Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Coppit (talk | contribs) at 07:25, 22 November 2017 (→‎Misuse of sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion

    User:Akocsg: Ethnic/nationalistic POV pushing, edit warring and IP-hopping

    This user removes the contents which he does not like and replace them with his own personal opinions. He always uses misleading and false edit summaries.

    • I mention some of his edits for the comparison:
      • WP:BATTLEGROUND and misrepresentation of sources[2][3]
      • Removing sourced text and replace it with his own POV[4]
      • POV and labeling his edit as minor[5][6]
      • Removing any non-Turkic info which are based on the sources[7][8][9]
      • Disruptive edits like[10]
    • The recent issues:
      • Ashina Removed sourced content of article by providing a misleading edit summary,[11] then started edit warring and inserted his personal opinions.[12][13][14]. Then switched to IP-hopping.[15][16] That IP-range is from Germany and since this user was active on German Wikipedia, then I'm sure it's him. IP's edit pattern and edit summaries matches with him too. IP targeted related articles[17][18][19][20][21][22] and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page.[23]
      • Baghatur Repeated his old way: Removed the content which he does not like and replaced it with a random non-English citation.[24] Then after 2 month, he repeated it again (non-English sources).[25] And this one.[26]

    It's a nationalistic mission/quest by him on English Wikipedia just like German Wiki. Is it necessary to provide more evidences? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would first like to state how surprised and astonished I am by this deceptive behaviour of this user. None of his accusations are true whatsoever. If you check his recent repeated edit diff in the article Baghatur you can see how he simply deleted a statement which was provided with three different academic sources. They simply got deleted by him with the excuse that they are not English and hence not reliable! That's cherry-picking. And not constructive behaviour at all.

    The very same case can be seen in the article Ashina, where again a poorly written and unsourced passage was improved and corrected by me backed with sources. He simply reverted them all with the accuse that it's POV, which is the main accusation based on the same examples here! The result was that my objection got a result and the passage was finally removed after an input by another neutral user in the talk page. See here: diff2, the adding of sources by me: diff, then he does it himself what I said should be done, deletes the whole passage: diff3. As you can see, what he first accused me of turned out to be right.

    And those older edits, which I mostly can't even remember anymore, where mostly backed by sources back then. Most of them are minor edits anyway, and not destructive in any way. They were definitely not POV pushing or a "nationalistic mission" or whatsoever. This user apparently wants to simply get me blocked because of personal reasons, it seems. See the Baghatur article, where sources simply get deleted on his whim... If you check my personal histoy here in the English Wikipedia, you will see that I made at least thousand edits and created/wrote many new articles. Most of them in the field of sports. Based on this fact alone one can see that I am not a POV-pushing User on a mission, like this user wants to make you believe.

    But this part of his report is the best. Please do check this out, it's important and shows how he is trying to manipulate you (if he is aware that it's not me):

    "...and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page. 23"

    That was made by some totally different user. By this one: User:2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577 You can confirm that by checking the history in his talk page. That was not by me! But it is simply reported by him as if it was me. This is a serious accusation!

    And that IP user is not me nor does not have anything to do with me. Please do an IP check or whatever is necessary to clarify this case. And as a major part of his accusations are based on that dubious IP account, one can see how this reporting is based on practically no consistent foundation. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doug Weller and EdJohnston: Would you (or other admins) please look at this report? 72H has passed and I see no replies from the admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Can the admins please make it clear that comments like "What is it with Turks and their extreme nationalism?" are not acceptable - since when is it ok for IP editors to post racist comments on ANI? I'm not involved in this content dispute but a comment that all Turks are extreme nationalists easily fits the dictionary definition of racism, canard, racial stereotyping, etc. If someone wrote "What is it with the Jews and their shystyness" I imagine there would be a round of objections. Seraphim System (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the comment in question. To be clear: No, comments like these are not helpful to resolving a discussion and they not acceptable to make. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to point out once again that all the accusations in the passage "the recent issues" of Wario-Man are from that already blocked IP account (2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577) mentioned above. They have nothing to do with me. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm still waiting for administrators and their comments (this report submitted in 28 October). --Wario-Man (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wario-Man - All of the diffs and events you referred to in your initial statement are least three weeks in the past; I'm not sure what you want us to do now. Can you provide diffs of recent edits that show the disruption is currently ongoing and requires action at this time? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: All of the mentioned diffs describe his disruptive edit pattern and behavior. Ashina/Baghatur diffs was recent when I submitted this report but if you need recent ones:
    • Aq Qoyunlu: Removed sourced info and replaced it with his OR/POV, plus removal of related navbox.[27] Then started edit warring as usual[28], [29], [30]. Then two editors warned him (one of them is an admin).[31], [32] But he ignored them and started edit warring again.[33] Another editor reverted his edit[34] but he ignored that editor and just repeated same things.[35] and just stopped when he was blocked by an admin: 17:14, 15 November 2017 MSGJ (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Akocsg (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring - change expiry to 72 hours)
    • Bayandur: POV-pushing [36], [37], [38] and ignored the edit warring/3RR warning and edited like previous article.[39] How his edits are POV? Anonymous user (IP) who was involved in content dispute with him, described it on talk page.[40]
    • Dastan Edit warring [41], [42], [43], [44]
    As I said, I summarize his behavior as: Writing misleading edit summaries while removing sourced content and replacing them with his POV/OR and personal opinions. Ethnic/Nationalist warrior and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I think there is a valid reason why he is indef-blocked on German Wikipedia. I don't ask same thing for English Wikipedia but since his account is old and he should be familiar with WP rules, then I suggest topic ban or longer timed block. Even a serious warning may be enough, but due to his edit history, I doubt he attends to any warning message. Or any other solution by admins which solves this case. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would check the content of my edit in the Aq qoyunlu article, you would see that I didn't push POV or make disruptive edits at all. All I did there was add brackets and properly place two pictures as well as add relevant categories. What about that is pushing POV and ethnic nationalism?? Same in the Dastan article. All I did was add relevant names in similar languages. I'm wondering why you are desperately trying to show such edits as ethnic nationalist POV-pushing?
    You are accusing me of misleading summaries, then what is this listing of simple edits as nationalistic POV here, whcih they aren't? Besides, the dispute in those two articles has already been dealt with (including talk page), so there is no reason for further action. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Petition to indef block: Even if this user was blocked indefinitely on the German Wikipedia 8 years ago, and still has no will to contribute properly anywhere else, the consequences could Baton Pass over to other Wikipedia language sites, regardless if there are records of other mishaps and aftershocks. Whereas, the Meta Wiki Foundation could step in, and look into all of this. Slasher405 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As an added update, the user left a message on my talk page, imitating my message, and performing forgery of my signature. There's no point in view that this user is still performing foul play. What can we do about this? Slasher405 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue has been resolved on Slasher405's talk page. No forgery or whatsoever was intended by me. I just wanted to make sure that the response was noticed, that's all. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even close to resolved. Matters to be made worse, he did not reply on the proper page either. He was supposed to reply all of the messages on his own talk page, not mine. Still, it may not be a good idea to copy one message and post it on another one's talk page, and reply the debate from there. Slasher405 (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did reply on my talk page. See here. Then I simply copied it to your page so that you don't miss it. That's all there is to it. No idea what your motivation is for lying here and misleading the admins. Akocsg (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Admins: Does user Slasher405 even have a right to petition anything here? Since he is no admin I mean. And as can be seen in the few comments above, he distorts facts about me (about not replying on my own talk page). Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am no admin, but my biggest concern is, just copying and pasting a message from one talk page to the other does not really make sense, even if has a different signature. Before all of this was ever discussed, no one even posted an ANI notice on the user's talk page until I actually did, as the rules require to post an ANI notice when mentioning anyone who could be the main source of an incident. I still feel undetermined about what is really happening, but there is still a bit of unusual history of Akocsg here. Slasher405 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Excessive, hasty deletion nominations by a new editor

    ReeceTheHawk (talk · contribs) is a new, young editor who seems very keen to get involved in administrative tasks. Unfortunately they do not appear to be applying the level of competence required to do so. In a short span of time several editors have asked Reece to slow down or adjust their activities in a number of areas ([45][46][47][48][49]), but particularly with regard to their poorly thought out nominations for deletion ([50][51][52][53][54] and WT:AFCR#Unreviewed drafts at MfD). They generally haven't responded to these warnings (except rather hostile responses to WikiDan61 [55][56] and Magnolia677 [57]) but have removed them from their talk page which I assume means they have read them. Unfortunately they have not heeded them, and today nominated a further ten articles for deletion, almost all for dubious reasons, several of which have already been speedily closed. I don't relish pouring cold water on his enthusiasm for Wikipedia, but we all know that spurious AfD/etc. nominations take up a lot of volunteer time, and when applied to drafts or new articles they can be confusing and excessively bitey for other new editors. I think at this point we need admin intervention to get Reece to back off behind-the-scenes tasks until he is prepared to do his due diligence in learning our policies and processes. – Joe (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I for one have !voted WP:SK per criterion 1 on one Afd that was subsequently speedily kept and closed this one for the same reason. I've also placed what I believe is his third caution or warning on his user talk page. I think there needs to be a marked improvement, or failing that, a halt in Afds, or risk a temporary topic ban. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yours was his fifth warning about deletion specifically, by my count. Reece's habit of quickly removing messages from his talk page seems to have the effect that multiple editors are telling him about the same thing in quick succession, perhaps unaware that he's already been told. – Joe (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I might have thought a couple weren't warnings but messages -- but anyway, I see you've speedily closed more of his Afds. His nomination statements typically combine some form of vague WP:IMPERFECT statement with a suggestion of merging or maybe being unnecessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I warned him/her about not having a valid reason for deletion in virtually all of their nominations. The next nom s/he produced had a valid reason.198.58.171.47 (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jumping in here as an involved admin. I left a message for Reece offering such assistance as I could provide after I'd seen his AfD nominations for a couple of days (these two were the first I came across, and I'll admit to having been attracted by the remarkable article titles!). While he deleted that message shortly after I left it, my offer of assistance does still stand. I'm yet to see any evidence that he's deliberately here to disrupt, so much as very enthusiastic and perhaps making the mistake of jumping in head-first without proper guidance. My offers of assistance are always contingent on the fact that I know what I know, and can point the other user in the appropriate direction for others with more specialised knowledge, so if that or my involvement in the matter makes me less useful to assist, that's fine by me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A new user. Early edits to WP:RFPP. Picks up Twinkle pretty quickly. Lots of spurious AfD and MfD noms from early in their editing history. My sock sense is tingling. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lugnuts: Not saying they definitely aren't a sock, but I think it's hasty to suspect socking when a new account quickly tries to get involved in administrative tasks (heck, I did). Ironically, an IP contributed to this thread above and took the time to contact the user regarding their conduct. If this IP suddenly registered and continued editing in the same way it currently is, it would fall into the same vein. Home Lander (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted to his talk page three times warning him that he was headed for trouble. I'm a nice IP. Re socks, as far as I can see, a named account is as likely to be a sock as an IP account... but that is neither here nor there. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I left a detailed message on ReeceTheHawk's talkpage here discussing the use of tags on an article, including "much has been written about...how to use tags appropriately, such as Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup and Wikipedia:Responsible tagging. I urge you to familiarize yourself with the established practices for the types of edits you have chosen to make". My message was deleted, after which this editor continued to tag articles unnecessarily. For example, at Sae Rojanadis the article was already tagged as having no sources. Then ReeceTheHawk tagged it here saying it needs additional sources. This editor has been cautioned and advised many times, but seems determined to do it his own way, which unfortunately, is not an improvement. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (My Response) - Hi guys, thank you for all your messages and suggestions, I have took them on board and have made and will make a few changes to my editing from now on.
    I really did appreciate the suggestions I got from some of you. Magnolia677 not being included because he usually makes excessive, volatile, and unhelpful suggestions and messages to people, as we have seen with him in the past. However I did like the suggestions / messages I received from 198.58.171.47, and BigHaz, as they really know how to get their point across in a good, appropriate manner. Thank you. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReeceTheHawk: Since you appear to want to take the community's advice to heart, I recommend a less confrontational communication style on your talk page. Deleting other users' messages without replying is somewhat dismissive, and gives the appearance that you don't care about the opinions of others. A simple "thank you" or even "sorry, I don't agree with that" is more constructive. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good to hear, Reece. I'd also recommend not immediately removing messages from your talk page. If nothing else, it will stop different editors warning you about the same thing multiple times, which I imagine is frustrating. If it gets too long, you can archive the older messages. – Joe (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReeceTheHawk: I'll third those comments about not just removing the comments, particularly if you feel they're constructive. Even if nothing else, it allows for a bit of clarity if (for example), someone comments and says "I'm not sure why you tagged XYZ for deletion", you can then reply directly below them and outline your concerns, they can reply to you and so on. Gets harder to do that when the earlier interactions are hidden away in the page history. Speaking of which, I've got a quick suggestion I'll make on your Talk page in a moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I made this kind of mistake. Have a look at my talk page. Just saying, I don't think he's a sock. TomBarker23 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - ReeceTheHawk was explicitly cautioned by me here about tagging stub articles with a "lead too short" tag. He deleted my caution, and then tagged another short article that had no sections here with four tags, including a "lead too short" tag! So, User:BigHaz left a second personal message here telling ReeceTheHawk to avoid tagging short articles with a "lead too short" tag. ReeceTheHawk doesn't seem to be listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which Reece then removed with a response which I would describe as "obfuscatory" at best. I've replied to his reply (and WikiDan has remarked on his removal of text again), but I will admit to having my assumption of good faith being tested here, particularly in light of Reece's earlier comments which sounded a bit more positive. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Final warning issued. Please report any further problems here, or on my talk page, and I'll block him. There's being a newbie (we all were once), and then there's being a bull-in-a-china-shop newbie, bouncing from disruption to disruption, not listening to advice (with an attitude problem too). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a report per se, but I'm a little concerned with Reece's response, which I'm sure you've seen but just in case. The wording of "I won't do any of those 3 things again" sounds promising, but having grown up with two younger brothers I know it can just as easily mean "I'll do something else unhelpful instead, and complain that I wasn't told not to". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReeceTheHawk:: Good to hear. Given your previous responses to advice and suggestions, though, I think you can see why I was sceptical. I'm happy to be proven wrong here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amisom

    Editor requested I take them to admins [58], so I did:
    I have concerns that User:Amisom's edits and behaviour need further scrutiny, with possible immediate action to stop multiple PRODs (and AfDs), in particular:

    Seems disruptive / borderline WP:NOTHERE.

