves before performing them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per all the above. Another important point to remember here: there is no WP:DEADLINE. If an editor believes a page to be at a suboptimal title, it won't kill anyone to wait a week or so for an RM to confirm this. bd2412 T 02:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Truite? Ou boomerang?

    I'm sorry, but the more commentary by B2C I read here and on IIO's talk page, the more I think he/she seriously needs to be taught the importance of WP:CIVIL. I find it incredible that someone who routinely engages in this kind of sniping rhetoric could have been editing for twelve years without a single block. Did this just happen recently? Understanding/misunderstanding policy is one thing, but civility should be a given, and in fact is by far the most important policy on Wikipedia (for good or ill). Everyone gets frustrated/angry from time to time, but I don't see anything IIO did that could explain this. @Born2cycle: do you understand why this kind of comment is inappropriate? Do you regret it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I still disagree with B2C, but to quote Jeremy Barton, "I'm starting to root for this guy". I can definitely sympathize with B2C on some of the details here. So I say WP:TROUT. I can see that consensus is actually moving toward a formal sanction for IIO, and if some of the others (including Cuchullain, who I trust even more than IIO) are right that something has changed about IIO's behaviour since I last interacted with him, sobeit. I can actually accept this because I had essentially the same thought back in 2015 when IIO posted this bizarre and hypocritical attack against me. I'm not withdrawing my opposition to the formal ban, though, as I don't see any evidence that people have tried to convince him to voluntarily pull back. This is just to say that I don't think my TROUT proposal is likely to go anywhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: What about B2C's attempts to challenge the consensus of the "Fabergé egg" articles?
    Your response to the above? George Ho (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be creating a multi-page RM when I have time. --В²C ☎ 16:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hijiri88, regarding the comment you linked above, I'm sorry but I don't see what the issue is with it. This whole AN/I, and at least two others prior to this one (in which I was uninvolved), are all about IIO making undiscussed/unexplained moves much like that one. That is what he does, that's all I said, and it's why I think only prohibiting him from making unilateral moves will resolve it. The examples identified above are just a sampling, there are many, many more. I don't mean to disparage him, but it does no one any good to pretend otherwise. If I'm missing something, I apologize in advance. --В²C ☎ 16:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Born2cycle: Don't question the ability of inexperienced editors to perform non-admin closures of controversial discussions. You'll get repeatedly threatened with a site-ban. Believe me. My experience with this is the same reason I said above that CIVIL is the most important policy, and outweighs all others combined. Ask ArbCom and they will agree -- the highest court in the land doesn't care a lick about content, sourcing, verifiability, original research, or good faith; if you are easily driven to write snide remarks some of the stuff in the diffs above, you need to just follow the Wickedly talented Adele Dazeem's advice and step away, or talk to other users you trust about reviewing closures in your stead, because you're not going to get what you want acting like that. I actually agree that Exemplo was out of line with that close (email me if you want a full explanation why, or look at the contrib history of AlbinoFerret and figure it out for yourself), but you need to know how to express yourself in a manner that those who don't agree will appreciate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you and I really appreciate what you're trying to do here, and accomplishing. Exemplo347, I apologize for questioning your abilities and experience. I've seen it done before (about others in similar situations) and thought it was acceptable and appropriate. But now I'm not so sure, to say the least. --В²C ☎ 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unacceptable behaviour at Template:Infobox royalty/doc

    DrKay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has engaged in a slow, but steady edit-war to impose his version of the documentation at Template:Infobox royalty/doc. Since 15 April he has made essentially the same changes 8 times despite three other editors disagreeing with him. These are the edits, along with his edit summaries:

    1. This parameter is deprecated per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes.
    2. deprecated per RfC, which concluded it should only be used for religious figures. Royalty are not religious figures.
    3. This is the consensus at this page. If you think consensus has changed, go to the talk page.
    4. you have performed three reverts in 24 hours, you may not do so again
    5. This is the consensus at this page. If you think consensus has changed, go to the talk page.
    6. I see no change in consensus on the talk page
    7. I'm not lying.
    8. as agreed on talk

    Note the mistaken and misleading edit summaries:

    Having commented at the talk page and requested an end to the edit-war, I visited DrKay's talk page to see if anyone had already raised the issue with him. I was dismayed to see from the history that he had removed the thread with the edit summary Fuck off, Andy. DrKay has edited Wikipedia for over 10 years and is an administrator. That sort of response to valid criticism is completely unacceptable and indicates to me that DrKay has become too invested in his original mistake to be able to rationally back away from it. I'm therefore requesting that he voluntarily acknowledges that that his behaviour is sub-standard, and that he understands that edit-warring – even without breaching the 3RR bright-line – is not a valid means of reaching consensus. In the absence of such assurances, I request that administrative action is taken to prevent him edit-warring further at Template:Infobox royalty/doc. --RexxS (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Having looked at the edit history at Template:Infobox royalty/doc, I am very disturbed to see DrKay has been edit warring against multiple other editors and has been doing so since 4 April (and accusing others of 3RR breaches in the process while ignoring their own sub-3RR warring). Had I seen the current spate of reverts while it was still active, I would certainly have issued a block. This, accompanied by the uncivil rebuffing of attempts to discuss the matter, is lamentable behaviour from an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my comments here my closure of the original RFC explicitly only applies to {{infobox person}}. The question being asked there was Proposal: Should we remove from {{Infobox person}} the |religion= parameter (and the associated |denomination= one)?, for which there was an overwhelming and policy-backed consensus, but it's clear that only this specific infobox was under discussion, not all biographical infoboxes in general.

      There may well be consensus to remove the religion parameter from all infoboxes and rely on custom text in those instances where the field genuinely needs to be included, but that's not what was up for discussion and to the best of my knowledge has never been formally discussed. Because the topic of infoboxes tends to attract some very obsessive people on both sides of any debate, in my opinion any significant change to practice does require a formal RFC with a formal closure. There's long been a tendency for people to try to bludgeon changes through by bullying the other participants out of discussions, so Wikipedia's usual discuss-until-a-consensus-is-reached approach often fails to function properly in this context. ‑ Iridescent 14:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not trying to "impose my version". I have no strong opinion on the parameter per se. I am merely an administrator trying to implement community consensus. Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter[69] so I am confused by his actions at the template documentation page, and as he has never posted to talk I am still not clear. When I posted to talk it was only to clarify widespread community consensus that whether to use a parameter is decided on a case-by-case basis at each individual article, to which two editors agreed readily (and no-one has opposed). So, again I am baffled by the extreme responses to what should be uncontroversial re-statement of existing norms. I told Andy to fuck off because he was attempting to stoke the embers of Only in death's harassment, which were long since cold. DrKay (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    DrKay, I am extremely close to indefblocking you on WP:CIR grounds here. Since you seem to have missed it despite it being pointed out directly above and explained in detail, Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter is an outright lie; OID was writing in support of removal of the parameter from {{infobox person}} explicitly. If you want an RFC to remove the parameter from {{infobox royalty}}, by all means start one, but don't edit-war to enforce the outcome of a RFC which never took place except in your own head. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DrKay, here's a question I'd really like to ask you at your reconfirmation RfA (because I think you seriously need one), but I'll make do with here for now. If multiple people disagree with your interpretation of consensus and revert you, what are you supposed to do?
    a) Edit war
    b) Discuss
    c) Something else
    Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: CIR is an essay. "Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter" can be easily re-drafted as "Only in death, the main interlocutor, supported removal of the generic parameter"; there is no intention to deceive. Nor was there ever. Your accusation of lying is just another bad faith assumption tantamount to harassment. I'm not starting an RfC because I hold no strong opinion on the matter of whether the parameter is retained or removed.
    @Boing: There is no edit-war. It's over. DrKay (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be over now, but I'm trying to ascertain your understanding of relevant Wikipedia policy and assess your fitness as an admin. So can you please explain what went wrong and how it should have been handled? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there is no misuse of the tools, removing them will be of no benefit to the project.
    I regret saying fuck off, which is out of character, and came about largely because of private events off-wiki involving the ill-health of a third person.
    I have read and understood the comments here and at the template talk page. I will continue to follow the consensus of the community and work collaboratively with others, as I have done on many occasions in the past. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you will not answer my request for you to explain what went wrong in this instance and how it should have been handled? (And I don't mean just the "fuck off"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There sure is a LOT of this type of WP:CIR from administrators these days... Is it at all possible to get a review system going already? --Tarage (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Block them. --Tarage (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surprised no one pinged me on this. Not that anyone wants my opinion but as background - religion is rightly irrelevant for the vast majority of people covered by infobox persons. For royalty it can be a lot more important (despite not being the reason for their notability) as anyone with even a passing familiarity with world history can see. So this started when I reverted the incorrect removal of the parameter from Royalty which had been done by DrKay under (assuming good faith at that point) a misapprehension that the infobox_person applied to all biographical infoboxs. Given the closer has repeatedly explained no it doesnt, and having informed DrKay of this, he kept removing it citing what he knows to be an 'untruth'. I find no benefit in using soft wording in this case with someone who is both experienced enough and intelligent enough to know better. You can be mistaken once or twice (or longer) if no one has explained things to you. After someone has explained something to you in clear English, its no longer a mistake. I removed the royalty infobox from my watchlist after my last revert due to the clear intractability of DrKay (which is why I suspect I missed the ongoing kerfuffle). I am generally not interested in arguing with someone who persists in being wrong. -ninja edit- Just noticed the above 'harrassment' editsum was related to me informing him why he was wrong. I know wikipedia likes to redefine harrassment in strange new ways but that one is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Only in death, a couple of paragraphs above he accuses me of "harassment" for pointing out that his claims that you supported the removal of the religion parameter were untrue. I wouldn't take it personally, this is fairly obviously just general lashing out at anyone in range rather than specifically directed at you. ‑ Iridescent 16:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is completely unacceptable behaviour from an experienced editor, let alone an administrator. At the very least I think we need to be looking at a topic ban of some sort (perhaps from making changes to infoboxes?) but possibly even more than that. Certainly if they continue doing this or make any more personal attacks while this thread is active I don't think we should be overly hesitant to block. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment People like RexxS and {U|Boing! said Zebedee|Boing!}} don't raise concerns about an admin's behaviour (or anyone else's for that matter) without very good reason. Looking at the situation, I must concur. I think perhaps a voluntary re-confiration RfA could be the answer, failing which, an Arbcom case would appear to be the only way to go, even if all it did were to issue a formal adminoshment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I edit-warred. I was rude. I was admonished at a minimum of three separate locations. Who exactly is being disruptive now? Me or the editors demanding a fourth venue? DrKay (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "I edit-warred. I was rude. I was admonished..." And you consider this acceptable behavior for an admin? A dysfunctional admin is, pretty much by definition, more disruptive than a similarly disruptive rank-and-file editor. It's possible, although not at all certain, that a rank-and-file editor who edit-warred and was rude might be formally sanctioned rather than simply being "admonished", and might well need to issue apologies and assurances for good future behavior to forestall such sanctions, or have them removed. Yet you seem not to be apologetic, not to really care if people are worried about your future behavior, and to brush off your mere admonishment as simply your due. You appear to think that an admin is a "super-user" of some kind, a notion that some folks here wish to disabuse you of, and you have essentially ignored them. Do you not perceive the problem here? Can you not see that long-time established editors of sound reputation and good sense are very concerned about your behavior?
    I do not think you can brush this off, I think you must deal with the idea that your integrity and competence as an admin is under serious question from serious people. Please do not minimize this, or disrespectfully characterize it again as "disruption". You have a problem, do not assume it's going to go away by ignoring it -- instead, please attend to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I expressed regret and issued assurances of future behavior above. Your claims that I don't care and think I'm a 'super-user' are not only unjust and unwarranted, they are a distortion of reality that, to borrow a phrase from Iridescent, only exists in your own head.
    This thread is no longer designed to get an apology or assurances of good behavior, because that has already been achieved. Its continuation has some other goal -- one which I have no intention of gratifying. So, if you want that other goal, you will need to go to a fourth venue. DrKay (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And with that reply, basically stating "I'm right, you're wrong, I don't have to stop if I don't want to." I think we're left with no choice but the arbitration committee, unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a misrepresentation of my reply. DrKay (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @DrKay: There is a lot that disturbs me about these latest responses from you. Firstly you say "I expressed regret", but the only instance I can see on this page is this very claim that you expressed regret - if I have missed one, please do point it out to me. (And even then, "regret" is largely meaningless - I have seen nothing remotely like "I was wrong".) (Update: I see from below that the only thing you apparently regret is saying "fuck off". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    Finally, here, you did say "I edit-warred. I was rude", but that didn't come until 3 days after this report was made - during which time you kept insisting you were right until the weight of opinion against you (with not one single person supporting you) became unarguable, and you kept attacking and insulting those in dispute with you. And your admission came only after Kudpung added his opinion that you should run for reconfirmation or be taken to an Arbcom case.

    You singularly failed to answer my question about what you did wrong and how you should have dealt with it, deflecting it with a non-answer about how you will "continue to follow the consensus of the community and work collaboratively with others". And you added a further attack with your edit summary "remove harassment from disruptive editors who find themselves in the minority against a longstanding community decision, and so are attempting to subvert it" when blanking a perfectly good faith discussion of your actions on your talk page (I gave the link, above).

    As you noted yourself somewhere, you have had four blocks since becoming an admin for edit warring. Granted the last one was in 2013 and I would normally consider that too old for consideration now - but your latest edit warring was blatant.

    What I'm seeing here is an insistence that you were right all along coupled with a dismissive and insulting approach to those who question you, some grudging pseudo-contrition now that it appears you might not have got away with it after all, and no real attempt to address these genuine concerns from your fellow Wikipedians about your approach in practice to collaborative editing. If you were not an admin and were to run for it now I think you would get an overwhelming "Oppose", and for that reason I would support an ArbCom report if you do not choose to run for a reconfirmation RfA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "I regret..." (3 days ago, 2 days before the "I edit-warred" post)
    I will not run for a reconfirmation RfA. I don't agree with them, and never have.[70] DrKay (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Orthogonal to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    How long are we going to allow this sort of thing before we get an ability for the community to remove mops? This is not the first instance, and it will not be the last. I am bemused that the same song and dance is occurring over and over again with nothing changing. --Tarage (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A valid question, but not really helpful under the circumstances, since it detracts from the primary question, which is about DrKay's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That "regret" is only "I regret saying fuck off", which was then and is still now nowhere near sufficient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is entirely insufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I and others edit-warred: [71][72][73][74][75][76][77].

    I and others were rude: 'lying''lies''outright lie''untruth'; three euphemistic accusations of lying at my talk page in quick succession:[78][79][80].

    I and the others were wrong, which I have admitted days ago: [81]. There has been no regret or admission of fault from the others.

    There is no misuse of the tools. An arbitration request is an over-reaction to a localized concluded dispute on a trivial point (the parameter was always optional, and remains so). DrKay (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears I need to remind you again, the *only* admission of any wrongdoing in that "days ago" link was of your telling someone to fuck off. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What now?

    So it seems that no further acceptance that their behaviour was unacceptable seems likely to be forthcoming where do we want to go from here? @Boing! said Zebedee, Beyond My Ken, Rexx, Iridescent, Tarage, Kudpung, Only in death, and DrKay: I think that's everyone who has commented on this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC) @RexxS: let's try with an S this time. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • With a raft of admins plus RexxS (who isn't one but who ought to be and doesn't want to be,) having pretty much been generous in not carrying out their threats to block, and other suggesting suggesting a re-run at RfA, DrKay's refusal only really leaves the other path open. Arbcom's not perfect but it doesn't make many mistakes so I suggest we offer the case to them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mountain-molehill. As long as they accept they are *wrong* about the RFC and wont edit-war on similar issues. Anything else is asking for a long drawn-out case. Unless someone has some genuine concerns other than related to this issue of course. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see where DrKay has accepted they were wrong about the RfC - in fact, the "remove harassment from disruptive editors who find themselves in the minority against a longstanding community decision, and so are attempting to subvert it" comment suggests quite the opposite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I might be missing something, but has DrKay acted as an admin at all in this dispute? Were the tools used in anyway by DrKay? El_C 12:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No, but misuse of admin tools is not the only thing that can result in sanctions against admins. There is a chilling effect of admins edit warring while warning others to stop (and this is someone with 4 blocks for edit warring since becoming an admin - blocks which have apparently not taught them anything), and there are other examples of potentially bad behaviour that I'm still considering (and will not publicize here). I think ArbCom would offer a fair look over this, and I think it needs some resolution. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just that there's calls for reconfirmation (and, by extension, desysop); but the tools played no role, thus, adminship does seem like a non-issue here. El_C 13:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: WP:ADMINCOND is something we all agree to follow as admins. And that has little to do with use of the tools. --NeilN talk to me 13:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin, but as an uninvolved editor I think taking this to ArbCom would probably be best. There is no reason for an admin to tell someone to "fuck off", there comes a point when if one gets angry, the best thing to do is to just stop editing. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitration case seems like an overreaction. Admins are humans and are allowed to err. El_C 13:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect" answers "allowed to err" question. I can't speak to if we're all human, being accused of being a robot more than once. --NeilN talk to me 14:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As the originator of this thread, I have to say that at this moment, I think the point has been made to DrKay. I'm sensitive to his admission that his rudeness "came about largely because of private events off-wiki involving the ill-health of a third person." Some of you may understand why this is so. He is a very long-term contributor and, in my humble opinion, remains a net positive to the encyclopedia, despite a predilection to edit-war. We all know how difficult it can be to admit mistakes, and it's rarely productive to ask for an apology, because we all create our own internal narrative of events that justifies our actions. Knowing when to say "sorry" genuinely is the hardest part of self-awareness. Given all of that, my advice would be not to proceed with an ArbCom case. I don't doubt that DrKay will have been given pause to reflect on what has been said here, and I sincerely hope he'll take that with him in his future contributions. --RexxS (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK, I've been thinking about this, and I admit I'm torn. I do think there are behavioural problems and that it's not a one-off (four edit-warring blocks since becoming an admin, which would certainly have been five had I seen the edit war while it was in progress), chillingly warning an edit-war opponent that they can't go beyond 3RR while both were at 3RR, and the rest of it... But, there is the "ill-health of a third person" thing, DrKay most definitely is a big net positive to the project, and I tend to trust RexxS's judgment in such things (notwithstanding my general trust of others' judgments which might be in opposition, aargh). There is another (possibly minor) issue which I have contacted an ArbCom member about to seek clarification, but I'll leave that like that. On balance now, I'm coming down on the side of hoping that DrKay has actually taken note of the requirements of WP:ADMINCOND and what went wrong there (despite the actual lack of evidence that he has), and I would not now recommend an ArbCom case after all and I will not start one - though I won't argue too strongly against it if others wish to do so. Either way, I think this needs to be a "last chance" heads-up on that poor record of edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As much as I appreciate being notified about this again, I have no faith in the current system changing anything. I suspect this will fall into the archives with no actions taken and no close. Par for the course. --Tarage (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This being archiving without a close is exactly what I'm trying to avoid here (and above re SimomTrew). Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempted doxxing / Casting aspersions by Auntieruth55

    No odxxing occured nor was attempted. I still can't find the How-To Disrupt Guide, but admins say it is lame, so there. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) has attempted to apparently link me to an off-wiki account in this post to the WP:MILHIST noticeboard (diff) (revision deleted). This was done as part of an on-going dispute on this board and borders on harassment. Shortly before posting to MILHIST, the editor added a comment to the ANI above (ANI/Boomerang proposal: Topic ban for User:Dapi89):

    • I found a reddit page with all kinds of instructions about how to disrupt wikipedia's efforts to provide some coverage of the German military. I have it bookmarked and I could post the page here, but I'm not sure it would be productive. (diff) I note that the editor chose not to post the link here at ANI, but instead did so at MILHIST.

    For prior comparative attempts, please see ANI archives:

    The user has subsequently removed the link from MILHIST, but not the commentary: There apparently rewards for spiking the project, too. Just saying... but anyone curious about the "reddit link" could retrieve it from the article history. The editor pretty much suggested such on their Talk page, while acknowledging that the link was likely problematic:

    • I was told that it would be like "outing" or harassing someone, so I deleted the link. Sorry. and If you've got the skills, I suppose you could go to the history page.... (diff).

    The user has recently posted commentary across multiple noticeboards targeting me. This post to MilHist apparently refers to me (Unilateral deletions and massive changes of FA articles), but I was not notified: It seems to me that one editor wants these articles to go in a specific direction... (diff). On this thread (Unilateral deletions, edits, etc. of Good and Featured Articles), created at the same time & addressed to me, the user commented:

    • This seems like it has one intent: to drive a specific discussion of WWII pilots in the direction you want. (...) The intent is quite clear.

    There was no response to my question about any specific objections. I thus consider this discussion to consist of unsubstantiated aspersions, while no dialog has been offered. Since then, the editor has found the time to post multiple times to the MilHist thread and this noticeboard.

    The user has previously accused me of conducting a crusade (multiple times) (sample diff), arbitrary editing articles simply because [I] do not like [them] (diff), being disruptive (diff), obstructionist and in defiance of Wikipedia standards ( FLC discussion) and anxious to discredit these previously approved articles! (diff). Please see also: the discussion at NPOVN.

    The editor has continued to do same at the ANI thread linked above, referring to my Talk page posts as a barrage of wiki-rules and wikietiquette and wikipolicies which is allegedly a brilliant use of wikipedia's user guidelines to obfuscate the issue (diff). Also at this ANI, after I've requested the editor to substantiate their claims of me being engaged in incessant bickering, the editor responded with:

    • I refer you to your own posts. This demonstrates incessant bickering. (...) Anyone looking at the history of the pages in question can see it. As for degenerating, the name calling -- whoever does it-- needs to stop. (diff). The editor has not been able to substantiate these allegations, but have not retracted that statement.

