Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

WP:Brian Martin (social scientist) : other editor is feeling stalked/harassed. And is also attacking me.

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

---

• Brian Martin (social scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Help Desk refered me here. As Gongwool [1] is feeling harassed and stalked I think it better to discuss resolutions with others present. On BLP WP:Brian Martin (social scientist)[2] I am getting attacked and Gongwool is feeling stalked/harassed.

Gongwool is refusing to discuss edits with me. Rather Gongwool posted their discussion to an admin's page without notifying me. [3]

I have made the mistake of addressing user conduct on theBLP Talk page.

• Examples of SmithBlue addressing user conduct on talk page: [4], [5], [6], [7]
• Examples of attacks by Gongwool and Gongwool feeling harrased :WP:Brian Martin Talk page:

Accuses SmithBlue of CoI:[8], Accusation of Harrassment and DE, statement of no further comms.[9], Claims SmithBlue wishes to "whitewash" the article and has a CoI: [10]

• Examples of attacks, feeling stalked and harrased, noncivil and accusatory edit sums:
• 07:06, 9 February 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,122 bytes) (+78)‎ . . (Fixed para due to complaining IP editor.)
• 05:29, 15 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,733 bytes) (+427)‎ . . (Add text from book as I was being from agro editor not practicing Good Faith.)
• 05:55, 15 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,799 bytes) (+66)‎ . . (Added 2 more references to hopefully stop agro from an editor.)
• 23:16, 17 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,680 bytes) (+658)‎ . . (Undid revision 710599623 by SmithBlue (talk) It is WP:RS Science news journal. Sorry, I don't discuss with this stalky editor due to his prior harassment. So won't engage in his silly arguments.)
• 23:45, 17 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,704 bytes) (+24)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: Changed text to quote to satisfy any pro-OPV-AIDS / pro-Vaccine-Autism link 'Fringe theorists' who may be overly-critical of cites here for reasons of bias.)

I do want the "stalky" "harrasment" issue cleaned up. I do not want an WP editor feeling stalked and harrasssed. Nor do I want to be portrayed in those terms. And I want the attacks to stop. Where to from here? (This BLP is very unstable. There were recent ongoing BLP violation issues. Diffs of large changes; [11], [12] Editing practices may need to be addressed.) SmithBlue (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This is very confusing.

1. Are you the one feeling harassed or is Gongwool feeling harassed?
2. Are you speaking of yourself in the 3rd person?

Blackmane (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I SmithBlue am speaking of myself in the 3rd person above. "Gongwool [13] is feeling harassed and stalked". SmithBlue (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Hi, yes it's confusing. I have not requested that this editor make a complaint about himself on my behalf so I have crossed out the parts of the complaint on my behalf that I never asked for. With that in mind others may understand why I don't engage with this editor.

2. Anyway, I think the real issue here is that this particular editor has has a current suspension warning from an admin for editing "fringe theory" issues and is sore with this. Whereas I don't support fringe theory and (understandingly) have no such warnings hanging over my head. He will now certainly reply below in an attempt to engage me in some awkward argy-bargy agenda, but I will not reply. Have a good day. Thanks. Bye. Gongwool (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't refactor others' comments, Gongwool. That said, I'm kinda glad this was brought here... though I am still confused. This ended up on my user talk page and frankly I ignored it as an editor dispute that I didn't want part of and because I really didn't understand what was going on. Anyway, it needs some attention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

OK EvergreenFir, understood. But to all others please ignore the 95% of the above complaint which involves the other editor making a complaint about himself on my behalf. I did not authorise such. I'm also confused... but just getting on with WP editor business and avoiding those who have a 'fringe theory' (see his warning from admin here) agenda who desperately try to wind me up. I know there's policies at WP about pushing fringe theory and totally agree. Thanks, bye. Gongwool (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As is obvious Gongwool portrays me as "pushing a fringe theory". Given that I'm not "pushing a fringe theory" this seems to be a form of taunting. Taunting would seem to disrupt editing. SmithBlue (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

See I told you he'd try to engage in argy-bargy argument and wind me up. Taunting? I think his bizarre reverse complaint (making a complaint on my behalf identifying himself as the offender) shows the reverse. His complaint compultion is too weird for me (sorry but I think he craves chaos on 'fringe theory'). I've better things to do. bye.!!! Gongwool (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Admins, experienced users. What do you suggest? SmithBlue (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The real problem

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

SmithBlue joined Wikipedia in 2007. Up to the end of 2008 xe was reasonably active, but with a number of edits related to the OPV AIDS hypothesis, a refuted AIDS origin hypothesis promoted by Edward Hooper and latterly supported by Brian Martin (the locus of dispute toady). Example edits: [14], [15], [16].

Then, after a lengthy absence, SmithBlue returned with all guns blazing on Feb 9 2016, with this ANI report on a dispute where xe had no apparent prior involvement at all (unless xe was using an alternate account?). There's also this, linking a polemical "review" of our article on the OPV AIDS hypothesis on a crank alt-med website.

As far as I can see, SmithBlue's major beef is with the fact that the OPV AIDS hypothesis is considered refuted. From xyr edits, xe appears to consider it rejected and suppressed, not refuted. In fact, the sources show it to be refuted by robust evidence including DNA analysis.

Addendum: In pushing for a less dismissive treatment of this refuted hypothesis, SmithBlue has started six separate sections of discussion on Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist), five of them within a single 24 hour period. He appears to eblieve that consensus necessarily means that he must agree ([17]). This is, obviously, false: consensus does not mean unanimity, and editors are fully entitled to ignore stonewalling. SmithBlue is making large numbers of rapid-fire demands on the Talk page (e.g. this series: [18]) without allowing adequate time for others to respond. He seems, in short, to be showing all the classic signs of being here to Right Great Wrongs. His wrongteous anger is clearly getting the better of him.

A review of SmithBlue's edits shows a determination to present The Truth™ about the OPV-AIDS hypothesis - an idea first published in that well-known medical journal Rolling Stone and primarily promoted by Edward Hooper, a journalist with no known medical qualifications, which has been refuted by phylogenetic and molecular biological studies. The word refuted here is used in its correct technical sense, ref Nature. This hypothesis has been exploited by anti-vaccination activists and has played a part in preventing the final eradication of poliomyelitis. Not just nonsense, then, but deadly nonsense - so quite high stakes as far as the reliability of Wikipedia goes.

I issued a DS notice: [19].

I believe that editors of the Brian Martin article are losing patience with rebutting SmithBlue's querulous demands. This seems to me to be WP:BOOMERANG territory. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for turning up Guy. Uninvolved admins - yes Guy is a very involved admin at WP:Brian Martin - please check;

• this diff[20] for the BLP Brian Martin that compares from immediately prior to Guy's first edit there with the article just prior to me arriving with all guns blazing.
• This diff [21] which is the result of a cleanup by respected Wikipedians User:Darouet, User:Drmies, User:DGG, User:EverGreenFir & User:Bilby. Due, I understand, to my flagging the BLP vios and Disruptive Editing.
• Guy protests the mass removal of material. And bilby responds :Hi! The short version is that there were a pile of BLP violations in the article - claims not supported by sources, sources being incorrectly used to create false claims, and issues around due weight. ...[22] Pure magic.

In light of Guy's involvement in turning BLP WP:Brian Martin into an attack piece and his defence of it when I tried BLPN and AN/I I suggest that Guy's actions at BLP Briann Martin make him a subject of this ANI as well. Please bear that in mind when you read his attempts to portray me as disruptive. I think it would be helpful to ask User:Darouet, User:Drmies, User:DGG, User:EvergreenFir & User:Bilby for their views on the state of the article when they arrived. SmithBlue (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I am certainly involved in the Martin article, though more as a result of his sponsorship of an antivax PhD that fails even the most basic tests of academic rigour. Now you need to read WP:NOTTHEM. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The reasons you were active on Brian Martin are not why I am here. I am here in large part because of your editing conduct on WP:Brian Martin. SmithBlue (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that he's got his guns blazing from you too Guy (Help!), that's because you are also believe in WP:fringe policy. The offender's aim is to scare off any person who is not a pro-OPVAIDS or pro-Vax-Autism link fringe theorist, and his badgering seems to be working well. He's put in about 3 or 4 complaints about this article and seem to have failed, he won't give up. I asked him some time back to leave me alone as I knew he was "trouble" and he's done the exact opposite, finally putting in this ridiculous complaint on my behalf just to try and have an argumentative debate with me. Yep, he's trouble to you, me or any person who may support of WP:fringe policy. Can he be banned from this and any other article discussing fringe theory and fringe theory scientific correction issues? I don't know how such works. Gongwool (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Gongwool (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment There's obviously an element of content disputation here; but tbh User:Gongwool does also seem to have a somewhat unpolished attitude towards collegiality. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but he's been getting along OK with Bilby and they have been collaborating well enough to improve the articles. Gongwool should be aware that it's not really necessary to poke SmithBlue with a sharp stick, xe looks like xe is quite capable of digging xyr own grave unaided. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JzG, I don't admit to being too polished or experienced (unless that's a crime), but all understood and heard. Then again none of us asked for this complaint to be here, it's designed to be somewhat of a distraction, one thinks. Gongwool (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No, SmithBlue, you are here because you want to recruit support in your attempts to push fringe content into the article, when you are failing to gain any traction at all on the article's Talk page. That much is obvious from your statement of the dispute: you want to run the opposition out of town. It's not going to work because the edits you propose are not supported by policy. It's hardly a surprise, given your very limited experience of Wikipedia. However, the problem is not with "everybody else", it's with your unwillingness to heed consensus and apparent attempts to portray a refuted antivax trope as a valid but suppressed theory. It's not suppressed, it's refuted, as our article clearly shows. The science has actually become more settled since you originally tried this. Wikipedia is not the place to present anti-vaccination tropes as anything other than the dangerous bullshit they are. This is by design. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No Guy I am here because I saw the BLP Brian Martin overflowing with BLP violations sometime around early February and eventually decided to intervene[[23]]. Since then I have;

• flagged the violations in a BLPN,
• flagged the violations in an AN/I,
• flagged your participations in the violations at a separate AN/I,
• provided a list of further on-going un-addressed BLP violations at both AN/Is,
• been mistypified by you as pushing fring content,
• been taunted and attacked by your protege on BLP Brian Martin - Gongwool[[24]],
• been ignored when I made requests for assistance to multiple admins regarding the BLP violations and user conduct violations,
• started this AN/I to address the attacking micro-culture you as asenior admin created on BLP Brian Martin,
• addressed your user conduct around deliberately violating BLP policy and your advising others to ignore BLP policy.

& been struck by the participation rate of un-involved neutral admins to this AN/I. This is why I am here. I bother cause I'm not yet convinced that WP is irretrievably broken. Maybe if WP can improve its integrity - and live by it's claimed standards - things can yet turn around. And WP fulfil it's potential. SmithBlue (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing

WP:CANVASS and WP:NPA in one hit, good job. See [25]. Incidentally, SmithBlue, this set ([26], [27], [28], [29]) is unnecessary since the pings you already included will have alerted these good people. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

WTF? This complainant knows no boundaries. Don't know whether to laugh or cry. Gongwool (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I asked explicitly about contacting the admins who cleaned up the BLP. And was told that, as long as I didn't coach them, it would be OK. Do you disagree with the advise I got from Help Desk Chat? Do you object to 5 Wikipedians who cleaned up the BLP presenting their views?SmithBlue (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two parts to my statement above. The first is that your post to Seabreezes1 was unambiguously inappropriate (albeit that it shows very clearly your failure to comprehend why your edits are rejected). The second was that the other posts to Talk pages were unnecessary since they will already be aware through your mentioning them here; writing on this page is in any case going firther than contacting those admins and is instead contacting the entire admin community. I can't comment on the claim you make about Help Desk anyway, since the last posting by you to Help Desk I can find was in 2008: [30] and was about something else entirely. And anybody who's seen my talk page will know I have no problem at all with involving any other admins, especially DGG, or indeed Drmies, both of whom I hold in high regard. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll find my request for clarification in the logs of Help Desk Chat: "Do you need real-time chat help with your issue? Join our IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-help" link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/chat I appreciate your demonstration of AGF on this issue. SmithBlue (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you are misinterpreting "sod off, we're not going to fix this". But even if you're not, posting here does the same job, as I was pointing out. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Smokescreen

The attempt, by Guy, to portray me as attempting "to push fringe content" has a major flaw.

• I have not attempted to push fringe content.
  

(see section below [[31]] where's Guy's mis-categorisation is made clear.)

Even a quick inspection of any diff put forward will show that I am a stickler for WP policy and guidelines around pseudoscience and just about everything. WP:Infant formula - maybe I messed up there 8 years ago and let nonsourced material remain? My goal, (was it 8 years ago when I put forward those science academic publication sources?), was to have the topic portrayed exactly in line with WP policy and guidelines. I always discussed and sought consensus. And still do. Hence this AN/I. What lies behind this smokescreen of Guy's?
User conduct in the flicking of a BLP into an attack piece.
Here again are the diffs showing the arc of the BLP through the Guy, Gongwool and Jewjoo period[32] and out the other side[33].

• Guy actively defended the BLP violations on the BLPN that I started in an attempt to get the BLP vios addressed. [[34]]

I've been watching things unfold with the Brian Martin (professor) article, and wrote this a day or two ago, and hope it helps... This article is quite derogatory about Martin himself, and his work, yet this is not based on strong evidence. It seems to be mainly based on slanted views of a WP:SPA editor. I would think the article, and Talk page, contravene WP:BLP. More clarification and context on Martin's publishing record is needed to better examine this situation, but details of Martin's key publications have been removed from the page several times: [33], [34]. Despite what is being said in this WP article, Martin has published many peer-reviewed journal articles. But, yes, he does publish widely in a diverse range of publication outlets, as many academics do. The article is portraying Martin as an activist, but to me he is just an "interdisciplinary academic" working in the area of "science and technology studies (STS)." He is a full professor employed full-time at a major university. There is an amazing amount of criticism of Martin in the second paragraph of the article, relating to Michael Primero, Andrew Wakefield, and Judith Wilyman. Yet, material about Martins' STS professorial colleagues, Mark Diesendorf, Ian Lowe and Jim Falk has been removed from the article with little discussion. Johnfos (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Negative, yes, but not inaccurate. He has a history of misidentifying cranks as whistleblowers, and his supervision of the Wilyman PhD calls into question his fitness to supervise further PhDs, as that document used confirmation bias and conspiracist thinking in place of actual evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Guy actively defended the BLP violations on the ANI that I started (Note the smokescreening) [[35]].

The article is being actively edited and the only material identified as an inaccurate representation of the sources has been fixed. Martin is the subject of legitimate and well-sourced criticism for his support of a PhD that failed every conceivable test of valid research work, that is not our problem to fix. I note that much of your history relates to defending Hooper's discredited advocacy of the OPV-AIDS hypothesis, a common anti-vax trope. I suspect that the "inaccuracy" you identify may in fact be accuracy that you just don't like. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• On WP:Brian Martin, two edits clearly summed as BLP issues with existing discusions on Talk;

15:29, 4 February 2016‎ 124.171.109.96 (talk)‎ . . (6,361 bytes) (-927)‎ . . (BLP issue: rem inaccurate reflection of source. see Talk) [[36]] &
16:14, 4 February 2016‎ 124.171.109.96 (talk)‎ . . (6,558 bytes) (-185)‎ . . (rem "published by A rather than B" from lede. BLP, OR see Talk) [[37]]
Guy claims whitewashing & reverts:
22:55, 4 February 2016‎ JzG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,288 bytes) (+730)‎ . . (Reverted 4 edits by 124.171.109.96 (talk): Revert whitewashing. Please discuss on Talk efore removing material. (TW))[[38]]
Guy with that edit summ also promoted actions in violation of BLP policy. BLP policy is clear that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately ...". Not discussed and then later removed. And what was Guy defending?
Here again is Bilby's reply [[39]] "... there were a pile of BLP violations in the article - claims not supported by sources, sources being incorrectly used to create false claims, ..."
SmithBlue (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ho-hum, it looks like big bad Guy is attempting to keep Wikipedia on the straight-and-narrow again, and someone is complaining about it again. I suppose that means that the sun will set again this evening. BMK (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll decide later if it is to rise again tomorrow, just to show that I can. #adminabuse. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't bother, I don't mind sleeping in all day. BMK (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what part of my statement is supposed to be problematic, since it's all an accurate reflection of the sources cited in the article. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

SmithBlue asked me to look at the article. Without considering the history, of specific BLP questions, the actual material about the subject appears basically fair, but the presentation is slanted by multiple statements that the OPV-AIDS theory is discredited. So it is, and it is appropriate to say so in the article, but stating it one time is enough. I have noticed a similar problem in some other articles on scientist out of the mainstream. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for coming DGG. As I have raised the issue of BLP violations on the article I ask that you give your appraisal of the article as it was immediately before I intervened.[[40]]

Yeah, that tends to happen when people keep trying to change it to suppressed or disputed instead of refuted, which is what it is. You end up with a hundred sources for a trivial and uncontentious (except to a tiny minority) fact. A pet peeve, really, since non-neutral crud gets added, it gets neutralised and left, and the paragraph never gets copyedited down to its essence. Still and all, 100% of the noise on that talk page right now is coming from one source: SmithBlue. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal re SmithBlue

It is unclear to me how this thread got so long, nor why User:SmithBlue has not been blocked under the PSCI DS yet for abuse of BLP to to POV-push PSCI and for WP:Civil POV-pushingWP:Civil POV pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article. I propose a 48-hour block on SmithBlue to prevent further disruption to the project. The mainstream editors involved here have better things to do than keep going round and round on this stuff. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC) (fixed typo in wikilink Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC))

My current concern is the integrity of WP. I undertake not to edit on BLP Brian Martin for 48 hours. While I do this voluntarily I reject your view that I am "WP:Civil POV-pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article". Please provide your reasoning for categorising my edits on Brian Martin or OPV-AIDS as WP:Civil POV-pushing. SmithBlue (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Your flooding this thread with comments following my posting above kind of proves point my point about disruption. You are sucking up the time of people here. Please do actually read the essay instead of just mocking my mistake. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many aspects to this AN/I. I was seeking to stop attacks on myself and address an editor feeling harrassed and stalked. Guy has expanded the range. Are you advising that it is better to just let things slide and not respond, not fill in missing pieces, not bring elements of my concerns about user conduct here, not ask your reason for your view, "the PSCI DS yet for abuse of BLP to to POV-push PSCI and for WP:Civil POV-pushingWP:Civil POV pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article."?

This approach is not consistent with Guy telling me that the burden of proof is on me. SmithBlue (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The continued mocking is only digging your hole deeper. You are demonstrating that you are here to fight, not to solve problems. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: I'm not sure but I interpret your stamemnt re mocking to reference my cutting and pasting a mis-formatted WP essay. If this is correct your interpretation is incorrect. i was just using the quickest cut and paste available. What would it take to change your views around, "PSCI DS yet for abuse of BLP to to POV-push PSCI and for WP:Civil POV-pushingWP:Civil POV pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article." Are there specific edits that are of great concern? Or is it Guy's authority combined with my having ever editted OPV-AIDS and BLP:Brian Martin. Or some other factors. Whatever it is, are you prepared to investigate further? SmithBlue (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have investigated further, and you are absolutely POV-pushing on one side of this issue. Your edits reflect advocacy, as does your behavior on this board. And you were absolutely mocking me instead of reading the essay and considering your behavior in light of it, which is what a thoughtful editor who is not POV-pushing would do. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

SmithBlue & "push fringe content" - the claims and the reality

Guy, to evidence his claim that I, SmithBlue, am pushing fringe content, provides the following cites."Example edits: [41], [42], [43]." Let us examine them:

• [44] I provide the source details for a book written by the subject that is already in the article. And, in an BLP, add a short description of a scientific paper that the subject co-authored.
• [45] I change section heading from "Oral polio vaccine hypothesis (disproven conjecture)" to "=== Oral polio vaccine hypothesis (rejected) ===". This is line with Nature[46]. And Guy's own use of "rejected" on this page. (see:The Real Problem:Addendum)
• [47] I suggest that all editors work first in the areas of agreement and list a relevant scientifically published paper that I am working on. I then point out that suppression of dissent material is also relevant. This suppression material is scientifically published and focussed on as part of the history of OPV-AIDS in a 2015 textbook, "Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology - Stephen H. Jenkins". Guy has raised no objections to the use of this tertiary source on BLP Brain Martin.

Guy has mis-categorised my edits. SmithBlue (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You list "a relevant scientifically published paper that I am working on"? That sounds a lot like a WP:COI. Do you actually mean that you are here to use Wikipedia as a pre-print for something that you are working on and have not yet published? Guy (Help!) 00:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read the actual edit in context if you have any doubts. From memory the 2008 edit contains a reference to the 2001 Lincei paper that I was working on. If so then it would be unlikely that "I am working on" would refer to a paper I am writing. SmithBlue (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Checking the 4th diff re: papers: I pointed out the existence of the papers from Lincei 2001 and I was working on reading one of the papers from Lincei 2003. SmithBlue (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect your intentions would be less open to the misinterpretation you insist they receive, if you were to concentrate on writing fewer words in fewer threads and with greater coherence. Especially the last. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy's edit that created multiple BLP vios

BLP Policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

• [48] The majority of the material Guy added here fails WP:Verify. As does his addition of "Category:Anti-vaccination"

With Guy's illustrious WP history, the idea that Guy was unaware that the material failed WP:Verify must be rejected out of hand. Deliberately action against BLP policy is not about content, it is about conduct. Here we have Guy acting to knowlingly violate BLP policy. SmithBlue (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What we actually see is more evidence of your standard behaviour: throwing dung in all directions hoping to drive off those who disagree with you. The past content of the article does not matter at all, because the people who have been editing it - even those who originally made it a borderline hagiography - have worked together pretty harmoniously. Stuff goes in, it comes out, it gets discussed, it might get modified, it might stay out - and it's all dealt with really rather calmly, with one exception: you. Look how many comments you've added here and at the talk page - and how little else you have done in the short while since your returned from hiatus. You are a bore. Accept consensus and shut up. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Wikipedia consensus is enshrined in it's policies. You have acted to deliberately flout BLP policy. If you see BLP policy as not reflecting WP community consensus then please take your gripes to the appropriate forum and work to improve policy. Do not pretend to have consensus behind you on this matter. By doing so you continue to promote the violation of BLP policy. SmithBlue (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the admin noticeboard, you are publicly accusing an admin of deliberately flouting a very important policy. Before you persist in this line of attack you probably need to be aware of a couple of things: first, I was defending controversial BLPs before that policy even existed, and was bitterly attacked off-wiki as a result; second, I wrote the standard advice given to biography subjects when they email the Wikimedia Foundation. You need to be extremely careful that you have solid evidence that my edits were deliberately flouting policy and not good faith edits based on my reading of sources, on the interpretation of which reasonable people may differ. Remember, on Wikipedia you are allowed to be wrong. What you are not allowed to do is to continue asserting you are right, even when everyone else keeps telling you that you are wrong (see WP:IDHT). The burden of proof here lies with you. So far you have given an excellent demonstration of assuming bad faith, but that's all. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy: Please remember that, although you are an admin, here on this AN/I, your editing is under exactly the same scrutiny as mine. The burden is on you to address your many user conducts failing that I have listed here. SmithBlue (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy, given that you have deliberately changed edits of mine and by doing so showed that you are an unabashed liar, I would not be in the least bit surprised if you have flouted other areas of WP policy. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:DrChrissy. User:Jytdog and User:JzG etc. I think this thread has lost track from its initial complaint of SmithBlue reporting SmithBlue for misbehaviour. The only notification regards this thread was that SmithBlue was making a report/complaint on my behalf about his harassment of me (go figure!!!), the rest is fill. Now I never authorized such nor will I take part, nor will I communicate with him for obvious reasons. The rest of this is all SmithBlue throwing mud everywhere and not going through proper channels. All I know is that SmithBlue came back to WP using his secondary IP account admitting he has tried "Disruptive Editing but got nowhere." It is obvious he is here to disrupt and I have better things to do that involve myself in an editor who harasses then reports themself on the victims behalf simply so he can "get another piece of me". As suggested above by another a 48hr ban on SmithBlue, which I thing is way too kind considering SmithBlue's disruptive agenda. He's never going to give up his compulsion to disrupt. I have nothing else to say here on this page, Bye. Gongwool (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I would support something stronger than what I proposed, but I wanted to get the ball rolling. It is time. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this cr*p still going on? I made it clear I never asked him for a complaint on my behalf. As Jytdog has suggested it's perhaps to send a stronger message to SmithBlue. Or is everyone too scared of him to do banning, restricting or whatever? Gongwool (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's sum it up to this point

(1) DrChrissy's claim that Guy is an "unabashed liar" is an unabashed WP:NPA. A block is appropriate. Please consider DrC's block log and current topic bans when determining the appropriate length of the block.

(2) SmithBlue's repeated WP:IDHT behavior is classic WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING, and that, along with his own WP:NPA towards Guy, is also deserving of a block. We cannot allow ourselves to be placed in a position were people who are doing their damnedest to protect the encyclopedia from fringe bullshit are not supported in their efforts. Our credibility and accuracy are at stake.

(3) Would someone uninvolved - admin or not - with an ounce of common sense please close this god-forsaken thread, or are we going to allow SmithBlue to have as much space on AN/I as he desires in the process of hanging himself? Shut it down, please. BMK (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this discussion, in spite of my involvement in the article, as during the last week I've been almost completely without internet access. But I think it should be remembered that the Brian Martin (social scientist) article did suffer from serious BLP problems until quite recently. Those problems were repeatedly identified by IPs, SmithBlue and others on multiple locations, and not acted on. This isn't a simple case of a tendentious editor pushing a fringe theory, but editors banging their heads against a wall trying to get significant BLP issues fixed and not being heard. The thing is, of course, that the problem is now much reduced and is far more manageable, (although not yet completely fixed). I'm not sure what the correct response is, but I would like to see SmithBlue and others put down the stick and tone things back, as the noise was needed before, but it is counter productive now. If a short block is needed to give that time to happen, so be it, but if something short of a block will do the same I'd rather go in that direction. - Bilby (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No that's not correct Bilby, SmithBlue is only interested in OPV-AIDS fringe theory battles with that and the other article, not general work as others have been doing. To infer SmithBlue is contributing or trying to make articles accurate (as opposed to disrupting) is very misleading, as the above threads due to him here attest to. The Brian Martin, OPV-AIDS theory and the Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents pages are where he has caused most disruption. Gongwool (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I find that comment odd, as you have also only been interested in OPV-AIDS articles and the Wilyman PhD as well. If the intent is to claim that SmithBlue's focus makes their efforts disruptive, then the same can certainly be said of others involved in this.

My concern is that there were serious problems with the Wilyman-related articles, that we, as a community, only addressed because editors continued to raise them. It is understandable that those editors who weren't being listened to before are still trying too hard to be heard. I certainly agree that they need to step back, but the goal should be seeing if that can be managed through a means short of blocking, or, if not, short of an indef block. The circumstances here are more complex than they are being interpreted. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

From my point of view much of this AN/I is Shooting The Messenger.
Guy's misportrayal of me a fringe content pusher seems to remain the understanding of many of the admins.
I am treated as a problem rather than thanked for my time consuming work in getting multiple on-going BLP violations addressed. This has not been a pleasant task.
I remain concerned that the mud thrown my way will, in the eyes of some, stick. I would find this AN/I much easier if admins were to ask me more questions and would not frame their replies to me in terms that I consider inaccurate portrayals.
As long as Bilby is continuing to remove the on-going BLP violations from Brian Martin I will ignore BLP policy, that states BLP violations must be removed immediately, and not edit on WP:Brian Martin. (Editing on any WP article is currently as attractive as hitting my finger with a hammer).
Does Biby advise me that holding off posting further analysis of Guy's edits around WP:Brian Martin will deepen the understandings reached by this AN/I?
I am quite prepared to step back voluntarily and let the waters of this AN/I settle. What timeframe is suggested? SmithBlue (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

When the messenger is simply a neutral communication channel, shooting them is, indeed, counter-productive. But when the messenger is an integral part of the problem being reported, and they are skewing the message in a way that supports their own position while denigrating and misrepresenting the positions of others, then "shooting the messenger" makes a lot of sense. Lcok & load, ladies and gentlemen. BMK (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Especially when at the time of filing (and possibly still now) the "messenger" has absolutely nothing in their history for months other than one single issue. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

With respect, the reports are being skewed on both sides. If we were stupid enough to focus on the drama there would be a lot of blame to go around, for all of the parties. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to thank Guy & BMK for bringing an issue into focus. If, during my voluntary step-back, I find I am inaccurately portrayed, or false or misleading claims relevant to me are made on this ANI, what can be put in place to ensure that I am not disadvantaged by my voluntary absence? A satisfactory answer to this and a timeframe that I can agree to is all that is necessary now to facilitate this step-back.SmithBlue (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:OWN. Nobody owes you nuttin'. BMK (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The top priority is that we fix the problems, not that we assign blame. I expect here our focus should be on how to improve the problem, or how to maintain the current direction the article has been heading in. I can't speak for others, but from my perspective we all need to tone back on the rhetoric, write with less heat (by which I also include comments about Martin), and just focus on improving the article. :) If we can close this, and get back to working on the articles, it would be a nice step forward. I don't know what else is required, but we'll see. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bilby, I currently have a large target daubed on me by Guy. It reads "pushes fringe content". Multiple admins on this ANI have been convinced by Guy's presentation. I am not clear that this is best ignored or can be avoided. SmithBlue (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but this avenue isn't going to change anyone's mind. I don't know what the best approach us, but sadly I don't see this thread as a productive solution. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• The above comment is the third edit ever by this IP. BMK (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's because I used my phone and forgot that I never log in on it. Sorry. Fixed now. - Bilby (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bilby: Sorry, what problem are we supposed to fix? The nebulous and poorly articulated problem with our characterisation of the bogus OPV AIDS conjecture, as purportedly identified by SmithBlue? There's no evidence of an actual problem there. The article on Martin is actively edited and the involvement of editors with differing perspectives on the legitimacy of his work has, as is often the case with Wikipedia, resulted in a much tighter and more robustly sourced article - there's no evident problem to fix there, either. The only problem I have identified at this point, apart from the fact that SmithBlue is on a mission, is the article on Edward Hooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which appears to be a WP:COATRACK, so I have sent it to AfD. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

SmithBlue's edits on BLP:Brian Martin:Talk

I (SmithBlue), have edited on Brian Martin Talk page. My edits there have been mis-portrayed by Guy, Gongwool, and other admins on this ANI, as POV-pushing and "pushing fringe content".