    Comment from Amisom: Widefox has a very unhelpful attitude. They have repeatedly accused me of disruption, just for making points that they disagree with - eg calling the Campaign Against Antisemitism afd “disruption” just because they want the article kept (other users have argued for deletion) - and they have even accused me of “forum-shopping” by starting a discussion on an article talk page. It’s just silly and a bit OWNy. Amisom (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Good link - it sums the disruption well "(general behaviour to be taken up at ANI per issues on user's talk). Point is, when reverted by two editors in 24hr and still don't discuss on the talk, then taking straight to AfC with a non-neutral nom (even !voting) may give the impression of going against consensus and WP:FORUMSHOP. When the RfC is about something that doesn't apply, then it appears disruptive." [86] (of course it's not forum shopping on the talk, but it's a malformed, against edit consensus, non-neutral RfC with no previous discussion per WP:RfC indicating editor doesn't need to discuss their edits, doesn't need to follow RfC discuss on talk first, doesn't need to engage on talk 2x BRD BRD and has contempt for the current consensus, shorthand FORUMSHOP although not one) Widefox; talk 14:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also @Widefox:'s criticism of me for using the refernce desk - which is a long-standing feature of Wikipedia - is silly. They're clearly just looking for things to complain about and should be given a quiet WP:TROUT and asked to move along. Amisom (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Amisom: Multiple editors have warned you on your talk for months about disruption "..misrepresentations.." "We don't decide things by straw polls at local pages." [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] only warning [93] [94] Dismissing even admins with "you're not an admin I don't want to hear from you" "..accusing others of behaviour that is just not true.." rollback removed, NOTHERE accusation . None of those are me. Can you answer the above first? Especially rapid deletions without performing WP:BEFORE (B, D) even (and when asked that, don't answer [95]) but give a personalised uncivil answer "Duh", and the AfD where nobody agrees with you due to lack of BEFORE. How this is a plus for WP? Widefox; talk 18:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not going to answer you at all. Amisom (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's me now, but over 10 editors on your talk recently, right? You dismiss all (including admins) as non-admins and refuse to discuss, which you were even warned about by another admin! [96] Widefox; talk 02:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm. Well your thread’s been here 12 hours now. How many people agree with you that yiur complaint is valid? Amisom (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Widefox: 36 hours now. Anything? Amisom (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No sign from this editor yet that they will stop this disruption, no. One more editor complaining about them here, yes (see below). Widefox; talk 03:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Your behavioural issues should be discussed here, not at the AfD.) Widefox; talk 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies I'm concerned about mass PROD, AfD without BEFORE yes. (the refdesk is a miniscule point about NOTHERE) I stand by my dePROD there and said take it to AfD where it was uninimous Keep. Would it have been deleted if I hadn't? A good edit. What about all the other PRODs, AfDs? I don't know what's going on, all I know it's an editor against consensus on most of these deletions, claiming GNG failure when there's 30 sources etc. This is not new - POV removals accused here by an admin "MO..remove content you don't like, even if it's properly sourced..." [98] Widefox; talk 20:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just saw this report and have to add today’s experience with Amisom, an editor I have not before encountered. I am attempting to rescue a section of Card counting which Amisom has deleted three times. I made it clear in the edit comments and in discussion with them that I am continuing my attempts to salvage the section. The editor is Wikilawyering on my Talk and the article’s talk while I’m trying to work on the article. Although I have reduced unsourced text substantially, added refs to the article, and am researching further refs, the editor has just deleted my work. This is not helpful. O3000 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I deleted it because it was unsourced and quite contentious (accusing casinos of systematically “harassing” their customers is a biggie to throw in without a reference). You restored it in direct violation of WP:BURDEN which says that unsourced material should only be restored WITH sources, not before. Come on. Don’t break an explicit policy and then accuse the other guy of wikilawyering. Amisom (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first mention you've made of the section being contentious. If you’d like me to add all the lawsuits casinos have lost for harassing players, I will. (Actually, there is already a ref in the article.) But, you are making it difficult to work on the article. Particularly since I need to move text between sections. I didn’t write the section in the first place. But, it is worth salvaging. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not pettifog. O3000 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged the section to request help. Amisom doesn't appear interested in improvement. Only disruption of efforts at improvement. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilawyering-look-over-there-desperation - @Amisom: read WP:REDACTED allows "add links". ([105] = adding titles to links, and links, [106] = ditto, didn't bother checking more) . I will not respond to this nonsense again. Widefox; talk 10:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Great news Amisom (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Great news that I've done nothing wrong, yes. (still, accusations against you by two editors here, and 20-30 on your talk wait for an answer). Widefox; talk 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I thought you weren’t going to respond to “this nonsense” (your words) (that you initiated) again? As it happens, the only uninvolved admin who’s not just bitter about a content dispute didn’t find any problem. Does that tell you anything? Amisom (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (WP:DNFTT). Widefox; talk 09:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Passive aggressive) Amisom (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of important statistics from reliable references

    The editor RatatoskJones is attempting to systematically remove a vast amount of valid reliable references about the situation in Sweden simply because he personally disagrees with the statistics. I would appreciate if you would tell him to stop doing so, to rather try to find compromise solutions by helping to improve the text flow and structure quality of the pages in question, which are areas that I admittedly have problems with.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RatatoskJones David A (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, I am fine with pruning references one-by-one, if valid reasons are added for each of them, but he opted to remove absolutely everything, with inaccurate sweeping generalisations. David A (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still the problem of WP:SYNTH by combining sources, even if each of them are correct when taken separately. You have asked about some of the sources and their use and basically told the same. See [108]. Sjö (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    David A has been POV-pushing for a while now, and was warned by EvergreenFir back in May: [109] [110].
    This has since continued, with David first gathering links in his user space and trying to get others to insert them for him [111] [112] [113][114] [115] [116].
    The links and pretty much all of David's editing is focused on negative info on muslims, immigrants and Sweden, usually a combination of all three [117]] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] among many, many others.
    Now he has taken to simply insert these sources in various articles, asking others to do his work cleaning up after him [123]. The end result was a mess of statistics without context, misleading text, op-eds and blogs used as sources. Per WP:BRD I removed most of them and asked for talk page discussion. Instead, he dragged me here. Considering the editor's paranoia and constant cries of censorship, as well as the issues mentioned by EvergreenFir in the link above, I do think a topic-ban is suitable here [124] [125]. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should I be banned? I have not broken any rules. All that I have done is note down reliable references about important issues, and then had them all sweepingly removed by RatatoskJones and Sjö, without any collaboration, compromise, or individual justifications. This is extremely unfair, and can not be acceptable behaviour by Wikipedia's standards.
    Having problems with writing a coherent communication flow given my autistic limitations, can hardly be considered as a crime. I have found lots of reliable references, and yet absolutely all of them are being removed. David A (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See here for examples: [126] [127] [128] [129]
    "Blogs used as sources" where? Could part of it have been removed? Yes, certainly, but I do not understand how anybody can possibly justify removing absolutely every single reference that I added to the Crime in Sweden page in particular. David A (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as far as I remember, I went here before noticing the talk page discussion. I am exhausted from working 15 hours in a row with both managing my entertainment wiki and editing Wikipedia today, and was shocked about that all of the information that I had spent several months gathering was just sweepingly removed.
    Am I afraid of Islamism? Yes, obviously, but so is 60% of Europe according to the statistical research that I have read. That can hardly be considered as a valid thought crime in itself, as long as I stick to the rules and only add relevant statistics from reliable sources. David A (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)}When you add references that say a crime went up 1000%, but don't give numbers -- was it 1 last year to 11 this year, or 100 to 1100? -- it's more sensational than useful. When you don't distinguish between occurence of a crime going up and reporting of a crime going up, again, it's more sensational than useful. When enough of your additions have problems like these, it's more effective to remove them and discuss on talk before re-adding. See WP:BRD for an explanation of the long-standing technique. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I see nothing objectionable in RatatoskJones' edits or behaviour, but a whole lot of POV pushing through synthesis and additions of poor sources (and half-truth supported by said sources) in David A's contribution history. As noted above, David A has been previously warned about this, but seems to be doing it still. I would support a topic ban, suitably defined, given the sensitivity of the topic area and the apparent inability to understand the issues here. --bonadea contributions talk 18:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made a serious effort to relay the information word by word exactly as the sources state them, and almost all of the references are reliable major newspapers or official government reports. I have my mental limitations, so my editing is not perfect, but if there is a problem with references they should be discussed one by one and then removed. I should not be banned simply due to having read a lot of disturbing information, and turning very worried due to this. Valid references are valid references. That is all that should matter, not what the references say. Only facts matter, not opinions. David A (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)x3 I indeed have my concerns about David A. I was first alerted to this editor on IRC when a link to User:David_A/Important_Fact_Links was posted, containing various sources that view Muslims in a rather negative light. I wondered when I or someone else was gonna have to give him the note that the grim reaper was soon upon him. Based on these continued problems, I think David A needs to stop touching these topics for a while -- take that subpage to MfD and I support an indefinite topic ban relating to Islamic topics, the current refugee crisis and political and societal issues in Sweden. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So I am going to be silenced simply because I cite valid reliable statistics that some people are uncomfortable with, regardless that they are usually correct? That is downright Orwellian, and definitely not how a reliable encyclopaedia should work. All of this is extremely depressing. All that I wanted is some help to add reliable information. David A (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're going to be silenced because you refuse to listen when many different editors tell you what is wrong with the way you're editing. There's an easy way to avoid this, you know. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a right to feel righteous, but it is 99% of the time, in these circumstances, not going to be helpful for you. If you review and understand what we are saying, admit that you made some past mistakes, agree that you won't touch this area for some time, at least until you can understand what a reliable source is for Wikipedia's purposes, you might be able to save yourself, and not have a black spot of a topic ban be put upon you. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I suppose that I will do so, but I do not really understand this. Why was absolutely all of the information that I found considered unreliable? I wanted to collaborate to find the relevant parts.
    I have almost no mental information filters thanks to my autism. I cannot find any sense of mental personal security due to preconceived ideas. All that I see are the statistics. Raw information, and little else.
    If you mean that I should collaborate more, I am perfectly willing to do so, by discussing what should and should not be included, and asking for help given my mental disabilities.
    Also, I have not been "POV-pushing for a while". As I have repeatedly stated, I work 7-12 hours a day taking care of my entertainment wiki. I haven't had the time to make almost any edits for many months. I finally overexerted myself this week in order to add various references, but beyond that, there has been extremely limited activity on my part. David A (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been "POV-pushing for a while" -- Whatever you say, David. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have barely had any time to make any edits for the past few years. I am busy being a bureaucrat for one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis. All that I have done is make some occasional talk page posts asking for help. David A (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody please explain to me why all of the dozens of sources from major newspapers and government reports were considered as unreliable? David A (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What is wrong with my editing? What should I change? What is allowed to be added and what not among my references? I am extremely exhausted, confused, and disoriented at the moment. David A (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to adjust my behaviour according to Wikipedia's rules, but I do not understand this situation, and need to have it explained to me. My social orientation ability is very limited. David A (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not ignoring you BTW. I am just on my phone, which makes for slightly more difficult editing. I'm sure other editors can fill the gaps, but I did discuss to you about adding the Daily Express as a good source for discussing immigration. I'll back to you with something more detailed when I get back home. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but I have no problem with that. You were clearly an impartial knowledgeable editor who told me concrete logic about the references that you removed. It is the wholesale removal of 50 or so references, without any solid explanations that I had a hard time accepting/understanding. It has taken me years to notice them all, and lots of work to edit them to Wikipedia format. David A (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I am about to fall over from sheer exhaustion, and have to go to bed soon. I suppose that I may wake up to some extremely bad news tomorrow. David A (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, I do want to note that I have always tried to stick to Wikipedia's rules. I simply did not understand why there was anything wrong with adding references from reliable sources, regardless of somebody's personal conclusions or viewpoints. I am not good at all with bureaucratic intricacies. David A (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you start with a predetermined notion and then selectively trawl the internet for sources supporting that notion, you will certainly find a lot of supporting evidence. But that is not the way to write an encyclopaedia, that is the way to create propaganda and fall pray to confirmation bias. You need to follow the Baconian approach: First collect and view the data, then come to a conclusion. Or, on Wikipedia, where we don't do original research, check how experts view and interpret the data. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is what I have done. I used to be a PC leftist until I started to gradually actually read up on the statistics. (Nowadays I am a centrist with extremely mixed viewpoints, as you can see in my userbox list.) I do not claim to always understand the information correctly, especially given my ADD, but as long as the information can be verified to be accurate, I do not understand why it should be removed. David A (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have broken our rules by tendentious editing, David A. Your additions that were removed fell foul of our policy on due and undue weight. The references may have been reliable — some of them were, some were not — but all were arranged into a tendentious pattern. Not everything that's true, and that's even reliably sourced, belongs in every article. From David A's posts above, he seems to have difficulty taking these distinctions on board, and to grasp the difference between "true" and "belongs in an article". I therefore propose a topic ban of David A from Sweden in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or muslims. I'm not sure my phrasing would cover the problem; please feel free to make a different suggestion, especially users who are more familiar with David's editing than I am: pinging @EvergreenFir, Sjö, and RatatoskJones:. Would a broader topic ban from Sweden and all related pages and topics be better? I find the editing quite concerning, so we need to do something IMO. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Topic ban proposal - crime in Sweden

