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

Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn

The user User:Flyer22 Reborn has been harassing me for quite a while, accusing me of sockpuppetry with zero evidence for it, harassment for removal of outdated primary sourced material here, and most recently the accusation that I followed flyer onto the Human brain article(which is actually beyond crazy to me....really? I see an article with a high importance rating that obviously seems very bad, and I got to edit it...and all of a sudden I did something wrong) here. This is getting to be problematic, and seems to me like WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Furthermore Flyer22's harassment would not be an issue if it were not for his/her/it's attitude and demeanor, which is quite disturbing. Petergstrom (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please not that I notified Flyer here, and he/she/it removed it. The proper procedure has been followed.Petergstrom (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Update. This edit demonstrates an edit based solely of vindictive anger...why remove well sourced material that was missing from this article. The content is necessary and relevant function of the brain, and for no reason it was removed. No doubt some silly claim will be thrown of POV pushing

You are a reckless, POV-pushing editor.

Petergstrom (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You should both use the article's talk page, for a start. El_C 22:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Two editors agreed that the function section was terrible, and she just flat out ignored that. That is actually pretty good evidence of vindictive harassment behaviorPetergstrom (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Happened to spot the ongoing edit war at human brain during change patrol, and a request for the page to be protected is pending. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

From my standpoint, it looks like a content dispute that became heated. One article talk page at a time: present your positions on the material. Myself, I'm willing to offer my opinion. El_C 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes the content dispute is relevant, but what I am tying to solve here is the history of harassment.Petergstrom (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it rising to that level. You carry the burden of proof to display a history of harassment. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And, more or less as per WP:BURDEN, it is your obligation and no one else's to provide the evidence to support your contentions. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom's accusations of harassment are unfounded. After indicating that Petergstrom is a sock because his edits are very similar to a previous editor, I left the matter alone because I do not yet have enough evidence to prove my case. As many editors on this site know, I do not make a sock accusation unless I am certain that the editor is a sock. And I'm usually correct about sock matters. After that, Petergstrom started popping up at articles that I significantly edit. The first one was the Psychopathy article, where Petergstrom engaged in reckless removals and falsely asserted that the topic is WP:Fringe. See here and keep scrolling down for what I mean. His fighting with Penbat was ridiculous, and Literaturegeek had to come in to point out how Petergstrom was wrong. After that, Petergstrom popped up at the Vegetarianism article, another article that I significantly edit, and he started making problematic edits to that article as well. He had also made a very poor edit to the Veganism article, which is yet another article that I edit. See here. It took Alexbrn weighing in on the matter. After that, Petergstrom showed up at the Insomnia article. While I do not heavily edit the Insomnia article, it is on my watchlist and I saw that Petergstrom has made reckless edits there, removing important material. I noted the WP:Preserve policy to him. See here. He indicated that he would continue to violate that policy. Jytdog helped with what Petergstrom recklessly removed. In that same discussion, I noted that I am working on the Human brain article, despite thinking to myself that Petergstrom might follow me to that article and edit recklessly there as well. And sure enough, he did. So I left a note on his talk page about WP:Hounding, stating that I would bring the matter here to WP:ANI if he continued to follow me. That's when he started making silly claims about how no one here cares about me, that I'm going crazy, and that he would bring the matter to WP:ANI too. See here. And so here we are.

Petergstrom has repeatedly made asinine edits to our medical articles, as currently seen on his talk page, and I do not believe he understands our sourcing policies well enough to be editing at all. Like Alexbrn stated, there are WP:Competence issues regarding this editor.

On a side note: I have dealt with many stalkers before, and some have been dealt with here at WP:ANI. So I know what I am talking about when it comes to stalking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 reborn overestimates her importance. Firstly, the psychopathy edits were justified, and many stand even now. The removal of primary material, duplicated content and the things still stands. Secondly, the veganism and vegetarian article edits were not poor, in fact we came to a conclusion that inconsistent policies were being applied, probably driven by WP:ADVOCACY. Third, the insomnia edits were justified, and Jytdog did not add any of the poor material back-material removed from the pathophysiology section, such as science daily, and multi decade old partially relevant primary studies. He added menstrual cycle risk factors as a cause. Lastly, Flyer22 overestimates his/her/it's importance. Just because some people edit similar articles, it does not indicate stalking or harassment. His/Her/Its behavior indicates stalking and harassment. Quite frankly the whole thing seems really ridiculous to me. The pure mental gymnastic being don't on Flyer22's part. It is like Flyer is the center of the whole dang universe. To the point where a multi week old remark made by Flyer, a remark which I barely skimmed over, is believed by flyer to be influencing heavily my editing now. It is just plain not true. A top importance article, on a wikiproject that I frequently edit, that is low quality is something I want to edit, regardless of who edits it. Petergstrom (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Overestimates my importance? Nah, I don't think so. But if anyone thoroughly examines what I've pointed to regarding you, they should see that you continuously engage reckless behavior, especially by disregarding the WP:Preserve policy. It's easy to see that you take removal of primary sources to the extreme. You also edit in ways that are clearly POV-motivated. Your WP:Edit warring and trying to WP:OWN articles is also tiresome. There is no advocacy going on at the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, unless it's your advocacy. The Veganism article was mostly written by SlimVirgin, and she knows what she's doing. As for following me, do not insult my or others' intelligence by stating that you are randomly appearing at articles that I significantly edit. We both know that it's not true. The Human brain matter was certainly no coincidence. You were bitter that I highlighted your poor editing. You clearly stalked me to the Human brain article.

