Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo

Summary of the request

Because of an original content dispute, XIIIfromTokyo has artificially created a discussion on antisemitism, and another one on homophobia, and has blatantly deformed my answers to say I am antisemitic and homophobic, and is repetiting these claims since December 2016 and on different pages in spite of my defense and other contributors' intervention. On top of that, he is doing intimidation, by telling me the press could talk about this and with legal threats to we do not know who. When I try to alert about this, he is changing the subject into a content dispute (talking about the content dispute, the French wikipedia article he wrote, his disputes there, comparison between articles, etc.), even though the content disputes are irrelevant here. When I try to tell him to stop calling me these things and threatening me, he is talking about the articles, and when I try to talk about the articles, he answers with these attacks. And he persists in this attitude in spite of all the warnings.

The content of the articles are off-topic here, but I worked on multiple articles and XIII – who has a tendency to paranoia (sorry for the use of the term) – is focusing on two of them to try to show a imaginary bias (even though I have been discussing with other editors on articles, and we managed to have consensus; these two articles were different and needed different answers, as talk pages and administrators decisions show), is doing every personal attacks to fulfill his imaginary purpose. He has been obviously wrongfully accusing me of antisemitism and homophobia, and attacking and threatening me for 10 months in talk pages. I do not feel safe contributing because these long-going attacks are very hurtful, they have been going on for a long time in spite of every call to stop and they will continue unless the user is banned.

--Launebee (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Detailed request and quotes

Dear administrators,

XIIIfromTOKYO has been accusing me of antisemitism, homophobia a bit everywhere since last year, and I cannot use a talk page without him going back to these outragious accusations. On top of that, he has been threatening me and constantly using an aggressive language.

ACCUSATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM

Original context

The first student association of Panthéon-Assas University is – at least on Facebook – a Jewish association, UEJF (Union des Étudiants Juifs de France) Assas. Because of that, someone tagged the door of this association office inside the university with a swastika, and the university and the student association asked the public prosecutor to bring charges.

XIII seems to have something against this university, so he is behaving aggressively to change the article, and another institution (this time in favor of it) because he considers they are rivals.

Among many misuse of sources, he gave many articles which related the swastika incident, and others (policemen had been put in the 1990s to protect the university from violent groups, like other Parisian universities). He was saying that it shows that the university has a tradition of antisemitism and racism and of beating (ratonnade) Jews and foreigners! I kindly explained, and wrote in particular: "What you are quoting (some fights sometimes near the university) is not at all what you are saying, ie foreigners and Jews being commonly beaten up in PA (ratonnades) or PA as an institution having or having the reputation to have an enduring tradition of racism and antisemitism!"[1] He was talking of beating people out of racism and antisemitism, so I said that it is absolutely false that foreigners and Jews are beaten up in one of the top institutions of France.

Accusation 1

He deformed what I said and answered:

Copy/pasted quoting
Why are you refering to jew students as "foreigners" ? World War II is over, and you can still be French and jew. You should start to really carefully care about the words you use. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I did not write that at all, what you are writing is absolutely outrageous! […] --Launebee (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I explained that I obviously did not write that, but he is continuing since then to write on different pages I intervene that I wrote anti-Semitic things, or to imply I am a neo-nazi, so that I continuously have to defend myself, and so that the wrong is already done with other users.

Accusation 2 [2]

Copy/pasted quoting

You have used to word "foreigners" to described thoses students, victims of racism and antisemitism. This kind of speech in France is deeply connected to far-right movements, and is considered as hate-speech. You say that you know a lot of things about France, so that's definitely something that you can't ignore. You are responsible for what you say. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I clearly did not describe Jews as foreigners. Your attack is absolutely despicable. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 3 [3]

Copy/pasted quoting
You are calmly describing victims of antisemitism and racism as "foreigners". […] Did I miss something ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 4 [4]

Copy/pasted quoting

So now there is a strong Jewish community in this college. Do you have a reference to back that claim, or is that from your personnal experience or préjugés ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC) It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 5 [5]

Copy/pasted quoting

I have read with some supprise that, according to Launebee, this university has a strong jewish community . Is that again your point of view about jew students, or do you have serious references about that ? Needless to say that after your previous statement, and your rewritting of the article of a well-know "néo-nazi" association[6], you might need to start to carefully chose the words you use. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I already gave you the reference. It is simply the first student association on Facebook. Please stop these continuing outrageous accusations. --Launebee (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC) It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Accusation 6 [7]

Copy/pasted quoting

So again, you don't a reference to provide, and that's only your opinion that you are voicing about the jewish community. Refrain from that activity, and stick to the references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC) It is not something written in the article. I was just answering you, since you implied outrageous things. Stop this disruptive activity. --Launebee (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

ACCUSATIONS OF HOMOPHOBIA

The same system: he transformed something, put it everywhere so I constantly have to defend myself of this accusation.

Original context

Richard Descoings died in mysterious circumstances. He was homosexual and married, and it was controversial. Many newspapers, including gay community newspapers, talked about it.[8][9][10][11][12]) I used in the Sciences Po article the wording used in his article at that time [13], ie that he had a "controversial gay lifestyle", and for example anti-homophobic articles say it was, but it should not be. It was the beginning of constant accusations of homophobia by XIIIfromTokyo.

Accusation 1 [14]

Copy/pasted quoting

You made the choice to put homophobic slurs in the article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC) You insisted I said antisemitic things, now you are saying I am writing homophobic things! There is nothink homophobic about saying his gay lifestyle is controvesial, on the contrary. See for example this newspaper article saying that his gay lifestyle was taboo and is denouncing the fact it had to be. Can someone stop these insults toward me? --Launebee (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 2 [15]

Copy/pasted quoting

You are calmly putting homophic slurs in Sciences Po' article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Homophobic slurs in the Sciences Po article? XIIIfromTOKYO, Launebee hasn't touched the Sciences Po article since September of this year. You're either referring to the talk page (in which case point me to the discussion/comment) or a very old edit to the article (in which case I'll need a diff please). The only other alternative is that you mean Pantheon-Assas' article or talk (in which case diff again please). Otherwise, the claim of homophobia is a brightline violation of NPA policy and I'm going to ask that you strike it. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

XIII never stroke his comment or answered this.

Bad "jokes" [16][17]

One resistant during WW2 accused Sciences Po to have been a place of Collaboration during WW2.

With no link, an article from the Independant says that the system in which is Sciences Po is a machine to produce a "blinkered, often arrogant and frequently incompetent ruling freemasonry".

XIII mixed these things, as such:

Copy/pasted quoting

So now we have to explain that this school is "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys. And could you remove the smileys? The nazi regime and the collaboration is something serious, not a joke! He obviously changes the meaning of the texts: freemasonery obviously means here a "cast", not actual freemasonery. --Launebee (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting

As I have already mentioned, when I saw that this school was targeted because it was the lair "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys... well. Time for the arbcom to work ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC) The kind of criticism you are talking about is your invention. And If there are so many references, it is because you are denying the serious criticism. --Launebee (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Accusation 3 [18]

Copy/pasted quoting
Let me remind you that you wrote your opinion about Richard Descoing alleged homosexuality and drug usein the Sciences Po article : "an overdose linked to his controversial gay livestyle" [19]. None of what you wrote a few month ago was backed by the reference your provided back then [20]. I'm just trying to prevent and other accident.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

THREATS

XIII wants me to stop editing, otherwise he is implying he could create a media turmoil with what he accused me in talk pages. Sometimes in French so that other users cannot understand.

Threat 1 [21]

Copy/pasted quoting
All the process is public, so your actions here […] will be available to anyone. Contributors, journalists... XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Threat 2 [22]

Copy/pasted quoting
Tu es bien conscient que tout es public, et que n'importe qui peut poster ça sur Twitter […] (avec tout le basard médiatique à prévoir vu certaines expressions utilisées en PDD ) ?

Translation: You are well aware that everything is public, and that anyone can post in on Twitter […] (with all the media fuss to come due to some expression used in talk page (PDD = page de discussion).

Those "expressions used" are obviously from him.

Threats 3 and 4: legal threats [23][24]

These threats are not necessarily directed to me, but I signal that, as EdJohnston pointed out[25], XIII is doing legal threats now, by calling someone - so potentially anyone who disagrees with him - a "criminal".

Copy/pasted quoting
The article has been protected. Sad to see that a criminal is using such a method to harrass an other contributors. Sad and disgusting. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting

EdJohnston one contributor clearly wants to harrass other contributors, and went so far as using a lot of SPA in the past ; this week's use of no less than 4 IPs to revert templates saying that this article was written like an advert clearly shows that any method, including criminal ones can be used by this individual, on group of indivudials. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Your reference to 'criminal' behavior above sounds to me like making legal threats. You were previously blocked for edit warring in April 2017 which should have made you aware of the sort of behavior we consider problematic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

CONSTANT ABUSIVE AND AGRESSIVE LANGUAGE

XIII has very often an abusive language toward me. I have been answering his repetitive personal attacks and repetitive arguments for more than a year, but even if I keep civil, he always turns it into personal attacks. I give just two examples among many.

Example 1: abusive language[26]

Copy/pasted quoting
[…] It is off-topic. We are talking about reputation here, and since the source was in French, I just explained. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC) […] You are lying to an other contributor just to try to gain some time. It's relevant because it shows that you know that you are lying when you write this article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Example 2: repetitive claim I did a legal threat [27] [28]

Because I was discussing the fact saying PA has an racist tradition is libelous, which is not a legal threat according to Wikipedia policy ("A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat."[29] He has been reminded it is not a legal threat by other contributors but he continues to claim everywhere I did legal threat.

Copy/pasted quoting
That's clearly an intimidation attempt. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC) No it's not […]. Discussing or declaring something to be libelous is not in itself a legal threat. Not a legal threat; "This is libelous". […] Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting
I already had to face legal threat from this contributor, so any administrator has to be aware that it could accur to him or her as well. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There are many examples.

GENERAL

This attitude does not seem to be new. XIIIfromTokyo has already been blocked in French Wikipedia three days for "personal attacks and insults" and two weeks for "intimidation attempt or harassment". [30]

There already has been requests here, but discussions were blurred in content discussion over Panthéon-Assas University and Sciences Po. Now, PA article has many sources, and Mr rnddude helped resolve the issues, and there has been a consensus on the lead of Sciences Po, with Robminchin helping. But XIII accusations are continuing, and it is becoming worse and worse.

Whatever the content dispute is, XIII is constant me insulting me by asserting or strongly implying that I am linked to antisemitism or neo-nazism.

I request a one-year ban will be decided (and a total ban if he does not apologise).

Regards,

--Launebee (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Purely for the administrative purpose of being able to parse out and read this thread (and hopefully to avoid some serious TLDR) I have removed all of the quotes, replacing them either the relevant diffs or links. I have also removed the silly number of subheaders. I took every effort to not actually remove any content added by Launebee. If someone feels this decision was improper they are welcome to replace it with the original content, which can be found here. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I kept the subheaders removed, but put back the quotes, because the sentences are to be found inside long texts, so specific quotes are needed. Your version without the quotes is to found here. Thanks for your help. --Launebee (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I've collapsed the quotes, since that's kind of the point of a collapse template. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to point out the text, you could use the tq template. The tq template highlights quoted text in green, and looks like this: (text being quoted). This might be a better alternative to hatted boxes. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Primefac and Blackmane. Perhaps now is a good compromise, and I hope I will never have again to do this, but if I have to use quotes in the future I will think at the tq templates. I am sorry there are so many examples, but it is because I have been so many times attacked. I added a summary in the beginning, it seems it was needed. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: It seems you were right about the TLDR. Since you are an admin and you looked over it, couldn't you do something in this case which seems quite simple? --Launebee (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Noting that the reported user has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on the aforementioned article. ansh666 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• When a user has been advised repeatedly that he is making false accusations, and yet persists in repeating the accusations, we have a problem. The subject of this complaint hasn't made many contributions, but he has exacted long-term abuse against a good faith editor. Frankly, I don't see a convincing reason why we need to retain this editor as a member of our community. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Is there something I can do to get this going somewhere? Otherwise, the harassment and threats will continue. --Launebee (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I suspect people have been put off by the sheer size of your original post, which far exceeds the usual length. I do hope, however, that a couple of admins would be willing to take a look at this and determine what action should be taken. Lepricavark (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Ok, I put more clearly that there is a summary above. Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• To attempt to summarize the content: the ancient University of Paris ("The Sorbonne") was dissolved into smaller universities in 1970. Panthéon-Assas University was created as a successor school that included the law faculty. There appear to be multiple content disputes between the two editors discussed on the talk page. The fr:Université_Panthéon-Assas article may be useful as a reference. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@power~enwiki: Thanks for your help. Actually, the summary of my message is more that because of a content dispute, XIII created a discussion on antisemitism and then used my answer to claim antisemitism, and has repeated these claims since last December, that he did the same thing with homophobia, that he has been threatening me several times and is constantly aggressive. The content dispute is not relevant here, whatever it is, it has been ten months that I am repetitively wrongfully accused of these things by this user, even though it is obviously absolutely false. (Note also that this user is the principal writer of the French page of that university, so this is not a reference. XIII is precisely blurring the discussion by talking of what happens in the French page that he wrote, or of the content dispute, but all of that is irrelevant. This is a different subject with a talk page, but that talk page is now filled with personal attacks.) I added a summary in the beginning of the request, thanks for the idea. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Sorry to ask, but could an admin intervene? --Launebee (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I don't think any administrative action (other than an formal warning as part of a close here) is necessary at this time. The solution to the personal dispute is to have additional editors on that page; @ARBN19: has previously edited this page a significant amount and possibly could comment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• C.Fred, Amire80, Ocaasi : could you do something here? Otherwise the abuse will continue. Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Launebee, I'm not sure why are you asking me, because I rarely handle ANI stuff, and I am more involved in technical things.

In any case, User:XIIIfromTOKYO hasn't edited for the last 10 days, and hasn't written anything in their defense here, so there isn't much that I can do at the moment. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Amire80: Sorry for the delay, but I have a lot of work these days. I can only notice that @Launebee: has failed to provide a single edit where I actually accuse him/her of antisemitism. S/he has clearly been playing with fire on that touchy issue ; What it on purpose ? As anyone can see in this very recent edit, s/he is making a reference to a "strong jewish community" and "racism", but the edit has nothing to do with that : s/he is only removing (again) warning templates. So I think it's only a new strategy to block any serious work on the article.

I have started to collect edits, but the issue is more important than what I have previously thought. Launebee as been asked repeatedly to clarify his/her position toward COI, but has always refused to do so. It's clearly time for him/her to clearly state his/her link with that school. I must insist on that point, because it will be crucial for the remaining of the discussion. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Amire80: You were in the admin list.

As you can see, XIII, not only is not seeing anything wrong in all what he wrote to me during the last 11 months, but is saying that I talk about Jews out of nowhere, once again clearly twisting the facts. As he knows very well, the edit he is referring to was removing a banner that he had included in the penultimate edit, with an ever-lasting accusation of antisemitism (to a university where the Jewish student association is the first association of this university on Facebook!). I obviously used the word "strong" in the sense of important, like in the talk page. Afterwards, he right away created a section [31] in the talk page implying I am a neo-nazi, when I quoted myself to answer again to his accusation, he jumped on the accusation of homophobia (last quotes of the relevant sections of my request). --Launebee (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, you're only objecting to the commit message, not any of the content diffs? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

An admin may need to strike the commit messages at Special:Diff/800447263 and Special:Diff/800448084. I support closing this with a warning and no further action once that is done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Thank you, but I do not understand very well your question. XIII was here saying that I talked about Jews out of nowhere, and I objected that it was an answer to the edit summaries he did right before.

Lepricavark You were in favor of a ban, am I right? power~enwiki: Don't you think this long-term abuse against me merits such a ban? --Launebee (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I have better things to do on vacation than to straighten all of this out. The dispute has been going on at the talk page for 18 months and on pages relating to several French universities. The worst diffs (in Talk:Panthéon-Assas_University#Controversies_.3F) are almost a year old and I don't believe they justify a block now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Thanks for you time then. You are totally right, the old diffs alone don't justify a block, but it has been continuing meanwhile until now, and the last attacks – when it is implied I am a neo-nazi – are in September, I made the request right afterwards. --Launebee (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Launebee, I know you've provided a lot of links and quotes above, but could you provide simple diffs to these last attacks? That would help me to get a handle on this in a reasonable time. Give only the examples that you think imply that you are a neo-nazi. It's not necessary to quote the text, just the diff is fine. TIA Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: OK, sorry! The last attacks are from mid-September, right before I made this request. There were, only in September:

• statements strongly implying I am a neonazi [32][33] (message put twice in talk page, and let as such before I removed the second one) He talked a lot about an association I know little of, so, long time ago, I looked at the page, and there were very serious allegations made with no source, I removed them because there was a huge risk of libelous statement, XIII ended up implying everywhere I have a link with or I a from that association.
• statement strongly implying I have a bad opinion about the Jewish community [34], even though I just said they are important in that university and provided – once again (because he has been accusing me of those things for very long) – links to show that (and that it explained the anti-Semitic attacks against that university).
• statement that I wrote something wrong regarding the homosexuality of somebody [35], even though I provided links to anti-homophobic articles and homosexual community newspapers supporting the very old statement he was twisting.
• legal threats (EdJohnson qualified them as such [36]) against someone, but in a context of a dispute I was involved in. [37][38]

Hoping this answers well your request. --Launebee (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It answers it, but not at all well. Others have commented above that your posts are too long to be helpful. We are volunteers here with finite time to waste on your essays. This post does provide the diffs I asked for, but also meanders off into other issues, which I explicitly asked you not to do (and should not have to IMO, if you really want our help please give us a break). See #A valid concern below. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO means to create a notification right? I just understood and removed below. Sorry, I am really trying. --Launebee (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that XTokyo consistently writes "Jew/Jews/Jewish" with a lowercase "j". Is that supposed to be some kind of a thinly disguised statement? The correct capitalization of other proper nouns comes across as a loud contrast. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: Thanks, I never noticed. Panthéon-Assas has a very important Jewish community - its first student association is the Union des étudiants juifs de France according to Facebook likes and members – (it led to be attacked by far-right groups, and police had to protect the university at some point.) It might then explain why XIIIfromTokyo has a very very long history of removing any content he finds positive regarding Panthéon-Assas University, of removing sources and of severe disruption of the page. [39] Panthéon-Assas is the main page he contributed [40], but mainly to remove sources, using false or off-topic edit summaries etc. Three examples from this month only: [41][42][43] --Launebee (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A valid concern

I looked at the first two diffs provided above (which seemed to be a complete answer to my question, see my response above), and invite others to look at this following diff which the first led me to.

It seems to me that Sad to see that a criminal is using such a method to harrass an other contributors (sic) is completely unacceptable on an article talk page, for several reasons... personal attack and discussing behaviour in the wrong place mainly.

In view of the fact that there are possibly faults on both sides, I suggest that at the very least a stern warning to XIIIfromTOKYO is appropriate, saying that an immediate block will follow any further violations of NPA and/or discussion of behaviour that violates WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE.

This must of course be no idle threat and followed through in need. Their English appears poor but that is no excuse (if we accept that excuse we open a floodgate to ESL pretenders). But keep the warning simple in the light of that possible problem.

Hopefully they will modify their behaviour as a result of this warning, and the other party might review their own contributions too and save us the time of doing so. And if not, we deal with it. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion

Andrewa, you told me above you just wanted the diffs and only them. Sorry again. I give them to you then:[44][45][46][47] (and not directed to me: [48][49])

You can see there is no fault on my side. It is purely free personal attacks.

Launebee (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Launebee, from that reply I am now quite convinced that there is fault on your side too, but do you really want me to look for it?

Then start with the above post. I did not ask for more diffs, I said that you had answered that question, and yet you have further cluttered this discussion with this pointless post. I suggest you carefully read the guideline at wp:IDHT (and the rest of that page) and the essay at wp:boomerang. Note particularly that disruption can be unintentional, but it is still disruptive. You seem to have consistently ignored, or perhaps misunderstood, what I said, and I'll be surprised if I'm the only one you've done this to.

It doesn't say on your user page, but I suspect English is not your first language either, is that correct? Is that part of the problem? Francais, c'est peut-etre mieux pour vous? Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that this dispute has spilled into the French Wikipedia, or perhaps it started there. See fr:Utilisateur:XIIIfromTOKYO/Brouillon for example. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You told me it was not a good answer, I just tried to give a good one. User:Jingiby thanked me for that post, I thought it was good. I am trying here. I seems I am not used to ANI rules, but you can ask User:Robminchin or User:Mr rnddude, I respect rules in talk pages, and I made no personal attacks like XIII. Regarding here, you did not tell me not to answer, so I did not know, now if you tell me that is the rule, I will do it.