    I propose a topic ban of User:David A from either a) Sweden in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or muslims or b) Sweden. If you agree, please indicate a), b), or other. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Well, I would very much prefer if I was not topic banned. I am genuinely trying my best to only make reliable contributions, but I think in terms of fact or fiction. I have a hard time doing anything else, given the autism.
    I haven't done almost any editing for a long time, and finally overexerted myself to take the time to insert my references this week, but I should probably have been more discriminate than insert all of them wholesale. Nevertheless, I would appreciate if some experienced editors could look through them, and insert the ones that are appropriate.
    I am obviously willing to make required adjustments in my behaviour, but I need easy to understand directives to follow. I do have several mental disabilities after all. David A (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I could simply start talk page discussions about any references and ask for which ones are acceptable before adding them instead? It seems a shame to not allow me to find any reliable sources whatsoever. David A (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, it might be a good idea to edit elsewhere for a bit. It's not the end of the world, and might be fun to be in a milieu in which you're a little less invested. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that you have a point, but given all of the statistics that I have read about the situation in my country, I am extremely stressed out. David A (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be aware of the fact that interested parties do use the selective presentation of such statistics and of misleading extrapolations and interpretations as a tool for political gain. There is no reason to be stressed out about the situation in Sweden. See Dihydrogen monoxide hoax for a display of this technique in a very different setting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I tend to trust statistics far more than I trust opinions. There can still be problems of course, but it is nevertheless more reliable. David A (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I am not fanatic about adding everything. I just want help from more skilled editors to figure out which sources that should be added and which that should not. I would prefer if I am able to at least suggest new sources in talk page discussions. David A (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's very rare for me to disagree with Bishonen, but this time I must do so wholeheartedly. Looking at the recent activities at Sweden, David A added some statistics from perfectly reliable sources, even excellent sources (the official of the Swedish police, most of the major Swedish newspapers). Everything was deleted on sight by Ratatosk Jones who appears to not even have checked it properly (on the discussion page, they incorrectly claim the taxation statistics was sourced to a think tank when it was in fact sourced by a major newspaper and David A's text correctly indicated it was only a claim). Looking at the wider picture, David A's edits seem to conform perfectly well with WP:NPOV. Yes, his edits often give one side of the story, but usually on articles where the either side of the story is already told. Apart from edit warring, which of course it to be frowned upon, I cannot see what David A would have done to merit a topic ban from Sweden. In the recent exchanged with RatatoskJones and Sjö, I find David A to be the one more in line with WP policies. WP is not the place to promote Sweden (or anything else) so if the statistics about crimes that David A has edited are well-sourced (and they are), then what is the problem? Jeppiz (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the support. I have made an extreme effort to find what seemed to be reliable sources for the Crime in Sweden article and othervise, and accurately summarise them as best I could. However, I have to go to bed now, as I have not slept well for several days. David A (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The "major newspaper" source in this case was an op-ed (by a member of the think tank), which I made note of every time I removed it. I read through the whole text, both op-ed and think tank, and I stand by my claim that the sources were used to indicate Sweden had an 86% tax burden, which isn't even what the articles claim. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then remove that alone. There is no valid reason to implicate every single reference in the flaws of that one alone. David A (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I looked into some of the sources collected on his userpage that another editor has brought to MfD. while there is a couple themes to the sources, there is nothing wrong with them. Pew Research for example is quite respectable. I'd like to see some serious justification for other editors excluding this material. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Here is the information that was removed, for reference: [130] [131] [132] [133]
    Not everything is perfect, obviously, but I would prefer if part of it remained at least. David A (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral for now Support short term t-ban but the past behavior and the comments in this discussion give me great pause. I do not think Bishonen's proposal is out of order given the circumstances. This user clearly has a POV (a self-admitted one it seems) and that POV is causing disruption. David A seems to not grasp how their edits have been running afoul of SYNTH/POV. I am not at all convinced David A would stop this behavior on their own without some sanction. But I'm not sure it's t-ban time yet. I am leaning toward either a short-term t-ban (e.g., 1 month) so that David A can demonstrate their commitment to ceasing disruption or perhaps just a formal warning with a clear expectation that a lengthier t-ban would be implemented. On a side comment, David A's self-stated mental health issues is something to consider as an extenuating circumstance. However, plenty of us have mental illnesses or disabilities (whether autism, as David A mentioned above, or others) and have not caused disruption to the point that David A has. So, in sum, I'm still mulling it over... EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Autism is not a mental illness, it is a disability, but I have that, OCD, ADD, paranoia, anxiety, and formerly psychosis, but the last one was several years ago.
    Anyway, yes I have a bias, like everybody else, but mine has almost been entirely caused by reading a lot of statistics. What I really need is some experienced neutral editor(s) to give me feedback regarding what is appropriate to add when I find what I think are reliable references. David A (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected my comments to reflect the distinction re: disability/illness. Thank you for pointing that out. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. David A (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to support after seeing this and the user's continued placing blame on autism, OCD, etc. I have no confidence that the user understands the disruption occurring or accepts responsibility for it. An official sanction would stop the disruption and allow the user to demonstrate commitment to change. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not open this can of worms here - The Bushranger One ping only 02:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Mental illness, neurodevelopmental disorder, same difference. --Tarage (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference. One you are born with, whereas the other can pass. David A (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it that anytime the Wikipedia community gets together to calmly !vote on whether sanctions are warranted against an editor, someone pops up to call it a "witch hunt", or makes some kind of comment about "torches and pitchforks"? There's nothing in this discussion that remotely smells of hunting witches, it all appears to be a rational evaluation of behavior and what response is appropriate to that behavior. Let's put the "witch hunt" and "torches and pitchforks" rhetoric away, shall we, and bring it out for those very rare occasions when it might be appropriate. It's not helpful, and it's insulting to boot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I would be fine with going via talk page discussions first before adding items about this topic in the future. Take note that I have been thoroughly exhausted during my editing here the past 1-2 weeks, as I had to push myself to extremes to get the time for this on top of my regular massive workload. David A (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which suggests you see this topic as some kind of urgent crusade. EEng 03:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS may be relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, this week the results of an official government survey went out, and found that the rape statistics had tripled between 2012 and 2016. It would be strange if I did not get worried about that. David A (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tripled? Really? And all Muslims and immigrants, was it? EEng 04:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that should have been the sex crime statistics overall, but in 2012 it was 0.8% and in 2016 it was 2.4%, as you can read here. Anyway, I have no idea about the exact demographics, as the Swedish government has refused to order another such official crime survey since 2005. The Moderate Party did state that they want one last month though. David A (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, regarding the urgency, I have wanted to make some additions to Wikipedia for 8 months or so, but been far too busy to handle it, but I eventually forced myself to do so anyway, since nobody else seemed willing to help me out. David A (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - per Bishonen. Facts and figuers aren't inherently neutral, it depends on how you use them, and collecting them using predetermined criteria leads to predetermined results, something that David A doesn't -- for whatever reason -- seem capable of comprehending. Given that it's unlikely that's going to change, this sanction is necessary to protect the encyclopedia from his biased editing; perhaps not deliberately biased, but biased nonetheless, because the system he set up to feed his editing is itself inherently biased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It would appear that David A is using some WP:RS material but in an inappropriate manner at this time. I would suggest that a period of mentoring would be a wise solution. Sweden does have issues in terms of it's present far left administrations' attitude to refugees and the governance of certain cities who's hostile attitudes to Jews who wish to publicly show support for Israel is disturbing. Malmo is a particular example. There are also obviously issues with the far right. It would be best in my opinion that David is helped in presenting his acceptable sources according to WP procedures. I think you are overreacting here a touch Bish frankly. Simon. Irondome (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I would greatly appreciate some ongoing mentoring. I have over 11 years of good past behaviour in Wikipedia, but I do not understand bureaucratic conventions at all. David A (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is not that you don't understand our "bureaucratic conventions" (whatever that means, exactly), it's that you don't seem to understand our editing policies, such as WP:NPOV. As stated a number of times in this discussion, if you go looking for statistics to support a predetermines point of view, you're inevitably going to find them, but putting those statistics into articles without giving the fuller picture an unbiased look at the full range of stats would provide is non-neutral editing, and that is not what we're looking for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But I did not have a predetermined point of view regarding this. I have simply read a lot of statistics and regular news reports that point in a certain direction, and since I have limited mental filters and good pattern recognition, my analysis of this situation has shifted accordingly. I do have a problem with sifting information, and gauging where exactly to draw the line though, but I do think that including some of the information is warranted at least. Some of the pages were very onesided in the positive direction before I made some additions, and I did not remove any of that previous information. David A (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Bishonen. Preferably alternative b), but failing that, a). Statistics can be used (and are often being used) to lie and distort the truth, correlation does not imply causation, and confirmation bias is a powerful thing. I do not believe David A fully understands these things, and the discussion makes it clear that there is an element of wanting to right great wrongs here. Wikipedia is not the place for that. --bonadea contributions talk 06:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I am not suggesting that the David A is consciously using statistics to lie or distort the truth, just that it is easy to be taken in by misleading statistics from unscrupulous (or misguided) publications. --bonadea contributions talk 06:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But they are mainly statistics from major newspapers that have traditionally been in favour of massive immigration, and government instititions from a government with the same viewpoint. Why would these be considered as deliberately misleading the public in the other direction? David A (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is neither what I said not what I meant. My concern is your inability to understand how statistics can be used. Part of that is trusting in unreliable sources but another, equally serious part is making your own unsubstantiated interpretations and syntheses of figures from more reliable sources. My second post was just a clarification that I do not believe you are editing maliciously. --bonadea contributions talk 08:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Thank you, and you are correct, I am not. I am just extremely worried and afraid from reading a lot of information. David A (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, alternative a, per Bishonen and Beyond My Ken. I linked to a lot of diffs earlier, and there are plenty more that could be added. It has been a steady stream of POV-pushing and righting great wrongs for the better part of a year now.
    Usually, when one of David's edits is removed, it's called censorship and the paranoia comes out: "You have no right to censor valid information from reliable references, according to Wikipedia policy." [134] "Also, I am admittedly a paranoid sort from being used to that lots of people are either not basing their conclusions or opinions on empirical facts, or outright want to censor them from public view and destroy the lives of anybody who mention statistics and the nature of reality." [135] "the party itself represents an important rational new perspective in Swedish politics. This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to prevent the larger public from getting informed about its existence." [136] "What is the issue here is that you view offhanded casual remarks without any evidence as absolute Truth™, simply because it aligns with your political agenda, not that I do so." [137] "Please avoid censoring any valid information that you ideologically disagree with." [138]
    I think this demonstrates a mindset that is not capable of editing neutrally, as does this: "I (...) spend much of the rest of my free time reading horrifying news about existential threats to human civilisation, and the disintegration of all social institutions in our country (...) However, I feel like I have a moral responsibility to help inform the public about the horrible situation in this country (...) If people remain blissfully unaware, the situation is only going to get considerably worse, and it is likely already far too late to do anything about. As such, I get extremely frustrated and depressed when there seem to be collaborative efforts to sweep all reliable statistics under the carpet. Not just in Wikipedia, but in society as a whole." [139] Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have clinical paranoia, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, this is true, but I still think that this focuses far too much on my worries and concerns as automatic thought crimes, rather than on the quality of my added references. I have made additions to 5 or so pages in the last week, and this is still immediately deemed as tendentious editing, which should merit that I am unable to even find and suggest any references in the future, no matter how reliable. Virtually all of them are statistics from major newspapers or official government institutions, and yet absolutely none of them should somehow be allowed to be featured within Wikipedia. This seems like an extrene overreaction. Take Snooganssnoogans for example. He has edited several hundred different pages in the past 8 months by adding references in favour of mass immigration, and attacking anybody who questions it. Yet, when I spend 1-2 weeks editing 5 pages by adding references that question it, all references should immediately be removed, and I should be banned because of my anxiety. This seems very unfair. David A (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I have been, and am, perfectly willing to collaborate, find compromises, and remove inappropriate references. It is wholesale removal of everything based on a few possible bad examples that I disagree with, and find unfair. David A (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have genuinely done my best to accurately summarise them, but if you disagree, and my reading comorehension is lacking, you should mention what should be corrected in the talk pages, and I am perfectly willing to agree, not attempt to shoot the messenger. David A (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I would much prefer if I could get an experienced mentor who can evaluate what is or isn't acceptable to add, and still be able to contribute to talk discussions, after which what is agreed upon can be added to the pages. I would feel completely crippled if I was unable to even find and suggest valid references. David A (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, or alternatively topic ban for Sjö and Ratatosk Jones from the same topic as well. While I agree with Beyond My Ken above in that the term 'witch hunt' does not contribute to a constructive discussion, I would say this is among the more appalling cases I've seen during more than eight years on Wikipedia. Yes, there are problems with some of David A's edits, as he himself has recognised. At the same time, just yesterday we see Sjö reverting David A no less than five times in nine minutes [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], while Ratatosk Jones reverted David A a full eight times in less than 30 minutes [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152]. After this collective reversal on sight of everything David A tries to add, we now see the two of them here to support a topic ban. I must say I find these two users' behavior just as indicative of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as that of David A, and I see no reason to hand out a topic ban in just one direction in what is clearly a complex situation. Jeppiz (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the support. As I mentioned from the beginning, I did not want to ban RatatoskJones or Sjö. I just wanted some administrator to tell them to stop reverting everything, and instead collaborate. David A (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my edits. Everyone else here seems to understand that too, so I recommend you go back and read the other responses. David did bold edits, I reverted. Next step is discussion, which I initiated on the talk page. That's procedure, WP:BRD. David simply reverted back to his edits and then ran here. You're not really doing him any favors here. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I agree that I was too hasty in going here. I was thoroughly exhausted at the time, so my judgement was in a bad condition. I thought that you and Sjö had decided to constantly revert everything I added, regardless if it was warranted or not, and did not notice the talk page discussion until afterwards. David A (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratatosk Jones, your comments and actions show a continued failure to understand. And it's not "just me"; several users have expressed similar concerns in this discussion and you would do well to read through it. If you really think that it's normal to revert the same user eight times in twenty minutes, then you are very much part of the problem. While David A has at least acknowledged his errors and expressed a willingness to learn, you stubbornly refuse to accept that you have done anything wrong. My very best wishes expresses concerns that your (and Sjö's) actions go against WP:NPOV, and I share that concern. What David A added was well sourced and relevant to the articles. Some of it was badly written and some of it was not very relevant, but your attitude of reverting everything he publishes on sight, over and over again, then trying to get him topic banned, all the while insisting that you've done nothing wrong is very troubling. If this is not WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I don't know what is. Jeppiz (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that I have severe problems with sifting information, to find what is or isn't relevant, would you be willing to take on some sort of mentor role for me, in terms of deciding what is appropriate to include in the profiles? David A (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw: It might be worth noting that Sjö and maybe RatatoskJones seems to be a part of the group of editors from the Swedish Wikipedia who tried to get the page for the Citizens' Coalition party deleted here, after first removing it there: [153] David A (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pointless. Three of the reverts were roughly the same collection of trivia links dumped in three different articles. The rest were the misused taxation source that I've mentioned earlier. I also didn't revert all of David's links and text; the ones I found no fault in I left in. Over and over again? I did not re-revert anything after restoration by David or others with the exception of one occurrence of that taxation thing. Rather I took it to the talk page. I had no intention of starting an edit war, or dragging anyone to WP:ANI. That was David. I laid out the case for a topic ban here, and it's hardly limited to this week's actions. So you're penultimate sentence is pretty much all wrong. But hey, David is now accusing me of being part of some nefarious Swedish Wikipedia group that's here to delete articles, so... improvement? Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And, Jeppiz, what David A added wasn't well sourced. There was sourcing to non-RS sources, and instances where the text didn't support what the sources said. I gave some examples at talk:Sweden. I think that it's surprising that you restored all of David A's edits including the part about taxes that I explicitly called "not supported". If you think blanket removal is bad, so is blanket restoring. Sjö (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Editing history of the page looks to me as typical dispute if country X was "good" or "bad" country. "Proving" that it was good by removing something that RS tell [154] (by Sjo and some others) goes against WP:NPOV and WP:RS. That type editing is actually a clear cut "nationalistic" pattern. Including such content (as David A does) can also be problematic, but it must be fixed by editing, not by outright removal of the sourced content and banning the contributor, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the support. I really appreciate it. I am obviously perfectly fine with selectively removing references. It is just that removing over 30 of them at once and then getting me banned seems very unfair. David A (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The opinion by Softlavender and some others is not unreasonable because you already had a discussion about sources in May [155], and it did not help. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are correct. I did not remember that I received a reprimand. I probably thought that it was just an ordinary discussion point at the time, and am constantly extremely busy with a great amount of different tasks in my entertainment wiki, so I have a major problem remembering everything. The current situation on the other hand feels like I am on trial, so I take it very seriously. David A (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, edit like that (on a page about a country) do qualify as obvious POV-pushing and degrading the content... My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely agree that I shouldn't have done that edit. I worked for 15 hours in a row that day, and did not have any common sense to speak of at the time. I should have asked for help via the talk page instead, as usual. I am very embarrassed about this entire situation. David A (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the help. David A (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @David A: Please stop responding to every "oppose" !vote with "thanks for the support" comments. It's really quite annoying and is on the verge of violating WP:BLUDGEON. This discussion isn't personal, the "supports" aren't "against" you, and the "opposes" aren't necessarily "for" you, each editor has simply looked at the situation and the evidence and decided what they believe the best course of action is. It would be best if you limit your participation to responding to questions or comments which require your input. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I will try to shut up then. David A (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban option a) Sweden in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or Muslims. This editor has openly acknowledged their many personal impediments to NPOV editing in this topic area, and their cumulative contributions to this discussion verify their complete inability to edit neutrally about Muslims and crime in Sweden. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (a). Given the editor's statement at the top of this proposal, I do not think they have the competence to edit effectively and without POV in this area. With the topic ban, the editor can demonstrate they have something to contribute to Wikipedia besides tendentious/POV editing in a contentious topic area. If after a year or so the editor has contributed elsewhere effectively and without incident, and if they have not engaged in tendentious editing elsewhere, and if they finally understand what they were doing wrong in this topic, then they may appeal the ban provisionally, with it to be reinstated if the problematic patterns recur. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral but I have some thoughts - I looked through a number, though not all, of the diffs supplied. I had expected some serious POV pushing when I started reading this. I then found that... well... David A doesn't really know how to interpret what they're looking at and doesn't know how to sort the chaff from the wheat. Hence the appearance of POV pushing. I'll be referencing this lone diff to make my point. So what's the issue in the two edits? well... a) it's not pleasant to read (let's sanitize it eh?), b) it's poorly implemented (facts and figures just scattered about with no rhyme or rhythm - one second it's about guns and grenades and then the next it's about rapes) and c) it's presented with little explanation or justification. E.g. The number of sex crimes in Swedish festivals went up by 1000% in 2016 compared to the previous year. So? its written to sound very scary, except, if it's gone from 1 sex crime to 10 in a whole year (and that will account for a 1000% increase) then it's not particularly interesting let alone severe. What are the raw numbers here? of course, the source doesn't bother to say. Why? well... if it's anything akin to the news story in the U.S. a few months back concerning the 45% increase in young teenaged girls suicides (versus 30% for boys) in recent years, it's because the percentages sound a lot scarier than 2 in 100,000 to 3 in 100,000 (note that it's gone from like 9 to 12 in 100,000 for teenaged boys). Quite a difference when you look at the real thing. I would never recommend using a news source for any kind of statistics. I'd always go to the source material first. The reason for this is that you're quite likely being misled, or left insufficiently informed, by the source you're reading. Statistics can quite easily be manipulated to fit a narrative and that's what David A is buying into by reading and then utilizing these sources without understanding them. This is a problem, one that is sufficient to justify a TBAN, but, one that may be - potentially - rectified without it. David A is clearly engaged in problem editing, but not maliciously or with ill-intent. The edit-warring from the other side is also a concern and I haven't been able to justify a number of the reverts at all - like the ones at Taxation in Sweden and some of the edits at Sweden itself. The edit-warring only exacerbates the problem. So, finally, what to do? Well, David A has actually presented a couple solutions that would satisfactorily resolve the issue; a) use the article talk (additionally restrict yourself to 0RR), and b) get mentoring (this does not mean getting a baby-sitter). If this crops up again, it will need a TBAN to rectify. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated above, he lacks the competence to edit in this area, as he himself admitted at the top of this proposal. It doesn't really matter whether problematical and policy-violating editing is done with malicious intent or not, it just needs to stop. He needs to get his head out of this area and do something else. There is nobody who wants to mentor/babysit him, and the potential damage to the encyclopedia is too great to allow him to continue editing on these topics, even with a 0RR, because, again, no one can babysit him and watch every one of his edits on every single article he may edit. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All of this is extremely depressing, if I am not allowed to even find the most important and reliable references. All that I need is some collaboration from other editors in the talk pages to help me sift what is or isn't relevant. Can I at least make edit requests in the talk pages? David A (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I only have time to edit very few articles, so a mentor wouldn't have very much work to do. David A (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option (a). Per Cullen328; Softlavender. Given the editor's frank disclosures about their current state of mental well-being, they might be better off leaving the articles alone and going for a nice walk, or enjoying a hot chocolate and a good novel: Wikipedia is not therapy, and in instances like this it might be the exact opposite of therapy. If they must find an outlet for their fears about immigrants Islamists, Nazis, Communists, and career criminals and crime, there's always Facebook. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I am not afraid of immigrants. I am afraid of Islamists, Nazis, Communists, and career criminals. I am also afraid of various existential threats to humanity (global warming, artificial intelligence, etcetera). David A (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly amended. Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Formal warning should be given to David A against any further WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I first encountered this issue when I saw RatatoskJones remove the "Taxes" section[156] with the summary "rm unnecessary section" which struck me as odd so I reverted. Then I saw them remove a whole swath[157] of material which at first I thought might be more POV (or whatever) editing on their part until I saw that the content was a staccato hodgepodge of anti-immigrant tidbits that had recently been added by David A. It is possible to violate WP:NPOV (particularly in this case WP:DUE) while still following WP:RS. The material in question is not entirely inappropriate but openly editing with an agenda is. David A should be given an opportunity to rein this in and concentrate on contributing smoothly flowing, balanced paragraphs rather than jumbles of talking points. At the least I think David A should be allowed to continue to use the talk pages to make suggestions because he (I'll assume "he") seems to be contributing factual material. A litany of admitted mental health/disability issues is not an adequate excuse for bad behavior, and must be correctable with reasonable accommodation, which doesn't include allowing tendentious editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to do my best to adjust my behaviour accordingly. It should be noted that I have only edited around 5 articles to insert the list of references that I have assembled over the past 2 years, during the last 1-2 weeks. It isn't like I have made lots of edits over a long period of time in this manner. I would also very much like to still be able to use the talk pages to suggest relevant references. David A (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed "final" from my !vote because it made it sound like there was a longstanding problem, which I'm not aware of. On the other hand I see you are not a new editor, so if warning is the outcome of this it should be an only warning and final in that sense. At this point in your Wiki career you should know how things work. Also part of the perception of the problem may be how you are approaching editing - inserting lists of points rather than constructing paragraphs - and I think that may be affecting what content you decide to include. As I said on the talk page, you need to start with a paragraph that summarizes in words what the major secondary sources have to say about the topic, then look at what additional details might be relevant. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have traditionally not edited frequently, and mostly stuck to editing entertainment articles, as they are easier to understand. However, the main problem is my extremely split attention for the past 3.5 years while building my entertainment wiki. I have simply had a hard time to get the necessary time and attention span to construct proper text segments with a good flow into articles, when constantly simultaneously distracted by at least 10 other tasks that need to be handled concurrently, which, along with my severe lack of time, is the reason why I have almost exclusively been asking for help rather than performed any complicated edits. Hence, I messed up when I finally got stressed out enough to make an attempt. I didn't use to have nearly this much of a problem back when I was able to get the time to relax, calm down, and properly think things through. David A (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't allow people with uncontrolled epileptic seizures to fly commercial airliners, and I don't believe that Wikipedia should allow a person who has "almost no mental information filters thanks to my autism [and] cannot find any sense of mental personal security due to preconceived ideas", who suffers from "clinical paranoia, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder", who is "afraid of Islamists, Nazis, Communists, and career criminals [as well as] various existential threats to humanity (global warming, artificial intelligence, etcetera)" and "spend[s] much of the rest of [their] free time reading horrifying news about existential threats to human civilisation, and the disintegration of all social institutions in our country" anywhere near editing any area of the encyclopedia which deals with controversial issues, because they are quite obviously not equipped to handle them, and cannot possibly muster the objectivity to deal with those issues in an NPOV manner.
    The current topic ban being considered is most probably not broad enough, given David A's self-reported conditions, but it will do for a start, and may encourage him to return to editing entertainment articles -- although I frankly have my doubts as to whether they have the capability to edit Wikipedia in any subject area. About that, we shall see if the sanction is passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if we are going to gauge my crime in all of this, all that I have actually done is add mostly reliable references to very few pages the past 1-2 weeks, in a rather incompetent manner. I would appreciate if I would at least be able to find and suggest relevant references in the talk pages, so others can add them. I have over 11 years of mostly good behaviour before that, and feel like I am on trial and condemned for being extremely overworked and having some mental disabilities that I am making an extreme effort to handle. I mean, I have managed to build a well-functioning entertainment wiki with 644000 individual visitors a month almost from scratch. David A (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Managing a private Wiki is not at all equivalent to gathering data, separating the wheat from the chaff, describing the resulting information, and inserting it into an encyclopedia article in a neutral manner. They simply are not equivalent activities and do not utilize the same capabilities. It's somewhat like thinking that being a success at making real estate deals qualifies you to be President of the United States. 'Tain't the same thing at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I agree about that. I also strongly dislike Trump. I just feel like I am being condemned and put on trial for my disabilities, despite that I have made an extreme effort to generally manage them. David A (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no current proposal that you stop editing Wikipedia. The proposal is to prevent you editing on the subject where you have zero healthy perspective and massive amounts of prejudice, obsession, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Since WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are prohibited on Wikipedia, I do not believe you should edit talk pages either on this subject, as it would simply create talkpage clutter of random unconnected links. If you feel compelled to pursue your obsession, I suggest writing a blog, or start a wiki of your own about it. Softlavender (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not fair at all. Prejudice is hatred out of lack of knowledge, whereas I have simply grown very worried due to reading lots of reliable information regarding certain subjects. You are not going to find any Wikipedian without a bias, whether based on emotions, or in my case information. The difference is just that I am unable to lie about it. Most of the references that I added were reliable, and not original research, and I only edited a few pages in an incompetent manner, which lead to this massive cross-examination and condemnation that is overexerting me even further than previously. WP:SYNTH is likely an issue though, as I have a hard time gauging exactly where to draw the line regarding what is or isn't relevant. David A (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you personally are not able to see that you are unable to edit on this topic in a competent manner is in fact part of the competence issues at hand and why the editing restriction has been proposed. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been very open about my problems, as I almost lack the ability to lie due to limited mental filters. However, instead of understanding that I am genuinely trying my best to find reliable references and have simply been too overworked to be able to structure them in a competent manner, all of my disabilities are systematically used as weapons against me. How is that not prejudiced, when I have over 11 years of mostly good past behaviour, and have managed quite well despite my various problems by making an effort to manage them. David A (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no current proposal that you stop editing Wikipedia. My feeling though is that if you keep responding this way to every single opinion on this thread, the proposal could grow broader in scope. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I suppose that I have to shut up then. I just feel the need to try to defend myself from false accusations. However, I should note that you have also responded to several other people's posts in this thread. David A (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Irondome and Jeppiz, while there may be some conduct issues at play that can be addressed, it is also clear that it's not one sided. It's also clear that David A. is providing reliable sources and it's not some hole in the wall conspiracy sources. This does indeed seem like a push to silence one viewpoint. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem to be a conduct issue to me, it seems to be a very clear competence issue, even as revealed by the editor's own remarks on this thread. It's not the case that a "viewpoint" is being suppressed, it's that severe prejudice, extreme POV obsession, and massive amounts of misleading WP:OR/WP:SYNTH are being removed from the article(s), per WP policy/guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, most of the information has been reliable, and I am deeply offended from repeatedly being called prejudiced simply due to reading lots of reliable information and being afraid of different types of extremist ideologues. That is a perfectly rational concern. David A (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you personally are not able to see that you are unable to edit on this topic in a competent manner is in fact part of the competence issues at hand and why the editing restriction has been proposed. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem wasn't only OR and SYNTH, but also adding unreliable sources and text that wasn't supported by the sources. David A's content wasn't well sourced, like Jeppiz said, and not all the sources were reliable. There were also reliable sources, but some of the additions sourced to them didn't say what the sources said. I think this also points to a competence issue, I can understand if someone misinterprets a machine translation, but not when a Swedish-speaking editor clearly misinterprets a source in Swedish. Sjö (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - oh God, this is overdue. It's been going on for awhile. To be clear, I don't think there's malicious intent here, but there is a complete lack of self awareness, lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and "right great wrongs" attitude which causes enough trouble as is. Volunteer Marek  05:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I lacked self-awareness about my problems, I would not have been nearly as open about them as I am. Still, I am willing to make a serious effort to change my behaviour for the better. I should make an effort to shut up about my concerns and stay professional when visiting Wikipedia for example. David A (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Volunteer Marek did not say that you had a lack of self-awareness about your problems/diagnoses. You do however have a lack of self-awareness about your inability to competently edit on this subject matter. It is not a case or situation where "chang[ing] my behaviour for the better" or "shut[ting] up about my concerns and stay[ing] professional" is going to remedy that. Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do know that I have editing problems, but I am also good at finding valid references that increase the reliability of articles. I do not see the harm in at least allowing me to ask for help in inserting them via the talk pages. Also, I take this situation extremely seriously, so I am willing to do what is required of me to change my behaviour for the better. David A (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a case of "changing your behavior for the better". It is a case of lack of competence in this area, and the time-sink of dealing with masses of non-relevant WP:PRIMARY-source links and information, even on article talk. Your own idiosyncratic obsessions are your own business, but when they intrude onto Wikipedia, even on talk pages, that is severely disruptive and problematical. Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suppose that there is no hope then. I will be condemned and not given a chance to help out no matter what I do. This is all extremely dispiriting and depressing. David A (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not mandatory and Wikipedia is not therapy. You are free to indulge your idiosyncratic obsession on sites of your own devising, or indeed anywhere else, but you should not indulge it on Wikipedia. And once again, for the third time, there is no current proposal that you stop editing Wikipedia, although that may become the case the more you try to frame yourself as a victim and prolong the time-sink of this thread. Softlavender (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. You are correct, and I do agree that I lack sufficient editing competence in my recent stressed out and overworked state of mind. I do think that I could regain it again if circumstances change and I get more free time to relax and calm down though, and I would greatly appreciate if I could keep the ability to ask others for help. David A (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My constant extreme overexertion and severely distracted state of mind has made me behave completely without common sense throughout all of this, and I now greatly regret performing the edits. I can only hope that I do not get a lifelong punishment because of it. David A (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support alternative a). When someone tells us their motivation here is spread the word about what a horrible place Sweden is turning into, based on crime statistics and Muslim demographics, while at the same time telling us he's suffering from paranoia, stress and other problems, then that's not a person whose NPOV-judging abilities are appropriate for this subject material. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If even Zebedee, who I have a previous good impression of, thinks that I should be topic banned, I probably should be, so I give up. I only hope that I will get the chance to appeal for lifting it at some point, if my mental health situation/level of constant stress gets better in the future. David A (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that will become the case, and I wish you the best for your health problems - and I do think it will benefit you to keep away from this subject for a time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a Some of the diffs show David A adding text that might be reasonable in isolation, but the dedication shown to pushing the line favored by David A means a topic ban is required. A dispassionate interest in Sweden or crime would be fine, but having someone add every negative point found in primary sources about a particular topic is not good for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a) Although I made it clear above that I supported a topic ban, I just want to make it clear that I specifically support a)'s terms. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 08:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that seems to be settled then. After all of the explanations, and given that I have had the time to rest and regain some of my common sense, I have now understood that I have engaged in inappropriate and incompetent tendentious editing, and do not know where exactly to draw the line to avoid WP:SYNTH. My considerable worries concerning the issue due to reading a lot of news, lack of competence in writing summaries, and occasional bad understanding of the cited references, has also made me engage in undue weight POV. That said, several of the sources were probably fine in themselves, but the way that I presented them was not. However, as mentioned earlier, I would appreciate if I can still ask more skilled editors for help if I find something that seems very important. David A (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure that would be fine, if you raise the point quietly on some friendly editor's talk page, and follow their lead about what to do. You're to be commended for taking on board the criticisms offered, blunt though it has been. Is there some totally different, non-controversial topic area you're interested in that could take your mind off all this? EEng 06:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I have also recently discovered the {{edit request}} option for talk pages, which seems useful.
    I have traditionally mostly occasionally edited comics and anime, and other entertainment articles, and have also managed to build one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis, so I am constantly very busy taking care of it. David A (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Minneapolis child sex abuse ring