I reject these claims as ill-founded.

My edits on BLP:Brian Martin:Talk fit into 3 categories. 1. NPOV-pushing. (Yes that is Neutral POV pushing.) 2. Addressing user conduct. (I now see this was a mistake.) 3. Housekeeping: addressing CoI claims & attacks on myself.

In chronological order

• [[49]] Flag three BLP vios and seek discussion on Talk. NPOV-pushing
• [[50]] Add link on Martin's website to Bilby's existing OPV-AIDS section. Argue that basing "Martin supports OPV-AIDS" claim on link is unencyclopedic. NPOV-pushing
• [[51]] Respond to Woolgong's statement of agenda. Indicate support for that which is RS based only. (Article has recent history of repeatedly failing Verify) addressing user conduct
• [[52]] Add support to change from (professor) to (social scientist). Point out effect. NPOV-pushing
• [[53]] Respond to CoI claim. Reply to attack.
• [[54]] Point out that pattern of repeated BLP vios and defense thereof is flouting of community standards. addressing user conduct
• [[55]] In response to criticism for removing BLP vio I point out BLP policy: remove immediately. addressing user conduct
• [[56]] In response to a section devoted to discussing personal negative opinions of BLP subject I point out conflict of negative opinion swapping with NPOV, Verify and RS. And ask that such discussions be held elsewhere. A previous form of Gongwools' negative opinion on BLP:Brian Martin[[57]]. addressing user conduct
• [[58]] A change of reference details from possibilly correct to defininately inaccurate by Gongwool. In light of recent multiple BLP vios that failed Verify I request confirmation of content and explanation of change to inaccurate reference. NPOV-pushing
• [[59]]Ask admin to address DE on BLp. addressing user conduct
• [[60]]Address fantasy of Gongwool that I want to have negative Verify, Rs, Weight material removed from BLP. Reply to attack
• [[61]]Address attack and fantasy about my goals. Reply to attack
• [[62]] Correct Gongwool's twisting of meaning of my edit. Request confirmation of Verify. addressing user conduct
• [[63]]Start new section stating support for Gongwool's reading of "Tools for critical thinking in biology" that martin has been criticised for his support of OPV-AIDS. Point out Jenkins characterises those who still support OPV-AIDS as "a few die-hards". NPOV-pushing
• [[64]] I reject Guy's misrepresentation of my edits around OPV-AIDS.Reply to attack
• [[65]] I confirm that Gongwool is correct on OPV-AIDS related criticism of MArtin. And request explanation for Gongwool's intro of inaccuracy into a formerly correct cite. addressing user conduct
• [[66]] I clarify the exact inaccuracies Gongwool has introduced into cite. addressing user conduct
• [[67]] I argue that the presentation of OPV-AIDS as merely "unproven" is far too weak. Suggest "refuted" or "convincingly disproven" as alternatives. NPOV-pushing
• [[68]] Reply to attack by Gongwool, congratulate Gongwool on Jenkins "Tools for" reference discovery. addressing user conduct
• [[69]] improve wording of [[70]] NPOV-pushing
• [[71]] edit to show support for Gongwool's current use of source that criticises Martin re OPV-AIDS. NPOV-pushing
• [[72]] Edit to reject guy's portrayal of "fringe pushing" <<A very poor edit. Previous version of rejection was absolutely fine>> Reply to attack
• [[73]] Criticise Guy's opaque comm style. Raise issue of Guy's pro-vaccine feelings disturbing his editing and admining. Promote Verify and RS. addressing user conduct
• [[74]] Start section in which to discuss "Weight of OPV-AIDS criticism" NPOV-pushing
• [[75]] Express support for change to "Martin is known as one of the supporters of the "convincingly disproven" or "refuted" re:OPV-AIDS NPOV-pushing
• [[76]] Suggest change to date range for Martin's support of OPV-AIDS. NPOV-pushing
• [[77]] New section: show risk that source claiming current views of OPV-AIDS is open to claims of bias. NPOV-pushing
• [[78]] New section: point out BLP vio edit by Gongwool fails RS. NPOV-pushing addressing user conduct
• [[79]] Suggest to Gongwool that refusal to engage to reach consensus is DE. Suggest that Gongwool seek guidance from Guy around requirements for BLPs. addressing user conduct

Any continuation of claims, that my edits on Brian Martin:Talk detailed above constitute POV-pushing or "fringe content pushing", where those claims do not raise specific edits and present reasoned argument for them being POV-pushing or "fringe content pushing", can only be seen as a insistence on mis-portrayal. SmithBlue (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Christ on a bike, have you not yet realised? the horse is dead. Find something productive to do. And do be aware that adding your interpretation of your edits in italics does not confer any validity on that interpretation. In fact, it invites closer scrutiny and active challenge, because it implies that you are setting yourself up as arbiter of neutrality.

Oh yes? Remember your first edit in 2016? [80]

"Brian Martin professor" BLP, DR ongoing

Brian Martin (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Had no access to account so put in BLPN 4 Feb 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=3

Inaccurate denigrating material remains 5 days later. Have not ID'd editors involved.

4 instances of misrepresentation of source contents found and then I stopped counting.

Maybe this time adminstrators can come through on serial inaccurate material in a BLP? Though I thought a BLPN would get some involvement already. But what do I know how this place actually works? Good luck and edit safely. SmithBlue (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That was your first logged-in edit since June 4 2011. Over four and a half years. Just at a time when the anti-vax crankosphere is working itself into a fine lather about the widespread criticism of Wilyman's PhD and Martin's role in it, you pile in with an anti-vax crank website's commentary on our coverage of the OPV-AIDS conjecture. Can you see why that's a it fishy?

Let me remind you of the first of your 53 talk page edits since the beginning of this month, the one which, as it happens, rang alarm bells for me:

Outside review of article lede

Some editors here might be interested in an outside review of the first 2 paragraphs of this article's lede.

Short version "Many factual errors are squeezed into these few words."

Find the long version 1/3 the way down the page at

Good luck and edit safely.

References

SmithBlue (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The source you are proferring is GreenMedInfo, one of many crank websites with a long and inglorious history of promoting anti-vaccination bullshit. Their commentary on our article is of absolutely no value, of course. But isn't it odd that you return form a years-long hiatus pushing commentary form an anti-vax blog that just happens to have published, shortly beforehand, an article spruiking the OPV AIDS conjecture and bigging up martin's "suppression" narrative. Again, this may all be perfectly innocent, but I am sure you can see why it sets off alarm bells. Antivaxers are, after all, dangerous and determined nutters.

Your next Talk edit, just over a month later:

Martin, has since August 2015, added a link to a non-academically published paper that states, "The case study examines the creation of unreasonable public certainty about an unresolved scientific dispute", in its abstract. http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/Dildine15.pdf

Martin's 2010 article can be found at http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/

The 2010 paper does in my reading provide any evidence of Martin promoting OPV-AIDS as the correct explanation of AIDS' origins. However Martin examines and critiques the actions of the opponents of the OPV theory. Misinterpreting this as "Martin supports OPV-AIDS" is unencyclopedic. SmithBlue (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact, this article by Martin absolutely does suggest that he believes debate on the OPV AIDS conjecture is being suppressed - for example: "Scientists have spent a lot of effort trying to refute the polio-vaccine theory of the origin of AIDS, but very little trying to refute the conventional view, that blood from an SIV-infected chimpanzee got into humans via hunting or eating. There is very little direct evidence to support the conventional view, which explains neither the timing nor the location of the origin." This is a profound misunderstanding of the workings of science. The SIV hypothesis stands because it has passed the kinds of tests that the OPV conjecture failed, and because its authors reacted to critical commentary by producing better evidence, not by denial and going to the non-scientific press with a narrative f conspiracy, which is what proponents of the OPV conjecture did. The SIV hypothesis has been successfully defended in the peer-reviewed literature, and - crucially - if it failed the kinds of analysis that the OPV conjecture failed, then it too would be rejected. As with all scientific findings, it is provisional, and based on the best evidence we have to hand. The OPV conjecture has been proven, quite convincingly, to be false. And its continued promotion by anti-vax activists presents an active public health danger.

And this is completely in line with what the sources clearly show to be Martin's tendency to give greater weight to purported whistleblowers than the merits of their claims actually deserves. He is, as it were, seeing reds under every bed. He lacks the scientific background to understand just how convincing the refutation of the OPV conjecture is, and it is not a stretch to consider that the article you cited is indeed an attempt to stand it up with parity to the SIV hypothesis, which has been confirmed by multiple independent lines of inquiry (the OPV conjecture has a single source and, as far as I can tell, no parallel discovery at all, which is extremely unusual for valid scientific advances).

Sticking within Tal space, two edits later you say:

I do note that I find (social scientist) more impressive than (professor). (social scientist) certainly provides more authority to his critiques of social processes such as science. SmithBlue (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Providing "more authority to his critiques of social processes such as science" is a double error: First, providing more authority has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedias mission, especially when people are promoting obvious bollocks, as Martin has with Wilyman's PhD. Second, a social scientist is not a scientist, as such, and social science has little of value to say about the process of hard scientific inquiry. Rather the opposite, as Alan Sokal memorably demonstrated.

Your next Talk space edit:

Did EvergreenFir decide that an east Australian IP is sufficient evidence of a CoI? I have no CoI and aim for NPOV.

That I have tried for the last 6 weeks to bring attention to the multiple BLP vios in article should be celebrated by any editor seeking to improve WP.

Addressing Gongwool's fantasies about my goals for this article - I will be satisfied if the article is based on accurate representations of reliable sources. I am unimpressed by the other claims and positions taken by Gongwool. They appear likely to function as disprutors of editing.SmithBlue (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hubris, much? In "six weeks" of attempts to bring "NPOV" tot his article, you amassed exactly three previous talk page edits on the article. Instead, your efforts centred on canvassing users Nil Einne, Coppertwig and Seabreezes1. Your comments on the Talk page in this time are long on innuendo and short on usable sources.

So, your cherry-picked selection of your edits, and your glowing interpretation of the merits of your own input, do not, I think, tell the whole story. Your implicit assertion that there can be no legitimate criticism of your edits, does not stand up. You exhibit a strong POV and you have returned after a long hiatus in extremely combative mood to fight a battle that is not Wikipedia's. We recognise the scientific consensus view that the OPV-AIDS hypothesis is nonsense, and that Martin's continued support for it is emblematic of a systematic failure to properly challenge his own bias towards those he perceives as whistleblowers. That's what the sources show, in as much as they pay him any attention at all. Guy (Help!) 01:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal redeux

One would not need to look further than this thread to see that SmithBlue is highly disruptive. This thread which started with one of the most passive aggressive things I've seen in my years here. No one has spoken in his favor at all in all the volume of words above. As a matter of fact, almost no one but SmithBlue himself has spoken. In itself, the volume he has written is disruptive. So, Proposed: That SmithBlue be indefinitely topic banned from subjects related to AIDS, broadly construed.

I would also strongly suggest that SmithBlue refrain from commenting in this section. Given the way you have been responding, it is doubtful you would help yourself in any way. John from Idegon (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support nothing more to add, proposal nails it. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As John from Idegon and Jytdog have said, all the evidence needed is in this thread. BMK (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support but extend the ban to any topic on 'vaccination' and/or 'hiv-aids' Jewjoo (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I am good with that too. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on AIDS and vaccines, broadly construed. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Topic bans on AIDS & vaccines, broadly construed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on HIV, AIDS, and vaccines, broadly construed and with a clear explanation that we expect a minimum of six months of productive editing in other areas before we will reconsider the topic ban. SmithBlue is a clearly disruptive editor but it may turn out that he is only disruptive on certain topics. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolution to the issues raised in this AN/I

I have achieved a successful resolution to the issues raised in this AN/I.
In the same way that I would not accept so much of the behavior displayed on this AN/I in my work place, I will not accept it in my recreation either.
Nor will I be a party to the training to bully and harrass or submit and avoid confronting the powerful that is evident here.
Until WP's process integrity and training outcomes reach an acceptable level - Adieu. SmithBlue (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's only a flesh wound! Guy (Help!) 17:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

He is indeed brave, Sir Knight. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Asking an admin to take a look at his userspace and apply NOTAFORUM at their discretion. John from Idegon (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Done.[81] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor disrupts AN/I and then retires on the verge of being banned - quoting the cause celebre of the moment, "bullying" - well, you could knock me over with a feather. BMK (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• This thread should still be closed and if the closer finds consensus for the TBAN it should be enacted. Retirement (which may be temporary) is not a valid way to avoid community-imposed editing restrictions. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Someone is proposing a community ban

Discussion here with examples provided: [82]. Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Wikipedia rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: [83].

Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katie^talk 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As much fun as it is to watch old 'friends' get back together, this isn't the place. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I guarantee you that the placement of your request did not effect the outcome - you saw to that. BMK (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC) A typically unhelpful comment from you. This thread is not about me or you. Stop wasting the communities time and try some content editing for once. DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Hee hee - what parallel universe do you live in, Doc? (Nevermind, I already know, the one in which fringe bullshit is considered to be valid science). In this universe, which is known as the real world, over 70% of my 186K+ edits are to articles. I've done more content edits this month then you have done this year. So, please, take that totally undeserved attitude of yours, and store it where the sun doesn't shine. Just consider that every day in which you're not indef blocked is a victory for you, and enjoy it while you can. Those of us who have been around for a while can see what's coming down the road in your direction. BMK (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Sadly, we live in this universe where a complete and total uncivil WP:DICK like Beyond My Ken can make the most disgusting personal attacks and get away with it. It's well past the time to stick BMK and his "totally undeserved attitude" somewhere "where the sun doesn't shine". It looks like a community ban is due for BMK. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Alan!! Where have you been, my man? You used to always be there any time my name came up, but you've been AWOL recently, and I've missed your predictable calls for my banning over every little thing. Whew! I'm glad the world is right again. Welcome back to the merry-go-round. BMK (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, the only people who call me by my name are my family, my friends and those I respect. You're zero for three here. It would be improper of me to call you Ken, as even the most UnEducatEd among WikipEdia Ed itors have access to the historic details. Maybe it's a good idea if you avoidEd the false familiarity of the whole first name basis thing, BMK? Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC) That was very cute the way you did that, very cute indeed. Unfortunately it just helps to firm up my suspicions about who wrote that piece - certainly the quality of the research matches your own: generally good overall, but with quite a number of complete whiffs at balls in the dirt and way over your head. BTW: Take a look at WP:OUTING with a critical eye, just, you know, to see how closely you're skirting the policy. It's always good to know where you stand when you're slagging off another editor. BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC) @Voidwalker: You're a spoilsport, but I'll be good. <g> BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.

He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!

Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia^talk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 16:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Wikipedia, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:

• You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
• You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
• You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
• You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
• You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Wikipedia policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
• Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
• You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradedia^talk 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion[84] of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Wikipedia policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Wikipedia is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.

It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposing a community ban for 166.137.105.84

He is constantly vandalizing the same pages that a previous IP was blocked for vandalizing and for block evasion. He continues after I have warned him many, many times. Jdcomix (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Jdcomix - This IP has no block log. Why are we jumping straight to a community ban instead of using AIV to report vandalism and have the IP blocked? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, this appears to be long term abuse as documented here: User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Very fast and prolific vandal, multitudinously warned. Blocked for 72 hours. Thank you for reporting, Jdcomix. It is true that AIV is usually faster and better for vandalism reports. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

(edit conflict)This is an LTA abuser, being tracked by multiple editors for the last two months. Details can be found at here, as a copycat of the Animation Hoaxer. Dozens of insertions of deliberate factual errors every day or two, so far a dozen IP's have been collected. An experienced admin should consider a range block. Scr★pIron^IV 18:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I did consider it, ScrapIronIV, but this IP isn't related to any of the others listed by NinjaRobotPirate. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen. I hadn't geolocated the IP, because I have become so familiar with the behavior. All the numbers look the same after a while... This type of vandalism particularly tough to deal with, because those who perform it also insert false information into supporting articles. Scr★pIron^IV 19:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately they seem to be well at home among the proxies. It doesn't exactly take any skill nowadays. :-( I guess whac-a-mole is all we can do, until such time as Wikipedia starts requiring registration. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

Yeah, this looks like the US-based copycat. The geolocation is wrong (New York instead of Texas), but everything else is the same, including the ISP. It could be that AT&T Wireless doesn't have a stable geolocation for customers. I hope it's not a third vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This range (the 166.* range) seems to be a magnet to vandals. Site banned no less. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this would make it the 4th user of this particular range to need a site ban. Blackmane (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I just filed another report for 166.137.105.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at WP:AIV, but it's looking a bit backlogged. This is the same vandalism from the same narrow IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that provides a nice little range. I've blocked 166.137.105.0/24 for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC).

If you liked that, you'll love this. Check out 2602:30A:2C95:6B0::/64. There's very similar vandalism in the form of hoax casting to children's animated films, especially The Rugrats Movie and Rugrats Go Wild. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Sorry to bother you with this, but a few more IPs from this range have shown up and performed the same vandalism as prior IPs identified here. For example: [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]. This whole IP range is almost nothing but Rugrats-themed vandalism, plus the occasional spree in other animated franchises. A range block on 2602:30A:2C95:6B0 won't stop it, but it will slow it down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole /64 range is most likely one person. I've blocked it for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC).

MfD end run GAME

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp. Userpage kept at MfD, so someone moves it to mainspace to see it deleted under the higher standards of AfD. A disingenuous move of someone else's userpage. WP:GAMEing to subvert the consensus at MfD. Blatant refusal to accept the obvious consensus at WT:N that the WP:GNG is not to be applied to userpage drafts. WP:TEAMing, by the page mover and the AfD nominator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac [90]
• Ricky81682 [91]

This is a little crazy. The page should be userfied and the AfD closed. It was a user page moved into main space and then immediately nominated for deletion so clearly the editor didn't think it met notability standards. It should have been left as a user page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No notification to me of this thread, just happened to see the topic. It is disingenuous to vote to keep a topic that you think does not belong in the encyclopedia and even more so to start an ANi thread about someone taking action to make usable something you want kept. There are tons of stubs out in mainspace waiting to be expanded and this is just one more. If the topic passes GNG, great, and if not, that is ok too. Let editors decide. Legacypac (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the question is not on the material itself, but the fact that almost no one, not even yourself, believes it passes GNG, but it was moved to the mainspace seemingly with the intent to have it AFDd. It makes it seem that the thought process in your head is as follows: "Oh, it survived MfD because GNG does not apply to the user space. Let's move it to the mainspace so it can be deleted!"

I'm not really sure what I think of this mess. It brings up the question, why should stale drafts be deleted? No one seems to agree on that. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Other examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caring for our Watersheds

I'm sure there are more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Not a conduct issue. Just move it back to user or draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• It is most definitely behavioural. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F was very clear, almost personally, to Legacypac. This GAME of moving his MfD userpage nomination failures unilaterally to mainspace for himself or Ricky to immediately nominate at AfD citing the GNG is even an openly declared strategy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Moving_userspace_drafts_to_mainspace_to_test_notability

Re, "just move it back", there is the issue that non-admins can't actually do this, since it requires moving over a redirect. Also, moving it back would almost certainly result in Legacypac moving it again, and I don't want to start a move war. A2soup (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Moving_userspace_drafts_to_mainspace_to_test_notability. Very much related. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait, is the accusation that I'm teaming up to nominate the page for AFD along with closing the MFD discussion? I'm just closing these MFD discussions and there's been more than enough at MFD with people moving them to mainspace in the middle of MFD and removing the MFD notice. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rohit Varma, M.D., M.P.H. (2nd nomination) and Rohit Varma for one by DGG. If Legacypac is doing that with non-notable pages, then anyone can nominate them for deletion but most of the moves seem fine to me. The RFC on these moves basically came back as no consensus due to not being specific enough. I nominated the Watersheds for AFD specifically with the option to draftify since it didn't seem to qualify for mainspace. I think the issue is the question of what exactly is to be done with many year old drafts that possibly (?) aren't ready for mainspace. That and the repeated accusations of some kind of cabal-like behavior based on the very few interactions going on at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You are connected in that Legacypac is drawing from your list of so called stale pages, and in at least two cases have AfDed a userpage that legacypac moved to mainspace in bad faith. I would call on you to not enable this activity. Yes, Legacypac is doing many justifiable userspace-to-mainspace moves, but amongst them are some pretty bad faith MfD end runs, moving userpages to mainspace where he well knows they will be promptly deleted per AfD standards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think there is a large amount of mind-reading as to why Legacypac is doing whatever he is doing in this area, and I personally agree with Ricky81682 that the moves look helpful and in good faith. If someone's research and writing appear useful to the encyclopedia, then by all means move it to mainspace. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• The move by Legacypac is at the very least WP:POINTy. He directly stated in the move rationale that he didn't think it was notable, and yet he moved to mainspace anyway. I don't think Ricky's behavior is problematic. Assuming good faith, he saw an article that wasn't notable in the mainspace and nominated it for AfD, exactly as he should in that situation. ~ Rob^Talk 03:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Many of the page moves are an end run around the communities lack of agreement for the wholesale deletion of drafts. One random example is Hack n' Smack Celebrity Golf Classic in Memory of Kerry Daveline. Legacypac moved it from userspace to mainspace where it was A7-ed. Yet Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_56#The_A_criteria_do_not_apply_to_DraftSpace was abundantly clear that A-criteria do not apply outside mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've CSD'd thousands of stale drafts and promoted hundreds of them to mainspace. The complaining deals with a few borderline cases. I actually thought the Hack and Smack one was notable (it is a long running Hollywood star studded event that has received a lot of press) and was surprised to see it deleted A7 by an Admin. I'm doing productive sorting of stale drafts. The complaint is only armchair quarterbacking. Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• No action: Not an ANI issue, as others have noted. The purpose of draftspace is to draft articles. This is just an illustration of how current MfD practices are woefully inadequate to the task of handling the draft namespace. Draftspace MfDs are essentially a catch-22: The purpose of draftspace is to prepare an article for eventual movement to mainspace. MfD won't consider notability of a draft because a draft isn't an article. So we're left with a continuous parade of abandoned drafts on subjects that weren't notable when written, and never became notable in the ensuing years. Call it an IAR move. Something has got to give. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Certainly an ANI issue. I have userfied the page and closed the AfD. Legacypac has been completely open with this strategy: the edit summary from Graffiki sums it up nicely: move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying. I have left the following comments at User talk:Legacypac along with a warning not to continue these actions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It was highly disruptive to move User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp to mainspace when you knew it was not suitable. You are hereby issued with wet trout. If you do this again, you may be blocked.

Just in case you don't understand why your actions are inappropriate, consider the following analogy. There is something in your userspace which I find objectionable. I move the page into the template namespace. I then open a TfD pointing out that it is not a template and should be deleted.

If you want to change Wikipedia's policy on the draft namespace, then please work towards getting it changed. (You may well receive broad support from other editors.) But circumventing inconvenient policies that you don't agree with, will not be tolerated. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

What a disruptive move on your part, threatening me for moving a marginal article to mainspace - i even tagged it appropriately for cleanup. Why are you overriding another Admin's AfD and the opinions of other editors that this should be deleted? Sitting in the userspace of a long gone user accomplishes nothing. 07:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. MSGJ's action here is closer to a supervote than anything else. Even if the move to mainspace was wrong, unilaterally closing an AfD with good faith !votes in support of deletion, before the discussion had been open for 7 days, would be just as wrong if not more so. Two wrongs don't make a right. As I said above, this is yet another illustration of how woefully inadequate MfD has become for addressing article drafts. Legacypac should be commended for being bold and trying to find a resolution for this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Can someone please tell me what use it is to retain non-notable stale drafts created by drive-by users who left immediately half a decade ago? Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Better to wait for an editor who cares about the topic to look into it than to have legacypac mass-process them all throwing out notable drafts amongst them, and alienating once productive Wikipedians now on wikibreak. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't move the goalposts. Softlavender asked about a very specific scenario that didn't involve people on wikibreak, and involved a draft that hadn't been touched in a half-decade. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There was an MFD discussion for deleting a page of a user who hasn't been active since 2005 opposed heavily on the basis that the user didn't put up a "retired" tag on their page meaning that they could return after a decade. To some people, a half-decade or longer could be a wikibreak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And how would an editor "who cares about the topic" find such a non-notable userpage draft? And who would such an editor be that would even find a userpage draft on a non-notable subject? Moreover, unless coded with "noindex", non-notable user subpages come up on Google searches and act as spam and self-promotion unless deleted. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Interested editors find userspace material using internal Wikipedia searches, or WhatLinksHere from related topics. The issue is Legacypac GAMEing to delete old drafts on notable topics. Deciding Wikipedia-notability requires extensive source searching and analysis, it is not defined by the current state of the page. Spam and promotion are irrelevant to this discussion, no one opposes deletion of spam and promotion. What this is about is Legacypac moving userspace drafts on possibly notable topics to mainspace so that they will get deleted, when the page has already been kept as a userpage, or draft page, at MfD, or he knows full well that it would be kept. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Re "non-notable user subpages come up on Google searches" - this is a common argument, but it's actually not true at all, and hasn't been for some time. As documented at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Namespace and robots.txt, all of userspace and draftspace are automatically noindexed. You can verify this yourself by trying to find these drafts through Google. I've done it and found that, ironically, all you can find is the deletion discussion. So deleting the pages actually gives them marginally more exposure than leaving them be. For stale pages with mild to moderate promotion issues, the best option is clearly to blank and replace with {{Userpage blanked}}, which is actually the remedy recommended by WP:STALEDRAFT. A2soup (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A2soup: Only WP:DRAFTS-space pages and userpages are non-indexed. User subpages (which is where most drafts occur, not on draftspace) are indeed indexed by Google, and unless coded with "noindex", non-notable user subpages come up on Google searches and act as spam and self-promotion unless deleted. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The attitude I've been seeing since I showed up at MfD seems to alternate between "someone might use it someday" (but contrast WP:XBALL) and "the policy page doesn't say we should delete it" (usually referring to the explicit wording of WP:STALEDRAFT, which suggests a whole host of non-delete outcomes for things that will never be used in yet another half-decade). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The logic here beats me. MFD is just getting weird. Ten year old drafts of Hitler have opposition to deletion. 18 month old press releases in Mongolian about stock issuances get opposed. Eight year old copies of mainspace articles get opposition. Nine year old drafts of the article for WWI in the userspace of a vanished user are opposed. We have non-admin closures for a crazy contentious discussion to keep a single sentence after five years when a draft already exist based on other identical discussions while relisting get reverted until an RFC about whether "Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions" is resolved. I don't agree with it but I understand Legacypac's frustration. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That's inclusionism gone mad. The arguments posted by the opposers are nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My personal favorite at the moment is this MfD in which it's been claimed that deleting content copied-and-pasted from a web source as a copyvio is inappropriate because it serves to BITE the creator, who might be an employee or volunteer for the subject, and who hasn't followed the instructions at WP:DCM, and who has been blocked for having a promotional username and engaging in promotional edits (and not merely a UAA "you only have to change your username" block). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer why we are deleting userspace drafts, the process found about 50 hoaxes just from one user: [92] and it took me just a couple minutes of checking to find this nonsense User:RickyIsNinja/The_Ooba_Jooba but hey maybe we should save that in case someone can establish notability or wants to work on it. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That looks like a slam-dunk delete to me because it's either a hoax or something made-up for off-wiki purposes. Even hardcore inclusionists should see that. I've gone ahead and MFD'd it. clpo13_(talk) 18:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The more appropriate and efficient action for a blatant hoax to to speedy delete per WP:G3. But in any case, to the best of my knowledge, neither I not anyone else has opposed the MfD deletion of a demonstrated hoax. Contrary to their statement above, Legacypac has repeatedly stated that the purpose of deleting userspace drafts is to clean up userspace, with no mention of hoaxes. A quick look at their MfD noms will also show that hoaxes are a very small proportion. A2soup (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If we MfD this User:Rileyboss/Michael smith's dick someone will argue we should not be tampering with userspace. Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And accuse whoever nominated it of being a busybody, most likely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A userpage draft should not be kept indefinitely. It was last edited by the editor who created it in March 2011. If there is no policy on drafts covering time limits for drafts then policy covering the matter should be created. How many years can a draft be kept in usepage before it is deleted or moved to mainspace? QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, there's enough apathy regarding drafts and MfD generally that the jurisprudential practices there have turned it into a walled garden. The suggestions in WP:STALEDRAFT are particularly disconnected from reality. Redirecting drafts to mainspace articles that never had content from them, simply blanking drafts comprising unsourced BLPs, keeping and stubbing copied-and-pasted web content with no evidence of permission. These things would never happen in any other deletion process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting relistings by admins and demanding RFCs on the matter wouldn't happen elsewhere either. The problem is it's easy to come with the hypothetical "fearful user who returns after a decade distraught that the one-sentence text he started in 2007 was deleted" but that's not the reality. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup's point hoaxes are one of many reasons the continued objections to cleaning up user space are inappropriate. We keep hearing that we should leave userspace alone, but there is copyvio, attack pages, and ofher issues there. Here is another example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pope_Pope/Aye_Phyu_Phyu_Aung -surely this should be kept in case she becomes a famous person and someone can use this as background material. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's GAMING occurring here. Given how much these two edit on XfDs, I'd need a lot more evidence to be convince this wasn't just coincidence.