    I'm asking the community to please evaluation this pattern of behaviour. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Had Auntieruth55 not themselves removed the material upon being alerted to its nature, I would indeed immediately block. If Auntieruth55 continues to interact in a negative spirit, it will be difficult to consider that posting accidental, and I will block. This should not be taken to preclude whatever action the community might want to take to deal with more general issues involving that editor or others.
    I hope that this discussion and the related ones will be carefully noticed, because after this I do not think anyone involved in these disputes could be considered unaware. Everyone should know that it is considered as very serious misconduct to refer to off-wiki discussions that might even possibly identify another editor; if it rises to the point of harassment, it will almost certainly lead to an indefinite block. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The possible attempted doxxing is not on, and I am glad that auntieruth has removed the material. Anything approaching doxxing must be stamped out. However, the "casting aspersions" idea is just another example of the wikilawyering, pointy behaviour and relentless and TLDR threads by coffman defending his style of editing and complaining about people who don't find it helpful to WP and have told him so. I consider this tendentious behaviour that makes editing unpleasant for other editors, but based on past interactions, I have no hope coffman will stop. I have taken to avoiding most areas being edited by coffman because they are so unpleasant. At some point they have to take some responsibility for the effect that their editing style has on other editors. This complaint (less the doxxing issue) should be ignored. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I wasn't aware that it was one of the undocumented responsibilities of admins to inform others what to take seriously and what to ignore on this noticeboard. I think most of us are mature and perceptive enough to determine what to ignore ourselves, thanks. (In case it's not clear, it seems highly improper for an admin to pick sides by justifying allegations and then making a further attempt to cast stones.) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware that it was one of the undocumented responsibilities of admins to inform others what to take seriously and what to ignore on this noticeboard
    So, you don't hang out here very often then? Or are you conflating "should" with "order"? --Calton | Talk 07:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    what most admins would have done was block, especially because this site has been previously linked to in this connection twice, each time from a different editor. I was in fact considering an oversight block. But I almost never block if I can possibly help it; I prefer to give warnings, and I usually word them as advice. I have no desire to judge the behavior of the different editors here--I explicitly said that just above. I think almost any other admin , upon seeing the previous warning ineffective, would have proceeded to block. But I prefer to think the ed in question here may have been unaware of the seriousness, and I give the benefit of the doubt yet again. I'm not an admin because I want to enforce the rules by sanctioning people; I want to enforce the rules by guiding people, and I'm an admin because the ability to use sanctions if necessary can in practice sometimes make the guidance very much more effective. If I do have to block, I will regard it as a failure. DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The reported incident, about a page mentioned before and reported by the same person before (surprise) clearly was no doxing at all. During the respective discussion several people had brought forward criticism about the project WPMILHIST; and all Auntieruth55 waid that there apparently exists an exterior discussion about the project, too. He didn´t mention Coffmann in that post or the followup; the only "pattern of behaviour" is that he was part of that discussion again, the repeated disturbance of the project's work and the repated reporting by said user. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an editor involved, I didn't ever see the MILHIST post, just what was on the noticeboard, and am the editor Auntieruth replied to on the talk page. (I never saw the final comment about history) If GELongstreet is right, than there is no doxxing involved. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The material involved had been oversighted twice in the past. I agree with DGG that the initial removal suggests this was unintentional, but the talk page reply to L3X1 on her talk page is the definition of trying to get around our rules on outing and harassment. Telling a fellow editor how to see material that has been deemed oversightable in the past is not okay. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've struck part of my statement above based on the replies here. I agree with DGG and Peacemaker that anything approaching doxing by linking off-wiki accounts is not good, but think it was done without malice in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    response from Auntieruth
    • I'm the editor who posted the reddit link and when I was told that it was not a done thing, I immediately removed it. Never heard of "doxing" (still not sure what it is). While doing some online research about the sources involved in the content dispute that underlies the discussion, I discovered an exterior discussion of our ongoing conversation (about military personnel in the Nazi era) with detailed instructions on how to get involved, how to use wiki guidelines against wikipedia, and generally how to disrupt the military history project. The instructions were not just detailed, but outright invitations to confound the project, and contained links to the intro to wiki pages. There was also considerable ridicule of our good faith efforts, some self promotion about a vandal's cross (which I've never heard of), and instructions on how to get involved in sabotaging the project, starting with WWII German Luftwaffe bios. Some editor--I don't know who it was (well, I know the reddit name, but will not mention) --had actually bragged about the disruption that he or she was causing, and named at least 2 wikipedia editors by user name. If this is being done by (an)other wikipedia editor(s), then I wonder if it is violation of WP:NOTHERE because said editor(s) would clearly not be here to build an encyclopedia but to promote an agenda and for self-aggrandizement. Is this something that should be investigated? If so, not by me. It needs someone higher up in the food chain, with higher pay grade, and seriously better internet skills.
    • As for posting instructions from me to another editor on how to find "stuff", that's laughable. You can refer to conversations that are still ongoing in a previous ANI complaint (I cannot find it) that I am basically clueless about how to post differences. Eggishorn actually questioned whether I intended to post the differences I posted, and s/he is right, I'm not sure. When I get it right, it's sheer luck. I should take some lessons from a few people here.
    • As a WPMILHIST coordinator, I'm very willing to help develop guidelines on "reliable sources" for potentially contentious material but I am not willing to do this in the face of a phalanx of editors with an agenda to limit the project's scope and subject matter. auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, given that nothing posted in any of the relevant Reddit threads contain personal or identifiable information, I fail to see how this even remotely approaches doxing. I say this as someone who has actually been doxxed, to the point of having harassing material sent to my place of work. Which is to say, let's not pretend this is anything more than it is. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to agree—I've just wasted a chunk of my life I'll never get back reading the thread in the Link So Serious It Needed To Be Revdeleted to see what all the fuss was about, and there's not a whiff of outing, doxing etc anywhere that I can see. ‑ Iridescent 15:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Auntieruth55, I accept your explanation that the link was not posted with malicious intent. However, the on-going pattern of casting aspersions still concerns me. For example, could you please point to the phalanx of editors with an agenda?
    It seems the only editor that the MilHist coords are concerned about is my person, while anyone who happens to agree is part of a "tag team". Please see the other ANI thread on this board, where one such claims remains unsubstantiated: User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel &Boomerang proposal: Topic ban for User:Dapi89.
    Likewise, the only disruption that has been mentioned before is me again: We need to deal with this. Coffman is disrupting what I thought was a resolved issue, this time at the Featured level diff. Please also indicate how I've attempted to limit the project's scope and subject matter. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit surprised I wasn't notified of this discussion given that it touches on one of my admin actions (revision deleting the edit under discussion here after I was alerted to it by email). I didn't think it was necessary to block or admonish auntieruth given that she'd removed the link as soon as the problems with the edit were brought to her attention. As auntieruth is is by any standards an editor in good standing (elected Military History project coordinator, lead editor of multiple FAs, clear block log, etc) it appeared to me to be an error rather than anything malicious. In retrospect I guess I should have also left a note about this on her talk page. I'd suggest that the editors involved with the underlying dispute here (the representation of Nazi German military people) take a time out, and resume with some kind of centralised discussion rather than having it out article by article given that the current pattern is inflaming things and leading to disagreements among a group of excellent editors. 09:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

    Who wrote this? An extra tilde was typed. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Nick-D did.[reply]
    This should be closed, clearly Auntieruth55 did not post the link with any malicious intent and as pointed out above, removed the link herself after being told it was not appropriate. Kierzek (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, posting a link that contains no personal information is not doxing. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Senor Freebie

    I feel that this editors use of edit warring/WP:STICK, drama/reality perception, and accusations of personal attacks have not improved since their previous blocks for this behavior.

    See history leading to previous blocks at Talk:Battle_of_Brisbane and [82].

    Drama/reality perception:

    Personal attack allegations:

    The content disagreement would be solvable without the behavior issues; the article needs a lot of work but it is not going to be fixed with mass blanking and hyperbole.

    Notified [88]. VQuakr (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Borderline personal attacks

    I don't know if this is the right place, or even if these are really personal attacks, but I am not happy with them, so I'd like to ask for outside input on how to deal with this, if at all. 112.211.214.39 (talk · contribs), who seems to be the same editor as Deisenbe (talk · contribs), although I stress the word "seems", first wrote this, which is still arguably okay, and then this, which I think is not okay any more. In the first edit he seems to claim rabbis don't know their stuff, while in the second edit he seems to make generalizations about rabbis and for unclear reasons makes incorrect assumptions about the ability of rabbis to edit Wikipedia. Are these edits okay or are they personal attacks? What, if anything, should I do about them? Debresser (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not that anonymous editor and have no idea who he is. What SPECIFIC TO ME are you objecting to?deisenbe (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Read what I wrote above regarding the second edit. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this edit was inappropriate, in at least two ways. I have closed the discussion and asked Deisenbe not to do it again. John (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There needs to be zero tolerance for that kind of attack. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a mild aspersion, not a blatant personal attack. John's post on Deisenbe's talk page struck the right notes. --NeilN talk to me 23:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Technically, those comments are not personal attacks, as they are addressing article content issues. The fact that they place those content issues at the feet of a particular user and are written in a manner that appears to address one user in an overly hostile manner on an article talk page means that they are at least uncivil, but (assuming Debresser actually is engaged in the kind of problematic editing mentioned in the linked diffs) they still do not rise to the level of personal attacks. And when one isn't sure whether something is meant as a personal attack or not (as the OP certainly appears not to be), the first stop should not be ANI. Debresser's first step should have been to reflect on whether there is merit to claims like you constantly look at written sources from long ago, and all but ignore what is going on today and Your claim that I should not have restored Catholicism because of talk page discussion is self-serving. The opposition is from you and only you. No one on the talk page supports you. You're the one being disruptive. and then, if one determines that they are indeed unjustified ad hominem remarks, request that they retract them. Debresser's first and only edit to Deisenbel's talk page before notifying them of this ANI discussion was more than two years ago. I don't see any need for admin action here, especially now that John has already done Debresser's job and asked Deisenbe to focus on content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did check myself to see if the accusations were correct, which they were not. Both of them. Remains only what you call incivility, and I called it in the header of this thread "borderline personal attack". I came here to ask for other editors' opinions, not asking for sanctions, and that has been clear to all here, so I think the claim that WP:ANI should not have been my first stop is not justified. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued exhibition of prejudice not acceptable on Wikipedia: Deisenbe opened a thread about the underlying content issue at WP:DRN. In that thread he again emphasizes the fact that I am a rabbi, and shows unacceptable prejudice against religious Jews. Please review the text, and decide for yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it perplexing that a user with multiple religious affiliation userboxes, including self-identification as a rabbi, complains when another editor says, "they are a rabbi." If you do not want your religious affiliation and position to be part of your wiki-identity, you could leave those off. If you do want them to be part of you wiki-identity, then I would expect other editors to interpret your postings in light of that self-identification. I see nothing in Deisenbe's posts referred to that say something like: "Rabbi's opinions are invalid because they are a rabbi." They are, rather, complaining more that "Rabbi thinks other opinions about Judaism are invalid because they do not match Rabbi's teachings." I don't think Deisenbe has substantiated that position, but unless I messed something, that is not the same as saying Deisenbe has made unacceptable religious-prejudice PAs. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with everybody knowing I am a rabbi. I do have a problem with an editor who says that because I am a rabbi, therefore I am not open to discussion, and implying basically in almost as many words that I can not be a good editor on Wikipedia because I am a rabbi. Because that is how I interpret "Its position, and his, is that Judaism is totally defined by texts from centuries ago. What Jews do or think about Judaism in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is to him irrelevant. He is totally inflexible and will not compromise on anything.". Not to mention that this statement shows him to be rather ignorant of Judaism and its teachings. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Their comment was a violation of the widely-ignored principle, "play the ball not the man" (which is not to say that it violated WP:NPA). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser:, thank you for the clarification. I would say you are partially justified in your interpretation but the end result is still in line with Mandruss's statement. That is, interpreting those statements as ".. because I am a rabbi, therefore I am not open to discussion.." is reasonable. It is, I feel obliged to say, slightly bizarre to anyone who knows anything about the tradition of Talmudic debate that Deisenbe seems to imply a rabbi is not open to discussion. That said, I don't think the interpretation of "...implying...that I can not be a good editor..." is justified by Deisenbe's statements, especially in the light of AGF. Not that my non-admin opinion has any intrinsic worth or influence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to allow for the notion, that I may be exaggerating. That is precisely why I came here, to ask for input, as can be seen from the careful header of this section. At the same time, I do think that Deisenbe's edits over the years, which I quoted below, make the case for a prejudiced editor with possibly a personal ax to grind with Orthodox Judaism. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I commend your care and I believe my answer above addresses that specific concern. I see another issue here of good faith, though. That is one of making assumptions about another editor's beliefs. Beliefs about beliefs, as it were. Deisenbe apparently believes that you believe secular Jews are not Jews at all. You apparently believe Deisenbe believes Haredi Jews are not qualified to edit on religious edits due to a minority and restrictive viewpoint. Both of these positions (assuming my beliefs about both beliefs about the corresponding beliefs (whew!) are correct) are not assuming good faith and should be abandoned. If that makes any sense at all outside my head. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I differ with that interpretation of AGF. Good faith goes to one's honesty and integrity, full stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe I have a prejudice against "religious Jews", whatever that means. Religious Jews are welcome to write whatever they want about their religious beliefs or practices. What I object to is Debresser's intolerance of any other variety of Judaism. deisenbe (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if your assumption that I am intolerant is based on the claim that I don't consider non-Orthodox Jews - Jews, then I simply have no idea where you dug up so much horseshit. You seem to know less about Judaism than you think I do about Christianity. :) Debresser (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    He continues with completely off-limits questions on my talkpage, asking me to clarify my religious points of view.[89] Debresser (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to point out that there were four earlier discussion on that same Talk:Judaism and sexuality talkpage in which Deisenbe disagreed with me, from 2014, 2015, 2015 again, and one more in 2015, and then too Deisenbe tried to play the "you are a Haredi Jew and rabbi and have a rigid POV" card.[90][91] The second diff is especially informative. This editor seems to have a clear allergy against Orthodox Jews, but he shouldn't play that card to try and get his way on Wikipedia. Especially telling is his post "This article is about Judaism and sexuality. But what is Judaism?", which reads more like his personal credo than as a serious discussion. In short, this editor, and this editor alone is trying to push his personal conceptions and points of view, and is apparently frustrated that I disagree with him. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Recommend stern warning: The diffs in the OP strike me as pretty typical "pushing the envelope" that people tend to do online when approaching a sensitive topic; rather than going full bore with the first post they tend to begin by vaguely mentioning the topic they want to address, and if nobody picks up on it, mention it again in a more focused manner. In normal situations this is a good thing, and indicative that an editor is sensibly attempting to avoid derailing the discussion by triggering controversy. Here, it is not, because it indicates the poster was seeking to make an issue of Debresser's status as a Rabbi to impugn, improperly, Debresser's opinions as biased or clouded by his POV. While there are some circumstances where it might be appropriate to suggest another editor check his or her POV based on his or her qualifications (this happens a lot in the ALTMED arena, though often in far too aggressive a manner), I believe it is highly inappropriate here because any reasonable editor should know that bringing up another editor's identification or life experiences as a Jew in arguing against that editor's participation anywhere is all but certain to trigger controversy, destabilize discussion, and bring the encyclopedia into disrepute. Honestly, from the "pushing the envelope" I discuss above, I believe it's fair to infer that the editor had actual knowledge that bringing up Debresser's identity bore a high risk of destabilizing the discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the editorial process requires collegial interaction in order to resolve disputes. Arguments directed towards an editor's person are generally not helpful, even where another editor might have brought up his or her qualifications or identity first. Editors must strive to resolve disputes on the merits, and avoid conduct that is likely to seriously interfere with another editor's ability or willingness to participate on Wikipedia. Arguing about another editor's Jewish identity as pertaining to his or her ability to constructively contribute to an article, even an article about Judaism, is inappropriate. I believe Deisenbe should be given a stern warning, perhaps a final warning, with it noted that repetition should result in a topic ban or siteban.

      I believe this is the proper outcome even if we assume the anonymous editor is not Deisenbe, because Deisenbe's comment here, which specifically argues about Debresser's identity as a Haredi Rabbi as interfering with his ability to participate in the discussion, is itself unacceptable within the framework I discuss. Any reasonable editor should know better than to make this sort of argument because of the extremely high risk of destabilizing and derailing discussion. This is precisely why we have WP:NPA: Personal attacks, even if made alongside meritorious arguments, run an unacceptably high risk of derailing discussions and alienating editors. The same is true about arguments targeting an editor's personal identity. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And another one: Seraphim System

    Please see this edit. Saying "Since you self-identify as a rabbi, this does not appear to be a good faith mistake". Same talkpage, same issue, same pattern of hasty reverts that are not justified by policy. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I don't see anything uncivil about that edit. An isolated and explained departure from AGF is nothing out of the ordinary. ANI also isn't the place to complain about each and every "borderline personal attack" that comes one's way. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On the same page and about the same issue. That is not a departure from good faith. That is another editor catching on the prejudice of the previous editor. Which is precisely the reason prejudice should be fought from the very beginning. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point I would suggest WP:BOOMERANG for accusing editors of personal attacks when the comments are about content - since User:Debresser claims subject matter expertise, his use of a single cherry-picked quotation to insert his extraordinary POV claim without adequate sourcing appears to be outside the bounds of good faith. My comment was intended to be a civil warning about what this may look like to others. It is not acceptable to promote your own religious POV by inserting indequately sourced WP:SYNTH. We have asked him to provide additional balancing sources, and this is the second time he has responded by filing a AN/I complaint. Seraphim System (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is one suspicious usage of the word "we"...
    I refuted the WP:SYNTH argument on the talkpage. Please don't turn this into a content dispute.
    The statement is not POV, and nobody has suggested it is. Not till now at least. May I also remind you that the statement was in the article for a long time (since the very creation of this article in 2010!) without any opposition at all, even before I added a source to it.
    I added a source to a statement that was previously unsourced. I disagreed with you on the talkpage that the source is not good enough. Especially since one of your arguments against that source is that it is written by a rabbi! At the same time, that too is a content issue, and if you would find consensus for that opinion on the talkpage, then I'll try and find a better source. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the one bringing content disputes to AN. Rabbis are not experts in Christian theology, but besides that the source is being misrepresented to insert POV. You are incorrect in your assumption that all forms of Christianity share the same view about sex and original sin - Quakers are one example. I was only trying to politely bring your own bias to your attention.Seraphim System (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is another incorrect statement from you. I did not bring any content dispute here, just the behavioral one.
    I also did not say that "all forms of Christianity share the same view about sex and original sin". I said that it is true for Christianity in general. As it is. With notable exceptions (you mentioned Quakers), which surely fall outside the scope of that article per WP:UNDUE. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you actually did say that [[92]] - not to mention you keep restoring a section that is WP:SYNTH and fails verification based on the quote provided. As other editors have pointed out, most likely Rabbi Gold's quote is about the development of doctrine in a particular context, which you have left out. As a subject matter expert, you should be more sensitive to most to the fact that religious doctrines have at times diverged, split into new sects. You can not just say something is true for basically all of Judaism and all of Christianity - again you need a source for this, if you are using it as a reason for inclusion, which you are. You can not just ask all editors to simply accept your subject matter expertise. Maybe this is a good faith mistake, because sometimes subject matter experts can be too reliant on their own expertise on an issue. But we could have had this discussion on talk, instead of here at AN. What I said certainly wasn't meant as a personal attack, and I don't really think an AN complaint was necessary to resolve this.Seraphim System (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I am sorry if you felt this was a personal attack or thought I was unwilling to discuss this with you, I absolutely value input from editors with different POV and sources with different POV. What I think is a problem is that you feel it is a "personal attack" when editors try to point out how your POV may be influencing your analysis and that you can't see the point other editors are trying to make about the current wording of the section, and that you don't see the problem with representing the opinion of a single scholar as a fact about "all of Judaism and all of Christianity" Seraphim System (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I indeed maintain that I do not have a POV on this, and that my opinion is the opinion of experts in this area. Which is why I added a source, to show I am right. Just now I added another 3, all stating clearly the same thing. You and Deisenbe have not shown a single source apart from a medieval Christian primary source which is limited to Catholicism alone. So who is the one who is looking only towards ancient sources, and not willing to be flexible? The fucking chutzpe of the two of you to accuse me of your own faults! And to use the fact that I am an Orthodox Jew as an argument against me, where the intellectual integrity of rabbinic Judaism stands opposed to the oppressive and dogmatic practices of the Christian Church! Now you really got me mad. Anyway, editors here will judge the behavioral issues with more detachment than I. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this wasn't a personal attack. I do think, however, it could have been better phrased in light of the above complaints. In part it reads to me like the fairly standard argument that another editor's conduct has pushed good faith to the limits. Most of us do this, and though it's probably not very productive when we do, it's not a personal attack. Moreover, the reference to Debresser's status as a Rabbi does not render it a personal attack given the context. The intent clearly was to say in light of the education and knowledge Rabbis possess, it stretches good faith to assume that Debresser fully agrees with the implications of the claim Seraphim System asserts to be incorrect. But, as I said, I think it could have been phrased differently, or better yet, simply left alone. As I say above, every reasonable editor should know better than to level criticism at another editor on grounds including or resembling protected class characteristics. But in this case, I think it's qualitatively different than the statements made in the section above. I also believe Debresser might have done better to ask for redaction before coming here. Rarely is an ANI thread or subthread started within minutes of an incident productive, and they often could have been resolved by discussion. I admit this is difficult to ask of an editor who believes he or she has been maligned on account of his religion, but I think that goes to whether a BOOMERANG should lie, which it should not. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring with 3RR violation