    I've just deleted Minneapolis child sex abuse ring as a possible BLP violation and would appreciate some other input. Per WP:BLPDELETE, there was no version of the article that was clearly BLP compliant.

    Several members of the Somali-American community were charged with sex trafficking in 2010. Three were convicted. I made some copy edits to the article today and found a source that said the convictions had been overturned and the appeal upheld in 2016 (see Talk:Minneapolis child sex abuse ring#Appeal). The article has been contentious because it was created by a new editor and it's a sensitive issue. I therefore decided to err on the side of caution and delete until someone can create an accurate version. I've suggested on talk that it be written in draftspace.

    Pinging TonyBallioni, Drmies, Kablammo, NatGertler, and Chrissymad, who have been dealing with this, and the creator, Jack Coppit. If someone thinks I ought not to have deleted it, please feel free to undelete without consulting me. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that was a good delete. It might be a BLP issue but it met with extensive news coverage and while one person was exonerated, that still doesn't negate the notability of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The "forjustice.org" source discussed here and on the article Talk page refers to a Tennessean case, not a Minnesotan one. Is this correct? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The names of the three convicted in the article are the names on that website, and it says the convictions were overturned. The case was heard in Tennessee. I don't know why it had Minneapolis in the title; several states were involved, I believe. The title was one of the issues of contention on the talk page. I'm not involved in this and have very little knowledge of it, except that I've seen several editors express concern. I'm hoping the others can clarify. SarahSV (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure why you think that merited a deletion. The individuals were convicted and if they were subsequently overturned then a sub catergory for “appeal” would be far more suitable than simply removing the page. It took up a large amount of news coverage and it is certainly notable. The page should be reinstated. Jack Coppit —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to also point at the related BLPN discussion. —PaleoNeonate – 21:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From BLPN, pinging Eggishorn, Cullen328, Tornado chaser, John from Idegon. SarahSV (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, SarahSV, and thanks for finding that site, which links to the decision on appeal. It seems that some people think that the default position is to repeat allegations in the news as fact, rather than to wait until actual facts are established. Your actions here are commendable. Kablammo (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph, all three of the defendants in question were acquitted by the trial court judge after the trial, and that judgment of acquittal was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. United States of America v. Idris Fahra et al. Kablammo (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that the convictions were overturned - then definitely delete. The coverage was always on the immediate events - arrests and trials - so it fell into WP:NOTNEWS. (The article also had problematic racist overtones.) So at this point what we have is an accusation that failed to secure a conviction and no sign of lasting impact. If there was crime involved, tragic though it may be, that tragedy does not confer notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC) (And now having read through that ruling - there's real problems with any claim there was a sex trafficking ring at all. There's no there there. What the article's author tried to portray as a sex ring handling 200 girls turns out to be the highly problematic claims of two Janes Doe. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC) )[reply]
    Kablammo, thanks for finding that document, which explains what seems to have happened. There's nothing here for Wikipedia, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPCRIME. SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you google "mall of america prostitution" you'll see plenty of info about the subject, possibly starting with this 2003 article from Newsweek.[158] It doesn't name any names, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how that 2003 article had anything to do with the supposed ring that was claimed in 2010; this was not a generic article on prostitution in Minneaoplis. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to tell, given the generic nature of the article title. And note that most of the articles are from the last couple of years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    These articles shows more of the reasons why we should be skeptical with these cases:

    and there's much more, for anyone interested. Kablammo (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I saw the rev-delete go by today and looked again at the history of the article, including my own removals--I always thought this was iffy at best, the title being one of the problems. At the time I read all the sources and because they were there and were reliable, I chose not to take it any further, but I did not know there were acquittals or, indeed, that there was so much more (thank you Kablammo). This is a BLP; we should err, if we err, on the side of caution, and I am perfectly happy with the deletion. I hope that the involved editor/s will find other things of interest on Wikipedia than this particular topics.

      Note: that there's so much newspaper interest in such cases is often a problem for us; there is a similar thing in Britain and we have an article on it--that article (also) strikes me as a honey pot for those who see a good opportunity to bash some Others. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted an earlier version of this article as a BLP violation and explained our policies briefly but forcefully to Jack_Coppit in the first minutes of November 13. He removed my message indicating that he had read it. I was aware that another version of the article had been written and it was my understanding that it did not mention people who were not convicted. I have not had time to take a deeper look at that article and the underlying sources and issues, so I am very grateful to Kablammo and SarahSV for investigating and deleting. Well done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A new editor, in complete good faith, started a new article based on wire service news articles. The article stated as facts what were mere allegations-- which were allowed to stand despite objections. The article then was truncated (by me) and then deleted (by Sarah, who found a site, by itself perhaps not authoritative, which said the convictions were reversed, and had a link to the most reliable source of all on that-- the Court of Appeals). We now find that, in the views of the trial and appellate court, that the indictments and convictions may have been procured by false testimony, and defendants spent years in prison for charges that were later dismissed.

    Perhaps there should be a list of "best practices" for the guidance of new editors as well as the rest of us. We should not assert as fact what are only allegations. (The presumption of innocence should apply even on Wikipedia.) Google searches should be done for the names of the defendants. Where a court action has taken place, searches should be done to see if there are later rulings (and often Google searches for defendants' names will produce links those rulings). Kablammo (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kablammo, your last point could be added to WP:BLPCRIME, namely that editors should google defendants' names, particularly when creating an article, to make sure they're aware of all the rulings. SarahSV (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While it would help to search, another big problems is that there's often disproportionate coverage. This isn't so much an issue in extremely high profile examples like this, but with a relatively unknown individual from what I've seen it isn't uncommon there is a flurry of initial coverage, and some coverage of the initial court case and outcome and then very little afterwards even if there is some significant change. I say change here because I think civil cases are often even worse. Countries where court cases are far less routinely available online (i.e. many outside the US) mean we often don't even have primary sources. (Sometimes we have the problem where one party has made the court case documents available. While it's probably unlikely they've modified the documents, it's definitely not the best situation. And of course if there is yet another change they may not add these documents to their collection.) Fortunately many of these just don't belong on wikipedia but sometimes you may have an example where you have something which perhaps seems to have significant enough coverage, and the person just meets the notability requirements and we have an article on them but there are potentially new details on the case we just can't find. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. So, Jack’s article was an egregious defamatory lie of omission. I say “lie” because he clearly knew enough about the case to have known the omitted outcome. Well done all. Jack should be shown the door. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So the author was given a level 4im warning for creating the deleted draft, makes a bunch of POINTy edits to other sex scandal articles, re-creates another article in mainspace that is now deleted and turns out to be cherry picked at best? And there is a debate on what to do? I'd say that clearly an indeff for Jack is called for here. Per NOTHERE and RGW. Are we being hesitant to act because this involves child sex trafficing? To me it appears to be much more about racism. John from Idegon (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are reasons beyond the fact that his article creation has focused on building one about this very selective and ultimately false picture of this. Even given the sources he had, the editor was spinning it as a case of Somali men (and yes, they were mostly from the Somali community in the US) selling 200 (by interpreting number of witnesses rounded up for the case - most of whom were not used in the case - as victims) American girls (actually from the same community as the accused) to Somali clients (no source for that!) in one of the largest such rings in the area (unsourced). This gives me pause about whether the goal was an accurate depiction of events, or whether some certain spin might be involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added this sentence to WP:BLPCRIME: "Before publishing that an individual has been convicted of a crime, editors should take reasonable steps to determine whether the conviction was overturned." I've left "reasonable steps" undefined, but we could add advice in a footnote about what to look for. SarahSV (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I should add to my above comment (wrote many hours ago, just posted) that besides the sources problem, we have the same issue with our contributors namely that everyone gets super excited about it early on, so it's added to the article, then no one cares about it when it's changed (and for the reasons highlighted above they probably don't know anyway) so it's never updated. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of sources

    Jack Coppit altered the Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom article to remove the phrase "at least", with an edit summary intimating that the source was being misquoted. diff I read the source document, found that it wasn't being misquoted and corrected this. diff Jack later removed the key phrase "at least" again. In the edit summary he placed a quote that does not exist in the source document. diff I fixed this, and explained the quotes, using page numbers, here on the talk page and here on Jack's talk page. He reverted again, and in his responses at both talk pages has provided "doctored" quotes from the source document. The document - a pdf - is available here. The quotes are from page 30. Quite clearly, this doctoring of the quote is POINTy and intellectually dishonest. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you indeed look at the PDF, the statement says according to the inquiry that " at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013." it should be noted that the inquiry includes numbers from boys too in this 16 year period. As per 4.16 "Generally, there has been relatively low reporting of sexual exploitation of young males, with the exception of the police operation and a criminal conviction in 2007 of an offender who abused over 80 boys and young men. Over the years, this was identified at inter-agency meetings and in CSE plans as an issue that required attention in Rotherham. That continues to be the case today" and continues with more detail in 4.19.
    Therefore these should not be included in the "grooming gang" statistics as they are not. The estimate is 1400 for a reason and is explained within the report how they got to that figure. If a separate section needs to be added explaining how "At least 1400 children including boys were sexually exploited over the 16 year period" then fine, but it is wrong to mislead, especially as most will think it is at least 1400 "white girls" who have been abused, which is not what the report says. The statement within the scandal regarding grooming gangs should state "estimated" not "at least" in regards to them specifically.Jack Coppit (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you indeed look at the PDF, the statement says according to the inquiry that " at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013." So why did you provide your alternative version and claim that it stated: "that an estimated 1400 children..."? Why did you then screw down the lie further by writing: not once is this "at least" I am therefore undoing your edit? You doctored a quote in an effort to "win" and make another of your ongoing series of POINTy edits. You quite clearly cannot be trusted to add material to articles because you ignore what the sources say, and fabricate your own versions of the sources to back this up, then accuse others of being dishonest when they call you out. All this while claiming to be "an historian"! God help us. Shame on you. Neil S. Walker (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote I used was from memory of reading the PDF and one I have seen used elsewhere on this "encyclopedia" clearly upon re-reading the PDF I was wrong, but upon discovering various other parts such as the boys who were abused it is clear why in the executive summary the "estimate" is stated. I accept in my haste I was wrong to state "no where does it state "at least"" however as just explained the "an estimated 1400" should remain in relation to the grooming gangs specifically. I am not surprised you feel the need to resort to personal attacks given your edit history. Hopefully you can accept that "an estimated" is the term that should be used.Jack Coppit (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom", not the grooming gangs specifically, and the sentence uses "children" not "girls". With regard to I am not surprised you feel the need to resort to personal attacks given your edit history - good luck finding personal attacks in my contributions! Neil S. Walker (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote I used was from memory of reading the PDF So you remembered it exactly word-for-word ... all 168 words, 1057 characters, punctuation, brackets, capitalisation ...except the 2 words in question which you fabricated? Pull the other one - it's got bells on. Neil S. Walker (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The original text was as follows "widespread child exploitation in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England, between 1997 and 2013, estimated to have involved at least 1400 children who were subjected to 'appalling' sexual exploitation by gangs of men, many of Pakistani heritage.[8][9]" This is incorrect as at least 1400 were not subjected to abuse by gangs of men of mainly Pakistani heritage, an estimated 1400 were. At least 1400 children were abused over the 16 year period in total, including boys, and children abused by family members. Therefore you can either choose to edit it to state "at least 1400 children were abused in a 16 year period in the town" then that would be fine, but to state that at least 1400 were abused by men of Pakistani origin, would be misleading and dishonest.
    In regards to your contribution history you are very aggressive and many of your contributions and responses display this, especially the one in reply to myself.Jack Coppit (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Therefore you can either choose to edit it to state... Stop framing this as a content dispute. My complaint is that you fabricated sections of direct quotations from the source, initially denied that you had done so, and brazenly insisted the words "at least" did not appear in the source. How can you be trusted to add material and how can you be trusted in any content dispute when you have demonstrated that you are willing to fabricate quotations to support your position? This was a content dispute: that's why I started a discussion on the talk page. You responded by adding a falsified quote in which you omitted the actual words used and substituted your own version. That is the moment it ceased to be a content dispute and became a conduct issue. Neil S. Walker (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already accepted the quote from memory and the exact same one I have already seen posted on this "encyclopedia" is one I have falsely parroted. I wrongly believed the quote to not have the words "at least" in them. As I have explained however this is indeed a content dispute, not a conduct one. If anyone's conduct should be noted it is of your own who has resorted to personal attacks and who is extremely aggressive in your tone. I have accepted fault for the initial transgression and subsequently explained how my suggestion is still the correct one. Even the report itself is of ALL child sexual abuse in Rotherham, not of specific gangs, this adds to the credibility of my suggestion.
    As I said, if anyone's conduct should be noted, it is yours. Personal attacks, and an aggressive tone do not reflect well for you.Jack Coppit (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the report itself is of ALL child sexual abuse in Rotherham /sigh. The report specifically states that it relates to the "sexual exploitation of children", not "ALL sexual abuse", i.e. it concerns children who are groomed with "food, accommodation, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, affection, gifts, money" in return for "performing, and/or others performing on them, sexual activities." Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Highlighting where you changed the words in a quote to support your edit warring is not a PA. Given the apparent intellectual dishonesty outlined in the section above (which attracted comments such as
    • Wow. So, Jack’s article was an egregious defamatory lie of omission.
    • So the author was given a level 4im warning for creating the deleted draft, makes a bunch of POINTy edits to other sex scandal articles, re-creates another article in mainspace that is now deleted and turns out to be cherry picked at best? And there is a debate on what to do?
    • Even given the sources he had, the editor was spinning it as a case of Somali men (and yes, they were mostly from the Somali community in the US) selling 200 (by interpreting number of witnesses rounded up for the case - most of whom were not used in the case - as victims) American girls (actually from the same community as the accused) to Somali clients (no source for that!) in one of the largest such rings in the area (unsourced). This gives me pause about whether the goal was an accurate depiction of events, or whether some certain spin might be involved)
    suggests that this pattern of conduct is far from an isolated instance. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, as in ALL children, not just the girls affected by the gangs. This is quite obvious as there is a section about gender and about the many boys affected too. Again, I have already accepted my first article is poor. This however is literally about using “estimated” instead of “at least” about something that is obviously correct to use estimated considering it’s only “at least” when you include ALL children as I said. Jack Coppit (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions for Jack Coppit

    Mr Coppit:

    When you wrote the article on the alleged "Minneapolis child sex abuse ring" a few months ago, were you aware that:
    • the May 2012 convictions of three of the defendants in 2012 had been vacated by the trial court after trial five years ago?
    • the case was appealed by the government to the 6th US Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court actions in March 2016?