How about we discuss an expiration date for stale draft pages instead? Frankly I buy the arguments above that there's no reason to keep old abandoned drafts, especially ones with minimal content. I'd think anything older than 3 years should just be deleted outright unless someone thinks it's remotely worth of stub or higher status in the mainspace and approaches GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The GAMING is apparent in Legacypac's comments in the MfD discussion: "If not deleted here I will promote to mainspace on the strength of the Keep votes." To which I (the sole Keep vote) responded, "Emphatically, I do not advocate promoting this article to mainspace in its present state - I am not arguing for that." Nonetheless, Legacypac moved the page immediately after MfD closure with the move summary "stale draft that survived MfD because editors refused to consider notability". If that's not evidence of the GAMING descirbed, I don't know what is. A2soup (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

See also the similar case of User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki, which Legacypac moved to mainspace with the move summary "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying". The best evidence for GAMING is Legacypac's comment here, in an MfD discussion where they explicitly lay out their plans for what they are doing now: "If you keep voting to keep draft articles on non-notable topics, I'll moved them into article space and AfD them. When they are deleted by the larger community thr dtaft turned in a redirect will be deleted too." A2soup (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I have no objection to removing copyvio, atttack pages, and many other issues from userspace. I think that speedy deletion per WP:G12 (copyvio) and WP:G10 (attack pages) are more efficient avenues than MfD, and will sometimes say so, but I do not oppose those deletions. What I strenuously object to is deleting userspace drafts for notability issues, which was the question at stake in this case and the others that I have complained about. Non-notability in userspace is not problematic because the pages are not part of the encyclopedia and are not indexed in search engines (deletion discussions are indexed, so deletion ironically give these pages more visibility than they would otherwise have).

I have yet to see a reason why deletion of non-notable stale userspace drafts benefits the encyclopedia compared to the alternatives of removing from the stale drafts category or blanking with {{Userpage blanked}}. In addition, it has the definite drawbacks of 1) taking up admin time, 2) increasing the visibility of the pages, 3) making material difficult to retrieve (even if the subject is not notable, some of the information may be useful in another article, which may not have been created yet), and 4) alienating editors, since userspace is generally considered a private workspace, as long as the work is not problematic.

As a final note, Legacypac states above that they are "cleaning up user space". This practice is is in direct contradiction with WP:MFD, which states: "we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." That Legacypac is not only persistently disregarding this policy with their MfD noms of stale non-notable drafts, but also disregarding the policy through GAMEing tactics, is the subject of this ANI report. A2soup (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the benefits of deleting userspace drafts, user pages are not private workspaces (see WP:UP#OWN). Users no more own their user pages than they do their contributions to articles. The only way to ensure information on Wikipedia is not changed or deleted is to keep it somewhere else. clpo13_(talk) 22:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that userspaces are not technically private workspaces. I am arguing that they are usually treated as such when non-problematic, which makes clearing out stale drafts in userspace apt to offend editors and therefore undesirable. A2soup (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering how broken MfD is, referring to its landing page for an indication of the only ways in which it may be used is almost comical. It's not a policy page, or even a guideline page. It's a process description page referring to what is quite possibly the most broken deletion process right now. At the end of the day the entire purpose of userspace drafts (and draftspace drafts) is to write articles that will someday become articles. Okay, it takes up admin time: Let's create a CSD process if these pages are uncontroversially useless. It increases the visibility of the pages? A couple weeks listed at MfD is a joke compared to the years most of these have spent getting indexed by Google. Making the material difficult to retrieve is a reasonable complaint, but where we're talking about drafts that have no hope of becoming articles, there's almost never anything to retrieve. Finally, alienating editors? What's worse: Deleting a draft that has zero hope of becoming an article written by someone who created nothing else; or leading editors on by keeping a hopeless draft at MfD only for them to submit it to AfC to get declined again and again (or moved to mainspace where it gets A7'd or AfD'd immediately)? And how is unilaterally blanking someone's sandbox any less bitey? At least MfD gives an explanation beyond an edit summary, as well as shows an inexperienced editor that it wasn't some roving tyrant of an admin who shat on their userspace, but an actual discussion by more than one person. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if the answer to this is in the giant thread to this point, but why isn't indexing of drafts disabled? I realize that makes them less visible to editors who could help bring the draft to usefulness (though I wouldn't be surprised if that's never happened in the history of the universe), but maybe that's the dividing line between draftspace and mainspace -- in draftspace, someone's got to either get the thing to a minimally acceptable point on his or her own, or explicitly recruit others to help make that happen. Probably these comments will seem hopelessly uninformed to those who hang around the draft process a lot. EEng 22:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked on it myself. Looks like userspace did get noindexed as of around November (though the INDEX magicword apparently still works there to override it), and draftspace is also noindexed by default (no idea when that was implemented). All that said, most of the disputes at MfD are over userspace drafts from before 2014. But on the other hand, MfD is also noindexed by default. So is all of AfD. So the whole argument about giving new prominence to something that should be deleted is kind of a wash (though I'd point out that virtually all the userspace drafts getting nominated were indexed for years before getting nominated, so even then... it's a drop in the bucket if MfD increases that prominence). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Re "MfD is also noindexed by default." - Sorry, this just isn't true. I don't understand why you're saying it. I spend a lot of time googling stuff at MfD. Try it yourself, run these google searches on userspace drafts currently at MfD: [93] [94] [95] What comes up? Maintenance categories, deletion discussions, and not the page itself. A2soup (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, closed MfDs are noindexed by default. {{mfd top}} transcludes a noindex flag. Perhaps active MfDs should be noindexed as well. I think that's something worth discussing, don't you think? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see my comments weren't so hopelessly uninformed after all. EEng 02:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal. If the stale draft is not going to be deleted then it should be blanked. I will replace the draft with {{Userpage blanked|reason=stale}} Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Would support. Better and easier than deleting them through MfD. Can we get a threshold for "stale" though? If we can agree to a certain time limit, we could employ a bot to go through and do the work for us based on date of last edit. I mentioned 3 years as a limit above, but was just a number I pulled out of thin air. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think QG is just talking about the specific page that gave rise to this thread, which absolutely should happen. As a general principle I support 3 years after last edited, or 1 year after the editor stopped editing, whichever happens first. But I think anything we come up with here will get contested. I don't have a lot of faith that anything other than "leave it alone" will happen. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I generally share your pessimism but it's something easy enough to propose and see what folks think. I'd be happy to start the proposal (on VP perhaps) and see where it goes. Don't think it will get far, but would rather try and fail then just let it continue as is. I think your extra 1 year stipulation is a good one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a policy for time limits. Time limits should be added to policy or we are going to end up at AN/I again when another stale draft is found. QuackGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir, VP is a good start. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Yeah, any policy change would have to be over at VP, right? Honestly though I think this mess of an ANI shows the problem well enough to justify a policy change. On another note, I support your proposal if you're just referring to this particular ANI filing. (Assumed/Misread that you mean all drafts and kinda ran with it). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, please make the policy change. My proposal is for the one stale draft. My second proposal is for all drafts as soon as policy is changed. QuackGuru (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:STALE suggests one year, but that's only for userspace drafts. AFAIK, there's no time limit for draftspace. clpo13_(talk) 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: @EvergreenFir: @Mendaliv: I drafted a comprehensive RfC about stale drafts some time ago: User:A2soup/MfD RfC. As someone with a lot of experience with the locus of the conflict, I formulated it to address precisely the main points of disagreement. I was told that it would not be helpful, so I didn't open it. Perhaps we could post it to VP or an appropriate talk page? A2soup (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think an RFC on policy views is not going to accomplish a ton. If the people who actually !vote on each discussion afterwards make different opinions, are we supposed to disregard that in exchange for what an RFC came up with? We don't close discussions based on what the people in an RFC think the policy should be, we close based on what was actually discussed in the discussion. The bigger issue is eight year old userspace copies of mainspace are being opposed under the guise of "rudeness". It's one thing to disagree with deletion but another to just insult and criticize every nominator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ekantik/Shilpa Shetty is an example of a perfunctory nomination, with disregard to getting the facts of the details right. In short, it is an example of why the nominator cannot be trusted with his nominations. The error rate is too high. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What is in the world is wrong with nominating an eight year userspace draft for an article that already has a biography of a living person out there? This is the textbook definition of WP:UP#COPIES. Are we supposed to just continue with changes to the templates, changes to the text and ignore the very real possibility of BLP violations because a user half a decade ago did some work? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes your write sensibly, sometimes nonsense. Your textbook reading is incorrect, try reading it again. Independent creations on the same topic are not "COPIES". WP:UP#COPIES does not cover BLP problems, if there is a BLP problem, nominate on the basis of the BLP problem. What is wrong with nominating worthless harmless things? I may have forgotten to mention busywork, a failing you are obsessing with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Honestly though I think this mess of an ANI shows the problem well enough to justify a policy change" No, there is enough of a problem of flagrant disregard of consensus at MFD, WT:MFD, CT:CSD, WT:DRV, WT:N, to say that editors should stop WP:GAMEing to avoid inconvenient lack of consensus, and the so called "problem" of old good faith article drafts in userspace is entirely a manufactured non-problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no functioning system to game here.

If someone's random user subpage does not exactly fit a narrow reading of a CSD, we are not supposed to bring it to MfD for an ever changing batch of nonsense reasons. Then a couple editors vote to Keep random nonsense pages because they will not consider GNG, but object to a move to mainspace because in their opinion the topic does not pass GNG! That just proves they considered GNG, though they say they can't or will not.

It makes sense that an active editor's new draft in userspace may not have enough refs or content yet to obviously pass GNG, so we give them a lot of leeway to work on it, but at some point after the editor is long gone, it is crazy not to make a judgement call on the page against GNG and then act on it. Editors who are actively cleaning up are met with attacks, insults, scorn and ridicule, and now dragged to ANi over a stupid situation the complaining editors created with their super narrow interpretation of guidelines.

Wikipedia is a public space for all to enjoy, kind of like a park. The current situation is like bystanders throwing bottles and insults at volunteers removing trash from a park, claiming someone might come looking for the trash later. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your WP:GAME (openly declared as noted above) is to take a userpage not deleted at MfD (where WT:N affirmed that the WP:GNG does not apply), and move it to mainspace, knowing full well that it is not appropriate in mainspace, so as to see it deleted at AfD (where the GNG applies). WP:GAMEing is disruption. If you don't like consensus, you should abide anyway or seek to change it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

First - I did not do that on the article you started this thread with. Second, if a draft article passes MfD it should go to mainspace and be tagged appropriately so it can be worked on by various editors. Let it sink or swim like everything else. Voting to Keep a page then arguing it is not notable is WP:GAMEing the system and is disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No, userspace is fine for draft material not ready for mainspace. I can't see anything but extreme immediatism in your position. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Legacypac, SmokeyJoe, Ricky81682, A2soup, Clpo13, Mendaliv, and QuackGuru: I've typed up two versions of a VP proposal at User:EvergreenFir/sandbox7. On the talk page let me know what you think of them, if you prefer one over the other, see errors, etc. I'll move to VP after some feedback. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "Editors who wish to keep their drafts despite not editing them for 3 years can easily revert the changes made and essentially reset the clock for another 3 years."
  • User:EvergreenFir, another 3 years is too long. There must be a time limit. I suggest changing it to and reset the clock for no longer than one year." QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't like blanking because: -it is completely unilateral action by a single editor in an area likely no one is watching. there is no second set of eyes on the actin -it is exactly what we are NOT supposed to do to articles, talk pages and so on. -There is no value to the project, and the problematic material just stays a click away. -It leaves that stale page available to vandals to play with. -If restored, someone needs to find and delete the page anyway later Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Blanking doesn't need review because it is only an ordinary edit. Fear of vandals unblanking near-harmless pages in userspace is an unfounded fear. But if you don't like blanking, then don't. Userspace is no_indexed back rooms where users can have their private pages. Userpage vandalism does happen, but only for highly active editors who engage the vandals first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's one view. Others have viewed blanking without notice as more disruptive than an actual MFD discussion. There's also no way to tell it's unfounded absent people watching the blanking. And as someone who has had to deal with users in the World's Oldest People space and various versions of Indian film biographies and the like, it is an unnecessary nuisance that can come back weeks and months later because it does not solve the actual behavior issues, namely instructing editors that they should either learn to work together on the mainspace version or go somewhere else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, there is room for that debate. I don't think it has been played out before. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

After one year stale drafts should be deleted or moved to mainspace. Editors who wish to keep their drafts despite not editing them for 1 year can be given a one time extension of six months.[96] QuackGuru (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Moving userpage drafts that are not within your own userspace to the article namespace because it has higher standards is inappropriate, especially if they have already survived MfD. It is basically flippantly asserting disagreement with the policies and guidelines about what should be kept in what manner in a specific namespace, and then proceeding to unilaterally move it to another with harsher standards. These of moves should be treated like any if other and reverted since there are challenges against them, and the move should be discussed. The AfDs should then be closed as the improper forum. In regard to how the specific content mentioned at the beginning of this section: WP:U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Back on point

Let's get back to the main point here. Legacypac has been moving pages from userspace to mainspace, pages it seems like he doesn't believe will pass GNG. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki, Legacypac listed the page for deletion (but there was no discussion about the actual draft at MFD) but that discussion was largely more about the "move to mainspace and then list for deletion" and ultimately was deleted, arguments aside. Otherwise, there are two instances where I closed an MFD discussion as moot because the page had already been moved to mainspace and then I separately listed the pages for deletion, both of which resulted in them being moved, one to draft and one returned. Fine, you can say I should have been more aggressive with both MFD closes (moving Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hershey890/Caring for our Watersheds to draftspace rather than let it go in mainspace and forcibly moving the other page back) but I think that's beyond my job here. There's no evidence other than the typical ridiculous speculation that this was some tagged-team effort to get the pages taken to mainspace for deletion and there's zero actual evidence that, other than Graffiki case, that Legacypac is actually moving these pages to mainspace to "game" them into an AFD for deletion. As seen above, we have some serious issues with the process at MFD which only can be solved with more eyes and people perhaps working out better explanation and methodologies than just accusing all the nominator (or also the admins closing these things) of being part of some grand conspiracy to I don't know "destroy" the userspace drafts from people who haven't been around here for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• You'd need to show that Legacypac is not doing this in good faith. A lot of pages hang around in userspace for ever and should be either nuked under CSD U5 or kicked over the line into mainspace to sink or swim on their own merits. If the user is active then there's no problem, but if all they have ever done is write a userspace article on their band or whatever then housekeeping takes over. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you Guy. I'm not aware of any rule that says an editor can't start an article about something that turns out to fail AfD (most active editors have done that) and there is similarly no rule that says you can't promote a draft from draft or user space that fails an AfD. We have all been surprised that various articles pass or fail AfD so none of us have a perfect ability to predict what meets GNG. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Fie on rules. The purpose of Wikipedia is mainspace. Everythign else is subsidiary. A user who has not edited in years, whose user space is cluttered with personal web space or advertorial, is not contributing. If a user in good faith believes these articles are intended by the user - who is no longer around to ask - as genuine attempts at encyclopaedia content, then what's the problem with moving them to mainspace? Regardless oft heir objective encyclopaedic merit, this can be charitably interpreted is an attempt to actually help a user achieve what they presumably set out to do. And if the page is a no-hoper, then inactive users don't get indefinite free web hosting. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fie on obfuscation. Personal web space and advertorials have never been OK, are readily deleted, and are not relevant to this discussion. You appear to advocate that drafts should never be in userspace? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's anything actually contrary to policy or that qualifies as gaming were Legacypac intentionally moving drafts to mainspace so they could be run through AfD. A long-untouched draft in draftspace or userspace that is kept at MfD carries a strong implication that MfD considers it viable as a possible article. If there's consensus at MfD that a draft is viable then Legacypac would only be acting in line with that consensus to push it to mainspace. If anything, the disruption is coming from MfD itself, which allows drafts about non-encyclopedic subjects to be kept because there's a consensus against broadly applying WP:N to draftspace and userspace. If there's a consensus that a draft cannot be moved to mainspace because the subject is not notable, then why are we keeping it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at the end of the day. Everything in WP:NOT bristles against the very idea that we should indefinitely host drafts of articles on non-viable subjects. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Mendaliv, if that is you opinion, there is an open RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F awaiting your input. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't even get thinly disguised 2011 link spam deleted at MfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SE19991/Move_Management Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Broaden NoIndex

Someone suggested broadening the No Indexing above. Let's no index MfD because it mainly deals with pages that are no index now. Also apply No Index to the stale draft category and similar. I don't know how to do that, but it would sure reduce how much prominance we are giving to junk by sending it to MfD. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I reduced the header as I presume this is meant for the discussion above. I suggest that topic be taken to WT:MFD as it's not appropriate for ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably no discussion necessary. MfD is already in the robots.txt. WP:NOINDEX seems to also argue that you might also want to NOINDEX those pages? I'm not sure. Pinging TheDJ who added that point to WP:NOINDEX. If correct, we'd want to add <includeonly>__NOINDEX__</includeonly> to {{Mfd2}}. This would get all new MfDs, but not ones that are open now (since {{Mfd2}} is substed), but those would get noindexed when closed. MfDs closed before September 8, 2009 probably don't have the NOINDEX flag either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Broader question

Question: given that the overall view here seems to be in agreement that Legacypac (or at least me) are not doing anything wrong, does anyone find the antics of the keep voters getting to be disruptive? Currently, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth is being debated with the new opposition that WP:FAKEARTICLE does not apply whenever a page is listed as a draft as all drafts are permitted indefinitely as long as the magic template:userspace draft is on the page (if that's actually policy, I'm going to move to delete the template as ridiculous). At some point, these argument fall beyond typical disagreement into the world of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and just plain belligerency. No one in particular but I'd like outside views on whether it really should be this difficult to delete decade-old-copies of Adolf Hitler's page, copies of WWI, copyrighted copies of Facebook posts, copies of Mongolian press releases marketing stocks and the like. Note that we still do not have a close on whether admins are permitted to relist MFD discussions and the current conduct at MFD has been that: (a) admins relisting discussions get reverted by non-admins who then accuse them of doing it as part of a "deletionist cabal" while (b) non-admins are free to relist discussions and close discussions without question. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What else is starting to become bothersome are the endless WP:NOTBURO-violative keeps on the grounds that the nom wasn't phrased with the right magic words, and should be kept for failure to state a claim (and I don't believe that's an exaggeration of what's been happening). Wikipedia isn't a court of law. Maybe MfD isn't AfD, but I would still expect !voters to do their own homework when they !vote: A number of times now I've gone in and checked MfDs after keeps have been lodged and found that something was a userspace copy, or a copyvio, or something else that not only should be deleted, but must be deleted. Yes, perhaps some editors could spend a little more time doing background on stale draft noms, but two wrongs don't make a right. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the MfD "Keep" !voters are either misunderstanding, gaming, being incorrectly point-y, or just disliking Legacypac. If at MfD a long-gone user's draft is !voted Keep as possibly notable or for some other reason, the next obvious step is mainspace and AfD. No harm done, and any usable content will be kept and made useful that way. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here except to pile-on Legacypac for doing diligent cleanup. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: My take is pretty simple - I would like to see some centralized discussion rather than the "this is what we do now regardless of the relevant guideline" approach. Now, Mendaliv may be right that that borders on WP:NOTBURO territory, but when we are talking >10k drafts it makes sense to be methodical: if we are going to IAR every one of these, why do we have the guideline in the first place? In particular, it seems to me that a significant majority of these MfD nominations are simple enough to be determined en masse, by criteria rather than individually. That's the superior way to decide - more consistent, but much more importantly it keeps MfD reserved for content that actually needs community discussion.

If anything, recent consensus at centralized discussion locations has resulted in the opposite of support for expanded deletion in user space, ie this discussion at WT:N. Based on that alone, I think characterizing "inclusionist" votes at MfD as disruptive is a little much, and risks fostering an "us vs them" mentality that is just not going to be helpful. There is an open RfC at WT:UP regarding user space drafts that participants in this thread should join. I also just started a discussion on a (I think pretty straightforward) process improvement over at WT:CSD which would marginally help the "MfD becoming a rubber stamp" concern (U5 was a bigger step already). I also think there is an opportunity to expand nomination of the more objectionable drafts Mendaliv mentions under existing G criteria. VQuakr (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Arguing that userspace drafts should not be allowed indefinitely is a pretty fair reading of the relevant guidelines and arguing that we need further discussion to have further discussion to actually discuss that seems like another hurdle created to actually disrupt the majority of those discussions. Was there really a need to have two separate RfCs on whether or not admins can relist discussions? Is there really a need to argue that WP:UP policy doesn't apply because the person put template:userspace draft on their page? You have been here many year, do you seriously believe that? I mean, seriously. Are these drafts actually worth saving? The real frustration is that there is no evidence of actual opposition about the actual context, the text, not one person has gone to DRV or requested restoration or REFUND or the host of ways to actually get the content back. We never see someone saying "wait, this is actually good, let me or even someone else work on it and make it into mainspace" but instead it is over the top personal attacks of "you are being rude, you are being mean, you are terrible human beings out to destroy people's work" none of which have anything to do with the actual goal of finding stuff that is actually useful and worth working on. An editor created something four, five, six years ago. If it was in mainspace, the pearl-clutching idiocy about offending them by deleting their stuff would be ignore in a second. If that is deleted, and an edtior returns after many years, they can ask around and have it restored in their userspace or the like. But because they put in their own userspace (which was what they were *told to do*), it's suddenly the most important thing on earth to protect. Here, the editor gets a note on their talk page, a link to an active discussion on the matter and in the minute chance that the editor returns, they can follow the path and ask around and get it back. It is literally no different than if the original had been created in mainspace Is that a terrible, horrible thing that actively requires rounds and rounds of discussions about the process of relistings, about whether the wording within the actual nomination references the fact that a mainspace version was created two years after it, two years before, the day before, the day after when there's no hint of a connection between the two? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I hear you, but what you way WP:UP says doesn't seem to match the actual content of WP:STALEDRAFT - hence the RfC I started seeking clarification as to whether the status quo wording actually matches consensus. I haven't looked at the MfD closure RfCs enough to have any informed opinion. I hadn't noticed the "userspace draft template" argument before either, so I guess I would need a diff. As I pointed out to Legacypac earlier, pulling salvageable drafts into mainspace doesn't require any deletion of the other stuff - the deletion of non-problematic cruft at MfD is busywork at best. Personally, my biggest concern is the dilution of community attention away from the stuff that actually needs discussion at MfD, though the rather flagrant disregard for consensus (or in other cases interest in achieving any sort of consensus) is concerning as well. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682 The point for me at least is that the wholesale clearing out of userspace drafts is a very dramatic action that is contrary to consensus as recorded in current guidelines. The clearing out of userspace drafts is unsupported by the MfD landing page ("Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines.") and WP:STALEDRAFT ("if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion.").

I know your arguments, I disagree and have my own - ultimately we have to follow consensus, which, as recorded in current guidelines, does not indicate that the clearing out of userspace drafts is appropriate. If you want to do this, you have to establish consensus at VP or a similarly central policy venue (not ANI) that stale userspace drafts should be cleared out. IAR deleting an entire type of page is a ridiculous proposition. A2soup (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to argue that this is all against current guidelines when every single category and page this is based on has called this a "backlog" for years. It must be a backlog for some reason, right? Category:Stale userspace drafts for example has since September 2011 suggested taking pages to MFD and was explicitly called a backlog in March 2015. Similarly, Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from October 2009 for again, October 2009 states explicitly that it "combines all userspace drafts from October 2009 (2009-10) to enable us to work through the backlog more systematically." The fact is that "userspace drafts should be left indefinitely" and "WP:UP doesn't actually apply if someone puts a draft notice on their page" have ZERO to do with the current guidelines and are just made-up requirements that have NO consensus to delay it. If you want to change things so that "do not clean-up" means never, never touch a userspace draft and list it for deletion, go ahead but I take the actual deletion policy, the tens of thousands of CSD deletion and MFD deletions much more seriously than the game-playing people are doing by changing the top of MFD, WP:UP and that using that as a stupid justification for what they actually want. No one here made up these categories and these pages. At one point, someone decided that a gigantic 45k page backlog was insane and worked to cut it down. The opposition acts like I just made up this entire ridiculous idea that we actually look and see if people made up garbage in userspace years ago and actually evaluate it. As noted above, only MFD has nonsense arguments about how WP:STALE needs to be deleted, how it's terrible that someone who hasn't been here for nine or ten years would be offended if someone took their work to mainspace or deleted it and other frankly ridiculous debates that have no basis in any reality. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This strikes me as a very weak argument because of its circularity. You obviously don't need me to quote WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:CCC, and WP:SILENCE at you to know that a unilateral edit on a low visibility page, years ago is not going to trump recent, well-attended community discussions. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This thread is too drawn-out. Userspace drafts are not to removed, moved, deleted or edited unless it violates Wikipedia policies (not content policies but the basic tenants, including BLP, CSD G). Gamers must be reprimanded, isn't that it? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: No, that doesn't seem to be the conclusion that Ricky is drawing at all. While I don't think he would condone the action that led to this ANI request, he is certainly in favor of deleting stale userspace drafts simply because they are unlikely to be worked on further or become articles, whether or not they are problematic. A2soup (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, it was already discussed and the community made it clear that the answer was no. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discussion wasn't clear enough I guess. Look at MfD and U5 noms: deletions continue apace. A2soup (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't, I'm afraid I've never gone to MfD in my entire time here, so I wasn't aware of the issue. Editors doing this must be reprimanded and if required, kept out of all business related to this subject. Deliberate flaunting is already established rules just sets precedent for more misdemeanours. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence of gaming unless you believe the unsupported claims that various editors are working in conjunction. Otherwise, WP:STALE permits their move after a certain period of time. Why should a perfectly good draft of an article sit in a user's userspace for all time if they don't return? Pages are moved to draftspace or even mainspace. Blanking is another option and deletion is another. If you look at MFD, most of the pages listed there for discussion are pages where there exists the same or related content in mainspace already or a few now where it's pretty close to U5-level of a promotional page that also hasn't been edited in years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I would seriously consider your opinion if you had made no edits to that page but the fact is that you have, without any community vetting, not just you. You have an agenda and you've pushed it long enough, just let the reins go dude. I prefer the policy be reverted to a 2015 version and we hold a discussion on it, right now. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to canvass, but if you've never been to MfD, you should go and make a few !votes. If you care about this, it's important to actually get a sense of the debate. A2soup (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I understand that the backlog was made to be worked through, and I don't advocate not working through the backlog. I just argue that recategorizing or blanking+templating is a better way to work through it than deletion in almost all cases. And where there are written guidelines, they indicate that deletion is not an appropriate way to work through it either. The rest of your response is just repeating your arguments for deletion. On that point, where in "actual deletion policy" is it stated that non-problematic userspace drafts are eligible for deletion?