    He is also edit warring about this, the discussion on the talkpage and this thread notwithstanding.[93][94] Debresser (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point I think WP:BOOMERANG is necessary to prevent further disruption from User:Debresser bringing content disputes to AN/I or at least a warning that further frivolous complaints will result in a block. Seraphim System (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Aren't you edit warring? You did it again, making a 4th revert in 24 hours, violating WP:3RR.[95] In view of his neglect of the ongoing discussion and this threat, I propose an immediate block. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed citations without removing content here [96][97], and I edited to better reflect the quote provided, which is about medieval Christian writers, and also corrected his typos [98] , and added a quote from a 13th c. Rabbi [99]. I don't think this is edit warring. I felt in this case I provided edit summaries that were detailed enough that it was not necessary to repeat them on the talk page. I made some changes incrementally to provide policy justifications for each one that could be discussed on talk - editing to improve an article should not be construed as edit warring where an editor is acting in good faith. These were normal edits (removing unnecessary stacked citations without removing content, fixing typos, and improving content that was restored without removing it) Debresser has reverted without giving any reason 4 times. I count 3 reverts on my part, and 4 from Debresser, noting that he even restored the original typos instead of constructively editing and accused me of "removing" information where I had simply added more information from the source instead of reverting his edit [100] [101] [102] [103] Seraphim System (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser, you've broken 3RR as Seraphim documents above. Seraphim, you've also broken 3RR: first revert (appears to be a partial revert falling within 3RR), second revert, third revert (a partial revert made part of several consecutive edits), fourth revert. Page protection may be appropriate here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mendaliv: The first diff was, I think, my first edit to the page - how is that a revert? As Debresser said that had been there since 2010 - we don't usually count that as a revert (at least I was told by admins in AE that this kind of removal does not count as a revert ie. If I remove content from a page, and it is restored, this is not a violation of the consensus clause because my first removal is not be counted as a revert) - Are you sure you linked to the right diff? Seraphim System (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I just noticed, that after his 4th revert, I also reverted. In any case, undoing both 4th reverts would bring us back to the same version we presently have, so apart from apologizing and saying I hadn't noticed it, there's not much I can do. Frankly I am taken aback a bit by this editor, who edit wars in disregard of ongoing discussion both on the talkpage and here. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)As you correctly say, you removed a reference with the edit summary "WP:UNDUE again this is only one persons opinion".[104] What does WP:UNDUE have to do with one reference out of four? That was an unjustified edit if ever I saw one. I don't even begin to understand the reasoning behind it without assuming bad faith.
    Then again you admit you removed a reference with the edit summary "the article doesn't provide author's name or sources for that statement".[105] So what of it that the article's author isn't indicated? So what of it if the article doesn't indicate a source. The article itself is the source. Another unjustified edit par excellence.
    The worst thing is that you make all these incredible edits while there is a talkpage discussion and a WP:ANI thread open. Have you no fear? Debresser (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also would not count Seraphim's first edit (22:06 May 1) as a revert, that material had been there for a long time. The other three (23:16, the four between 17:23 and 17:47 today, and 18:19) clearly are. Debresser has reverted four times (22:11 yesterday, 10:48, 18:01, 18:32). Debresser, I would strongly suggest you self-revert the last of your edits. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit removed content that was removed in the preceding weeks by others, see this edit and the many other edits to that paragraph in the preceding two weeks, and Seraphim System was aware of that, as his previous involvement on this article and his involvement on the talkpage prove. So it definitely counts as a revert, the first of his four. Black Kite, please be more careful before you make strong recommendations. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, as I already argued above, how else can I protect an article from an editor making edits ignoring the talkpage discussion? Not that I did this on purpose, I made an honest mistake, and I maintain he was the first to violate 3RR and reverting both edits now would no change anything, but still, the fact that I am dealing with an editor who makes unjustified edits while ignoring the discussion and warning on his talkpage and here, has to work in his disadvantage and my favor. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm...no I wasn't. I had never even seen that article before you posted your ANI report last night. I saw the POV template, and saw that on the talk page others had taken issue with balance problems and tried to address that particular issue, at which point you it turned into a WP:BATTLEGROUND with repeated reversions without any policy justifications given. Above you say So what of it that the article's author isn't indicated? So what of it if the article doesn't indicate a source. The article itself is the source. WP:RS provides a lot of suggestions for how to evaluate secondary and tertiary sources (or maybe it is primary? - the point is an article that does not provide sources is not a secondary source) - Any decisions I made were entirely based on Wikipedia's core policies. Per WP:ONUS the burden to justify inclusion is on you. I don't think the fact that you have had problems with other editors on this page should be construed as reflecting favorably on your conduct here. That said I know very little about prior conflict on the page besides what was discussed last night here at AN (and that only generally, please do not take this to mean I dug up every diff that could possibly be relevant - if I am required to engage in article archaeology before making good faith edits, please let me know and I will be sure to do this from now on.) Seraphim System (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I came here only for the behavioral issues: mention of the fact that I am a rabbi in a disparaging way and edit warring. The statement in question has been in the article since 2010 and now has 4 good sources, and all objections I have shown that they are not even a matter of opinion, but simply incorrect according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If Seraphim System can refrain from removing things till such time as he can show a clear consensus based on arguments that actually make sense, and he and Deisenbe can acknowledge that their disparaging mentions of rabbis (both me and the rabbi who was quoted in one of the sources) are not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia, then we can consider closing this thread. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PerfectlyIrrational aka User:EthnicKekistan

    Remember PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs) from here and here? His sole focus, unsurprisingly, has been on White nationalism topics, ginning up thin articles on non-notable figures and organizations (Colin Robertson (activist), Lana Lokteff, Identity Evropa) and on "riots" before they even happen (2017 Patriots Day Riot, 2017 Auburn Riot.)

    Now, he's ginned up another one -- 2017 Pikeville Protests -- and the only thing he seems to have learned is to not begin with "riot". I really really don't think he's here to build an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is pretty sad that you recklessly and falsely accuse me of being a white supremacist based on your personal instinct. If you had paid attention, it was simply a misnaming of the subject at hand due to unreliable firsthand news reports, along with the fact that I didn't know how to move the article at the time. The Pikeville rallies are well-documented and reached the top of multiple mainstream news today. Not everyone who edits articles about controversial topics supports the controversial topics within.
    I'm assuming this is well-intentioned, but I would of preferred you spoke to me privately instead of publicly accusing me of being a white supremacist. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...instead of publicly accusing me of being a white supremacist
    And I would prefer you not make things up, since I did no such thing. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been here two weeks, made 324 edits, 257 of which are in article space, 25 of which have been deleted (mostly articles he's created), and been reverted thirteen times. He's a major contributor to the 2017 Berkeley protests, Brittany Pettibone, Alt-Right and even one of the larger contributors to PewDiePie. Do you have any complaint besides the editor's choice of work area. If no, close immediately. If yes, is it substantially more concerning then; he has a secret agenda to promote white nationalism. Yes, he's doing a tremendous job promoting white nationalist organizations as ... well, white nationalist organizations. Really, the most gauling thing in that edit is that he's used buzzfeed as a source. Which is controversial, been relitigated many times at WP:RSN and at last check was good enough. My opinion; we should not block, ban, or otherwise revoke editing priviliges from any editor for choosing to edit in a controversial topic area just because it's a controversial topic area. If there's a problem with the articles he's creating, knock him off to AfC or TBAN him from creating articles. I don't think there is, as yet, a problem with their article creations. They are a brand new editor. I have limited expectation of competency by week two. Eight articles created with two currently deleted and two redirected is not a great record admittedly. There is, however, nothing that I have seen from the links presented above to say that he's not here to contribute. This is the second time that you have brought a case to AN/I about EK/PI. Note that I'm mighty suspicious of this new editor's intentions was the opening statement you made on the last one; the community decided that concerns over the username were, however, merited. At this point in time, I am not convinced (at all) that this is worth administrator time to intervene in. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any complaint besides the editor's choice of work area.
    Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote instead of making something up. It'll give you a better handle on things. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the second time that you have brought a case to AN/I...
    So? You yourself admitted -- though you buried the lead and someone else obscured the issue by censoring my original heading -- that my complaint had merit. So the point of whinging about how this is "second time" I've brought this to ANI is what, exactly, other than FUD? --Calton | Talk 05:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Calton, you accuse me of failing to read what you wrote, then proceed to fail to read what I did. Case in point; You yourself admitted ... my complaint had merit. I did no such thing. I said the community decided that it had merit. I personally, and you can find this on the public record, do not think that the RfC/U was merited. Furthermore, the community did not find your filing to be merited, but, held a general concern over the username itself. Your first case at AN/I was to comment about an editors name, then cast an aspersion about their motivation for editing and then ask whether you were being overly sensitive. It was somebody else's idea entirely to go to the RfC/U noticeboard. That something came about from your first complaint, does not entail that your complaint specifically was merited. I don't know what FUD is, I'm guessing that it's Fear, uncertainty and doubt. No idea what relevance that holds.
    Secondarily; the sum of your new AN/I filing is IMHO one of two things. Either (almost inconceivable) 1. You're not satisfied with the articles that PI is writing and have concluded therefore that PI is NOTHERE. Or (far more likely) 2. You've noticed a pattern of contributing to white nationalism topics, including creating articles many of which are subpar, and are propping up your unease with a NOTHERE argument. Now, and I repeat myself but with expansion for clarity, [d]o you have any complaint besides the editor's choice of work area, one which is not self-evidently borne out of your unease at their contributing solely to such a topic, but, have not provided satisfactory evidence to suggest that they are a white nationalist, a propagandist, or a NOTHERE editor. Any of which, I would posit, could be rationally argued to be a cause to block. None of which, I do not think, has been demonstrated as yet. If you hold concerns, which I can understand (if you would believe that), then feel free to monitor their contributions. I still think you should leave them alone personally, but, I am in no position to give commands. However, there should not be any action taken without some cause beyond personal "gut feeling". If it isn't clear; I am less concerned about what you "really really think", I care only that you are now twice dragging an editor to a noticeboard for no discernible reason besides your gut instincts hiding behind the veneer of lacklustre content. I am requesting a centilla of evidence that they are genuinely not here to contribute (sub-par articles and a focus on one topic is not evidence of NOTHERE; CIR with regards to article creation maybe but we're not at that juncture yet). I have already advocated that no action be taken and this thread closed. I stand by that recommendation regardless of whether you think my "less than one and a half years" tenure is sufficient to make one as such. Now, if I am grossly mistaken on any of my comments, please tell me what and where and I will endeavour to correct myself. I'm not entirely sure that you care about me doing that, I'll endeavour to do it anyway. I also note Evergreenfir's comment down below about disruption, I'll look for it and if I find anything I'll post it here. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I've gone through their talk page as well as several complete articles where they are editing. Most of the notifications on their talk page are about deletion requests. Two are about RfC/U. A number of notifications are concerns over specific edits (including two false flags) and one, the most pertinent one, is about a recent edit-war over an infobox at 2017 Berkeley protests in which five people were involved. Though only PI hit the 3RR mark and risked a block. Never a good sign for a new editor to have that many notifications on their page so soon. That said, their conduct on article talk pages and generally in the articles I've gone through isn't really disruptive, contrarian and somewhat clueless sure. The edit-warring is the single most pressing issue and even the warnings for vandalism are on closer inspection not an accurate summation of the facts. The "fuck Antifa" edit was bad though, even if deferring to intent. That's all I've found. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr rndude: I'm uncertain if you're speaking ironically or not. If PerfectlyIrrational is "doing a tremendous job promoting white nationalist organizations", then he needs to be told to stop, immediately. See WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV. If he's only been here two weeks, he probably shouldn't be editing articles in a controversial topic area, let alone creating them: see WP:CIR. We may be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but that doesn;t mean that just anyone should edit in certain areas unless they have a good deal of experience under their belts, have good judgement, and aren't here to promote an agenda. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of the article Lana Lokteff, could an admin please check to see if the current article is substantially like the one that was speedy deleted in March? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies BMK, I forgot that sarcasm and irony dont translate well in text. Yes, I was being ironic. I dont see an agenda or promotionalism in their contributions. Thus, I have zero reason to think the accusation of nothere to be merited. Hope thats shorter and clearer. I disagree with your assessment of where one should edit. There are different learning curves for different topics, to be sure. However judgement and experience are completely separate. Much experience does not mean good judgement and of course vice versa little experience does not equate to poor judgement. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's why I said that one should have experience, good judgment, and no agenda to edit in sensitive areas. It appears to me that PerfectlyIrrational is missing at least the first two of those, and possibly the third as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The odor of footwear is strong, to be blunt. But without an SPI, not much to do there. This user, however, had been informed of the WP:ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions. Given their disruptive actions in that topic, remedies like a topic ban under your discretionary sanctions seem appropriate. If this user is truly "here", they'll edit constructively in other areas. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Who or what is EthnicKekistan? User or otherwise. It sounds familiar, but I can't place the reference. El_C 06:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C: was a recent user but the name is in reference to the 4chan /pol/ meme kek. The name was on RFCN recently too. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase 'kek' originated on World of Warcraft, where Alliance and Horde characters were not allowed to communicate, and thus their text was shifted. lol became kek when viewed from the other party. --Tarage (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: See recent discussion at RFC/U. Funcrunch (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    WP:HOUND

    User:The Banner His focus on FFA P-16 is obvious. He suggests articles from FFA P-16 for deletion for example Bucher aircraft tractor while he ignores similar articles in case their not from FFA P-16. He even started a Sockpuppet investigations on me and FFA P-16 although several others told him that we're clearly not the same person (see there). We both asked him to stop following FFA P-16 (see WP:HOUND and Stop Wikihounding me! with no success. --MBurch (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I was assuming good faith when I posted my first several comments, but as it turns out, when one looks at The Banner's edit history a bit more closely, he posts AFDs on an almost daily basis, so the claims that his focus on FFA P-16 is obvious and he ignores similar articles in case their not from FFA P-16 are demonstrably false. The only one who is "obviously focused" on hounding one particular editor is User:MBurch, who has barely made a single edit not related to The Banner in months (his edits to de.wiki are irrelevant, as it seems he is only on English Wikipedia to harangue The Banner). I think that unless this thread is withdrawn and the above baseless remarks about The Banner stricken, a block and/or one-way IBAN (they are possible) should be put on the table for MBurch, and his tag-team partner FFA P-16's disruption should also probably be dealt with appropriately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's indeed not good faith to automatically assume sock puppets on all those that don't agree on someones deletions requests especially after several people mentioned that we're clearly not the same person. At least in German Wikipedia where I mostly edit it would have been just part of common sense for the petitioner to at least excuse yourself after such a mistake. --MBurch (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MBurch, a clerk endorsed CU on you, and CU confirmed that you were a sock, and you were blocked accordingly for several days. The idea that you were a sock of FFA is not some idiosyncratic idea manufactures by The Banner to punish you for opposing his AFDs. And, more than that, the incident in question was three months ago. Drop it now, and go do something that doesn't involve hounding The Banner, or you will likely be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether you are in fact a meatpuppet (which you still really look like, even if CU was wrong to declare you a sockpuppet). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please stop calling me a sock!? Doug Weller statement was very clear (see his investigations).--MBurch (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88:} You should not make the statement that I confirmed an editor as a sock when I later stated that I was mistaken and apologised. It doesn't help and it might be misread. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: My apologies. As you know, CU is a bit inscrutable to those of us who don't have it. My point is that, regardless of whether it was a mistake or whatever, MBurch is not doing himself or anyone else any favours by constantly ragging on about it like he is, nor by insinuating that the whole SPI was a revenge action by The Banner, since clearly the evidence convinced several other good-faith users. This same thing happened a few months back with someone else who was CU-blocked as a sock of User:Kauffner. Apparently on that occasion too, there was some mistake, but even after being unblocked the user continued to do nothing but complain about how he had been mistreated. I do not, of course, think you unblocked someone whom you had already confirmed was in fact a sock -- I don't even think MBurch is a sock. I just think he needs to drop the stick already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijiri88 (talk • contribs)
    I accept your apologies while one from The Banner is technically still missing, but I won't insist on that if we find a solution that ends this whole drama. --MBurch (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I was apologizing to Doug for my unfortunate language. I was not apologizing to you because I was not wrong to say you were determined by multiple independent parties, based on several different types of evidence, to be a sockpuppet. So you are still very much in the wrong to repeatedly insist that one of those multiple users was motivated solely by revenging you. Rather than insincerely claiming that you "accept my apology", you should be the one apologizing for continuously trying to game the system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • He "worked" only on 3 Airports, Amsterdam (probably because he is from the netherlands) , Dublin (probably because he live in Ireland) he doesn't worked on any other Airport article.. except of deleting out informations of Zürich Airport (the biggest Airport of SWITZERLAND).
    • The only Air Force Base he was "working" on was the Dübendorf Air Base (an Air Force Base of SWITZERLAND) trying to delet out informations about the Zero-G flight and other stuff.he doesn't worked on any other Air Force Base article of the whole world.. and BTW Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dübendorf Air Base[106] The only Air Base he want have deleted was an Air Base from SWITZERLAND. No oter tiny dusty airfiled somewere...
    • The only aircraft project he want have deleted was not for e.g. the Bartini A-57, Lockheed L-2000 or Belyayev Babochka no, he wantet the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALR Piranha[107] from SWITZERLAND , created from me,do be deleted.
    • The only aircraft (build) aircraft page he nominatet for deletion from him was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85 from SWITZERLAND, created from me.
    • The only airshow page(again created from me) he nominatet for deletion[[108]].was the one about the Air14
    • The only page about an Aircraft Type he was deleting out Informations is the Pilatus PC-24 from SWITZERLAND, interestingly what is "not-notable for ihm there

    not bother him on any other page like Fairey Delta 1, Avro Ashton, Hawker P.1052.

    • From all Modern aerobatic teams and Disbanded military teams his only interest is to suppress Informations of all 4 Teams of the Air Force of SWITZERLAND, on no other Modern aerobatic team or Disbanded military team was touched from Banner. Things which he can not stand in any relation to the 4 Teams (Two of them the Superpuma Display and the F/A-18 Hornet Display had I creadet) of the Air Force of SWITZERLAND not bother him on any other page even with a hint he doesent touched the Dutch Solo Display Team or F-16 Demo Team.
    • The only Air Force page who he tryes to "clean " is the one from SWITZERLAND.. Even if ther is an update or change in some projects (for eg. That the C-17 is no more a candidat as Cargoplane for the Swiss Air Force he does not want to admit.
    • He attacked in this timeframe my userpag. Inn my eyes he has also much not notable stuff on his userpage.. but I would never touch it.

    So he is usualy not active in Aviatic topics most of the time with total differend topics , like Restraurants, Beautycontests,... But if it is something about swiss aivatic, and if I had creadet the page or just add a few words, all hell breaks loose. I have the feeling this is Wikihounding.


    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nils Hämmerli[109] Kunstflugkommandant
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medisize Schweiz AG[110] Swiss plastic industrie
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terxo AG[111]Swiss plastic industrie
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isopress AG[112] Swiss plastic industrie
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AGP 3 Trailer[113] sole article about a bustrailer he nominated for deletion
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug[114] Only Museum he want have to be deleted
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)[115] he wanted the next commander! of the Swiss air Force deleted
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force ALBA[116]The only military mission he wanted to be deleted
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPHAIR[117]
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucher aircraft tractor (2nd nomination)[118] ‎But no other Aircrafttractor (like M2 High Speed Tractor) got nominated for deletion..
    • The only air surveilance systems he nominadet ever are two from switzerland/ I had creadeted:[119] The FLORIDA System and [120] SRF System.

    Also on EVERY Article from me who was nominated from someone else for deletion.. guess what.. he voted for delet, not a single who he didn't touched.

    Non stoping provocations [121] Verh unfriendly acting and threaten to persons who speak up against his wikihounding on me.[122]

    Everyone who came across from the german Wikipedia to support me in a deleting discussion got attacked from him in rude words. But not enough.. he started also a checkuser against me and several other persons.. knowing very well that no one is a sockpupped.. He had done this only because of its maliciousness.

    If I add some informations somewhere he deled it out with comments like fancuf, fanboy, not notable, irrelevant ,.. But on the other hand he is insisting on such nonsense:[123]. all this is only the peak of all the mobbing, editwarring, stalking from The Banner against me... and this again is only his constant attacks against me.. a lot of other users have to suffer because no one stop him.. a lot of users (who brought in valuable Informations ) have resgnated and left Wikipedia for ever.