    If not, why not? Did you check for later history on the 2012 convictions? Did you Google the names of the defendants?

    And why did you find it necessary to state the religion of the defendants in your article?

    Your article reported as fact what were only allegations made before trial. Why did you not note that? And why did you not correct that when it was challenged?

    Did you believe then, and do you believe now, that your draft and your article complied with WP:BLP?

    Kablammo (talk) Kablammo (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello Kablammo, I genuinely had no idea, I had seen it related in a forum online and immediately looked to Wikipedia for confirmation, after some googling I found many sources from the FBI to the BBC to the NYTimes regarding this, after finding no article I thought ah, I shall make it myself.

    I admit for a first article it was poor and I should have done far better. I even went as far as to get a photo of said defendants and tried to place that within said article, this was obviously wrong.

    I believed at first it was sourced correctly and I stood by this, this was an error of judgement by myself, I trusted the BBC and NYTimes as well reputable and I possibly should not have done.

    Jack Coppit (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Chas. Caltrop still making edits that other editors have to revert or clean up.

    So I recently tried to bring attention to the long term edit history and behavioural issues (WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG and WP:CONSENSUS) around one Chas. Caltrop (talk). In the ensuing discussion 3 other editors came forwards unprompted with complaints about this user. No admins commented on the situation, and no administrative actions were taken (nerry a warning).

    I'd just like to point out that Chas is still making edits that are regularly reverted (Diff 1, Diff 2) by editors who have tried to communicate with Chas - but been met with insult and derision ( talk:Chas._Caltrop#Weasel_Words, talk:Chas._Caltrop#Sentences) (there you'll find separate editors who have not yet commented on these discussions). This course is not the first time someone has tried to highlight this user's behaviour.

    Am I to understand that those who pass themselves off as Copy Editors are above the requirements of politeness for Wikipedians - even though their edits generally have to be reverted, cleaned up by others, or are unconstructive/tendentious/damaging to Wikipedia as a whole? Perhaps I'll do some sloppy, politically biased copy editing of my own. I'll make sure all my edit summaries read "CE, completed sentence"; as it seems to provide impunity as an editor regardless of how poorly the end result is. If the goal of administration is to ensure Wikipedia is kept to a high standard, then every now and then difficult to interpret, borderline cases such as this will occur; but they do still need to be actionable (for the sake of the community, and for other editors to feel they've been heard). I understand that this is not a particularly thankful task, and that the violations aren't a particularly obvious breaking of the rules - but it is an ongoing issue and it is damaging (at the very least time wasting)... and the more it is ongoing, the more damage is manifest. Does anyone want to try to bring some deft sanity to these discussions? To at least make this feel like a community, rather than a bunch of peasants yelling at an ivory tower. --Jobrot (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: The key to success on ANI is to make the clearest of points, as thoroughly as is necessary, with the least amount of words, including a fully adequate number of WP:DIFFs with brief explanations. You failed to do that the first time, and you've failed even worse now. No one wants to read your whining and sarcasm, and no one wants to take the trouble to figure out what you are talking about, especially when you've presented so very little evidence. What you need to do is immediately and clearly make your case and then stop typing. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SO help me do that! Meanwhile Chas continues to make WP:TEND edits that require reversion: [Diff 3] They are WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. This user is doing this accross multiple pages (which I've linked to the edit histories of, and now made two AN/I posts about - and other users have also made complaints and had similar experiences with this user). --Jobrot (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    removal of notable events by Rlbarton

    Rlbarton has removed many events from days of the year with no valid explanation. A trend I have noticed is removal of religious-related events. See diff, diff, diff, diff.

    See most of notes on their talk page, none of which have been responded to. Especially this thread.

    I do note that they have made positive contributions, such as this, but it bothers me that they have been removing so many entries without better explanation/messages on talk pages, or response on their own talk page.

    I would appreciate any advice, and direction toward policy, etc., if I am overreacting to this editor's behavior. = paul2520 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure this rises to the level of vandalism, but some of the edits look questionable. On the other hand I think a plausible argument could be made that Pope Francis' first trip to Kenya does not rate a mention on the OTD lists. In any event persistently refusing to explain or discuss potentially controversial edits is certainly discourteous, at the least. I think Rlbarton needs to respond to the concerns raised here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Rlbarton. I am trying to give you the benefit of a doubt here, but you really need to offer some kind of explanation. Otherwise your edits might be subject to reversion and future similar editing could be seen as disruptive. Thank you in advance for your reply. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul2520: Even though I've encountered people like this a number of times, it never ceases to shock. How can someone edit this site thousands of times and never discuss anything?
    Rlbarton has been here since September 2007, has just over 4,800 edits, and has edited user talk pages FIVE TIMES. The most recent instance? Emptying their own talk (without archiving) in April 2013. Up until that point, their talk page looked pretty much the same as it does now: section after section of editors, annoyed that this person removed their additions to days of the year articles, requesting explanations that never come. Their only other edit to their own talk came over eight years ago. Our articles on days of the years are far too sensitive to be patrolled by someone this inconsiderate. @Ad Orientem: if you're not too involved, could you consider an indef with a clear promise to unblock once Rlbarton promises to discuss things? CityOfSilver 20:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @CityOfSilver - paul2520... With the obvious exception of trolls and NOTHERE situations I am not a fan of blocking w/o warning. That said, and given that Rlbarton has still not responded, I am strongly inclined to say that any edits they made that are questionable can just be reverted at this point. And I will post a warning on their talk page. If this continues it will be treated as disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem and CityOfSilver: That sounds entirely reasonable. I wouldn't want someone to unexpectedly log in to find themselves blocked. Yes, another warning sounds good. Hopefully they will respond. = paul2520 (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted a strongly worded warning on their talk page. As far as I am concerned any edit they made up to the present time that you think is hinky you have a green light to revert it. If they start up with this again let me know or come back to ANI and be sure to reference this discussion and my talk page warning. This is going to stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: Thank you. And curious - what does YVR mean? I'm only finding the Vancouver International Airport. = paul2520 (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    YVR= Yours very respectfully. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: I have no issues with this response. I'll keep an eye on this person. Thank you. CityOfSilver 16:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Church of God of Prophecy

    Blocked so the next time they turn up they get the message that they need to stop having a failure to communicate. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would someone mind resolving a very slow edit war at Church of God of Prophecy? User:Im4god persistently replaces "The COGOP is a Pentecostal Holiness Christian denomination" with "...Christian non-denomination" and removes the founder's name and date of foundation from the infobox, and past edits have also involved problems such as deleting Category:Pentecostal denominations in North America and adding unparseable stuff like "The Church does agrees an individual be a Christian (born again) without being a member of the Church." Here are the last fifteen items from Special:Contributions/Im4god:

    I'm one of two users who's left warnings on the user's talk page, but he clearly isn't getting it. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the last one for 24h, because they only revert and do not discuss anything. If they continue, they must be blocked for longer terms and eventually indef. However, generally I do not see many options here: Many reverters are autoconfirmed, and full protecting the page indefinitely does not seem reasonable at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One vandalistic edit in the last 11 months? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean the editor I blocked their last edits are all reverts, and they have been warned previously. They are clearly a single-purpose account, and they are apparently not interested in discussing their edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the editor Im4god, who has 1 edit in 11 months, that one being about 6 weeks ago. If it were me in your shoes, I would indef, since it might be another 11 months before he edits again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered this option, but we can always indef them, it is never late to indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint was about an edit made six weeks ago, which was the only edit by the user in the last 11 months. So a 24 hour block is meaningless. But as you say, if he strikes again, he can be dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Im4god is just misguided. He kept insisting on re-doing certain edits that were then undone by multiple other users (such as turning "denomination" into "non-denomination" in the intro). CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Brendar 1214

    Brendar 1214 (talk · contribs)

    I don't understand why this user wasn't blocked after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brendar 1214, now they have re-created the article for whose AfD they created the sock. Fifteen AfC attempts, votestacking, more AfD disruption, and disruptive re-creation is more than enough rope. Icing on the cake is refusal to answer this legitimate question about motive. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a week. Let me know if the disruption continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point I'd say that train of thought has derailed. EEng 15:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brendar submitted the same article fifteen times before its official deletion, and recreated another immediately after that was deleted. She was combative during the LaReece AfD discussion process, including removing content and socking. While I believe in second chances, it's clear her ship has sailed. Her edit history shows that she is here only to promote certain musicians rather than contribute to the encyclopedia. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Series of unnecessary and superfluous warnings from Mahveotm

    Please note that it is not up to other editors to find sources for your additions/changes/re-additions, it is up to every editor to add them with their additions/changes/re-additions. As stated at WP:BURDEN "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (my bold) - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this went sideways fast, and in an interesting way. Again, it wasn't difficult to reword the sentence to the uncontested claim that the two personalities are brothers. I've tried that tack. The above note that I'm heading for 'an almost certain block for edit warring' is also interesting to me. To restate the obvious, I originally attempted to restore what appeared to be an uncontroversial claim that was removed without explanation. What's followed has been a cascade of warnings, including the most recent from a new IP. Sorry to ping you, but Drmies, your input would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the latest IP was a well-known LTA who is now blocked and their edits reverted per WP:DENY  :) so that's a slight reduction in sidewaysness. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 18:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and Bbb23. I confess I'm not sure what's going on there. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is true that it is the responsibility of the editor who adds the information to also add the sources, in the specific case where the information concerns a person with an existing Wikipedia article, it only takes a few clicks to verify the information through the sources in that article (the brother had a starring role in at least two Tamil movies, both of which received lacklustre reviews which are used as references in the articles, and which mention him by name.) Yes, the OP should have done that, but issuing several warnings to them without taking a moment to check, when there is such an easy way to do that, is perhaps a little silly, I think. --bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting whithout discussion at PFC Cherno More Varna

    There is a longstanding content dispute at PFC Cherno More Varna. I tried to start a discussion on the article's talk page on 10 August, inviting Rebelheartous immediately. I asked him again to discuss the matter one month later, on 10 September. On 3 October, I left a talkback on his user talk page. When I hadn't heard from him in two weeks, I left another talkback. When he still had not responded in 10 days, I edited the article and he reverted me again, still without discussing. The guidelines say that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing? Yavorescu (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JohnMclean

    The first edit of this user was to add a 3k draft of an article, complete with infobox and photo into their userpage. They also placed it in Draft:Kelvin Roy and at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (from where it was promptly deleted). This was all back on 10/29. Then today, they put this article into Kelvin Roy - overwriting the existing article of a different person of the same name. They also made edits to several existing articles of just adding a single space (perhaps to build enough edits to be autocomfirmed?) This all seems rather suspicious. MB 00:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is all up in the air, then the user is WP:NOTHERE. It cannot duplicate any sort of description to another page or article. I would recommend to delete and revert all edits of the duplicates as a further precaution. Slasher405 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At first glance, the person they're trying to write about appears to be notable enough to warrant inclusion. Perhaps they are just having trouble with where to locate the draft? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps they are just a confused newbie. But their draft came from somewhere - maybe they have more experience IP editing and just enough knowledge to be trying avoid using AFC/NPP.MB 14:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Laury, persistent reversion of a sensible redirect

    Article reverted to status quo anti editwarllum, protected, IP blocked and has gone quiet. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Steve Laury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    I can't revert to redirect again without edit warring, but this is a long term problem, with the subject already blocked and presumably using a farm of meat or sock puppets to reclaim a vanity bio. I've requested page protection and a block of the most recent IP, but this really merits something more, I suspect. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Go ahead and revert. It looks blatantly promotional, and you should be fine reverting. Blatant vandalism is an exception to the three revert rule. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    • Thanks, but he's going to keep at it all night, and one has other things to do, like sleep. But he also has articles here for his solo albums, several of which make claims to notability, so I'm wondering if an individual entry isn't merited. That said, it can't be the spamicle that he's determined to own. So there look to be a few issues here, the first of which is blocking the COI accounts. Then the bio can be assessed on its merits. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Page has been semi-protected by TonyBallioni and reverted to the "last good" version by your truly. Primefac (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now Mr. Laury's using the article talk page to post the promotional version. Again. So we need protection there, too. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's odd that 66.66.156.187 (talk · contribs) isn't blocked yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message for Laury on the article's talk page. I have my doubts about whether this guitarist is truly notable, but am certain that the overtly promotional content is not acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Someone might want to take a look at these - racist death threats, etc.

    User was clearly WP:NOTHERE, and, accordingly, is now not here. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [163]

    "If I were you, I'd be worrying about another Holocaust occuring, not engaging in edit wars on Wikipedia" "You might want to consider that next time you disrespect whites"

    When asked to clarify responded with:

    "You might want to avoid offending whites as you have done so at white pride and other anti-white pages on Wikipedia. We have a violent history."

    Just indef already. Volunteer Marek  07:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption, abuse, and NOTHERE with Avochelm

    After years of inactivity, Avochelm has coffee back recently. Their first acts we're to level articles with categories about Jewish heritage (though much of this looked like original research). Today, the user decided to pick up the "why is white pride different from black pride?" torch ([164], [165], [166], [167]). This includes blanking the article and trying to PROD it five times ([168], [169], [170], [171], [172]) as well as some abusive language and comments and veiled threats of violence ([173], [174], [175], [176]) EvergreenFir (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe he should switch to decaf. EEng 07:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See section above. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 07:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not advocate violence, my genderqueer friend. Avochelm (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above says it all. NOT HERE. Meters (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From EvergreenFir's user page: "This user identifies as genderqueer." Avochelm (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked this editor for their barely veiled threats of racist violence. Add in their anti-Semitism and gay bashing, and it is clear that this person is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    AlexTheWhovian

    And there you have it. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 16:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    he continuously threatens me and undoes my work, I want him blocked so he cant undo my work!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 06pookchr (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    solved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Stolenunderground

    (non-admin closure) Blocked. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user added a bunch of unsourced material to Matt DeCanio, which I reverted[177]. Now he has left a combative and uncivil message on my talk page in which he claims to be Matt DeCanio[178]. I belive this message indicates an incapability to work with others and could be interpreted as a death threat. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hard-blocked for username violation. There's certainly a case for WP:NPA and WP:GREATWRONGS too. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rangeblock request

    Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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

    Hi. Please can someone do a rangeblock on the 117.228 range at the top of this list? They pop up almost daily to add unsourced content into articles, jumping from IP address to IP address. 117.228.21.49 was blocked this morning for this, but they've returned this evening at 117.228.32.38, doing the same thing. I'm convinced they are the same user from the 49.34 range on that page, which was previously rangeblocked in October. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Done I'm usually very reluctant to block big ranges, but there's hardly been a single edit that isn't from this vandal for a month (and those that weren't about cricket weren't that useful). 117.228.0.0/16 blocked for a month. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Black Kite. I didn't know how big the range is/was, so hopefully there's no collateral damage. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Preeze36 is creating a nightmare with improper page moves and creations

    Preeze36 has been engaged in trying to write an article about himself (see Preeze 36). In the process, he has also performed a slew of problematic page moves, including Preeze 36 → Mrecords ([179]), User talk:Preeze36 → User talk:Mrecords ([180]), User:Preeze36 → Wikipedia talk:Preeze36 ([181]) and then Wikipedia talk:Preeze36 → Wikipedia talk:Mrecords ([182]). This doen't even count the problems of COI editing and AFD interference. I recommend a brief (31 hour) block of this user to draw their attention to the unheeded warnings on their user talk page, and to prevent further page move vandalism. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Either WP:VANDALISMONLY or WP:NOTHERE. Would recommend a longer block than 31 hours. Maybe indefinite. Slasher405 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice an earlier account, Wildjuss28, with significant overlap; I suspect this is a new user getting very confused, so I've left a message on their talk page suggesting as much. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No further activity from the user since this thread was started, so perhaps they finally got the message. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Beneyal

    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can someone place a (temporary) block on this Beneyal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user. They seem to be continuing to ignore messages to stop creating articles about numbers from various editors. Sakura CarteletTalk 18:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Sbmeirow: Ruinous edit followed by gross insult

    Nobody except Codename Lisa themselves seems to find this report or its suggestion for sanctions warranted. The editor being reported was reacting to a provocative comment from CL ("Let's see if you can see your own mistake this time"). Bishonen | talk 07:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

    Hello

    Today (or depending on where you are, yesterday), Sbmeirow added revision 811213235 to Comodo Internet Security. It is totally a good faith edit, no doubt about it. But it is a wrong one: The infobox already displays this information along with a source; the good faith edit lacks one. (More information on this feature can be found in the infobox documentation.) Hence, I made a reversion.