Again, if you wish to delete an entire type of page, no matter how right you think you are, you need to establish a central consensus for an action that dramatic. This would be the case even if these deletions did not contradict current guidelines (which they do). Apart from the question of whether deletion is appropriate or not, do you agree that consensus is required to proceed? A2soup (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There have been repeated proposals to delete WP:STALE in full. Those have been rejected. Removing the deletion component has been rejected. The amount of time seems to have consensus. Quibbling with language likw the "if not problematic" language leads to the obvious issue of what is and what isn't problematic. Arguing that "nothing" is problematic because all drafts are to be remain forever (including drafts of Adolf Hitler's page after a decade) is far from being a real discussion and seem more like arguments to argue. G6 expanded to include blank Article Wizard drafts and people there argued to create categories of blank userspace draft pages and that was rejected. It seems that when we get beyond the individual people who repeatedly just reflexively oppose at MFD, the larger consensus supports that nine or ten year old drafts that don't look viable aren't supported by the project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, can you point to where there was a central consensus to delete userspace drafts after a fixed time period? The discussion is too fragmented for me to follow all the parts. Also, I don't argue that nothing is problematic enough to warrant deletion - that is a straw man. For example, I think any promotion is problematic enough to warrant blanking, and some is severe enough to warrant deletion (although G11 would probably apply in those cases). Hoaxes are problematic enough to warrant deletion, as is blatant vandalism ("This is the article about my dick."). No one thinks nothing is problematic enough to warrant deletion, the question is whether staleness or lack of potential is problematic enough to warrant deletion. And again, I'd love to see the central consensus that it is. A2soup (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact that MFD discussions from May 2008 looked at inactivity when evaluating drafts is evidence about deleting drafts. There is no "central" consensus because the central consensus is created from the discussions, not created and then forced down on the discussions (contrary to the demands above). You have been demanding "show me the central consensus" when I keep saying it doesn't exist because there is no hard and fast rule but there is evidence that people have for years rejected the blatant "userspace drafts can be held indefinitely" approach advocated above. There is no requirement for a fixed period of time and no one has argued that. I proposed the language in note 2 at WP:STALE because it wasn't clear and before that, people just went by page inactivity alone and I asked to include editor inactivity as well. It's been argued on "the editor and the page hasn't been touched since date XX", X usually being a year or further. There are some discussions where six months is the metric used (based off G13) so we may be moving towards a shorter time period than before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You said it yourself. There is no consensus. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If your standard for "consensus" is "arguments used in deletion discussions", I can point you to plenty of more recent deletion discussions in which the argument is made that staleness and lack of potential do not indicate deletion. And, again, deleting an entire type of page without consensus would be problematic even if it was uncontroversial. Such dramatic actions can't be unilaterally carried out by a few editors. The fact that there is significant opposition to the deletions makes proceeding without consensus even more problematic. A2soup (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing absolute nonsense arguments at MfD against deleting stale stuff from long gone editors. Instead of moving one unreferenced biography directly to mainspace after it was kept at MfD I moved it to draftspace (as allowed) and that was reverted by VQuakr saying I can't do that. So now we have a page stuck in userspace again forever. I sent it back to MfD and was accused of bad faith. This disruption is being caused by editors that have no experience with processing stale drafts. They have no interest in cleanup - they just want to throw insults and start poorly worded RfCs to gain consensus to support their stupidity. Maybe topic bans from MfC are in order soon. Legacypac (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135's behavior

For months, Charlotte135 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly commented on me at the Charlotte135 talk page in inaccurate and disparaging ways. When I've pointed this out, noting that I would eventually do something about it, Charlotte135 continued, except in ways that do not mention my name; this is seen in spades in this section, which Charlotte135 retitled to take the focus from away from the topic ban. Charlotte135 also has a tendency to follow or track editors Charlotte135 has had significant disputes with, in ways I would categorize as WP:Hounding. For example, as noted here and here, with me, Montanabw and CFCF weighing in, Charlotte135 was hounding Shootingstar88 (talk · contribs). And before Charlotte135 claims that it was because of WP:Copyright issues, I advise editors to look closely at that matter; Charlotte135 had started following Shootingstar88 before the WP:Copyright issues drama Charlotte135 became a part of in that case. And now Charlotte135 is following me. And by that, I mean that Charlotte135 has scoped my entire contribution history and is choosing to edit articles I am clearly involved with, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. As is clear by this inaccurate summary of my and Montanabw's editing, Charlotte135 is very aware of the type of articles I edit. Charlotte135 stated, "It seems that some editors primarily edit on topics like horses or sexual type topics and then cursory minimal edits on other types of articles to blur their POV pushing." That section shows that Charlotte135 was testing the waters when it comes to what Charlotte135 can edit. For one, the "cursory minimal edits on other types of articles" wording speaks to the way Charlotte135 edits; the vast majority of Charlotte135's edits have been to the domestic violence areas, and related areas, on Wikipedia. Since Charlotte135's topic ban, Charlotte135 has been making minor editors to other articles, as if to indicate "Look everyone, I'm not a WP:SPA. I'm branching out." For two, I mainly edit sexual articles, anatomy articles, medical articles, social topics and popular culture topics. And even though I edit many things on this site, Charlotte135 is suddenly popping up at the medical, sexual or gender articles that I heavily edit, including the obscure or relatively low-traffic ones, as seen with this edit made to the Vaginal disease article, and this edit made to the Facesitting article. Coincidence? I think not.

When Charlotte135's topic ban is brought up by me, such as in this recent case at Talk:Domestic violence, where I made a point to note that Charlotte135 was continuing a past dispute soon after the topic ban expired, Charlotte135 goes off on an irrelevant and inaccurate tangent about my block log, as if to try to paint me in a bad light and put us on equal bad footing; as seen here, administrator Boing! said Zebedee thankfully commented on my block log after I once again suggested that Charlotte135 actually get informed on my blocks before repeatedly commenting on them inaccurately. In that same section, I noted to Charlotte135, "You are clearly seeking a confrontation with me any and everywhere you can get it. [...] I will not agree to a WP:Interaction ban unless it's a one-way interaction ban where you are not allowed to comment on me or focus on any article I heavily edit. [...] Common sense should tell you to stay clear of me unless necessary. It's nothing but a WP:Hounding attempt by you. If I revert you at any of these articles, you get your confrontation. If someone else reverts me, and I revert back, you can simply show up and invalidly support that person's revert with the excuse that you've edited the article before. You are quite easy to read. Everything you do is so transparent (predictable) to me." As that section shows, Gandydancer and Johnuniq are also still concerned about Charlotte135's behavior. Whenever Charlotte135's disruptive behavior is addressed, Charlotte135 argues that I am simply being a bully, accompanied by a gang, and that my main goal is to discredit. In fact, Charlotte135 still fails to see any valid reason for the topic ban; this is evident all over Charlotte135's talk page. Charlotte135 plays the "I am the victim" card. And in this case at the Domestic violence talk page, Charlotte135 accused me of an agenda for removing a WP:Undue weight piece from the lead. I am at the end of my rope with this editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I crossed out the Urolagnia article above, because even though that article was added to my watchlist because of my concern about this this IP who eventually became this editor, I have yet to edit that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll first of all point out that Charlotte135 has edited topics related to the female reproductive system at least as early as last November, while Flyer22 Reborn accumulates hundreds of minor edits to diverse articles daily. That there is some intersection is hardly surprising. The allegedly hounding edits do not seem to be in furtherance of any dispute on those pages, with Flyer22 or anyone else.

The conflict between Charlotte135 and Flyer22 apparently began in October at Talk:Domestic_violence/Archive_5#Claim_about_male_self_overestimating with a content dispute that Flyer22 almost immediately personalized. I first encountered the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_198#Domestic_Violence_article, where it became quickly apparent that there was a simple resolution to the content dispute. I noted at the time the solution could have been easily reached had Flyer22 simply stuck to commenting on content rather than contributors.

Rather than accepting this resolution, Flyer22 continued to policy/forum shop by trying to get support from MEDRS Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_21. Note especially how CFCF's opinion changes after Flyer22 tells him what to think. Subsequently CFCF began to edit war the policy page itselfWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Disruptive_editing_on_Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_.28medicine.29_by_CFCF to make it agree with Flyer22. I don't know if Charlotte135's present accusations of canvassing can be supported, but Flyer22 and CFCF should definitely be regarded as a tag team wherever they appear.

While my attention was elsewhere, Flyer22 brought Charlotte135 to ANI based on the insinuations that Charlotte135 was an MRA and impersonating a woman.[[97]] These are not policy-based reasons, and making these allegations was a conduct violation in itself. Astoundingly, Mark Arsten placed a 3 month topic ban on Charlotte135 rather than boomeranging as would have been appropriate.

Flyer22's general style of interaction is to make arrogant and imperious demands, often declaring that their preferred changes are inevitable, and that their opponents are not competent to edit in certain areas. This gives the impression of attempting to intimidate editors and exert WP:OWNership of articles. This has in the past been directed towards myself, and is certainly still on display with regard to Charlotte135.[98][99][100][101] It can even be seen in Flyer22's presumptuous refusal to "agree to" a 2-way interaction ban.

The above notwithstanding, Charlotte135 needs to drop the stick with respect to the question of symmetry or non-symmetry of genders in domestic violence. Regardless of the merits, its a point the community would like to move on from. I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, you were on the opposite side of CFCF and myself in these disputes, as should be clear to anyone who does their research on the matter. You mischaracterized things then, and you have done it again now. Case in point: Editing "hundreds of minor edits to diverse articles daily" via WP:STiki and Charlotte135 having some overlap with me in that way is one thing. Charlotte135 specifically targeting articles that I heavily edit (in a way that mirrors a tab on my contribution history), and obscure or barely-active articles that I edit, is another thing. Two, there was no WP:Forum shop violation. Three, CFCF and I are not as closely aligned as you make us out to be; I didn't even fully agree with CFCF and his proposals (again...doing one's research is a virtue). Four, there were no simple solutions at the Domestic violence article talk page when it came to Charlotte135's involvement; anyone is free to see what happened at that talk page during that time; they are free to see that Charlotte135 repeatedly failed to accept the literature with WP:Due weight, would ramble on about editor bias, editors being so and so, and that multiple editors were frustrated with Charlotte135 because of all of this. They will see exactly what led to Charlotte135's topic ban from the article. Another editor (Ongepotchket) is just the latest person to note that Charlotte135 is disruptive there. So you coming here and defending Charlotte135 and acting like the proposal and consensus for the topic ban on Charlotte135 were baseless and uncalled for makes not a bit of sense. If you are going to come to WP:ANI and defend a highly disruptive editor, then at least make a better case than that. As for your claim that "Flyer22's general style of interaction is to make arrogant and imperious demands, often declaring that their preferred changes are inevitable, and that their opponents are not competent to edit in certain areas.", it has gone on my top ten list of false claims made on Wikipedia. I do not make imperious demands, unless it's telling someone to stay off my talk page or to stop making false and inaccurate claims about me, as Charlotte135 repeatedly does, or to stop editing disruptively. And I have usually only noted that my preferred changes are inevitable when interacting with Charlotte135, since my preferred changes are policy or guideline-based and Charlotte135's preferred changes usually are not, and since Charlotte135 will waste editors' time with talk of supposed bias and repeatedly make false commentary and accusations of POV-pushing for following the WP:Due weight policy, or some other policy or guideline. Furthermore, as many know, I have a very low tolerance for disruptive editors; I do not treat disruptive editors the same way that I treat productive editors (the top my user page and talk page are clear about that), and I never will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Rhoark's claim that "Subsequently CFCF began to edit war the policy page to make it agree with Flyer22," I advise editors to read that WP:ANI thread, which didn't end in any kind of sanction against CFCF or consensus that CFCF was in the wrong. CFCF was restoring the guideline to what it was before it was changed without consensus. And as a number of medical editors agreed, the guideline supported my arguments anyway. But that's another discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There you go again Flyer22reborn. Aggressively belittling and demeaning other editors that simply disagree with you. What utter nonsense, following you. To the contrary, you have been following me. If I was interested in following you, why did I suggest this? [102]. As a number of editors have noted, you seem to hold a very strong POV in relation to these domestic violence related articles as did the blocked editor shootingstar88 whom you befriended and was indefinitely blocked for extreme copyright violations and opening the project up to potential litigation by the authors of this original material they copied and pasted. IMHO you are far too personally involved in this emotional topic of domestic violence for some reason. I think it would be best for the project if you, and I, accepted Rhoark's neutral advice, and we both walked from this topic not just one of us, but both of us. I just don't care, to be honest with you, but I do believe your personal opinions on the topic and aggressive ownership of the article are preventing other fair minded editors from making neutral edits based on what the reliable sources actually say. That may then allow other editors to make changes if necessary without you and I bickering over nothing. It looks like at least 2 other editors on the talk page also disagree with you, not just me, and countless others you have scared away. Here's editor OpenFuture commenting [103] So, what do you say? You and I can then edit other topics and stay away from each other. Sound fair?Charlotte135 (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: And yet the inaccurate statements from Charlotte135 continue above. For example, there have been no number of editors who "have noted [I] seem to hold a very strong POV in relation to these domestic violence related articles"; instead, what a number of editors have noted is that I help keep out severe WP:Neutral violations (especially as they relate to that policy's WP:Due weight section), and correct editors who misunderstand that policy. My contribution history is also nothing like Shootingstar88's.

Charlotte135, you are problematic when it comes to gender topics, and especially the domestic violence topics...period. Various editors have been clear about that. When various editors, ones not tied to men's rights activism, state the same thing about me when it comes to gender topics, and especially the domestic violence topics, then I will consider walking away from them. Right now, I am helping to keep the type of mess you want to add to these articles out of it. My supposed POV adheres to the literature with WP:Due weight. Your POV does not. The only true support you've had thus far is from those who are sympathetic to men's rights views or those who hold men's rights view. From here on out in this thread, I will not respond to you any further, since you cannot help but present matters inaccurately and tell falsehoods. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And if you keep following me, despite your asinine denials, I will present a thorough case against you with diff-links making it explicitly clear that none of these articles you are suddenly showing up at are coincidental matters. And along with that thorough case, there will indeed be a proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As I say7 Flyer22, it is clearly you who has been following every edit I make. And just as Rhoark and so many other editors you attack, demean, threaten and belittle, I could, and should provide a detailed list of diffs whereby you have obviously followed me. You are far from neutral on these gender topics. Everyone knows this. Further you aggressively attack other editors and exhibit ownership behavior on these articles. I just decided to stand up to you, that's all. Why not just walk away now if you are so neutral and let other editors clean up yours and shootingstar88's mess? If you do, I will. I just don't care, to be honest. But remember, I actually suggested an interaction ban, two way, well before you posted here. As you carefully cherrypick your diffs to include and not include, just like your sources and editing language, that was something you did not include above. Many editors have pointed this out to you, but you don't listen and your disruptive behavior is scary to be honest. But Rhoark and so many other editors has already pointed this out.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And yes, your own contribution history on these gender based articles, most of which I have not edited, is almost identical to blocked user Shootingstar88's. Absolutely, no doubt about it. If any editor wants to see an actual SPA and real POV pushing anyone should scrutinize carefully Shootingstar88's entire edit history, and you Flyer22reborn, helping them create it, and then your desperate attempts at trying to get them unblocked for their severe copyright violations that open the project up to potential litigation. Something you fail to understand. And as administrator Diannaa told you, it would take several months, and three hours a day to clean up, and you assured everyone you would do it, and actively prevented other editors from going near Shootingstar88's copyright violation mess, which still remains in these gender related articles. Yes, I do find that particularly disruptive and damaging to the project Flyer22. Litigation from authors of original work that editors copy and paste into articles, is a real and definite threat to the project Flyer22reborn. It's their original work. They own the rights. You don't seem to understand or care.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone not involved in these broils, I think I might point out a trope or habit which consistently worsens things -- in my opinion, probably intentionally and unquestionably disruptively. Charlotte135 often replies to her adversary’s edits with direct address, and then repeats the name -- usually again with direct address -- later in the rebuttal, often as part of a rhetorical question. The effect is often to infuriate her interlocutor, first because it personalizes a content dispute, and second because English has a specific term for a rhetorical question posed in direct address. This is a taunt. The quality of breathless schoolyard taunting is accentuated because Charlotte135 often omits the comma required before the appositive direct address. We see all this in the paragraph above. We see it here [104]. It seems clear that either this editor wants to exacerbate tension or that their English (or perhaps their manners) are not up to the task of managing tension in these areas. There are lots of areas on Wikipedia that deserve attention -- biographies of women in the sciences, botanical articles on Australian plants.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone peripherally involved, and therefore targeted by Charlotte135, I have to agree with Flyer22reborn and MarkBerstein that Charlotte135 engages in WP:BAITing, and has repeatedly engaged in tendentious editing followed by personal attacks against Flyer; Charlotte135 was topic-banned for their behavior and we are less than a week back and once again Charlotte135 is doing exactly the same thing -- inserting nonsense edits with a "men's rights" tone, claiming innocence and neutrality, then baiting opponents until they are ready to rip their hair out. This needs to be stomped on, now. I suggest at last a 60-day topic ban on Charlotte135 and if this editor fails to learn their lesson, then indef bans are appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 17:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

pinging Diannaa, since her name was invoked above. I'm sure her input would be clarifying. John from Idegon (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Montana said it very well and I am in complete agreement with her. In fact that includes the "tear your hair out" comment as I've often thought the same thing myself. Editors should not be tested to the end of their patience, as Charlotte is always so good at. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've reviewed Charlotte's edits and I agree with the original posting and what others have said here. Charlotte is violating the spirit and letter of WP:HARASS, and is following Flyer around picking fights. Sanctionable and unwise, and something that Flyer seems to attract for some reason. I am with Monatabw and will make a proposal below. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I'll take a step past what Montanabw proposes and simply propose a TBAN for Charlotte135 under the GamerGate DS with standard appeal available after one year. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Apart from Rhoark's neutral, objective and detailed comments above, talking about Flyer22reborn's disruptive and aggressive behavior, all we have is literally the same set of friends of Flyer22, Gandydancer, Montabw and Jytdog falsely accusing me of following their friend Flyer22?? With no evidence. And even though, and well before Flyer22 posted here, I was the one who suggested a 2 way interaction ban, to stop Flyer22 and her friends following, harassing and bullying me.

Obviously administrator Diannaa would be the only one to look at this please, and adjudicate and dare I say, have the courage as an administrator, to actually place sanctions on Flyer22reborn as well. I would respect their decision. However otherwise this is just like a gang at school bullying an individual for standing up to them, like Rhoark and others have tried to do, but got beaten down by Flyer22reborn's unrelenting aggression and fear tactics on Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also note that while Flyer22reborn and I are vacant from the domestic violence article, other editors are actually able to edit the article in the spirit of things. I hope this continues. However I fear that if Flyer22reborn were to be allowed to continue their editing at that article, they will again scare off other good faith editors trying to add content that is actually based on what the reliable sources say. Looking at the edit history on these articles Flyer22 seems to have engaged in many conflicts with many different opposing editors. And many editors have noted Flyer22reborn's lack of neutrality and POV pushing. Can I ask Diannaa to please consider a fair, reasonable and equal sanction here, based on Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [105]. I would agree with Rhoark's solution of "I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." The key word is both.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also notice that John from Idegon has pinged Diannaa, and said "her input would be clarifying." I think this is appropriate as I don't see how friend's of Flyer22reborn, (administrators or editors) could possibly make any neutral and fair decisions on this matter.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A question to administrators please? Is contacting other editors/friends off or on Wikipedia a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing? I have been reading the policy for a few days and I'd appreciate clarification. I must hastily add, so not again falsely accused of following Flyer22reborn, because once again they are over there at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, fighting it out with another editor. Flyer22reborn is once again over there now, demeaning, belittling and mocking another editor. My question though stands as when I brought it up before with Flyer22 and her friends, they called it ridiculous, and demeaned my understanding of the policy. Just like they Flyer22reborn seems to be doing again at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. I'd appreciate a neutral administrator to explain canvassing to me, especially here at ANI?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• To all that, i will just say, wow. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wow. However Jytdog, you are very often called upon or pinged, to partake and support Flyer22reborn's point of view. It happended in a few conversations I've had in the past with Flyer22. And I'm sure if I did go through your edit history, which I certainly can't be bothered doing, there would be other instances over the years. Once again, boom, here you all are, right on cue. Is pinging in this way, for support, esp here at ANI a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing? Probably best you don't answer. Same discussion is happening over at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. When good faith editors like me and others wonder if this is allowed or how much weight, editors opinions who are pinged, off, or on, Wikipedia, it is a valid question Jytdog, despite your sarcastic "Wow," in an attempt to discredit, demean and belittle, my serious question. I realize I don't have your experience here, so please excuse my ignorance.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the good work that Flyer is doing and I hate to think what some of our articles would look like if she had not stepped in. I support Jytdog's suggestion re a ban. Gandydancer (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you are grateful Gandydancer but I'm pretty sure the project will survive, and other good faith, neutral editors, were allowed to got on with the job based on what the reliable sources actually say, in these emotional topics, if Rhoark's sensible, fair and workable solution, of a 2-way interaction ban and topic ban for both me and your close friend Flyer22 was applied.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa Can I ask administrator Diannaa to please consider a fair, reasonable and equal sanction here, based on Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [106]. I would agree with Rhoark's solution of "I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." The key word is both.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• A two-way interaction ban punishes the victim equally with the bully and is inappropriate; here it is crystal clear that Charlotte135 is the primary offender. I concur with Jytdog that perhaps admins could consider a TBAN for Charlotte135 under the GamerGate DS. We have a pattern of hounding and vicious attacks on multiple people, gaming the system and manipulating what has actually been said and done across multiple articles. This editor needs a different sandbox in which to play. Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Save the further abuse and scary talk Montanabw. It is very clear on my talk page User talk:Charlotte135 under the Questions & Answers header that this was going to happen again, and me be ganged up on. Please don't be so rude and dismissive of Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [107].

And why would I have suggested an interaction ban myself before Flyer22reborn posted here, if I was the bully. It is very clear the same old gang members or Wikipedia:Tag team are at it again. I knew this would happen though. That's why I tried to get advice from an actual administrator, Diannaa prior to being set up, baited and then dragged over here. This discussion on my talk page is here [108] and my reply to administrator Diannaa is here [109]. My only mistake was to take the old tag team's bait and then be dragged back in so Flyer22reborn could post it here and the rest of the tag team come in on cue, and comment. Flyer22reborn's aggressive ownership of these articles needs to be stopped and Rhoark's solution of a "2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." But as I said, both is the only fair solution and Diannaa is the best person to adjudicate, not you Montanabw. Charlotte135 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

While some admins adjudicate disputes, I am not one of them. Dispute resolution is not something I am good at. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with interaction bans is that they can sometimes increase tension between editors. Some editors become vigilant about enforcing an interaction ban and viewing crossing paths with the other editor as harassment and then we are back at ANI, often on a regular basis as an editor seeks sanctions for violations of an I-ban. Admins want to defuse conflict, not take measures that increase it.

It would be best if you two would voluntarily keep out of each other's way. These reappearances at ANI are not good for you, Charlotte135 or for Flyer22reborn. I would think since you are adults you could find a way to resolve this dispute without having to have admins imposing topic bans or blocks. You can see, by the fact that no admins have jumped into the discussion that there isn't a strong desire to impose sanctions on either of you. But that can change if you can't drop the stick and walk away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Liz while i hear that, the evidence here is very clear that Charlotte135 is pursuing Flyer in a very harass-y way. Flyer gets these men's rights activists who stick to her and do hound her, and "Charlotte135" is the most recent edition. This behavior is not OK. It is part of what makes WP a nightmare for some people. I really believe that a TBAN under the Gamergate DS is the way to diffuse tension here. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. So it's a new day. But still, the men's rights stuff is re-hashed, once again. Whoever you are directing that at this time Jytdog (and it seems at me I really, really, really think you and others should drop it. It is sounding pretty childish I have to say and I'm sure there are many editors here who would agree. This is something Diannaa and I have discussed and Diannaa gave me excellent advice, which I should have applied. That is, don't take the bait, and react to such attacks. I am a feminist Jytdog, for the record, and do actually identify as a feminist, but really who cares? Does that matter here? What I see by this mens rights nonsense that you, Gandydancer, Montabw, Flyer22reborn and a few others throw at other editors is bias and uncivil behavior. Nothing more and nothing less. I also wonder why it has been allowed to continue. It's offensive and disruptive to the project and goes against policy. Unfortunately it seems to have been a pattern over many years on Wikipedia talk pages I have noticed, and I actually think it needs to be stamped out permanently. I'm sure that other editors are adult enough to handle any biased editing, from any editor. However accusing people of being mens rights activists, in a desperate attempt to discredit them, should end right now. Please. Liz, I am an adult, so I can drop the stick and walk away if Flyer22reborn can.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be great Charlott135, if you steered away from the topics where Flyer edits. You are the one who steered into them. It is clear as day. You can absolutely make all this go away by just indeed walking away and stop pursuing her. If you agree to do that, this thread could close right now. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You have avoided my genuine request to please drop the men's rights stuff Jytdog. At least with me. I really have had enough of it and consider it entirely unjustified, and a personal attack. I really would like you and others to stop that, if that's okay with you and your friends. And I have not "pursued" Flyer22reborn, contrary to what you say. However I have engaged in long winded mutual discussions and conflicts with Flyer22, which I am willing to walk away from. I will also try and avoid Flyer22reborn, wherever I can from here on. For my sanity, if nothing else. By you saying I have pursued or harassed her, does not make it true. And I think Liz was actually directing her advice to stop our bickering and conflict on the few occasions we do come into contact, not the false allegations, with no evidence, you are posting here to discredit me. And for the record my recent single edit to the domestic violence article, two or three other independent editors agreed with. Flyer22reborn deleted that sentence right before my topic ban expired, because we had discussed it at length in the past, and she knew it would provoke a reaction I'm sure (bait). I wasn't going to comment (take the bait), but I did, stupidly, and doing so fell right into her trap, and we all ended up here. Even that, I've let go of.

The problem here is that Flyer22reborn seems to have edited, to some degree, every single possible sexual topic on Wikipedia. And I really mean that, without exaggeration. It's quite incredible. That's okay, but are you, or anyone else actually saying I cannot edit any of those hundreds of articles? I asked this question of administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten a few weeks ago and here was Mark's response [110]. Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments seen here [111] at least provided some evidence as to Flyer22reborn's behavior, whereas no evidence has been provided to back up your accusations. My point again is yes Liz, I can definitely drop the stick and walk away if Flyer22reborn can, and have already taken the lead. I won't accept this one sided blame you and your friends are trying to stitch me up with again Jytdog, that's all. There is another solution here too. Let's all be adults here and work with me and be civil toward me if we cross paths. And I will pay you the same respect. I promise. However if you can't, or won't do that, I do insist that you, Flyer22reborn, Gandydancer, Montabw and a few others drop the mens rights BS, at least towards me. Please.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you will agree to walk away, then agree to walk away. Don't turn back and try to "get" Flyer. If you will not agree to walk away from the GamerGate field then the community should TBAN you. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz, were you talking to Flyer22reborn too please? Jytdog, I've admitted getting into stupid 2-way bickering and conflicts with Flyer22reborn, which are not helpful and are disruptive, but I won't accept your false accusations of harassing or following her and definitely not accept you trying to now embroil me in any way in the gamgergate controversy and biased editing. Editor Rhoark and so many other good faith editors have also been offended and unduly scared away from articles by Flyer22reborn's aggressive and uncivil editing and men's rights labeling, and it needs to stop, or at least be tempered, rather than Flyer22reborn and the rest of the Wikipedia:Tag team, believe they are above any sanctions here on Wikipedia and continue to roam free. If I'm ganged up on again, rather than reading my comments above and how I have already taken Liz's two-way advice to "keep out of each others way" wherever possible, then so be it. However I'm hoping that neutral and fair administrators like Liz and Diannaa can again read my comments please, and look at my actual edits to articles, and make their own decision to close this thread rather than feel pressured by you Jytdog. IMO it also would have been appropriate and respectful to Liz, and the community, if Flyer22reborn had responded to Liz's fair suggestion to resolve this too. I'm pretty sure Liz and Rhoark were not just talking to me.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Jytdog that a topic ban should be placed on Charlotte135.--MONGO 13:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mongo. Could you please provide one diff here as to why a topic ban?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

MONGO Just so your opinion is neutral Mongo, and based on something, would you mind providing any actual evidence, reasoning and some diffs. Anything?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the love of god please stop randomly bolding words. It doesn't make your argument any more impressive much like how using capslock doesn't make you more important. --Tarage (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the love of god, I have already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is giving an excellent summary of what's been going on here and I suggest we take his advise on the solution. Gandydancer (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. "advise" is spelt "advice". Administrator Liz, I have for my part, at least, taken your fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible. What more can I do? The issue dragged here was my alleged interaction with Flyer22. Since my topic ban expired on the 15th, my editing has shown no bias, in any way, and no editor here has provided any evidence, not even a single diff to show otherwise. Please rule on this Liz. Surely there are other real cases to be dealing with. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I know the difference - it was an error and not something worth mentioning, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It was just that I remember you making such a big deal of the fact and bragging to me that you're IQ was in the top 5% of the population on internet IQ tests. I did not think that was necessary to try and demean other editors by saying that, that's all. I mean, who cares what you think your IQ is. So when you made that spelling error I thought it was worth pointing out.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you seriously nitpick someone's spelling on a non-article page? Stop. Now. You are burning every god damn bridge you possibly can and it needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think it is time for an admin to step in here; the parameters of this discussion are well-defined and Charlotte135 has taken the WP:ROPE. At a minimum, the topic ban needs to be reimposed. Charlotte135 IS taking the same tone of editing that got this editor their original topic ban, is stalking and harassing Flyer22reborn, and though Liz means well, a two-way ban is not going to work; Flyer DOES get targeted by men's rights activists and has any number of people who mean ill-will just waiting for an excuse to harass her further. This is Charlotte135's behavior we are looking at and Charlotte135's alone. The responses and personal attacks by this user toward just about every other user who weighed in here with any kind of critical commentary pretty much make the case. Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Disclosure - I've had encounters with both parties in the past, so I may be considered marginally involved. That said, I'm having a difficult time figuring out the root issue here.