I copy here the text you are refering to (how did you end up on that?):

Copy/pasted quoting

Science Po and Assas are two rival schools in France, and a fierce competition has started a few year ago. It's decribed in this L'Étudiant article (well know French Newspaper dedicated to education) in the following ways : La compétition ne fait que commencer (the competition has just started) Droit : Assas et Sciences po en concurrence frontale (law : Assas and Sciences po on a Head-on competition) chacun des deux établissements va chasser sur les terres de l'autre (each of these schools has started poaching on the other's speciality). « notre "collège de droit" est au cœur de notre politique d'identification forte » - Louis Vogel, president of assas University (the Law school is the main herald of our PR policy)[50] extrême rivalité qui règne entre l'IEP parisien et la célèbre fac de droit (extreme rivalty between Science Po and Assas) I can go on and on, but these schools are big rival in France, and it's not never a surprise when dirty politics start between them. On FR.Wikipedia, someone speaking on the behalf of the university has already tried in the past to edit the article, so Wikipédia is seen as a media that needsto be edited for the university [51]. We have had to face a SPA on the French Wikipédia for months, whose only goal was to aggressively (words and beheaviour) promote Assas. As you can see, the very same contributor has been doing the same thing here. The individual, or the company, in charge of this very aggressive PR compaign has a very distinctive beheaviour with a few key patterns : Obsession with the notion of "heir"/"héritière". Even if references explain that the division of the University of Paris was a complexe task, s/he will only use references using this expression. Obsession with the word Sorbonne, even if this building has never been used by the faculty of law. Massive use of Eduniversal rankings. That company had to face legal threat from various universities, including the Ministry of education because of it's commercial practices (because selling free products is basically a scam, among other things) [52]. The methods used are also the same : pretending that there is somewhere a consensus in order to revert, trying to have the article protected on his/her version, creating a lot of counterfire (ANI...). It would be very long to summarize everything, so consider reading the talk page or fr:Discussion:Université Panthéon-Assas, there are a lot of links and in depth explanation. Droas82 Launebee Creation of the account 1st of December 2015, 14H29 1st of December 2015, 15:16 Main target Université_Panthéon-Assas, 2sd largest contributor in just 6 months, 71 edits Panthéon-Assas%20University, 2sd largest contributor, 115 edits Sciences Po 2sd largest contributor by added text (Assas's rival school) Massive use of SPA and or IPs to put back a version of the article eaquals to Droas82-Launebee * Dumas JE, Jcapnthon, Oakti96, LTANCREDE, Tesutr (open proxy blocked, Eduniversal). Not a single new account after the end of Droas82's contribution on this article. 82.66.154.166 (heir of the faculty of Law) *Slycinny (template removal, Eduniversal ranking, Sorbonne...), Relsissi5588 (revert, ranked first, Sorbonne...) Revert because there is a so called "consensus" somewhere, feigning of "taking into account" an other contributor's remarks, revering to his/her version because of a lack of concensus [53], [54], [55] (reverted by an other contributor as there is no real consensus on the talk page), [56] (reverted by an other contributor as there is no real consensus), [57] (reverted by an other contributor as there is no real consensus), reverted because has obviously lied about a so-called concensus, [58], revert despite a R3R and removal of the R3R model, Texte de la cellule Assas as the Best in all the rankings [59] (removing the refnec), [60], [61] Texte de la cellule Sorbonne everywhere, even if that building has never been used by the faculty of Law [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], "l'héritière légitime de (...) la Sorbonne", [69] Texte de la cellule Eduniversal/best rankings/the First in France... only external links added at the end of the article belong to Eduniversal, [70], "elle occupe la première place des classements français", "premiers rangs des classements nationaux", [71], [72], [73] Texte de la cellule Prestigious [74], [75]... Texte de la cellule Héritière/heir [76], [77], cette université en est l’héritière principale, [https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universit%C3%A9_Panth%C3%A9on-Assas&diff=next&oldid=128165679 Texte de la cellule What other contributors says about this contributor Celette« Ce combat ubuesque pour se présenter comme étant le "1er héritier" est assez puéril » Texte de la cellule Long story short. The same contributor has tried the same strategy on FR and EN, with the same goal. It was carefully thought before starting the campaign, as the 2 accounts have been created on the very same day, just a few minutes appart, and have refrained from editing on an other Wikipédia. Still, that falls under the definition of Sock puppetry, especially if you include the SPAs and IPs used to back these actions. Science Po Panthéon-Assas University « Warning templates are a bad things, and must be removed » [78]March, 4 March, 13 April, 5 November, 29 November, 30 November, 30 November, 30 November, 30 « Warning templates are a good things, and must be displayed » September, 17 August, 8 July, 17 || Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Templates used as weapon against other rival colleges Pantheon-Sorbonne University : POV dispute templates added : 6 March 2016, 6 March 2016 (again), 6 March 2016 (and again), 11 March 2016, 12 March 2016 HEC : POV dispute templates added : 8 August 2016 (also his/her first edit on the page) Science Po : POV dispute templates added : 17 July 2016 (also his/her first edit on the page), 8 August 2016, 13 August 2016, 17 September 2016. It was not put back after that, because obviously having 46 out of 60 references devoting to the criticism section if perfectly fine and neutral, especially when these references allow to deal with nazis, freemassonery, homosexuality, drugs, and prostitures[79]. And for Assas ? Well, not always removing POV dispute templates. Multiple use of sock puppet, and IPs 4 March 2016(and same day) 13 March 2016 5 April 2016 29 November 2016 30 November 2016 30 November 2016 30 November 2016 1 December 2016 ... (yes, a very long history log, so let's skip to the last removals) 12 May 2017 14 May 2017 28 May 2017 28 May 2017 2 June 2017 12 September 2017 13 september 2017 13 september 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 16 September 2017 16 September 2017 Please not that the last 20 (!) templates removal by Launebee were done as more that 20 solid references were waiting on the talk page, as the university had to deal by some controversies during the last decades (only to be faced by legal threat if any of these reached the main page)[80]. Other contributors have also tried to put it back, but without any success. 73.212.115.205 : 4 March 2016 4 March 2016 Midas02 : 5 March 2016: « POV can stay, editors have a right to question the neutrality - see TALK » 13 March 2016 : « Launebee (talk) You have been accused of biased editing, and still this is the second time you're removing the POV notice - DO NOT remove this again! » Mr rnddude : 10 May 2017 « Can we leave the templates alone (in the article) » 14 May 2017 « I did indeed request that the templates stay in the article until we had resolved all of the issues. » Sciences Po : 8 times since Launebee's arrival, none before [81] Assas : 3 times since Launebee's arrival, none before [82]

This unsigned section was added here and seems to be covered by #Suggest close above, it's part of the same content dispute. Andrewa (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

(It is very long, so I need to be.)

It seems that XIII is talking about the past, nothing here seems recent. XIII seems to be saying that all the edits done in opposition to his edits are one big plot from a French university president, and – since he wrote this after my request – it would explain why he constantly threatens me and accuses me of anti-Semitism and homophobia, use abusive language, etc. XIII only give parts of talks, not up-to-date comments, and from that explains that there is one big plot against his point of view.

He mostly gives links in French, not related to me, so that the administrators cannot understand. But most of it is false translation. I would take only the two first links to prove it:

• "« « notre "collège de droit" est au cœur de notre politique d'identification forte » - Louis Vogel, president of assas University (the Law school is the main herald of our PR policy)" XIII is creating a confusion between the law school as a faculty or the law school as a special degree within a law faculty (see Law schools in France, here Vogel is talking about the latter ("collège de droit"), not at all his university
• XIII’s claim that someone claimed to be paid by PA in this edit [83] is simply false. The edit summary means nothing in French, and the IP history shows he has edited another article (within the only three edits) [84].

As for the idea that every editor on the French wikipedia, would be one editor, it is just ridiculous. For example, the edit history of the second editor he is refering to had been edit-warring with Droas82 [85], they are clearly not the same editor. This plot theory makes no sense, and even if it were true, I do not see the point.

It is not worth inspecting everything but all of that seems very untrue.

Regarding what’s left in English – very little –,

• On the SP lead, there was a consensus: I voted "strongly oppose" to that consensus (with a lengthy explanation, and other users pushing in the beginning for cherry-picking etc.) but I protected that consensus anyway, and asked to protect the page to protect that consensus anyway. You can see there are now civil talks, and issues are resolved thanks to Robminchin.
• On PA page, long has been going on since one year and half. There was indeed huge problems with the page, but everyone can verify there has thorough discussion with Mr Nurdule, an third independant user who said in the beginning that there was huge issues, but then we resolved those issues together, in spite of the personal attacks of XIII.
• On the other French universities webpages, stating similar things because the sources are clear, XIII says nothing.
• It is just ridiculous to say because templates were needed on one page, and not on the other one, that it would mean something beyond than that.

I edit a lot on Parisian universities, which are all linked to the Sorbonne, but he summarizes it by "Obsession with the word Sorbonne". You find the word "heir" or "inheritor" on all the pages of the inheritors of the Sorbonne, but it would be a plot focused on Panthéon-Assas. Etc. Etc. I think he has on obsession on the Sorbonne. And XIII does not seem to understand that if many users say the same thing, perhaps it is because that thing is right.

Who would trust someone who has blatantly made false accusations of antisemitism, homophobia, made legal threats, others threats and personal attacks? Everybody can see that I talk, I do a lot of RfC, I use sources, in short I am a good faith editor. The only thing true is that I have been driven once into an edit-warring and I already have been sanctioned for this. But with all these despicable personal attacks on anti-Semitism and homophobia, the threats, the aggressive language toward me, I think I have been more than patient with XIIIfromTokyo, by never answering in an uncivil manner to his attacks.

Finally, I would use wp:boomerang on the COI. XIII has clearly got one regarding SP, and it seems it is why he focuses that much on these two institutions he considers "rivals". The three universities he has links with have huge links with SP: Rennes 2 is deeply linked to Sciences Po Rennes (same group as Sciences Po)[86][87] (project of merger), Waseda too[88][89] (only link in France), Tokyo too[90][91]. So he considers SP an ally of his universities , and tries to do whatever he can to put false statement on what he considers a big rival of the ally of his university, referring to obscure and old article of 2009, not referring to the law school as law faculty but law school as a special degree ((see Law schools in France). And since it is a "rival" according to him, he considers there is a big plot in favor of PA, even though the accounts he is referring to seems to have edit-warring between them too, and are not saying what he wants them to say according to his false translations.

You can see, in English, this month only, I gave three edits on PA (its "rival" he thinks), with clearly false or off-topic edit summaries: [92][93][94].

--Launebee (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest close

Launebee, I think that at least part of the problem is that your English is no better than my French, and I would not presume to edit articles in French Wikipedia at all, let alone controversial ones. You do not seem to understand my posts at all.

So I strongly suggest that you refrain from editing controversial articles in English Wikipedia. Attempt discussion on the article talk pages by all means. But let someone else fix the articles themselves. And be very wary of accusing others of mistranslation. You simply do not have the skills to assess this. Question the translation on the talk page if it needs questioning, and again let others fix it. If it needs fixing, in time they will.

Nobody else has commented on my assessment of XIIIfromTOKYO's behaviour (which was supposed to be the topic of #A valid concern above) and I am reluctant to act unilaterally, but it still seems an open-and-close case of an unacceptable edit to me.

Unless there is support for the proposed stern warning (or worse) to XIIIfromTOKYO, I think this is best closed as no trouble found. The content disputes belong elsewhere, as do the disputes on French Wikipedia. I referred to French Wikipedia only because I thought it important to recognise that neither of you is operating from a zero base, in that there's significant discussion on the French Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My request was not about the content dispute, and not about the French Wikipedia. I was just answering. It was about the legal threats you noticed in #A valid concern, and the repetitive accusation of antisemitism and homophobia.

You can also see what Joefromrandb wrote above. Mr rnddude also noted XIII's personal attacks. --Launebee (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There are no legal threats you noticed in #A valid concern. None whatsoever. Perhaps unintentionally this is another irrelevant sidetrack. Someone else may wish to unravel this, but I think we all have better things to do. Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Launebee's COI

Sorry for the delay, but I'm still a bit busy IRL. As far as I can see, @Launebee: has again refused to disclose any COI with PA university (you have read what's on the French Wikipédia, so you might realize that I have found a few interesting things ).

So let me ask it again, because that's clearly a point that you have purposely concealed until now. And a point that is crucial for the understandings of you 2 years campaign of edits. What link do you have (or did you have) with PA University.

As for myself, I have always clearly stated the links that I have had with any college on my user page in the French Wikipédia.

And feel free to call it an obsession again .XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you XIIIfromTOKYO, and yes, that does explain a lot.

But that does not excuse your own behaviour. I am not going to unilaterally block you for this edit, and it's a bit stale now anyway. But I will certainly support a block if there are any further occurrences of personal attacks, or failure to follow proper procedures in dealing with attacks on yourself.

I know that it's hard at times, especially as ANI has sometimes been ineffective in the past. That is why I am giving it some time myself now. If you need help with any behavioural issues, please feel free to ask for help on my talk page, or to email me. Andrewa (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, XIIIfromTOKYO, it is not sufficient to disclose your COI on your French Wikipedia user page. If you are involved in edits or discussions that involve your COI, you must disclose it here, because not all of us read French! I'm sorry if the policy does not make that clear and will follow that up. Andrewa (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My affiliations have all been added[95], as they have been for years on the French Wikipédia.

About the the edit you are pointing out, as you can read on the previous edit, a swarm of IPs have targeted my edits, in order to systematically revert my edits. It qualifies as Harassment, which is considered as a crime in France. So a breach of the point 4 of the terms of use. I'm not saying that Launebee personally did it, because I can't rull out that s/he is has been working with a larger group and/or company (because creating 2 accounts to target 2 version of Wikipedia clearly indicates that some level of organisation and/or experience is involved : these actions were carefly planed).

Which brings us again to the concealement of Launebee's COI. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

wp:boomerang: XIIIfromTokyo COI

If an admin asks for a disclosure, I will answer, no problem. And the idea of a big plot linked with big money interests is not serious and is based on nothing serious, as I proved it above.

XIII has clearly got a COI regarding SP, and it seems it is why he focuses that much on these two institutions he considers "rivals". The three universities he has links with have huge links with SP: Rennes 2 is deeply linked to Sciences Po Rennes (same group as Sciences Po)[96][97] (project of merger), Waseda too[98][99] (only link in France), Tokyo too[100][101]. So he considers SP an ally of his universities , and tries to do whatever he can to put false statement on what he considers a big rival of the ally of his university, referring to obscure and old article of 2009, not referring to the law school as law faculty but law school as a special degree ((see Law schools in France). And since it is a "rival" according to him, he considers there is a big plot in favor of PA, even though the accounts he is referring to seems to have edit-warring between them too, and are not saying what he wants them to say according to his false translations.

You can see, in English, this month only, I gave three edits on PA (its "rival" he thinks), with clearly false or off-topic edit summaries: [102][103][104].

--Launebee (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

New legal threat by XIIIfromTokyo

EdJohnston pointed out on 16 September[105] that XIII is doing legal threats, by calling someone a "criminal" on his talk page [106]. After a warning on edit-warring, since XIII continued, EdJohnston blocked XIII for three days.

XIII used the same language in an article talk page [107]. Andrewa wrote [108] that it "is completely unacceptable on an article talk page" (2 October)

Yet, here, on the 4 October, XIII is once again refering to a "crime" according to French law [109].

--Launebee (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

MfortyoneA

MfortyoneA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved Enclosure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Enclosure (legal) without consensus. It's since been moved back and a discussion is underway on the talk page. The problem is that MfortyoneA also changed every internal link to point to the new article title, which is now being CSD'd. Is there a way to get those edits batch reverted? Chris Troutman (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

@Chris troutman:--I am not very certain but as far as my knowledge goes there runs a certain bot to take care of these issues.Nope, it doesn't look like so! As of now,I have temp. removed the CSD for proper working of the links and prevent sudden deletion. Whoever decides to take a total look at here, shall evaluate the merits of the situation and shall revert the edits by MfortyoneA prior to deletion (if any) of the redirect.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

MfortyoneA's creation of redirects continues. Can an admin bring some sense to this situation? I don't think MfortyoneA has any intention of doing anything other than redirects and disambig, which seems problematic when it's pointless. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Not just pointless but sometimes non-constructive, like this. A common noun in English, previously un-wikilinked, does not need to be linked to a dab page just because Wikipedia has an article about a specialised concept by the same name - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, after all. And even if it were, how would a link to a dab page help our readers? --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

enclosure ... A common noun in English .. yup, that's precisely my point. it seems crazy to me that this common noun has been used for such a specific meaning enclosure (legal) MfortyoneA (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I did this to illustrate how much enclosure doesn't mean enclosure (legal) to most people. if we get precise links, it's easier to get the right links. talk:enclosure (legal) , going through the previous exercise yielded the fact that enclosure had been mislinked. my mission here is to get enclosure renamed. MfortyoneA (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

'how do dabs and redirects help', emergence, discovery. does anyone claim to know every context in wikipedia themselves? someone else who knows more on a specific subject could come in later and re-target a redirect more accurately. the redirect can capture context. If those original cases (stonehenge's mention of enclosure for example) were more contextual, they'd be more likely to be caught. Isn't the fact that links can clarify jargon really nice? the hovercard feature??? you move the cursor over a term, and without needing to open it, it can clarify it for you with a popup. Isn't it great to leverage this more?MfortyoneA (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not do this ever again. Adding an emphasis to somebody else's post is a form of changing the meaning of that post - maybe it is what the original poster intended, maybe not, but the only relevant thing is that if the poster didn't choose to add emphasis, nobody else should either (certainly not without clearly stating that they have done so). Anyway, here's how I see it: Wikipedia has an article called Bridge. Does that mean that every time the phrase "bridging the gap" is used in another article, the reader automatically assumes that a physical bridge is meant, because there is a Wikipedia article about that meaning of the word? You just used the word "leverage" (which I have never seen outside extreme marketingspeak, but never mind that). Do you mean for me to assume that you are physically wielding an actual lever (since the top definition at Leverage is Mechanical advantage)? No, of course not, in both cases. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we often use words in articles without any regard for the fact that there are homographs which have articles about them. A Wikipedia article title is not a definition of what the word in the title "means" for Wikipedia's purposes.

if I wrote leverage , i could indeed clarify it as leverage (marketingspeak) :) MfortyoneA (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

But this is actually not what we need to discuss here. Your post above reads as if you have been making these edits to make a point about the meaning of one particular word. You have also been making these edits rapidly, and restoring them when other people have reverted, even though you are aware that there is no consensus in favour of the changes. That's not how it is supposed to work: when you realise that there are different opinions you discuss the changes you want to make, you make your case on the relevant talk pages, and you do your best to get a consensus in favour of the changes. Making these large-scale changes, with new redirect pages, lots of new dab page entries etc is not collaborative, the way I see it. --bonadea contributions talk 16:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Too many tabs open - that edit did not add a link to a dab page, but it was nonetheless unnecessary and the rest of my comment applies. --bonadea contributions talk 16:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Chris Troutman was criticising me for 'not knowing the content of an article', and actually going through this excercise of simply linking via the terms (making the terms more precise) yielded that the article was infact confusing. Isn't the point of wikipedia to be read by people who don't already know it, rather than for some clique to pat each other on the back about it. the article used to say enclosure was specific to the 18th century, then he basically calls me stupid for not knowing that it isn't. He's admitted the mistake and changed it to say 'middle ages'. Just Following the word , I discovered other historical uses that weren't. Surely this kind of error would be less likely to occur if the title was more accurate in the first place. The title is too vague. the point is EVEN WITHOUT domain knowledge, just clarifying and linking individual terms CAN increase the value of this resource. MfortyoneA (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MfortyoneA has, as noted, mostly been creating redirects, and disambiguation pages that are often only necessary because of the redirects. While redirects and disambiguation are an important part of Wikipedia, it appears that Mfortyone is cluttering up the encyclopedia and wasting editors' time. Does anyone else agree that a topic-ban on redirects would be in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Does google pay trolls to stop wikipedia from growing into a search index? .. is that why there's so much resistance to redirects and dabs? stranger things have happened, in recent times.. MfortyoneA (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If I were to answer yes to that question, then, on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. As I said, redirects and disambiguation are an important part of Wikipedia, but they are only important when they facilitate use of the encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is not supposed to be a search index. That was a useful reply in that it shows that the OP appears to be trying to make the encyclopedia into something that it is not. See What Wikipedia is not, but maybe that guideline needs another paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

ok so you don't deny it. a word like enclosure could be a user friendly search index, but then google would get nervous about a rival. That's the only rational explanation I have for the insane policy here. I see 11000 instances of that word. I wonder what proportion of them are *really* 'the legal process (in england) of combining smallholdings'. along the way there are subtle changes in context though. the more precise the links are (for every word), the more wikipedia can help self-correct, or teach us things we didn't know we wanted (like, until yesterday, I didn't even know this use of enclosure existed. I discovered it as tangent from looking into housing. You know our society is in deep trouble when people can get all snotty, preventing others from improving a lovely free resource of hypertext MfortyoneA (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATSOCIETALHYPERTEXTWRONGS. EEng 02:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Umm... MfortyoneA is currently making about three edits a minute, most of which appear to be changing redirects to enclosure (legal). Doesn't seem exactly like the most constructive thing with an open RM and ANI. Just... FYI. I also seem to be getting some terrible deja vu to this discussion... probably purely coincidentally happening two weeks before MFOA's current account was created. GMG^talk 12:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of that as well but couldn't find the discussion. Thank you for linking to it, GreenMeansGo. If nothing else, I think it is required reading to see what the discussions were before, and why so many people feel that overlinking and the overuse of redirects is a bad idea. --bonadea contributions talk 17:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna leave this here and suggest that we get a checkuser to look into it before this goes on any longer. Those are pretty exceptionally obscure articles to have such an overlap on for a user having exactly the same behavioral issues and nearly the same technobabble-esque responses. GMG^talk 17:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} GMG^talk 21:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd is  Stale and I see no reason to check for sleepers, so I'm declining CU. Sorry. Katie^talk 18:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser template deactivated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... I don't frequent SPI, and didn't realize the data was stored for such a short period of time. I'm still personally convinced it's more likely than not, but I guess there's nothing we can do about it. I would note though the user continues to make on the order of several hundred edits per day related to these discussions, for whatever that's worth. GMG^talk 20:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a private way to submit some behavioral evidence without an account? I've noticed a couple very specific similarities that seem pretty damning to me. -96.2.70.251 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna ping GAB, who seems to be my go-to SPI expert. GMG^talk 00:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Acknowledged. GAB^gab 02:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There are many notable similarities:

• Large page/subject overlap, including some very obscure ones (as per EIA above)
• Similar types of edits per page (lots of linking - pick an article from the EIA)
• Same idiosyncrasies in their writing styles (check their talkpages)
• Non-use of edit summaries (check their X! tools)
• Near-exclusive focus on editing articles (also X! tools)

The behavioral evidence is pretty persuasive. GAB^gab 03:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So... what happens now? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sheesh. Could the editor please curb further upwellings of going nuts with WP:POINTY mass edits, and discuss this kind of thing before horking out dozens of redirects to a disambiguation page? Fat trout at the least, please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• I suggest that MfortyoneA be advised by the community to not move pages without discussion except in cases where obvious things like capitalization is at stake. This should get across the message to them that anything potentially controversial needs to be discussed. This would not be a formal sanction, as things have not gotten to that level yet. If MfortyoneA can take this advice into consideration and not perform moves that could potentially be considered controversial without discussion, then we should be done here. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  The move was fine - the failure to promptly reverse it was not, although it is understandable given the relative inexperience of the editor. The cleanup of the resulting links is harmless if the move gets reversed, and helpful if it doesn't. There appears to be some overlinking, as well as some overdisambiguating, but unless the sockpuppetry charge is demonstrated (Endorse checkuser request BTW), nothing here merits a dragging to the dramaboards. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

But it is not just about moving pages without consensus, which is of course bad enough. A greater problem is the mass creation of redirect pages and dab pages, and the overlinking of common words in articles, based on personal preference despite a lack of consensus, or (worse) for WP:POINTy reasons. I believe it is beyond "some overlinking", simply because it is so time consuming to clean up these things. Oh, and because MfortyoneA has restored some of the instances of overlinking without any attempt at discussion except for their posts in this thread. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This user is now changing working blue links into red links[110]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

if there's a case where that's accidental , i'll fix it, there's one place I can remember where it's erroneous and I wasn't sure where it *should* point. The problem is, the enclosure article is about one specific historical/legal phenomenon, but many articles use the word enclosure where the context is clearly about something else (animal enclosures, walled enclosures, plastic enclosures etc). isn't a redlink better than a silently wrong blue link? MfortyoneA (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just stuck a message on this user's talk page concerning Highland Clearances. The message refers to changes relative to Enclosure which is, if I understand correctly, the subject of a move discussion. My note on the user talk page stands alone - but it seems it should be known within the wider context of this user's activity.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear on the activity on Highland Clearances, prior to the edit, the reader would be linked to Enclosure and Common land, after the edit the link is only to the renamed version of the former. Hence the protest about a hasty edit.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This editor appears to be on a one man campaign to reform Wikipedia. Many (though not all) of his edits are unnecessary, and he rarely explains them. Rwood128 (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Another pointless edit by User:MfortyoneA: [111]