So I am stating it right now: If I see you pop up at yet another article that I significantly edit (like the Vagina article, for example), I will be starting a thread here specifically about your WP:Hounding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And given how we feel about each other, there is no logical reason for you to show up and start editing an article that I told you that am I working on. Unless, of course, that reason is to cause me distress (which WP:Hounding forbids). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Show me some talk page discussion where changes are explained, or when they are not. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing? That's the thing about posting here (if you're lucky enough to get someone to listen), you have to do the legwork, or it doesn't work for neither of you. El_C 23:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, I pointed to talk page discussions above. In the Psychopathy discussions, for example, there are invalid claims of WP:Fringe. In the Vegetarianism discussion, there is indication that Petergstrom does not have a good grasp on sourcing issues. In that discussion, I also pointed to where he had misrepresented a source at the Veganism article. At the Insomnia talk page, I pointed out that he had recklessly removed relevant material. Jytdog restored some of it with better sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already commented at Talk:Psychopathy, Talk:Vegetarianism and Talk:Human brain. El_C 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstom, stop calling Flyer22 "he/she/it". I shouldn't have to explain why calling a person "it" is demeaning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So far as I can see, he only did that in the first post, and has since then been correctly referring to her as "she". John Carter (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Still quite inappropriate and ideally would be struck. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It was done in this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit. Some of these were additions to existing edits, but I don't care that much. Changing your post so that it adds "it" as a pronoun to refer to someone is pretty obnoxious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that that is needlessly inflammatory. If there's doubt, use s/he. El_C 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I personally prefer they. It's more formal when in doubt. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows users to report their gender in their preferences. A editor's gender is available by using (or simply checking in preview) the {{gender}} template and is shown on hover with Navigastion Popups. The fact that Flyer22 has declared her gendrer this way and mentions it in her user space ("I am female and was born in Florida.") makes Petergstrom's "he/she/it" jab that much more grating. Rebbing 01:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, they. You ask for evidence of harassment, and I gave it in the first post, if that is not sufficient "legwork" I am compiling more. The psychopathy discussion of fringe, was not supported by recent secondary sources, so yes it was an incorrect claim. The edits, however, were good. The removal of outdated crappy sources, and duplicates, were justified and still stand today. The veganism article, nothing was misrepresented. That would imply malicious and intentionally manipulating something to support a point-which was not done. I used "vegan population" instead of "vegan population in hong kong and india"(or some region like that). The rest of the dozens of edits were totally justified and still stand. The insomnia article is a different matter. Jytdog added NOTHING back with better sourcing, he wrote something COMPLETELY NEW. Not in the pathophysiology section, where I removed piles of garbage-in the CAUSE section, where he added a sentence that menopause may be associated with insomnia. Now onto the WP:OWN. If Flyers statement above on the vagina wikipedia page is anything, it is evidence of s/he attempting to WP:OWN a page. Flyer22 still has this mentality that everything I do is dictated by her actions-that is plain wrong. S/he needs to understand, that his/her impact on my life in nearly zero. Until today, I barely gave him/her a thought(except for the sock puppet accusation, which was quite rude). The bottomline is, that the following

1. sock puppetry accusations-WP:NPA Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.
2. unnecessary removal-Unnecessary to remove a multi decade old, primary source? WP:MEDRS
3. incredibly self centered behavior-Borderline fanaticism, WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN
4. removal of relevant well sourced material-Vindictive behavior, WP:CIVIL

Are behaviors that don't seem to follow wiki policy on behavior. Together the accusations constitute some form of harassment, Petergstrom (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The only NPA mention is 1st link, which doesn't work for me. El_C 01:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with you removing material is that you never keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind. Often, what you remove can be easily supported by tertiary and/or secondary sources. When you remove content like that, valuable content is lost. It is not the usual case that editors go searching through an article's edit history to see what was removed. Therefore, valuable content is commonly lost with removals like yours. I explained this to you at the Insomnia talk page.

You did misrepresent data at the Veganism article. Whether or not the misrepresentation was intentional, I explained how you did so at the Vegetarianism talk page.

I am not trying to WP:OWN any articles. I am trying to keep you from editing them recklessly. And I do not like to be followed to articles by editors who currently have a tempestuous relationship with me. See the distress part of WP:Hounding. I wanted to edit the Human brain article in peace. It is clearly a main article that I am focusing on. And yet you somehow thought it would be good to focus on it too? It makes no sense for you to pop up at the Vagina article either, especially since that article is put together quite well and will be nominated for WP:GA status soon enough. The only reason you would have for popping up at that article is because I pointed it out above and made it clear to you that I would not tolerate you following me to articles I am significantly working on.

I wish that I didn't have to continuously deal with people stalking me, especially after they've felt disgruntled because of some argument. But it is something I often have to deal with because of my stance on following rules like WP:NPOV accurately, and because the articles I edit tend to be contentious, and because I have busted so many socks. Yes, quite a few socks stalk me, whether as IPs or as new accounts. This is not paranoia on my part, as such stalkers or socks tend to claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• The Editor Interaction Analyser is very useful here. Here you can see that the two editors have mutually edited 29 articles, and in practically all - 26 - cases Flyer22 Reborn has edited the article first. These include some very obscure articles. I can only assume from this data that Petergstrom (who let's not forget has only 1,495 articlespace edits in total) is indeed stalking Flyer22 Reborn to articles she has edited, and this needs to stop - NOW. Therefore (a) I suggest a one-way interaction ban (i.e. that Petergstrom cannot edit articles that Flyer22 Reborn has edited, including talk pages), and (b) Petergstrom may be subject to immediate blocking by any administrator if he should again follow her to an unrelated article. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sweet, sweet legwork. I'm referring to Black Kite, with whom I tend to agree. 26 of 29 is, indeed, quite a disconcerting ratio(!). El_C 00:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow that is just ridiculous. I have edited hundreds of articles in neuroscience, psychology, and popular media. I like the walking dead. I like game of thrones. I'm interested in psychology, and neuroscience-particularly in the influence that prenatal hormones has on gendered behavior. I have edited many many articles in neuroscience and psychiatry area, particularly mood disorders, monoamines, and there is bound to be overlap, given the extent to which she edits. The fact that we have edited the same 29 articles(many of which he/she made only one or two edits a long time ago, that I would not have known about, and don't care about) does not indicate stalking. The fact that he/she has been on WP for years before me is also an explanation. An editor, who hangs out around a lot of the science/social science articles, and over a couple of years has made over a hundred thousand edits, is bound to have overlap with an editor with 1400 edits highly focused on the science/social science section. Petergstrom (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• That is indeed a possibility (if it had not been, an administrator may have blocked you already). I am simply pointing out that following Flyer22 Reborn to any further pages that you have not previously edited may be looked upon very dimly indeed. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) I kind of have to agree with Petergstrom about the nature of the "interactions" here. It looks to me at least 13 of the articles listed are ones where the time difference between the two editors is over a year. If he were really stalking Flyer22Reborn, it would be really easy to spend a lot less work checking her edit history and making staling edits to articles she had edited more recently. Having said that, Petergstrom, you've already been advised about using "he/she" and told that Flyer is, in fact, a female. Try not to fall into the same problem so frequently, OK? I imagine Lassie got really fed up with that blasted Timmy brat for falling in the well as often as he apparently did, too, and repeating that mistake doesn't help your cause at all. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If the edits were months or years ago and then you show up recently, that can make sense. The question, then, is how closely to the actual edits overlap. El_C 01:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I stalking Jytdog (talk · contribs) here? Perhaps I am notoriously stalking Doc James (talk · contribs) too? If this tool is at all EVEN AN INDICATOR of harassment behavior, then I have literally stalked every prominent WP editor in the sciences area of WP, to an even more severe extent than my terribly atrocious stalking of flyer22 reborn. Ridiculous. I am really disappointed in WP right now. If this is what passes as "legwork".....this is sad. If you take note of this, and don't even comment on the actual evidence I presented, I have no idea what this board is forPetergstrom (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We are still investigating. Best keep it relaxed as you can and avoid characterizations like "poor poor flyer22 reborn." El_C 01:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Petergstrom is showing up to articles that I significantly edit as well. Does the combination of editing the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles really seem like a coincidence? The focus on these articles came after my objections to Petergstrom's editing. And this is especially the case for the Human brain article. And now Petergstrom is citing me not wanting him to follow me to articles, including the Vagina article, as some indication of WP:OWN. I've noted above the issues with following an editor you have a tempestuous relationship with to articles. And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also made it clear that I've been through this many times.