Charlotte135 has a clear beef with Flyer22. Their interactions started back on 20 October 2015 on domestic violence where the two begin to edit war a bit. Flyer22's behavior and interactions with Charlotte haven't been ideal, especially for a veteran editor. However, Flyer22 has been the subject of repeated harassment in the past and often gets the brunt of antifeminist, homophobic, and transphobic editors' personal attacks and sockpuppeting users (note: not calling Charlotte these things)... which makes me under understanding of short tempers and incivility from Flyer22. Flyer22 has a record of grumpiness, but a strong record of constructive editing as well. We certainly has our resident grumps and incivil editors and after months of strong concern about CIVIL and enforcement-related bashing of my head against a wall, I've come to the conclusion that so long as they aren't making direct personal attacks, harassing, or using slurs, leave them be. Or maybe trout them a few times. Flyer22, turn down the grump, disengage (which she seems to have done already after the ANI filing), and avoid being so BITEy. If an editor starts making questionable or POV edits, let other editors address the behavior if your initial attempts to address it fail. There's little harm in having POV or UNDUE editors on an article for a bit; they'll be addressed soon enough. I acknowledge that I'm generally sympathetic to Flyer22's experiences on Wikipedia and that my interpretation of events is informed by that).

However I'm unclear as to why Charlotte resorts rather quickly to name calling and bludgeoning. From what I can tell, it stems more from a strong POV than past issues. From the get-go on domestic violence, Charlotte shows a strong POV and battleground mentality. This is not unusual for a motivated new editor though. The thing is, that hasn't seemed to change at all. It may have gotten worse. And it continued after a 3 month topic ban. I am wondering if Charlotte is able to be a constructive editor in this area at all. She seems able to edit other areas well enough, so to me a tban would be a reasonable course of action. I do think the evidence Flyer22 provided supports the accusations of hounding/harassment/following. But I've seen so many ibans fail, and frankly this is about more than just two editors who can't get along. The BLUDGEONING and combative tone on this ANI alone demonstrates some level of inability to see her own problematic behavior.

Based on Jytdog's and Montanabw's and Liz's comments, as well as Charlotte's BLUDEGONing, abuse of deceased horses, and lack of recognition of own problematic behaviors, I think a tban would be best. Had I commented a couple days ago, I might have gone for a formal warning, but the comments on this ANI shift me more towards a tban. Jytdog suggested the Gamergate DS, but I don't think Charlotte was alerted to those discretionary sanctions before. However, Bbb23 did notify her of the Men's Rights Movement general sanctions ([112]) which includes the possibility of "other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". A tban on gender, sex, sexuality related articles (or articles related to controversies thereof) would seem to cover most of the area of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful analysis, EvergreenFir. That makes sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I thank EvergreenFir as well. Sounds good. Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Could EvergreenFir or any editor please point out just one single diff where, since the 15th my editing would possibly justify a topic ban. I have kept asking this, but no-one, not Mongo, no-one, has been able to show even one single diff or any actual evidence whatsoever. This was dragged here by Flyer22 reborn for our two-way interactions and conflicts. Suddenly a topic ban has been imposed, but with no diffs and no evidence presented from the 15th onward. I asked this question of administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten a few weeks ago and here was Mark's response [113]. Also this discussion with Diannaa on my talk page is here [114] and my reply is here [115]. When I dared to made one single edit to the domestic violence article, that two other independent editors agreed with, sure enough, I was jumped on, and here we are. And the only people who have weighed in on this discussion here too are the same group of editors and friends I discuss on my talk page. Editors who I am sure, in other respects, are all good editors. But that point is also discussed in the Wikipedia:Tag team essay too. All very strange.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit on domestic violence mere days after your tban edited, a continuation of your initial beef from October which results in your tban, and the ensuing argument on the article's talk page. Which then continued the following day with other users ([116], including a personal attack on Flyer22 (see edit summary) despite the fact that you were the one to initially delete comments ([117]) which Flyer22 reverted ([118])... likely an edit conflict, but you seized on it as evidence of malice. The argument continued two days later ([119]). While all of this is happening, you're following Flyer22 to brand new pages (shown in diffs in initial complaint). You literally only stop once this ANI is filed. Like I said, I think Flyer22 and you have a major beef, but I don't think that's the locus of the problem. You edited just fine on psychology-related articles during your tban... you dabbled in feminism articles even (where I first encountered you). But that you immediately returned to your dispute on domestic violence immediately after your tban and followed Flyer22 around suggests your behavior is the problem and the certain areas foster problematic behaviors from you. Flyer22 might be a catalyst, but isn't the cause. She isn't following you, she's just reacting (admittedly in a hostile way) to you when you show up. It doesn't seem fair to punish Flyer22 for your problematic behaviors (which is what an iban would do). And frankly one-way ibans don't seem to work. So tban is my conclusion; remove you from the areas that foster your behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I'm not going to bother compiling a detailing diff history of exactly how Flyer22reborn baited me by removing certain edits, right before the 15th, and all the times they monitored my talk pages and the masses of personal attacks and uncivil behavior toward me. What's the point, nothing would happen to them anyway, and everyone knows that. I also can't be bothered, as I said to Diannaa. However foolishly, after the 15th, I took Flyer's bait. I also felt like testing my liberty on the project to be honest. Just like any other editor, and apply Mark Arsten's response to what I can do and cant edit after Flyer22 kept commenting on different talk pages trying to restrict me unfairly and for no reason at all, from editing certain articles [120] and Diannaa's advice [121]. But then I even apologized for my own childish reaction and suggested an interaction ban with Flyer22reborn - before they posted here. In fact I have asked Flyer22reborn to work with me many times but they refused and instead wanted to continue the conflict. I'm not the only one Flyer22reborn has conflicts with either. Over at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing Flyer22reborn has been upsetting more folks. It's becoming almost daily. Wherever you go, Flyer22reborn is upsetting, beliitling, demeaning and taunting other good faith, and in many cases very experienced editors too, apart from her large group of friends, both editors and administrators. These good faith independent editors are then labelled disruptive, or men's rights, or just plain daft, and ignorant for not agreeing with Flyer22 and not understanding policy as well as Flyer22reborn does. My concern is that Flyer22 knows damn well they can get away with it here on Wikipedia nowadays, for some reason. It doesn't seem to matter how rude, how disruptive they are, and how many edits are blatant POV pushing, it's tolerated again and again, much to the amazement of many editors here. And it seems to be getting worse. They can basically do whatever they like and get away with it. I thought Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above summarized all of these points very well, but was again quickly smashed by Flyer22reborn. [122].

EvergreenFir As far as my topic ban, I can happily walk from the ridiculously biased domestic violence topic and articles that Flyer22reborn and shootingstar88 and some others have filled with cherry picked sources and POV, but why the gender and sexual topics EvergreenFir? Especially since I have already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible. If I see Flyer22reborn I will not interact. Simple. Can you provide some reasons for those other topics please? And for goodness sake, please not the men's rights stuff again. Please.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it because Flyer22reborn has edited to some degree literally every, single possible sexual article that exists, and therefore a broad brush has been applied? As an adult, and an editor who is here to help with the project, I can assure you again, that I will follow Liz's fair advice. Would you possibly consider just a topic ban on the domestic violence articles instead? I don't understand otherwise, especially given Flyer22reborn's has had absolutely no sanctions applied to them over all of this.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, it looks like you are trying to quickly close this off now, but administrators Liz and EvergreenFir have proposed very different solutions and so did editor Rhoark. And both administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten, have been involved indirectly here too, through the advice they both provided to me prior to the 15th. Would you mind please just letting EvergreenFir read these new comments, and my fair proposal, and then they can close it off as an administrator and hopefully consider my good faith proposal and points I've made. Like you, I am here to improve the project despite your bad faith accusations. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

All I did on this thread was fix indenting. Stop digging. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to apologize to you, after seeing it was another case you were referring to not this one, but you beat me to it. Sorry.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been hacking up the DV article like a Dexter montage, and surprisingly, there has been no resultant shit storm. The issue seems to have boiled down to

• Flyer and Charlotte had bad blood to begin with, and pretty quickly devolved into assumptions of bad faith.
• Lot's of accusations mostly centered around Charlotte's prev block, and somewhat less so about her current behavior
• A recent discussion that is mostly a stylistic difference of opinion
• A lot of unhelpful comments by a very new editor, Shy1alize

At the end of the day, everyone needs to learn how to avoid ad hominem. Charlotte needs to learn when trivial things are trivial and defer to more experienced editors, because it didn't really matter that much anyway. Flyer needs to practice how to have discussions with new editors without it translating in new-editor-speak to "fuck you and your wrong opinion." Shy1alize has a lot to learn period. And the RfC seems to have resolved the issue anyway. Charlotte served her time and nothing in this case in-and-of-itself seems like grounds for a ban, at least to me. The article moves on. There is no current disruption except for the ad nauseam discussion here. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What you are missing, is the whole point of the OP which is not about the DV article (and your metaphors for your work there are inapt at best) - it is about Charlotte following Flyer around. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No. That's in the "bad blood" part. Flyer is ubiquitous in gender/sexuality related articles, as has been pointed out, I believe.

Perhaps most importantly, I haven't actually seen that much Dexter. The prevalence of serial killers just doesn't add up. My wife went through a Netflix phase. Also, the overuse of voice over...oy vey, don't get me started.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Perun" IP on an OR spree at 37.201.xx.xx

I recently noticed an IP adding something unsourced about the supposed Buddhist heritage of a Gallic tribe. It turns out this is a dynamic IP editing as, among probably others:

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

Their history is full of comparable edits, adding unsourced (or blog-sourced) content about historic topics most often pertaining to Poland and the god Perun, often on its face unremarkable (but unverifiable) and sometimes quite strange, as here where they consider the current arrival of refugees in Europe a case of "germanisation".

Is anybody familiar with this individual or MO, and are admin colleagues of the view that action such as mass rollbacks or blocks should be looked into?  Sandstein  09:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Calling that original research sounds a bit overly gracious. Nonsense is more applicable, but a descent into bovine scatology may also be warranted. Kleuske (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)s

There's a number of Other IP's, too.

• 37.201.7.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Interesting first contribution.
• 37.201.4.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Moreover, Geradid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a very similar interest.

There's also a fair amount of quacking going on. Is it duck season or wabbit season? Kleuske (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Give me a list of pages and I'll protect them. I'm pretty familiar with this Perun nonsense. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to qualify that. It would have to be pages with recent multiple edits relating to this, I can't protect pages rarely edited by this person. I'm no good at range blocks sadly. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a list of affected pages, or if I did I'd protect them. @Doug Weller:, do we have a community ban on record somewhere so that this stuff can be reverted on sight?  Sandstein  16:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Of course you would. Sadly no. This is the first time the Perun nonsense has been brought here. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for the "Perun" disruptive editor

Let's make it official, then. For longterm disruptive editing by inserting unsourced and implausible content into historical articles, notably relating to the god Perun, the person who has edited from the IP range 37.201.xx.xx among others, as noted above, is banned from Wikipedia by the community.

• Support as proposer.  Sandstein  10:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It seems nothing else will work. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Per above. Kleuske (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support this is the least (and perhaps the most) we can do. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support at least this way we can deal with this person without repeating the same discussion in the future. HighInBC 16:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:INCIVIL and WP:BADFAITH behaviour by User:SchroCat

Would an admin cast their eye over the discussion at Talk:Works of Keith Floyd#Requested move 17 March 2016. I'm afraid I did rise to the bait a bit, but I think the stalking and harassment accusations are a step too far. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. What a fucking waste of time. Sinden has followed SchroCat around like a fart in room. WP:BOOMERANG applies here, I would say. Cassianto^Talk 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that other means of dispute resolution be followed here. Clearly this spat is of no interest in general, all concerned editors should play nicely from now on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Rambling Man is right. BLUDGEONING and INCIVL are present, but looks just like hot heads and bad blood. I'd also recommend everyone involved take trip to the fish market to select a nice refreshing trout to cool yourselves with. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where is your evidence that I have followed anyone around? I made a simple WP:RM (that I happened upon because the article stuck out like a sore thumb in a category) and was subjected to the usual abuse[123][124] which has come to be expected from this editor, abuse which is then backed up by the usual suspects[125]. Heaven forbid if you try to make any kind of edit that to an article these editors have worked on. This kind of repeated behavior cannot be allowed to go unchecked. So I might be wrong in this case, so what? There is no need for the bullying. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral RfC at Donald Trump

After a long Talk discussion regarding whether an edit at Donald Trump violates WP:original research, one of the involved editors initiated this RfC which IMO is outrageously non-neutral. I'm requesting that an admin take a look and decide whether that is indeed the case. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

After numerous efforts to reach a compromise, there continued to be resistance to achieve consensus, even after language was proposed to provide the clarification that would answer the objections to the compromise. This language that is the subject of the dispute was reliably-sourced, was material to the article, and was crafted with compromise language made in good faith. After the nature of the objection to the compromise was revealed to be possibly politically-motivated, I asked for a RfC. That the RfC is being escalated here with an apparent intention for trigger negative repercussions for asking for a RfC shows that there could be a negative motivation here, possibly retaliatory. The record is clear about the discussion that took place on the Talk page, and the RfC was appropriate given the moving of the goalposts used to object to the good-faith compromise language. Maslowsneeds (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC does seem to be in the appropriate format of "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template" (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment). It's confusing to know what this RfC is asking for for those editors who have not participated in the previous discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC describes the initiator's own efforts as being in good faith and using reliable sources, while suggesting that the opposition is affected by political bias. That doesn't seem neutral to me. It also completely mis-represents the issue raised by the opposition.CFredkin (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

For this RfC, I wasn't presuming to ask to be able to effect the compromise language before we received other opinions about the compromise language. The RfC was asking for other editors to comment about the compromise language. Because there were blocks to consensus, I was hoping that the input of other editors could help us reach a consensus. Maslowsneeds (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• The RFC doesn't actually help give any information that an outside viewer would need to make an opinion. It doesn't matter if you have 100 diffs about the efforts you've made unless your goal is to make it a puzzle for others to figure out your actual point here. Otherwise, it's not so not neutral as almost borderline useless. Point to the actual discussions and let people see for themselves, not just your comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the RfC is mal-formed. The opposition to the content is based on WP:original research, since the sources for the content under discussion don't actually mention Donald Trump (with the exception of a WSJ article that actually states that Trump was not actively involved). The source of the disagreement is not accurately described at all in the RfC.CFredkin (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what each side is based on. A simple "I'd like to add this edit and here is the previous discussion" is all that's needed. This level of complexity you guys on all sides are making this is absurd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

To bring clarity, I will copy down the compromise language (links to which exist in the RfC), and move to amend the RfC to ask people to approve the compromise language. Thank you for this feedback, and my apologies. Maslowsneeds (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with the view that the RfC is mal-formed. I would propose closing the current RfC and starting over once agreement on the question is reached. Springee (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have copied the compromise language to preface the RfC, and editors are responding to the RfC on the talk page. Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And then the wording is alleged change again in the middle of it. The RFC keeps changing what the actual wording is intended to be so all the "include" support is based on different versions of the exact language. Is the closer supposed to presume that an early include supports all later versions? Is the closer supposed to review and analyze all the time stamps to see if all the concerns have been resolved? It seems like a poorly designed RFC all around starting with a focus on defending the arguments above rather than actually giving people a neutral question (should this language be included or not). I suggest shelving it and starting over with the actual wording in separate headings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the filer. That RfC is not neutrally worded at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RfCs don't have to be neutral worded? Whoever said so? Most people bringing about an RfC will bring on their viewpoint, it's upto the participants to decide whether that viewpoint is fine or not. The RfC does violate the principles, though, as drawing conclusion (even if based on facts) is construed as original research. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: Um... right here? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, what I said was if you're introducing a change, you're always on one side of the argument, is it not? Hence, not neutral. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not what you said. Having a viewpoint is not the same as neutral wording. No one asks for neutral views, just wording. And the question of the RfC should be neutrally worded, regardless of your personal position. When you !vote is what you make your case. The RfC wording in question is Despite reliable sources and good faith efforts to reach a compromise on language (that was later slightly amended) about fines assessed to Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, an editor is blocking these edits based on arguments including about Hillary Clinton. Can we have outside input concerning the compromise language that is not colored by possible political bias ? That's not even close to neutral. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I never spoke about the RfC itself except that it can be opposed on other grounds. I had said about the viewpoint in my first reply as well as second, I don't know what you missed. When you use RfC to resolve disputes, maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about. I'm sorry if I messed up about the non-neutral wording and having a viewpoint but they're essentially synonymous, since you're trying to make a change from the status quo. Despite reliable sources and good faith efforts to reach a compromise on language (that was later slightly amended) about fines assessed to Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, an editor is blocking these edits based on arguments including about Hillary Clinton. Can we have outside input concerning the compromise language that is not colored by possible political bias ? is not even a case of neutral or non-neutral, it's accusatory and shows only one side of the whole situation. If I were to write something like, "After being reverted multiple times and being in a heated discussion with Example, I'm here to seek opinions about the edits and whether there should be any change from status quo." In case you haven't noticed, I've been non-neutral by presenting my viewpoint but it's neutrally worded. I think that's where I messed up. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be neutrally worded. That's what I'm talking about WRT the this ANI complaint. I agree with Maslowsneeds' assessment of the RfC they're making a complaint about. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor's personal behaviour in Basque sensitive articles

This Basque conflict and prisoners articles have shown lately the intervention of the editor Asilah1981 (talk · contribs) with a long history of irregular editing. I should urge a prompt, conclusive intervention, the editor has lately engaged in some kind of campaign regarding these sensitive articles with no attention to detail whatsoever, breach of civility, extremely charged, confrontational style, personal attacks, and eventually threats against myself, leading to an unacceptable risk of lack of freedom to edit. He was warned by another user both of his behaviour and editing stye, but the editor remains basically the same. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

another user and me have no issue, we are both editing articles together productively, despite an initial misunderstanding. These are not "Basque sensitive articles". They are two ghost articles which have been surreptitiously written by ETA apologists, particularly the article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners, which is clearly not under the supervision of more than two wikipedia editors - Iñaki LL and the original editor who has deleted his account (or has been blocked, I don't know). The entire article is written in language which exalts, justifies and expresses sympathy towards Basque terrorists ETA. It is largely unsourced except using pro-ETA sources. Its entire objective is to pass-off individuals in Spain condemned for murder, attempted murder, kidnapping etc.. for political prisoners of some sort. The opening paragraph is, in its entirely, a justification for ETA's existence and actions.

My "personal attack" against Iñaki LL was a indeed a bitter comment in Spanish (you are welcome to google translate it), following his systematic reverting of me removing a couple of the more outrageous statements in the article (the whole article is outrageous and offensive). He is offended by me stating he is an ETA apologist, when he has positioned himself as the defendor of this article in its current form. I stick to that claim and remind him that he is a citizen of Spain, a democratic country, where in our criminal code breaking law 10/1995 of 23 November is punishable with a prison sentence of one to two years: 'the exaltation or justification of terrorism by any means of public expression or diffusion.' You can find this in articles 571-578 of our criminal code. Wikipedia may not be censored but it is my duty as a citizen of Spain and the European Union to warn my fellow country men when they are breaking the law in a pretty vile way, particularly today when the continent is yet again hit by this scourge. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see there has been a heated discussion at Talk:Basque conflict#Spin-off Article drafted by ETA sympathisers but, Iñaki LL, I don't see that you presented any evidence/diffs of misconduct. I recommend that if you all have reached an impasse, that you move the discussion over to Dispute Resolution where a mediator can help you move to a resolution over content disputes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Asilah, as I said to you on the Basque conflict page, I think you raise valid points, but I can tell you from many years' experience editing in that area that labelling people that disagree with you "serial terrorist apologists" is ill-advised, unlikely to persuade opponents or neutrals, and is a personal attack and sanctionable. Similarly, this edit where you say: "The (Spanish) state prosecutor can't act against Wikipedia, but they can act against individual editors if the offence is committed on Spanish territory. So if you are going to continue pursuing this with me, make sure you are not currently in Spanish territory" is really unhelpful, verging on a legal threat. Your input in that area is important, but you can make your points without attacking or issuing veiled threats against other editors. Valenciano (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Content disputes"? I beg you pardon??? It is a direct threat of prosecution against me, even other more serious. It is not over contents, it is over irregular behaviour, and serial violation of WP rules destined at intimidating. I thought his contribs were telling enough. The above editor threatens with legal action against me should I revert his edits, see edits here and here (this last one telling "I got/know you", in Spanish). More on legal threats "by the state prosecutor" against editors ("although it can not act against wikipedia") should I act in a way or another here "make sure you are not currently in Spanish territory". Check the intimidating tone, using terminology that has legal implications here.

I posted an edit in Basque conflict talk, making it clear: I am not willing to discuss in the present conditions of continuous verbal abuse and threats. It is a clear case of an editor bulldozing its way by intimidation, citing my life outside the WP. The above editor, whom at this point I cannot consider legitimate given this episode and previous history, has gone on with its veiled threatening style against those who do not think like him here. S/he has thereafter continued editing the article having his own way. I demand prompt unequivocal action against the above editor, and its indefinite block from WP. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On the same unacceptable, abusive line here. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is ill advised, but it is not a direct threat of prosecution. You both need to cool down. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you really read the links above? Did you? Let me tell you it looks like not sorry. It is a threat on my out-of-the-WP life as pointed by himself, based on we do not know what really, since the Asilah1981's statements do not point to specific problems that may be addressed, but an overall feeling of aggravation. The goal seems rather to spread a feeling of being unsafe to dissuade editors from editing legitimately in freedom ("if you undo my edits"). There is an unacceptable inflammatory, emotional accusatory plea that makes any discussion impossible, the goal pursued as it seems (it is basically a 'my way or highway'), and thus create biased articles. Other than me and other WP editors, WP's reliability is the main victim. I should urge an immediate call to the free flow of legitimate ideas into the WP, and therefore a block to the above editor. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read the links above. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, I have cooled down, I suggest you do the same. I have already stated in the edit you mention that I am NOT going to report you to the police in ANY case, so I am NOT threatening you. I am, however pointing to the fact that, if you engage in an edit war with me over an article with content which in Spain is clearly illegal (as well as deeply immoral), you are likely to be liable for "apology of terrorism". This is a serious risk for you outside wikipedia. I don't think you have committed a crime as of yet but you were definitely going down that road - Best warn you in advance! The risk you face is somewhat diminished by the depressingly low numbers of Spanish citizens who speak or understand English fluently but it is a risk nonetheless, particularly since your edits remain recorded into the future. The creator of article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners was fully aware of this and this is why he has deleted his account. Your edits in general are largely apolitical and constructive. Why get into trouble over such an ugly thing. I'm sure you know of what Madrid town Councillor Guillermo Zapata is going through right now. In 2016, one cannot continue to believe that the internet is a separate universe without real life consequences. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's good that you have cooled down. However, you still are very confrontational and non-constructive. I suggest you stop interpreting Spanish law and leave that to the legal system. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture Understood. But I remind you that the least offensive of the two articles: Basque Conflict has already been discussed in the Spanish parliament with an official request by Spanish party UPyD to the government to formally complain to Wikipedia (Simply because of its title/definition)http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2013/12/04/upyd-wikipedia-eta_n_4384982.html. Fortunately or unfortunately, no one has picked up on the worst of the two articles that I went ballistic over. This is not a question of my interpretation. The law is clear and the Spanish police has an entire team specialized in internet hate crimes and terrorism apology - a correct application of Wikipedia rules would bring such articles and their editors within the realm of legality as well as leading to another quality article which does not tarnish the reputation of wikipedia. Its a win-win situation. Up to you guys...Asilah1981 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's up to the Spanish legal system. What you are doing NOW is getting very close to making legal threats against Wikipedia, which is an automatic ban. Don't do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For a start, Spanish state security laws and procedures overall are extremely controversial both in the Spanish and Basque political life. Secondly, I should demand Asilah1981 to retract now from unacceptable verbal abuse and personal attack against me, like here (literally if someone does not understand Spanish: "(...) you are coming here and lying in English, standing up for your coward shoot-in-the-head friends" in order to start re-establishing some kind of normality. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

While the article should be written from as neutral a point of view as possible, the Spanish legal authorities have no jurisdiction over this American website, and what they think about the English-language Wikipedia is irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not know really why this is being belated, it is a matter of concern as a contributor to the WP and as part of its community that the serial violation of WP rules including serious personal attacks could go without consequences. I feel revolted specially as a wipikipedian by the two paragraphs starting and finishing "Valenciano You may be right (...) which kind of sucks." meant at paralyzing editors (by fear of editing something for which Asilah1981 may feel aggravated), dissuade from contributing unless they edit in one specific direction that s/he may find suitable enough by his/her own standards, citing a law (and the police) that looms over the editors like a sword of Damocles.

In fact, we do not know what the specific problem is (sentence, word...), it is the general intimidating atmosphere that remains. Check just this acusatory statement by the editor in question for the article "Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners" (as labelled by ex-Spanish premier Aznar): "It is largely unsourced except using pro-ETA sources", check it for yourself, nothing more to add. And the (wo)man continues with the self-talk... Iñaki LL (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL actually, I would say the correct translation is "your friends of the bullet in the back of the head". Since the "soldiers" of the "basque national liberation movement" in the "basque conflict" seemed to consistently be unable to kill any of their victims unless it was from behind, particularly the nearly half of their victims who were basque civilians. Important clarification! OpenFuture I am nowhere near making legal threats against wikipedia because Spanish law does not apply to an American website nor does it even apply to editors who edit from outside Spain, such as yourself, for example. You could edit wikipedia saying ETA and ISIS are the best thing ever and that all Jews should be gassed and you would not be breaking Spanish law - unless you wrote that while being physically in Spain. Then you would be in hot water... I have mentioned this a couple of times already. Asilah1981 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem about not complying with WP:OPENPARA guideline

I am asking the intervention of an admin at the page Joseph-Louis Lagrange, since User:Sapphorain, against the WP:OPENPARA guideline, is inserting a double nationality in the lead of the article. WP:OPENPARA is quite clear about that:

"if (the person is) notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable."

In this specific case, Lagrange became notable when he was still in Turin, reached the apogee of his fame in Berlin, then went to Paris, where among others he became French citizen. Notability was reached in Italy, so only the Italian nationality should be mentioned in the opening paragraph (not elsewhere, of course).