    Since Sbmeirow is an editor with 7 years of career, 65,122 edits and the rollbacker right, I decided to send him a trout, a standard and popular way of reminding an editor that he or she has made a mistake.

    His response was explosive: He called me "asshole" and complemented it with "Fix it or STFU" (I had done already) and later "Best regards to your scumbag comment". Worst, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comodo_Internet_Security&diff=next&oldid=811216035 he responded with a counter-revert].

    One thing is clear: All avenues of discussions are now closed. Sbmeirow does not even want to listen to me, let alone hear that I am saying he has done something wrong. I propose Sbmeirow to be banned from making a similar edit to this article and his rollbacker right be taken away. Clearly this person neither has the temperament nor competence for the privilege.

    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You say yourself that it's not a ruinous edit, just a duplicative one. Pointing out that the infobox was pulling from another template would have been a bit more useful than having a trout be the first response. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I forgot to add that the infobox already has a source too. The good faith edit is ruinous because it removes the source. –Codename Lisa (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)The trout was honestly a bit much. A simple "hey I reverted your edit, just FYI here's why" would have gone over a lot better. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. For newcomer, yes. For an old timer, it is the standard method. It has proven extremely popular in the past. –Codename Lisa (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be your standard method. It is not mine, nor do I often see it, though I am no arbiter of popularity. I'd say both parties could stand to be a bit more respectful, and leave it at that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Dumuzid
    I am not saying my message could not be improved; in fact, I am a proponent of the view that without problem, there is no progress either. However, when I was a newcomer, I worked on an FA with two of Wikipedia's most tricky editors: Malleus Fatuorum and FleetCommand. I never responded with profanity, even though Malleus Fatuorum reverted me a dozen times. A WikiDragon like Sbmeirow must definitely know better.
    But let's see what he has to say for himself and let's see if the problem of deteriorating editing stops.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) On one hand, The Trout contains language similar to "don't take this too seriously", and responding to it with a series of attacks and explosive epithets seems a bit beyond the pale. On the other hand, Codename Lisa didn't attempt to explain what the not-at-all-obvious mistake was prior to reverting twice, suggesting Sbmeirow should try to figure out the justification for the reverts themselves, then starting this thread which contains the only explanation that I can see for having reverted in the first place. If anyone should earn a trout here it's Codename Lisa: telling someone "let's see if you can see your own mistake" is kind of insulting. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (after ec) Rob has it exactly right here. Saying "hey I reverted your edit, here's why" is a proper course of action, even if you had included a Trout. Saying "hey I reverted your edit, try and figure out for yourself what you did wrong" is belittling and doesn't help anyone. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Rick, not Rob. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah, now I'm going to get a trout. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    {{minnow}} - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with what others have said. The problem is not the trout, it's the downright rude comment that you sent along with it. I wouldn't react Sbmeirow as did, but it's well within the expected range of reactions to such a comment. Perhaps the level of rudeness in the message wasn't intentional, but it is there, and this report is an overreaction. Cjhard (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that the response had nothing to do with the serving of seafood, but with the comment that was attached to it - which I have to say I find slightly interestingly was not diffed originally: [183]. Yes, it was still a bad reaction, but given the "old timer" reasoning, the baiting (for that is what it was, intentional or not) was also entirely unnecessary. Suggest this be closed with mutual fresh servings of trout and a reminder of WP:CIVIL on both sides before antipodean hunting devices come spinning into view. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a feeling that the main problem is being overlooked here. Sure, we editors sometimes leave suboptimal comments; e.g. wrong tone, wrong focus, wrong for the target audience. But we assume good faith and try not to read too much into it. But there are distinct red lines that a mature editor with 65,122 edits and 7 years of career length must not cross, in one single post:
    1. Use of seven filthy words
    2. Displaying contempt
    3. Disregard for the subject of discussion, and commenting on the contributor at the same time
    4. Reverting another person's edit out of contempt, especially in presence of a message that says there is problems with it (most important here)
    In fact, our expectations from a mature editor is much higher: If an immature attacker goes to a mature editor's talk page, chastises him/her for, e.g. contribution to a Microsoft-related article (because Microsoft is "the personification of evil"), use profanity and threaten that mature editor with death by fire (purification) should he/she continue the "evil" conduct, we expect the mature editor to maintain high standards of civility against this person. But there is one red line this mature editor must not cross: He/she must not chase the said attacker reverting their action out of contempt.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to diminish any of that, but it doesn't change the fact that your original bear-poking comment was also over the line. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, now. That was super-exaggeration! While I will definitely take Ivanvector's advice in the future, my user talk page message was definitely not as bad as examples listed under Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear § Examples of poking. It was a good-faith message. Sbmeirow's action is far more closer to those.
    In addition, I have had no significant prior encounter with Sbmeirow to indicate that he is a bear. But if you do know for a fact that he is a bear (i.e. a repeat offender), then perhaps my presence in this forum is far more justified than I initially thought.
    —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from an uninvolved editor (and probably an "old timer", considering how long I've been around): At the very least, this looks like an example of jumping into ANI a bit early. Codename Lisa left an unhelpful message on Sbmeirow's page - one which I would have at least responded to with a pointed request to be more specific, had it been me she'd communicated in that way with - and Sbmeirow responded in an uncivil way, both in terms of words and subsequent actions. There's a considerable gulf, surely, between that sort of exchange and running straight to ANI as has happened here, unless this isn't the "last resort" I've always understood it to be. At the very least, this sounds like the sort of complaint I'd make when I was younger and had been poking my tongue out at my siblings in the back seat of the car and got a rude gesture or a punch in the shoulder for my troubles - "It takes two to tango", as my parents would remind us both. Yes, Lisa's original message was meant in good faith and good humour, but different users have different senses of humour, and perhaps that's also the lesson from all of this. Either that or the fact that dances involving fish rarely end well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's perhaps the most useful and helpful message in this whole thread. I can certainly understand coming here a bit early. Next time, I can make another attempt in communication before coming here and let him do another reversion. (However, for the record, in my experience, it is futile. A person who performs the first revert will also perform the second.)
    There is another matter too: In the past, when I have gone the length of explaining the actual problem, people have accused me of being condescending. They have explained that they are intelligent, sane editors and me going the length of telling them what is wrong is actually insulting their intelligence. I was trying not to insult anyone's intelligence and I ended up doing exactly that.
    So, here is what I am going to do: From this point on, I am going to write a humorless, troutless, professional, no-nonsense message and not feel guilty for insulting anyone's intelligence.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action needed: Yes, it was fine to point the mistake out to Sbmeirow. Even trouting was probably okay, even if I wouldn't have thought it significant enough to merit it. It's the jab in the ribs in the message itself that, in my view, excuses Sbmeirow's snap at Codename Lisa. The comment was flat out rude. I'd be grateful if ... you actually looked at what you edit. Let's see if you can see your own mistake this time. The latter half comes off as especially pedantic, almost like a teacher telling off a student. I'm going to assume that Codename Lisa intended her comments to be a bit of friendly, albeit snarky, banter rather than joyfully and maliciously rubbing Sbmeirow's nose in his mistake. Unfortunately, I've found in life that, even in face-to-face interaction, snarky banter usually winds up getting misunderstood as insulting. With written communications, especially on the internet, that problem is magnified substantially. I don't intend to get pedantic myself, but I think we might all take this as a teachable moment rather than a reason to call for sanctions on anybody.
      Note that I say the jabs excuse the snapping; I don't think the snapping is justified. Sbmeirow should have responded differently, to say the least. A deep breath before responding, or even ignoring the comment entirely, would have probably led to a better outcome. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please block User:Pro Reality, Pro Science, Pro Traditional Values, Anti Postmodern, Anti Libtard per their contributions.

    That's all folks. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Pro Reality, Pro Science, Pro Traditional Values, Anti Postmodern, Anti Libtard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thanks.- MrX 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Eyes on Charlie Rose (TV series)

    SPP applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Show has been suspended due to Rose's alleged sexual harassment issues, but we're getting IP's who don't understand 'suspended' doesn't equal 'cancelled' and are filling that in the infobox, along with the cancellation categories. Until we get confirmation (I'm sure it won't take long to do so), we can't have it in there, so if we could get semi-protect on there. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    He's been suspended from CBS, and PBS has suspended distribution of his interview show. Nothing's been cancelled. Yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're done here. [184],[185] 129.9.75.193 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a couple of days so the status isn't repeatedly changed without good referencing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WikiJonathanpeter

    Andrew McIntosh is a marginally notable engineer whose main claim to fame is that he's one of the vanishingly few British creationists. He attracted some criticism for appearing in junk conferences produced by the bogus Wessex Institute of Technology, which has a predatory open access publishing arm called WITH Press.

    I removed some predatory journals from this article two days ago. Up pops WikiJonathanpeter, who has not edited since March, to revert. I reverted, and in comes Ipadmasterman, with his grand total of four previous edits, all back in July, to revert again. I smell socks. I also smell COI. I think those sources should be out (crap sources should not be used in BLPs) and I think this WP:SPA and his "friend" should not be editing the article. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir, you do not understand my intentions for changing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipadmasterman (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I'd love to hear how this is explained. Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 02:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Leeann Tweeden

    Would someone please block or warn Redacter (talk · contribs)? An occasionally used account, it's repeatedly adding conspiracy theory and BLP violations to Leeann Tweeden, e.g. [186]. SarahSV (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted and warned. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PMC, many thanks. SarahSV (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rachel Ko and her edits

    (non-admin closure) Solved by a checkuser that block the account as sock/sockmaser, and another account Cadkwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Matthew_hk tc 06:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Rachel Ko is a user that seem have COI and refuse to disclose any COI, but just talk about her edits. She keep on upload files to en-wiki but almost the same as svg commons-wiki file File:KWahIntlHoldings logo.svg (the actual logo of the company was on the left, the text were merely text but not "text-logo"), claiming "new" logo, this is the third logo she upload File:KWIH logo 20171121.png, which is the same as the first and deleted one. The second logo she uploaded was due to delete today. Matthew_hk tc 04:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been a longstanding problem with promotional editing surrounding Lui Che-woo and K. Wah International, from numerous accounts with undeclared COI. These users seem to be marketing professionals here to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. Despite being warned multiple times, the above user has skirted around the question of whether or not she has a COI. A case of WP:NOTHERE. These users should be banned – this kind of promotional editing is a nuisance and completely incompatible with the goal of building an encyclopedia. Citobun (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    the caption or author of the file, seem indicated they were obtained from internal PR template of the company, not from outside by obtaining from the official website. Matthew_hk tc 07:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A proud moment for Wikipedia

    (non-admin closure) All right, all right. This is a very silly discussion, and I'm bringing it to an end before anyone else accidentally sabotages their own ARBCOM candidacy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    "In Memorandum: An Editor's Hand after Scrolling down EEng's Talk Page." User:Eman235/talk 5:40 am, 29 May 2017 (UTC−5)
    Winning caption

    According to [187] this is the 1,000,000th edit to ANI!!! You may all bow down to me. (And yes, I padded in a few edits to get there – I have to go to bed.) EEng 08:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I just went one better. Neil S. Walker (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say he "paddied in a few edits to get there" - rather that he EEngineered it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Too true. The only reason this is a "cesspit" is because editors do cesspitty things here. WP:BAREYOURBEHIND is where they need to go :) L3X1 (distænt write) 16:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    • Keep EEng here in this cell, now that he's padded it. In fact, according to [188] he's the top contributor here, which would normally be a call to move him to a new facility, but by the same source he's deleted more than he's contributed, so it's all good. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And most of those deletes were correcting his own edits before acquiring the feature, "Show preview and changes". Atsme📞📧 17:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    That's only analyzing the past 10,000 edits. That's only 2 months worth. Natureium (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Shhh!! A full in-depth analysis of the situation is discouraged around here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure. Isn't one generally considered more dangerous than the other? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but which one? Lepricavark (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a redirect to Great Dismal Swamp maroons instead? Recommended reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, Irondome...you said "stratum of ancient peanut shells" - sounds a bit anatomical. You can't be talking about EEng. [FBDB] Atsme📞📧 22:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Thank you for all your kind words. You've brought a moment of joy into the life of a lonely and forgotten shut-in.
    • Lest anyone get the wrong idea, it's true I'm the top contributor to ANI in the last X months, measured by number of edits. But I rush to point out that fully 40% of my edits are using OneClick to archive old threads. The actual top busybody here is Beyond My Ken. He's got almost as many edits as I do, and 0% of them are OneClick.