If Petergstrom shows up at more articles I significantly edit (like the Vagina article), including articles that I have brought to WP:GA status, will that be a coincidence too? I think not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How soon after the dispute started picking up momentum did he show up at those articles? El_C 01:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

He waits a bit, like a week or two or so. I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me. But the following is clear to me either way. After I addressed him on his talk page about editing with a previous account, I knew that it would not be long before he started showing up to articles I have a significant interest in. After I pointed out that I was working on the Human brain article, I knew it would not be long before he started editing it. The predictability was easy because I've been through this type of thing countless times before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's be careful about basing conclusions about this editor's conduct upon what you have experienced with entirely different persons. Unless the person you suspect Petergstrom of being a sock of is one of those stalkers, your previous experiences really have no useful predictive power for this individual, and it's unfair to saddle him with a presumption of bad faith on that basis alone.

That said, there's some pretty compelling evidence here, considering his showing up at articles you have edited consistently after you have. But it's still all a little circumstantial; all of the articles I've seen mentioned here are pretty major articles and the fact that you edited them first could simply be a product of you having been on the project much longer. I come from a biopsychology background myself, for example and have edited most of those articles myself, if memory serves. So we need to parse this a little more cleanly. You say that Petergstrom has shown up on more than one occasion at certain articles about a week or two after engaging with you elsewhere. How many of these instances involve him undoing your work or otherwise putting himself in a position to engage with you directly, and has there even been a time where he was doing so on multiple articles concurrently? I'm highly suspicious here and I'm looking for the smoking gun that will let me support a 1-way IBAN, but I just need a little more. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Are you actually taking Flyer22's allegations(with no actual evidence) seriously, while blatantly ignoring the harassment she has posed, with her sock puppet allegation, and now this allegation? A user, with 240,000 edits, in the english wiki of 2 million articles, is going to have edited some major pages before a newer editor with 1400 edits, concentrated in the biopsychology, neuroscience, health area etc etc. I don't know how many times I have to say this:'I do not care about what flyer22 edits, or what she thinks, but I do care about being harassed. The only time where I have given her a second of thought, is due to her ridiculous allegations, which quite frankly, are annoying as hell. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions.Petergstrom (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think anyone questions necessarily the problematic nature of some of the more recent edits, Flyer22Reborn, just indicating that some of the "interactions" with over a year lag time between them might not necessarily count for much. And I think that if there were broadened interactions hereafter, that would definitely be very credible evidence. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John Carter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this statement "And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval." is an attempt at being obnoxious, and not a reflection of your own thought process-something that would be very, very, very disturbing. The edits to the human brain article occurred after I went to the article in hopes of finding a quality, complete section, discussing the functions of the brain. I hoped to find the immediate functions, as well as from an evolutionary perspective. Instead I found the current sad section. The edits to the vegan and vegetarian articles were both after googling them to fact check a meme I was(no kidding) curious about. This is really getting to a ridiculous point. Flyer22 needs to reign in her behavior, which I clearly demonstrated above violates multiple wiki policies. Petergstrom (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, speaking strictly for myself, I don't find much obnoxious in the comment at all. It would certainly be not unreasonable for a comparatively new editor (you've been here since October?) to try to edit in such a way as to generate negative reaction if such was required from senior editors. Kind of an informal "mentoring," maybe. There might be better ways to do it, admittedly, but I think I have seen a few other editors here do the same sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I began editing the vegan article on the 16th of january, long after the (regrettable) first encounter I had with Flyer22 on the psychopathy article at the beginning of december, after joining in late october, after spending most of november hanging around the PED/Adaptogen/MDD/CFS area. Petergstrom (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Your explanations are the similar to others claiming that they weren't stalking. In a short of amount of time, you showed up at the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles. No matter what you state, that is not a coincidence. And if you show up at more, I will have even more evidence of your stalking. As for my supposed violations, you do not understand the rules well; so I don't put much stock into your assertions of having violated the rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You're only three days apart with the first one though; as for the second, that was quite a bit of (seemingly-pertinent) content you removed with your first edit... El_C 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, your reply is meant for Petergstrom, right? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you cant accept the fact that psychopathy, edits, along with ASPD edits were due to the fact that I am interested in psychiatry(as evidenced by my hundreds of edits in that area), and that the veganism/vegetarian edits(to the cardiovascular effects of the diets nonetheless...hmmmmm what does that sound like? Stalking or perhaps the editing of an editor interested in that area of science....hmmmmm) were due to the finding of very biased statements of benefits, then I would have doubts about your WP:COMPETENCE, in particular the way you place such an importance of yourself in other peoples decision making----you have to understand that you aren't that important. I literally never gave you a second thought, after skimming over whatever you said to me. Petergstrom (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The title of this thread is "Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn", and yet, so far, what this thread shows is stalking by you. It has yet to show that I have been stalking or harassing you. So your understanding of the WP:Competence essay is also flawed. Follow me to more articles I am working on, and there will be a thread here on you in the future. Mostly likely, the near future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't make me refer both of you to WP:DR, because I would do it. I am that bleeping crazy! El_C 02:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, conflict resolution relies on the flexibility of the persons involved in the conflict-if Flyer22's self importance refuses to be flexible, no amount of conflict resolution would help. Petergstrom (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