    Also he is constantly watching My talkpage.. If someon had left there a positive feedback about an article from me like here: [124] he starts to provocate [125]. Not only that he is stalking me in the “open” part of Wikipedia, he is also browsing on my not “open” pages on Wikipedia. He cleaned all this informations out and threatened me with a block warning on my talkpage. Also nomnadte he my ‎User:FFA P-16/workpage19 for deletion. He is damaging Wikipedia with his non stop deleting nominations. Also the Banner is behaving very aggressive against other people in other deleting discusions [126] FFA P-16 (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    When I edited the page of Zurich Airport (the circle section) the user The Banner delated my New adding without a giustification. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z%C3%BCrich_Airport&type=revision&diff=688550466&oldid=688546793 The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) BOOMERANG, anyone? The OP was blocked in February as a CU-confirmed sock of FFA P-16, and the two were shortly thereafter unblocked because CU was apparently a false positive or some such. But whether or not they are the same person, MBurch has not made any edits to English Wikipedia since being unblocked except to !vote in several AFDs opened by The Banner and otherwise harangue The Banner. Whether The Banner is hounding FFA might need to be looked into (I haven't), but that MBurch hasn't made any edits that haven't been related to The Banner is obvious. The evidence that the Banner is hounding FFA seems to be limited to the claim that the former has been posting several of the latter's articles for AFD (and this is borne out by this). But per AGF, we must assume that The Banner sincerely believes his/her stated rationales for said AFDs, and the fact that several of them have passed with consensus to delete means that said rationales may be justified. If one finds an editor writing a lot of articles on topics that one sincerely believes do not meet GNG, posting said articles for AFD is not "hounding". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hijiri 88, it is not that he nomiated Coincidentally this for AFD because he is thinking it does not meet GNG. like I sayd above.. The ALR Piranha was the only aircraft project he nominated he did not put one of this in question Bartini A-57, Lockheed L-2000 or Belyayev Babochka. He nominadet Bucher aircraft tractor (who i had writen) [127] for deletion.. it had a few references ‎But no other Aircrafttractor (like U-30 Tow Tractor and MB-2 tow tractor who have NO referenc) got nominated for deletion.. The number of from The banner nominated articels i had written (especaly about the Divison General) shows exactly that it is not about GNG and draves a clear picture...The only UAV he ever nominadeted was writen from me he never nominated ANY other UAV Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85. Very interesting is that ther is now a long line of AfD s from against articels from me..it is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like Austrian air defense or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker. That are just a few exampels.FFA P-16 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to contest the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucher aircraft tractor (2nd nomination), ANI is not the place to do it. If you want to nominate other pages for deletion, ANI is also not the place to do it. The fact that most of the AFDs you referred to above resulted in deletion means that the nominations must be taken in good faith. If you think someone is hounding you, you need convincing evidence thereof. I have only so far seen convincing evidence that your friend MBurch is hounding The Banner in your stead. I will admit that I have not read your wall of text, and I do not intend to; writing a massive wall of text with very few diffs is normally a pretty solid indication that you don't have such evidence. Maybe you should have told MBurch to hold off on this ANI thread until you had the diffs prepared? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Honored Hijiri 88.
    It's not about rebooting AfD's, but about the abusive position of AfD's and wikihounding of The Banner against me.
    Please do not made the victim to the guilty and the guilty to an victim.
    MBurch was massively attacked by The Banner when he spoke in AfD's for the receipt of my articles. He also saw The Banner battling systematically against me, and merely asking The banner to stop it. He never bothered any work of The Banner. Likewise, Zurich00swiss also knew that he had never bothered the work of The Banner but was attacked massively by The Banner in his work on the subject of Airport Zurich and the AfD's where he spoke out to not delet my articles.
    You do not seem to understand. The Banner is systematically following me, and specifically targeting AfD's against articles written by me. It is not about quality. If you would read the text from me, you would see that he makes various articles of me AfD in subjects where he is never active (UAV, Air Base, Aircraftprojects, Radar system, ..) In all these areas it has Several articles written by other users who meet much less the requirements, but he has not proposed any of them to the AfD. Some have not a single referenc or weblink ..he never touched it, but my article with references... This makes it quite clear that he has it only on me. Examples I have brought above enough.
    Just to look at the some articles from me(not all!) who In AfD's had been deleted .. not to read my "long" text and then to decide The Banner is innocent. Sorry but this is not a factual investigation of this problem.
    I ask you to take the time and really read and examine all my foundations. If you do not look at everything it makes no sense that you deal with this case. Then I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. Thank you.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, first, please learn to indent consistently. It's difficult to respond to you otherwise.
    If you are not interested in undoing the AFDs, then why are you trying to go back and discredit the grounds on which they were posted for AFD? The Banner's behaviour in posting those particular pages to AFD could have only constituted hounding if he didn't sincerely believe that those pages should be deleted on their own merits. If you are creating a bunch of articles that should be deleted per our inclusion criteria, the problem is with you, not The Banner. Even if he found those pages by checking your contribs, that is still legit and does not constitute hounding.
    No, MBurch only posted in those AFDs because they were opened by The Banner and because the articles in question were started by you. Maybe The Banner attacked MBurch for that (you still haven't provided any diffs...), but it's abundantly clear that MBurch has been hounding The Banner -- MBurch hasn't done anything but hound The Banner.
    Again, if The Banner's AFDs had merit, then what he did was not hounding. Even if it was systematic, the problem is with you writing articles that almost uniformly get deleted when posted to AFD, not with him posting them at AFD. I will explain this by giving an example. About three years ago, I noticed that a certain user was showing a severe failure to read sources and present what they said accurately, on an article that was on my watchlist. No matter how hard I tried to explain it to him, he just didn't seem to get it. I then got suspicious that he might have engaged in similar disruption on other articles, so I checked his contribs and found that my suspicion had been correct. When I pointed this out on the talk pages of the other articles (which weren't on his watchlist and which I had "followed" him to) I too was accused of "hounding". But I wasn't hounding: I noticed a user engaged in problematic behaviour and dealt with it accordingly. Even if that is what The Banner did here (and you still haven't presented any evidence that that is even what is happening), the problem is most likely with you, not The Banner. Otherwise, why would almost all of the pages have been deleted?
    For what it's worth, I did check how often The Banner posts articles for deletion. Of his past 300 new page creations in the Wikipedia namespace, 296 have been AFDs, and that's only since January 1 of last year. That's 0.61 AFDs per day over a period of 16 months -- are all of those AFDs hounding of the users who created the articles? And do you really think you're the first one to try to accuse him of hounding rather that reflecting on your own understanding of our includion criteria? (I actually don't know. You might be. But I doubt it.)
    And no. No one is under any obligation to read your massive wall of text, in which you provided no diffs or other clear evidence, before commenting to the effect that you have provided no diffs or other clear evidence. If you don't provide evidence in support of your claims, all the rest of us can do is go looking for ourselves. And if what we find doesn't support your claims, that also is not our fault.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To follow my edits and then delete the article created by me is wikihounding. Again, it is not about quality. Otherwise he would have to nominate other articles on the same topics that were not written by me. I have listed this above. It is also not so that all articles of me, which he nominated has been deleted. The article about divisional general Bernhard Müller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)shows very well that he acts AfD abuse. Only because he does 's 0.61 AFDs per day is no sing that this is right..it shows only exesive use of AfD.. and if you look at the topic of this AfD's articles.. you see that my articels are quid "exotic" to the other topics.. he is usualy not active in this topics.. a clear sign that he his wikihounding me. ..it is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like [[[Austrian air defense]] or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker.Again you do not want to read my text and look at the links on the left. If you do not want to read what I write here is no factual processing this case of you. Sorry. So then I am official have to say:I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. This is important- Thank you &byeFFA P-16 (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To follow my edits and then delete the article created by me is wikihounding. Nope. If he sincerely thinks you don't understand our inclusion criteria (and, again, he does sincerely think that until proven otherwise), then checking your contribs and nominating certain pages written by you for deletions is perfectly acceptable.
    Again, it is not about quality. Then how come, on seven of the ten AFDs you linked above, there was clear consensus to delete the pages?
    Otherwise he would have to nominate other articles on the same topics that were not written by me. Again, NO. No one is under any obligation to do more or less than they wish on Wikipedia. We are all volunteers here. And there are no articles on the same topics written by other editors -- do you mean "on similar topics"? If so, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you believe that those other topics don't meet GNG, you should nominate them for deletion. Don't attack The Banner for not nominating them.
    It is also not so that all articles of me, which he nominated has been deleted. I have listed this above. Good for you. Unfortunately, no one said that. I said most. Specifically, 7 out of 10 of the AFDs you linked ended in deletion. And actually, of the other three, two should maybe be reconsidered with MBurch's !vote being discounted as HOUNDing.
    The article about divisional general Bernhard Müller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)shows very well that he acts AfD abuse. If you think that demonstrated abuse of the AFD process, then maybe you think the other four users who !voted to delete (and maybe even the one said "weak keep") are hounding you as well? On top of that, your own conduct in that AFD (repeatedly refusing to focus on content and making constant off-topic remarks about how you don't like The Banner) was atrocious. Linking to it was not a good idea.
    Only because he does 's 0.61 AFDs per day is no sing that this is right..it shows only exesive use of AfD.. No. Lots of editors open a lot of AFDs. I don't know The Banner's particular circumstances, but some monitor new pages, which include a disproportionate number of autobiographies by non-notable individuals, blatant advertising, etc.
    and if you look at the topic of this AfD's articles.. you see that my articels are quid "exotic" to the other topics.. he is usualy not active in this topics.. a clear sign that he his wikihounding me. Wait, what? No one who opens that many AFDs is focused on one topic, so the fact that he doesn't have a particular focus on airports or the armed forces (?) is irrelevant.
    Again you do not want to read my text and look at the links on the left You clearly are not comfortable with me addressing all the numerous problems in those portions of your comments I have read -- do you really want me to go through your first massive wall-of-text and detail all the ways it is wrong and lends itself to my BOOMERANG idea? For example, you say that he is watching your talk page (again, something he is allowed do) and "provocating", but your "diff" of said is a blank link to the Tupolev Voron article, which The Banner has never edited. I thought for a few minutes you were (falsely) accusing him of tagging the article as needing a copyedit and went through it to see if it was accurate, then I looked around a bit and noticed this. You do still need to provide proper attribution when you translate from German Wikipedia, and if you translated the version that was originally written by you a year earlier, you need to note that, because, if you translated the version as it appeared when you put the translation on English Wikipedia and had been edited by about a dozen other editors, there is a copyright issue. You then go on about not “open” pages on Wikipedia, which makes no sense to me. A bit above you Non stoping provocations with a malformed link to four comments by multiple users, in which The Banner said nothing even approaching incivility. Then you say Verh unfriendly acting and threaten to persons who speak up against his wikihounding on me with a similarly malformed link, in which The Banner responds to MBurch's hounding attacks on him in a fairly reasonable manner. Seriously, what are you asking me to look at with all this?
    If you do not want to read what I write here is no factual processing this case of you. Sorry. So then I am official have to say:I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Please familiarize yourself with how ANI works. Like the rest of Wikipedia, ANI is voluntary. No one will touch this case, because you made it too long and unintelligible. The thread will likely get archived with no further involvement from any outside parties, unless I open a separate subthread with a coherent argument for some solution to whatever problem I perceive as going on here. And your absolute refusal to provide evidence for your claims (in case it isn't clear, I did read the small portion of your wall of text that appeared to include diffs) is making me inclined to do so in a direction you apparently don't want.
    Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. No one is going to read your massive, incoherent walls of text. If you have concrete examples, you should link them. I read through everything you provided that had a link attached to it, and didn't see anything of substance.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri. But you obviously do not want to see it. He nominates me very clearly articles in areas where he is never active. And there only items of mine no others. Even if he makes a lot of AfD's strikes this conspicuousness. I also find it wrong the people who have voted for the receipt of some articles from me and who have approached the unfriendly approach of The banner now condemned for their substantive contribution. There will be no factual reasoning on the examples which I have brought forth. Only weill The banner many edits and AfD's makes it is not trustworthy. The only thing I want is that he leaves me alone. Clearly all work here voluntarily. But this is not an obstacle for someone else to take care of this case. I am very disappointed that you do not take me seriously.
    If you are not willing to take care of my concerns and no one else wants to take care of this case, I see no further meaning in this discussion. Then you can close it because it brings nothing and will only encourage The Banner in the fight against me.FFA P-16 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, you clearly can't be reasoned with. I have read everything you have written on this page, and there is nothing to it. But you are clearly not interested in acknowledging that fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I did not want to reply at all at this thread. It is the another instance of the ongoing harassment and bullying campaign of mr. FFA P-16 and his assistant MBurch. It is loud and clear that MBurch is called in to protect FFA P-16. Although his bullying/harassing is annoying, it only confirmed to me that the advice given to mr. FFA P-16 is completely ignored. And he stepped up his campaign after I nominated an attack page for deletion. He seems to think that sandbox pages are sacrosanct and untouchable to others. And that the rules of Wikipedia do not apply to him. See User talk:The Banner#Stop Wikihounding me!. He also seems to think that I have a personal grudge against him because he is Swiss. As a matter of fact, I do not care at all about that. But I have told/advised/urged FFA P-16 to do three things:
    1. Get a clear idea of what the community regards notable
    2. Get a clear idea of what the community regards as proper sourcing according to WP:RS
    3. Get a clear idea that it is worthwhile to make an effort to improve your English
    I have seen no effort whatsoever to address these issues.
    Mr. FFA P-16 also took offence out of my sockpuppet investigation relating to MBurch. He seems to have forgotten the fact that he is earlier blocked for sockpuppetry, [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16/Archive|here] and and on the Dutch Wikipedia.
    To finish this off: I do not seek any blocks. What I want are two things: a) that the present campaign stops, and b) that FFA P-16 makes a visible effort to address the three issues listed a few lines above. The Banner talk 09:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Circle at Zurich Airport

    When I edited the page of Zurich Airport (the circle section) the user The Banner delated my New adding without a giustification. The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs please. I can't see anything in the recent history that supports your claim... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zurich00swiss: Please provide diffs, and if you posted the above in an attempt to "pile on" because you just don't like the user in question, note that you may well be met with a boomerang for hounding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Indefinite one-way interaction ban

    Okay, I was annoyed enough by FFA's disruption clearly on display in this thread, but now that it's been pointed out to me that he created a WP:POLEMIC about The Banner here and denied the SPEEDY request with the counter-policy statement that Its MY workpage[128] it's clear that something needs to be done. I'm therefore requesting that FFA P-16 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with The Banner (talk · contribs). If The Banner nominates a page written by FFA for deletion, it should be the community's decision, and the project will not benefit from FFA showing up and posting more off-topic personal attacks against The Banner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to make it clear, user X requests a majority of user Y's articles for deletions and you suggests now that Y is now allowed to even argue with X on those deletion requests of his very own articles (since there is no other interaction from Y besides that workpage19 which should be simply deleted)? --MBurch (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MBurch: So you agree that User Y created an attack page about User X that should be deleted, and when it was requested that the page be deleted User Y reverted the request and placed a statement on the page that he owns it and so presumably can post whatever he wants on it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you're aware of actio et reactio. --MBurch (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that you are implying that since The Banner was the original aggressor, FFA was justified in creating that attack page and preventing it from being deleted? But you still have not presented any evidence that The Banner was the original aggressor. Both of you are claiming that he nominated a bunch of articles created by FFA for deletion based not on the merits of the article but out of a desire to hound FFA. But I presented you with pretty incontrovertible evidence that this is not the case. The Banner nominates hundreds of pages by countless users for deletion, and in all but a few of the cases you listed a plurality of other editors agreed the pages should be deleted. All I am seeing is The Banner posting Good Faith AFDs (and constructive criticism of honestly pretty atrocious articles that don't necessarily merit deletion), FFA refusing to listen, and assuming bad faith by accusing The Banner of HOUNDing. You can try asking JoshuSasori (talk · contribs) what happens when you constantly make bad faith accusations of HOUNDing while engaging in HOUNDing yourself. That guy actually got SBANned for his efforts, then engaged in block-evasion via several IPs and actually did revenge-AFD a bunch of articles I had written (well, actually there was only one AFD opened via proxy, two article blankings, and one successful PROD of a sub-stub). You clearly do not know what you are talking about when you talk of HOUNDing; I do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Banner nominates hundreds of pages by countless users for deletion and he suspects always sockpuppets when they don't agree? Of course not just in our case and just in the case of FFA P-16 he nominates several pages together. --MBurch (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MBurch: That is a personal attack and you should strike it unless you can provide evidence. If you are referring exclusively to the FFA SPI where you were blocked, you should say as much. On top of that: You were confirmed by CU to be a sock of FFA P-16, and CUs need a lot of DUCK evidence before they agree to perform that procedure, and the check was pre-endorsed by an SPI clerk. It's an established fact that FFA P-16 has abused multiple accounts in the past and in the case of you and M1712, it was really frickin' obvious that something fishy was going on, be it sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Just drop it already and go edit articles, or you will be reblocked as WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether you were later vindicated with regards to your not actually being the same person as FFA P-16. It's been three months -- let it go, as the wickedly talented Adele Dazeem would say... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No this was not an attack, this was collecting cases of actions against me, so that I can bring this here on Ani. You broght it by your self to the light.. here you can see that he is following me [129] yes hi is doing a lot of deletions 0,6 per day in one year is a lot (and in some kind it smells as to trigger happy for AfD's). But if you have a look ate the list you have presented [130] It is not on random themes (Tv Stations, beauty contest persons) the pattern definitive fit not to the topics of my articels (military aviation, swiss). It is understandable that many new articels come to AfD, but also this dosent fit here because he nominated just in the past few weeks articels from me who existed since 3-4 years. This is no coincidence.FFA P-16 (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FFA, it's been several days, so I'm going to start being frank. Your English is terrible, and at best difficult to decipher, and you clearly are not reading and fully understanding my comments. So please refrain from responding in other users' stead, because it makes discussion extremely difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already forgotten my talkpage? And take a look at the talkpage of mr. FFA P-16. Not the current version, as he wipes out everything he does not like, but the older versions. Like this one. The Banner talk 13:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the Talkpage is there for to communicate wit an other user, or inform ihm about something.. I informed you that i wish that you stop follw me. How should I communicate with you without using the talk page. everyone can clean its talkpage like he want.. it is nothing wrong with deleting old stuff and its also not wrong keeping some of it. Also veryon can keep positiv replays on the talk page if he wish. that you are monitoring my talkpage and their history shows again suspicious direction stalking FFA P-16 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have informed you about issues with notability, issues with sourcing and issues with your language and all this was ignored. Not even the spell checker you took aboard... The Banner talk 21:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything probably a reason for an improvement tag but not for AfD, also the one with Bernhard Müller is a good example that your interpretation of notability is also not always correct. And if you posted this on my talk page.There is no need to let it stand there, so I can empty the talk page whenever I want. That is nothing bad.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    quod erat demonstrandum --MBurch (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative proposal

    There are several problems, here.

    • FFA P-16 has a poor command of the English language, resulting in poorly written articles.
    • FFA P-16's love of the Swiss air force leads him to loose sight of notability issues.
    • The Banner has been hounding FFA P-16, nominating nearly every article FFA P-16 started.
    • The Banner has a tendency to skip due diligence before nominating FFA P-16's articles. Case in point Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer).

    The drama has been going on at least two years. This has to end.

    A proposed solution:

    1. FFA P-16 is only allowed to create new articles via the AfC-process. This will address the language and notability problems.
    2. An interaction ban between The Banner and FFA P-16 (both ways). This includes a ban for The Banner to nominate any article created by FFA P-16, thus eliminating 90% of the drama. If The Banner feels one of FFA P-16's articles is so bad it must be nominated, he can alert another editor to the problem, who can then nominate it.

    Kleuske (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I volunteer my time to a) check any of FFA P-16's articles and b) look at any problem The Banner sees with any of FFA P-16's articles and nominate if necessary. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support this proposal in place of my own, assuming User:The Banner (who still appears to be the victim here, per all the evidence I've seen) is game for a mutual IBAN, which would protect him from further harassment. In my experience, mutual IBANs are very easy for harassers to game, so I would add that the IBAN be slightly modified to allow requests to observers like Kleuske and me (but not obvious meatpuppets or the like) to look into it and decide whether there has been a violation to be covered under BANEX. Put in other words, messages about the other user on the user talk pages of no more than one or two other users at a time should be allowed in lieu of reporting violations directly to an admin or on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to unconditional support The Banner's extremely immature response to Kleuske's good-faith attempt to resolve this (immediately below) has convinced me to change my mind. I still think he is the victim of hounding, and I still think the proposed IBAN will quickly be gamed by FFA and MBurch, but I just don't care anymore if The Banner is going to show more interested in fighting over it than actually resolving it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes some effort from both sides to keep the drama going for this amount of time and The Banner does not show an attitude that's particularly conciliatory or helpful. Instead he shows all signs of holding grudges. I have trouble seeing The Banner as a victim. Kleuske (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: If either of them try to game the AfC process or the IBAN, I will personally report them here and request a block. Promise. Kleuske (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It took you a long time to show up here, Kleuske. And your attempt to put the blame on my shoulders is just as predictable as you showing up here. But your statement (...) nominating nearly every article FFA P-16 started. is evidently false. The Banner talk 15:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner: You're not helping... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    True. But Kleuske and me have a long record of personal discord. Beside that, in my experience the AfC-process only looks at the notability of a subject, not to quality, sourcing or spelling. So it will address only one part of the signalled problems. The Banner talk 09:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't matter from who the proposal is, but only if it's able to solve the problems.--MBurch (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But I am willing to step aside for a while and see if Kleuske, MBurch and the AfC-process really can help fix the issues. I promise to stay away (for starters) to 1 July 2017. The Banner talk 11:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be more than just a temporary stop especially since you're in general not writing in Swiss Air Force aviation as FFA P-16 does.--MBurch (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Kleuske. I will agree 100% to your solution. And all rouls who this solution contains for me.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't thank me yet, i'll require significant coverage in reliable sources. I was this close to proposing a site-ban for competence issues and this does not help. Hör mal... Dein Englisch is wirklich grottenschlecht. Fast Kauderwelsch. Du must dich wirklich mal überlegen ob du sinnvoll beitragen kannst wenn fast jeder satz praktisch übersetzt werden muss. Kleuske (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree and I volunteer my time to improve FFA P-16's articles. --MBurch (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Will end the drama and help the editors and Wikipedia. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I find it extremely suspicious how readily FFA and his obvious meatpuppet MBurch accepted this proposal, and am a little concerned that they might immediately try to game it as I outlined above. Both users have email enabled, and even if they didn't they are both more active on de.wiki than here, where they would technically not be restricted from discussing The Banner. I'm not going to withdraw my support or anything, but I think it would be a good idea to sanction MBurch as well to prevent him from proxy-hounding in FFA's stead. Note also how the indentation on MBurch's !vote implies he was supporting in direct response to FFA giving his approval.
    I also find it concerning that, while FFA's English is terrible and MBurch does seem qualified to improve that one aspect of his articles, the main reason for all the AFDs was notability, and MBurch still has not acknowledged that the topics did not meet our notability criteria (insisting instead that The Banner was motivated solely by a desire to hound FFA), which may indicate a poor understanding of said notability criteria, and I therefore think it would be a good idea if he limited his time to improve FFA P-16's articles to copy-editing, and refrained from mainspacing any drafts himself and !voting in any future AFDs.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken per above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Clearly The Banner is just the front man in a wikipedia process, I certainly would have nominated the same articles for deletion if Banner had not got there first. FFA P-16 has been a bit of a time sink for the aircraft/aviation project, his failure to understand English and the requirements to understand for example that not every aspect of the Swiss Air Force is actually notable enough for an article. Most articles are machine translations from German wikipedia and FFP P-16 has clear competence issues with English language and despite efforts over the years I believe the only remedy is a site ban on English wikipedia. But just to note I would not support any sanction for The Banner and see no reason why they should stand aside, in fact he probably needs some sort of award for enduring endless harrasement from FFA P-16 and others brought over from de wiki. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I still morally support the sentiment in the above comment. I disagree with the third bullet point in Kleuske's opening remark (which I think constitutes a personal attack, as it is made without evidence), and I strongly suspect the fourth bullet point is bull as well (one bad AFD, if it even was that, is not evidence that he has a consistent pattern of not performing due diligence). I just want this mess to be over, and I think The Banner has been rather uncooperative in this process as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    RXX-7979Ⅲ and historical deletionism

    RXX-7979Ⅲ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Statue of Peace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User has already been blocked once for whitewashing Japanese war crimes at Statue of Peace. While he was away, the IP address 210.142.104.167 spoke remarkably similarly at Talk:Statue_of_Peace#Wartime_Comfort_Women_by_Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_of_Japan. 210.142 said "Wikipedia must not be politically used by activists" as if Jim1138 and I (two Americans with no relationship to Korea) were political activists, which is certainly in the lead the most ironic hypocrisy I've ever seen this year. Upon RXX's return, they continued their usual behavior.