User:Chris troutman, frequent edits like this are surely a problem [112]. However, User:MfortyoneA also is making positive contributions at times. What to do? He has been frequently offered helpful advice but ignores it. Rwood128 (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Disruptive, and mass edits Just looking at their last few edits, this is significant disruption to disambiguation. The computing edits are OK. We need an immediate stop to clear up. I just reverted [113] after the dab project post was clear there's work to cleanup. Widefox; talk 16:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

MfortyoneA please discuss your editing here. You're now engaged in an edit war when I'm trying to cleanup/revert your edits at Enclosure (disambiguation) [114]. Widefox; talk 16:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I did explain the rationale for that one example addition in the comment. One of the many mis-links to enclosure of common land that I found was from 2 articles about boeing aircraft, mentioning part of the aircraft that happened to be an enclosure. As you explained, 'the links there should be to things the user was reasonably looking for' - I take a mis-link as strong evidence that 'enclosure' can mean enclosure (engineering) (in turn, housing (engineering) which is how I got onto this whole topic in the first place). MfortyoneA (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

enclosure has been that way for 10 years .. given the large number of links to it, without someone championing the cause of a move it's just going to linger on, IMO. as there was no existing page enclosure (legal), and the first line of enclosure said "..is a legal process.." I figured that redirect was a safe intermediary (reasonable probability of being the final article name, and easy enough to redirect again if not). going through each one, linking to something that is definitely *not* ambiguous clarifies that it is no longer a mistake. check the discussion where I listed some of the examples of mis- links that I found. MfortyoneA (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:MfortyoneA you need to stop pushing all your edits and WP:LISTEN. The dab was tagged as a mess after your edits [115] and reported to the dab project. I saw that and started to go through the mess and decided a revert to last good version was best [116]. At this point your edit was contested (e.g. per WP:BRD) you should Discuss on the talk. Instead, you undid the cleanup [117]. This, together with the above doesn't convince me you won't stop trying to push and disrupt. This is WP:IDHT. Widefox; talk 17:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

if I did that it was a mistake. I only consciously returned one line enclosure (engineering) along with an explanation of that in the comment. Perhaps something went wrong in the way I went back through the history to copy that line.. that whole reversion is definitely not what I intended to do there. MfortyoneA (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems',Sanmina Corporation(engineering) are the articles that used to link to enclosure - as per your explanation of what a DAB page should include, I figured enclosure (engineering) was justified to be listed under enclosure (disambiguation). I didn't mean to revert the others. The contexts can be broad or vague, even within 'engineering'. think of a venn diagram, and narrowing it down. (hence the whole thing of enclosure (legal) to at least rule out these other meanings) MfortyoneA (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your talk page has many editors saying all the same thing - slow down, stop disruption, can't understand edit, speedy delete/XfD, reckless page move, reckless primary topic change [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] and others, all in a five months. Your response seems to be you don't know why you did those edits, or they were a mistake, but whatever, you carry on! When will this stop? Widefox; talk 18:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... other's pleading to slow down, long lists of disambiguation link notices, complaints about how links to obvious terms are ambiguous. Don't forget about those. GMG^talk 18:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

• I have blocked the account as a sock of User:Fmadd. I spent the better part of an hour checking their contribs after reading GMG's note on my talk page, and their editing patters and behaviours are almost identical (this time with forks/enclosures instead of computer/physics terms). They were a huge waste of the projects time last time we had this song and dance, and there's no need for us to go through it again (as before, there are 360 new pages to deal with, 321 of which are redirects, most of which seem to be of little use). Primefac (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Rather than trying to tag all of their various page creations, admins can mass-delete them. Since it seems they were also mass-relinking to their new redirects I'm reluctant to do so as it would create a large number of redlinks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Many of their contributions are still current versions, so someone could mass rollback them and provide an appropriate edit summary. I'm willing to do it, but it's probably best for an admin to handle. There are roughly 1200 "current" version mainspace contributions and 101 new pages. – Nihlus (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  I'd also like to see the CU Katie refused to check for any sleeper accounts. MfortyoneA was particularly disruptive and I'd like to prevent a repeat performance in the future. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, "mass delete" allows us to mass-delete a user's new page contributions, but there is no "mass rollback" to automatically undo all of their rollback-able contributions. I was mistaken about this myself in the past, but as far as that goes admins don't have any better tool than repeatedly clicking the rollback button through their entire contrib history, which is a bit reckless. As for CheckUser,  Clerk declined,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. The case history is no less stale now than when Katie declined the check above, and as I understand it, CheckUser isn't much use when there's only one known non-stale account. It is precisely useless against accounts which haven't yet been created. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is indeed a mass rollback script. Thank [insert deity here] for Writ Keeper!.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ponyo, how about Sülde Tngri, for whom WK seems to have a special liking? Drmies (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Personally, I would have chosen with Xochiquetzal (or Lauren Duca), but I suppose we can go with Writ Keeper's equestrian war-man.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Psst, Ponyo, it's an article that he wrote... Drmies (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yeah, there is a mass rollback script, as Ponyo said. I've used it numerous times to counter fast vandals or undo their edits once blocked (example). It rolls back every possible edit on the screen and allows a customized edit summary over the general non-informative one. – Nihlus (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Good to know that script exists, I'll definitely bookmark it. I had a few discussions in my non-admin days with admins who were positive that such a tool did not exist that eventually I assumed they must be right. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support CSD G5 mass cleanup. After a few hours cleanup, there's few good edits, but much disruption. Mass delete, rollback the rest. Editors in several venues are already investing time on borderline dictdef confusion, move request, XfD etc. Widefox; talk 20:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

See WT:Sockpuppet investigations#Laundry - how far to go?

Does this "cleanup" extend to articles they haven't even edited? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Communication problems with IkbenFrank

IkbenFrank (talk · contribs) seems to be one of those editors who doesn't seem to talk much. His talk page is full of unanswered complaints and he never uses edit summaries. I've had a go at getting through but it's fallen on deaf ears. I wonder if anyone else can succeed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, have tried before, even left a final warning before I went into semi retirement but he just never listens or learns. Think it’s time we blocked him to be honest, most of his edits are non constructive as it is. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

+1 - He has no interest in communicating or discussing and no amount of warnings will change that, Personally I'd support a 2 week block and if it carries on then the block would get longer and even indef if need be. –Davey2010^Talk 13:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. This isn't just a communication problem but also WP:COMPETENCE, apparently. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Could Ritchie333 please explain what Ikbenfrank is meant to have done wrong? The guy's quiet but is he actually disruptive? I should mention I was canvassed by Ritchie because I reverted one of IkbenFrank's edits three years ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to know the answer as well. Yes he's not using edit summaries, but I'm not noticing anything in his edits that's disruptive. And there's nothing recent on his talk page to indicate there's a problem. If there is then no one has engaged with him. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can see complaints about unconstructive editing on Gloucestershire and Cheltenham, original research Rail Safety and Standards Board and Southern Railway strike (2016-2017), alleged hoaxes on Glastonbury, plus this earlier ANI thread. Individually, there's not a lot, but put it together and it all seems to boil down to him not discussing things during content disputes. Anyway, at least here provides him the ability to tell his side of the story. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'd not be neutral on this. And I'm not perfect and have made several errors dealing with user, including raising the aforementioned ANI thread. A typical problem issue might be revision 801553383 on Paddington (This is Paddington the area of London - the station has its own article) for example. Now within the context of the Paddington area article it may be (just) relevant to mention Paddington is the London railway terminus for Fishguard the and ferry to Rosslare (though there are no longer direct trains). However the actual edit made is over the top with regards to detail in my opinion; and the article will likely need to cleaned up sometime. Some edits by user are useful but the over-emphasis on e.g. railways can mean articles are in my opinion disproportionality railway orientated. Newtownforbes would be an example of a useful contribution. It feels like the user pops up every 2 to 4 weeks, does some minor edits that will be passable and does others that seem how far his pet interests can be pushed into articles; then lies low (I may be unfair in saying this). As a number of people revert his edits without warnings or have given up putting stuff on his talk page it tends to not have many current issues, or perhaps just one. There is a real risk he is relying on wikipedians assuming good faith and doing monthly edits to avoid recent warnings. As some may/should have noticed he has communicated with me on my talk page with regard to a previous issue following my reversion of a number of edits ... I don't really have an answer. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC). Please be aware that after becoming aware of Newtownforbes and mentioning it above I decided to work a little on the article .. initially because of tweaking some of IkbenFrank's content and restoring/reworking content deleted by Ritchie333 and subsequently to work on the Castleforbes demesne section. While somewhat serving as an example of how article improvement works I was not expecting to work on the Newtownforbes when I first mentioned it here and would not have given it as an example if I was expecting that, this being a slight distraction in this ANI section.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC) I've also just done a fairly bold edit on the Paddington article for reasons far deeper than IkbenFrank's contribution.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Extremely unfair you creep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkbenFrank (talk • contribs)

Not helpful IkbenFrank. Do you have anything constructive to add to this conversation instead of calling people names? Wikipedia is a community and if people raise questions about some of your edits you need to respond to them otherwise admins etc will only get one side of the story. Canterbury Tail talk 11:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for responding IkbenFrank (talk · contribs). I assume you are referring to my possible explanation of your pattern of timelines of contributions. I accept it is perfectly possible that you may simply allocate say one or two days a month to Wikipedia contributions. I think what people are finding is that you are making large proportion of (non-trivial) edits that are needing to be reverted or reworked. I think other contributors to this section would wish you to make more positive comments. For example I suggest a good start is to ensure you sign your talk page contributions with 4 tildes and as Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) has suggested ensure you use edit summaries - You can set an auto-reminder for those by : Perferences, Editting tab, Then checking: Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Responding positively in this way this will likely stand you in better stead with others. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Presenttruth777

Presenttruth777 has been causing problems at the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist page despite warnings and explanations. She or he almost never edits anywhere else (see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account).

When other people have removed inappropriate things from this page, such as Special:Diff/792709793, she or he restores them, Special:Diff/798562646. This user added a section of unsourced text to this article a few days ago ([126]), which I removed, Special:Diff/801573336. That part was restored, Special:Diff/801581912, and I deleted it again, Special:Diff/801584847 and left a sourcing notice at the editor's talk page, Special:Diff/801584875. The editor then put it back with references to [127] and [128], but I removed them on WP:CIRC grounds, Special:Diff/801742471, because [129] is not reliable (it's just a memorial that was read at someone's funeral) and [130] is a doctrinal statement that depends on a Wikipedia article (or actually, two of them). After removing this text, I explained to Presenttruth777 why I had removed it, Special:Diff/801742774, but Presenttruth777 just put it back with more unreliable sources. I made one last revert and was once again undone, Special:Diff/801860080 and Special:Diff/801979677, and since Presenttruth777 keeps reverting me, I won't hit the undo button again and again and again. And Presenttruth777 responded to my removal explanation, Special:Diff/801841514, by saying "The sources are verified and well known within the Davidian community. Your arbitration judgment is unacceptable--STOP controlling our original article." It doesn't matter if these are well known within the Davidian community if they aren't WP:IRS, and WP:OWN it's not Presenttruth777's original article.

I don't know much about the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. I don't know if this text is accurate or not, and if it's referenced to a reliable source, I wouldn't touch it. I just know that it's not right to base Wikipedia articles on other Wikipedia articles or on unreliable sources like eulogies, so someone needs to stop this editor who just keeps adding unsourced or badly sourced information and thinks that I'm trying to control her or his own article. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. You don't know much about Davidian Seventh-day Adventists evident by trying to eliminate a very important and integral part of the report. Ben Roden, founder of the "BRANCH DSDA" is often confused as being an "original Davidian", thus there is need to point out the differences. Although not lengthy on showing his divergent teachings it does touch on this important difference, The references are well known in the DSDA and BDSDA community and are considered reliable.

False you are trying to control it, this article has been labeled as high importance and we have had it running now for several years with relatively few problems until you come along, with very little knowledge of the historical DSDA truth/teachings. Presenttruth777 (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC) /* Presenttruth777 */

I noted they were just reverted again at the page for adding materials from a primary and not secondary source. Of concern however is the comment on their talk page "STOP controlling our original article". Is this a joint account from the church itself? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Just want to note the continuing validity of the observation that editors with "truth" in their names almost invariably turn out to be a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I was actually just about to post a comment along a similar vein @Beyond My Ken:. Blackmane (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Great minds, and all that. Beyond "Truthy" Ken (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I do know a bit about this group and have some idea of what may be accurate and not accurate. I'll help sort it out. Legacypac (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

We (us who have experience in DSDA teachings and history) will continue to monitor this article we wrote and make sure it STAYS clear and truthful as originally intended. If anyone have a "legitimate" concern let us know but stop arbitrarily deleting what is true and verifiable. Presenttruth777 (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC) /* Presenttruth777 */

If by "clear and truthful" you mean "adheres to DSDA's view of itself", then you're in for some problems if you violate WP:NPOV and prevent other editors from presenting verifiable facts about the group that they would rather not have in the article. Please see WP:OWN - no one editor, or any group of editors, "owns" an article, whether they wrote it or not. Watch your step, because your statement reads very much like an attempt to own that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the top three contributors to the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist article [131], User:Presenttruth777, User:Tonadachi, and User:Srodinfo (cf. "The Shepherd's Rod") have edited little or nothing other then that article or the Branch Davidians article. Also Tonadachi's last edit was 2013-06-18 and Presenttruth777's first edit was just 5 days earlier, on 2013-06-12, which perhaps indicates the turning over of the responsibility for "guarding" the article from one person to another within an organized group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What does all this have to do with an honest truthful article. Now if you can point to errors and misstatements of facts then let's talk, but your personal opinions and assumptions won't cut it. As this article has been labelled as "High Importance" and shown by the tens of thousands of views over the last 3 plus years, we would hope that anyone here who want's changes can bring to the table solid facts and historical references to back up there changes.Some edits have been beneficial and should stand but those that are false or misstated of facts should not be allowed to stand in this article.Presenttruth777 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777

The page and related pages contain material ommisions and a whole lot of promotion. There is a lot of overlinking amd links back to the same page too. I've started to clean the page up - will see how Presenttruth777 reacts. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Please do not archive or close this discussion, as the attempt to WP:OWN the article Davidian Seventh-day Adventist by User:Presenttruth777 is ongoing. My prediction: this is inevitably going to end up with Presenttruth777 being indef blocked from editing, but we have to let things play out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked user using a dopelganger - Fake Amusement Parks

Blocked user AmyWeatherspoon63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be using her account at AmyWeatherspoon63 (doppelganger) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to create draft articles. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's because I love creating articles about fictional amusement parks and attractions. That's why I created Draft:Yellowstone Sky Seeker. Not to mention I'm Mothra's biggest fan. ----AmyWeatherspoon63's doppelganger (Talk to my main account) 01:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, good. You might have thought she was violating policy but no, she loves creating articles about fictional amusement parks and attractions. That's why she created Draft:Yellowstone Sky Seeker. Not to mention she's Mothra's biggest fan. And she's also obviously not a grody old man roleplaying as a braindead teenage girl. Nothing to see here, move along. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's give her a fictional Wikipedia to play with. Count Iblis (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• We don't allow the creation of alt accounts to evade a block. Sock blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please also block MothraFanGirl1763 (talk · contribs), who has also popped up. --MuZemike 22:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unhatted. I'm not done and will find out who this is. Will report back shortly.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• I believe that I have found him and have filed the SPI case.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just CSD G3 a series of Draft pages, rolled back a bunch of edits to mainspace and reported additional socks as vandals . Check my edits before this post if interested. Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

IBM PC DOS, etc.

Involved articles: IBM PC DOS, TRS-80 character set, VGA connector, VGA-compatible text mode

Relevant diffs: [132], [133] (reversion of removal of redundant link and reversion of italicization of computer/video game title, respectively)

It seems as though I've fallen into a case of rules lawyering and "policy" enforcement from User:Deacon Vorbis. He has decided that he must (at all costs) revert my edits to articles that he personally dislikes (per WP:NOTBROKE)), even if it fixes punctuation or redundant linking. This really is quite passive-aggressive on his part; I've tried discussing the matter politely with him but he seems to think that whatever his thoughts on policy are are the final word and no other action by other editors are valid. As a long-time editor and administrator, this doesn't really sit well with me having my proper (not merely good faith) edits reverted by an editor with less than two years of editing experience. I'm not going to play games here and get sucked into WP:3RR and other childish editing games.

He also seems incapable of any non-"black-and-white" thinking on objective matters (such as Wikipedia guidelines (which are not rules or laws) governing this project. I suspect I stumbled into editing articles in his "pet" area (math and technology) and that he feels the need to invoke "Protecting the valor of Wikipedia at all costs", which is a wreckless sort of mindset; we're all supposed to be working together toward the common goal of making information avaiable to people on the internet worldwide, not working against each other.

Involved party (Deacon Vorbis) needs to re-evaluate his view of Wikipedia policy and not act rashly before reverting experienced non-vandal editors. Bumm13 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's a dispute, and a guideline says to do things one way, why not just follow the guideline? I don't understand why you're making a big deal of this. Instead of escalating this to ANI, you should have said, "Oh, so I don't have to waste my time changing links that aren't broken? That's good news. Thank you for pointing that out. Cheers." In fact, it's not too late for you to say that now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand: it's not okay to revert edits involving removing redundant links and italicization of video game titles (per the diffs posted above). Also, this has effectively prevented me from editing any articles until this issue is resolved. That isn't acceptable and is borderline harassment. Bumm13 (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, I was a bit overzealous on a couple of those reverts; I should only have reverted the parts I was objecting to. Let's gloss over whether my actions were "passive-aggressive" or whether or not I've actu[[User:Deacon Vorbisally "decided that I must (at all costs) revert your edits". I'll try to be brief here; I can go into more detail if anyone wants. I said it might be actually be helpful to escalate, but that first you should explain why your edits were okay. My view is that the gist of WP:NOTBROKEN is pretty much just, "If a link works, then don't screw with it without a good reason". But you didn't explain; you just tried to throw around the fact that you've been here longer (I guess?) and then went ahead and escalated here.

Guidelines make it helpful so that us poor, misguided, inexperienced editors can actually have some frame of reference when we see someone making changes like this. If you find it necessary to go against the guidelines on such a regular basis, then you can always modify the guidelines so it's clear for those without the vast accrued wisdom to see why it's okay.

Seeing as how this was barely discussed, I think it would be best for this matter to just be closed and let it try to sort itself out. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The matter can't be closed if you don't at least undo the part of your reversions to IBM PC DOS and TRS-80 character set involving my removal of redundant links and italicization of a video game title link, as those are legitimate edits regardless of our views on WP:NOTBROKEN and avoiding redirects. Bumm13 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's goodness sake. If you really want to make me do it, then fine; it's done. But if you're going to continue editing in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, then you should really update the guideline. The rest of us aren't psychic, especially when you won't explain why you're doing it. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the merits of the edits for a moment, let's look at: "As a long-time editor and administrator, this doesn't really sit well with me having my proper (not merely good faith) edits reverted by an editor with less than two years of editing experience." Hmmm. That "doesn't really sit well" with me at all. Some folks could view that kind of statement as an attempt to "throw your weight around". I'm sure that's not the intention, but you might bear it in mind, nevertheless. I agree with NRP that there was no need to escalate this to this noticeboard. -- Begoon 04:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing in the OP's approach to this whole issue sits at all well. I know standards for granting adminship were pretty lax in 2005, but I didn't realise that they were that lax. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Talk:IBM PC DOS has not been edited since February 2017, and the last substantive comment made at that page was in July 2012. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• In the light of the behaviour shown in this whole dispute, including the ongoing failure to explain why the WP:NOTBROKE guideline shouldn't be followed in these cases, should Bumm13 continue to be an administrator? That editor has obviously displayed an inappropriate temperament for that role per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:CIR. This behaviour is akin to that of a D-list celebrity who says "do you know who I am?" when refused a table at a fully booked restaurant. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you should prejudge me any more than another other editor here (including myself not prejudging others). At least take a look at my previous edits over the years and my ability to (mostly) avoid on-site controversy. After a day of reflection, I know I didn't handle the situation as well as I could have, but I don't think that this episode should define my ability to be a competent admin. I also find it somewhat curious that you bring these character issues up given you don't have an actual username; it's okay to be to edit anonymously as an IP but it seems odd that you seem so interested in on-site policies without bothering to even register a username. Just a small thing, though. Bumm13 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea that User:Bumm13 was an admin. This filing was preceded by a filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard that appeared to have been filed by a clueless newbie who did not precede the filing by discussion on an article talk page. It appears to have been filed by a clueless admin. I suggest that this report be closed as the filing of a clueless admin who doesn't know how to be an experienced editor, and I thought admins were supposed to be experienced editors. Is there a remedial course for admins who don't know how Wikipedia works? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, he really is an admin. That's disturbing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Pretty much a c/paste of that DR filing, now you point it out. I'm concerned though, Robert, that Bumm13 might "find it somewhat curious" that you and I bring issues up here, or that it might not "sit well" with them. I'm trying to understand the 'caste system' they appear from their comments in this thread to apply to such judgments. We are neither of us IP editors, having both "bothered to" register usernames, so that seems to be a pass; we have both edited for well over 2 years, so that looks ok; but neither of us are admins, so that could be a stumbling block, I'm not sure. -- Begoon 04:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My reply was to User:86.17.222.157, not you or User:Robert McClenon. Bumm13 (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. (Mine and SBHB's were to Robert - which was apparent until you "top-posted" above them with the wrong indent.) Not sure why that's relevant to what I said, though? -- Begoon 04:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Robert, I would be delighted for you to "show me how Wikipedia works"; clearly I'm completely unable to understand very simple concepts (like responding to you at this page). Not really sure what your "remedial" comment was trying to accomplish, but it sure doesn't seem like WP:AGF or anything of the sort. So I don't know all the ins and outs of how specific noticeboards work here on Wikipedia? Dealing with user or content disputes isn't where I choose to spend my time when editing. I posted here after finding out that, sure enough, WP:DRN was the wrong place for dispute resolution with another editor. Let's stick to the purpose of this noticeboard (dispute resolution) and consider toning down the snarky comments. Bumm13 (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bumm13 - The first rule about posting to noticeboards is to read any instructions at the top of the noticeboard. That isn't really a difficult rule.