But it's fast becoming your only hope. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No it has not shown any "stalking by me", it has shown nothing. I have, however, demonstrated the violating of multiple wiki policies by you. Petergstrom (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me give a more in depth example. Sepi333 and I edit the same obscure pages-due to overlapping interests, such as Dopaminergic pathways, motivation, Reward system etc etc. However, given that he has a healthy ego, he understands that this is not "stalking", but is rather an overlap of interests. However, he does throw out accusations of sock puppetry ("because he is frequently right" hurr durr durr), or stalking, because he has a healthy sense of ego. Petergstrom (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this has to do with it fast becoming your only hope. You've been repeatedly asked to indent correctly here. El_C 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread. Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.

And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here. Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't even know how to feel...if anyone wants to know what its like to be laughing, disgusted and annoyed at the same time...hmu. Let's break this down

• Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread.

• Clear from what? Clear from the mental gymnastics done by you, and your grandiose ego that just needs a stalker to feel good?

• Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.

• I wasn't aware it was over, but if it is, it seems that you might stop harassing me now

• And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here.

• You are not wrong, you don't explicitly say it. However your behavior, does as I have pointed out many times.

• Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too.

• This is not the self importance I am talking about. You are overestimating your impact on others. Way. Too. Much.

• I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me

• This screams to me the words "delusional", "obsessive", "paranoid", "grandiose". If you think anyone actually cares THAT much about you, your edits, and what you think of them, that is disturbing. No after I first interacted with you, I did not spend 6 hours straight thinking about you, reading your edit history, compiling a profile, in my room in my basement with tin foil over the windows, and a triple padlocked steel door. No, I did not spend the next week sitting in that room, with a whiteboard, and yarn linking edits and wikipages, thinking about the most effective strategy for subverting, and obfuscating. I did not set up thousands of dollars of computers, calculating my sinister plot, waiting to strike-waiting for the moment when....wait for it....I COULD DISRUPT SOME RANDOM EDITORS WIKIEDITING *maniacal laughter ensues*. Hell, I didn't even give you a second thought after skimming over whatever it was you wrote.Petergstrom (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet more nonsense and personal attacks from you. Stating that you should accept that others find me important to this site is because of your constant need to state how unimportant you find me to be. Your talk page response about the hounding matter and your above commentary shows just how obsessed you are with stating how unimportant I supposedly am. And such comments could be categorized as coming from a place of insecurity or inferiority regarding your own edits. Some might even state that they come from a place of jealousy. And if they understand psychology like I do, they just might be right. Your comments also indicate that you are indeed the past editor I believe you to be. No matter. I've stated what I need to state. You have been warned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Trolling and harassment (both of which Flyer22 has been a victim of) of editors doesn't take hours to plan, it takes minutes. Less if you've done it before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It cannot be that easy to do what you do. All I want, is for your behavior to stop. For your reckless accusations to stop. For you to understand that, no, I don't care about you, BUT I DO CARE ABOUT BEING HARASSED.' Petergstrom (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: That is not what she indicated when she said "he waits in order to diver attention from having followed me". The belief that someone, a troll nonetheless, would take a week to avoid detection in their trolling, is crazy.Petergstrom (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I can quite emphatically state that that notion is not "crazy". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So you are telling me, NeilN, that you have met people...real human beings...that seriously have nothing better in their lives to do, than to single out a random editor of wikipedia pages, and to make disruptive edits to the pages, but doing so very slowly, and very secretively in an attempt to troll/stalk/harass them. That is sad. I enjoy editing wikipedia. I enjoy editing pages I have interest in. My edit history is evidence that I am here to edit, and until today, none of my editing was AT ALL influenced by Flyer22. However, her accusations of me being a sockpupper(unsubstantiated, which I have brought up many times, but has been ignored) as well as the unsubstantiated claims that I follow Flyer to articles, are annoying, and need to stop. If the admins agree that accusations of sock puppetry and harassment by flyer are ok, then until the annoyance outweighs the good of WP, I can just ignore it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have witnessed the behavior you're describing more than once. I've even seen someone put significant effort into making a credible back-story so he could say wide-eyed: "But I'm obviously not a troll! Just look at my {comments,posts,edits}! I can't believe anyone would actually have nothing better to do with his life than to scheme against someone on the Internet!" Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rebbing:, Really?? this was just a "backstory", so that I could get to my real intent of trolling? I read hundreds of papers so that I could "troll"? Really??? Really???? I cant even believe wikipedia right now. This is actually one of the saddest things...a website I had so much respect for....Really???? Really? There is not a a single SHRED, of evidence that suggests I give two damns about what Flyer edits or thinks. But I give real, tangible, credible evidence of harassment and it gets blown off? Really? I can't even express who ridiculous the whole thing is getting.Petergstrom (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You misread my comment: I did not say you were a troll or that your contribution history was a sham. I merely voiced my observation—in rebuttal to your skepticism—that many have gone to extraordinary lengths to exact petty revenge. Please stifle your outrage; it is not adding any light to this situation. Rebbing 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As can I. It doesn't even take any effort: one could flip through an editor's week-old contributions, watchlist an article with the intent of editing it the next time it pops up, or bookmark the page in a date folder. Trolls are anything but lazy. Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not an admin, although I've played with one on tv. One of the most main points between Wikipedia editors is to help make everyone's experience enjoyable, and not to try to make it less enjoyable. The recent edit, screaming the words, is pretty offensive, and probably should be walked back. Flyer22 Reborn is important to the site, and in some areas, very important. This is fact, not her boasting. So please, Petergrstrom, maybe rethink the pressure of defending your case if it goes into name calling to that extent. Wikipedia is a polite place, although I have been impolite to a couple of grandiose self-important complete azzwipe editors fine gentlemen of the realm. Let's make everyone's experience here a little better and wind-down some of this stuff before it flips into the really nasty get-up-and-go. Peace, love, and singing stuff about cats or sunrise's or something. Randy Kryn 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well in one of my first encounters with a fine gentle(wo)man of the realm, I had to bold the point because nobody seemed to get it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Best we tone down the accusatory language and just see what can be worked out one article talk page at a time. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the behaviour of either editor here has been stellar in any sense of the word. The "policy violations" are numerous on both sides; the multiple accusations of sockpuppetry but no diffs (not here at least) to link Petergstrom to any other editor by Flyer22reborn (ASPERSIONS) and the near-constant accusations of quite serious behavioural (not bad behaviour, but, the issues of self-aggrandizement, delusions, etc) problems from Petergstrom (NPA, CIVIL). This is cause enough for civility blocks to be handed out, though if I'm being direct, I am far more concerned with the near abusive nature of some of Peter's comments than I am with Flyer's sockpuppetry accusations. No more "you're mental" style comments, Peter, you've made quite enough of them. I am mildly surprised you haven't received at least a warning for them. The stalking claims, Flyer, are both difficult to prove and evidence is circumstantial at best; Peter makes a good point regarding the editor interaction anaylzer, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. You need to look at the pages concerned, the times of editing, a log of the page history, and individual edits themselves. The individual edit themselves are the best indicator for stalking because they alone form the basis of a pattern. The return claims of harassment by Peter are relatively unsubstantiated beyond referring to the concurrent stalking claim by Flyer. Other than that, I see zero harassment going in the direction of Peter. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions, there is a simple solution for this, just go do something productive and forget Flyer22 until or unless further issues arise. This thread is rapidly generating more heat than light. There is, however, no simple resolution for any competency issues that may exist and I profer no opinion on that point because ·I have limited competency myself on the topic areas of medicine, the human body and its functions, and psychology. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I just want to point out that Flyer22 Reborn has indeed been very accurate in their detection of sockpuppetry. No one is perfect, of course, but Flyer22 has an extremely good batting average. I think that they perhaps might have waited to make an accusation until they had more evidence, but, given their record, their suspicions should afforded some weight, given the behavior of Petergstrom as described in this thread, especially the Editor Interaction Analyser data pointed out by Black Kite. [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So I've read above Beyond My Ken. My personal stance on an issue such as this is; if you don't have evidence, don't make accusations. I personally don't afford 'suspicions' any weight without a reason to do so. That reason doesn't have to be proof of sockpuppetry per se, but, it does have to be something more than a flat accusation. I agree, however, on the topic of Peter's behaviour being uncollaborative and uncivil. As for the EIA, as I said above, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. If a new editor and an old editor hold similar interests and edit within the same topic area they will overlap. Yes, there is a significant amount of overlap and yes, Flyer has been first to edit 26/29 pages. Of those however only 10 have less than one months time separating her and his edit, and of those all three of the pages he was first to edit are included; Gender inequality, gender inequality in the U.S. and Antisocial personality disorder. Now, basically that means that he's followed her to 7 out of 10 pages, and she's followed him to the other 3 - note; I do not mean followed as in stalked, but, as in came there after. So either he's seeking out pages she hasn't edited in months by going through her contributions history, or, alternatively, he's just happened across them at a later date. I'm going to AGF and say he's not sitting around wading through Flyer's contributions for hours just to make her miserable. If this is actually what's happening, then that's simply pitiful ... I have other adjectives for it as well, but, NPA/CIVIL. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum; I should add, that the EIA is useful in stalking/hounding cases for raising red flags and directing a person where to look and perhaps identify obvious patterns. In this instance, however, I've found nothing unusual even outside of the medicine/human anatomy/human pyschology topic areas. I should also add that this has also come to my mind as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, without addressing everything that you have stated since I feel that I have stated enough in this thread (both above and below), I am taking the time to note that it is usually the case that I do have evidence, but it may be that the evidence is not strong enough. WP:CheckUser wouldn't work in this case since the previous account is stale. It is not unusual for me to wait until I have more evidence. Like many editors have done, including administrators, I gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. When he denied it and started focusing on my block log (mischaracterizing it), I moved on, knowing full well that he would likely start to appear at articles that I significantly edit because of that sockpuppet inquiry on his talk page. I know that you likely feel that I should not have addressed the sock matter at all, but there have been cases where addressing a sock about his or her previous account resulted in the sock acknowledging that they are a sock. This includes cases I've been involved in. And I reiterate that I have been stalked a number of times before, and the stalking patterns are generally the same. They are the same so often that I currently make it clear on my user page that I won't even list my WP:GAs and WP:FAs there on my user page. When it comes to the Gender inequality and Antisocial personality disorder articles, I edited those first, as seen here and here. I did not significantly edit them, but they remained on my watchlist. I know that you state that you do not see a stalking pattern, and I accept that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To shorten that - you had no evidence, you accused someone of being a sock without evidence, you accused them of stalking despite the fact they have a fairly small defined area of editing which overlaps yours (which could be seen *at the time* you accused them of being a sock) and think that because they eventually show up at an article (within their area of editing) you edited sometime in the past its evidence they are a sock/stalking you? This is not a case of 'not having enough evidence' this is a case of you being so far from being in possession of anything resembling evidence that its laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And that is an inaccurate characterization, for reasons I and others in this thread have made clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... EIA must have gotten those two wrong in this case. I wonder why it lists Petergstrom as the first editor when it obviously has you editing it years ago... probably the timeline of the latest edits but it's still wrong. My apologies there Flyer22 Reborn, it would have done me well to dig that bit deeper. I looked at the thread on Peter's page where you; gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. I'm not going to harp on this because I've never had wikistalkers that harrassed me or been in any particularly difficult disputes, but, your approach is ... not one I'd recommend to anyone. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my comment above: many people who edit Wikipedia for a long time develop a nose for sockpuppetry. Some have OK noses, some have good noses, and some have very good noses. Flyer22's nose for sockpuppetry happens to be very, very good. That doesn't mean that she is correct in this case - everyone is human, everyone makes mistakes - but it does mean that admins should (and some do) pay some attention when she voices a suspicion. I'd very much like to see the CU policy loosened up somewhat, so that editors with a good track record regarding sniffing out socks are given enough credence to allow a CU scan to be done (even without a named puppetmaster) without the "no fishing expeditions" rule being trotted out. If the editor starts being wrong a lot, that credence can be lost, but in the meantime we'll have retired some socks. Further, I think an exception should be made for CUing editors who exhibit general sock-like behavior, something that many users can detect. All of that can be done totally within WMF policies - it's the en.wiki community which has chosen to fetter CUs, not the Foundation, which is ironic since, as the biggest and most read of all the WMF encyclopedias, we're the one which needs the tools to crack down on socking, while other wikis are the ones with the more liberal rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe summarizing this will help. I come to the board, asking for help, due to harassment from Flyer22 Reborn. I notified her on her talk page, and provided evidence. I used he/she/it, and was reprimanded. She responded with allegations that I have been maliciously planning, and subverting attention in order to troll her. I state that that is ridiculously self centered, paranoid, and ridiculous. She accuses me of following her to the following articles