    If you look at that talk page section, you'll find a pretty clear case of a user whose only purpose is to "correct" our "imbalanced" article through historical denialism.

    Ian.thomson (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not the same person. I show evidence for editing.--RXX-7979Ⅲ (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor behind the 210.142 IP addresses writes like you, argues for the same ideas, is active in the same location as you, and is only active when you are logged out. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not the same person. I will ask you not to block while continuing the discussion.--RXX-7979Ⅲ (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "it is not the same person" a second time is not proof. The reason I started this thread is because you've shown that there's no point in discussion -- you are not going to listen because you have locked yourself in a far-right nationalist echo chamber that denies what many Japanese historians and the rest of the world acknowledges. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be premature to call for a topic ban against such revisionism? El_C 22:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest a WP:Checkuser. I support either a topic ban on Japanese war crimes or an indefinite block. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK, CU doesn't/can't work on IP addressess. Per beans, its all rather mysterious what they will and will not do. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    It's an issue with privacy more than anything; CUs won't out a user's IP unless the abuse is particularly egregious. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 00:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing behavior of Robert Walker

    Robertinventor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    The editing behavior of Robertinventor, aka Robert Walker, is disruptive:

    [1] Robert Walker changes his own old post materially, after someone has replied, a violation of WP:TALK guidelines. For evidence: this on RSN. This was after I reminded him to not do so. This is not a new issue with RW, but one raised in past such as in an ANI review of Robert Walker's disruptive behavior, a review that ultimately concluded with a topic ban on RW. Admin Bishonen had observed and cautioned Robert Walker to read WP:REDACT, on May 7 2016, advising, "It's a bad idea to change your posts after they have been answered, as this wrongfoots the people who have answered." Robert Walker's editing, after the ban expired, has ignored this.

    [2] Robert Walker has repeatedly cast aspersions on Joshua Jonathan and I, without providing evidence and editing diffs. For example, with this, he falsely alleged, "You and Joshua Jonathan often revert edits on the basis that they are only cited to Buddhist scholars". No evidence provided. See the WP:DRN, Talk:Four Noble Truths, and Talk:WikiProject Buddhism for more examples.

    [3] The walls of post by Robert Walker (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), (Replaced with: recent evidence in Robert Walker and the WP:WALLOFTEXT section below) with the above two behavioral issues make the situation worse. FWIW, I was recently requested by admin RegentsPark to help in the dispute between Joshua Jonathan and Robert Walker, but RW's behavior is too disruptive to allow progress.

    Seeking an appropriate administrative action on RW's editing privileges or warning to User:Robertinventor, User:Robert Walker and linked disclosed accounts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ms Sarah Welch: I've already said, I'm sorry for suggesting that you do edit reverts of posts of that type. @Joshua Jonathan: does [131] and conversation about it here: [[132] but you don't. It was a one off mistake in a passage where I was talking about how you and @Joshua Jonathan: both have a similar view on WP:RS and I inadvertently types that you do edit reverts. I have never said that about you before and it was a mistake[133]. As for the rest, I do sometimes say too much, but it's not intentionally disruptive and it is too late to remove that post from the RSN. If only you and @Joshua Jonathan: would give me a friendly warning first, and there is no need to take me to WP:ANI just because I've been verbose again. I've never had any warnings of that nature from either of you. I am doing my best. I take wikibreaks as soon as I spot I'm being over verbose. My "walls of text" are not meant as fillibustering either, they are all carefully worded and thought out and the intent is to help not to disrupt processes here. I also said sorry about editing the RSN post after there were replies and said how it happened [134]. Robert Walker (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert Walker: Not true. This is not the first time. You do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again. You apologized earlier too, but didn't change your ways. You promise to reply to my request for evidence, but you don't. You do so even after my repeated requests. Not just I, others such as RegentsPark has asked you to give specifics and evidence last week.
    You re-instated your "change of older version of your post" twice (1, 2) twenty minutes "after" I requested to stop changing your previous edits. As admin Bishonen warned you in 2016, you have done this before, and you apologized then too. Yet you keep doing it, any way. You seem to have no respect for the integrity of a discussion, or how your back-editing leaves a misleading impression to the replies of other people, on others who join the discussion later. Your back-changing your posts, after someone has already replied, robs the context of their replies and make the other editors look unreasonable. You are very disruptive. You walls of post, rapid pace of endless editing the same talk pages 100s of times within a week is not helpful to collaboration. I suggest a 1 year ban, or at least a last warning to you, for the following: [1] no back editing "anything" in your non-threaded section, or in any threaded discussion, after someone has replied; [2] you provide edit diff or evidence in reliable sources, for any allegation you make. Any future failure should be grounds for sanctions. I am open to any alternate measures admins suggest based on their experience. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert Walker: You apologized above at 19:29, 30 April 2017. Yet, at 19:42, 30 April 2017 you do it again, with the allegation, "Especially since Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch often explain to other editors including myself that they are not secondary sources." No diffs, no evidence. The casting aspersions without evidence by Robert Walker seems to never end. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I only saw your message on my talk page AFTER I did those additional edits of the RSN post. I had no idea that editing a user page in my own user space would be seen as disruptive. With the Four Noble Truths talk page, most of my edits are minor edits, and they were of comments that nobody had replied to. Nobody has warned me that I shouldn't do minor edits after I have posted a post there and before they are replied to. They are usually copy editing for clarity and don't change the essential meaning of what I say. I no longer edit my posts after they are replied to in threaded discourse, or I mark such edits with underlines and strikethroughs as recommended. This is the first warning I've had about editing a post when there is a threaded discourse going on in a separate section. I do understand the reason, and I won't do it again when the sections are related as these were. And - you did collapse my first post there for several months a short while back[135]. And @Joshua Jonathan: did delete that post too[136]. Those are WP:TPOs. Neither of you have apologized for doing that yet. Robert Walker (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert Walker: Not true. You allege above, again without evidence, that "I had no idea that editing a user page in my own user space would be seen as disruptive." If you had provided an "edit diff", admins would see that it was not your user space, it was "Reliable sources/Noticeboard" where you back-edited. WP:RSN is not your user space. If after your zillion edits, past admin warnings and reminders for "no back editing", past admin sanctions and blocks, you still are back editing on notice boards and dispute forums, there is a pattern of serious behavioral issues with your editing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I put a lot of thought and care into my posts here. The numerous minor edits are part of that. It is not meant disruptively. The only reason I do this is to make the posts easier to read, to shorten them (as I tend to be verbose) and copy edit them. And in that RSN discussion you said that my post was inappropriate for the RSN. I answered explaining why it was appropriate and said I'd edit my post to make it clear why I had posted there. I had no idea at the time that to do so would be seen as disruptive. As soon as you pointed it out I realized what you meant - I should have just done a strikeout of the entire paragraph and added a replacement paragraph. But of course it was too late after I saw your message on my talk page, which I only saw AFTER I finished the copy editing to make it clearer why I posted there. The conversation is here [137]. Robert Walker (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Robert's statement "Neither of you have apologized for doing that yet": I did apologize. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#Request for renewed topic-ban: "Anyway, I apologize; I reacted on impulse, as I just had enough of it." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I missed that. Thanks for the apology! Robert Walker (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert Walker: Not true again. You back-changed your edits at least thrice, just today. Here is your first back-change. After you did this, I reverted you with the edit summary "please do not change your old posts/talk page comments after someone has replied". Here is your second second back-change which reverted my revert. Then you went ahead one more time, ignored my explicit request on your talk page not to keep back-editing. You thereafter did the third back-change, not seconds after, but a while later. Please note that the change was not about "explaining why it was appropriate and said I'd edit my post to make it clear why I had posted there". You changed your post materially, with back-edits where you change your allegations against Joshua Jonathan or I, as amply evidenced in that diff.
    So, we are not talking about simple explanation added, or indent, for format change, or spelling/grammar fix, or simple stuff that doesn't change the meaning of your post. You change the context and your allegations after someone has already replied. The problem is that this is not a new behavioral issue. You have done it in past when Bishonen warned you. Yet you keep doing it again. The walls of text, and "allegations without evidence" issue is worse disruption by you. You apologized above, yet did it again a while later, as evidenced by the links above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ms Sarah Welch: Oh I see, that was you? I do remember during that editing that I pressed submit, but when I went to edit the page again, it still showed the old version. I did not think of the possibility that someone else had edited my comment - which of course I now understand you did because you had a right to do so. I assumed that something had gone wrong at my end. That's why I didn't think to check the editing history and just did the edit again. In that case, yes of course, it was of course a material change but I didn't at the time realize the rule applied, in the midst of that conversation. I did say at the end of my rewrite "(edited after discussion with @Ms Sarah Welch: below.)"

    Now I do understand, that if an editor challenges a post you make to a board, saying they don't know why you posted, or any similar situation, yes of course you have to keep the original challenged post on the board and strike it out and then add the new amended post beneath with underlines to show it is new content, so that their comment challenging your post has content. I can go and edit it and insert the old material with strike through and underline the new material if that was acceptable. But at this stage that might of itself count as back editing because other editors have now responded to the edited post. So I don't think there is much I can do except to say sorry as I did and that I'll take care not to do it again. I did add at the end (as edited )Robert Walker (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ms Sarah Welch, your items in #3 are mostly months to years old (some are 4 years old), so please strike the entirety of 3#. That done, what we apparently have left is RW's re-factoring of his posts. I suggest a prohibition on refactoring talkpage posts. Robertinventor, prepare your posts in your sandbox first, and perfect them as to what you really and clearly and succinctly want to say. Then post them on article talk and do not alter them after posting. Softlavender (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that links in #3 are old, but that does not mean RW's wall of texts is not a continuing issue. It is a long standing issue, that editors uninvolved in Buddhism article space have recently expressed their concerns / frustration on. Would you be okay if I struck the old links and replaced them with links from recent weeks from WP:DRN, WP:RSN etc? I also request admin review of #2, because casting aspersions without evidence by RW is a persistent problem? I have given recent links above, and can provide more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no aspersions in your #2 listing, only a neutral and neutrally worded observation (whether it is mistaken or not is not relevant). In terms of walls of text, I suggest that any examples should be after April 15, 2017, which is when the last ANI report ended: [138]. Also, for any example for any problem, you need to provide diffs, not pages, and the diffs need to be of his edits, not yours. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Softlavender: Strange. Why April 15? I appreciate your comments that you make as another volunteer and non-admin, and we all need to respect wikipedia's guidelines. Is there an Arb committee or other resolution that somehow statutorily exempts RW's behavior because he was a part of some other ANI case?
    On #2, FWIW, here are the Arb Committee resolutions on casting aspersions (trimmed for brevity, full version here):
    Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC): It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation.
    Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC): It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause.
    Passed 7 to 0, 22:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC): An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe.
    For #2, I have already provided multiple evidentiary links above of repeated accusations by RW without evidence, against me, where these apply. FWIW, RW has accepted that he has accused me without evidence, then at 15:07, 30 April 2017 he retracted his accusation where he admitted, "As far as I know, you don't". But, hours later, at 19:42, 30 April 2017, RW accused again without evidence, "Especially since Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch often explain to other editors including myself that they are not secondary sources." RW's accusations that I commonly revert proper content, delete reliable secondary sources, etc is an accusation of misbehavior. Such accusations are a repetitive RW behavior. I urge that these past Arb committee's resolutions on casting aspersions be considered in this case as they are relevant. They are common sense, humane principles, necessary for any healthy working/volunteer environment, in my humble view. To be clear, I am not asking for indef ban on RW for this, but a prohibition, or other limited sanction on his editing privileges as a corrective measure.
    I agree with you, Softlavender, that for #3 problem, I need to "provide diffs, not pages, and the diffs need to be of his edits", not mine from recent weeks. I will do so, and update #3 today. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ms Sarah Welch: I have only once said that you revert edits, which was a mistake, @Joshua Jonathan: does, but you don't. However I did provide a diff for your statements about secondary behaviour; possibly I might have saved it first before adding this. [139]

    @Softlavender: - do you say then that it is an issue that I edit my posts after I posted them, when nobody has replied to them yet? Until @Ms Sarah Welch: said about it in this action, nobody has said that this is a problem as far as I remember. My verbosity, yes, and I used to edit posts after they were replied to, until I was told that you can't do that unless you use strikeout and underline. Since then I have been careful to use strikeout and underline. I can compose my posts in my sandbox, yes.

    In those edits I'm going by this section of WP:REDACT.

    "So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely."

    It might be that I haven't understood it properly, or that my interpretation of "a short while" is different from that of other editors. Robert Walker (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    RW, there is no way you can "re-revert" my revert of your back-editing accidentally, then preserve it, and add more back-editing for the third time quite a while later (see above for diffs). Complete prohibition on your refactoring/back-editing is the minimum we must do here to address #1. The issue #2 isn't that you alleged something once. The issue is that you repeatedly "accuse without evidence". You apologized. I was willing to forgive you, thinking of dropping the stick and moving on. Yet, you again "accused without evidence" many hours later. This behavior of yours has not stopped, and this is disruptive (see above for diffs). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ms Sarah Welch: I assure you I had no idea. I composed that text first in a text editor on my computer and copy / pasted it in, used the preview button and then edited it, clicked submit and did more editing. But then I found that it didn't seem to have "stuck" - it still showed the old version. I didn't know why that happened, but I just copy / pasted my version on my computer back in again and clicked submit again. This time it worked. I did not realize that the reason it didn't work the first time was because you had reverted it.
    @Softlavender: I've just started using my sandbox for my talk page posts, composed a long comment to @Joshua Jonathan: there first. I think this may be a breakthrough for me. It's amazing that I've been editing here so long and not really properly appreciated the use of the sandbox, you will see from its editing history that I last used it in 2013 and I don't think I have ever used it to draft comments before. [140]. Perhaps someone suggested this to me before but if so I forgot. I did try creating comments in subpages of my user space but that got clumsy plus there's the matter of pings, you don't want to ping someone to a subpage of your user space. I assume that pings don't work from the sandbox? Robert Walker (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Walker: The use the sandbox idea, including for drafting, has been suggested to you several times. For example, even during the last AN 2016 case review on you, which led to a six month ban for you a year ago. Back then, you seemed to acknowledge and accept the "draft in sandbox" idea. Yet here we are. Nothing really changed, and the walls of texts and other behavioral issues are back. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please check my sandbox history. You will see I never used it between 2013 and the present. I have started to use it now and it makes a big difference. I think it will mean an end to this re-editing of posts as my problem always was that I find it awkward to edit my posts in the preview screen and there's the issue of possibly losing data. I may have missed something but I don't remember anyone suggesting this before @Softlavender: and surely I would at least have tested the idea in my sandbox at least once if they had and I'd understood what they were saying. Robert Walker (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert Walker: I gave you the link above from May 2016, a year ago, which explicitly mentions the "sandboxes" suggestion. Read the whole AN case thread through the close by admin EdJohnston. We went over this, with a lot of effort and numerous members of wikipedia community who tried to help you and offer your constructive suggestions. If you didn't read it, or if you ignored it all then, it is not the community's fault. Because you were a focus of the May 2016 AN review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert, to answer your question, yes, you in particular should refrain from editing your posts once you post them, no matter whether anyone has responded to them or not. If necessary, this may be made into an administrator's official sanction in order to prevent disruption. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Walker and the WP:WALLOFTEXT

    The walls of text by Robert Walker issue continues, which combined with #1 and #2 issues above have been disruptive. This issue needs to be considered in light of the relevant past, so measures if any proposed and considered, weigh whether and to what extent past measures on Robert Walker's walls of text have helped. The disruption by RW's walls of text was noted for example, during a 2016 AN review process by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi ([141]), JimRenge ([142]), Robert McClenon [143], others there, and by the case closing admin EdJohnston ([144]).

    Evidence of walls of text from recent weeks include:

    • Reliable sources/Noticeboard: 1, 2, others; Number of posts by Robert Walker since 07:33, April 30 2017: 80
    • Dispute resolution noticeboard: 3, others, 4, Number of posts by Robert Walker since 08:27, 26 April 2017: dozens, not counted
    • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism: 5, 6, others, Number of posts by Robert Walker since 22:29, 10 April 2017: 73

    Recent comments by other wikipedia editors:

    1. RSN volunteer comment: "If neutral sources also discuss the general views of Theravadan Bhikkus, then of course those academic views should be included. The massive walls of text here discouraged me from adding to the discussion earlier. Thus, please note that I'm only adding one view to this very particular usage, and have no time to enter into the meandering philosophical meta discussion above and in the countless linked discussions. First Light (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)"
    1. DRN volunteer comment: "As a side-note, please try to be as concise as possible..That you want to include more non-Western views is not an unreasonable demand. Unfortunately, the fact is that walls of text don't help always and the length and sheer volume of your posts makes it impossible to figure out what exactly you're seeking. Winged Blades Godric 15:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)"

    The above evidence is being submitted per the request of Softlavendar in the section above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    More Comments, Not Again!