The instructions at the top of DRN say: "The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN." You posted almost the same complaint about the editing of links as you posted here at DRN, with no discussion on article talk pages. It is true that my comment about remedial education was snarky, but it was deserved, because experienced editors, whether admins or not, are expected at least to know to read the instructions. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but it does matter to the DRN volunteers, and you wasted our time by filing a complaint without the preceding discussion. I assumed, in closing it, that you were a clueless newbie who didn't yet know to read the instructions, but who had (after a little reading) found a place to complain. You are not a clueless newbie. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Bumm13, the problem isn't just your competence, but also your attitude, which you displayed again in that post, that arguments can be won by pulling rank rather than by explaining your actions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And I'm not the one doing any prejudging here, but have only based anything that I have said on your actions. You are the one who is prejudging people on the basis of their non-admin status, their shorter history of editing than yours and my unregistered status. Why the fuck (I have a shorter fuse than User:Deacon Vorbis so won't redact that word) didn't you follow User:NinjaRobotPirate's advice above that "it's not too late for you to say that now". It now is (or at least should be on the basis of your intransigence) too late. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

IP disruption

The IP 2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA is being disruptive and reverting silly edits on my talk page when I delete them. He is also using 174.193.3.212 and 174.198.16.216. He is insulting my contributions because I warned and revered him. He saying he makes good edits on articles like Kiwifruit and Cousin when most of his contribs are reverted by other users. He keeps accusing for nothing, restoring removed comments and he has been warned by other users as well. I want to ask you admins to see what you can do to unearth this situation. Thanks and please ping when replying. Redgro (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Redgro, it would be good to have specific diffs as to where you think the IP is insulting my (your) contributions, and accusing of nothing.

But I see you have attempted discussion on the IP's talk page, and that this was the second warning they had received, the first being from a third party. I take it that you regard this sequence of edits as disruptive, and see that you reverted them in the next edit to that page.

I don't see any attempt to notify the IP of this discussion, and suggest you do that urgently, as it's a strict requirement when raising matters on this page. You might also note that this is not the place to bring any sort of content dispute. Andrewa (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I am the Apparently disruptive IP. The above party threatened reporting me so I took a look to see where the report was in case I needed to use the system myself someday. I have been editing and Wikipedia for a while (around 8 years) and choose to do so without creating a login mostly because I created a login a long time ago that I really liked and only used a few times before I lost the password.

My major contribution is to reorganize articles for readability and comprehension not necessarily to change the content. Sometimes it is very difficult for people trying to look for vandalism to go through my entire change as sometimes I forget to save it in multiple steps, make small grammatical mistakes that people revert the entire change for, do not annotate the change sufficiently on The Talk page, in the change notes. Every once in awhile (when I start working on articles that are new for me) it occurs that people assume that because I am nameless and because of the scale that changes I am performing vandalism. Eventually it always works out as all parties see the value in my changes and are appreciative of them. The party above seems to be insulted that I wrote on their talk page. Sometimes I can be a bit terse but I am never mean or cruel. Therefore, I conclude that the above party thinks that they have more rights than I do because they chose a screen name and the idea of a unnamed user correcting them on their talk page is what is offensive not what I said. I do understand that it is preferred policy that people create logins, but assuming that they are lesser than you because they do not use one does not help produce better articles and I really liked that old username. :) I only wrote in response to the above parties accusations to help clarify things and to educate them. As I feel the situation is already resolved favorably on my side. I will refrain from any further communication with the above party until another issue arises. Hopefully this causes you no more trouble. I would recommend that the above party should gain some maturity. I have been offended many times by what people have done in Wikipedia sometimes it even made my gut wrench, but I realize that these opinions are my own and do not create better content by pursuing them. If someone removes 20 hours of work I just go back to the drawing board and find another alternative that appeals to more people. Wikipedia in this way has taught me humility. I believe the above party should learn the same. As a note to you. Although the articles are more mature than when I started working with Wikipedia, it does seem that there are less and less people volunteering their hours to make changes occur and less and less people using the talk pages of the articles appropriately to make group decisions. As you know we desperately need more help and users like the one complaining above do a great disservice by discouraging people from helping.67.162.25.59 (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP from which that edit came is not of course any of the three mentioned in the complaint. You seem to use a lot of them! Which makes it difficult, but that's not your fault.

Is this edit, by user:32.218.38.102 also one of yours? It looks like a good one to investigate.

Redgro, that's not one of the IP addresses you gave either, but is it part of the same pattern you want investigated? It seems to be. If not then please give diffs of those that are. Andrewa (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not one of mine. Although I think Redgros actions were not proper, I do not wish to lodge a complaint against him for his aggressiveness, threatening, and hostility. I do not think it would teach him anything. He seems pretty convinced that I am a bad guy. Do you want a list of I.P.s that I have used. I don't think I can make the list complete it would go back a while. 2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That IP you mentioned Andrewa, is not his as he said. The reason why I told you to stop using my talk page is because you are restoring comments which were removed by me. That is not allowed and is a Wikipedia policy as you did with this edit. Also you were being rude to me by saying I have probably done more good then you ever have and great disservice by discouraging people from helping. I think we should agree to close this discussion and move on. I hope we never negatively interact unless another issue occurs. Redgro (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Not that simple, Redgro. You've made some allegations and asked for admin intervention to resolve them. Now you must either back them up with the evidence, or face possible sanctions yourself. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I reverted some of his edits which was this edit and gave him a level 3 warning for removing content. He had already been reverted and warned by Favonian (an admin) with this edit. He then accused me for something I did weeks ago because he thought his edits were constructive and I had reverted them for no reason in this change. I know this user is using multiple IP address because of his changes in my talk page see [134]. I then went to his talk page and posted [135], which was gentle advice to stop editing disruptively. I said that because most of his edits are reverted by more experienced editors as in the history pages of Cousin, Kiwifruit and Food irradiation and are sometimes misguided. He went to my talk page and got [angry] at me and started to get tough. I reverted that edit and he re-reverted on my talk page and added this. I went to his talk page, rather annoyed and posted [136]. I want admins to solve this argument between me and the IP. I think the IP is a good faith editor and wants to improve it but sometimes makes misguided edits which do not represent Wikipedia in the correct manner. Thanks! Redgro (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are deliberately wasting my time, it will not work. He then accused me for something I did weeks ago because he thought his edits were constructive and I had reverted them for no reason... diff for this accusation by them, please? The accusation was, I take it, that you had reverted them for no reason. But what specifically was their edit that you regard as disruptive? That's what you've left out.

You have made an accusation of disruption. You have now given a long-winded reply that does seem to attempt to provide an answer, just tangental material. That is disruptive on your part, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Single purpose account for mass adding articles by a number of PhD students for paid experiment on Wikipedia

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

---

Had already been warned.[137]. Continued. This is what they call science... (I know it does not belong here, but read the article, one author is at MIT, and the quality is laughable, just as the encyclopedic quality of many articles added here - which is why so many were deleted.) User_talk:Carolineneil#Single purpose account for experiment on Wikipedia: should be banned. Antimanipulator (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Antimanipulator: Carolineneil hasn't edited in three months, blocking here would be punitive - I'm interested how a new editor came across this though -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I would assume they came across it by way of this paper which they linked on the user's talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"Blocks should encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". An account used by a group of PhD students with a poor understanding of encyclopedias (hence bad citations, lemmas) and no respect for rules on disclosure of paid contributions, single purpose accounts, and conflicts of interest should be banned. Antimanipulator (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The paper suggests that the project had the WMF's blessing (it credits Dario Taraborelli), so presumably the implications of what they were doing were considered... Yunshui ^雲_水 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Paper may suggest whatever it does, the project blatantly violates Wikipedia rules, and contributions were poor, hence many articles not even created: Draft:Conjugation in ultraviolet–visible spectrometry, Draft:Tethered Intramolecular (2+2) Reactions, Draft:Generation of Carbocationic Synthons, Draft:Use of pi,pi, CH-pi and pi-cation interactions in supramolecular assembly, Draft:Substrate Control: Asymmetric Induction By Molecular Framework in Cyclic Systems, Draft:Glucose Chain Shortening and Lengthening, Draft:Stock Sampling (Stock of Data), Draft:Reagent Control: Addition of Chiral Allylmetals to Achiral Aldehydes, Draft:Reagent control: chiral electrophiles, Draft:Heteroskedasticity and nonnormality in the binary response model with latent variable... - sorry, but who could even think that some of these are suitable lemmas for an encyclopedia? - and many nominated for deletion. One commenter could not have guessed better: "*Ultra specialized with little effort to contextualize. Reads like a essay from an student who is being forced to contribute to Wikipedia but the supposedly supervising faculty member has not bothered to read or understand policy and standards."[138] This account drew hundreds of administrator actions, reminders to choose adequate lemmas, discussions about deletion, reminders to improve poor referencing - to no avail, and they are academics!

I think a formal reprimand to the poor supervisors Neil Thompson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Sloan School of Management; MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL), and Douglas Hanley, University of Pittsburgh, is in place.Antimanipulator (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide some additional context about WMF's involvement in this research. This is an independent study conducted by academic researchers, and is not endorsed or sponsored by the WMF. It is also not a formal collaboration with WMF or with Wikimedia Research, subject to WMF's collaboration policy. As a general rule, the Foundation is not in a position to "approve" or "decline" individual research proposals, unless there are security or legal reasons to escalate them. Editorial decisions about content, in particular, are not an area the Foundation has any say about. The authors reached out at the time of the proposal to ask about best practices to follow in setting up the proposal and two WMF staffers (Aaron Halfaker and I) advised them on discussing and documenting it in the appropriate spaces. We have been offering this support on a volunteer basis for a few years, and on an ad hoc basis, to help researchers follow best practices around participant recruitment and understanding community norms and expectations. As for outreach initiatives involving students and professors creating or expanding Wikipedia articles, which some comments in this thread brought up, you can read more about Wikipedia:Education program if you're not already familiar with the program. --Dario (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the account as that of an undisclosed paid editor. As all edits from the account were paid, this is preventative in the sense that it prevents future paid edits before such a disclosure is made. (And as a side note, the quality of research here is downright awful.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

And as a side note, the quality of research here is downright awful Honestly, I think that's an insult to the word "awful". According to their introduction, they checked scientific papers from 1995-2001 (in addition to later papers, but still) to see if those articles stole text from Wikipedia... AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY DID!!! My guess is that you won't see this work showing up in Nature anytime soon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they have time travel. It's MIT, after all. EEng 16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Time travel, robotics and artificial intelligence? We may have to take them out before they cause the singularity, though I'd be wary of any bikers with Austrian accents we encounter on the way to do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Is a mass delete of the articles in order? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just getting my head around this, but who is alleged to have paid the editor to create the articles? - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The authors of this paper. Who shall forever be known as the creators of possibly the worst experimental structure I have ever encountered in my entire life. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, these are in no way promotional, right? The editor was simply paid to contribute a number of science articles? I'm seeing some sort of need for disclosure, but I'm having a hard time seeing justification for a mass deletion of non-promotional and supposedly accurate articles on scientific topics. And yes, it looks like an oddly formed methodology to me as well. - Bilby (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• 2 cents: I see junk like this all the time from students. I can see the temptation for teachers and professors to have students do a Wikipedia article(s) as an assignment (got to admit it's good practice), but all the results I have ever seen have been uniformly bad, and I've never seen anything good come from a homework assignment. I am strongly opposed to homework assignments getting anywhere near being posted on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• This was raised in the past, but ignored: Concerns about the user were raised twice at ANI- here and here- so before blaming any potential WMF involvement, we should probably look at why the case of this editor was raised here, and just ignored. This line from Robert McClenon was particularly prescient: "either she is a human, but isn't trying to pretend to be either a human or a bot, or it is a bot, and isn't trying to act like a human. At this point, I recommend a block, in order to get the author to make an unblock request". jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Bizarre. As is noted, I thought that there was something peculiar about the account in June. Am I to understand that the conclusion is that the account was conducting an experiment involving Wikipedia? We don't have a policy that explicitly prohibits conducting experiments with Wikipedia; maybe we should, because such accounts are not here to improve the encyclopedia as a collection of knowledge even if they do improve overall human knowledge about encyclopedias. I will add that, when I understood the articles, which I usually did, they appeared to be good science, but they needed improvement, in particular in the addition of links to other articles, and I repeatedly tried to request that the drafts be improved. If my understanding is correct, the account should be blocked (as it is), but for the subtle reason that they aren't here to improve the encyclopedia but to experiment on the authors of the encyclopedia. So I think that I was right in expressing puzzlement about behavior that didn't seem exactly either human or robotic, but something in between. Am I understanding correctly? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As to why the concerns were raised and not acted on further, I think that is clear, that it is because the behavior didn't fall into any of the known types of bad behavior. For instance, even if the author (if there was a single human author) was being paid, it wasn't paid editing in the usual sense, which means paid editing for promotional purposes. (One type of "paid editing", which is editing by a professor about their field of knowledge, is good. It is promotional paid editing that is bad, and this wasn't promotional paid editing.) This really was a sufficiently strange type of misconduct that there is no way we could have expected to recognize it immediately. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not directly promoting their supervisors but indirectly through producing results that they use to promote their career. Paid editing is always bad because it makes the editors edit for reasons other than providing knowledge. In this case, the students just wanted to get a job done and did so by chosing ridiculous lemmas and not caring for proper citations or relating theirs to existing articles. Antimanipulator (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Antimanipulator - You say that paid editing is always bad because it makes the editors edit for reasons other than providing knowledge. In that case, we need to clarify the definition of paid editing. Professors editing in their subject areas are good because they are only sharing their knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• The single purpose account here is Antimanipulator – an account created just today to complain about this and which doesn't seem to have created any articles at all. Why are we punishing the content creator in this case? Do we really prefer having complaints at ANI rather than articles about advanced chemistry? Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is criticizing User:Antimanipulator. At least, they shouldn't be. They should be thanked for reporting this again. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I just clean up the mess left over by the misguided PhD students. Have you looked at those articles? It caused a lot of work to many administrators and other users, and they never even bothered to properly cite. I can only write again, their supervisors and their institutions' ethics comittees should be informed about this. (Also about the fact that they only report the positive results in their summary and that they suppress information on how most of their articles were not even accepted here for poor quality). Antimanipulator (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree that their supervisors and their institutions' ethics committees should be informed about this. If it is thought that students need to become familiar with how to edit a wiki, MIT can install one on one of its own servers – rather than allow and invite its students to cause disruption on WP. MIT would probably blow-its- top if another educational institution was found to be experimented on MIT servers. The MIT governors should be able to quickly acknowledge that this behavior has brought MIT into disrepute in the cyberworld. Especially as it was by young hopeful PhD's guided buy a MIT employee. Aspro (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro:, @Robert McClenon:, @BU Rob13:: this was led by two young professors who write they use articles of the publisher Elsevier. The article Mesembrine that was largely written by the PhD students has nearly only Elsevier citations. I am trying to check if this is a pattern. If so, this is a much more disturbing case than I already thought initially. Antimanipulator (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost on where you are coming at on this. The ethics committee would have had to approve this research, and ethically it seems sound - add a number of accurate and useful articles to Wikipedia, then look at how those articles are used elsewhere. This wasn't a breaching experiment, the content was accurate, and the disruption seems fairly minimal. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hell, I think their frikkan parents should be informed of this. My 4 year old could structure a better experiment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Think we ought to have a 48 hour hold on this before going further. It will allow other editors to get up to speed. Something is amiss alright but this needs more eyes because there maybe a third and unseen party at play and trying to pull our strings. Aspro (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This is a very odd case. The single purpose account here, as Andrew Davidson points out, is Antimanipulator who may or may not hold some personal grudge with the researchers. The research was conducted ethically in consultation with WMF staffers as outlined by Dario (WMF) above. The experimental design was interesting and very sophisticated. The block on Carolineneil should be lifted. And we should encourage well-planned and ethically conducted research to continue on Wikipedia's impact on the world. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The experimental design was interesting and very sophisticated. So examining papers which were published before WP even existed and concluding that some of them had copied text from WP is "sophisticated"? There's another S- word that seems more appropriate to me. That being said, I agree that there's something fishy going on with the filers, and that the "experiment" seems to have been done ethically (they weren't creating fake articles, or anything of the sort). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

They actually did several analyses. The fact that their experimental design was interesting and sophisticated, doesn't mean that their results were as good as they claim. The effect sizes (R^2) were so small that it is difficult to believe that Wikipedia is having much more than a negligible influence on the words used in scientific publications.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, "sophisticated" in this context suggests things like "not being completely ignorant of the concept of time", so I still disagree. Perhaps the germ of the idea behind it might charitably be called "innovative", but sophistication generally requires some, well, actual sophistication.

Though I haven't mentioned it before, I will say now that I noticed the small size of the effect as well. Small enough that it might be nullified or even reversed if you were to, maybe... Remove about 6 years worth of papers from the published science data set. It seems far more likely to me that WP articles would have taken text from pre-2001 papers than the other way around, but then just because I don't know anyone who's built a time machine doesn't mean no-one has... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether the reporter of the issue has a personal motive in reporting it is irrelevant. The problem report is legitimate. The PhD students' SPA's work on-WP was terrible, and wasted a lot of other editors' time, and the off-site work about WP is also terrible; WP was abused to make a WP:POINT, with unsound research methods, and with on-site fallout.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--Don't see any need to nuke.I was checking the accuracy of 4-5 org-chem drafts and not much was wrong.I also fail to get why this is described as unethical support in describing this as unethical.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Edited at 11:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

As a side-note, the block seems to be good.The accounts were after-all paid SPAs.And obviously, as MPants said the research is a dis-service to the word awful.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Godric on Leave and Winged Blades of Godric: Could you clarify? Those two statements appear to completely contradict each other: "I was checking the accuracy of 4-5 org-chem drafts and not much was wrong" but "the research is a dis-service to the word awful"? And "I also fail to get why this is described as unethical" but "The accounts were after-all paid SPAs"? Softlavender (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Surely.That their method of research was seriously flawed and utterly _______ has hardly to do anything with the quality of the info they have put at the drafts that they have written here.Whilst they doesn't have a ssnowball's chance in hell to be mainspaced, I personally thought about using selected info and add them with copyedits and referencing et al to a few articles.That being said if consensus is to nuke, I won't stand in the way.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

As to the second point, I don't know how I used the exact antonym of what I wanted to describe!Oops!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, Godric on Leave. However, please do not alter a post after someone has replied to it. Please instead WP:REDACT it by using strike-outs, etc. and adding a second time stamp (using five tildes) to indicate when you altered it. See WP:REDACT for details, and please return and re-add the original wording you had (that I quoted). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I know:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly perplexed by a lot of criticism of the paper above. I mean I'm not saying the research is good, I only skimmed through the paper so I have no idea. But people seem to be making a big deal over the 1995 thing yet AFAICT, this info wasn't used. The authors specifically note Since we are interested in the interaction of the scientific literature with Wikipedia, we use only data from 2000 onward. AFAICT they didn't actually use pre 2000 data at all. I'm not certain why the authors mention 1995 at all, but I think it's because it's the data that Elsevier provided them so they just mention what data they had, and then later explain what they used, how they chose it (including how they decided the publication data since some are just Spring 2009) etc.

Of course looking at data from before wikipedia is not necessarily wrong. There is an obvious reason to look at data from before wikipedia namely to rule out false positives. The primary reason I even looked at the paper was just to see if that's what the authors were doing but it doesn't seem like it. However they may have used some data from before wikipedia I think. If I'm understanding correctly, their methodology was actually a bit like what I was thinking and they chose papers from 6 months before an article and 3+6 months after an article, with the hypothesis that the the papers after will be more similar to the wikipedia article in the 3+6 months after (because they were influenced by wikipedia) than they were in the 6 months before (since they obviously couldn't have been). This of course means they may have looked at some papers from before wikipedia itself existed.

So have I missed something or is this specific criticism of the paper completely off base? If I am right, should we now start to discuss what to do with content from anyone who made this criticism. Particularly since as I said, I only did a very, very basic skim through the paper to uncover this. At least it seems the logical conclusion to me if people are suggesting we remove content from the PhD students just because the people who hired? them may have published a poor quality research paper. Note I'm specifically not commenting on any other criticism of the paper, I'm not really that interested hence a very, very basic skim. I'm not even saying the before/after thing was good methodology, simply that it doesn't seem to me to be the case that the authors assumed papers would be influence by wikipedia before that content existed on wikipedia.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(EC)There are certainly a few questions on whether they violated our rules, but I consider them to be minor. Please check out the FAQs for the Terms of Use change at How does this provision affect teachers, professors, ... It states that "These requirements shouldn't keep teachers, professors, or people working at galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM") institutions from making contributions in good faith!" and

For example, if a professor at University X is paid directly by University X to write about that university on Wikipedia, the professor needs to disclose that the contribution is compensated. There is a direct quid pro quo exchange: money for edits. However, if that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by their university to contribute generally without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose their affiliation with the university.

So the rules regarding researchers are pretty loose, like those for Wikipedians in Residence and other GLAM contributors. Perhaps the major question is whether the authors of the paper told the grad students what to write in the articles. I suspect not - as I understand it the grad students were PhD chemistry students and the authors are management profs. Best to let the experts write the articles. The second question - and I consider it to be definitely minor here - is whether the students used a joint account rather than individual accounts.

As far as criticisms of the paper itself goes - that's not really relevant here is it? But a review in Nature gives a description from an outside researcher calling it “ingenious”. I do find some of the criticisms of the paper on this page to be rather amateurish. In particular, those that cite the low R-squared are way off base. Perhaps they are mistaking the authors' hypothesis to be "Wikipedia is the only source of terminology in scientific papers."

So we have experts (PhD students) writing on the subject they know, apparently without direction on the content of the articles. The editors were probably new to Wikipedia and made some newby mistakes. What's the big deal? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• To explain the methodology problem to those who don't get it, they had subject matter experts write Wikipedia articles and then found that the language of those articles matches the language of the scientific literature. You know, the literature written and read by the same subject matter experts. There's crazy reverse causality there. Further, they created only 43 chemistry articles, posting half of those. Their sample size is inflated up to 664,790 because each paper they compare the articles against is an observation, but this ignores the possibility of random variation in how closely the Wikipedia articles they wrote mirror existing terminology in the literature. With a treated group of only 22 and a control of 21 articles, the variance in how closely the articles are written to mirror existing terminology in the literature between the two groups is fairly high. The underlying assumption of their model is that there is no difference in how closely the Wikipedia articles they wrote match the existing literature, but they offer up no evidence to support this. Their p-values are completely invalid as a consequence. This is a horrible study, and MIT in particular should be ashamed. Berkeley Haas should be as well for allowing someone who thinks this is robust to get a PhD. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to accept the views expressed in Nature on scientific matters over the views expressed on this page. Nevertheless, I think we all have to accept that whether you like the research and its methods or not, that that's irrelevant to whether they broke our rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It isn't relevant to whether this broke our rules. (Based on the design of the experiment, which did say the researchers picked the topics, this did break our rules.) I'm just rather offended that someone with a PhD in a field related to mine is publishing this crap. There is a reason they haven't published this in a journal. They're missing basic robustness checks, and given the background of the authors, they know they're missing basic robustness checks. I must presume they ran them and the experiment didn't hold up. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What rule was broken by researchers asking people to write on particular topics where we had gaps? I can't see where the problem lies. - Bilby (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne:I didn't see that text you quoted, but even if it is there, it only minimizes the problem, not eliminate it. Papers published in 2000 were all almost certainly written at least 6 months and up to 2-3 years prior to publication. Also, see below where I point out some other problems.