• Veganism
• Vegetarianism
• Psychopathy
• Insomnia

These articles receive thousands of views a day, and are relevant in the health and neuroscience area, that I have been editing significantly in since I started. We first encountered each other in the psychopathy article talk page-I removed poorly sourced material, and then asked about changing the article to reflect its fringe status, however I realized I did not have a quality secondary source, and that it would be OR, so I backed off. I continued to edit in areas related to neuroscience, psychology, etc etc. For some reason, Flyer22 accuses me of sock puppetry, a serious, rude and unsubstantiated claim. I move on. In my editing of fibromyalgia, the creation of functional somatic syndrome page, and edits to he biology of depression, I came across a link to insomnia. I had quite a bit of research, so I checked the insomnia page, and saw that the pathophysiology section was poorly outdated. I updated it. I saw something claiming major benefits from vegetarian diets, so I went to check if it was true, on the WP article I saw some pretty crazy claims too. So I did some research, found secondary sources, published recently in quality journals, and updated the article to reflect current consensus. While browsing in neuroscience, I find the human brain page to be terribly deficient in the "functions" section. I edit it. And then I get accused of following Flyer22 to articles. Her behavioral pattern of seeing malicious intent in everyday goings on is ridiculous, and even more so is the audacity she has to threaten someone with it. What is even worse, is that instead of finding an objective admin board, objective like I experienced with the fantastic editors(mostly) in the medicine section, I find Dark Kite showing "fantastic legwork", showing how Flyer22, with 240,000 edits, and I with 1500 overlap on some articles in my region of interest. Woah. Crazy? Not really. It is not even INDICATIVE of me giving two damns about what she edits(which I demonstrated by showing my overlap with other prolific editors in that area). However, nobody takes seriously the harassment posed by her, but they do take seriously her crazy claims, not based in reality. Summarized.Petergstrom (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time the OP familiarize himself with the First Rule of Holes? John from Idegon (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Newcomer User:Soli58 has arrived on the scene (Contribs). El_C 04:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

{@El C: So is that it? Is this report done? So the harassment by Flyer22 I should just ignore? That can be done. And is there a consensus about Flyer22's allegations(with zero evidence)?Petergstrom (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You failed to respond when I asked you about your non-working claimed-NPA link — and that question remains unanswered. No, you've failed to establish a clear pattern of harassment to my satisfaction. El_C 05:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh my god. I thought that it didn't work as in it was insufficient evidence! All this time??? Oh my god. I will fix it. Wow.Petergstrom (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

here it should work now. Now what about the counter allegations?Petergstrom (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the personal attack? Asking if you're a sock? It's not the most goodfaith-assuming question, but I don't know if that rises to that level. El_C 05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• i've been pinged a few times and have been thinking. Thoughts:
  • if you look at Petergstrom's first edits from Oct 2016, they are not really a newbie's. (see here). and they were warned about edit warning almost right of the gate.
  • I encountered Petergstrom first at articles about health (their articles in that arena have been about neuro and psych topics) and their edits on each article have been extensive (big flurries of rewriting) and generally poor in sourcing and summarizing. Clearly has a strong interest in neuro/psych so I (and others) put a bunch of time into trying to teach them how to edit correctly on health topics... and at the rate they were editing this was essential. (you can see the dialogue in this old version of their talk page) Their initial responses were dismissive like this:: The content was sourced!! What are you talking about? and this: I did read it. I am not ignoring it, the sources are totally valid, stop reverting the edits.. And kept insisting that their extensive use of old/primary sources was fine. (diff, diff) They finally kinda sorta got it. Kinda. I have remained cautiously hopeful they would turn out to be solid members of the community.
  • Around that time they did some aggressive and badly reasoned editing at Performance-enhancing substance as you can see from its history -- aggressive reverts. There was an equally aggressive advocate on the other side who self-destructed finally. I happened to agree (mostly) with the direction Petergstrom wanted the article to go, but the behavior and reasoning were bad and aggressive (you can see that on the article talk page too) and got them their first block for edit warring.
  • their editing at MDMA and its talk page was so aggressive and unreasonable that I brought them to EWN, leading to a block: case is here. If you review their comments in that case, you can see that they misrepresented their own edits (and behavior) at that board, which was doubly troubling.
  • as is evident in the history of the Chronic pain article here, as recently as a couple of days ago they added a slew of COPYVIO content that had to be revdelled.

And their aggressive effort to prosecute this ANI and ignoring of feedback they are getting, is par for their WP history to date, and not promising. I am not too hopeful about their long term prospects to be productive. Which is what led me to post here.

All that said, I can't support Flyer's claim of stalking. Petergstrom has been editing religion and neuro/psych pretty consistently from the beginning and edits to the Brain article do not seem stalkerish to me.