    Not again! As the original posters have noted, this has been going on for a year. The subject editor, Robert Walker, has some issue about the articles on Buddhism. I don't entirely understand what the issue is, both because it appears to be something specific to Buddhism that isn't relevant to non-Buddhists, and because the great length and number of the posts are a barrier to understanding. I think that RW is unhappy that the articles were substantially reworked by User:Joshua Jonathan (JJ) and User:Ms Sarah Welch (SW) in 2014, but I am not sure. In any case, the issue of the length and number of his posts has been brought up here in the past, and it appears that it resulted in restrictions being imposed, but they have expired. In any case, an attempt was made to discuss at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was closed; my own thought there was that RW didn't identify a specific content issue, and DRN is for the discussion of article content issues (not meta-issues or conduct). The issue was then taken to the reliable source noticeboard, which is now being swamped by walls of text, but the issue doesn't seem to have to do with specific sources but a general philosophical complaint about the difference between Western academic sources and traditional Asian sources. It appears that all efforts to get RW to state a concise issue are unsuccessful, and, besides, he apparently can't just post a statement (whether or not a wall of text) without editing it while others (JJ and SW) are responding. I don't see any likelihood of a collaborative solution for an editor who can't take part in collaboration. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Robert McClenon: - for clarity, I did not take it to the DRN. I said on my talk page that I am sure a DRN won't work, having identified what I believe to be the issue, that we have different SUBPOVs here, it's towards the end of this comment [145]. Soon after that, @Joshua Jonathan: took the case to DRN. I never wanted it at DRN, but once there of course I made the best case I could there. Robert Walker (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't important whether RW or JJ took it to DRN. It is important that the length of RW's posts made it impossible for the DRN volunteers to facilitate moderated discussion or to identify what the issues were. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue of me continually editing my posts should now be solved with @Softlavender:'s suggestion to use my sandbox. I haven't re-edited any post since then after posting, only two posts of any length since then. Please let me use this for a while so you can see that it works, as I am sure it will. Robert Walker (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is only one part of the problem, and has apparently been proposed and accepted and forgotten in the past. However, the refactoring of talk page posts is only one part of the problem, because the length of the posts is also a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true. However my editing often reduces the length of posts. I often start with a post that is too verbose, and if I don't get any replies to it, then I am able to trim it down a lot by removing repetition. You should see shorter posts as a result. Also note that @Joshua Jonathan: also often does extremely long posts, he is as verbose as me, or not far off - if I had the opportunity to trim my verbose posts as I will be able to do now, you probably won't see any difference. And my posts throughout are written with great care and thought to present the point as clearly as I can and are never intended to be disruptive. Robert Walker (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone finds that I am saying too much - why not just go to my talk page and say "Look you have said a bit too much in that conversation, why not take a wikibreak for a day or two?" That is what I do when I spot that I've been too verbose myself. Why take me to ANI just to tell me that I've been too verbose again, and try to get me topic banned for it?
    User:Robertinventor - The problem is, first, telling you that your posts are too long simply results in a reply, which is more words, and, second, telling you to take a break is a little late after your overly lengthy post has made concise discussion impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: To reply to your earlier comment, the essential point is that these articles do not present the views of sutra tradition Buddhists. Just as Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus - sutra tradition Buddhists believe that Buddha became enlightened as a young man aged 30 and at that point he was already free of the unsatisfactoriness of suffering, old age, sickness and death, even though he went on to become old, sick and die. I have given plenty of cites to WP:RS in sutra tradition Buddhism, but these are not accepted as proving the case because they are written by Buddhists! This is one of many issues with these articles but one of the most striking, It's like coming across an article about Christianity that doesn't explain that Christians believe in resurrection. It's a simple point. @Joshua Jonathan: and @Ms Sarah Welch: complicate the discussion every time I mention this by saying that Buddha said it was his last rebirth, which is true. But that is not what enlightenment means to Buddhists, it means this cessation of dukkha which in the case of Buddha he realized as a young man. So the main issue can be stated concisely. There are many other issues of a similar nature in the articles. So, the problem I have is not so much stating the issues, as in convincing editors here who are unfamiliar with sutra tradition Buddhists that this is what Buddhist believe. It is tough to do this against all the claims of the opposing editors that we do not have this belief. As for the reliable sources, my "Four Noble Truths" colour coded by the sources shows how the new version relies almost entirely on western sources such as Anderson for nearly every sentence in the lede. This is why it is essential to establish that it is okay to use the traditional Buddhist sources to describe the beliefs of sutra tradition Buddhists. @Dorje108: agrees that they are POV and he is the only other sutra tradition Buddhist to comment on the dispute. See [146]. As for my decision to take it to the RSN, that was the recommendation of @Winged Blades of Godric:. He made this recommendation as one of two possibilities when I closed the dispute. [147]. I have never taken a case to the RSN before and was unfamiliar with how it works and I didn't use their recommended format of Article, Content and Source as three bullet points and wrote too much. If I'd known how it worked, I'd have written my post like that right away, and it could have saved a lot of unnecessary meta discussion. Incidentally I composed this reply in my sandbox as you can check easily. So far I have saved 11 minor edits on the talk pages by using the sandbox. This is going to make a huge difference to those issues. Robert Walker (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert McClenon: I concur with rest of your observations, except one detail. I should set the record straight on that, to avoid giving an impression that Joshua Jonathan and I have been "team editing" the affected articles since 2014. The credit for the improvements to Four Noble Truths etc articles in 2014 and 2015 do not belong to me, it belongs to others including Joshua Jonathan. My first edit to Four Noble Truths article was on 29 April 2016, after being invited to review the article earlier about a year ago because of a dispute which included RW and JJ. In other words, JJ and I haven't been working together on the disputed articles since 2014. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Robert McClenon: - when has telling me that my posts are too long lead to more replies? Except here of course, where you say that I will be topic banned from the Buddhism topic area for six months in which case of course I need to reply. But has anyone ever said this on my talk page? Or suggested I take a wikibreak because I'm being too verbose? I don't know of any examples. Whenever they think I am being too verbose, they take me straight to WP:ANI and the first I hear of it is a post on my talk page saying I have an action against me here. Robert Walker (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific Unpleasant Remedy, Topic-Ban

    Since all efforts both by JJ and SW and by uninvolved administrators and editors to get the issue defined concisely have failed, I find it necessary to propose that Robert Walker be topic-banned from all posts about Buddhism, broadly defined, for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I've been looking over the discussion both here as well as on WP:RSN and agree that this is the only way forward. Robert Walker needs to learn the difference between primary sources and secondary sources, the importance of an orderly discussion, the importance of focused suggestions, as well as the disruptive nature of walls of text that are being constantly edited and re-edited. At the same time, I feel that they are acting in good faith. Perhaps a topic area in which they are not so deeply invested will help them learn the way of the wiki. I'd prefer to see some evidence outside Buddhism that they can edit meaningfully before a topic ban is lifted so would also support an indef topic ban with the possibility of applying for its removal after six months. --regentspark (comment) 21:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @RegentsPark: You don't need proof that I can edit meaningfully here as I edit in many areas. I wrote about half of the article Planetary protection - and ditto for Interplanetary contamination. I wrote Present day Mars habitability analogue environments on Earth recently. Also Modern Mars habitability recently. Both of those are almost entirely my work. So is the Hexany article. I have many contributions here also in the articles on microtonal music and I do many minor edits throughout wikipedia adding content. This dispute has rather distracted me away from that activity, which is what I normally do here. This whole thing started in 2014 when @Joshua Jonathan: rewrote what I considered to be some of the best articles in wikipedia, such as @Dorje108:'s original article on Karma in Buddhism, which had been in a mature state for a long time. I wanted to do something about this as a reader who admired his work on those articles, which represented a complex and intricate subject with careful use of what we regard as the WP:RS in the Buddhism topic area as sutra tradition Buddhists. Robert Walker (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert, I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but the walls of text, the refactoring, etc. makes it hard to see what else we can do. This is a volunteer effort and it is impractical to expect anyone to read and make sense of what you're getting at. I was hoping you would see that but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. You're way too invested in this topic - work elsewhere for a bit and then let's see. --regentspark (comment) 22:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes okay. But do you need to topic ban me to say this? Why not just kindly post to my talk page making this suggestion? I am going to take a wikibreak right now. Anyone could have suggested that at any time through these proceedings, and I'd have listened to them, indeed I'd have paid very careful attention to anyone who had made that suggestion. They didn't need to take me to WP:ANI. Just say that my verbosity was a problem again. That would have been enough. Robert Walker (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No. No. We have said that your verbosity is a problem many times, and you have acknowledged it, but that hasn't changed anything. It apparently is necessary to impose some sort of sanctions on you. You say that you need to be told to take a wikibreak. Okay, but - There is a type of editor in Wikipedia, of whom you are not the only one, who is passive-aggressive, who edits tendentiously in some way or other, and then, when brought up to this noticeboard, says that they plan to take a wikibreak, sometimes a long wikibreak. This does stop whatever the problem is for a while, but, after the break, they come back, and the disruptive behavior resumes, and the slate was swept clean because the community thought, in good faith, that the problem was solved, which it was, for a little while. Yes, apparently we have to take action anyway, rather than just delaying a decision until you come back and your verbosity is a problem again. I know that you mean well, but that doesn't make you a constructive editor in the long run. Yes, something has to be done other than just delaying a decision until your wikibreak is over. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon is spot on. Look at the links above, RW. The DRN volunteer mentioned your wall of text is a problem. The RSN volunteer said the same. I said the same. RegentsPark appealed to you last week about it (again all this is linked above, in some cases with quotes). The wikipedia community is here to contribute to building a free and ever-improving encyclopedia that is available to every poor or rich fellow human being with an access to the web. It is not here to endlessly deal with your or similar disruptive behavior. We are well past the stage of cautioning, pleading, suggesting, rinsing and repeating our suggestions to you. Please reflect on the fact that you, RW, have been through this cycle before in 2016. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But why do you take me straight to ANI without saying on my talk page that I am being too verbose? There hasn't been any example where anyone has said "We are thinking of taking you to ANI, can you do something about your behaviour"? If I felt another editor was being problematical in their behaviour I would go to their talk page and talk to them 1 on 1 about it first. You all agree that I act in good faith and am motivated and want to help wikipedia. I think you'd be surprised at what happens if you tried this. And make suggestions to help. @Softlavender: was the first one to do that with her suggestion to use the Sandbox - which would have completely eliminated the refactoring issue if someone had mentioned that to me, maybe someone did and I missed it, but nobody really tried to help with the issue to the extent of actually talking about it to me as a person in a friendly way to try to help. Robert Walker (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Robert McClenon got it right: RW is unhappy with the fact that "Karma in Buddhism" and "Four Noble Truths" were reworked (thanks for the honours, MSW). Robert admits this himself: "This whole thing started in 2014 when @Joshua Jonathan: rewrote what I considered to be some of the best articles in wikipedia." This rewriting was not just about primary and secondary sources, it was about WP:RS, WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, and WP:RNPOV, as explained in every minute detail at the talkpages and notice-boards. I've been interacting with him now for 2,5 years; while others can summarize in a few lines what those policies imply and move on, RW is still trying to figure out what the first policy mentioned here means, nay, how he can bend it to get what he wants. So, how long will it take him to understand this first policy, let alone the rest? The Four Noble Truths article is now stuffed with references, from both Buddhists and academich scholars, and complete subsections, which answer Robert's concerns (neat summary). I've also made changes in response to the concrete suggestions he made (another neat overview). To no avail: Robert wants his preferred versions back. No arguments will help here. Despite all the explanations about this, for Robert it comes down to "I don't like it, because it does not reflect my pov." So, yes, I support a topic-ban; I've wasted so incredibly many hours on this yet, that a break is very welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Changed !vote to oppose set term ban as proposed, support indefinite topic ban. Robert is a repeat offender, the previous fixed term ban solved nothing, and he doesn't seem to be learning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - good heavens, he's still creating walls of text in this area? Especially after the following section ... he obviously isn't getting the idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: [1] RegentsPark's suggestion of an indef Buddhism topic area ban on RW with a possibility of 6 month review by any admin; [2] Softlavendar's suggestion that RW be prohibited from "editing his posts once he has posted them, no matter whether anyone has responded to them or not. If necessary, this may be made into an administrator's official sanction in order to prevent disruption." This would apply site wide including noticeboards such as AN, DRN and RSN. [3] On "accusations/allegations without edit diffs or appropriate evidence" issue, a caution would suffice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of proposed topic ban of Robert Walker from the Buddhism topic area

    Well it looks as if you are going to topic ban me again. Perhaps there is nothing I can do but do let me just try to post some words in my defense, and maybe some other editors here will have another perspective on it? @Robert McClenon: You brought up several things at once, the length of my posts, the refactoring of them, the number of them. In answer to those points:

    • @Softlavender:'s suggestion to use the sandbox will deal with the refactoring problem completely.
    • It will also deal with the second one also to a large extent as often my editing of my posts is to deal with verbosity - you will notice that edited posts are often shorter - so if I do them in my sandbox I can reduce the length considerably.

    You also say that I was warned before this But out of five times that @Joshua Jonathan: and now @Ms Sarah Welch: have taken me to WP:ANI, they have never tried a friendly resolution. Why not test me to see if I am one of those tendentious editors, by first posting to my talk page: "you are being too verbose, please take a wikibreak, or slow down".

    It is easier to be succint when the editors you are talking to are also concise. @Joshua Jonathan:'s very post about my walls of text on the RSN was a wall of text [148] of 7,817 bytes. He does many replies that are thousands of bytes long including this reply to my short summary of the issues on the 4NT article: [149]. Also, many of those bullet points are short questions that require me to provide detailed evidence in response.

    The central issue here is simple to state. I wish to add a POV tag to four articles on Buddhism in wikipedia, Karma in Buddhism, Four Noble Truths, Anatta, and Nirvana on the basis that they do not present the views of the world faith of sutra tradition Buddhism which has over 200 million followers outside China (and a similar number in China), see Buddhism by country. I think their views on their own faith needs to be presented somewhere in wikipedia, either in the same article as the views of western academics or in separate articles for their views as a WP:SUBPOV. The opposing editors claim that western academic sources are preferred as they give a "distance" and are not coloured by our faith[150].

    I can't expect you to know which of the many authors on Therevadan Buddhism are regarded as WP:RS, but can you not see that amongst a world faith with hundreds of millions of adherents and many countries that are almost entirely Buddhist such as Thailand, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Bhutan etc - that there must be some well regarded Buddhist scholars that could be used as sources for their own beliefs? Walpola Rahula and Prayudh Payutto are amongst the best regarded eminent scholars from the Buddhist scholarly traditions of Sri Lanka and Thailand respectively, with Buddhist populations of 14 million (70% of the population) for Sri Lanka and 64 million (93%) for Thailand. If I went to the RSN and asked if the Watchtower could be used as a source for the views of Jehovah's Witnesses, there would not be any question about this as everyone knows what it is, and they know that it is the main way that Jehovah's Witnesses express their beliefs. But @Dorje108: and myself are the only ones in the discussions so far from this world faith of hundreds of millions of Buddhists, and both of us say the articles are POV. The 2014 versions of the articles show that there are many well regarded WP:RS sources within the sutra traditions themselves, and these articles were in a mature state for many years before @Joshua Jonathan:'s rewrite of them to the western academic Buddhism POV. I used colour coding here to show how the new lede relies almost entirely on the western academic sources Colour Coded Four Noble Truths.

    One of the most central points is that in Four Noble Truths it explains in the lede that Buddha realized cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness by first ending rebirth, so that when he died he wouldn't take rebirth again. I can understand how this may seem to make more sense to a westerner. But for sutra tradition Buddhist, they have the direction of causality here back to front. Buddha was able to say it was his last rebirth because he realized cessation and was free from Samsara already as a young man. My attempts to answer their many challenges to this, is like a Christian trying to respond to a challenge: "Christians don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus - prove it!". How can you give a short answer to that if they won't accept any of the sources that are well regarded in your faith? This is just one of the easiest to explain of numerous statements in these articles that contradict the faith of sutra tradition Buddhism, presented as an unbiased explanation of what we believe by western academics.

    All I want to do is to add a POV tag, not to edit the articles. Since the neutrality itself is under dispute then as per WP:NPOVD, the first stage is to invite discussion, by adding these tags, over whether it is indeed WP:POV. And yet @Joshua Jonathan: in the last month or so has deleted my original post to the talk page with a short summary of the issues, for which he apologized, @Ms Sarah Welch: collapsed it, they edited my POV tag when I added it to first change the talk page entry it pointed to, then remove it, then remove the tag altogether, on the basis that my claim that the article is WP:POV is invalid - but the tag just says that its neutrality is disputed. How can a dispute over whether an article is WP:POV be resolved by one of the editors in the dispute removing the tag while the dispute is in progress? Then they took me to DRN over a POV tag, when I already said on my talk page that I don't think we can solve this by DRN. Surely the unresolved DRN by itself proves that the neutrality of these articles is disputed? And I went to the RSN as a result of the recommendation of the closing editor for the DRN. Now they take me to WP:ANI twice in a single month. They have a clear editorial interest in getting me topic banned to prevent me from adding those tags. That's the background to this action. Robert Walker (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Incidentally I composed this message in my sandbox as you can check easily, so saving 16 minor edits :) )

    From a friend's comments off wiki I discovered something is unclear here. If I am not topic banned, and I am permitted to do so, my plan is to add the four POV tags to the articles. I would add a very succint summary of the main issues as I see them - and my proposed solution to do two versions of each article similarly to the four SUBPOV articles on Resurrection of Jesus, and link to the colour coded two versions of the articles and any additional material in my own user space, not in the talk page. I would recommend that JJ and SW similarly present a succint summary of their views and put additional material in their user space. I would then step back and see if anyone comments. The main aim would be to get more editorial eyes on it, from readers of the articles. Maybe that can lead to a solution, and I feel we have taken it as far as we can in this discussion, and the solution has to come as a result of others, especially the sutra tradition Buddhists themselves, presenting their ideas and views on the topic. Robert Walker (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert Walker, please do not present your content dispute with JoshuaJonathan and others at ANI. This discussion is about your conduct as an editor. JimRenge (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JimRenge:, I was responding to other editors here who referred to the content dispute as part of their reason for the topic ban[151]. Robert Walker (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to put in the diffs, so here again: Here @Joshua Jonathan: deleted my original post to the talk page with a short summary of the issues[152], @Ms Sarah Welch: collapsed it[153], then after I added my POV tag pointing to this list of issues, [154] they edited it so it doesn't point to any section in the talk page, then removed the tag altogether[155] while the neutrality was still disputed. Then they take me to DRN because I objected to them removing a POV tag! And now want me topic banned, which of course will prevent me from adding any POV tags. Robert Walker (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Offer for future editing behaviour

    Tenebrae and WP:DISRUPT

    Lately, Tenebrae has shown a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality when it comes to RuPaul's Drag Race and the corresponding season articles. A consensus was reached that we would use the show as a primary source for the progress of the contestants (similar to Project_Runway_(season_14) & Big_Brother_18_(U.S.)). Tenebrae refuses to have any of it. Here is a list of his edits saying that he is restoring the status quo while he filibusters everyone to death because he is the only editor who isn't getting his way:

    Then there was a RfC opened which was immediately one-sided. And multiple attempts by users to call for it to be closed since consensus was quickly reached again [171] [172] [173]. Tenebrae then took it upon himself to gaslight and bring up the actions of opposing editors as a red herring [174] [175]. He has also shown that he believes he is better than others due to his time on the wiki and his arbitrarily inflated edit count. [176].