One thing should be clear: the rule established at WP:OPENPARA is crucial to avoid edit wars (well, most of edit wars ;-)), and does not allow the mentioning of double nationality in the lead. A famous case was the article about Enrico Fermi, object of edit wars for years among Italian and American Nationalistic POV pushers, until a user invoked the rule. After that, the lead of Enrico Fermi reached its stability. Of course this rule does not go always to the advantage of Italians: in other cases (i.e. at Riccardo Giacconi, Richard Rogers, Andrew Viterbi) I had to remove (several times) the Italian nationality from the lead. The rule is not perfect, but if someone is not happy about it, he/she should open a thread on the related manual of style discussion page, instead of edit warring.

About Lagrange, the correct version (with the Italian nationality) until before yesterday had a remarkable stability, showing that in this case there is consensus (that is, the rule was well understood). The double nationality was introduced before yesterday by another user ([126]) and after my revert with edit summary invoking WP:OPENPARA, by Sapphorain ([127]) I reverted again to the stable version inviting User:Sapphorain on his talk page to open a thread on the discussion page of the manual of style ([128]), and offering my support in case he had proposed the introduction of the possibility of a double nationality in the lead. As answer, he reverted again, accusing me of dishonesty ([129]). After that, I think that the intervention of an admin is necessary,at least to explain to the aforementioned user how this guideline works. Alex2006 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin observation) Sounds like a content dispute to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the subject is the refusal of complying with a guideline. None disputes that Lagrange some years before dying got the French nationality, but WP:OPENPARA compels to put only one nationality in the lead. WP:OPENPARA is a guideline, this means that it should be enforced, if necessary. Alex2006 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines never compel anything. If you read the guideline you'll see this is the case. Thincat (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Then what does this mean?

"Enforcement on Wikipedia is similar to other social interactions. If an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, over time resorting to more forceful means, such as administrator and steward actions." This is exactly what is happening in this case: after having failed with the persuasion, explaining what the guideline says, now I am asking for an admin intervention. Alex2006 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The citation of WP:OPENPARA is incomplete. It reads: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." The interpretation is very difficult in the case of Lagrange, and the best solution is to mention both nationalities in the lead. Alex2006 would be right if Lagrange were notable "mainly for past events" (past events that took place in Italy before he moved). But it is not the case. Although he became notable in Italy, he is not notable mainly, but also, because of what he did in Italy. Sapphorain (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but "mainly for past events" has nothing to do with the fact that he moved or not abroad. The nationality which goes in the lead, is the one that the person had when he became notable, period, and the case of Lagrange is not "very difficult" (why difficult?), but crystal clear: Lagrange became notable already in Italy (the King of Prussia named him in his invitation letter "the foremost mathematician in europe"), and his notability increased above all when he was in Berlin, and in that period he remained an Italian working in Berlin. In other words, the question is: if Lagrange would have died during his trip from Turin to Berlin, should still deserve his article on an Encyclopedia? If the answer is yes, then he shall be defined as Italian. Moreover, the guideline says that only one nationality should be mentioned in the lead, not two (otherwise I would have no problem in describing him in the lead as Italo-French) and this should be the Italian. BTW, I arose the issue of the double nationality already a couple of times in the manual of style discussion page, but I have been plainly ignored by the many contributors, the main reason being possibly that people who brings this issue are usually nationalistic POV-pushers: Italians who want to define Richard Rogers as Italo-British, Americans who would like to describe Enrico Fermi as Italian-American, and so on. This means that there is a strong consensus regarding this guideline. As I wrote above, if Sapphorain does not agree with this guideline, he can open a thread on the discussion page of the Manual of Style, and I can help him, but he should refrain from edit warring and keep the last stable version in place until the general discussion about this guideline has not been settled. Alex2006 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"[...] until the general discussion [...] has not been settled." ← Say wha`??? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I must correct two assertions by Alex2006.

(1) "The guideline says that only one nationality should be mentioned in the lead, not two" is simply not true: nothing of the kind is mentioned in WP:OPENPARA.

(2) "The nationality which goes in the lead, is the one that the person had when he became notable, period" is Alex2006's own private opinion, and is not contained in WP:OPENPARA.

… Oh, and by the way: I am not French (nor Italian, nor nationalistic POV-pusher, whatever that might possibly mean ). Sapphorain (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alex2006: As was explained to you above, guidelines are not mandatory; they are as their name implies, guides to article style. Actual content of any given article are decided by consensus at the individual article. It is never a good idea to ascribe a motive to another's edits unless you are prepared to cite numerous diffs showing a pattern such as you are ascribing. This is unambiguously a content dispute. Content disputes get settled on article talk pages with the assistance of WP:DR if needed. This board is for editor behavior that is in violation of policy. There is nothing like that here. The only thing close is the near WP:NPA violation you have made by questioning Sapphorain's motives without evidence. Drop this, go back to the talk page and calmly work this out please. John from Idegon (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if guidelines are not mandatory, although strangely there is a paragraph about guideline enforcement, there is absolutely nothing to discuss on the article's talk page or here. The (lengthy) discussion about the insertion in the lead of the double nationality in the case of Enrico Fermi, to be found here, especially the last edits by Yworo who ended the discussion:

"For the purposes of the lead sentence, we use the nationality of the subject at the time they became notable...Basically, most people will be described using their birth nationality, if they became notable before changing or adding a citizenship."

Means absolutely nothing. Each one can edit or revert as he/she wishes, and for each person we have to start again a three month long discussion. Good to know, thanks. For me Lagrange can stays as he is, Italian-French, French-Italian or plainly French. Bye.Alex2006 (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Sapphorain:, I was surprised to see you insist that Lagrange, an 18th-century mathematician and astronomer, is not notable mainly for past events, and that Alessandro "dishonestly"[130] left out the complete sentence about what happens in modern-day cases. Do you think Lagrange is a modern-day case? Of course he's notable for past events — he's a past-events guy! I have placed a personal attack warning on your page; please don't disparage other editors and don't call anybody here "dishonest" again — especially not without cause.
• As for the authority of the Manual of style, of which WP:OPENPARA is part, both policies and guidelines describe community standards. People can override a guideline in a particular case if they have a good reason. But the reason Sapphorain gives for advocating mention of both nationalities in the lead, namely that "the interpretation is very difficult in the case of Lagrange", isn't really a good reason. If Lagrange was a modern figure it would be difficult, yes. Since he's an Enlightenment figure it's pretty easy. Please don't insist, Sapphorain. If you think WP:OPENPARA should be changed to allow for double nationality in the lead in this case, I think Alessandro's advice to open a discussion at WT:MOS is good. Bishonen | talk 16:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: The distortion or mutilation of a citation in order to make a point is dishonest. The observation that such a distortion was made is not an attack, it is just … an observation. I am calling a cat a cat, and there is no way I will not mention such a fact just in order to be nice. Now, the complete sentence in WP:OPENPARA reads "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." You oppose me that does not apply to Lagrange because he is not modern enough. But how then can you accept the conclusion given (about the nationality in the lead), when it is justified by a portion of the very same sentence, from which the precision "in most modern-day cases" has simply been removed ?! Sapphorain (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sapphorain:, the only reason why I did not cite also the first part of the sentence, is that it does not apply to Lagrange, who - as @Bishonen: rightly pointed out, is known mainly "for past events", since he is dead since more than 200 years. I reported above the statement of an user who explains the guideline, but you prefer to ignore it. In summary, the fact that you accused me of being dishonest only shows that you are struggling to maintain your point, without even trying to understand what I wrote. Here none is contesting that Lagrange became - late in his life - French citizen: we are discussing what has to be written in the lead, according to the manual of style. As I wrote above, the introduction of the double nationality is generally not allowed by the WP:OPENPARA guideline, and has been discussed ad nauseam in several cases. Above, I gave you the link to the discussion about Enrico Fermi, here, but you disregarded it too. Fermi and Lagrange cases are quite similar: both born as Italian, both known "for past events", both notable at the time of their emigration from their country, both emigrated, both citizens of another country. In Fermi's case there was consensus to define him "Italian" in the lead, applying the WP:OPENPARA guideline. This means that the same consensus applies for Lagrange, unless you explain us why we should do an exception. The only difference between Fermi's and Lagrange's article is that while the first was a battleground for years because of the nationality issue, in the case of Lagrange there was a remarkable stability, and the few users who introduced the French nationality did not start an edit war like you after reading the WP:OPENPARA guideline. I would also notice that 2 years ago you started another edit war with another user on the same article, and that in this occasion you left in place Lagrange's Italian nationality without introducing the French one. I would like to know why now you changed your mind. Anyway, my proposal remains always the same: reverting the article about Lagrange to the stable version, and opening together a thread at WT:MOS raising the issue of the double nationality. Alex2006 (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: I am not at all convinced by you explanation. The beginning « In modern-day cases » clearly applies to the whole sentence, and not only to the end of it. Otherwise there would be a second sentence. So either the whole sentence applies to Lagrange, or none of it. May I recall by the way that historians typically date the end of the early modern period at the 1789 French Revolution (were the modern period begins). So Lagrange is a figure of early modern or modern history.

Your surprise at what you call my change of mind regarding this matter is … surprising. Well, it so happen that I didn’t notice this problem in the lead at the time (and anyway, people might change their minds when new data becomes available to them).

I agree that the matter must be discussed at WT:MOS (or elsewhere: it is not really a matter of style, but of accuracy). The case of Lagrange is definitely not as straightforward as you present it. A number of reliable sources classify him as French. That the Petit Larousse and Petit Robert should do so is not very surprising. But it is also the denomination given by the Encyclopedia Americana (which, by the way, describes Fermi as « Italo-American » ). So in Lagrange case the best solution is to mention both nationalities. Sapphorain (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sapphorain:, you are really climbing mirrors. ;-) "Most modern-day cases" has nothing to do with modern age: ;-) Modern day (look, we have an article on Wikipedia) is a synonym for present time. "Notable for past events" is clearly disjoint from it, means "notable in the past". BTW, if it weren't so, there would be no way to define nationality for people who lived before the modern era. To understand that, please look at the four examples below the explanation in WP:OPENPARA: they all deal with people who are dead (two of them since a lot of time). How can you say that the guideline is related only to modern people, when to illustrate it are used examples of people dead 2000 or 700 years ago? Is Petrarch a modern? And again, what the sources say, here is irrelevant, since this is not a dispute about content. I already told you that I agree that Lagrange should be at best be defined as Italian-French (actually, I would prefer Italian naturalised French, since this describe what happened). But here we are dealing with the usage of a guideline. Alex2006 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in writing the current wording of WP:OPENPARA and Alex2006 is absolutely correct about its intent. Italian is a nationality; French is a nationality: Italo-French is simply not a nationality and a nationality is what is required here. In addition, compound "nationalities" like this are ambiguous: they are not interpreted the same way by all native speakers of English. For most, they are taken as a statement about ethnicity rather than nationality as required. That is, an "Italian-American" for example is usually understood by speakers of American English as someone who may never have been in Italy and certainly doesn't mean they were even an Italian national. It is read as someone who is the descendant of Italian immigrant but who was born in America. It does not mean dual nationality or dual citizenship or anything of the sort that the writer might be trying to convey. This is why WP:OPENPARA specifically states "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Adding any seccond nationality violates this description of what not to do. The intent of the rule is that there be one single nationality in the lead sentence. If the subject history requires further explanation, it should be in a subsequent sentence where the complete nature of the assertion can be fully described rather than glossed over, which is what these pseudo-dual-nationalites in the lead sentence do... gloss completely over a clear explanation. Don't do it: a "hyphenated-psuedo-ethnicity-nationality" does not meet the requirement that a simple actuall nationality is supposed to be here. Skyerise (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Skyerise, thanks a lot for your clear explanation. Since the decision about Fermi's nationality I have been always trying to apply the guideline consequently, especially in those ambiguous cases of "multiple" nationality. On the other side, I understand also the reasons who compelled Sapphorain to insert the second nationality in Lagrange's case. Moreover, I think that the wording of the guideline could possibly be improved. After the end my wikileave, I will open a thread to discuss these issues at WP:MOS, trying to improve it, and I hope that you will join the discussion with Sapphorain and others. Thanks again and merry Easter. Alex2006 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Metalworker14 continues to add unsourced content

Metalworker14 (talk · contribs) continues to add unsourced content. Sometimes it‘s information about membership of bands. The most recent was the addition of an alias for a musician: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Clark_%28musician%29&diff=711068787&oldid=708392106. I have repeatedly warned the editor, tagged membership sections of band articles. The editor does not seem to understand WP:V let alone WP:RS. I have asked and warned the editor multiple times. The editor does not engage in discussion or explain additions. Complicating matters is that he has begun to use podcasts (primary source interviews) that are difficult to verify without listening to the whole podcast. I believe a short block is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You gave a final warning template a few days ago I see. Did you try reporting to WP:AIV? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I have given at least three final warnings:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metalworker14&diff=706293028&oldid=706183037
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metalworker14&diff=708376925&oldid=708090815
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metalworker14&diff=710764701&oldid=710478705

and yes, I reported Metalworker14 to AIV. It received a question to which I responded. The request was then deleted as declined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Pinging JamesBWatson for input since they addressed the AIV report. Frankly I agree that a block is in order. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:TheLongTone is stalking my contributions

User:TheLongTone seems to have reacted to my pushback against his hasty nomination for deletion of Disappearance of Sheila Fox by stalking my edits, looking for things he can have deleted. User:‎AldezD has stalked my edits in the past. Nothing was done then but i want something to be done now with TheLongTone. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm stalking you? You've repeatedly reached out to me on my talk page asking for help, with one of the requests occurring within the last 30 days ([131], [132], [133], [134]). You've also undone my edits in an AFD notifying a closing admin of your WP:CANVAS activity ([135]), and your edit summary in that reversion was "don't irritate me". I've undone one of your edits within the past year ([136]) removing unsourced information you included in your edit. WP:BOOMERANG for false accusations? AldezD (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of your edits related to me can only have happened because you were checking my user contribs. This has been noted by non-involved admins. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You compliment me in your edits to my talk page and also ask me for help...but now I'm stalking your edits? Proof? AldezD (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I do think you do good work with Judith Barsi, i just think you shouldn't have been checking my user contribs. As i was told by another user here some years ago "that amounts to stalking and i would like you to stop". We can work together, have a good Wiki-relationship and be friends. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, proof? You make a serious accusation in an ANI about me and I refute it with proof showing your behavior (including very recent behavior)—in which you ask me for help—is contradictory. AldezD (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Paul Benjamin Austin: Accusations like this require evidence to support them. Please provide diffs of how/when/where AldezD allegedly stalked you. (Non-administrator comment) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Isn't this an accusation of stalking by User:TheLongTone? I used the editor interaction tool and found more interaction between Paul Benjamin Austin and myself, than between Paul Benjamin Austin and User:TheLongTone. (I don't recall ever hearing of Paul Benjamin Austin before today). I don't see any basis for the accusation. Jacona (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Which begs the question, why did Paul Benjamin Austin call me out in this ANI in the first place? I don't appreciate being accused of stalking when the user has personally reached out to me for help multiple times (even within the past 30 days) and has yet to respond with proof of his accusation that I have been stalking his edits "in the past". If there's no basis for his accusation against me and against TheLongTone, shouldn't there be some level of disciplinary action for making a false accusation? AldezD (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

When User:AldezD first AfD'd Little Miss Nobody case, I raised the point that since he had never shown any interest or even knowledge of the article or its subject before, he could only have found out about it by checking my talk page or user contribs. Likewise, User:TheLongTone can only have found out about Murder of Denise McGregor through the same way. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:HOUND, which states stalking is "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I nominated one article you edit for deletion six months ago, which was also the last AFD I created for any article. Accusing me of stalking you is absolute nonsense, especially when you have reached out to me in good faith asking for my help multiple times. Publicly accusing me of that level of behavior in an ANI is reckless and immature. AldezD (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

YCplaer/Orzijunmyeon persistant disruptive behavior possible sock puppetry and vandalism

For the page of Z.Tao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user Ycplaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received warning regarding the spamming the article and addition of irrelevant information that don't follow Wikipedia's guidelines, and reverting of page without any discussion or explanation in the edit summary and overall disruptive behavior by Admin Drmies.A 3RR report was filed and this editor was warned by Admin Edjohnston

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ycplaer

Due to those edits. [137]She was warned by Drmies [138]She was warned and blocked by Edjohnston

Those edits were reverted and opposed those changes both in user's talk page and on the article's talk page or edit summary. By me. See talk for more detailed information. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z.Tao&action=history Open discussion, the game changer, Tao martial artist and bold edit.

However despite discussion being open in the talk page, and admins warnings.

This editor came back again under a different name Orzijunmyeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in order to avoid sanction and resumed the page blanking and the spamming.The page blanking is even more obvious now because I added citations since last edit from YCplaer.[139]I had noticed it before but it was minimal and wanted to assume good faith but now after all the edits I made that this user deleted, it's more apparent, I now suspect that person is a sneaky vandal.

Sentences and properly sourced paragraphs have been deleted without any explanation or discussion from the Edit Summary, wrong information input in the subject's biography like Martial arts tricking performer despite it being wrong and contested in the talk page, link spams that have been reverted from administrator Drmies and myself like fancams replacing news sources citations, links to itunes or chinese music streaming services that require registration in citations instead the the news articles that were there before, copyrighted material. etc...All of these were addressed and opposed in the subject's talk page and edit summary, but these users didn't communicate at all before making those changes.

I believe Orzijunmyeon is a sock puppet because 1. New account 2. Same disruptive behavior, page blanking , spamming and lack of communication or justification for changes. 3.the article was reverted to Ycplaer's last edit. That's very specific and odd for a new editor to do that.

There is no logical justification for why someone who is genuinely interested in improving the page would behave that way. Especially seeing the talk page or the edit summary and being warned repeatedly.

I tried to report on thee intervention against vandalism page for Orzyjunmyeon and got declined, because it's hard to point out the vandalism unless you know the context and go through the whole article and talk page because that person is being sneaky, (but the martial arts tricking performer edit is a big red flag it's odd, he's equally notorious as being a Wushu martial artist as a musician, it looks to me like it's a purposefully misleading edit) and without knowing that Ycplaer/Orzijunmyeon may be a sockpuppet, it's hard to judge, I think I should have added that I sent an investigation for sock puppetry report.

The motives I can think of : The subject used to be part of a very popular Kpop boyband Exo. His departure and subsequent success some Exo fans bitter and/or since he's a young popular star who's gaining a lot of recognition, he attracts attention from some people that are immature.

I think these 2 users need to be blocked indefinitely and the page should be locked to avoid future vandalism under I.P addresses or creation another account that is not verified continuing to disrupt and/or Vandalize the page. TaoWoAini (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The SPI created is here. As the alleged master was not notified of this discussion, I have done so myself. GAB^Hello! 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

New Development: Now another person is reverting YCpleaer/Orzijunmyeon edits not all but still enough to see the disruptive pattern.12r003hun I suspect meat puppetry. Example of external link spamming that was contested : Chinese streaming sites in citations, like Kugou, Kuwo, 163.music not only in Chinese therefore not relevant on English page but they also require registration. They delete the news articles citations in english about Tao's first album and put this instead.

After each mention of Tao's album they added external links to these streaming sites. This is only the first diff during subsequent edits 12r003hun added the same to the rest of the page were T.A.O is mentioned. [140] 12r003hun deleted the link to the English entertainment news article I added in order to do so. Same as Orzijymyeon [141]

Look how long some citations are after the page, sometimes the original citations are left there but then a bunch of other things are added like after the paragraph after Tao quitting due to injury there was an addition of a bunch of fancams one of them an entire Exo showcase where Tao was absent, due to his accident and the members mentioned him once in the span of 1hr. The same kind of thing that Drmies had warned YCplaer against adding to the page, using the article as a repository for fan material, See Ycplaer [142] and Orzijunmyeon [143] and then 12r003hun [144] I suggest using the find box to find the word contract to find those parts because there is more than one edit in each diff and it's hard to find unless you narrow it down like that especially Ycplaer since it's a bold edit.

There is a lot of link spamming so many news article citations replaced with videos and , containing fan cams, copyrighted videos, link to itunes...see what it looks like in the end.very long citations enumeration after some sentences

Ycplaer [145] Orzijunmyeon [146] 12r003hun [147]

Example of page blanking it's less substantial this time mostly sentences names of people Tao worked with but of of them is very obvious.

The paragraph about Tao's 1st movie role in You are my sunshine, and it's citations were deleted. Instead was replaced by an edit about a guest appearance on a variety show that is completely irrelevant. It already in the table of shows Tao appeared in. and it's again the very same edit that YCpleaer had made see under line 30, 7th paragraph [148] and then Orzijunmyeon did under cover of adding the guest appearing to the page [149].and 12r003hun did the same [150]

Why would one delete Tao's 1st movie role, in a big movie with A list stars Huang Xiaoming and Yang Mi? Or do it to replace it with a normal appearance he did on a variety show with another Kpop Idol Hee_Chul?(I watched it noting special happened, he was a guest he played games) Especially when you made sure to remove any mention of Victoria Song who is another notorious Kpop idol ,that Tao worked with in Zhang Liyin's video in a more notable context (music video was shot like a short film and Tao got to display his acting skills and martial arts for 1st time) Why this inconsistency with editing from all 3 of them?

All of the above were things that were opposed in the talk page, edit summary: page blanking, deletion of the You're my sunshine mention, link spamming etc... So why would 12r003hun who last contributed to Z.Tao's article a month ago, specifically come to revert those edits, and also do external link spamming on this article, when that user was already warned about external link spamming on another page in February and should know by now that this kind of thing is discouraged ? 12r003huntalk

TaoWoAini (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Five

Globally blocked user (CoUser1) is back, with IPv6 addresses: 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*

See my previous ANI reports (1, 2, 3, 4). SLBedit (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you filed an SPI, SLBedit? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No. SLBedit (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

SLBedit - You need to file one. Go here to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to because it's an obvious WP:DUCK. User will continue to disrupt Wikipedia unless admins do something about it. SLBedit (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@SLBedit: It honestly might be more helpful and get you a quicker response... but I'm going to start a subsection below asking for someone to look into a rangeblock. Could you post some examples of the disruption from a few different IPs (and how it relates to a past blocked user)? Or perhaps Diannaa remembers dealing with this one before and can confirm duckness. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible rangeblock?

Can an administrator look into a rangeblock for the IP range mentioned above (2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Packerfansam still removing content for POV reasons

In 2015, Packerfansam was brought to AN/I for repeatedly removing content related to non-Christian religions, LGBT people, pornography, magic, and so on. No action was taken due to a lack of consensus. Since then, Packerfansam has continued her behavior.[151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165] (Some of these diffs might be individually defensible; the pattern is not.) After collecting those diffs, I warned her in September 2015 to stop.[166] I stopped keeping track of her after that warning, so I don't have a complete list of newer diffs, but she is apparently still bowdlerizing articles. JohnInDC has fortunately continued to revert her removals and has warned her repeatedly since.[167] Just today, she removed mention of a Playboy model. On March 21 she deleted a porn actress and the word "magician". I think she's had enough warnings. KateWishing (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for Packerfansam to respond to this before making an opinion/judgment here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As KateWishing notes, I've been restoring these excisions from time to time. Here is a partial list of questionable removals of content I've restored since September:

September 27 - Removed without comment from Green Bay, Wisconsin, mentions of places of worship for Muslims, Unitarians and Jews, while adding information about Episcopalians.

October 15 - At Ted Turner, she removed a reliably-sourced quote from Turner declaring himself to be agnostic, claiming that it was “contradicted” by information elsewhere in article, when the excised information was more recent than the “contradictory” text.

October 28 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she deleted without comment a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people.

November 24 - Removed “porn actor and activist” from description of a notable person, when that is largely the basis of their notability

November 25 - Changed description of notable resident Theodore Hardeen from “magician” to “performer”, when notability of the subject (Houdini's younger brother in fact) was specifically as a "magician"

December 4 - Changed description of notable alumnus John Hamman from “magician” to “performer”, when Hamman was known specifically for his innovative magic techniques

December 6 - Removed phrase, “of disputed gender” on the dab page leading to an article of a surgeon whose notability largely rested on this fact

December 10 - Deleted a Jewish temple from a list of local churches in Mentor, Ohio on the ground that it is “not a church”.

December 28 - Again removed “paranormal investigator” from the description of an alumnus (following a prior reversion of the same excision)

January 3 - Again removed “porn actor and activist” from description of notable person, when that is largely basis of their notability

January 7 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she once again deleted a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people without comment.

January 10 - Deleted without comment a notable “erotic actress” from a list of List_of_people_from_Devon

January 23 - Again removes without comment "magician" from the description of notable alumnus and magician John Hamman

February 7 - Again deletes without comment the Playmate from Waukesha,_Wisconsin

March 20 - Deleted without comment notable adult actress and Cleveland native Mary Carey from List of people from Cleveland

March 21 - Removed, yet again, the term “magician” from the description of John Hamman

March 22 - following my comment to her on her Talk page she substituted the inaccurate term "illusionist" for "magician" to describe John Hamman

March 23 - Deleted mention of a Playboy playmate from a list of notable residents

JohnInDC (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute to me. Take, for example, your last March 23 diff. The porn actress removed is not notable and doesn't appear to be from Kent. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. The linked content says the person is from Canterbury. Canterbury is in Kent. And, while the woman now appears here in a List of Playboy playmates rather than in a standalone article, a standalone article was in place for five years unchallenged on any notability basis before it was consolidated with the List, as redundant of it. As for the rest of the edits above, most - if not all - are indefensible as good faith, objective revisions, but rather reflect the POV of the editor. JohnInDC (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The ANI link at the top of this entry contains a couple of summaries of the editing that prompted that original posting (which was mine). That discussion also reads in an uncommonly linear fashion down as far as the collapsed text, for those who are understandably daunted by revisiting the ANI archives. A partial list of similar, post-ANI edits can be found here, under the heading "Packerfansam". I suggest that folks give those two locations a look to assist in understanding the concerns that KateWishing has raised. These and the prior edits are all of a piece. JohnInDC (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• The pattern of editing seems rather clear and problematic. The two past ANIs past discussions (here and here) strongly suggest a long-term pattern that shows no signs of abating. I would like to hear from Packerfansam before voting on KateWishing's proposal below. That might take a day or so though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a good idea to be patient. She can sometimes go a week between edits. (BTW that second link I provided is a Talk page discussion, not an ANI.) JohnInDC (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Frankly, yes there are a number of things that I disagree about with regards to things like notability. However, there are some instances listed above that I take issue with, even factoring in our apparent differences in beliefs. Referring to the edit on Mentor, OH, the section at the time was about local churches, the title of the section was about churches. There didn't seem to be any major concern about it at the time, and if I recall correctly, the title was later changed something along the lines of 'Places of Worship'. Regarding Ted Turner, it had established in the article that he had declared himself no longer an agnostic. I didn't see if there were exact dates attached, but if that's not a contradiction I don't know what is. Regards to the alumnus of Beloit College, no I'm not particularly a fan of his genre, but if I remember right, at the time I was under the impression that he had also hosted something else in a different genre and so 'TV host' as a more general description seemed like it would have worked fine. I could be or could have been confused or remembering wrong.

I would like to reinforce that if I'm a bit slow in my responses, don't automatically take it as meaning that I'm blowing this off. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So long as you keep grasping for any semi-plausible reason to remove information that offends you, you're going to keep making these mistakes. You say you removed information about non-Christian religions here because of a "Churches" header, here because (???), here to simplify, and here because it was unsourced? No. All of those edits were made for the same reason. KateWishing (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Most of Packerfansam's edits are helpful, so a topic ban on certain contentious subjects should resolve the issue. I propose: "Packerfansam may not remove content pertaining to religion, sexuality, magic, or the paranormal." This should not unduly interfere with her primary task of improving political biographies (in case it ever does, I'd be happy to review any edit she suggests). KateWishing (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be better described as an editing restriction. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks on article talk pages (Crimea annexation, Aleksandr Dugin)

In a current discussion with myself and others at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, User:Iryna Harpy made a post [168] which said very little about specific content questions, but instead accused several other WP users — User:Tobby72, User:Haberstr, and User:Moscow Connection — of "POV pushing" , "disruptive editing" , and presenting arguments with "no good faith" .

I contacted Iryna about this on her user page, sending copies to each of the users she had named [169]. Iryna's response was that she found my message "bizarre", she said I was using her user talk page to bully her, and she asked me not to message her user talk page again, except to notify her of a formal complaint. She did however clarify that she does not think Moscow Connection had engaged in disruptive editing or had lacked good faith, though she does think Moscow Connection had pushed POV. She regards her comments about the other two WP users, Tobby72 and Haberstr, as "legitimate criticism". [170]

I noticed a more extreme though less recent personal attack by Iryna Harpy on Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin (a somewhat related topic). There she accused another WP user of putting "pineapples up his arse, leafy side up, just to get his juices flowing" . [171] Iryna made that comment about 12 months ago, and it is still on that talk page right now (22:21, 22 March 2016) [172], it hasn't been removed or archived, although it is at present in a collapsable/expandable box.