Flyer tends to be accurate about socking but i have no real comments on that issue other than my initial one above, and that based on their behavior i wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

Petergstrom fwiw I recommend you walk away from this ANI case - you are not going to get the satisfaction you want - and instead concentrate on building high quality content (great MEDRS sources, summarized and not copied, accurately) and working better with others. Your hands are way too dirty for this case to get any traction. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yea sounds fine to me. I will ignore Flyer22 for now.Petergstrom (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. please keep in mind the " and working better with others" part of what i wrote :) Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am currently focusing on patrolling and editing article content, and am no longer interested in this thread, but I wanted to go ahead and note that I did not state that Petergstrom followed me to the Insomnia article, which is an article I had only edited a few times. I mentioned the Insomnia article to explain why I view Petergstrom's style of editing to be problematic and my belief that he followed me to the Human brain article. I specifically mentioned the Human brain article on the Insomnia talk page when criticizing Petergstrom's deletion style. I did not mention it as an example of a good or great article. I mentioned that it is an article I am working on, and an example of an article that no one should hastily take a hacksaw to. It needs to be edited with care. I mentioned this despite knowing the likelihood that Petergstrom would follow me there. There are few Wikipedia articles of significant interest to me that I can edit without worrying about a lot of conflict. Editing that article was something that gave me peace because there were no big disputes going on there and I knew that I could focus on bringing the article to WP:GA level, like I had been meaning to do. The article is currently full-protected, and I hope to edit it with little conflict in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: When it comes to considering whether or not I am being stalked, I do carefully examine the matter; I don't solely base it on past experiences. The past experiences do, however, significantly aid my deductions. I have an overlap with Doc James and Jytdog too, but Doc James rarely gets involved with articles like Vegetarianism or Veganism, or sexual and gender topics, and Jytdog is editing some of the articles that I edit because either I asked him to or he saw past stalking matters related to me and decided to get involved. In addition to the aforementioned articles I noted that I significantly edit, I just noticed that Petergstrom has also recently focused on the Gender article. I have significant history with that article, and with other gender topics. Having some overlap with me is understandable, but when it's articles that I significantly edit, and across a number of different fields, I think I have a valid reason to be concerned. History shows that I do. I take being hounded very seriously and will not hesitate to bring the matter to WP:ANI if I feel that I have compelling evidence of being hounded. All that stated, I am looking to resolve the Human brain article dispute and will try not to inflame matters involving Petergstrom in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I too do not want to escalate things anymore. I dont think there is anything more that I can say, other than I truly do not care about what you edit, and have no intent to hound or harass. Buuuuuuut.....all the stuff is in one field-gender is relavent in neuroscience and psychology. But that is beside the point. Bottom line is, I truly have never had, and never will have the desire to hound anyone. Petergstrom (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Experience shows that mature people who are interested in collaboration and the development of the encyclopedia are able to make complaints without the level of indignation seen in this case. If you are really interested in building content it might be an idea to focus on that, while engaging in any discussions on article talk pages in a constructive manner. And stop posting here unless it is to post new evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to concur with others that User:Petergstrom's edits in the areas of medicine and religion have been extremely problematic. One can see that User:Petergstrom edits with an agenda, promoting a non-neutral point of view; for exaxmple, he attempted to add information to our articles about Jesus and Moses, saying that they both had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). On our article about Religiosity and intelligence, User:Petergstrom has inappropriately censored content that he just didn't like, possibly because it called into question his own POV--what's more troublesome is that he tried to conceal the nature of his edit by using a benign edit summary. This is part of a deeper problem concerning User:Petergstrom and their editing behaviour. At this time, a topic ban on articles relating to medicine and religion, broadly construed, is warranted.--Jobas (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this particular situation but I should probably mention that the last time that I saw Flyer22 get accused of "Wikihounding with false sock puppetry accusations", her sock accusations were very much correct. DarkKnight2149 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 by this you mean that Flyer's accusations were correct, no that the accusations against Flyer were. I'm asking because it's not 100% clear to me which one you mean. I'm guessing the former since you've linked an LTA case in which Flyer was significantly involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude I meant that the accusations that Flyer made were true, not the accusations against her. Sorry about the unintentional ambiguity in my statement. DarkKnight2149 02:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Still no response from User:Soli58. El_C 23:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for User:Petergstrom on articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed

• Support As mentioned by multiple editors above, User:Petergstrom has failed to adhere to WP:NPOV in the areas of medicine and religion, which is demonstrated by edits such as attempting to add false information to articles about historical religious figures, e.g. stating that Jesus and Moses had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). He has also censored information that might not support his personal POV, e.g. recent diff), he also ignored the Pew research source and decide to put a POV on atheism (see here recent diff). These issues, coupled with User:Petergstrom's hounding of User:Flyer22 Reborn warrant a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed.--Jobas (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Jobas, the religion additions were when I first started--one source was not enough for what I wrote. They additions weren't "false". Secondly, the recent edits on the religion and intelligence articles are actually being pushed in the direction I was attempting to push it in before your edit war( relavent info, quality sourcing).Petergstrom (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support This user's edit history is very troublesome. Mistercontributer (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that religion needs to be included here, but I've been watching the medicine issues from afar for a while, and I'm leaning towards supporting a topic ban there. I'd like to hear from a few more editors before making up my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Seeing that Petergstrom does seem to be seeking to do better, perhaps through mentoring, and that the SPI appears to have come up negative (alleged master and sock on different continents), I am now leaning oppose to a topic ban, with a strict understanding that WP:ROPE now applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Checking back and viewing subsequent comments and events, I'm going back to my original inclination, and I support topic bans in both topic areas. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for medicine only. I don't think we have a demonstration of contentious editing in on religion. I'm troubled by what I have read in this thread. The indignation and battle ground mentality exhibited by the OP is not encouraging.--Adam in MO Talk 04:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO this user's editing in on religion is very troublesome as well, (see /w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=747047573 Example 1, Example 2), (Example 3). Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have viewed those links and I don't think that Peter is at the level of a topic ban yet. Bad edits don't warrant a topic ban. Bad edits and battle ground behavior certainly do. Do you have any evidence of the latter?--Adam in MO Talk 16:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO I think it's bad edits and battle ground behavior, for example see here in Jesus article: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and the user demonstrates here that they are aware of the consequences of edit warring. anther example is Ignatius of Loyola article, see here (1), (2), (3). also here in Moses article (1), (2), (3). It's just some examples.--Jobas (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