    I want Tenebrae blocked for disruptive editing, topic banned from anything Rupaul related, and banned from opening RfCs. This user will show up here and point out what other editors are doing and repeat the same nonsensical verbiage about secondary POV pushing or whatever. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am very close to blocking you for your edit summary and behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure --NeilN talk to me 00:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the place to discuss Tenebrae's actions. If you want to discuss mine, you should open another topic. However, you are WP:INVOLVED due to my questioning of your administrative actions before, so I highly suggest you recuse yourself from participating. Also, there was no problematic edit summary on that page, so please be more specific in the future. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BOOMERANG. And questioning my admin actions does not make me involved. Lastly, gtfo is not acceptable here. --NeilN talk to me 00:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure how to respond to User:Nihlus Kryik. Except for himself and one other editor who have been uncivil and/or have been name-calling at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#Request for comment, all the other editors have been discussing the WP:VERIFY / WP:PRIMARYSOURCE issue reasonably and collegially. As is not surprising, there is no consensus there after just two days. I'm not sure why he would throw in irrelevant comments about edit-count. I also don't know how to respond to a new editor who has attempted to edit others' talk-page posts and even an admin's post at ANI.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, the editor who I said would only talk about what others are doing is only talking about what others are doing! nihlus kryik (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that that comment was uncivil, but it's a favorite initialism of mine. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also note User:Nihlus Kryik is WP:CANVASSING editors he believes disagrees with me to come to this ANI, and is not contacting those who agree with me. See his contributions notifying only Obsidi ‎and Anonymous5454 ‎but not Brocicle or Trooper1005, for example. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More about what others are doing and no comment about his own actions. Surprising... I notified the users who believe you have been disruptive. It has nothing to do with agreeing with you. Feel free to notify anyone else. I don't care. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to care as your actions are against guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 00:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet here you are derailing another topic. As I said, if there are concerns about my edits, feel free to open another topic, but being disruptive here is not going to get anything done. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how ANI works. The actions of all editors involved in a situation are examined. --NeilN talk to me 00:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And in fact, I do need to point out another false comment by Nihlus Kryik, that he "notified the users who believe you have been disruptive" (as if that excuses canvassing). If one does a search for the word "disrupt" at the RfC, Nihlus Kryik is, in fact, the only one who has used it against me. Not only did User:Obsidi never say I was disruptive, he in fact tempered his opposite position to mine with nuanced comments about WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec x3) Please bear in mind, that when you bring an issue to AN/I, your own actions are taken into consideration too. As Neil has stated, your actions, ESPECIALLY refactoring someone's comments on AN, are against our guidelines. WP:BOOMERANG exists for a reason, and you may need to be mindful of this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't refactor someone's comments. I nowiki'd a template to prevent the bot from archiving. There is a massive difference and I am tired of being accused of something different. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? You modified an admin's decision three times. --NeilN talk to me 00:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not modify a decision. I put nowiki brackets around a template to stop the bot from archiving. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? nihlus kryik (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin closed the discussion. It should have been archived. --NeilN talk to me 00:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The closed it because Tenebrae showed up and derailed the conversation, like you are doing here. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit you negated the decision because you didn't like it. --NeilN talk to me 00:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because it made no mention of the closure request and purely focused on the disruptive edits by Tenebrae. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed it because it was clear that the ongoing dispute from the article's talk page had spilled over to WP:AN/RFC and was likely to continue there unless halted by a third party. It had all the appearance of a WP:OTHERPARENT thread; of the twenty edits prior to my closure, all edits were to the same thread and were by three people, all of whom were disputants in the RfC proper; and yes, although Tenebrae did make the most edits in the block that I hatted, it was clear to me that Nihlus Kryik was not going to let it lie and the dispute could have continued for much longer. So my closure was a response to the actions of others besides Tenebrae. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And while you all were worried about me, Tenebrae has continued his battleground editing. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't had any involvement in this controversy until now. I will only comment that the conduct of User:Nihlus Kryik is one of the most flagrant examples of self-defeating conduct at this noticeboard that I have seen, but apparently User:Nihlus Kryik really doesn't understand that the filing party's conduct really is also scrutinized at this noticeboard, and apparently doesn't understand that insulting of administrators isn't a good idea. (It is true that a few other disruptive editors have deliberately insulted administrators in order to be able to argue that the administrator was involved and thus disqualified. That approach doesn't work, and sometimes results in a site ban. User:Nihlus Kryik - Stop being your own worst enemy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Robert McClenon. Regardless of the merits of the dispute, Nihlus Kryik is ensuring their complaint fails. As already said by others, editors need to expect their behaviour to be scrutinised at ANI when they are complaining about someone else in a dispute which the complainant is also involved in. Telling people to open a new thread because this one is only about the other person's behaviour is nearly always counterproductive. Still a single mistake may be ignored. However if someone keeps on insisting people aren't allowed to comment in their behaviour and goes as far as to show further bad behaviour here at ANI, many people aren't even likely to look into the complaint. The behaviour makes people think there is no merit to it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you simply aren't doing your jobs if you think it is perfectly okay to ignore a complaint due to the complainer's actions. nihlus kryik (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI Nil Einne and Robert aren't admins. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    The problem you face, Nihlus Kryik, is that your own statements draw attention to your behavior. You state that consensus was reached to "use the show as a primary source for the progress of the contestants". But the discussion you linked to has "YES, RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES CAN BE USED FOR HIGH/LOW MARKS" as its close. Tenebrae's second RFC then involved primary sources. You declared consensus had been reached after two days and tried to have the discussion closed. Obviously any editor disagreeing with you in the RFC is going to object to you doing this. You labelled them disruptive editors and when another admin declined to close, you refused to accept that and tried to keep the close request open three times. You even went to another admin's page demanding they explain why they reverted your disruptive changes. Finally, you came here, accused Tenebrae of disruptive editing, canvassed, and seemed upset when they defended themselves. --NeilN talk to me 03:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I've seen, both of their behavior (Nihlus Kryik and Tenebrae) have been very poor in this area. Nihlus Kryik's been pushing what the consensus is far more expansively then can reasonably be claimed, and Tenebrae's been fighting every inch even when many editors disagree with him. Both have been having very WP:Battleground kind of mentality. Having both together have made the editing far more contentious then it should have been. I know Nihlus has made some poor decisions, but we should look at all the editors behaviors involved here not just Nihlus. I would suggest both Nihlus and Tenebrae be topic banned from the RuPaul's Drag Race pages. -Obsidi (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Obsidi: Can you provide some diffs to show Tenebrae is editing against consensus? --NeilN talk to me 04:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the question, and I'm gratified to see no such diffs could be provided. I do have to note that Obsidi was the closer of the previous RfC and is now on the opposite side of the issue from me in the current RfC. I'm sure he's operating in good faith, yet his unique position as a closer who's now become partisan may color his judgment. Finally, I might be misinterpreting but I think he and I agree on a basic principle: that unless a primary-source judge specifically says "so-and-so is ranked high" (or synonym) and "so-and-so is ranked low" (or synonym), then any claim of high or low is subjective, POV interpretation. I'm not sure why anyone would ever find it objectionable to give a cite supporting that what they say is true. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied below, with the diffs requested of the conduct I was refering to. -Obsidi (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my response at Obsidi's 18:48, 1 May 2017 post below. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this is isn't the place but this really needs to be resovled but do we use reliable secondary sources to source the progress tables of previous seasons? I feel like no one's really given a straight forward answer to the question that started all of this. Brocicle (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See [[177]] @Nihlus Kryik:, I see that you had an old account with multiple blocks. What is the name of your old account? Doug Weller talk 10:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We just finished a RfC in which it was disputed if even secondary sources which directly supported if a contestant was High/Low could be used. And now Tenebrae's started a second RfC in which the question is if edits that are “subjective” can rely upon a primary source. And he has edit wared (although not breaking 3RR), to keep the all edits on High/Low marks out of the article during this second RfC ([178], [179], [180], [181], [182]). Let’s assume that by subjective he means inferences or conclusions and RfC properly resolves that such things cannot be used. That still doesn’t answer the question as to if any of the edits removed are actually “subjective” and as such he is removing edits which are not going to be resolved by the RfC on the basis of the RfC’s existence. And so even once the RfC resolves (which he is insisting on waiting the full 30 days) there are going to be further disputes on the subjectivitiness of the edits he is currently removing. That’s at least one more 30 day RfC just waiting to happen. And so we got to ask, at what point will the vast majority of editors actually be able to change the text as they think is appropriate? To me it just seems to be repeated stonewalling not based on any explicit reason as to why any given episode is subjective, but a blanket statement that isn’t true for all cases, for the purpose of not having High/Low marks in the article. And instead is going to wait 30 days for one RfC, then 30 days for another, and then 30 days for another, etc… It isn’t good behavior, imo, but it wasn’t bad enough for me to have personally brought him to ANI yet (and I’m not going to talk about behavior of editors outside of that context).-Obsidi (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on editorial deadline today and probably shouldn't be taking time to respond, yet I must reply to false claims and unfounded accusations by Obsidi, who accuses me of edit-warring despite, among other things, my not making multiple edits.
    The diffs he offers above are in full compliance with WP:RfC protocol, which states that once an RfC begins, we don't make contentious edits to the staus-quo sections under discussion until the RfC is resolved and a consensus is reached. The edit-summaries plainly state, "Issue is under discussion at an RfC" and "Restoring status quo now that RfC has begun....." Indeed, another editor here makes the very same edit restoring status quo, and I don't see Obsidi making any claims against that editor.
    I have been assuming good faith all this time, and now have to state my concern that Obsidi, the non-admin closer of an RfC, has gone on to take a partisan position on the related RfC. This gives the appearance that his first close was not objective and disinterested. Perhaps his initial close should be reviewed, since a) his making unfounded accusations here shows questionable judgment and a misunderstanding of WP:RfC, and b) allowing subjective, POV interpretations of primary-source content flies in the face of longstanding Wikipedia policy, as does c) resisting quote-and-timestamp citing of the vague statements being interpreted. If the interpretations are valid, then no one should be reluctant to cite the statement.
    As for User:Nihlus Kryik — an extremely new, apparent SPA editor who is making wild accusations and showing highly intemperate behavior not only with me but with multiple admins — I would have to say his judgment speaks for itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I cited 5 edits of you reverting (all of these were to the single season page, among the dozen of reverts split among the multiple season pages). But your RfC is so broad, its practically a policy question (I’m not even sure it is relevant on that page), allowing you to revert huge areas of the article for 30 days. Everyone should be able to agree that a primary source cannot be used for subjective (or as I would refer to them as interpretations and conclusions) statements. But the RfC doesn’t decide if any specific statement is subjective, and yet you would claim under the authority of the RfC to revert whatever edits you personally think are subjective for 30 days even when the RfC won’t even resolve that question? That’s very disruptive, see WP:STONEWALL and WP:STONEWALLING.
    As to the quotes/timestamps, there are millions of cites without quotes on Wikipedia, and many don’t even have a timestamp yet alone a quote. If the accuracy of a citation is challenged to a source like this we usually require a timestamp (mostly for easy of verification like page numbers), but we have never required a quote (sometimes one isn’t even possible when summarizing large sections). Nor have I seen ANY policy that requires quotes on all these citations. If you would like to change that policy to require quotes, fine, but this page really isn’t the place to change policy.
    If you would like to challenge my close feel free (although I would ask you open another section to dispute it as this section is about potential behavioral problems). I think my close accurately reflected the discussion and the relevant policy considerations. But I would note that the closure requirements ask if “the closing editor may have become inextricably involved through previous experience in the conflict area.” Involvement AFTER the close is not relevant, I am clearly involved in this second RfC and it would be improper of me to close this one. -Obsidi (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to point out that only two editors who are opposed to my position, including one highly intemperate editor, are claiming I have been disruptive. No one other than you two are saying so. And you were brought here via that other editor's inappropriate canvassing. No one else appears to have an issue. You also bring up smokescreening claims here that have nothing to do with what the RfC discussion is about, let alone this discussion. The RfC is not about policy. It is about the fact that judges on RuPaul's Drag Race don't tell contestants "you're ranked high this week" or "you're ranekd low." Therefore, you and Nihlus Kryik appear to want to be free to add subjective, POV interpretations of whatever statements are allegedly being made by the primary source. That violates WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Simple as that. And it's telling that you're so opposed to telling other editors exactly what statements you're interpreting.
    I'm not a fan of non-admins closing RfCs, precisely for what I'm seeing here: By taking a partisan position on the related RfC, you raise reasonable suspicions that your close was not objective and disinterested, since you obviously have partisan feelings. So perhaps a review is in order. But one thing at a time. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your right that so far no one other than me and Nihlus Kryik has commented, Yea or Nea, on if you were being disruptive (I assume they are waiting to see what the arguments from both sides look like before they weigh in). If it stays just the two of us, you will be fine. You are also right that I was canvased in (I am at these boards often and would have commented anyway, but I was canvassed as much as I didn't want to be and can't change that now), so the closer and other editors are free to take into account that I was canvassed into this discussion. If you would like, I can notify everyone that has been active on that page, which should reduce the problems caused by the inappropriate canvassing.
    If the RfC question was "Does the show RuPaul's Drag Race ever explicitly identify someone as ranked high or low, or is any such determination an interpretation or conclusion?" then I would agree with you (and the answer would refer to specific instances in which some judges say x or y, or some other reason to believe someone was ranked high/low based on the show). But the question of the RfC doesn't even mention the show at all, it is a pure question of policy applicable to many pages: Can editors make subjective claims based on the primary-source episodes without providing a cite (timestamp and quote) as to what exactly was said? Not one word of that is about the content of the show. -Obsidi (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for a reasoned and collegial reply. I think the fact that the RfC is specifically at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race and not at Wikipedia talk:No original research or a similar page signals that the RfC is about RuPaul's Drag Race. I don't believe anyone at the RfC discussion seems unaware of this or believes otherwise, judging by their comments.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warn Tenebrae I'm going to change my mind a bit. While I had previously recommended topic banning Tenebrae, I'm changing my recommendation to a warning. As much as I think the behavior is very WP:STONEWALLish, I'm not sure he was properly warned and allowed a chance to correct his behavior. Nihlus kryik tried to tell him, but didn't do so in a very good way based on policy, and so I could understand Tenebrae not understanding the problem. And even so, most of the problems I have seen are prior to even Nihlus kryik, in his flawed way, trying to tell Tenebrae. Once warned he should be given a chance not to do bad things prior to getting topic banned. While being warned isn't a requirement, it is usually expected prior to something as serious as a topic ban unless it is very clearly wrong behavior. -Obsidi (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Obsidi: Pointing out that consensus is being misused and opposing editors gas-lighting by willfully ignoring consensus, even denying it exists (essentially lying), is not battleground behavior. It's rare, but sometimes everyone else is wrong and sometimes there is a cabal.--v/r - TP 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care if he is pointing out that he doesn't believe there is a consensus if that is a good faith belief. I wouldn't refer to what the other editor was doing as explicitly lying or gaslighting, merely disagreeemnt as to the consensus. No my problems are diffrent than just that. -Obsidi (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming that a consensus exists about primary sources when the consensus is about secondary sources is straight up lying. Disruptively hounding an editor that they are wrong when, in very plain text, they are correct is gaslighting. My description is accurate.--v/r - TP 19:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC was about secondary sources (not primary sources), that doesn't mean there wasn't a consensus in favor of using primary sources as well (although it had yet to have been established conclusivily by an RfC close so I'm assuming he was refering to a local consensus). -Obsidi (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be pointed out that when I came to the discussion about "High"s and "Low"s originally to give a third opinion, I had no previous connection to the issue at hand. I believe that the issue at hand is misunderstood by many parties and there was a lot of "I like it" voting going on which in my opinion falsely indicated consensus. I took the time to research the matter and to be fair, it's major muddy water territory. Judge ratings being different to table entries, secondary sources that only back up one episode for the table entries and it's strictly up to viewer interpretation to extrapolate the final result for these tables from the primary source for all of the episodes involved. So you can see why people are getting frustrated at each other and ending up accusing each other of misconduct. The editor who closed the original decision didn't look at the core issues at great enough detail so any apparent consensus was tilted heavily towards the "I like it" votes that saturated the discussion. I don't think that any editor (including Nihlus Kryik) taking part in that discussion should have action taken against them but the issue that this complaint stems from (about Highs and Lows) needs a decisive answer from an uninvolved editor and I'm too involved with the issue to do that now. Thank you. -=Troop=- (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (non admin comment) I would be interested to know why Nihlus was so concerned about the block of user F0rmation122. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 15:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Originally I assumed it was because he lost some sort of "ally". That set of articles has editors with odd editing histories and I included Nihlus in with them. [183] Doug Weller's comment above makes the situation have a lot more sense now. --NeilN talk to me 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspected a possible sock, but it's all for the better if I'm mistaken. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 19:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I stated I didn't think it was a "new" editor, hence either a sock of someone or avoiding scrutiny. --NeilN talk to me 19:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN: Or a perfectly proper WP:CLEANSTART, merely not being a "new" editor doesn't mean something neferious neccessarily. -Obsidi (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start" Not exactly a perfectly proper WP:CLEANSTART. --NeilN talk to me 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    RuPaul's Drag Race isn't usually what I would consider a "articles and topics [that] are particularly contentious" at least usually. Now yes, there is RfCs that started after he started editing on this page, but RfC's happen on all kinds of pages. There is no community sanction or arbitration case involving these pages. -Obsidi (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC was started before their last batch of seven reverts. So we have an editor, making trivial edits to get auto-confirmed, edit warring on content under discussion in an active RFC. Far from a perfectly proper WP:CLEANSTART. --NeilN talk to me 20:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we have an editor on an effective WP:CLEANSTART, with multiple blocks on their previous account (per Doug Weller above), whose editing under their new account includes disruption, edit-warring and incivility, and who comes to ANI demanding another edit be blocked. Have I summed this up succinctly? Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He is clearly on a WP:CLEANSTART, but there is nothing inproper in that. We don't know, yet, if the previous blocks are related to this sitaution, nor any evidence that it was a clean start to evade WP:SCRUTINY. I have no problem with Doug Weller asking for the prior name to make sure the blocks are unrelated to the current situation (or at least a reason for the clean start so we can know if we should confirm that more confidentially). But so far, we should act based on his current behavior (which do seem bad enough for some kind of sanction). -Obsidi (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Obsidi: Their previous account did not have to be editing in the same or related areas to make their history relevant. We're looking at their behavior. Edit warring, disruption, canvassing, and landing at ANI all within their first ~100 edits. This would probably result in a block if there was past similar history. --NeilN talk to me 20:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say he had to be editing "in the same or related areas to make their history relevant" merely that we don't yet know if his history is relevant. The blocks may be on entirely unrelated issues, we just don't know yet. -Obsidi (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nihlus Kryik: I'm a volunteer here, as with nearly everyone else. I don't have a job. Even if I were an admin, I still wouldn't have a job. Heck even if I did have a job here, it's entirely resonably my employer might feel because there are insufficient people-hours I should prioritise on complaints or problems where it looks like there is something worth dealing with and not waste my time on complaints where the complainers own actions very strongly suggest there's nothing to look at, except maybe whether the complainer merits a block. If you think people always need to take every single complaint you make seriously, not matter how flawed it is, you've got another thing coming. Especially when the people dealing with the complaint are volunteers and you have absolutely zero service commitment or undertaking from the service you're complaining about. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:This is Paul Uncivil Report

    I believe that User:This is Paul has repeatedly acted very uncivilly towards me with no justification.

    The issue seemed to begin after I made a single good faith revert in light of guidelines on the matter on which I had previously been uninvolved. My commit and Talk page comment gave my rationale on my actions.

    From here I will let the diffs from This is Paul speak for themselves: [184], [185], [186], [187]

    My responses were defensive and sometimes a bit snarky in places, however I believe remained relatively civil considering the responses I was receiving. In the end, I tried to address the issue directly on his talk page [188]

    However rather than take the feedback on board, This is Paul instead continued with the behaviour and responded with another personal attack: [189]

    I believe that the wiki community has a pillar and consensus that we shouldn’t accept this sort of behaviour, which is the main reason that has lead me to lodge this report. Thank you for your time. Dresken (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    While I admit I shouldn't have accused both parties of colluding, I doubt my other comments that day would be construed as uncivil. But if others disagree then I'll accept that they were. Incidentally I wasn't the first to raise the issue of Wikilawyering. The way this user and AlexTheWhovian conducted themselves during the discussions at Talk:Bill Potts and Talk:Bill Potts (Doctor Who) was not in keeping with how we should behave on here. If I'm guilty of anything it was being irritated with the way Alex tried to slap down everyone who opposed the page move, and the intimidating tone he used. But this was all a week ago now, and I thought we'd moved on. As regards the SPI report, both parties behaved in a manner that made me suspect they could be linked, so I filed the report. I'm pleased for all of us that I was wrong, since AlexTheWhovian has some responsibilities, and a yes from the SPI check would have reflected badly on Wikipedia. I suggest we all move on. This is Paul (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It can't be nice being accused of sock-/meat-puppetry, but since the case went to SPI and you were exonerated, I think I'd leave it there. If you consider the tone of This is Paul's comments to be so incivil as to require administrator intervention then I think you have a very thin skin. In some of these diffs you might have a point that WP:ASPERSIONS are being cast, but then he took it to SPI along with the evidence he had and it's been dealt with. I'm struggling to see anything else that's a problem in the diffs you've offered. My advice is to let it go. GoldenRing (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I only learnt about the SPI report from This is Paul's response in this thread here - so my lodging this report has nothing to do with that. I lodged the report because there was at least one personal attack in 100% of the responses to me from This is Paul, they are highlighted here if they weren't clear in the other diffs - then his response to my raising this with him was another personal attack. I had followed the rest of the advice at WP:CIVIL and that appears to lead here. I believe this behaviour to be against WP:5P4 and I also believed the Wikipedia community was in support of doing more to curb this sort of behaviour. Dresken (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethanbas, Riceissa, and Vipul

    This is a courtesy notice that a community-imposed indef block of Riceissa that was imposed here at ANI was undone without any discussion, at the covert (off-wiki) request of Ethanbas, who is also one of Vipul's paid editors and who per previous discussions here at ANI has been under the threat of siteban were he to behave in any way disruptively or malignly. The discussion about this is taking place at AN; please comment there if you so choose: [190]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe that's entirely accurate. We can argue about whether covert applies (I can see arguments on both sides) — I would simply have used "off-wiki" but my understanding is the email did not include a request for an unblock, it merely identified a parallel situation regarding another user. Perhaps not a big point, but if the editor actually did not request the unblock we shouldn't state that they did.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I think including a courtesy notice here is an excellent idea as there may be editors who frequent this page but missed the AN discussion; however,I think it should be written more neutrally.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor "translating" person's names and other problems

    I have some trouble getting User:Carolus to understand that, when creating articles (or inside articles as well), he shouldn't invent "English" names for people who have had so far not received any attention in English language sources. I first tried to explain this at User talk:Carolus#Caspar vs. Caspard and at Talk:Gaspar Gevartius, which he had created at Joannes Gaspard Gevartius, a name which was not used anywhere before Carolus' creation.

    Today, I notice Constantin of Halmale, which has a novel name and is filled with other names not to be found as such in any reliable source on the subject (plus containing a fair number of factual errors). I explained the problem with this one as well and moved it to Costen van Halmale, but his reply at User talk:Carolus#Inventing names is what sent me here: "Have fun, your party i will keep translate noble names, like normal." An unwillingness to cease with problematic behaviour is not promising for an editor who regularly runs into trouble with his edits here (see the section User talk:Carolus#Swedish Dowagers for another very recent example with another editor). Their user page proclams "This user has been on Wikipedia for 11 years, 8 months and 22 days", even though they have no edits here before April 2015. Probably it refers to Gebruiker:Carolus on the Dutch wiki, active since August 2005 and indef blocked there since July 2010...

    Looking at his other recent edits more closely, I see other dubious things like using the edit summary "small edit" to change a long-standing redirect for an obvious primary topic into a kind of disambiguation page here, edit warring over an infobox[191], ...