@Smallbones:The qualities of the paper matter because it's a powerful indicator of the qualities of their interactions with WP. If they set out to prove something (which they certainly seem to have done, instead of setting out to disprove their hypothesis), then their entire methodology is suspect. That is a strong indicator that we should review the articles they created. Whether we find problems or not, we have no reason to trust the folks who wrote them.

As to whether or not someone called it "ingenious" in a column (not a peer-reviewed article, nor even an editor-selected letter) in Nature; it doesn't matter. The author is free to have his opinion, and is no more qualified than I to give one. I can even see where Zastrow was coming from; the hypothesis could very well be described as "ingenious" and the most fundamental basis of their experiment design could be referred to as "innovative" without me contesting it. But the methodology they used was shit. This is pretty clearly a sociology/psychology-of-science experiment by a couple of guys who don't have any expertise in that subject. The lead author was part of the schools of management and AI. The second author is an economist.

Tell me; how could that methodology have possibly shown a negative correlation (that scientific literature influence WP's language)? Even in their creation of articles and subsequent search for matching text in later peer-reviewed articles, did they account for the fact that to make those articles, they needed pre-existing sources to begin with? How does one eliminate the possibility that their sources influenced the literature, instead of the WP article? And finally, how does writing a WP article and not publishing it help? They "withheld" half of the articles they wrote. How is that functionally different than only writing half as many articles for the purposes of this experiment? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hard as it may be to believe, BU Rob's and MPants' evaluations are far too charitable. It's not a matter of questionable assumptions, because questionable assumptions implies you understand what the assumptions mean in first place, even if you make a mistake in evaluating them. Numbers were blindly plugged into formulas, and statistical machinery set into motion, with no apparent understanding of their function or the meaning of the results. The paper is a complete joke. David A. Freedman, in his elementary statistics textbook, describes his hopeless attempt to enlighten the authors of a similarly meaningless paper:

We went... to discuss these issues with the investigators. They insisted that they had taken very good statistical advice when designing their study, and were only doing what everybody else did. We pressed our arguments. The discussion went on for several hours. Eventually, the senior investigator said, "Look. When we designed this study, one of our consultants explained that some day, someone would arrive out of the blue and say that none of our statistics made any sense. So you see, everything was every carefully considered."

That was fifty years ago, when people committing statistical suicide had to use mechanical calculators and books of tables; as seen in the instant case, today the internet allows statistical nonsense to be performed on a vastly larger scale almost effortlessly. With respect to Mark Zastrow's (unrefereed) review (in Nature) of this (unrefereed) article – well, standards are slipping everywhere. Zastrow writes short, uncritical pop summaries of other articles taking their assertions and conclusions at face value. EEng 17:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC) P.S. to MPants: Keeping half the papers back actually does make sense. It's just that nothing else about the design makes sense, so there's no point discussing it.

EEng then what was the point in writing them? Why not rely on something that already exists, but which scientists are almost certain not to cite, such as brand-new textbooks? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Why can't school projects, homework, students and instructors be limited to sandboxes or create a "homework" namespace instead of live articles. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That would completely defeat the purpose of the experiment, knuckleheaded though it is. EEng 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's difficult to discuss because the rest of the design is so confused, but I'll give it a go. We're trying to test whether new released WP articles (R) cause the literature of chemistry (L) to become "more like" R. But L is evolving anyway, and maybe it would become more like R anyway, just because the R articles are on things chemists today are interested in (I), and meanwhile L tends to gravitate toward things chemists today are interested in -- in other words, maybe it's not R affecting L so much as I affecting both R and L. By having a set of new unreleased articles (U), we can try to check for that, by seeing whether L becomes more like U in the same way it becomes more like R. We can't use a textbook instead of U, because the authors of the textbook – their interests, their attributes as writers – might be quite different from the authors of the R papers. Drawing R and U randomly from a single pool "assures us" (omit side discussion) that the R articles and the U articles are similar. Does that help? EEng 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Good points there. I concede the point that writing the unpublished articles conveyed a benefit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Most people find that following this advice saves time. EEng 19:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Your evaluation as well as anyone else's evaluation (including mine) is irrelevant to the discussion. The issues for Wikipedia are whether the research was conducted ethically, which it was. Were unacceptable articles created in doing the experiment, which appears not to be the case. Another reason to leave out the merits of the research is that unless one is familiar with the rapid development in statistical approaches in big data social science, such work does appear mysterious and very difficult to understand.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrap-Up

I think that the discussion of the "experiment" either is finished, or its discussion at this noticeboard, which is for administrative action, is finished. We do need a policy or guideline that states clearly that the use of Wikipedia as an experiment is inappropriate, because the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize human knowledge, not to play around to produce new knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: @Aspro: @BU Rob13: @I am One of Many: @EEng: @MjolnirPants: Sorry for taking some time. I looked at some of the draft articles and could not find more examples than Mesembrine where Elsevier journals are cited more often than what seems reasonable. In total about 100 draft articles were created in chemistry and econometrics, and I do not have the time to look at all of them. I find that one example very worrisome and hope someone with expertise in the subject can take care of it. I do not have any relationship with the authors but find it an insult to economics that they do a randomized controlled trial claiming that they found what they were looking for when they only (think they) found it in chemistry while they did not find anything in econometrics and just leave that out in in their abstract and title and media campaign, as does the Nature news author who seems to be a natural scientist without any expertise in the methodology. I also find it an insult to Wikipedia that PhD students of highly prestigious institutions are paid to write (without disclosure) such poor articles with ridiculously specialized lemmas and continuously poor citations in spite of many attempts by volunteers to give advice. This is a waste of our time, and violations of ethics, especially the undisclosed paid editing, should be pointed out to the ethics committees of the institutions in order to prevent future violations and in order to stop reckless researchers from making a career out of their recklessness. That being said I think there will be some valuable content in the drafts and added articles (those that were originally held back were added after the conclusion of the experiment but no care was invested in actually getting them to become articles, so most of the drafts were rejected and the work so far was just lost) but I don't have the time (and regarding chemistry expertise) to work on it. Antimanipulator (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments

User:Legacypac was warned multiple times about altering other editors' talk page comments. Some recent examples: altering a discussion after it's been closed; silently removing another editor's comment; altering another editor's comment under the guise of fixing an incorrect link; removing their own username from a complaint against them; "accidentally" removing (and then restoring) another editor's complaint of altering records; these are just from the last two weeks that I've been able to easily find in Legacypac's contribution history. When someone pointed out Legacypac has a very long history of altering and deleting other people's comments, Legacypac deleted their comment... Since Legacypac was sufficiently warned by admins (and non-admins) about this behavior, I think it's time to block them. Bright☀ 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No comment on the rest of it, but ""accidentally" removing (and then restoring) another editor's complaint of altering records" is pretty obviously a fuck-up given that the next diff, no more than a minute later, is to undo himself literally with the comment "wrong button". If he was actually trying to remove Taku's comment I feel like he would have, you know, not done that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• What a dismal collection of links! September 14, 16, 15, 12, 16, 24 and March 13. The last (the warning by an admin) was for striking out a comment by a now-indeffed sock and is of a totally different nature to the others. The first link shows Legacypac tweaking a comment they had written 20 minutes earlier—I'm not sure what that is showing. Is anyone suggesting the second diff was not highly desirable (it removes a link to an article added by an inexperienced editor)? The third shows Legacypac removing Legacypac's name from an ANI section heading, two weeks ago. Perhaps not the wisest, but defensible and not a big deal. The Sep 12 edit was to remove a pointy and pointless remark (very close to a personal attack) directed at Legacypac. See immediate revert "wrong button". Now we're up to the Sep 24 edit, and that shows what this is about. BrightR does not like the fact that Legacypac removed a pointy and pointless comment from, gasp, BrightR's talk. Would people asking for sanctions at ANI please not hide the underlying issue. There was no edit warring, and asking for a block is ridiculous. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• I believe that such a deceitful posting by the OP, at ANI no less, deserves some response from the community to indicate how we feel about such behaviour? -Roxy the dog. bark 11:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not only that, perhaps it is also time to take a look at User:DocumentError, who posted that comment to BrightR's page. In 2016, DocumentError edited for one day: in 2017, they edited one day (four edits to Trump), and then suddenly they reappeared on the Arthur Rubin Arbcom case to where they have now edited 28 times (give or take a few), starting with "evidence" defending Arthur Rubin about actions against... Legacypac[139]. This seems all to be retaliation for an ANI discussion in early 2015[140] started by legacyPac, about DocumentError, whih resulted in a block for DocumentError (first 36 hours, soon after an indefinite block). It seems that since then, he has avoided enwiki until now, when he has the chance to take revenge upon Legacypac.
  • I now notice that his unblock (five months after he was indef blocked) was with restrictions, including an interaction ban with Legacypac[141]. If this interaction ban is still valid, then the Arbcom edits and the edit we are discussing here are rather exteme breaches of this and it may be best if we simply re-indef this user. @PBS: as the admin who blocked and unblocked. Fram (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Fram this edit and the links that branch out from it explain the situation. The indefinite block was only to force DocumentError to say if he would keep to a voluntary agreement or not. By the time DocumentError had finished procrastinating and playing the "unfairly done by", so much time had passed that there was no need to renew the restriction that were meant to be voluntary. What stayed in place was the ban I placed on DocumentError Legacypac from mentioning each others behaviour before 13 January 2015 (see ANI § Harassment). This was put in place to stop ANIs degenerating into an historical blame game instead of concentrating on current behaviour. If there is continuing trouble over their interaction then I would support an interaction ban. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Legacypac's behaviour the edit by DocumentError linked at the top of this section, given Legacypac and DocumentError interaction less than helpful.-- PBS (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks. So they have a voluntary interaction ban, installed on 13 January 2015; they never accepted the interaction ban, have been unblocked by User:PhilKnight in June 2015 anyway, and DocumentError asked for a reblock on themselves in August 2015[142]. The current situation of the editing restriction was never made clear apparently. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
        • One other section on the original previous proposed voluntary iban conversation that I did not include above (because the link was broken due to archiving) is: § In ref to the ANI, it took place on my talk page on 13 January 2015. I gave DocumentError a further 24 hours to say yea or nay to the voluntary ban. When DocumentError error did not respond I blocked the account initially indefinitely (then adjusted until the end of the proposed six month voluntary iban period). -- PBS (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not think this ANI post is deceitful, and Legacypac was indeed completely in the wrong removing someone's criticism of him from the OP's talkpage. He also needs to completely stop removing usernames from ANI threads, regardless of what some users think about that; it's a practice that is not going to go away because of a single poll, and it increases the utility of the board. The "silently removing another editor's comment" seems to be a standard ANI edit conflict that happens often. This removal of another user's comment should be regarded as accidental since he reverted less than one minute later, and said it was accidental. My recommendation would be a final warning to Legacypac about altering others' posts or talkpage headers, with a block to ensue if it happens again. The warning 1.5 years ago was arguably too distant. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see this report as timely or actionable, mostly per Johnuniq. I also agree with Fram that DocumentError needs some looking at to determine if their edits have violated their restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Few weeks ago it was Beyond My Ken on the chopping block and this week it's now LegacyPac .... Wonder who'll be dragged here next week!, Anyway the only thing I see troubling is this diff (That comment shouldn't of been removed) and this diff (Why would you remove your name I don't get that? ... ) but other than those 2 I don't see any troubling behaviour - The nominator should've discussed this all with LP first!, Anyway as per Johnuniq this should be closed as non-actionable ... boomerang's pushing it isn't it? ... –Davey2010^Talk 13:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Davey2010 thanks for your comments. Diff #1 is an obvious accident I was unaware off until now. Maybe I saved a page again that User:TonyBallioni had both just edited? Anyway, purely accidental and I've restored it, though the discussion is over. Diff #2 is removing my name from an ANi thread header against me that failed [143] per [144] Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I noticed it at the time but it didn't bother me enough to restore it or even mention it to Legacypac. I just assumed he accidentally removed it during an edit conflict. In the lead up to the ACTRIAL rollout there was a lot of activity going on in a bunch of places, and I think this happened a few times with multiple editors. I have no reason to think Legacypac was trying to remove anything I said, and if that diff is being discussed here, as the other "party" I'd urge it be disregarded. I hadn't even remembered it until I was pinged. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah sorry I obviously didn't realise it was accidental - There may of well been a valid reason and you could've just forgot to include in the edit summary (I've done this multiple times as wasn't trying to assume bad faith), As for Diff 2 although it failed I still personally don't think it should've been removed - My name's been dragged here more than once but I've never thought about removing my name but we're all different and although I perhaps object I don't think it's worth bringing you (or anyone) here over it,

• Well as LP has kindly explained their reasoning here I now find nothing troubling (Diff 2 I somewhat object with but this can be discussed), Bright should be topic banned from making any sort of ANI complaint because so far they've all seemingly failed. –Davey2010^Talk 17:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• A formal warning seems appropriate. Specifically, a warning that Legacypac may not remove or alter comments made by other editors in any way on a page other than their own user talk. Fixing typos/wikilinks made by other editors is not desirable, per WP:TPO. The real problem is the removal of comments criticizing them or that they don't like, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the real problem is an editor who has an interaction ban with Legacypac (as a condition to get an indef block lifted) who stalks Legacypac and violates his interaction ban with impunity. The only reason I haven't indef blocked them yet is because I first want to hear from PBS whether the sanction is still in place (I haven't found an indication otherwise though). Fram (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• The only reason I haven't indef blocked them yet is because I first want to hear from PBS whether the sanction is still in place (I haven't found an indication otherwise though).

Per PBS, User:Mr_rnddude, and User:Reyk below, my voluntary IBAN ended a little over two years ago. DocumentError (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• who stalks Legacypac

Per Legacypac [[145]], he's had no interaction with me - prior to this month - in the last three years. This month, this is the extent of my "stalking": [146]. DocumentError (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• BU Rob13, just as a minor point of clarification, Legacypac is a regular recipient of formal warnings, "only warnings" and "last chance" warnings about editing others Talk page comments. (i.e [147], [148], etc.) DocumentError (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• As one who has previously been in @Legacypac:'s camp, I'll make the statement abundantly clear: Because of previous questionable actions, do not under any circumstances edit or modify another editor's talk page efforts. An exception is given for properly archiving stale threads, but no others. If you don't make mistakes and people still chase infractions, then they're vexatious litigants, and we know exactly what to do with them. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment User:BrightR I really really do not want to have to start to look back the interaction between yourself and Legacypac to see why good Wikipedian that you are you would need to make a citizens arrest like this. So can you briefly explain the history of your interaction that has motivated you to bring this ANI? -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: noted above; I asked Legacypac not to edit other editors' comments (after he edited mine); he responded he doesn't know what I'm talking about. Another editor (who I now found out has an interaction ban with Legacypac) commented on my talk page about it, and Legacypac deleted their comment. I asked the admin who gave Legacypac the warning to act on it, but they couldn't since they're in a content dispute with Legacypac, and they suggested coming to AN/I. Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: The nominator should've discussed this all with LP first! You mean like this and this? Since AN/I is the place for long-standing behavior issues I find that the suggestion to take it to WP:AN was correct. Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment User:BrightR As I do not know the circumstances of most of the edits above I will not comment on them. But there is one I will is altering a discussion after it's been closed. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines although not strictly applicable to ANIs most of the guidance is still useful. See the bullet points in the section WP:TPO "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate,...". See also the section WP:TALKNEW "Keep headings neutral" and the phrase in that "Don't address other users in a heading:" Just as the heading that Legacypac edited failed that guidance, so does the current text of this section "User:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments". The major reason for this is explained in the sentence "As edit summaries and edit histories..." -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal... Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators... Bright☀ 20:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because others do it does not make it good practice. Why not make you section headers for ANI reports neutral? Why object when someone else who change a header to be less biased? -- PBS (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see anything presently actionable here. Replacing one's name in an ANI subheader with an acceptably specific pointer isn't sanctionable conduct IMO unless it's deliberately disruptive, or someone is under an explicit ban from doing so; do we want to enact such a ban for Legacypac? Further, removing comments from one's own talkpage is explicitly allowed per WP:OWNTALK. As for DocumentError, as PBS explained above they never accepted the "voluntary" ban on interactions with Legacypac. They explicitly rejected that condition, and insisted that they should be re-blocked until a subsequent discussion could determine their fate. It seems when no admins took them up on that, they simply left the project. The only ban that is in place AFAICT is that LP and DE may not refer to instances involving each other prior to 15 January 2015 in any subsequent ANI discussion (my interpretation). (edit conflict with below) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector - just a point of clarification. Legacypac did not remove comments from his own talkpage. Of course, that would be permissible. He removed my comments from BrightR's talkpage. [149] He has, in the past, freely edited and deleted others comments on Talk pages (not his own); User:DESiegel warned him on an earlier occasion [150] such acts are subject to immediate blocking. After he continued to do it with other editors, User:Cryptic told him [151] another instance by him would result in an immediate block. You can imagine how frustrating it is for some of us to express our opinion on content and issues only to have our opinions changed or amended after-the-fact - or completely erased - by others. 00:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Background on BrightR's post:

1. On Sept 24 BrightR templates me with no explanation of why and
2. I revert template with "Take to their talkpage. No idea what this is about" (same diff)
3. I request details at BrightR talk [152]
4. BrightR ironically edits my comments by moving them from BrightR talk to my talk, where they make less sense [153]
5. I revert his post with "This belongs on your talk page. Still no diff."
6. BrightR never supplied a diff but I notice this post to BrightR's talk (which I'm now watching since I was looking for that missing diff) by DocumentError who sees another opening to get me sanctioned [154]. Rightly or wrongly I removed this post as harassment by an editor butting into a situation with a laundry list of perceived wrongs.
7. On Sept 26 BrightR uses DocumentError's list of perceived wrongs to post to User_talk:Cryptic#Legacypac_deleting.2C_altering.2C_and_striking_out_other_editors.27_comments Claiming he never had time to supply a diff, but linking this diff from Sept 21 where I removed User:Beyond My Ken's name from a live ANi header (with comment: no need to name editor in header of failed proposal) where BrightR's attempt to sanction BMK for edit warring failed spectacularly. This is not editing his comment as he claims, but editing an ANi header.
8. BrightR restores User:Beyond My Ken's name to the header, after it is archived [155]
9. Note at Cryptic's talk User:DocumentError showed up suggesting I take this to ANi.

Summary: On Sept 21 I did not edit anyone's comments, I changed an ANi header that referenced User:Beyond My Ken. I get templated on Sept 24 for this by BrightR who refuses to supply a diff. Then on Sept 26 BrightR uses info supplied by DocumentError to seek sanctions against me, revealing for the first time that they are upset about the BMK header. When Cryptic declines to sanction me, BrightR starts this Sept 28 ANi thread. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "refuse" anything; as soon as I got on Wikipedia after you asked for a diff, I gave you the diff... I templated your talk page, you asked what's it about, I said it's about editing other editor's comments, you asked for a diff, as soon as I got back on Wikipedia I supplied the diff... Bright☀ 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's worth pointing out (I don't think anyone has yet noticed) that the "final warning" that Cryptic posted on Legacypac's talk page, which BrightR has diffed here and elsewhere, is a post from eighteen months ago (March 2016). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

People on AN/I keep dismissing long-standing behavior issues because they're so old; well, AN/I is for long-standing behavior issues, and things that are long-standing are old by definition, aren't they? Since this behavior is ongoing (see the one that sparked my involvement, editing another editor's comment in a discussion after it was closed) then it seems appropriate to have AN/I address it. And get told that it's old and so it doesn't matter... Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe, MAYBE, you shouldn't run to ANI for every slight you see. Perhaps talking to an administrator you trust first? Maybe? Realm of possibility? Common sense? --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I did... they told me to take it to AN... You know, like it says in Wikipedia policy. Maybe if AN/I doesn't want to discuss conduct issues it shouldn't be stated in policy that this is the place for conduct issues? Bright☀ 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Which ones? Because if this is the case, they need to be brought here to explain themselves... --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Cryptic#Legacypac deleting.2C altering.2C and striking out other editors.27 comments. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose indefinite interaction ban between DocumentError and Legacypac

This whole kerfuffle was basically caused by DocumentError, who since his 5-month block in 2015 (regarding dealings with Legacypac) hsa largely left enwiki (one day of editing in 2016, one day and article in 2017 before this all began) and has now returned in full force to harass Legacypac (at the Arthur Rubin Arbcom cae and at other users talk pages). In January 2015, a voluntary interaction ban with Legacypac was set as the condition for an unblock, but the situarion at the eventual unblock in June 2015 is rather muddled, making a current block based on that interaction ban perhaps dubious. However, there is no reason at all not to reinstate (though this time not voluntary) the interaction ban to avoid more of this in the future. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. you proposal and your summation to my comment above, as it seems "Age shall not weary them". -- PBS (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac - I see nothing to suggest a restriction needs to be placed on Legacypac. – Nihlus (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac, per Nihlus, but if the consensus is otherwise for a two-way ban, this can be counted as a support for that, as a second choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not BMK's kid of camp