    EEng 02:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    List of headphone manufacturers incorrect use of flags

    Fixed. -- Alexf(talk) 14:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I do not think the use of national flags is in accordance to WORDPRECEDENCE in the Manual of Style (flags section). To me it is an eye sore and a carnival. the flags do not add information. The country name is not attached to it as MOSFLAG requires, and the entities represented are companies and brands, not political or military entities to be represented by a national flag. Consensus on this? Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 12:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Although it's 'nice', it falls afoul of MOS:FLAG. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, a clear MOS violation. Besides, in the case of most electronic manufacturing companies the use of flags is meaningless; all they're doing is indicating where the head office happens to be, since the actual country of manufacture will almost invariably be China, South Korea or Poland. ‑ Iridescent 13:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this something that requires administrator intervention? Seems like you should post this at Talk:List of headphone manufacturers, or if it's a project-wide issue, try Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons or maybe one of the village pumps. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not an admin required issue. Just wanted some quick answers before I refactor, and the article's talk page might take some time. Thanks for the confirmation. -- Alexf(talk) 14:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. -- Alexf(talk) 14:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    USER: 2A00:23C5:2D4A:E00:99C7:3901:6ACB:923F

    WP:AIV is thataway→. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user was vandalizing Jana Novotna's page yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.207.9.202 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to let you know, if this is standard vandalism you can report it at WP:AIV instead after the user is properly warned. This looks like regular vandalism and was reverted already. Looks like the user was warned and stopped edited. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Another voice required

    Greetings, I'm running into a bit of a dispute with an editor, Macularcarotenoids, related to this edit and my subsequent revert. The editor has a conflict of interest, as explained on her talk page. If anyone wants to give us a hand, the relevant section is here. Thanks! My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 15:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, just to confirm there is no conflict of interest. These two new studies have just been published relating to MZ and I wanted to add the information to the MZ page. I would like to know why it has been taken down. Macularcarotenoids (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether or not the decision is made to keep the edits in question (and given how they are primary sources, I doubt they should be included until there is secondary source commentary on them), your talkpage reveals that you clearly have a conflict of interest. Grandpallama (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The cite I just looked at has a DOI 10.4172, which is OMICS, possibly the most notorious publisher of junk predatory open access journals on the planet. That qualifies for a pretty solid "hell no". Guy (Help!) 19:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw something in the page history that might have been you, or someone else who removed stuff cited by an OMICS journal some time ago. @Macularcarotenoids: These sources are never acceptable, and should never be used, I would call them worse than WP:DAILYMAIL level. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This gave me a good giggle. "Oh, I can assure you that there's no conflict of interest here. If anything it ties in nicely with the work my colleagues and I are doing." All joking aside, in case there's any confusion, Macularcarotenoids, when we talk about a conflict of interest at Wikipedia we mean in the interest of impartiality. You really should read that article. nagualdesign 20:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential vandalism-only account

    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This isn't a formal report, but administrators might want to keep an eye on Ian Fisher. Their only three edits so far are vandalism. Hopefully their next ones are constructive, but it's better to thread carefully. DarkKnight2149 15:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Because we all know what can happen when you don't thread carefully... Grandpallama (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why editing on mobile can be a bad idea. Spellcheck is a pain. For comedic purposes, I'm just going to leave that typo there DarkKnight2149 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkknight2149 Why can't you just revert, warn and if there's vandalism after the 4th warning report to AIV? Also he needs to be notified of this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what should be done, but I don't have time to watch this user. I was asking for someone else to do so. DarkKnight2149 —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked them indef. Warning four times makes sense if the user had good contributions but started vandalism, or if there are doubts that the user understands what they are doing. Here, we do not have a single good contribution, and they clearly know what they are doing. Waiting until they vandalize more would be a waste of time for the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Interaction ban violations

    Despite an interaction ban C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs)continues with following me. He has complained that I violated it by posting in a thread he started, but I was not responding to him, I was agreeing with DHeyward and I had already taken part in that thread. All anyone need do is look at the INDENT, I was not responding to him, I agreed with another editor and reiterated my point made previously. Since Gilmore brought this up he has followed me to the AFD and the new article I created, links above. Can someone ask him to stop following me around. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Or we could just hold Gilmore to the terms of the ban already in place? Rose City Antifa has two editors in total (3 if you count the editor who made one category edit). Why on earth would Gilmore go to the talkpage there if not to poke at DS? And posting at an AFD DS opened? Its pretty clear Gilmore is stalking DS' edits at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So someone violates a IBAN and your answer is a TBAN for the one who did fuck all wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are many areas where interest overlap in regards to America, but I do not interact with the other editor and in the case of the AfD, I was following the AfD page since a page I created was put up for deletion. The problem is that I'm not being allowed to (as is allowed in the IBAN), comment on a page without being directly contacted or commented on by other editors, like this current AN/I. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I see violations of the spirit of the IBAN from both editors. The goal of both the IBAN and a TBAN is to prevent this bickering about Antifa articles from happening. That said, if a mutual "Antifa" TBAN is enough to keep you two apart, I'm fine with the TBAN to be limited to that scope. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bollocks, I've not violated anything Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps DS could explain how someone "follows someone around" by posting BEFORE the other person? I don't think causality works that way. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He is referring to the two links at the start of his post. An article where DS is one of two editors, and an AFD DS started. There is no good reason for Gilmore to have gone to either article. The third link is where both editors contributed *prior* to the interaction ban being in place. Sensible people (and in this DS should really also pay attention) who have been interaction banned should back out of discussions where they have previously mutually contributed. It does not mitigate showing up at the other two locations however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell are you on about? If I created the article and he then turns up how is that not following me around? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As per the WP:IBAN, which I have followed, I have had no interactions with other editors, in fact, I create a new section in an article for discussion separate from the other editors. The allegations of 'following' are absurd as follow the AfD boards since [189] as I follow all the other Admin boards and many administrators. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the diffs in the original complaint, Special:Diff/811115725 seems to be an obvious violation by DS. He claims that the indentation means it's not a reply, but it's immediately after Gilmore's comment and takes a position in opposition to it. Special:Diff/811431271 seems to be an obvious violation by Gilmore. He claims that being in a new section means it's not interaction, but the page was recently created by Darkness Shines and the comment was obviously in response to DS's content additions. The AfD vote is also probably a violation by Gilmore. As both parties seem to want the IBAN "strictly enforced" and seem unaware of their own violations, perhaps both editors need to be blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Please explain how I interacted with the other editor? I even started new sections to avoid them. Rose City Antifa is an article that I was working on, but DS published it first[190] As you can see from User:DrmiesTP. This being the case, I stated my work suggestions in a separate section and was going to leave it at that. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I was leaning in that direction myself, but hadn't done enough research yet to feel comfortable imposing the solution. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      At best DS commenting in a thread (in which he had already contributed) directly after Gilmore is unwise. Gilmore showing up at an article DS started and is one of the only two editors editing is frankly stalking. Likewise showing up at an AFD DS started. Its neither credible or plausible they are not following DS around at the moment in order to prod them. Its also clear from the reply below that Gilmore is only interested in wikilawyering around their interaction ban in order to do so. Given DS quite short temper, this is an obvious attempt to provoke them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You indent with :: You comment with *, so no I was not fucking replying to him, I want nothing to do with him. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as an FYI notice to admins, after mulling it over, I did decide to leave both users with a warning. However, the next violations will see some action happening from me or other admins.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I would recommend blocking both of them, but I respect your decision in this instance — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm always hesitant taking such actions on users that have proven to be productive, setting aside issues. I always feel there has to be a different option to resolve matters. I have an idea what the next step would be, but I'm hoping this ANI can help resolve it before I toss it up to the community for review.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think a stricter enforcement of the IBAN is needed, and I'd support a TBAN for C. W. Gilmore beyond that. Both of these editors are clearly spending significant portions of their time on Wikipedia just poking at each other, but Gilmore's tendency to feel the need to respond to every critique or perceived negative comment with outraged defensiveness and walls of text that rely heavily on wikilawyering increasingly feels like someone who is here to fight a war rather than edit productively. Grandpallama (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction ban definition

    The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban prevents user X from interacting with user Y. A two-way ban prevents both parties from interacting with each other. Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

    Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to:

    • edit each other's user and user talk pages;
    • reply to each other in discussions;
    • make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
    • undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
    • use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

    Proposing a new kind of ban (TIBAN)

    Well obviously this is going nowhere, so I've been formulating a new type of ban which will hopefully be the solution to all of this. I call it the Topic-Interaction Ban. If it works it could be added to the list of sanctions to be imposed on parties. It is an extension of an IBAN and expands itself on to topics automatically.

    Here are the terms of the ban:

    • Parties of this ban are prohibited from making edits to any page, or it's talk page, if another party of the TIBAN is actively engaged on said page or talk page.
    • A party is considered to be engaged with the page if they are making edits to the page regularly. The edits must be meaningful and useful to qualify.
    • More than 3 edits must be made in a week to be considered regular editing, and only if the edits provide substantial and meaningful changes. This includes talk page discussions.
    • This ban applies to all pages every party's participation has overlapped in. Whoever was the first to edit the page, or it's talk page, with meaningful changes will be allowed to continue editing said pages. Remaining parties must stay away.
    • Making obvious reverts of another party on said page or talk page, even if the user is allowed to edit the page is a violation of this TIBAN.

    If this is worth considering implementing, I also propose adding it on to DS and CWG's current IBAN.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - I've been watching this unfold on Cyberpower678's talk, and it's now the third IBAN-turned-into-more that I've seen this year. One turned into a TBAN, one boomeranged into a 1-way IBAN, but this fits neither option (and clearly the IBAN isn't working). I'd say this is a good step that allows each to go along their merry ways. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm on board with this as well. Get them completely away from each other, because this sniping back and forth is beginning to resemble two siblings each complaining to their mom that the other one touched him first. Katietalk 21:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tentative support I'm not convinced this will solve the "get them completely away from each other" problem, but it's an interesting solution, and should be given a chance to work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support For the moment at least... Both parties should read WP:!HERE and understand that confrontational behaviour does not prolong ones tenure as a Wikipedia editor. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Massively over-thought and terrible idea. In the event of any reported infraction you would need to a)determine what is 'actively engaged' - is correcting a spelling mistake active engagement? Adding a category? b)so easy to game its unreal. Either editor could make 3 non-substantive edits to an article and pre-emptively lock the other out from editing it. Long experience has shown that ever more complicated sanctions do not help anything. You could achieve the desired effect here by just topic banning Gilmore from US politics broadly construed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Too easy to game, and too complex. A topic ban works just as well. Neutralitytalk 00:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Too damn complicated. And the more complicated it is the more game-able it is. And the more complicated and game-able it is, the more drama it will cause. This isn't solving the problem, this is making it worse. Volunteer Marek  00:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note As a concerned party, this proposal adds clarity to the defining lines of "reply to each other in discussions" and "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly" while allowing both parties to work on subjects (just at different times). Yes, it may seem complicated but it does give clearer guidance and wider boundaries; given that wide variety of articles that are worked on and the overlap on some of the topics. A standard TBAN does not work, when differences of opinion run across wide areas of discussion from history to current politics (both in the UK and the USA); increasing TBAN is not the answer (tried before). I believe this approach of widening the distance between the parties will work and reduce complaints being brought to the AN/I; at least it's worth a try in my opinion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for interaction ban

    SNOW
    Clearly not happening.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Statement by: User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver

    Hi, I would like to formally request an interaction ban of at least six months to mutually apply to me and Fram, preferably to start now, or maybe after ArbCom questions end if that is procedurally preferred.

    I would also appreciate an uninvolved administrator to review my contributions objectively and check whether I am suitable for the role of NPR and if not remove me from the list.

    I would also appreciate an uninvolved administrator to assess whether any topic bans or other bans are required against me.

    I have already engaged in several detailed debates with Fram over the past 3 months, I see no reason to restate the varied content of those discussions here, they can be seen on my talk page. A short summary is that Fram believes I am incompetent and should be banned/topic banned/stripped of rights, and has followed me round making comments to this effect. I cannot in all seriousness treat Fram as either objective or helpful anymore and interaction has become strenuous and unpleasant, to the extent any further interaction would be counterproductive and a poor use of volunteer time on both my part and Fram’s.

    I will not be making further comment here, any questions please ask on my talk page. I am not watching the page, please ping or make comment on my talk page if you have a question.

    Thank you. Dysklyver 21:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by: User:Fram I had announed to Dysklyver that I would ask for some sanctions and/or mentoring for them at AN tomorrow. I'll present my case then, but if people feel the need to comment now, I would urge them to look at the ArbCom questions page and the discussions at Dysklyver's talk page. An editor who is e.g. unable to realise that a crank source is totally unsuitable for enwiki, and believes himself to be ready to be an ArbCom member and to have a good knowledge of our policies and guidelines at the same time, is someone who needs close monitoring. Fram (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    • I will not be making further comment here, any questions please ask on my talk page. What? No, that's not how it works. @A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Hopefully this is a miscommunication. But you need to either strike that, and clarify you will respond to questions here, or I'm going to close this right now. This is not WP:AN/Lob grenade and run away.
    No opinion (as of yet) on substance of request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I was assuming that this would be a simple matter of Fram saying something awful and me getting hammered with all the above, but yes I am here to answer questions if needed. Dysklyver 21:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    List of Presidents of Zimbabwe

    There is clear consensus at Talk:List_of_Presidents_of_Zimbabwe#Requested_move_19_November_2017 to move the article to President of Zimbabwe (over the redirect). As this article is highly topical and main-page linked it is appropriate not to wait for the 7 day limit in the move request. --LukeSurl t c 22:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent edit warring and WP:OWN behavior

    This user has been very persistent in replacing the images in this list with images they took, for example [191] and [192]. They have also been reverting other users' edits to the article without explanation, including readding information deemed unencyclopedic and removing citation needed tags without explanation. Attempts have been made to discuss on the article talk page and user's talk page, but the user has refused most attempts at discussion. There have been numerous 3RR violations, and two blocks were issued as well as a full protection of the article involved, but the edit warring has persisted. I'm requesting here that some sort of more extensive action be taken, whether it be an extended block or a topic ban. I have notified the user in question - meanwhile, pinging other users interested in the case: @Pi.1415926535, Mtattrain, and SportsFan007: – Train2104 (t • c) 00:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    > Admittedly, the user in question has contributed positively in some ways, such as removing much trivial information and providing some reasonable images, but once he/she started replacing almost every image and reverting any edit that did not agree with his/her edits, the line was crossed. Mtattrain (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tell me again why we have fancrufty articles on every model of bus in a given city (including notations on specific individual buses that are out of service because e.g. they were in an accident), on individual but stops, and so on? We even have an editnotice for this kind of thing: {{railfan editnotice}}. EEng 01:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: I created said editnotice in an attempt to stem the expansion of such content. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not working, apparently. Do we have the technology to send a painful electric shock to these people when they hit <SAVE>? EEng 02:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Language issues, with some retribution editing thrown in

    A report was also filed at AIV, and the editor has been blocked 24 hours for edit warring. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring: original research with an agenda at Fake news

    Plus, I've been accused of editing for money and censorship [194]. Some diffs [195]; [196]; [197]. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning themselves and "I operate so much like a bot that most humans like you may be offended on occasions."....???? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 02:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

    As stated: "Plus, I've been accused of editing for money and censorship" The agenda is self-evident. Done. BelAirWhale (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for fun, regarding the previous report, I've also been accused of being a sock [198]. Apparently I'm more corrupt than I thought possible. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Their reply made no sense at all. I've reverted their edit per NPOV and lack of sources. To use your POV that The Economist is a bad source because who runs it is seriously troubling. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 02:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be a pattern of proclaiming defense of the truth while accusing other editors of concealing the same. See the response to last month's warnings [199]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the above points, BelAirWhale seems to like threatening other editors. Not quite on to legal threats yet, but I'd certainly classify these as attempts at intimidating other editors into backing down. (I also undid this extremely dubious edit to Wikipedia:Academic use. Wikipedia is never a reliable source!) Marianna251TALK 02:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just reverted this [200], a pointed little addition to the intro that has little or nothing to do with the article subject. There may be a long edit history that merits review. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=811537672"