    I don't think they are willing to listen to advice from me, so perhaps some other people can step in and try to educate the editor about what is and what isn't allowed on enwiki? Letting him continue unchecked doesn't seem like a good idea, and would only lead to sanctions further down the line, while now there may still be a chance to improve things. Fram (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have learned (sometimes sadly, as in the case of Hedwig of Holstein, a Swedish queen whose name was not Hedwig at all, but Helwig) that in Wikipedia articles only names in frequent use in academic literature can be used and that unusual name forms must be sourced reliably. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please... not... the diacritic crowd! EEng
    Not quite. Where there are English-language sources available, those (with some exceptions) are used to title the article. As ENWP is aimed at English-language speakers, it is preferable to use/reference English language sources. Fram's problem is that the user is translating names into English approximations *where no real English language sources exist*. Hedwig/Helwig had plenty of English sources available that called her Hedwig. So incorrect name aside, thats how she is titled. Had there been no/little English language sources available, she would more likely have been named Helvig per the Swedish sources. Here Fram is asserting the same, that the people should be named per their sources, because English ones are not available/in short supply. Personally someone needs to trout the user quickly, before this discussion draws the diacritic crowd... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: What from, though? "Unsourced spellings of foreign names"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed they aren't taking part in this discussion although they've still been editing, and clearly know about the discussion. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: That's exactly what they said they'd do, though, isn't it? As I said above, IDHT... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic ban on article creation? On creation of bio articles?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Side discussion

    @EEng: Your levity is, as always, much appreciated, but in this case doesn't seem to be relevant unless one reads OID's comment below the above image very closely. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I surmise you're reading on mobile, or some weird browser. EEng 07:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    iPad. But if you look at the history, I originally posted the above directly below the line where you added the image, above OID's comment. I moved it because I realized (too late) that the placement between Serge and OID's comments made the first line of OID's comment nonsense, and the way the image was placed it wasn't even clear that that was what I was referring to (as my comment didn't display below the image). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    BoybandPH naming and Hollyckuhno

    Good day admins and fellow Wikipedians! I am really condemning what Hollyckuhno (talk · contribs), where she didn't respect the ruling regarding the requested move I've made (Boyband PH -> BoybandPH *per common name* *also 1, 2, 3) last January 19, 2017. Pinging the supporters of the move, SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), Tavix (talk · contribs), and Fylbecatulous (talk · contribs) and the admin who closed the request, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs). She reverted the article's name back to "Boyband PH" without raising another request move and I think, she needed to be sanctioned for disrespecting the ruling. I just don't get her logic on her naming standards/guidelines reason (same goes to [i Want TV], where the website itself and Google news search result stated it is "iWant TV". Well, if we would apply her naming standards/guidelines reason, then iPhone, iPad, and iPod would be like "I Phone", "I Pad", and "I Pod". ~PogingJuan 18:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Alternativity (talk · contribs) has also complained to her talk page regarding the move from KidZania Manila to Kidzania Manila where it must be "KidZania". ~PogingJuan 18:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And not to mention the user's "apparent" conflict of interest. Most of her contributions are/were affiliated to ABS-CBN (even majority stakes of KidZania Manila is owned by ABS-CBN; articles stated on my complain are ABS-CBN-related; majority of the user's photographs displayed on its page are ABS-CBN-related; the user made a userbox about being a proud ABS-CBN viewer and Kapamilya (ABS-CBN brand name)), but I think it does not matter to my complain. ~PogingJuan 18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I see that after more than six months, PogingJuan still hasn't managed to wrap his head around the difference between an interest in and/or bias toward a subject and a "conflict of interest". Editing articles related to a company does not mean one is employed by that company or otherwise affiliated with it in any way.
    That said, the move of BoybandPH back to the pre-RM title was out-of-line and should be reverted. The KidZania Manila move appears to be a little greyer -- it was not a counter-consensus policy violation, but apparently a good-faith misunderstnding our naming conventions, if even that.
    Hollyckuhno should be warned about the inappropriateness of this behaviour, PogingJuan should be trouted for not warning them (instead jumping straight to ANI) and making a bunch of weird off-topic remarks about COI and such, and the projection of Hollyckuhno's counter-consensus behaviour onto another user clearly not guilty of the same in another thread further up this page.
    And this thread should be closed, of course.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Hijiri88 (talk · contribs), I never said that that user has a bias on those articles related with ABS-CBN or its corporate, because as far as I can see, there were no neutrality issues on how that user edited/contributed. That's also why I said that that does not matter. Also, I've put there the word "apparent". Just like when majority of U.S. voters expected an "apparent" Hilary win (also due to her lead in popular vote), but it was Trump who won the elections. Back to the topic, although I haven't warned Hollyckuhno on her talk page, two of the users have complained/queried already about her actions (one about BoybandPH by ValarianB (talk · contribs); one about KidZania Manila by Alternativity (talk · contribs)). The user didn't reply on both complaints so why should I post another complaint on her talk page where I think she will not reply, just like he/she did. Well, the following list is regarding the renaming of BoybandPH.
    Thread to be closed? Not now, I think. Hollyckuhno needs to defend (him/her)self first. Then, if good-faith misunderstanding, as you said, was the cause of pattern of making controversial title changes without RM or discussion, then the user must be trouted for him/her to understand and respect policies on making an RM or discussion and common name. Also, it is given that my requested move was a contested technical request. ~PogingJuan 15:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @PogingJuan: Please stop accusing other users of COI just because they edit some article on some topic, and may have some kind of bias. That is not the definition of "conflict of interest, and as noted above this is a recurring problem for you. In this case, you appear to be speculating about the real-world employment situation of the user based solely on his/her having edit two articles related to the company. This is a potential violation of WP:OUT. Please stop it immediately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that my question on the KidZania Manila page was intended to be a friendly query, not a complaint. Not that I'm arguing for either side here. I'm only saying I am not familiar enough with the overall behavior of the editor in question to be able to form an informed opinion, and the characterization of my comment as a "complaint" is somewhat inaccurate. - Alternativity (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Noted. ~PogingJuan
    Ah yes I had forgotten about posting on the talk page. @Hollyckuhno: can you explain the BoybandPH move? ValarianB (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem at all if the majority of the users wanted the name to be reverted to BoybandPH. I did not know that there was a consensus about the naming of that particular article. I should have checked it first before requesting for uncontroversial technical move to admins. I have no intention of violating any guidelines. Maybe I misunderstood the guideline about naming articles. That's all I can say about this issue. Thank you. Hollyckuhno (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page

    Hi,

    My name is Sabrina Alvarez and I’m encountering a problem with another Wikipedia user.

    I was asked to update/edit Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia page per her request. I am her assistant and I have access to her most recent information on her bio. All I did was go in and make a few corrections such as actual dates and information on her page, as well as updating her image. I’ve pasted below the conversation with the other user(s), As well as a note from Maria Elena Salinas herself, who is requesting this issue gets resolved, and if there is anybody we can contact that will take care of this situation.

    I would like to resolve this matter as soon as possible, please advise. If it's true that I can't make any edits myself, who can I give the factual, relevant, and up-to-date information on Maria Elena Salinas so that her Wikipedia page is relevant and up-to-date, as well as with an appropriate picture for her profile?

    Thank you, Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello, this is Maria Elena Salinas. I asked my assistant to go into Wikipedia to update because not only are there things that are outdated but also inaccurate. I don't feel comfortable with someone going in there and deciding how to describe me or my career that doesn't know me and doesn't have the correct information. To start I don't want that picture up there, also when you google me a Wikipedia message describes me as Mexican journalist and I am an American Journalist, not Mexican. Please let me know who I need to contact to have this issue taken care of.

    Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page[edit source] Hi Vanamonde93,

    I was instructed to edit/update Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia page per her request. I am her personal visitant and most of the information was outdated including the image used (which she did not like). I really need to go in and make those edits that you deleted, therefore please do not delete again or revert any of the edits done. You can of course go in and include information (if factual) but do not delete.

    Based on the information I shared with you above, I will be going back into her Wikipedia page and once again add all the information that was deleted.

    If you have any further questions let me know.

    Thank you, Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    Please see the reply below. Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page[edit source] Hello, this is Maria Elena Salinas. I asked my assistant to go into Wikipedia to update because not only are there things that are outdated but also innacurate. I don't feel comfortable with someone going in there and deciding how to describe me or my career that doesn't know me and doesn't have the correct information. To start I don't want that picture up there, also when you google me a Wikepedia message describes me as Mexican journalist and I am an American Journalist, not Mexican. Please let me know who I need to contact to have this issue taken care of. Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    @Sabrinaalvarez: Greetings. Please keep in mind that you have a conflict of interest with respect to this page, and so you need to exercise great care with your editing, because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Your biography is covered by the policy on biographies of living people. Therefore, any information in it is supposed to be supported by reliable sources, which is how we verify the truth of any facts on Wikipedia. If there are facts which are incorrect and/or not supported by reliable sources in the article about you, the best way for you to go about addressing this is to post to the talk page of the article with your concerns. If this does not work, or if your concerns are very serious, then the best thing to do would be to contact WP:OTRS, which is meant to help with situations like this. Finally, please remember that according to our policy on a neutral point of view, your article needs to be written based on how you are described in reliable sources, not how you choose to describe yourself. At the moment, this article fails these policies quite badly: we shall have to see what to do about that. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Well if that is the case, who can I speak with so that they can make the appropriate edits to Maria Elena's Wikipedia page, as well as updating her profile picture? Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)== Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page ==

    Well if that is the case, who can I speak with so that they can make the appropriate edits to Maria Elena's Wikipedia page, as well as updating her profile picture?

    Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page[edit source] Well if that is the case, who can I speak with so that they can make the appropriate edits to Maria Elena's Wikipedia page, as well as updating her profile picture? Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrinaalvarez (talk • contribs)

    @Sabrinaalvarez: Maria Elena Salinas and her assistant need to understand that the article about her is not theirs to shape as they see fit, and that they both have a serious conflict of interest with regard to it. In addition, the assistant, who presumably is paid, is probably in violation of our policies on paid editing. As pointed out, saying that "[we] have access to her most recent information" is not helpful, since such information needs to be verifiable.

    Here's what they probably should do: since they are in possession of the most up-to-date information, that puts them in a position to find that information in reliable sources. They they should put the information, and the source, on the talk page of the article, and another editor will look it over, check the source, and add it to the article if they think. They should not edit the page directly, because of their COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a little worried there's a bit of a CIR issue here, because I have given them the same advice; twice, in fact: and they do not seem to have gotten it, and have posted the same questions here instead. They have also coped the entire conversation from my talk, including three postings of the same question; and despite all this, have failed to go the talk page of this article. I have neither the time nor inclination to mentor this user, so if somebody does, that would be helpful. Vanamonde (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    School/Range Block Request 169.241.60.*

    Dealt with via a rangeblock. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There's been some vandalism coming from 169.241.60.* (see range conribs for diffs) the past two days. This appears to be part of Clark County School District according to the {{Shared IP edu}} on one of the IP's page. Requesting block. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Black Kite: I limited the contribution range to just the past two days in that link as that was where I saw the disruption. Here's a range of contribs since the beginning of the year. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah my bad - I read it as all contributions for 2017. Regardless, 95% of the edits are vandalism, so no problem there. Black Kite (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the school district actually has all of 169.241.0.0/16, according to whois, so a /24 may not catch it all. On the other hand, narrowest scope that blocks the currently active vandalism is also fine. Murph9000 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A school district with a /16? No wonder we ran out of IPv4 addresses! Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    203.17.215.22

    Continued vandalism[192] mixed in with many productive edits after multiple blocks and warnings.[193] IP belongs to State Library Of Victoria,[194] probably a computer open to the public. Also see edit filter.[195] --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't worry too much. Only one obviously disruptive edit, and all the hits on the edit filter are pretty stale. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 19:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page discussion closed inappropriately?

    I think the "Infobox" discussion on the Talk:Cary Grant was closed in an inappropriate manner. Instead of a proper close the discussion was hidden using the Template:Hat with the message "Aww jeez, not this again". When I removed the hid template, my edit was reverted and I received a message on my talk page to "Please do not do this again. Thanks."

    If this is an appropriate manner to close a discussion, then please let me know. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    See here - that conversation was unlikely to go anywhere. Unless you are formally going to start an RFC on re-adding an infobox, I wouldnt go there. It was removed as a result of a GA review based on the consensus of the people involved in editing the article. People occasionally turn up asking for an infobox without realising the history. Infoboxs *can* be contentious in parts of wikipedia. Chiefly those areas which have dedicated active editors. So 'not this again' is not an uncommon response when there have been less than civil arguments previously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) I see from the history of that talk page that an infobox was removed because one GA reviewer thought it was "bloated" and that all discussion about having an infobox since has been shut down before a consensus was reached. Whether an RfC would be a good idea or not I don't know, but "Aww jeez, not this again" is not an appropriate closure notice as it does not help anyone not already familiar with the history to understand the reasoning. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldnt have been shut down by We hope regardless, as they contributed both at the GA review and in the previous archived discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record-the discussion was closed by an admin who was NOT involved in the discussion on 30 January, not by me. We hope (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not re-open closed discussions without good reason. That particularly applies when the discussion finished on 27 January 2017, just over two months ago. The background is at WP:ARBINFOBOX. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was out of process and not an appropriate action, administrative or otherwise; it violates WP:TPG. I have re-opened the thread and made a suggestion as to how to resolve the issue. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: @Johnuniq: I want to stress that the issue is not related to the topic covered by the discussion. The only issue is the manner a discussion was closed. I have never seen a discussion "closed" in this manner. Mitchumch (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It happens. What's still unclear is why the obsession of some users against infoboxes - putting their rigid style ideas ahead of what the readers might like to see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Generally they are not unless its particularly contentious and something that has been discussed repeatedly. A quick 'see previous consensus' close sometimes heads off long non-productive discussions. Unless you are actually going to formally propose re-adding the infobox (and it would require a formal RFC for this article, anything less would be wikilawyered to death) I would not re-open it. Procedually there is scope for an RFC to re-add it. It was removed after being in the article for a significant period of time, as a result of the Good Article reviewers personal preference recommendation (GA criteria can neither prohibit or mandate infoboxs) which will of course mean that anyone working on the article will remove the infobox because they want it to be a GA. Likewise there was vocal opposition to it being removed and calls for it to be returned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's contentious because it doesn't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How many bitter battles have you seen? Battles that have extended literally over years and which very nearly resulted in the banning of a very prolific editor (who supports infoboxes!) at Arbitration? Of course it's not an appropriate way to close a discussion. However, walk a mile in their shoes before digging up dirt. What benefit to the encyclopedia do you hope to achieve? Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What benefit to the encyclopedia by putting rigid styling ahead of what readers might want? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore those above who are talking about infoboxes. Why's it necessary to hide a closed discussion? Well, it's not. There is a difference between what you did, which was to re-open the discussion, and using {{archive top}} which would have been more appropriate. Let those who want to argue for hiding the discussion then do so. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz: Could you add the {{archive top}} to the discussion? Especially, since I accidentally re-opened the discussion. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my preference to not even close most discussions, however I would favour an unhidden discussion over a hidden one any day. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz: Where do I go to have an admin close the discussion? Mitchumch (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ATOP is not necessary in all cases. It is generally used on high volume pages to force archiving (when a discussion has reached a resolution and is not going to be changed) to prevent the page getting too large. Otherwise archiving is handled either by bot (if the talkpage has been set up to archive) or someone manually doing it (Oneclick etc). Its not a busy talkpage so there is no rush due to page size. Someone will get round to it eventually. Not all discussions need formal closure either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cary Grant talk page discussion was closed by an admin who was NOT involved in the discussion on 30 January We hope (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was hatted, not closed. There was no explanation of why it was hatted, HAT is not generally used for entire discussions, its used to hat parts of discussions that are off-topic etc or to collapse large pieces of information to make a discussion more readable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was out of process and not an appropriate action, administrative or otherwise; it violates WP:TPG. I have re-opened the thread and made a suggestion as to how to resolve the issue. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have un-collapsed it. There is no reason to collapse entire threads on a talk page. There is in particular no cause to collapse one with a rude summary. That said, the best way to deal with the eternal infobox question is to create an official WP:RfC on whether to include one on that particular article. There really is no other way to resolve the issue. Softlavender (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, hi folks! Intrigued by this collegial comment [196] looks like I wandered into the middle of a gunfight [197]. Cary on. I'm popping some popcorn. EEng 13:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you purposefully mispelled carry a) we're talking about Cary Grant and b) so people don't go picking up sticks. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    There's a wide selection of images to choose from at User:EEng#Alle-wiki-gory. EEng 15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)Whatever the merits or otherwise of an infobox on that article, repeatedly hatting a discussion started in good faith is not approrpiate, doubly so with a rude and uninformative closure notice. If there is truly a settled consensus then the discussion could have been closed, politely and without hatting, using a summary that pointed to where this consensus was established. Edit warring to reinstate the hat and try and intimidate other editors, as Cassianto did (see the links given by EEng above), is seriously out of order. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to the fact that this must be at least the third time this has raised its head on just this article. Haven't people got better things to be doing with their time? Regarding the close, whilst it wasn't gone about in the best of ways, a link was given to the previous discussion. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh really, Thryduulf, so if you hatted a discussion only for someone to then ignore that and carry on the shit-fest three months later, that would be ok, would it? I'll bear that in mind the next time I've seen you hat something CassiantoTalk 20:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I closed the discussion originally because Cassianto wrote "Let's have a sodding infobox and be done with it." Given I have seem him get quite heated and angry about infoboxes elsewhere, I suspected we were going to be in for another screaming match with incivility flying around left, right and centre, and I thought it was best to stop the problem before it started, with a notice I hoped would put light on the situation and calm people down a bit. I didn't fully appreciate not everyone has Cassianto's sense of humour and I do apologise to people who felt I was shutting them out unfairly. If people want to start a new discussion and keep it civil and in good faith, there's no reason they can't; but they do need to realise they are revisiting contentious ground. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That poor Cassianto might start spitting and spewing and sputtering and spiting at everyone in sight if he gets frustrated isn't a reason to close a discussion. I've left the collapse but restored Softlavender's removed comment in a new subthread just beneath [198]. Now everyone wins! EEng 19:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The principal thing I really want to avoid if at all possible is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes 2, but I've got a sinking feeling it's going to happen sooner rather than later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think someone should create {{Infobox infobox dispute}} so we can summarize threads like this in a handy, compact way for the benefit of editors who want a quick overview of what the fuck the argument is about, who the principal disputants are, and so on. EEng 19:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My issue is not of the infobox but of the opening of an admin-hatted discussion which was reopened by someone who clearly likes the dramah of it all. This kind of repeated discussion is disruptive and causes unnessersary ill-feeling. This was hatted on 30 January 2017 and here we are, three months later, digging up the same bloody corpse. I have no particular affiliation with this subject as it's not one I have spent my precious time and hard-earned money working on, so I don't really care one way or the other. But someone has and for whatever reason, they have chosen to omit an idiotbox. Out of respect, they should be directly consulted. CassiantoTalk 20:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My stalker's latest IP

    IP blocked by NeilN for 48 hours. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    86.150.50.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just need someone to block them and revert their edits. Eik Corell (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    arrow Reverted Can't help with the blocking part, though. DId you try AIV? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 48 by NeilN. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Spam-blacklist Admin needed

    An Admin familiar with the Spam-blacklist is needed at this page. The link econlib.org was blacklisted as part of an anti-spamming effort. The original lister has gone off of admin status, and the admin who usually handles de-listing requests made comments about the merits of the link and request. Accordingly, s/he feels s/he should not touch the request. The vast majority of comments about the blacklisting have been in favor of de-listing. The particular website is sponsored by a noted and respected think-tank, and it has original material from noted economists, including Nobel Prize Laureates. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Adamstraw99 editing the article 'astra'

    Adamstraw99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Astra (weapon)

    The segment of Sudarshana Chakra in the article 'astra' has a description that it can be stopped by Lord Shiva. This seems to be inaccurate and unsourced. Sources supporting the opposite view that Lord Shiva cannot stop Sudarshana chakra has been added as reference. But Adamstraw99 (talk · contribs) has constantly reverted the correction and made use of his experience and know-how of policies to subvert the fact and bully the newbies.Numerous users have tried to correct this in the past, but Adamstraw99 keeps reverting it without bothering to provide any sources.Please enforce WP:PROVEIT and resolve the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.99.229 (talk • contribs)

    I've notified the editor of the ANI discussion, which you are required to do. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any recent attempt at discussion of this on the article's talk page, or on Adamstraw99's talk page. ANI is where you go when talking to the other user hasn't worked, it is not where you begin a discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Player 03: has flagged what appears to be a legal threat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run (video game). Under the circumstances, should we speedily blank? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The actual legal discussion was made off-wiki, so I don't know that linking to it would fall under WP:LEGAL, especially since the person linking it is the one being threatened, not the threat-maker. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) This is none of our business. It's not our job to collate external claims in some kind of dispute and use them to cast doubt on the release given us by the editor when he/she clicked SAVE. Anyway, even if the writer's not paid the client/employer may get the copyright anyway, depending on the exact facts and jurisdiction.
    No one's made a threat to us so there's nothing to do here. EEng 21:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing to do here?! You mean we've closed down the wikiwatersports park and boardwalk? And the arcade? And the theater? Awww, man. Now I'm going to have to spend all my time editing...And cracking corny jokes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "The article that I have attached has not been paid for, and is my Intellectual Property". As soon as you post it here, it isn't. Their argument is irrelevant to enwiki, and perhaps just shows some of the issues attached to paid editing. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    According to that section of the Terms of Use, "When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it" (emphasis added). Bridget Pringle claims to be the copyright holder, and she was not the person who uploaded the article. I'm no copyright lawyer, but if her claim holds up, I believe that means the person who agreed to the Terms of Use didn't have the legal authority to make that agreement.
    That said, I agree with EEng that no one's made a legal threat to Wikipedia, so it's a moot point. Player 03 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, who has the rights may well depend on the details of the applicable law, including Australia's. If this was all in the United States, then the question would be whether there was a work-made-for-hire agreement; under such an agreement, the copyright would belong to the party hiring the writer from the moment the work was created; it does not get transferred upon payment. As such, even if the writer got stiffed, that does not mean that the copyright was not in the employer's hands.... to the best of my not-a-lawyer understanding. What I'm really trying to show is that the question is not so simple. Having said that, if this person has put forth a reasonable claim that the post infringes, it behooves Wikipedia to remove it for now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for the clarification. I've reached the end of my not-a-lawyer knowledge, so I'll stop discussing what-ifs.
    The page is on its way to being deleted for notability, but if it's kept, I'll follow up with Ms. Pringle. Player 03 (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on the city of Fafe

    Resolved

    The wikipedia page on Fafe, was edited with some severe vandalism, the names of the parishes are wrong, including one of the parishes is named "Cona da prima", that means "Cousin's cunt" in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silveringking (talk • contribs)

    It's been fixed. I couldn't identify the vandal to see if further actions are necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a previous version that was unvandalised and copy/pasted the list as a fix. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like random IP vandalism. --Tarage (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Intervention needed: vandalism on The Adventures of Peregrine Pickle

    Anonymous user keeps socking and vandalising the page. I've reported all of the IPs to WP:AIV, but no one is responding. Someone block all of them and protect the page, please! Jdcomix (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, it appears to be a bunch of school kids complaining about the novel appearing on the AP English Literature and Composition exam this year... 185.188.6.168 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent sockpuppetry on MADD

    Wow, tonight's a bad night it seems for vandals. POV pushing vandal IP hopping on MADD, please put an end to this madness. Jdcomix (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=778596297"