-EEng

• I like to think that the only "camp" I'm in is the "improve Wikipedia" camp, and that all my decisions are based on an objective evaluation of the circumstances and evidence, but I'm as human as the next person, and as likely to give a break to someone I know has been in the "improve Wikipedia" camp as well, versus someone who appears to be editing for reasons of a personal grudge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support one way IBAN--Per Nihlus.BMK has put the situation beautifully. Winged Blades ^Godric 15:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac, per Nihlus. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I understand the concerns expressed here about DocumentError's behavior. However, DocumentError has not yet commented in this thread and in fact has not edited in the last 24 hours. I am not a fan of procedure for its own sake, but it really would make more sense to allow DocumentError to respond before this discussion goes much further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad Thank you, and I appreciate your note. I apologize as I've been gone a few days and will probably not be around much after tomorrow for an unclear length of time. Per my note below, I don't really have any serious objections to an IBAN. LP and I have not edited any of the same articles or article Talk pages in at least three years [156], and the extent of our interaction elsewhere during those years is limited to: (a) discussion related to this ANI thread, and, (b) the Arbcom case against Arthur Rubin. Ergo, an IBAN will essentially have no impact on my editing ability as we don't really interact currently. I'm mildly opposed to it for procedural reasons but it's really no biggie. DocumentError (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm not seeing behaviour here that clearly rises to the level of harassment. DocumentError notes in their userspace that they are a student, which suggests an availability to edit which follows their recent pattern of absences, and as I noted above they appeared to go on a self-imposed exile after having their block log spoiled (deservedly) back in 2015. While it's unusual that their first edits back after having edited only sporadically since that time, and only most recently in May, were to comment on an open arbitration case where their supposed opponent had already commented, their edits to the Arthur Rubin arbitration case were relevant and on-topic. It's true that their comments there were directly refuting claims made by Legacypac, but they were under no restriction from doing so, they did so politely and with backing evidence, and their comments were accepted as case evidence by the committee clerks. And as far as I can tell their recent editing on user talk pages with respect to Legacypac have been reasonable criticism of another editor's behaviour, neither trolling, harassment, nor personal attacks. (ec with NewYorkBrad above)Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Involved Comment on Situation I researched the DocError situation last night and posted my findings at User_talk:Mkdw: [157] I don't believe that DocError is currently under a mandatory IBAN with me. I've been on self imposed avoidance of Doc Error since early 2015 (diffs available) and have not in any way sought interaction with them or until last night even looked at what they were up to since 2015. My findings are consistent with Johnuniq and User:PBS's analysis above. DocError has been operating as a nearly WP:SPA focused on conflict with me since January 2015. I have little else to say on the matter except sanctioning me over his activity is inconsistent with the facts. Legacypac (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN, if only because this formalizes the unblock condition and makes it clear what the community expects. While I appreciate NYB's suggestion that we might wish to wait for DocumentError's input, I think the situation is sufficiently clear (in that there arguably was a voluntary IBAN already) that there's really no need. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN. per above. Harassment is harassment, plain and simple. -FASTILY 20:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN (or two-way if that is all that can be achieved). DocumentError's 24 September 2017 post at User talk:BrightR#hang in there is pure battleground behavior. Wikipedia does not need people nipping the heels of an editor and supporting allies to further the battle. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose one-way; no comment on anything else. One-way bans are routinely unhelpful, to a significant extent because they can be gamed. If DocumentError has done enough that sanctions are warranted, but Legacypac hasn't, it's time for a block. If both parties have unclean hands, then do a two-way ban or sanction neither of them. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• There appears to be no evidence of Legacypac pursuing DocumentError, yet it is obvious that DocumentError's 24 September 2017 post is part of a pattern (see Fram's comments above) of DocumentError pursuing Legacypac. The post is mild enough so that a block would be unusual, but the pattern shows an obvious need for resolution. If an admin would volunteer to issue a final warning, and then follow it up if needed, that would be fine. However, such an arrangement would be easy to game. It would be much cleaner to apply the wording of WP:IBAN. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support although frankly a more perm solution would be preferred. At least a 1-way ban would prevent them posting nonsense such as their submission to the current AR arbcom case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN see plenty of reason to sanction DE, for stalking Legacypac in violation of the restriction agreed to when unblocked. I see no evidence to support making the IBAN mutual. False equivalency. David in DC (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support two-way IBAN and Oppose any one-way IBAN Really I believe an one-way IBAN might just escalate the situation if LP doesn't act rationally, now this is not an assumption of any kind but one-way IBANs are severely restrictive and often more than less, it seeks to beat the point. The two-way IBAN is not a sanction I'd like to be placed on LP but I'd prefer if LP voluntarily accept it, just as means of clearing the cloud that is an IBAN when in effect. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

When DocError is required to leave me alone I will be able to continue to voluntarily ignore the other editor as I've done faithfully since at least January 2015 well before PBS put the IBAN as an ultimatum to DocError. I'd prefer not to have "the cloud that is an IBAN" over my head and I thank the editors who raised this issue at ANi without me bringing it. A 1-way allows DocError to explore other editing interests apart from acting as WP:SPA against me. Thank-you to those that suggested and support it. I don't need an editing restriction to ensure I act "rationally". Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I like the comment earlier about just blocking the person who is causing the problem and leave it at that. This project appears to have straightforward tools to combat disruption and transgression, along with the ability to craft custom solutions as needed. Block this DocumentError for harassment, caution BrightR for filing a bad report. Increase the sanction on either if the behavior is repeated. ValarianB (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I would be inclined to support a one-way interaction ban between DocumentError and Legacypac only as minimal. Frankly, an indef block for DocumentError would be more fitting for someone who is currently only editing wikipedia to pursue a vendetta against another editor, which is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. As for BrightR, having reviewed WP:CIVIL, the appropriate response to me seems to be a sternly worded warning that future frivolous or malicious ANI reports will be responded to with a block. Seth Kellerman (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

discussion of typo
@Seth Kellerman: You wrote "Dreadstar" above, did you mean "DocumentError"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC) No clue how I made that error but I've amended my post, thanks for pointing it out. Seth Kellerman (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Legacypac literally deleted another editor's comment off my talk page, edited a comment of mine, and struck out or deleted other editors' comments many times before. Just because you don't agree all of the examples provided are valid, doesn't make the fact that many of these are clear WP:TALKO violations and Legacypac was warned about them by admins before. "Frivolous and malicious" is altering other editor's comments and then pretending nothing happened. Bright☀ 10:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Accusation #1 involves an inappropriate comment by DocumentError that is a major reason there is strong support for a one way interaction ban against DocumentError. Accusation #2 is FALSE as described in the first section above by other editors, especially User:PBS. I did not edit BrightR's comment I actually edited User:Beyond My Ken's. name out of an ANi header BrightR created. We can forgive BrightR for misunderstanding the point, but after it has been explained as being within the rules it is not so forgivable for them to make the same accusation again, posted out of context away from the original diffs or the posts by others explaining how they are wrong. BrightR is acting in bad faith at this point in my opinion. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-way per the above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way per the above and especially the analysis by Legacypac at User_talk:Mkdw#I_went_digging_-_well_only_a_little Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I'm changing my !vote to Oppose because, as a party to the case, I'm concerned my original !vote could sound flippant, which is not my intent. I'm, therefore, !voting Oppose for purposes of good decorum.Support two-way ban per my comments below. Not sure how I even got dragged into this ANI thread, but, since I am - LP and I only have two pages of edit overlap in the last two years (one user talk page and an ArbCom evidence page) so an IBAN will pretty much have no impact on my (or LegacyPac's) editing ability. Ergo, I don't think either of us would object; at least I don't. Without !voting on a one-way, I guess that's probably no biggie, either. It's all good! DocumentError (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 1-way IBAN and Support 2-way IBAN - Per Nyttend and QEDK's comments about being easy to game and resulting in escalation in problems. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• I support a one-way IBAN against DocumentError, especially taking note of Legacypac's comment here. Per DocumentError's own comment, it won't inhibit their article work, since "Legacypac and I have not edited any of the same articles or article Talk pages in at least three years". If it does inhibit the kind of thing DocumentError has been doing in the Arthur Rubin RFAR, well, that's what we want. For those who dislike one-way IBANs on principle, if Legacypac should in any way seek contact with DocumentError, or bait them, several admins would be on Legacypac like a ton of bricks. In practice, then, a one-way IBAN works the same way as a two-way IBAN. It just avoids registering a "sanction" against the innocent party, which is desirable IMO. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC).
• Support 1-way IBAN as best option, with a weak support for a 2-way if there's no consensus for a 1-way. It is exceedingly hard to assume good faith when an editor emerges from a post-block wikibreak or retirement or whatever you want to call it, and then exclusively pursue matters relating to a person they previously had issues with. I would be less skeptical if there were productive edits that didn't revolve around Legacypac, but there aren't. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN. This seems the simplest way to resolve matters at present. None of the three editors is blameless here (and hopefully LP and BR will not continue their problematic behavior), but the one who needs to be specifically restrained is DocumentError. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My 0.02

This will be my one and only comment in this impressively expansive thread as much of the issues seem to be of a separate nature between LP and BrightR which I've been dragged into.
(A) The Current Situation

1. On September 24 I posted a comment to BrightR's Talk page.
2. Nine minutes later, User:Legacypac deleted it. [158]
3. This wasn't a GF copyedit, he simply unilaterally decided my Talk page comment was "inappropriate" (it wasn't) and deleted it.
4. I ignored LP's actions and took no action to restore my comment which LP had deleted/edited, even though I would have been within my rights to do so. He seemed very upset so I didn't want to antagonize him.
5. As BrightR has noted in their recitation, two different admins have previously given Legacypac "do or die" warnings about editing and deleting other editors Talk page comments. One admin who previously issued a last chance warning to LP is not active this month. The second admin reported they had an edit conflict with LP recently and didn't feel they could take action at this time due to it [159]. BrightR chose to bring this up to one of those admins. During that, I was pinged and I replied to that ping.

That's the start and end of my involvement in this.

(B) The Previous Situation Described in the IBAN Proposal

1. A couple years ago I was blocked by PBS because I would not agree to a voluntary TBAN on topics related to the Syrian Civil War [160]. The reason I would not agree to it is because I had only ever edited one page related to the Syrian Civil War - several months before - so TBAN'ing me, I thought, made no sense (and didn't to User:Reyk [161] and a number of other editors, either). I decided I would decline a "voluntary" TBAN as I was going to be off-Wiki for awhile anyway so it made sense to me that a block wouldn't be much of an issue for me.
2. The root of the issue seemed to have originated from a period where my user page was being vandalized with racial slurs [162] by IP editors. After Legacypac declared that I was an "anti-American" [sic] who was ruining his career as (I think?) a real estate agent ("damaging my reputation (which is my job, thank-you very much") [163], I strongly implied LP might be the IP editor in question. It was wrong to do that without conclusive evidence and I later apologized.
   

That said, I have no real problem with an IBAN - one way, or two way. Other than last week on BrightR's Talk page, LP and I have exactly one other page of overlap in the last two years (when we both gave evidence at ArbCom). So, an IBAN will have essentially no impact on my editing one way or the other. Ergo, it's fine with me. No objection here. DocumentError (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@ DocumentError you write "A couple years ago I was blocked by PBS because I would not agree to a voluntary TBAN" That is untrue and typical of the dissimulation that you practice (what is not clear to me is if you consciously and deceptively use it as a method of dissembling, or if you really believe what you write).

1. In Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#Harassment my wording was "I would also advise DocumentError to continue to stay away from the pages covered by ..." that is not a TBAN but advise on how to avoid interaction.
2. Your account way not blocked by me because you would not agree to a TBAN. I blocked you account because you prevaricated and would not say whether you agreed or disagreed to a voluntary IBAN of six months duration (see the section "In ref to the ANI" in my talk page archives).

I warned you at the time "If you reject it, the consequences of that are unpredictable" and here we are with a permanent community IBAN very likely to come into force. In fact back when you started the ANI Harassment section you had just completed a short 36 hour block for by user:Bishonen with the comment "evasiveness is very disruptive" — enough said. -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• 1. That is technically a voluntary topic ban. Futhermore, your block summary gives it away; the six months for the proposed ISIL ban expires put to her/him at the close of an ANI.
• 2. It's not a very voluntary proposal if a) not accepting it is met with threats of consequences, or, b) refusing to answer it, possibly because of the threat of consequences, is met with an indefinite block.
• Why is it that so many people think throwing bricks is an effective way to achieve their goals? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on DocumentError's dispute with Legacypac, but I thought what PBS did to him back then was a dick move. I still think so. Reyk _YO! 10:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Mr rnddude indefinite blocks are not permanent blocks, and (by 7 March) it became obvious to me that DocumentError was not going to agree (to the ban) or disagree (and hence go back to another ANI), I simply changed the block to end of the day the voluntary iban would have ended (14 June 2015). -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• PBS, I brought it up because you were enforcing a, supposedly voluntary TBAN, as part of your block. The other part being the refusal to answer the question, which as I noted in point 2, was possibly due to the threat of consequences that eventually resulted in an indefinite block. Now, if you're mentioning this because you commuted the block, I am well aware, that's why I chose the commuted block summary to reference rather than the original indefinite one, which, was rather unhelpful; Until DocumentError agrees to answer a question put to her/him at the close of an ANI. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I wrote several paragraphs detailing why DocumentError's post is error filled, but deleted them as I don't want to debate someone who plays so fast and loose with facts. Evidence is clear he has been focused almost exclusively on harassing me since at least Jan 2015. An indef 1-way IBAN is preferable to an indef block because DocError will continue to have the ability to edit nearly everywhere and hopefully he will get over his obsession with me. I'd taken his talkpage off my watchlist and pretty much forgotten about him completely until he showed up at Rubin's ArbComm case to criticize me and defend Rubin when Rubin failed to WP:ADMINACCT himself. Legacypac (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Two page-points of interaction in three years - one of which you initiated - seems a very odd way for me to carry-out my "obsession" with you. As Ivanvector noted, I have been very restrained and polite in all my interaction and contact with you here, and elsewhere. I'd ask you could please, in-kind, limit the volume and rate of polemics like I don't want to debate someone who plays so fast and loose with facts and his obsession with me. I don't know if you plan to delete my comment or not as you have with others, however, I would simply ask you please consider its message first. Thank you. I appreciate, in advance, your willingness to work together on this. Best - DocumentError (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me be more plain. DocumentError typed a series of untrue statements in this ANi and the easiest thing to show is unwillingness to count correctly.

1. Rubin ANi The allegation made by Legacypac that Arthur Rubin's revocation of user rights constituted "unsubstantiated attacks," etc., is not - in my opinion - made with clean hands...,

2. BrightR's talk I don't know how long Legacypac will allow this comment to remain on your Talk page before/if he deletes or modifies it I rightly removed this as harassment [164].

3. Cryptic's talk another spot he followed me with critical comments plus [165] [166] [167] [168] and that makes three before BrightR started the ANi than

4. User Mkdw's talk In the last two years we have had exactly two pages in which there has been any interaction between us

Four pages is not "Two page-points of interaction" in DocumentError's post right above this one. Add in ANi to get 5 pages which is three more than the two pages he mentions to Mkdw.

DocumentError initiated interactions 1, 2 and 3 which happened before this ANi but makes his statement in response to Newyorkbrad "the extent of our interaction elsewhere during those years is limited to: (a) discussion related to this ANI thread, and, (b) the Arbcom case against Arthur Rubin" and "...we don't really interact currently" which ignores his posts to BrightR talk and Cryptic talk before the ANi started.

DocumentError refers to two interactions "one of which you initiated" - but I did not initiate any of the interactions, including the ANi. The only place I posted first was to Mkdw's talk and that was partly about DocumentError's "evidence" not trying interact with DocumentError.

I don't consider posting incorrect things to be "polite". I could go on refuting his posts, but I much prefer to have nothing to do with him.

Interestingly he has not addressed the central question of why he came out of retirement specifically to post against me at Rubin's ArbComm and BrightR's talk and Cryptic's talk - he just carries on throwing mud at ANi. [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] It's time to end this. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

BrightR's talk I don't know how long Legacypac will allow this comment to remain on your Talk page before/if he deletes or modifies it I rightly removed this as harassment [7].

• Wait - you're criticizing me for expressing concern you'd delete my Talk page comment when you then, in fact, actually did delete it? Hmmm.

Four pages is not "Two page-points of interaction" in DocumentError's post right above this one

• I was actually just going by what you said here: I have not interacted with DocumentError for about 3 years [177] Maybe you misspoke?

LP - you have been repeatedly told that my submission to ArbCom of rebuttal evidence to evidence you presented in an open case was entirely appropriate (e.g. here by Mkdw [178]). You have had your claim that me doing so was "inappropriate" repeatedly rejected. To then take your argument to ANI after Arbcom has rejected it is the exact definition of forum shopping. I know you don't like the evidence I submitted, and I'm truly sorry it's upset you so very terribly, but to continue to characterize it as "untrue" and "throwing mud" (in the face of multiple people patiently trying to explain to you it's neither of those things) is what I'm talking about when I'm asking you to please tone-down the polemics just a bit. People are allowed to disagree with you, including providing diffs to contextualize their disagreement. That doesn't mean we can't be respectful towards each other and treat each other civilly. Thank you for your understanding. DocumentError (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: DocumentError, it's plain as day that by pinging Legacypac in your comment on BrightR's talkpage and in the very same comment saying that he would probably delete the comment, you were baiting him. Whether he should have taken the bait is arguable, but the fact that you were the aggressor, with the ping and the aspersions and the thinly disguised dare (not to mention the stalking), is undeniable. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Lucky for everyone ArbComm has moved into decision phase where they have ignored DocumentError's "evidence" and are now voting on accepting findings and solutions consistent with my, and several other editors, submissions. No one said DocErrors posts to the Rubin case are appropriate, all that happened was ArbComm did not delete the submissions. I did not bring the appropriateness of the submissions to ANi, other editors brought that up. Continual misrepresention is not helpful. Further at the top of this section we were promised there would be but one post hy DocumentError here, but, sadly, that was also a misrepresentation. When will an Admin close this unpleasantness up already? Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User fabricating AFD discussion closures

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

---

Please review the past hour's contributions from User:Thebigs2update ([179]). Many articles created by this user were nominated for deletion today, and the user has removed AFD tags from the articles and redirected the discussions to spurious "keep" results, exemplified by, e.g. [180]. Thanks, y'all. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Update: Upon further investigation, I'm not sure the user is creating redirects, at least not effectively (that may have been the intent). Unfortunately I don't have any more time at the moment to figure this out in any greater technical detail, but nothing good is going on here, and I felt it best to bring it to teh authoritez' attention sooner rather than later. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:El cid, el campeador, who reported this user to AIV this morning with the rationale SPA to promote Kasey Ryne Mazak. All edits are regarding him or creating pages for movies he's been in or editing pages he was involved in.. He's also been uploading many non-free movie posters and claiming them as his own. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I've tidied everything up, and have sent the remaining two articles they created to AfD. If they continue to disrupt, a block is in order. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've sent two articles to AfD. There are still seven creations by this user not marked for deletion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And, a day later, this just appeared on the Kasey Ryne Mazak talk page: [181]. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, and sorry for being MIA. As noted, the user continues to take the same actions, interrupting AfDs by deleting notices. He has been notified of this discussion twice, and warned multiple times, but continues to take the same actions. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just given this user a warning that they'll be blocked the next time they disrupt Wikipedia by messing with AfDs, removing templates or promoting this non-notable actor they'll be blocked. I don't know why they haven't been blocked earlier, all they're doing is promoting this non-notable person in every way they can. They may even be them, but that's not actually important. The main thing is they're not here to build an encyclopaedia, just promote this person. If they don't find another topic lets cut them loose. Canterbury Tail talk 02:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, Alex Shih has just shown them the door. Canterbury Tail talk 02:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I have left a note for this editor about instructions to be unblocked. Contribution history shows nothing but single purpose account (sole purpose is to promote Kasey Ryne Mazak) participating in undisclosed paid activity. Alex Shih^Talk 02:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

All creations not tagged for AFD have been prodded except for Health Nutz and WWE Byte This!, which make no mention of Kasey Ryne Mazak. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed Mazak from Health Nutz because he was listed on IMDb as "waiter" for 1 episode which doesn't confer someone as notable for the cast. However I think it's pretty obvious it was only added because he did appear in a background role once. Canterbury Tail talk 11:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

These two topics probably meets the notability guideline, although the subject is involved in both of these two topics also, as small, insignificant roles. Alex Shih^Talk 03:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User:MjolnirPants using right-wing biased source on BLP, being stubborn

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

---

The page on Alex Jones (radio host) says that he has been alleged to be a "pro-Russia propagandist". The source for this is Accuracy in Media. Accuracy in Media is, if you read the article on them which MjolnirPants hasn't done, a right-wing think tank which shares many of the same conservative biases as Jones, believing that news is a liberal conspiracy, climate change is fake and the UN is bad.

A source like this would never be used to make allegations about anybody else. MjolnirPants, a self-confessed "skeptical liberal atheist feminist American gun nut SJW" would be the first to revert if I put any of AIM's allegations about Hillary Clinton on the article about her, as he should do. Why are right-wing biased sources acceptable for BLP when they are attacking another right-wing person?

Please read the article and the sources on AIM, then look at their website and tell me this isn't a biased conservative site. MjolnirPants just says "no, they're not" and continually reverts. His failure to research and check sources suggests WP:COMPETENCE issues or maybe he wants Jones to look bad by any means necessary. Also Slatersteven has been twisting my words as a strawman on the discussion page. I mentioned that AIM is outrageously conservative, so much so that they think Fox is left-wing. He said that I said that Fox calls AIM left-wing and that by extension I'm just another of the right-wing hit-and-run editors trying to overly sanitise this page.