Iryna is an experienced WP editor, who should know better than to misuse article talk pages in this way. Her actions suggest to me that she has a strong sense of WP:OWNERSHIP in relation to these pages, and wants to push away users who have different views regarding their content. Whatever her motive, the personal attacks she makes are not appropriate for article talk pages, because they don't contribute to civil content discussion. [Highlighting added March 25]. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Those aren't "personal attacks", those are fairly accurate descriptions of these editors' editing practices. Tobby72 in particular has been driving people crazy with his slow motion edit war and attempts to insert text into these articles against consensus which has been going on for something like a year now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• This section is a nonsense, and should be closed. Iryna is one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles. She might get frustrated sometimes, but that's a common feature to us all. Furthermore, if one is confronted by the type of disruption that is evident in this very AN/I thread, which is rooted in canvassing, one will inevitably let one's lips slip from time to time. Please shut this thread. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

RGloucester, you say Iryna is "one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles" . What does your comment say about the others who have tried to deal with the articles, either by making edits or by commenting on the talk pages? Is Wikipedia still "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Or is it now "the encyclopedia which only a few good faith editors are capable of dealing with"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelnes: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." If Iryna had valid criticisms of the way Tobby72 and others have been editting, she should have put her criticisms on their user talk pages, where they would immediately see what was said, and not on the article talk page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop it with the WP:WIKILAWYER. These users, whom you've been encouraging [173], were disrupting THESE articles hence it made perfect sense for Iryna to comment on THESE articles' talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As predicted on my talk page, the user fully intended to canvass in order to embark on a WP:HUNT, posting on Moscow Connection's talk page, on Tobby72's talk page, and on Haberstr's talk page. The most telling of these have been his/her communications with Haberstr on 21 March where s/he commended the editor stating "Lack of neutrality re Ukraine conflict: I agree with you that WP's coverage of the Ukraine conflict has a neutrality problem, and I respect your efforts to address this problem." in a bid to align himself/herself with other users who support his/her POV. Haberstr's response to the "cc" (or, let's start this hunt because WP:CRUSH doesn't seem to be working) makes for interesting reading in itself.

All of this ducking and diving in and out of ARBEE sanctioned articles, and WP:BAITing editors who are constantly working on them is going to elicit a WP:SPADE response eventually. Mind you, I have publicly apologised to Moscow Connection for tying him in with the other two. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as an aside, while this ANI is being used to tie up editor and admin time, Haberstr is using his valuable time to keep edit warring the article's content. That's NPOV? Really? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is NPOV in my opinion. But you disagree, which I respect. Your comment simply illustrates that you don't respect others having a good faith disagreement with you, and you express that disrespect by getting angry and accusatory on talk pages and here. And that is exactly the problematic behavior that fellow editor Kalidasa has asked administrators to do something about. I think I can summarize your response to Kalidasa so far as "I don't understand what Kalidasa is getting at, and here, let me angrily express more assumption of bad faith to make sure everyone knows I don't get it."Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Haberstr, you exhausted good faith on the part of other editors participating in these articles years ago. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to stay on the Iryna Harpy behavior topic, and to stop the ad homimen attacks on me? If you have evidence put it on my user talk page.Haberstr (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Where no one will see it? Nah, I think this is the appropriate place for it, which is why I did provide the evidence below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What Iryna Harpy said in that post ([174]) is reprehensible but utterly routine in my experience with her. In response to Harpy’s allegations: I engage in good faith NPOV editing. My aim is to create Wikipedia Ukraine/Russia NPOV entries, i.e., entries that respect the distinction between fact and allegation and are at least inclusive of the two main ‘Cold War II’ perspectives. I hate disruptive editing and resist it as best I can.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are other examples of Harpy’s bullying and threatening language, from the last 12 months of the Crimea Annexation talk page (other examples are at other Ukraine-related pages). All of these were in response to what I think outside editors would regard as polite-or-neutral-in-tone arguments by other editors for RS-based edits that they believed were NPOV: [175] “For the last couple of years, Tobby72 has been POV pushing the same content over and over and over and over and over against consensus. Personally, I've had all I can take of his disruptive editing and intentional gaming.” 05:05, 15 March 2016; [176] “Haberstr, you're at it again. Drop it …” 22:05, 26 January 2016; [21:44, 2 February 2016] “Wow, I'm sincerely impressed by your continuing POV pushing about how terrific the RF really is, and how much every citizen loves 'em. Drop the propaganda, pleaaassseee.”; [177] “Stop wasting our time. How many times are you intending to incriminate yourself by gaming?” 05:09, 1 April 2015, [178] “Any further envelope-pushing will be understood as WP:POINTy. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline, Tosha, as it is just a hair's breadth from tendentious editing behaviour.” 04:26, 21 March 2015; [179] “…both you and Mobolo and disruptive, tendentious editors. … How can it be an ad hominem attack when the nature of your continuous POV pushing for unencyclopaedic information - which contradicts RS and is designed to promote spurious content - is antithetical to what the project stands for? As editors, you are not even vaguely neutral, and neither of you can be extricated from the biased, unbalanced content you push. … it's about time you realised that your continuous and blatant lack of civility can't be disguised by a dusting of civil POV pushing. In fact, we have huge tracts here … demonstrating your relentless bad faith disruption.” (Highlighting added 25 March) 05:09, 25 March 2015 Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looking over some of the edits, this is prime territory for WP:BOOMERANG. None of Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits. Meanwhile, repeated non-neutral edits in an area subject to discretionary sanctions and an attempt to force out dissenting editors through coordinated action (i.e. canvassing for an ANI) are serious issues. ~ Rob^Talk 05:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this statement is about User:Haberstr or User:Kalidasa 777. Yes, Kalidasa has definitely engaged in disruptive canvassing in this instance. In the case of Haberstr, the problem is compound because:

1. The user has already been warned previously about disruptive canvassing here and here

2. Previously warned about making controversial, POV, moves and the purposefully salt-ing the redirects so that the moves could not be undone without admin intervention here and here

3. Has been previously warned multiple times about starting edit wars and edit warring against multiple editors here and here and here. This includes purposefully starting edit wars in the hope of getting an article protected to "their" version [180] [181]

4. Has been previously warned about making personal attacks and using partisan language here

5. Haberstr was the subject of this WP:AE report which was closed with no action only because it went stale, although three of the commenting admins recommended some form of topic ban (presumably from Russia and Ukraine related topics).

Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't assume you are attempting to change the focus of discussion away from an incident report regarding Iryna Harpy's alleged personal attacks, but that is in fact what your comment does. Please stay on topic, which is not my past. Nonetheless, since you have made allegations and claims against me, I will briefly respond: In sum, we have "closed with no action ..." and your recitation of a small group of 'pro-Ukraine' editors' massive number of 'warnings' against me, based completely on assuming bad faith.

We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive," and then attacking them on the Talk Page, as Iryna has been doing repeatedly for years. Such accusations make Talk Pages toxic and off-putting places, not just for the person over and over again so accused, but also for all newbies and potential newbies who might've wanted to participate in a welcoming editing environment. Regarding Ukraine-related articles specifically, I think it is obvious there is honest disagreement on the meaning of NPOV and POV from the perspectives of the two sides of the (unintentional but inevitable) edit wars regarding Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries. There also seems to be good faith disagreement regarding the meaning of consensus, which is also the basis of many angry/rude/dismissive attacks, nearly always by the 'pro-Ukraine' side (including Marek and Iryna) against the other side of the debate. Based on a close reading and good faith understanding of WP:CONS, and on the long-standing and failed efforts to find consensus, I don't believe there is consensus on the array of Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries where edit wars unfortunately occur. It is a difficult situation but we nonetheless should be civil and assume good faith.Haberstr (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive,"" - you mean like when you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia"? And the reason edit wars constantly flare up on these articles is because you and some of your buddies just can't stop beating WP:DEADHORSE and your way of engagement is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're complaints boil down to "why won't they let me push my pov in peace! That's so unjust!" which is why this keeps coming up again and again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them. Will he ever actually be on topic. His comments so far have all been off topic. If he feels that Iryna has not been assuming bad faith, why not simply say that, and provide evidence and support for that opinion? I think my first comment on Iryna above, where I've quoted repeated instances where she seemed to me to be assuming bad faith, can serve as a rough model for him.Haberstr (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them." - ahem: [182]. Who do you think the closing comment - "participants are reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground and your fellow Wikipedians are most likely not intelligence operatives" - was directed at? Jimbo Wales? I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to the counter-charge of "canvassing". I find it difficult to take this seriously, but it has been raised by a number of wikipedia users (Iryna, RGloucester, and Marek), and Rob has indicated that he takes it seriously, so I'll briefly reply. Yes, I put a message on the user talk page of User:Haberstr, expressing approval of some of his work. And, as I've already mentioned, I alerted User:Haberstr, User:Tobby72, and User:Moscow Connection to the fact that their editing had been attacked on an article talk page. I also informed them (and Iryna) about this AN/I... Aren't these the sort of matters which user talk pages are for?? Am I missing something here? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits? @ Rob Please take another look at the diffs I've already presented. The first, on the Crimea article talk page is a generalised attack on 3 WP users. It states that they've been engaged in dispute about the article for a long period, during which "no good faith argument" was ever presented by them...[183] Iryna has already admitted that her comments in relation to at least one of these users, User:Moscow Connection , was unwarranted. The other is her statement on the Aleksandr Dugin article talk page about the user who she says has "pineapples up his arse" .[184] A civil comment?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Let's take a look at how honest you're being about the comment on the Dugan talk page, shall we? This is the actual context in which I expressed myself in December of 2014 when the bio was inundated by 'interested' WP:SOCKS, WP:SPA's, WP:POVers from both the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian sides, as well as multiple IP's crippling the article and WP:SHOUTing on the talk page. Yes, the section got heated with regular users starting to loose their cool... which is why I suggested collapsing it (and did so). Such is the way with high traffic articles when the annexation of Crimea was still fresh, and the war in Donbass very, very fresh in an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and certainly does... relentlessly and abusively... across a multitude of related articles. Now, this is the editor who started the thread. So is this, and this. Are you getting the picture? - Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur. Please desist from WP:CHERRYPICKing through my editing history. As I already explained to you on my talk page, I understood your intention in posting that 'warning', and you've gone out of your way to make it come true. The fact that you are holding a personal WP:GRUDGE against me for disagreeing with you on both the Dugin article and the RF annexation of Crimea articles does not speak well to your editing priorities. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts, and has given an explanation at User_talk:Major_Torp. If you thought they were using the accounts improperly, WP has processes for dealing with that. See WP:SPI. I do not see how that could justify what you said about the pineapple in the rectum [185], nor what you've just said about "agent provocateur" . Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you haven't followed the contributions. It was not the user who was self-identifying, it was another editor who was trailing this user's SOCKs (see this). The notifications on the user page were all placed there by the editor tracking this SPA here and here + here + here. This is not a valid use of alternative accounts, and the user was WP:NOTHERE but, rather, was only interested in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, pushing their own POV, and harassing editors (here, here)... and not to forget all the fun of conducting 'discussions' with himself/herself (see this). Quixotic tirades on article talk pages ≠ the user really is a nice person who feels deeply outraged by the injustices of the world. In this case, the user's intent was to be as disruptive as possible in order to soapbox and get their own way which does equal agent provocateur. Who wastes the time of those who work on SPIs when the user is opening new accounts using their existing accounts? Also, please drop the pineapples: you've really done them to death. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts" - maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that Iryna's characterization of that account by the phrase "Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur" is exactly spot on. This in fact has been a recurring problem on this topic - throw away accounts that show up, start a lot of trouble, start edit wars, start drama board discussions demanding that they be allowed to push their POV and that anyone who disagrees with them be banned... oh wait... Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see the comment by Iryna as especially problematic. She tells about "dropping the stick". Yes, guys, pleased drop the stick. As about her claims of POV-pushing by other contributors, such claims are very common in this subject area and are usually true. Starting an ANI thread every time when someone claims "POV-pushing" is extremely disruptive. She mentioned three contributors, but only one of them (Haberstr) felt offended by her comment. Others said nothing here. Actually, I must agree with her that Haberstr does POV-pushing. Why exactly user Kalidasa777 started this battleground request on behalf of Haberstr is not entirely clear. Perhaps there is a reason, but I am not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: the statement "Others said nothing here". No longer true. See Tobby72's post below. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a reason, yes. I started this ANI (not "on behalf of Haberstr" or anyone else) because Iryna's recent post doesn't just allege "POV pushing". Iryna wrote: "There has been no good faith argument brought to the table, and this is really starting to get way beyond another irritating bit of POV pushing." (emphasis added) [186] It was especially this denial of GF which I objected to, even though I wasn't one of the 3 WP users she named. That is why I took the step of complaining directly to Iryna on her user talk page. And her negative response left me no other option but to begin this ANI.

As Haberstr has mentioned, in an earlier posting to the Crimea article talk page, Iryna used the expression "relentless bad faith disruption" . [187] You really see nothing problematic in that sort of language, My very best? As for the expression "dropping the stick", I quite like it. Perhaps it's time for Iryna to do a little stick-dropping herself, by withdrawing her claims of bad faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So, she responded you this on her talk page, which left you "no other option but to begin this ANI". OK, but prior to staring this ANI thread you suppose to ask her some details (or investigate yourself) if she was right or wrong about this, meaning you must be sure these two users were not in fact disruptive. Did you check what these users did on various pages? Why are you sure they were not in fact disruptive, exactly as she said? My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't need to establish whether she what she said on the article talk page is right or wrong. Because even if she had a valid complaint about behaviour of other editors, an article talk page is not the right place to put her complaint. See WP:TPG. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• The right place to complain about bad behavior of these editor would be WP:AE. However, instead of complaining about them on WP:AE, she simply said them: "hey people, please drop the stick and follow WP:Consensus", except that she said this using a slightly rougher language. That was commendable as something to actually minimize the conflicts and disruption. But instead of following her advice, you guys brought this to WP:ANI, which you know is not the place for resolving these disputes (the place is WP:AE). That is WP:Battle by you. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not "you guys", My very. This ANI was started solely at my own initiative. The policy page WP:CIVIL says that serious incivility can be reported to ANI if the matter can't be resolved via the user talk page. Since this ANI discussion started, you're the first to suggest that it should go to AE instead. Maybe you're right though. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not suggest to submit your request to WP:AE because your request is without merit: you suggest to punish a good contributor and protect more biased and disruptive contributors. I do agree, however, that people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Really, Kalidasa 777? Hmm, have you taken a look at the article's edit history right now? Please elaborate on how this demonstrates any form of good faith editing on behalf on Haberstr. He is edit warring against multiple other editors, including editors who have not spoken up here or on the talk page (but who are aware of what the consensus is, and that this is pure edit warring behaviour on his behalf). Stop defending the indefensible and casting WP:ASPERSIONS as to my editing practices. You're persisting with this hunt despite having had it being demonstrated that you are way off base. I'm getting really tired of having to defend myself against someone who has made it clear that this is personal, and that they have an axe to grind. This has gotten to the point where even I'm going to say that you truly deserve a WP:BOOMERANG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus, as is obvious from the edit history and the talk page history. I am not edit warring but simply inserting what I consider an NPOV and RS edit. As we all know, there are multiple long-standing and unresolved content disputes on various Ukraine-related pages. For years I and many others have attempted to discuss these civilly on the articles' talk pages, and have also made good faith edits based on our understanding of NPOV. Both sides in the current content dispute noted by Iryna I assume are making edits in good faith. Unfortunately Iryna does not, and this makes all of the Ukraine-related talk pages extremely toxic and extremely anti-Wikipedian experiences.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Tobby72, "relentless bad faith disruption" is exactly what has happened. From the start of this article, he has kept inserting PoV content into the article hidden behind benign edit summaries. When he is reverted, he stops editting for a few days and comes back, inserting the same material. If a talk page discussion occurs, he ignores it, and keeps reinserting the material. He has been doing this for years. Just going back to 17 October 2015, as that is as far as I care to go right now, we see Tobby inserting a GfK poll, along with tons of pictures. The pictures, which are irrelevant to the article, are meant to hide the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE. When the content is removed again, per that previous discussion, Tobby comes back on 24 October to reinsert it with "relevant, cited" as the edit summary, which is totally nonsense. He is reverted again, of course. That's not enough for Tobby72, however. He comes back on 23 January 2016 to reinsert the content again, calling the removal "politically motivated", and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis. He comes back again on 3 March 2016 to do the same thing, and then again on 14 March. This is just slow motion edit-warring, nothing more than disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

THIS ^^^^^^^. Tobby72's behavior on this set of articles has been nothing short of ridiculous. The fact that someone can carry on a slow motion edit war against multiple editors for more than a year and who insists so blatantly on playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and who uses misleading edit summaries to mask the fact that they're just trying to restore the same POV text over and over again (for over a year!) and THEN turns around and accuses others of "being disruptive" just takes the cake. It's an insult to the reader's intelligence it's so transparently dishonest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that edit warring, fast or slow, is not the best way to resolve content issues. The best way is by means of civil discussion on the talk page. Personal attacks on article talk pages are a bad idea, because they make it impossible to have that civil discussion about content. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over it, see — Iryna Harpy: diff, diff. Volunteer Marek: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. My very best wishes: diff. RGloucester: diff, diff. Numerous discussions have taken place, all resulting in no consensus, see POV blanking, Crimean opinion poll, Bobrov vs GfK public opinion research.

Vague accusations like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:CRUSH, "disruptive and bad faithed" [188], [189], [190] are leveled at other editors in an obvious attempt to silence them. I would also note that my experience has shown that User:Volunteer Marek is constantly rude and offensive towards other editors — [191] “Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source. This has already been explained to both you and Tobby72 so how about the two of you quit playing dumb.” 23:40, 30 August 2015; [192] “exactly how many fucking times have you been warned about making personal attacks and accusing others of being "anti-Russian"? It's not only insulting but moronic. ... Please stop being a ridiculous thoughtless jerk.” 21:39, 13 September 2015; [193] “Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere.” 2:40, 9 February 2015; [194] “Yes it was discussed there and ... THE FREAKIN' CONSENSUS WAS AGAINST YOU!!!! Stop playing disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.” 17:39, 3 May 2015.

User:My very best wishes has been repeatedly retiring and unretiring, often several times a week, since 2013, see [195], [196], [197]. Is this behavior appropriate? - -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What it is, is none of your business.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And Tobby72, you do realize what your diffs actually show, right? They show that you've been involved in a freakin' year long edit war against multiple editors and that your level of disruption has reached truly ridiculous proportions. Here's what you've been doing: consensus was against you. But instead of moving on and dropping the stick you've been coming back to the same articles and trying to make the same edits about once every two weeks driving other editors crazy in the process.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Marek that if an editor wants to take a wikibreak, that's their own business. It's certainly preferable to insulting people. I agree with Tobby72 about the rude and offensive language Marek has repeatedly used on WP talk pages. Examples like "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" and "not only insulting but moronic" help me to understand why Marek sees nothing wrong with Iryna's rather similar behaviour. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Gimme a break. The "not only insulting but moronic" was a comment directed at a user who was falsely accusing me of bigotry. And not only were they falsely accusing me of it, they were also implying that a prominent Russian journalist was "anti-Russian". And guess, what? It was THAT user that got ban-hammered. Deservedly so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I did engage in civil discussion on the talk page, as tobby72 has, and as you have. There is no responsive discussion, and no consensus.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You've only started "being civil" (while still POV pushing like crazy, per WP:CRUSH) after you came within a hair's breadth of getting indef banned because you were running around accusing anyone who disagreed with you of "hating Russians" and of being CIA operatives and the like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course everyone assumes good faith on your behalf, Haberstr. Let's see: ah, here's an example of that assumption. I'm not even going to mention prior AE encounters as to your good faith, nor how many times EdJohnston has been called in to examine both your good faith and Tobby72's good faith. Donning all of the trappings of being civil is not civility, it's WP:CPUSH. Again, my calling WP:SPADE is a matter of having had enough of the GAMING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Update — New claims of "bad faith" on Crimea talk page Since this ANI began, there have been two further postings on the Crimea annexation article talk page which contain the words "bad faith" . One by Volunteer Marek [198], the other by Iryna Harpy. [199] Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you stop bolding your comments for no reason, as if they were way more important than they really are ? 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've bolded key words to prevent them being lost among walls of text. Unlike some people, I've also signed each of my comments. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Come on, I don't want to see emboldened phrases present 332 times somewhere on every line. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello QEDK. I'd love to read your comment on the substance (rather than the style) of my incident report. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless we want to consider a WP:BOOMERANG against User:Kalidasa 777 for disruptive canvassing or against Tobby72 for his year long edit warring and misleading use of edit summaries to mask it, I'm pretty sure this conversation is going nowhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour of user Volkstod disruptive?

Dear admins. I have stumbled over some really weird edits from the user Volkstod and have since looked at his/her edits in more detail. And a lot of the edits are really worrysome. See [here] where he deleted a well sourced info about a well reported critical issue about a right wing politician. Similarly [here] where the "non relevant news outlet" is a pretty respected newspaper. On the other hand, there are edits like [this] without any sources. Really bad are these edits:[here], [here] and [here] and [[200]] and [[201]] and [here] where he calls left wing and pro asylum politicians as supporters of "Umvolkung", a term deep from Nazi ideology used by far right people in Germany to critizise Germanys current asylum Policy (supporter of "Islamisation" goes in the same direction). There are numerous other harmful edits in this users editing history. The user frequently engages into "edit wars" by deleting some content and then repeatedly and continously reverting possible reverts from other users. See here and here for an example. I have left repeated and slowly escalating warnings and notices on the users discussion page explaining the user how to handle such disputes but got only one reply here. The users behaviour since then has not changed. Could you have a look at this user and on how to dela with such editing behaviour? Regards LucLeTruc (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:3RR - [202]

Pushing WP:3RR - [203]

Unwarrented accusation of vandalism of an anonymous contributor

I'd say he's disruptive. Kleuske (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes indeed. Thank you, LucLeTruc. The user is obviously here purely for the purpose of pushing a political point of view, and has no scruples at all about removing sourced content and adding unsourced opinion. Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC).
• Thank you, LucLeTruc, Kleuske and Bishonen, for bringing down this horrible Nazi ideologue. I'll go through this user's record and revert whatever has not yet been reverted. --PanchoS (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry everybody, I might have promised too much. While most of this user's edits seem to be of lesser importance to us, there are lots of content deletions and minor edits that are hard to verify, but can only be reverted. As many pages have been further edited since, it's quite some work to undo everything. I'm not sure I can get all of this done tonight. It would be awesome if someone could help me by going through some of those edits, preferably starting with 23 August until 29 October. Regrds, PanchoS (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've checked everything starting there, made it until 18:09, 30 August 2015. Laber□^T 05:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Laberkiste: Thank you for helping! :) PanchoS (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, all. I went through a fairly large tract of the user's older edits and double-checked that any significant deletion had been restored about a week ago... but I didn't keep a list of which articles and dates. I'm about to log off for the day, but I'll be happy to lend a hand tomorrow if the last date checked is updated here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• About 75% of the users edits actually make (some) sense. As long as it fitted to his apparently right wing opinion, he/she did quite a good job, also deleting questionable and often unsourced content, weird formulations and obvious praise or non NPOV stuff from the "left" side. 79.252.88.248 (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Judging from the user's edits, this is a former dogmatic left-winger turned to the extreme right. That's a personal tragedy we've seen before. --PanchoS (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Numerous edits promoting Mr. Jwala Sharma and the Asian society of Safety Engineers

I've been tracking an IP-hopping vandal that makes promotional edits to articles related to safety, inserting sentences and paragraphs that begin with "As per Mr. jwala Sharma (Asian society of Safety Engineers)", and then continue to restate points already in the article, state the obvious, or are copyvios. None of the edits cite any sources other than Mr. Sharma himself. These edits are usually accompanies by an edit summary that same something like "upgraded" or "upgradations". This appears to be a concerted effort to promote Mr. Sharma and the ASSE. I have found over 160175 such edits from the following IPs:

I have submitted an edit filter request for "jwala sharma", but I'm not optimistic about that happening soon since Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested is backlogged by several months. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If edit filters are impractical, how about page protection? How many pages are we talking about? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a partial list or 40+ affected articles, but they keep finding new articles to add him to. Anything in Category:Safety and its subcategories seems to be fair game. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just blocked a couple that were active in the last two and a half hour or so. Strange how they are switching between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and even overlapping with them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe one of those IPs just deleted content from here just now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So they have. Geolocates to Navi Mumbai (Ghansoli) like the other IPv6 addresses but a different /64 range from yesterday. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Collusion, Intimidation and ad hominem attacks at Stephen Sizer

I am of the opinion that users Keith-264, Hillbillyholiday and John have been colluding in an attempt to intimidate me so that they can undermine factual material in this article which is properly referenced and sourced in order to promote their own agenda.

• The problems started after Keith-264 deleted much of the lead paragraph on the specious grounds that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately pls take to talk page". This was after Philip Cross had already pointed out to him "That policy applies to unsourced material, not from an RS like the Times.". [204]
• I subsequently restored and edited the deleted data adding additional references. The paragraph was once again deleted by Keith-264 with this comment "Undid revision 711029654 by Clivel 0 (talk) pls discuss on talk page for consensus"
• In an attempt to discredit the sources, Keith-264 then posted on the talk page:
  "Again please discuss the allegation of antisemitism here, given the gravity of the allegation and its effects. Please also not that newspaper articles and other ephemera are not always of sufficient reliability and should be used with caution. Please make sure that the lead reflects the article, not drive-by edits." [205]
• Nomoskedasticity then correctly pointed out:
  There's nothing wrong with the newspapers being used; your implication that they are "ephemera" ("newspapers and other ephemera") is bizarre. Since the article discusses these issues, the lead should reflect it in that respect."
  To which Keith-264 responded in a threatening manner:
  "Please stick to the point, the lead contained a serious allegation that can have dire consequences to the individual. There is a discussion in the body of the article but that was not reflected in the lead. Please also remember WP:Civil"
• At about the same time, without posting a notice as required on Talk:Stephen Sizer Keith-264 simultaneously opened a parallel discussion on WP:BLPN [206].
• The conversation then went back and forth simultaneously on both Talk:Stephen Sizer and on WP:BLPN, I was initially unaware of the latter discussion as despite my name being mentioned in the discussion by Keith-264 I was not pinged as he had not include '[User: ]', he updated this some days later when at the same time he also posted the notice on Talk:Stephen Sizer.
• During this time Collect entered the conversation largely supporting Keith-264 who then falsely claimed:
  "especially since the sources purporting to support it have been debunked by Collect".
  Keith-264 then threatened me:
  "Either you echo the main body of the article or you are threatening to return potentially-libellous material without referring to the denials and rebuttals in the main body, which is soapboxing. Yet again you assume bad faith but I will read your edits carefully, if they reflect the article by being a summary description of the controversy, rather than potentially-libellous smears I will be satisfied. Please note that I will not do your job for you by adding balance to unbalanced edits, you are responsible for your edits, not me" [207]
  It should be noted that at this point Keith-264 had only deleted material and had not attempted to add any material.
• Keith-264 then repeated the same threat on WP:BLPN to which I responded:
  "Contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence that User:Collect has debunked anything. The sources you removed - articles from both The Independent and the Telegraph, as well as countless other news articles are explicit in their agreement that Sizer promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. This is a matter of record, nothing to debunk. And in-itself, promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is antisemetic. I will re-add the facts as they are documented in the source material. YOU arbitrarily removed these facts, if you consider the facts unbalanced, then it is not MY job to provide what you consider balance, that is YOUR job - you do it, but DO not delete the factual sourced material just because you do not like it"
  Which he followed up with an implied threat: "WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem Keith-264 (talk)"
  followed by an ad hominem attack:
  "If you want to collect accusations and treat them as definitive, you're sliding into guilt by association, unless you give equal weight to denials and counter-accusations. Your insinuation about Collect's motives is reprehensible and fails to assume good faith, I suggest you apologise." [208]
• For three days the lead paragraph remained essentially bereft of content, and despite having deleted it Keith-264 had made no attempt to try and provide alternate text. I then inserted what I considered to be an accurate account of the controversy surrounding Stephen Sizer complete with source references.[209] this was almost immediately deleted by Keith-264 who again offered no alternative text, so once again left an almost completely void lead paragraph. I restored my deleted text, which once again was deleted by Keith-264.
• Without any prior input to the conversation, Hillbillyholiday entered the fray with a blatant and uncalled for threat [210].
• As Keith-264 was making no effort to add any content, but only intent on removing content, I filed a WP:AN/EW and correctly notified Keith-264 on his talk page. He responded with a threat on WP:BLPN [211]
• Nomoskedasticity then added a replacement paragraph which although likely to be less contentious than my text, still reflected reality.[212]
• Both Keith-264 and Collect made some modifications to the text by removing anything they considered contentious, Collect added a partial quote taken from one of the references. Being a partial quote, it gave completely the wrong impression. [213]
• I completed the quote and added some of the controversial material in accordance with the sources. [214].
• Hillbillyholiday then removed the quote completely, along with other controversial material. [215]
• Hillbillyholiday and I went back and forth a few times, at which point I requested that the page be locked and I started a new section on the Talk:Stephen Sizer page to try and reach some sort of consensus on the lead paragraph. [216]
• I subsequently added a list of five points that I thought could be discussed in order to try and reach consensus prior to us making any attempt at the actual wording. [217].
• Rather than accepting the genuine attempt by myself at trying to reach consensus, this was instead followed up by a number of personal attacks by Keith-264 [218] [219] [220] [221]
  And Hillbillyholiday enlisting John to intimidate me on my talk page by railing against a perfectly rational change I had previously added to Stephen Sizer. [222]

Clivel 0 (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I reject the allegations above as baseless slurs by a vexatious editor and request a ruling from a disinterested admin to end this vendetta once and for all. Keith-264 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Collect, Keith, and I have merely been trying to follow BLP policies.