So in short, an unreliable source being used for a negative claim about a living person, refusal to cooperate and communicate. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

[182] [183] This is the guy MjolnirPants thinks is a reliable source for a BLP. Laughable. I won't make a WP:POINT but what would you do if this group's smears of liberals were added to their articles? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

<grabs the popcorn> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

How childish of you. You think an org run by this guy is a reliable source for a massive claim on a BLP? You can not be serious Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I made a mistake (which I have accepted). This is not the place to discus the sources status as an RS, that is RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not discussing the source. I am discussing a stubborn lack of communication by a user who refuses to listen or co-operate or provide any justification for his edits other than "no it's not (a right-wing source)", which is patently false as substantiated by reliable sources. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

As to competence, have you informed either me or Pants (in the correct manner) about this, or did we have to stumble over it buy accident?Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Also can you provide a link to his comment about them not being right wing?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I tagged MP, not you because I only mentioned your contribution as part of the summary, not reporting you Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

[184] who cares about years of research by the SPLC, the all-knowing MjolnirPants knows this is not a right-wing biased source because he said so Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It reads like you complained about me.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Per above, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so." Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a playground for people to revert just because they say so and imagine that sources are what they want them to be Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not a tool for you to use to report someone in more than one noticeboard. Might I suggest you read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This works both ways. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, the insult above is the third insult or aspersion this editor has thrown in this matter (1, 2 & 3), and they've threatened to run to ANI after I reverted them one time. All I've done so far is make one revert and challenge the veracity of the arguments they've made thus far. I know next to nothing about AIM. I've heard their name a few times. But I noticed they've only been mentioned on RSN once, and that was a completely credulous listing of sources agreeing with each other. I've noticed that it's used on a couple of pages here. So I suspect it's a pretty non-remarkable source with a political bias that may or may not be reliable. But I can be sure of a couple of things:

1. Having a bias doesn't make a source unreliable.
2. The arguments presented against it thus far have been entirely devoid of substance.
3. Starting an ANI thread over a content dispute is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

Other than that, I'm ambivalent about the content. I will, however, continue to revert by reflex anyone who removes sourced content because they don't like the source, unless it's one that the community has determined to be unreliable, and I would politely ask that an admin tell Anarcho to knock off the bad attitude. (I'm asking politely, I don't want you to tell them politely. I would much prefer they be told quite rudely, to be honest.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Also what looks a bit like forum shopping [185] to get pants banned.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish. You told me to go to RSN. There are two issues here. The source in itself, and stubborn, uncommunicative behaviour. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I never told you to go to RSN. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I said that the discussion of the source might be best taken to RSN, and I did not report your posting of that here, but you commenting on Pants there. You were reporting Pants for a breach on a forum that had nothing to do with him after launching this ANI, that looks liker canvasing to me.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If I reverted someone removing a BLP allegation from Breitbart, and said it wasn't right-wing, conspiracist and climate denialist, how many minutes would it take before I would rightfully be blocked Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed my mind about one thing. I don't want an admin to warn Anarcho. I'm asking that they be blocked for 24 hours so as to give them time to chill the fuck out. Here's the evidence in the form of diffs containing personal attacks or aspersions:

• personal attack
• casting aspersions
• personal attacks
• personal attacks
• casting aspersions
• casting aspersions
• casting aspersions

As I said before, I'm completely open to the notion that this source is unreliable. But I'm not open to being raged at by some editor having a temper tantrum. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• OK, AIM is a reliable source for AIM's opinions, so if they called Jones a "pro-Russia propagandist", that would be legitimate to present, as long as it was clear that it was AIM's opinion and wasn't presented in Wikipedia's voice.
  However a careful read of the article indicates that while they may have done their best to insinuate some wrongdoing on Jones' part, associating him with Russian propaganda as much as they can, they actually only charge him with spreading disinformation. Being a "propagandist" requires intent, which spreading disinformation requires only gullibility and a lack of fact-checking. As such, I've removed the claim from the article again, with an explanation similar to this on the talk page, and have expressed the same opinion on WP:RSN.
  Any additional commentary here should be about whether either editors' behavior rises to s sanctionable level. I don't see where MjolnirPants has done anything worse than misread the AIM article, which is not sanctionable (if it was, we'd all be in time out), and I haven't taken a close look at A-A's behavior.
  In any case, the editing dispute should be handled on the article talk page, and the question about AIM's reliability should be dealt with at RSN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just to follow up on my last post, I took a look at the diffs provided by MjolnirPants, and while I think that Anarcho-authoritarian's comments are rude, repetitive, combative and deliberately insulting, I don't think that they quite rise to the level of being sanctionable, although they should provoke a warning to the editor. However, my standards regarding WP:UNCIVIL may be markedly different from others', so I would suggest that an admin or two should take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• All IMHO, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• BMK, Try looking at those threads in context: this went from 0 to I-fucking-hate-Hammerbritches in no time flat. By the time Anarcho made those edits I listed, I'd only manages to make two comments (neither of which said or implied anything negative about them) on the issue. Hell, I hadn't said anything except from the edit summary in my revert by the time Anarcho started comparing me to a six-year-old. If this was an ongoing dispute, I'd agree with you. But this was how Anarcho approached a dispute. There was nothing to justify the bitterness and anger that's so apparent in those comments. Which is surprising, even though I'm well aware of my ability to inspire hatred in people with an observable POV. I just thought it was things that I'd said which inspired that hatred. Apparently, it's something in my signature, or maybe on my user page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think you have every right to be annoyed -- I would be if those edits were directed at me -- I just don't believe that a block is warranted at this time. I've now warned A-A on their talk page, and although it's not official in the way that a warning from an admin would be, I do believe that if A-A continues in that vein after the warning, then a block would be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, RE: "I've now warned A-A on their talk page, and although it's not official in the way that a warning from an admin would be", I would say it is equally official to any warning given by any similarly experienced and knowledgable editor, regardless of admin status. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If Anarcho is content to drop this bullshit, I'd be happy enough. But given their approach thus far, I highly doubt that. We've got forum shopping, repeated insults, bad-faith accusations, content disputes (and more insults) on ANI and a pretty blatant battleground mentality, all within a couple of hours. In fact, all of that happened before Anarcho made even the slightest effort to actually make a case for their position. The worst part is that when they finally did, it wasn't a bad case at all. The actual arguments are good enough for me to be okay with removing the claim. But if this attitude was about the content dispute, then why didn't Anarcho make any effort to make their case first? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Anarcho-authoritarian removed a clear BLP violation. See comments on the source at RSN. It is the responsibility of editors restoring content in a BLP to verify content is complaint before restoring.

Warning AA while ignoring those who restored a BLP violation is unwise. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thouse? Then it might be a good idea to inform them about this ANI as you have suggested action against them.Slatersteven (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Warning AA while ignoring those who restored a BLP violation is unwise. Warning editors who throw temper tantrums the instant their edit is challenged is unwise? Really? I've already explained this once at RSN, but clearly I need to do so again. When an editor removes sourced content without ever mentioning BLP, but only alleging a bias in the source in terms that are red flags for POV pushing, they can expect to be quickly reverted. I will revert again, the next time I see that stuff. If said editor then can't be bothered to make a case for the source being unreliable until the next day, after hurling repeated insults and filing an ANI thread over a content dispute, suggesting that they haven't done anything wrong and the editor who did the revert has is one of the most ridiculously ignorant notions that I've seen in a while. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack by 2600:1017:B027:BB1E:1828:936:113B:CAAE (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC) deleted. WP:WIAPA, don't make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the actual behavior you object to? As far as I can tell, you were reverted just a single time - you say "continually revert", but unless I'm missing something or it spilled out onto separate pages, you were only reverted once and they immediately backed off once you explained your reasoning to them in more detail. Even if it was a bad revert, that's hardly something that calls for WP:ANI's attention - things like that are why we have WP:BRD, which appears to have been followed here to the letter (you made an edit, they objected, you talked things out and resolved the issue.) Yes, the editors you're complaining about screwed up when they used that source, but I don't think it's a mistake serious enough to justify accusing them of bad faith or WP:COMPETENCE issues given that they immediately backed down once you presented your full reasoning - and I think that, even for WP:BLP issues, a single revert to ask someone to elaborate on their reasoning is defensible in all but the most blatant cases. --Aquillion (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

...the editors you're complaining about screwed up when they used that source... I didn't add that source. I reverted an edit with a giant red flag for an edit summary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for forum shopping as I had never even heard of such a thing. I merely believed it was the same as noting multiple projects about a deletion request. I was wrong. I apologise to the other users and now the unreliable source is removed, all discussions I opened on the subject can be closed. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Daymn The level of gaming going on by MjolnirPants is comical. Deflection at it's finest. MjolnirPants still hasn't answered for their use of a terribly awful source for an attack on a BLP. I'd love to hear that without anymore deflection.--v/r - TP 18:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  Hmm, but MjnonirPants seems to have already answered that here. I think this is a "teach the controversy" matter. I.e., there is real-world controversy about this person, and it seems to be encyclopedically pertinent to cover it. The fact that a characterization of someone in a publication is probably motivated by subjective concerns is pretty much always going to be true. The thing to do here is probably to balance AiM's claims with what other sources say. It might also not be necessary to include the specifics of AiM's claims, just to note that there's disagreement in the far-right about whether Jones is actually in their camp or not despite self-identification as right-wing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  That's hardly an explanation. Feigned ignorance sandwiched between more deflection. If you want to raise that up as MjnonirPants' strongest defense, be my guest. I just hope he's as transparent to others as he has been to me. AiM is a conspiracy theorist far-right website of serious questionable reliability, let alone authority on what the "far-right" believes.--v/r - TP 22:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  I don't speak for anyone and have no interest in trying to. No one said anything about an 'authority on what the "far-right" believes'. Our standard approach to any such controversy in the real world is to cite secondary sources that note the controversy, and quote or paraphrase primary sources making claims regarding their side of the controversy, balanced with quote from other side(s). AiM may or may not be authoritative about anything, but per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY they are the authoritative source for what their own opinion is. That said, I'm not certain this controversy about Jones is off sufficient encyclopedic interest to include at all. To get back to the ANI matter, I do agree with M'Pants that it's normal procedure to revert unexplained deletion of sourced material; if A-a wants to make a showing that AiM is not somehow reliable for what its own collective, published opinion is, or that including something from them cannot presently be balanced with a counter-viewpoint, then that's a case they need to take steps to outline. A-A just silently holding an opinion in that regard isn't grounds for revert-warring to get his WP:RIGHTVERSION. PS: A-a hasn't provided any diffs displaying M'P doing something wrong, while M'P has presented plenty of A-a doing something wrong (mostly NPA/CIVIL/AGF issues). Since this is a behavioral-matters not content-assessment board, well, it's clear whose case is stronger.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• @TParis: Gaming? Evidence or shut the fuck up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Deflecting like a champ. You are talented, aren't you?--v/r - TP 11:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Regarding the content, Anarcho was right: AiM is a generally unreliable source. The only problem was the giant hissy fit they threw over being reverted before bothering to make a case (seriously: one link to one of their more outrageous stories would have been all it took to convince me, but I guess making reasonable arguments in place of hurling insults was just too much trouble). Well, that's not the only problem. The political gaming by attacking an editor with admittedly left-wing personal views by editors who spend waaaaaayyy too much time whining about WP's supposed left-wing bias is problematic, as well. I'll note that neither James J. Lambden nor TParis have offered any sort of evidence, instead making unsupported accusations and calling for sanctions because... Well, reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Evidence of what? That you hadn't answered for your behavior? Please, that's all over this discussion. Only when dragged to ANI have you finally admitted that AiM is a shitty source for negative material on a BLP. Questionable motives and questionable judgement to say the least.--v/r - TP 11:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You are completely full of shit. My first substantive comment on this matter included me explicitly telling Anarcho that I'm completely open to the possibility of being wrong about this source, just like my second comment, both of which precede this ANI thread. I've taken the exact same position since my first interactions: Anarcho's approach had all the red flags of (left-wing, no less!) POV-pushing, but I was and remained open to the possibility that they had a case to make.

There's absolutely no evidence of me "gaming" anything; you just pulled that out of your ass over you self-admitted complaints about my personal political views. Well there's a fix for that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Single purpose IP account appears to be asking for multiple page moves for no apparent reason

• 2A00:23C0:4386:3001:DD1B:17B0:DA48:462E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an IP account that started the page move request on The Incredibles and seems to have opened their single purpose account for the sole purpose of creating the same page move request on multiple Wikipedia pages. Everyone appears to be opposed to these odd requests, and I was wondering if this looked like some version of a poor joke by this IP here: 2A00:23C0:4386:3001:DD1B:17B0:DA48:462E (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log). Their Talk page has been notified and I have removed the odd request from the Covenant page pending review results on this page. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

There was an editor a few months back who did exactly this - making pointless page move requests for films, with no real rationale as to why. I can't for the life of me remember the user name though. I'd put a lot of money on this IP being the same user, judging from the requests logged. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is clearly non-constructive disruption; the moves and suggested moves are not even consistent with each other, but are random insertions/deletions of : or The , and all run counter to MOS:TITLES, WP:COMMONNAME, and reliable sourcing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yonggary vandal from Sandy, Texas

Can we block a particular vandal who keeps disrupting articles related to Yonggary (character)? Multiple IPs are being used, all from Sandy, Texas. Armegon has been particularly plagued by this vandal. A rangeblocks should do it, on 2602:306:839B:77F0:x, plus a single block of 104.57.183.127, who was previously blocked for three days in June.[186]

An example series of edits may be seen here, where the vandal writes his own unreferenced analysis of the filmmakers' motives ("Made to cash in on Pacific Rim and The Upcoming Godzilla remake") along with a copy/paste of some plot text taken word-for-word from online sources published a month earlier. Another example of the vandal's original analysis was placed here, comparing multiple films, unreferenced, written poorly. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

2602:306:839b:77f0::/64 is the range. I also collapsed the lists above to make this section more legible. – Nihlus (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet summarized it perfectly. There's nothing else I can say except that I (and others) have been playing whack the mole with this person for the past few months with no end in sight. This person's edits are unconstructive. Just today, I even left a warning on this person's talk page and an hour or so later, proceeded to restore his previous unconstructive edits that I reverted before warning him on his talk page. Enough is enough. Action must be taken against this person. His edits are not benefitting the affected articles. One 3-day block didn't teach him a lesson, perhaps a permanent block will do the trick. Armegon (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I blocked 2602:306:839b:77f0::/64 and 104.57.183.127 for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Proxy IP's constantly undoing recent changes

Since a few hours ago, an IP user has been constantly undoing recent changes, either made by a user/IP or a bot. Meanwhile, this user issues bogus user warnings claiming the reverted user's edits were unconstructive. Admins have been working hard blocking them, but once an IP gets blocked, the user simply switches to a new one. Examples include these IP's contributions:

• 153.163.97.60
• 98.200.10.137
• 60.112.23.195
• 118.96.201.85
• 46.150.88.31
• 114.17.235.146
• 184.22.210.191

There are a lot more I won't be listing, as they can mostly be found at WP:AIV's edit history at least since here. It's been over 3 hours and still ongoing, so posting this to request attention from admins, as well as anyone willing to revert similar edits made by new IP's. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 03:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jastorga vandalism

Resolved

Special:Contributions/Jastorga - 4th warning. Thanks. (WP:AIV is protected) 174.17.207.124 (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for WP:SOAPBOX violations. Probably not here to constructively contribute, but the worst that happens is that we end up back here tomorrow. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The event in question will be over by tomorrow. 174.17.207.124 (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent OR issues with Gianluigi02

• Gianluigi02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gianluigi02 appears unable or unwilling to properly cite sources and to follow WP:NOR. This user persistently adds content to terrorism related lists where the sources given do not support inclusion or do not support ascribing an event to a particular group like ISIL. For example, yesterday Gianluigi02 are an entry [187] and claimed the Taliban were suspected. The source given doesn't ascribe the event to the Taliban, in fact it didn't event mention the Taliban at all and says, "No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks in Herat or Kapisa." See also Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_September_2017#Gianluigi02

Gianluigi02 has been warned about a dozen times on their user talk page for this behavior. They were once blocked by NeilN for this very behavior. They have never once responded to the warnings or block. In fact, they fail to comminate; of their 2000+ edits on the English Wikipedia, only one did they ever use a talk page ([188]).

Whether CIR or DIS issues, this user is causing problems and not showing any signs of change. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Been nearly 24 hours. Pinging Doug Weller who is at least familiar with this. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Their last edit did have a source, but it was the Daily Mail and was reverted. I've told them they must respond here. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Their edits often have sources, but those sources most of the times don't support the text of the edit or, as with the most recent edit, do not use reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I know, which is why I told them to respond here. I'll watch to see what they do. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It appears they are not interested in communicating since they've edited again but not replied here ([189]). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

CANVASSing by AussieLegend

In a follow-up discussion to an RfC at Talk:Family Guy, I pointed out to AussieLegend that supporters of his proposal had not opposed other suggestions. In response, AussieLegend posted the following to four users who had indicated support for his proposal: User:SMcCandlish, User:QEDK, User:A D Monroe III, and User:Beyond My Ken:

Please accept my apologies for disturbing you but I am trying hard to work towards a resolution at the discussion at Talk:Family Guy. However, there are "issues". Earlier, you indicated support for either "animated sitcom for adults" (with appropriate wikilinks) or "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences" as the new text. Could you please visit the discussion again and confirm whether or not you are still willing to accept this wording? Thankyou. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

—Both wordings quoted are ones AussieLegend has been promoting, and indicate a clear case of WP:CANVASSing to influence the outcome of the discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

sigh! Please review the RfC at Talk:Family Guy#RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence and the discussion that lead to it. Curly Turky has been resisting the outcome of the RfC, which was to remove the word "adult" and come up with some alternate wording. We started off with the alternate wording "animated sitcom for adults" which progressed to variants of "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences". As explained here, in the current discussion there have been 11 participants. Of those, six expressed a preference for one or both of the proposed wordings while three made no comment on wording, one made general comments but nothing specific and another only suggested that "Adult animation" may be a suitable wikilink. That all six of the editors who commented on the wording expressed support for one of the proposed options, including Curly Turky,[190] is inconsequential to Curly Turky; he claims there is nothing like a consensus.[191] Given his opposition and denial, I felt it appropriate to ask those who had expressed support whether they still felt that way. Note that I asked them to confirm whether or not (i.e. they were given the option to state either support or opposition) they still supported the proposed wording. Also, only actual participants of the discussion were asked. Opinions were not sought from anyone else. If we want to talk about canvassing, let's look at the opening sentence of the discussion when he pinged everyone except me and then, as an afterthought, used a fake excuse to justify doing so.[192]

Finally, I will point out that this entire situation has arisen because Curly Turky took exception to the word "adult", which he equates with "porn".[193] Personally, I find the whole thing to be right in WP:LAME territory, even if it didn't involve an edit war. Curly Turky seems to be working hard to avoid a positive outcome and his report here is an example of this, as is his latest response at the discussion,[194] which avoids answering a simple question. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I will assess the whole situation and offer my full opinion sometime, but for now, I feel there was canvassing, primarily because he chose to inform just the four whose views aligned with his but I wouldn't regard it as just that because also to note, I think we'd comment on the discussion anyway (atleast me, because it's on my watchlist) and also my views didn't exactly align with the alleged canvasser's so that's there too. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 14:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • He chose to inform just the four whose views aligned with his is rather misleading. Other than Curly Turky, who was still very actively involved with the discussion and therefore did not need to have his preference confirmed, I asked ALL of the editors who had made comment on the specific wording proposals. The remaining editors were:

• Damotclese - Only involvement was to agree with me regarding the initial pinging of participants.[195] If I canvassed surely this would be one person I'd seek out?
• Izno - Did not participate in the discussion at all. Just collapsed a part of the discussion.[196]
• Montanabw - made some suggestions but wasn't clear on the wording and stated no preference as to precise wording. He was clear that he was flexible on wording.[197]
• Softlavender only suggested that "Adult animation" may be a suitable wikilink.[198]
• WhatamIdoing Made comment about Curly Turky not pinging me, reformatted some text and suggested that Curly Turky boldly add the information to the body of the article, which Curly Turky refused to do.[199]

If the aim had been to canvass then there were clearly others "on my side" but that obviously wasn't the aim. It was simply to obtain clarification of the discussion participants feeling on the proposed wording as it had changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your intentions per se, but pointing out what maybe regarded as canvassing. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 15:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't the obvious solution to change the lead to "...an American animated sitcom aimed at adults..." Now have you heard? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Answer: Already analyzed among all available approaches, and assessed as awkwardly, annoyingly alliterative.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• I've been in the thick of this, trying to moderate and produce a compromise. There are two issues at stake: 1) what exact wording to use, since using "is an adult animated sitcom" might imply something X-rated to some readers (this was the conclusion of the RfC above that discussion), and 2) whether to move this demographic out of the lead sentence, especially since some people wnat to expand on it with additional sources that may indicate a broader intended audience, and already-found sources that indicate is has a broader audience whatever the authorial/studio intent might be. I think that if some variant of the wording AussieLegend prefers (e.g. "targeted at an adult audience") is used, but moved to a second sentence specifically about demographics and marketing, that the entire issue goes away. For reasons I outlined here, I think the testiness of the discussion (an admin already remarked at the RfC that a WP:IBAN might be in order) has led both parties to insist on additional things they don't really care that much about and to just argue for the sake of arguing, e.g. to retain some wording like this in the lead sentence no matter what, versus not having it anywhere in the lead at all, and so on.

  It looks to me like AussieLegend notified only the specific parties for the reason that their, and only their, opinions for or against some version of AussieLegend's wording were being challenged by CurlyTurkey. While this could have had a canvassing effect, for my part I showed up and just re-urged compromise.

  PS: It's routine to do a follow-on RfC to resolve the questions not resolved in the original RfC. I've put an RfC tag on the follow-on discussion at Talk:Family guy#Participant survey, notified all the earlier-RfC participants not notified yet, and also posted a pointer to the discussion at Talk:The Simpsons, since similar wording at the The Simpsons has been the subject of repeated bouts of flat-out revert-warring. Hopefully this is enough to foster a clean and quiet resolution. :-)
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  • SMcCandlish has indeed been a level head in all this, and his contributions are appreciated. However, there are a couple of minor points that I feel the need to clear-up:

• an admin already remarked at the RfC that a WP:IBAN - that was WhatamIdoing, who is not an administrator. Curly Turkey and I have edited quite a few of the same pages but, as far as I can remember, until this discussion I don't think we've ever had any direct interaction. Frankly, I don't think I want to again.
• has led both parties to insist on additional things they don't really care that much about and to just argue for the sake of arguing - not the case on my part. I was happy for the RfC closer to implement his outcome but Curley Turkey just seems to want to drag this on, and on, reverting the closer's edits. We seem to have some wording that multiple editors are happy with and I'm just waiting for Curley Turkey to explain why that's not what we should use. I've had to ask twice now,[200][201] this time. In short I simply don't see the advantage in breaking one simple sentence into multiple.
• It looks to me like AussieLegend notified only the specific parties for the reason that their, and only their, opinions for or against some version of AussieLegend's wording were being challenged by CurlyTurkey - As I've said, I asked all editors who had commented on specific wording. I didn't see the point in annoying editors who had made no comment on the wording, or no comment at all.

Otherwise, SMcCandlish seems correct. Hopefully, the new RfC will resolve issues but, as I indicated on SMcCandlish's talk page, I have my doubts that we can come to a quiet resolution. And yes, I still think the whole thing is lame. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't realize WhatamIdoing isn't an admin; I confused that editor's official WMF role with being an admin (I have a fairly dim and short-term memory for usernames, roles, and who said what). (I cultivate this selective forgetfulness on purpose, since it thwarts grudge-matching and drama.) On the second point, I don't see that you've been responsive to CurlyTurkey's questions about why this has to be in the lead sentence, just as CT has been sending mixed signal about whether it should at least remain in the lead section. These seem like isometric "political" pushing to me on both sides (i.e. WP:WINNING). I'm fairly certain you could live with the demographic material in a second or later sentence and CT could live with it in the lead section somewhere, and no one else will GaF. :-) Anyway, I took the time to "annoy" the other previous participants to come back and help resolve the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC). Revised, 21:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that you've been responsive to CurlyTurkey's questions about why this has to be in the lead sentence - Actually I specifically said Keeping it in the lead sentence is consistent with WP:TVLEAD and the way that we write TV articles. Moving it somewhere else just leads to writing multiple words when a couple will do. Why overcomplicate the text when simplicity works? You're not being paid by the letter.[202]

Anyway, I took the time to "annoy" the other previous participants - I resisted doing that because of the possible ramifications, for example such as the response from Edgarde, who wrote I don't wish to argue this issue any further and request no more pings. Some people just want to comment in an RfC and have no further involvement. Edgarde is obviusly one of those. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Damotclese, too, now that I look at some of the "venty" posts on that page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note: this isn't the place to discuss the content dispute. I didn't seek support for my position nor opposition for AussieLegend's in the report. This is about the canvassing, which is the only thing that would concern ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Definitely canvassing Looking at the RFC comments by the users in question, it's obvious that AL is canvassing users who definitely did not specifically support their wording. QEDK just said they supported a change from the status quo, presumably per CT's original proposal. Monroe explicitly supported "targeting teens and adults" or equivalent. BMK actually opposed the proposal to change the status quo and clarified in his third comment that "for adults" would work as well. SMcC presented a couple of alternate proposals himself, so claiming that he explicitly supported AL's exact wording is wrong, although more than a month later I wouldn't blame SMcC for forgetting that that is the case (read: AL's message was misleading, perhaps deliberately so). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  I don't oppose the specific wording that was at issue, I just prefer a minor copyedit to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  What you support is not at issue—the wording of the message advertises AussieLegend's intentions to CANVASS. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'm just clarifying Hijiri's assessment of what I was/am supporting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Looking at the RFC comments by the users in question, it's obvious that AL is canvassing users who definitely did not specifically support their wording - That doesn't make sense. Why would one canvass users who did not support the wording? Wouldn't it make more sense to canvass users who supported the position? In any case, as I have said over and over, I sought clarification from ALL editors who had commented on the wording and asked them to clarify their current opinion as the initial text had changed. This was necessary because Curley Turkey was ignoring the discussion and using comments in the now ended RfC to justify his position that the text should move. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I should add that Hijiri88 is obviously looking at the RfC and not comments made in the subsequent discussion. In the RfC Monroe did indeed support ""targeting teens and adults" but in the subsequent discussion said I wouldn't bother to object to "for/toward adults", or adding "and teens", in any form. Similarly, BMK wrote in the subsequent discussion Agree with the above "animated sitcom for adults", which is the wording used in the note I left. SMcCandlish also wrote Use "animated sitcom for adults". The message was not misleading at all, it is supported by what editors actually said. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Does it matter? Don't forget that Wikipedia is volunteer work, editors agree to RFC calls which take their time, and most (if not all) of us have real jobs, so tagging editors just because you feel that your "side" in an RFC debate was not fully covered fairly is an imposition upon volunteers. The issue of "canvassing" is utterly irrelevant when it happens. Nobody dies, it's not the end of the world and yet canvassing happens a lot. Most editors engaged in Wikiwar accept the RFC comments and move on professionally, they don't go back and complain about "canvassing" and they don't waste editor's time pinging previous editors. Point being, stop accusing people of canvassing, please, and move on professionally. If you can not, please leave me out of your petty disputes. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• As one of the "canvassed" editors, this pretty much describes what I feel about it. I found it useful to be told there was still a discussion ongoing on the talk page (which I do not have watchlisted), and that my support was not clear to others. Frankly, while I did use AussieLegend's wording, if I had not agreed with it, rest assured that I am fully capable of writing my own. Granted, a neutral comment along the lines of "A discussion you may be interested in is taking place on Talk:Family Guy" would have been preferable, policy-wise, but either it or the actual comment would have had the same effect on me. For this reason, I would say that I'm opposed to any sanctions being imposed on AussieLegend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• My attempt to broker compromise hasn't been very effective.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Why is this even in the first sentence of these articles. Hard to reach a consensus for awkward openings like this. RfC should have a normal lead sentence to ponder over.--Moxy (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ankurc.17

Hi. Please can someone block this user. I've asked them not to post on my talkpage, but they keep reverting a comment I've removed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Mention the incident properly. You accused me of not knowing English or for that matter that I edited something when it was already announced yet you reverted it back. This is not the first time you have done this and am pretty sure you have harassed others before as well. Just because someone is finally standing up to you that you are now complaining about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurc.17 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:REMOVED, Lugnuts is allowed to remove posts from their own talk page. Stop edit warring and leave it alone. If you do it again, I'll block you myself. Katie^talk 17:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Katie - I knew there was something about removing posts from my own talkpage, but I couldn't find it. Happy for this to be closed. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Lugnuts also allowed to tell people that they don't know Ënglish"and to "fuck of"or call names? is he also allowed to bully others?? (Unsigned) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurc.17 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes Lugnuts has a free pass to be uncivil. Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Considering Lugnuts believes that Wikipedia trumps medical attention over one's pets, you got off light. Blackmane (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

8 reverts in 24 hours...2600:1017:B01B:E3F6:191B:A253:5EBC:ADF (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove notices from his own talk page? I won't speak for everyone, but I'm sure not going to block him for it. GoldenRing (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but edit warring to restore a comment on someone else's talk page even after you've been told that they have a right to remove it would seem to be a blockable offense. Certainly people have been blocked for doing so on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sumitsharaf

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

I think this editor's heart is in the right place but I can't bring him to understand the concept of WP:V and he keeps adding unsourced information. Here are just a few examples 1 2 3 4 but there are many more and quite a number of warnings on his talk page. I also tried to explain to him that he should follow WP:UNIGUIDE and not add lists of programmes, that he should add an edit summary and (multiple times) that he should not add wiki links to disambiguation files (Private is his favorite) but he simply ignores his talk page. Help in explaining to him that he should be following polices will be appreciated.--Muhandes (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz

I would like to raise concern about this editor, who is uncivil and using bullying techniques.

The user added the verifiability banner to the page Shania Now Tour. Every piece of information in the article was sourced at that time, by reliable sources, see [203]. I reverted the edit, stating as such. The user in question reverted my edit, then I reverted again, asking what needed to be sourced. The user reverted again without responding. I left the page as is, not wanting to start an edit war. The user then left a message on my talk page, which had nothing to do with verifiabilty, at which point I suggested that the user was engaging in disruptive cite-tagging, likely because the user attempted to have the article in question deleted, and was unsuccessful. I moved the discussion to the article's Talk:Shania Now Tour where I very clearly asked that user to identify what needed to be verified. The user just copied and pasted what they wrote on my talk page. I calmly pressed the issue, at which point the user finally removed the verifiablity banner (likely realizing they were in the wrong all along) but continued to leave condescending and insulting messages. I left the discussion and the project. After two weeks, I returned giving the user the opportunity to rewrite their message in which they call me stupid and tell me to shut up. The user would not rewrite or strike out that message and instead "aplogized" while calling me incompetent and said I have no place on the project. Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Of for crying out loud. At the time I added the template it was required because, while every piece was sourced, the content needed additional references per WP:NTOUR. I finally changed it. The editor was terse and obtuse in his responses and if this many words were written on the talk page to elucidate, there would be no offense taken by me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) This edit by Walter Görlitz concerns me:

You seem incapable of understanding logic. You complained. I allowed you to do the right thing and decide whether you wanted a notability tag or the sources tag. The idea was to shut you up. I see it didn't work. Which would you like? Either answer or shut up. Cheers

Not only is the language combative and confrontational, but it flies in the face of the fact that, as Thankyoubaby notes, Gorlitz' previous replies had been non-responsive to the question about what in the article needed to be sourced, thereby justifying his clean-up tag. The reply he made, which concerned notability [204], was not responsive to the question asked [205], and, indeed, the notability question had already been answered by the AfD. It seems if anyone had a right to be short-tempered, it was Thankyoubany, not Walter Gorlitz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Concur with BMK. No one here is a mind-reader. Just because an editor feels certain there's a sourcing problem of some obscure kind doesn't mean they can revert-war and be hostile about it, all while failing to explain the nature of the alleged issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't trying for a hostile edit war though and I did think I explained the nature of the issue. At that point I was very angry, and I compromised and (somewhat) apologized, but the sources needed to be provided. They are there now. Likely not because of my tagging though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: wrote in his edit summary on the article, "survived AfD, so notability tag is not appropriate " There were clearly other editors who felt it did not meet notability criteria—WP:NCONCERT or WP:NTOUR—or was WP:TOOSOON. And the AfD was closed as no consensus (non-admin closure) with only the notifying editor here voting for a clean keep. Is that really surviving the AfD? That four editors saw the article as problematic one month ago is why it was added and others had questions about whether it belonged. While I didn't agree with Power~enwiki's non-admin closure, I knew it would eventually become notable and so didn't reopen it. The tag was added with valid reasons. The tag is no longer valid and I should have probably removed it when the UK tours were added as the beeb covered it quite well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If the article was not deleted (it wasn't) and is still in the encyclopedia (it is) then it clearly "survived" AfD, as there was no consensus to delete it. That some editors expressed notability concerns about it is not relevant to that, as even kept articles are likely to have comments expressing those kinds of opinions. At the very least, the "no consensus" at AfD should have alerted you to the fact that the putative lack of notability was not sufficient for the article to be tagged for notability, and was more of an issue for discussion on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That the article was closed by a non-admin without due cause and the closure was not contested is clear. There was a greater consensus to remove it from the project a month ago than there was to keep it. That more than half of the !votes questioned its notability is the only reason that it should have been tagged and that the discussion was had on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're so certain that many editors would support a notability tag, get a consensus for one on the article talk page. Seems simple enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I recognize this user name. The dude's extreme sourcing pedantry and article-hovering drove me from an article I was planning to substantively add to, and source, and it actually was the final straw for me giving up on WP... (mostly I was successful but there's always some little edits a person wants to make, so up goes another account where I don't have to make my friends wonder if I'm back or not). Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't surprise me; I'm very well aware of what Walter does. First of all, every edit I've seen from him in the mainspace is very constructive and utilizes his knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and Manual of Style. If it were me, I'd say that this is more of the incompetence of the reporter that created this rather than Walter's actions here. Walter's edits on the article were just fine; the talk page discussion ended with a civil change of template, which was later removed as the article survived an AfD. In short, I wouldn't call this bullying, but rather it's Walter Görlitz helping a new user understand how Wikipedia's guidelines work. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Either answer or shut up." Very helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the actions seem fine, the tone not so much, nor the refusal to provide a rationale. Given this discussion, I trust the approach will be adjusted and not be an issue in future interactions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed to be hoped. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It will be. But yet, Thankyoubaby never explained which template was preferred and I did give valid reasons for either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, you wrote above, "At that point I was very angry, and I compromised and (somewhat) apologized, but the sources needed to be provided." My sincere advice to you is to never edit Wikipedia when you are "very angry", and never edit with the intention of getting other editors to "shut up". If you are angry, please stop editing Wikipedia until you are completely calm and in a collaborative mood. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I will certainly attempt to do so going forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Revoke TPA access for Category5AtlanticHurricaneBoy101

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

---

Clearly WP:NOTHERE, per 1 2 3 4. WP:DENY. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I was about to do this, but User:Alex Shih got there first. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP 188.39.214.99 woke up again

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

---

188.39.214.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to need a next block. --CiaPan (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@CiaPan: Blocked - these sort of reports can be made at WP:AIV where they will often be acted upon in a more timely fashion -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Thank you, I'll try to remember that (although I make such reports so rarely...) --CiaPan (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptions of lot of newly registered users

A lot of newly registered users are attacking me in Bulgarian again and are making disruptive edits. Probably a socks of User:PavelStaykov. @Джингиби да не пише: and @Вълчо терориста:.Jingiby (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

As an example, see here, where an editor attacks Jingiby as a psychopath over a date of birth. Also appears to be two likely socks at work there. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The first account is blocked, I saw it at UAA. To any non-Slavophones wondering, the username is a personal attack. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of religion in Myanmar

While not a great article, it's probably not worth having the load of editorialising that I just edited out, changing what sources say to defend Myanmar, e.g "The government is accused of actively promoting Theravada Buddhism (practiced by 90% of the population) over other religions, particularly among members of ethnic minorities. Even there are some accusations that Christian and Islamic groups continued to have trouble obtaining permission to repair existing places of worship or build new ones, but it is totally wrong information." with the bold text being the additions added over the last year. More eyes? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

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

---

Could someone semi-protect this? An idiot has turned up, probably excited by the events in Las Vegas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Done, thank you. Alex Shih^Talk 05:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Uncle dan is home

Uncle dan is home (talk · contribs)

This is a request for opinions about a case of potential long-term abuse of Wikipedia:Reference desk. The reference desks are relatively relaxed about enforcing Wikipedia policies, which is understandable. However, the user in question here has been posting repetitively for the past one year borderline highly contentious open-ended questions with mostly just one line (there are so many of them, you can literally just pick any posts from the log). While this kind of conduct is against some of the principles of the reference desk (such as we are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.), there doesn't seem to be a policy that regulates these kinds of usage.

Ever since creating an account in June 2016, the user in question has made 257 edits with 0 edits to the mainspace (top edits). Several users including myself have tried to engage with them to discuss this problematic editing behaviour but to no avail. My question is, can there possibly be a consensus to block this kind of user for being clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia? Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 09:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a blatant and obvious case of WP:NOTHERE, and he's had several warnings about trolling the reference desk already. Indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Now there's a consensus for you :) — fortunavelut luna 10:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

He had me at "0 edits to mainspace". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was expecting a barrage of "show me the disruption" but I guess I managed to serenade. Alex Shih^Talk 11:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• First NOTHERE is not policy. Secondly, the first line of the reference desk remit is: "The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Ask a question here and Wikipedia volunteers will try to answer it." - the reference desk is not here *solely* to enable 'building an encyclopedia' it is a reference desk in order to direct people to references either on-site or off-site. Its a given that the reference desk will be answering questions from non-wikipedians. If the goal is to ban people who ask contentious questions - then you should also be banning all the editors who either given non-answers or treat it as a talking shop. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Only in death: How about WP:FORUM #4? This is not about the contentious questions, but about the long term misuse of volunteer time in asking questions that are borderline trolling. Alex Shih^Talk 11:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Causes of sexual violence If we have an article on it, its a valid question. The correct response is 'Here are some references from our closest article on the subject' and close the request as answered. I should also point out the last line of WP:FORUM #4 actually refers you to the reference desk to ask questions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A couple of months ago, questions were being raised about Uncle Dan as to whether he might be a sock of a banned user. Now that he's blocked, maybe it doesn't matter. But he did seem to raise a lot of debate-worthy questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Liar

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

---

User:Kintetsubuffalo objected to an intervention I made in an article, and called me a liar. (See Talk:Johannes Brahms#Photograph). As can be seen, I indicated to Kintetsubuffalo that this was against WP standards; Kintetsubuffalo then called me a liar again; I further requested Kintetsubuffalo to remove the word liar from his/her comments. S/he did not respond. I referred this matter to dispute resolution where the arbitrator decided "Closed as not an article content issue, at least not as presented. User:Kintetsubuffalo is warned that referring to another editor as a "liar", even if their statements are inaccurate, is a personal attack. Resume civil discussion on the article talk page. Report personal attacks at WP:ANI, but only if they continue." I accept this decision. However, Kintetsubuffalo's response on the talk page has been to escalate the situation by provocative remarks, and to leave the 'liar' statements. I don't care about the provocative remarks, but I am concerned about the 'liar' comments remaining on the talk page of the article (which btw I am working on and slowly trying to bring up to GA standard). I don't myself seek redress or action against Kintetsubuffalo, but I should be grateful if the unwarranted and excessive allegations against me as a 'liar' could be removed. I am therefore reporting this matter to WP:ANI as advised by the arbitrator at dispute resolutions ("report personal attacks if they continue"). Smerus (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Noting that Kint has removed the AN/I notice from their talk page so they've acknowledged that the discussion is taking place and have elected not to participate. Further I note the combative history of the user's talk page and agree that an official warning from an admin needs to occur indicating that the behavior (casual swearing, being incivil, not responding to complaints, etc) is unacceptable and must not continue per WP:CIVIL. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Warned Kintetsubuffalo about AGF and CIVIL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This complaint has a disturbing WP:BATTLEGROUND tone. @Robert McClenon: closed the DR with advice "Report personal attacks at WP:ANI, but only if they continue." I don't see any evidence that the personal attack, to wit, calling Smerus a liar, has continued. Kintetsubuffalo made only one remark, again expressing his pique but stating that he's dropping the matter. No repetition of "liar". So why the complaint here? At the very least it can't hang its hat on Robert McClenon, who wisely closed the matter to avoid further recrimination at DR. @Ad Orientem: I think you've jumped the gun here and suggest you look into the related threads and give any warning equally to both editors. I edit that article page infrequently and it was a stupid nuisance to see this pop up on my watchlist with a childish edit war. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

With respect, the advice of @Robert McClenon: was for me to go to ANI if personal attacks continue, not only if I was again called 'a liar'. And also, if I may, the comment made by @SPECIFICO: on Kintetsubuffalo's talkpage - "This warning is inappropriate and any such warnings should be directed equally at @Smerus: after a more complete review of his ANI complaint. More appropriate: Withdraw this undue warning and shut down the ANI thread" - seems rather to be prejudging the issue.Smerus (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, and I say this as one who greatly respects your past contributions to WP, you did not take the time to write up a well-formed and fully documented complaint here that would have allowed this to be adjudicated without needless tail-chasing here at ANI. He made one final gotcha post expressing his resentment but I don't see where the "personal attacks continue" and if you have a diff that fits McClenon's bill then just post your evidence. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well since there appears to be no one actually denying they are personal attacks and there is agreement it is a personal attack, would a third party admin follow WP:RPA or I will in 24 hours if Kinet hasnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, is it a personal attack if it's, you know, accurate? A little something Smerus left out. On the talk page, he wrote "Without explanation, User:Kintetsubuffalo has twice deleted from the photograph in the lead the words 'unknown photographer'...". Except that Kintetsubuffalo DID -- twice -- in the edit comments. --Calton | Talk 14:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

While you're at it, consider what you'll do to show Smerus not to edit-war. This just needs to be closed and forgotten. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• This situation feels very tempest-teacuppy to me. Namely:

1. Kintetsubuffalo removed "photographer unknown" from a caption citing WP:MOS on captions.
2. Smerus rolled back without explanation (which in itself is a violation of rollback, as the edit was not vandalism).
3. Kintetsubuffalo reverted, calling out the rollback violation and stating that he had given a policy.
4. Smerus rolled back again, with no policy but an opinion and command not to revert "unless you have evidence as to the name of the photographer".
5. Smerus opens a talkpage discussion claiming that Kintetsubuffalo twice deleted "photographer unknown" "without explanation"; later adding "If s/he does have evidence of the name of the photographer, that would of course be gratefully received".
6. Kintetsubuffalo reverted the caption again, again citing Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Credits.
7. William Avery cites WP:CAPTION on the talkpage, as advising against credits for their own sake.
8. Kintetsubuffalo calls Smerus a liar (in bold) on the talkpage, stating that he had given an explanation and again citing Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Credits.
9. And so on and so forth, with Kintetsubuffalo responding to further comments "Or, you could just stop lying."
10. Somewhere along the line it gets taken to DRN (by Smerus) and rejected.
11. A bit more squabbling.
12. Meanwhile, if anyone had bothered to actually look, the name of the photographer has been on the file since 2011.

In other words, just your basic Wikipedia squabble/mix-up that happens thousands of times a day. I think the worst of it was bolding the word "liar", but other than that, silliness all around, and best completely ignored. Kintetsubuffalo, you can defend yourself without calling other people liars. Just state the facts. Softlavender (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Softlavender, for stating the situation clearly. I don't dispute your analysis, or my own misjudgements. I simply seek a way of removing the inappropriate comment 'liar' being applied to me and remaining on view in WP.Smerus (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My two cents: I personally never respond to personal attacks, even when called a liar or worse, even if it's repeated. To me they simply do not exist, and I only discuss edits, not editors; I also do not use the word "you" or refer to other editors by name. The only thing that sets this particular case apart, in my mind, is that the word "liar" was bolded. Otherwise, this is all ignorable in my view (since it is not a repeated pattern across multiple pages over time). Perhaps Kintetsubuffalo could just unbold that word and we could all move on. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Smerus, you are correct that Kintetsubuffalo should not have called you a liar. You were incorrect about (a) using rollback inappropriately, (b) saying something demonstrably untrue about another editor, (c) making snide comments about what he says on his user page, (d) making a smug-sounding semi-apology ("I am sorry that my error in this small matter is causing you such anxiety"), and (e) insisting that someone else should make the first move to decrease tensions, and only then will you do the same ("In this light, I cordially request you to remove from this page the comments where you label me as a 'liar', and I shall be glad to remove this comment, and, if you wish, my previous comment"). I'll let the reader decide which was more unimpressive. If you'd like my advice, I suggest first striking thru your personal comments about KB (which you made before you were called a "liar"), make an actual apology, clarify that it was not a lie but inattention that caused you to say something incorrect, and then ask him to remove the word "liar" because it bothers you, and see what happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And: Please don't use a misrepresentaton of @Robert McClenon:'s close to create a platform for your pursuit of this petty squabble. That may as well be retracted too. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly pinged in commenting on my close of the DRN thread, but it appears that no one disagrees with my close, and that I have nothing to add. I agree with the comment that this is a tempest in a teapot, and with the analyses of User:Softlavender and User:Floquenbeam. I don't understand why User:SPECIFICO is increasing the Beaufort force of the tempest, but it is still in the teapot. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert, you volunteered to offer your considered advice at the DR close and it was disregarded and this stupid ANI was presented as an instance of your recommended action. That was incorrect. I didn't say it was a lie but it was at least a careless incorrect statement. If you don't care, you could say so without the side snark. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Smerus You have a legitimate complaint about some of the language directed towards you. To which end I have posted a cautionary note on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page. But I would also note that some other editors have brought up some shortcomings in your own conduct in this rather overblown affair. I'm not going to belabor them but I hope you will take their words on board and try to be a little more thoughtful when engaging with other editors. Beyond that the only thing I have to add is that it has been my experience that sometimes the better course of action is to just let things go, especially when the issue is so minor, or even trivial. Sometimes people get worked up and tempers can get short. With so many people and differing personalities it can be helpful to develop a thicker skin and ignore petty sniping. You might also want to take a look at WP:STICK. I have nothing further to add and I agree with SPECIFICO that this has gotten more mileage than it deserved. If someone wants to close it, I won't object. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Aiden James

An anonymous IP (whom I'm presuming to be Aiden James himself, given the advertorial overtones of what's happening, but can't prove it) is persistently editing Aiden James with improperly written advertorial content about his newest single — namely, he's trying to not just use the media coverage to source that the song exists, the way it's supposed to be done, but to directly use the media coverage to source the fact that the media coverage exists: he's expanding the already-existing and already-sourced mention of the song's release to include followup information like "then Billboard covered it! (source: the same Billboard article that was already being used to source the song, and thus isn't really its own separate piece of information in its own right) then individual radio stations added it to their playlists! (sources: the front pages of those radio stations' websites)". And he's writing the whole thing not in complete sentences, but in proselined sentence fragments that aren't consistent with encyclopedic writing style.

The problem here is that I've already removed the advertorial bumf twice today (as well as once last week), but he keeps reverting it back into the article again — meaning I'm going to trip the WP:3RR wire if I remove it again today. Is anybody willing to assist? Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• AidenJames (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Neskolka (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Both accounts created Jan. 2, 2016. Article has been semi-protected.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States

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

---

We have an IP hopper basically saying they will not stop editwaring till he/she cant see history Conservatism in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

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

User:Logosncompanies

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

---

Logosncompanies is constantly adding unsourced content, refuses to heed warnings from other users, will not communicate, as a matter of fact has asked do not add content. to their talk page. Definitely showing WP:SPA who is WP:NOTHERE. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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