What really needs attention here are the actions of three editors who think it is acceptable to write Sizer is known primarily for his Anti-semitic anti-Zionism in the lede of this BLP.

• E.M.Gregory, who added it here
• Philip Cross, who restored it here
• Clivel 0, who added it here

As has been pointed out by various editors, both on the article's talkpage and BLP noticeboard, this is a highly contentious claim which is not even supported by the sources they have provided. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Respond I made 1 edit; it was well-sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI isn't the place to discuss the lede Spartaz Humbug! 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do, however, wish to point out that the page as it stands reads oddly. The brief lede states that Sizer is a parish priest. It's second sentence reads: "Sizer is also notable for his opposition to Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works." What is omitted is that , Sizer is widely known for having been disciplined by his supervising Bishop, Andrew Watson (bishop), not for opposition to Christian Zionism but for, "chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic," for his "increasingly undisciplined commitment to an anti-Zionist agenda", for "promoting subject matter, which is... openly racist," and for his 9/11 conspiracy theory, Bishop Watson called it, Sizer's "ridiculous suggestion that Israel may have been complicit in the events of 9/11." [223]. This modern disciplining of a Church of England clergyman was an extraordinary event.[224]. The lede certainly needs revision to reflect the things that has made Sizer notable, some would say notorious.[225].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC) I think that the lead is unsatisfactory too and have suggested Sizer opposes Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works. In 2015 Sizer agreed with his bishop to refrain from using social media for six months after he linked to an article which implicated Israel in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for which he apologised. It is believed to be the first ban of its kind issued by [a bishop]. I think something on these lines will give due weight and be notable, reflecting the body of the article in a descriptive manner. I thought that this edit had almost established consensus and that everything else would be aftermath but I was wrong. Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the edits that Clivel 0 is making are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, this editor is covered by the arbitration ruling barring editors with fewer than 500 edits from the topic area. I have notified them on their talk page of this restriction. RolandR (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The OP made a specific attack on editors on the BLP talk page (bolding his)

"I am finding the continual threats, bullying and attempts at intimidation by User:Keith-264, User:Hillbillyholiday and User:Collect to be getting more than a little tiresome. Clearly there is collusion, because without any prior involvement User:Hillbillyholiday wrote on the WP:BLPN ...

As there was no "collusion" and no "threats" and no "intimidation" on that article, I find the posting here of the same personal attacks to be quite reprehensible. The issue is one where WP:BLP applies, and the issue boils down to whether a claim should be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice that a person is an anti-Semite, where prior discussions have averred that such a claim is, by its nature, contentious. Further deponent sayeth not. Collect (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am weighing in to point out that describing many of Sizers' statements and online activity as anti-Semitic is "contentious" only in the sense that the theory that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks is contentions. Sizer asserts that Israel was behind the attacks. Sizer is widely known for having been disciplined by his supervising Bishop, Andrew Watson for having "chosen to disseminate (material), particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic," for his "increasingly undisciplined commitment to an anti-Zionist agenda", for "promoting subject matter, which is... openly racist," and for his 9/11 conspiracy theory, Bishop Watson called it, Sizer's "ridiculous suggestion that Israel may have been complicit in the events of 9/11." [226]. This modern disciplining of a Church of England clergyman was an extraordinary event.[227]. [228]. But many reputable sources on Sizer's anti-Semitic activity and remarks exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out: Reverend Stephen Sizer said he did not condone the article's accusations (The Independent), and the bishopric website has the apology I have never believed Israel or any other country was complicit in the terrorist atrocity of 9/11, and my sharing of this material was ill-considered and misguided. Seems to me this was a "one-off" per se linking to "WikiSpooks" and was retracted by Sizer - so accusing him of being an unrepentant anti-Semite as a claim of fact is a violation, per se, of WP:BLP. Cheers. And the earlier Daily Mail sourcing which was re-added is not only insufficient to call Sizer an anti-Semite, it quite carefully does not even make the claim which editors asserted it supported. Collect (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your comments demonstrate why the lead was outside BLP criteria before I edited it. Wikipedia is no place to scapegoat someone or push nonNPOV agendas. If you look at the discussion you will see copious amounts of information that negates all of your claims. Might I suggest that since the Church of England is an arm of the British state and run by David Cameron, a politician, any claim made by any member, not just Sizer must be treated cautiously? Might I also suggest that is is common for newspapers to make inflammatory claims without grounds or with only spurious links to a supposed source? Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Church of England is headed by the Queen, not by David Cameron, if you want to give it a non religious leader. Furthermore, RS is RS. If newspapers and other R report something, it can be included, even if it doesn't suit your particular POV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

L. Windsor is an employee of the state, which is run by D. Cameron. See how easy it is to make claims based on the obvious which are instantly challenged? My POV is clear, WP:BLP was violated in the lead. If you read the discussion you will see that. I want a description of events that are covered in detail in the body of the article. Is that so bad? I also commend "*We certainly cannot use a tabloid source to support anything remotely controversial on a living person. I applaud the idea of discussing here and getting full consensus before adding or restoring anything on this to the article. --John (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)" by John to the audience. Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth is a red herring. The point is that reliable sources, including his boss the Bishop, state that many of the things Sizer has written and/or posted on social media are anti-Semitic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree about Liz but no he didn't.Keith-264 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

IP changing height

37.150.210.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly removing {{Height}} as well as accompanying citations from the articles about various fighters, with no edit summary. These changes have been reverted time and again and this behavior continues despite many warnings. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I left a more recent warning to this user, and a custom one. They have only gotten templates and not since the 14th. If it continues let me know at my talk page. HighInBC 15:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee campaigning

User reported: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff: 21:57, 24 March 2016

Inappropriate notification. Non-neutral wording of notice. Campaigning; attempt to sway the person reading the notice.

Previous reports of Springee for canvassing

1. 2 December 2015: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#User_Springee_Canvassing by Scoobydunk
2. 11 March 2016: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#March 2016 User:Springee canvassing

Respectfully request:

1. administrator removal of inappropriate non-neutral personal comment portion of RfC notice at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction; and
2. warning to Springee reminding of our project's behavioral guideline WP:CANVASS, in particular our community norm regarding the need for neutrality in notifications.

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee has been a problem since day 1. How have they not been indefed yet? 107.181.21.54 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Allow me to be the first one to say that this is going too far. You obviously have a problem with Springee that you are unwilling to address. Besides seeing a failure to discuss the wording with Springee, I personally do not see any violation of WP:CANVASS. The only way that the wording is not neutral is if you look for a personal attack in the first sentence, which is absurd. While the wording could have been "An editor has raised question to...." The comment as it stands (I'm not sure why the editor responsible for the below RfC failed to notify this board.), is by no way something deserving of ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am requesting that someone other than myself, if they agree, please remove that first sentence from the notice, and remind an editor of our norm of neutral notice wording. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any canvassing either. The wording was simply "I don't know why the editor didn't notice the wikiproject". It wasn't any accusation at all. Frankly, there's no requirement that someone notify a project about an RFC occurring at a page within it especially since it does show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles#Article_alerts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the RfC was already on the project page, which explains why talk was not notified. Yes, no one is required to notify. May I respectfully request that you take another quick look at the notice with an eye toward specifically campaigning, using non-neutral wording of a notice to sway respondents, by slyly attempting to make an issue of motives? Again, I seek only a little clean-up and a warning from a third party, perhaps a reminder of the availability of Template:Please see? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD

I propose a 1 year two-way interaction ban between HughD and Springee.

Reasoning: I recalled seeing an ANI post like this just days ago (found here) and upon searching "springee hugh" in the noticeboards, I was appalled by how much I found and how recently it all was. Even today an AN3 case was closed (1). These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ) or end up proposing sanctions for each other ([229], 8). Even Ricky81682 proposed such an interaction ban back on 25 September 2015 ([230]). Both editors have most recently been on Ford Pinto and Chrysler and Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. and associated talk pages all month, raking up dozens of edits. They appear to have followed each other to these pages, as well as other pages back in January (Interaction timelines: Ford Pinto interactions, Talk:Ford Pinto interactions, Chrysler interactions, Talk:Chrysler interactions, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, Talk:Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, ExxonMobil interactions, Talk:ExxonMobil interactions, ExxonMobil climate change controversy ineteractions, Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy interactions). In sum, these two appear to follow each other, report each other, and cannot edit constructive together. They cause disruption together and need to be separated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Something needs doing, and this is probably the only thing that will do it. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Traveling: I've been traveling for the past few days and have had limited internet access. I would ask for an opportunity to reply before any sanctions or blocks are applied to my account. Thank you. Springee (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

While we're waiting, can someone please pitch in with a little clean-up of the totally unnecessary, non-neutral, personal comment prefacing the RfC notice at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction? After all, an RfC is one of our important mechanisms for de-escalating content disputes, please can it get off the ground free of a cloud of early non-neutral notification. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor attacking others at Talk:Twilight

Pocketthis (talk · contribs) seems to be pushing a anti-religion agenda and attacking others at Talk:Twilight. When an editor introduced an edit and started a discussion on the talk page when their edit was reverted, Pocketthis reponded with this rant that says "The subject is "CLOSED" because this is Wikipedia's protocol, and I've been helping enforce it for 5 years. You don't come with good will. You come with religion. You are a religious person. A person of faith. Please feel free to contribute to in the articles written by those who also live their lives on faith and not fact. No compromise." and this one, saying things such as "This isn't the inside of someone's home where you can pop up on the TV screen begging for dollars, promising the sick, the old and the poor redemption, simply by sending in their life savings." and "You can't pray here. Now think of the religious articles as your church. Keep it where it belongs, and all is good."

As per WP:NPA#WHATIS: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack. That seems to be this editor's modus operandi. When I asked him to tone down his rhetoric on his talk page, he stated that because I was part of a (completely different) religion, that I should "bow out" because my "religious sympathies are showing". When I reverted the article back to it's previous state per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, he reverted with the edit summary A Buddhist is trying to reinsert the religious section here. I've done my bit. If you cowards don't come to my aid, this article and hundreds like it will become part of Wikibible and noted on their talk page that YOU have started the edit war! You reversed my removal. Saying that edit-warring has "a guilty party" and it's certainly not them, despite them being the one making all the reverts.

Pocketthis is not a new editor, and should be very aware by now that this kind of behavior is inappropriate. Attacking other editors, edit-warring while blaming every other editor for edit-warring is something that would be expected from a new editor, but not someone that has been here for over four years with a few thousand edits under their belt. Their comments and actions have made it clear that they aren't here to collaborate with others (especially those he feels are compromised by having an opinion he doesn't share), and I really think some kind of administrator intervention is required. Pocketthis has been notified of this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I attacked no one. I am trying to protect the integrity of our encyclopedia from Bible pushers, who use science articles as a venue to preach. This man accusing me of attacking a new user, (which by the way isn't a new user, but an old one disguised a new one), is a Buddhist, and has sympathy for those who would insert matters of faith into a science article. I am trying to keep Wikipedia from becoming Wikibible. I should be thanked, and not spanked. - thanksPocketthis (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• P.S. I have said my piece, and made my edits as to the issue pertaining to religion in the Twilight Article. I am done. There is no need to worry about any further comments by me. If what I have said and done there isn't enough for others to come to my aid, then it is what it is, and there's nothing I can do about it. - thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis seems to be an atheistic fanatic. Case ends. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis, no one is coming to your aid because you are wrong. By comparison, it doesn't matter that I personally think genocide is bad. It's still a thing, and there are still Wikipedia articles on it. It doesn't matter that I think astrology is nonsense. It's still a thing and there is still a WP article on it. By the same measure, it doesn't matter that you and I are atheists. Religion is still a thing that exists, and is therefore an appropriate topic for inclusion in WP. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate your opinion Timothy, however, our science articles are being hijacked by religious fanatics. This is the max the Twilight article should have to say about anything pertaining to religion: Many religions view the twilight time of the day as holy, and many activities in various religions are practiced during that time. Anything more, and you start a 10,000 character religious section, inviting every religious faith to come make their pitch. Haven't we seen enough religious destruction in the world to know what they are really selling? It is so obvious and absurd, I'm having a hard time containing myself speaking of it. From the beginning of recorded time, one faith or another has killed thousands in the name of their God. Why can't we keep a lid on it here? Or at least keep in their religious articles. Miserly loves company, let them be miserable there. - Pocketthis (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  Totally not a personal attack. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis, sorry man, but your personal philosophical opinion on the role of religion in the grand scheme of the universe simply isn't relevant. Get off the WP:SOAPBOX. You don't have a 10,000 character religious section, if you end up with one, then argue WP:DUEWEIGHT. You have a small (severely undersourced) section. So drop the slippery slope. Compare the section under Sun which perfectly appropriately addresses historically significant cultural and religious issues related to the sun, a section which you yourself have edited in the past and apparently had no problem with. WP is not the place to wage your personal social war. All these high handed proclamations about the fate of humanity just makes you look like you're WP:NOTHERE, and your going to wind up banned if you don't get a bit of a reality check. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have already said here that I was done with any further religious editing in that article. I was just commenting here with you as a mini debate. I see that you do not wish to debate, so I am done with debating as well. Good day-Pocketthis (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is your personal attacks and battleground mentality as much as your editing on the article. You cannot attack other editors on Wikipedia, especially for something as simple as having a viewpoint that you don't agree with. As far as I can see, you don't need to be touching any religious information on any article, because you have shown that you do not have the capacity to handle it, or other editors, appropriately. I don't know if a topic ban is needed, but it might be needed here to avoid a block. I don't know if you're having an off day or if there is a history of this behavior, I'm looking into that now, but the fact that you think this behavior is okay is the real issue. - Aoidh (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

He is certainly not competent enough to touch religious discussions for the rest of his life (this is coming from a non-theist, hit me). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I thought this was all over, and I really want it to be. On the other hand, I must say that the issue here I have a problem with, even more than the religious sections in science articles, is being accused by the user that opened this discussion, saying that I attacked someone in the talk article. All I did in the talk article was "talk". Yes, my opinion was very concise and deliberate, but that is just because I grew up in Brooklyn, NY, and I speak from the front of my mouth. There is no speaking from the side of my mouth, or under my breath. I tell it as I see it. I do so politely, and that is not attacking anyone. The person with real issues here, is the user/reviewer that opened this discussion. I truly believe that from the bottom of my heart. I never threatened the fellow in the talk page. The word Attack as used here is absurd. I will admit that as the years go by, I am more convinced that organized religion is not a good thing. To that opinion.....I am guilty. Also, perhaps I have been drinking a bit too much coffee. I'll cut down. Can we put this to bed now? - Thanks -Pocketthis (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"You don't come with good will. You come with religion. You are a religious person." Puts an interesting spin on WP:BADFAITH (Pun completely intended).

"This isn't the inside of someone's home where you can pop up on the TV screen begging for dollars, promising the sick, the old and the poor redemption, simply by sending in their life savings." Really? I mean, hyperbole for sure. WP:CIVIL is a slam dunk. WP:SOAPBOX and a half. WP:NPA just for good measure. (But hey, if this is a way to get rid of the WP donation banner then I'm all for it.)

And this is not to mention that your entire premise is just wrong. Compare the article on the sun, as has been brought up already. Compare bread, gold, monogamy, capital punishment. The topic doesn't matter. If there are WP:RS that make the connection, and it's not WP:UNDUE weight, then it belongs.

The grand irony is, that if you had actually argued against the section based on the weakness of its sources, you would have had a good point. Instead you've nearly categorically disqualified yourself to have that discussion. You just make things worse with the "I just want it all to be over, but before it is, I want to have the last word and make sure everyone knows I'm completely justified.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal from the topic of religion

The above makes it very clear that Pocketthis (talk · contribs) cannot constructively edit, or discuss, the topic of religion on Wikipedia. Outside of the topic of religion the editor's edits seem constructive, but if they keep at this they are going to get themselves blocked from editing. For that reason, I propose that the editor be topic banned from the subject of religion on Wikipedia for at least six months. The fact that they don't see their behavior regarding the topic of religion as a problem indicates that they don't need to be discussing it at all. Saying "You don't come with good will. You come with religion." is not "polite", no matter how much Pocketthis says otherwise, and the fact that they are willing to give "no compromise" on the subject means they should not be editing the subject at all. In their own words above, "I'm having a hard time containing myself speaking of it." This edit summary, more than any other thing, sums up why they should be topic banned. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You sir are a Buddhist that has lost his way. If you would have simply showed up in the Twilight talk page, and asked me to tone it down politely, I would have re-read my reply to the man, and tried to be more forgiving of his relentless posting. However, you chose to come here and make my life miserable because you felt your own faith threatened. Where is "your" compassion for fellow man? You lost it along the way. This isn't the living room with the TV in it asking for donations, or the front gate just waiting for that sought after Watchtower. It is an encyclopedia. This man put 2500 words about Christianity in the Twilight article, and when it was removed, he would not stop posting his opinions. I also didn't stop posting mine. Yes, I could have been more forgiving, and compromising, however, when the fellow lied to me and told me he was just a "new user" trying to do whatever, I closed the door on having an open mind. And......when this is all said and done and decided, the truth about his identity will eventually surface, and you might feel differently. How do I know he is not a new user? All of us that have been here for years know when they are talking to a sock puppet, or a banned user claiming to be a "new user". I don't have to give examples. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you don't belong here in this discussion. Any real user, that had prior posts, and was respected by the community would have gotten a completely different response from me there. I think you all of know that. I have worked here with the best in the world for 5 years, and you would block me over a talk page exchange with a sock puppet. Sad.. Sad commentary indeed.

• do not support- as recipient - Pocketthis (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Every time you comment you dig yourself in deeper. You are incapable of discussing religion in a civil manner, for whatever reason. The funny thing is, I'm certain that I've never said I was a Buddhist on Wikipedia. Not just in discussions with you, but ever. I'm an active part of the WikiProject Buddhism, and have a quote from the Dhammapada on my user page because it's relevant to how people should discuss things on Wikipedia. That doesn't make me Buddhist, and the only person who has brought up Buddhism is you, so how is it that "my faith is being threatened"? The Twilight article does not, and as far as I know, has never mentioned Buddhism, nor have I in any discussion with you up until this comment. Yet you see the word "WikiProject Buddhism" on my user page and automatically attack me for it, saying that "because I'm Buddhist" that I shouldn't have any say in the subject of religion, and that my "religious sympathies are showing" simply because I disagree with you. The very mention of the word religion seems to compromise your ability to have any sort of dialogue, and instead you start going into these diatribes that hardly have anything to do with the subject at hand. Instead of explaining why you should not be topic banned from religion, you chose to attack me and what you assume is my personal religion. If anything, that's more evidence that you need to be topic banned before you are blocked completely. - Aoidh (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• There you go with that word Attack again. Were you beat up as a child? Seriously my friend, I think the person that is out of control here is you. How have you ever managed to maintain your seniority here with your lack of compassion and diplomacy? Amazing.-Pocketthis (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support temp topic ban due to refusal to stop digging, and tendency toward WP:Discrimination. As for Aoidh, enough, we get it. Shh. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban - enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Why don't you fellows go and ban the sock puppet and do something constructive here. I'm being railroaded, and I would find it amusing if I didn't spend so many hours of my life here trying to improve and beautify this place. What a disgrace this is. Other than the level headed admin that ended this case, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. This is how you treat a 5 year veteran of the site that has fought vandalizum tooth and nail here everyday. I have beautified your articles with photography, and made some of the best friends of my life here, of which I do not plan on informing them of this atrocity, or ask for their help. Have fun here wolf-pack, and thank you "starter of this thread". You have only reinforced my feelings about those involved in organized religion. My advice is don't look in the mirror tonight, you might not like what you see.Pocketthis (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

This seems like a legal threat to me. The user was reverted for making unsourced edits, edits that also removed sourced material, and replied with the post I linked to. Thomas.W ^talk 18:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a legal threat to me too, a very clearcut one at that. LjL (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. An indefinite block should be placed on their account until they withdraw their legal threat and promise not to do it again. I'll report then to AIV. Amaury (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he meant it metaphorically. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It has the same chilling effect. We don't know if it's an actual threat or not, so we have to take the necessary measures. In this particular case, it certainly comes off as a real one. Amaury (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

/sarcasm Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Is there a different administrator who can look over the EGS article rather than "Guy"?

I want to report the "Guy" or "JzG" actions concerning the European Graduate School article. He does not like the school, so he is unlikely to make the necessary edit or changes to the article. He blocked me and he has tried to ban me (without any success this time). I do not want to start a war against him because I like to do something else in life. However, I tried to raise some arguments about the EGS accreditation, the recent Maltese accreditation, the fact that U.S. sources are outdated and not official (even if my contribution are lenghty in talk page, I am referring to the official Michigan, Maine and Texas website links which state something different with reference to the EGS accreditation). A prospective student has written in the talk page and "Guy" replied that the topic was "discussed to death already". I note that different administrators have written in the Rfc (@Softlavender,@Vanjagenije,@Damotclese). This has happened each time I try to raise an argument, "Guy" has the final say. He also replied by telling me that I am here to whitewash the Egs article, that I am a WP:SYN (so according to him I should not write anymore in the talk page. In other words, he believes that only long-term editors can raise their arguments and that I should wait some time before writing that EGS is accredited), then that I was a suckpuppetry, latly a meatpuppetry. In conclusion, so long as he acts as an executioner/judge/final say of the article, my contributions to the talk page would be totally worthless. My question: Is there a different administrator who can look over the article rather than "Guy"?Claudioalv (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there an editor who can look at this content other than the WP:SPA Claudioalv? Who keeps demanding that we engage in novel synthesis such as listing accreditation of some courses in Malta and asserting based on this that all sources relating to questiona ble accreditaiton be removed as "incorrect", or that we portray the degrees as being recognised throughout the EU when actually the linked WP:PRIMARY source contains absolutely nothing demonstrating any obligation to accept degrees accredited elsewhere? And why is a Swiss-headquartered school only able to find accreditaiton in a country whose population is exceeded by that of many of the towns in the US state that lists its degrees as fraudulent, I wonder?

All this user has ever done is try to whitewash this article and WP:FORUMSHOP endlessly in the hope that the answer will change if the demand is repeated often enough. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute. This is no more than a compacted form of WP:OTHERPARENT. Half of the administration is already WP:INVOLVED in this (see, your talkpage), and surely that is enough. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I find this very curious. Why should the article have an entire section on the Graduate school's lack of accreditation in 2 states in the U.S.? Do articles now have to include sections on whether they come up to the standards of the U.S.? Surely there are a zillion other organisations out there which are not accredited by similar organisations in the U.S. For example, several animal breeding organisations will not even recognise each other so should we re-write the articles to say that (imaginary example) the U.K. Hereford Bull Society is not accredited by the U.S. Hereford Bull Society? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Claudioalv: Why did you delete my posting? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:] It is clear that "Guy" has more power than half of the administration. Each time I raise an argument the answer is "No" without providing any reasons. It should not take longer to see in the talk page that he is acting as a Supreme Judge/executioner/final say. It is not enough because his conduct has been reckless and biased. He just does not like that an editor (even if is a WP:SPA) raises an argument (U.S. source are outdated and that is easy to verify). I was asking to verify and update the U.S. sources, and as a result I was blocked and he tried to ban me. This is a serious problem because freedom of speech is involved. Blocking someone and attempting to ban him without any reason should not be allowed by other administrators. I am not currently asking to edit the article with the contribution I provided (even if there is consensus in the Rfc as you can easily see), I am only asking that someone else not biased can look over the article. thanks for your time. Claudioalv (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hear that Guy? Now you need to kill off the rest in single combat to gain their powers. There can be only one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. The rest of them are just getting too old for this shit, Guy! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps this issue can be resolved through this venue: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Graduate School (3rd nomination).  Sandstein  21:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk) I have not deleted any your post. Claudioalv (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see this diff.[231] DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk) I apologize. I did not do on purpose, I guess I was writing at the same time you were writing. Sorry again. Claudioalv (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted - thank you. The postings were quite close so it may have been an edit conflict. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk). Moreover I do agree with your post I have accidently deleted. Besides, the States mentioned in the article state something different than EGS degrees are fraudolent. Texas is current review the inclusion of EGS in the list (the recent Malta accreditation was not on their record), Maine and Michigan do not publish anymore any list of degrees mill. This is really easy to verify. However was not possible to address this argument in the talk page because the final say has been so far "Guy"'s judgment and if you disagree with him, he firstly block you and then he will try to ban. Welcome to the real world. Claudioalv (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well well, inside information. Thus indicating that you are not independent if this company.WP:COI much? Guy (Help!) 00:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Endidro

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

Would the community be kind enough to look at the behaviour and edit history of Endidro? I see these problems:

• the editor claims to be four people
• The editor is an SPA, here to promote only a certain Robert Gillespie, who by what appears to be his own account is Baron of Blackhall (note: this may be a complete hoax; according to, for example, this site (which I do not claim to be in any way reliable), the title is apparently held by Sir Ludovic Houston Shaw-Stewart of Greenock and Blackhall, 12th Bt.)
• the editor, on behavioural evidence, shows every sign of being a sockpuppet of Bgillesp, another SPA on the same topic
• unfounded accusations of vandalism and harassment (note: I'm not an admin)
• the editor has already received a clear warning from MLauba regarding (among other things) WP:COI editing, and "wild claims of inappropriate conduct" (this was after an unsuccessful attempt to initiate Arbcom proceedings against me)

I see no evidence that the editor is here to build an encyclopaedia, and plenty of evidence that he/she/they is/are here only to promote this one person. Comment, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This one-page article was posted in 2012. The article has local historical information concerning feudal barony since the middle ages in this part of Renfrewshire; the barony was created by King Robert II in 1395, and the first caput, Blackhall Manor remains Paisley's oldest dwelling. The current baron is the most recent of 27 since 1395, fully researched by Janet Bolton of the Royal Stewart Society, as has always been mentioned in the footnotes. The Scottish Lord Lyon King of Arms made the current baron of Blackhall infeft in 2002; a footnote extract from the Edinburgh Gazette in the original article has since been removed by others. In fact, after many, many changes to satisfy what are claimed to be Wiki guidelines, the whole article has disappeared, and has been completely overwritten.

The article existed virtually without problem for a few years until complaints were posted about article quality and the notability of the current baron. In 2012, a request was lodged for speedy deletion of the baron’s bio. The complaint boxes were eventually removed when, as instructed, we transfered the current baron's bio information in 2013 from an individual bio page to the Barony of Blackhall article.

Someone called Justlettersandnumbers disputed the baron's bio again in 2015, long after the Wiki resolution in 2013. To satisfy this person, the baron’s bio was totally removed, despite the 2013 resolution. He put up boxes complaining about copyright and challenged us about knowing the baron despite the fact that all information came from a public website and from Who’s Who.

Recently, the exchange became acrimonious: Justlettersandnumbers made personal remarks in the talk pages concerning the baron, using thinly veiled inuendo; calling the website a “peacock” page; asking pointedly why the previous baron’s son is not the current baron. Justlettersandnumbers has continually modified, and finally, removed the article without warning or ado. He or she has made threats if we attempted to reestablish the article following our complaints; he or she now wants to know our personal names!

For four years, we have worked to resolve continual challenges issued to us principally, we think, by this person. Every time we resolved the most recent criticism, another appeared in total disregard of the article’s previous Wiki authorizations and clear historical interest for Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and the City of Paisley. This uncanny game goes on and on, and to arrive at this final destruction despite the research and care that went into it to meet these never-ending so-called guidelines looks now more to arise more from Justlettersandnumbers wish to harass.Endidro (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)