JobasThose are misguided edits from a new users. No one has presented any indication that the contentious editing is ongoing. Thanks for your input. I respectfully disagree.--Adam in MO Talk 22:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO, no problems, Thanks and Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, although early on I pretty much interpreted the policies in a way the community did not generally interpret them, I have actually made some pretty decent contributions in the neuro/psych area. I understand the my lack of desire to engage with other editors has been troublesome, but I am curious as to whether my past behavior is really indicative of a future where the pros are outweighed by the cons. Petergstrom (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support for ban on religion and likely medicine. Unfortunately, I had to intervene as a mediator on a few recent edit wars on the Religiosity and Intelligence page and was a bit disturbed by some of the recent edits the editor used such as [2] when some compromise would have been the better choice during the edit war. I also found troubling that after being warned about violating the 3RR, the user deleted that information from their talk page [3]. Also, when discussing a source on atheism and religion if it was acceptable, the language seemed quite aggressive and dismissive to others when it could have been charitable including remarks telling other editors that they should not edit religious pages [4] because of them identifying with religion was POV pushing and conflict of interest on religious pages. On the 3RR noticeborad one of the edits even said "Thats 3RR, there is obviously a COI, given you user page. I don't want to have to talk this to admin board" [5], as reported by another editor User:Renzoy16. No editor should ever say to another editor those kinds of things. For medicine, it seems that the editor has been blocked twice for edit warring there too despite being on Wikipedia for only a few months. Perhaps this can be remedied if the behavior changes significantly, but it need not get this hot over religion topics.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - for all the troubling history, some of which I agree is extremely troubling, the editor in question hasn't even been here a full six months yet, at least under this name. If someone were willing to mentor him as per WP:MENTOR, it might be possible that his conduct might improve. Having said that, there does seem to be a very real issue of perhaps excessively high self-opinion regarding this editor, and if that were true it might well be that mentoring might be ineffective. John Carter (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A CU was just performed and confirmed that I am unrelated to any of the accounts I was accused of operating. The behavioral "evidence" is weak at best.Petergstrom (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"The behavioral evidence is weak at best" You don't talk like a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

And it is also, I think, hard to imagine a relatively new user so frequently expressing outrage regarding the conduct of others, as Petergstrom has repeatedly done here. Most newer editors I've encountered are much less familiar with all the details of our policies and guidelines, and on that basis have been much less likely to indulge in such expressions of outrage. And I think most newbies would be a lot less likely to use the abbreviation "CU' as Peter does above as opposed the full term. Most wouldn't be as familiar with the abbreviations, although a person with a history of sockpuppetry would probably know it all too well. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I just came from viewing the CU page...that was how Jytdog abbreviated it, so that is how I abbreviate it....I can't believe I thought this would clear things up. Looks like no amount of evidence can change the preconceived opinions you guys have. I'm so done. Whatever.Petergstrom (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Petergstrom: you will notice that I have actually indicated that I thought mentoring you might be useful as an alternative to sanctions. And thereafter you, on no basis whatsoever so far as I can see, accuse me of having preconceived notions. Your comment, if anything, demonstrates your own biases and apparent unwillingness to deal with criticism. While I thank you for your clarification, I also believe it reasonable to note that what may well be one of your most substantial problems, an unfortunately high opinion of yourself and your regularly making at best unwarranted incivil comments to others, seems to be continuing unabated, and that cannot reflect well for you. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@John Carter: I am willing to be mentored. I am willing to work better with editors. But I currently don't see that happening right now, if, with very very limited evidence, the accusations of sock puppetry continue-with the constant threat of a ban looming, it is hard to work effectively. Petergstrom (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure I see "accusations of sockpuppetry." I see a statement from her that she might be collecting evidence for a sockpuppet investigation, which is rather a different matter entirely. There isn't a great deal anyone can do about editors doing such off-wiki - trust me on this as someone who has repeatedly been advised of collection of information against him by others. ;) On that basis, the "constant threat of a ban looming" also seems to be at least a bit of an overstatement. The best way to minimize any such risks might be to try to focus at least in the short term on some non-controversial articles and/or make a point of proposing changes on talk pages and getting support there before making them. There are a lot of WP:GNOME-like tasks which one could easily do to help make him more familiar with a broader range of content and other pages, which also might give that person a better grasp of "standard procedures" of a sort. And there are, presumably, a massive number of articles on books or authors in almost all topics which meet notability requirements but don't exist yet. Any such actions might be useful and probably less likely to lead to controversy. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Bearing in mind that "CU is not magic pixie dust", I simply don't believe this is a new editor, which is the only argument that seemed acceptable to me for not imposing a topic ban. Given that, a topic ban is quite a reasonable sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I actually see two proposed topic bans here, medicine and religion. Could you be a bit more specific about which proposal(s) you are supporting? John Carter (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I see one topic ban in the proposal, "a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed." Now some people may object to one part of it or the other, and if I had wanted to do so, I would have, but my !vote was on the proposal as originally stated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and my apologies. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - (conditional) *If* Petergstrom was sincere when he said "I am willing to be mentored. I am willing to work better with editors., and *if* both sockpuppet investigations are closed without showing abusive socking (it now appears that will be the result), and *if* a volunteer can be found to mentor him on behavioral and interaction issues raised above, then a ban should be postponed. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Xenophrenic, and anyone else reading, the Petergstrom account being in a different continent does not mean that he is not Pass a Method. Keep in mind that Pass a Method was last identified in a sock investigation in 2014 and that it is now 2017. Because of statements by Pass a Method in the past, I considered that he had moved, which is why I noted that Petergstrom might be interested in having a CheckUser confirm that he is no longer in the United Kingdom. Sock investigations are not solely based on the CheckUser data; they are also based on the behavioral data. Sometimes solely on the behavioral data. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive for an example of a case where the CheckUser data was put ahead of the behavioral data and I then had to compile more behavioral data just to get the sock blocked. All that stated, if you believe that Petergstrom can be reformed, and it seems that you do, I hope that you are right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22 – I hear you. I don't feel like I have really made up my mind about this, but I tend to think that this is a matter of WP:ROPE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support limited-time topic bans while noting that I am WP:Involved with the blocked user whose sock Petergstorm is accused of being. I'm not convinced Flyer22 got the right master, but the user's claims to be a newbie haven't convinced me either. I support the medical topic ban based on Jytdog's report of interactions above, and the religion topic ban based on this edit war in which the user uses a tabloid source to add a new section immediately after the Lead retroactively diagnosing a Catholic saint with a psychotic disorder. (The material could have been appropriate with secondary sourcing further down in the article, but not in it's own "Mental health" section without lots of high quality sources.) Also per similar bizarre edit wars on Jesus [6] and Moses [7] ~Awilley (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment While User:Petergstrom is facing a topic ban on articles related to medicine and religion, broadly construed, he just continued edit warring on one of the same articles that brought him here! I think this demonstrates that he is unwilling to change and seek guidance. I therefore support a topic ban (and probably a block) because I think it's necessary for him to slow down.--Jobas (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just wanted to show the complete list of recent aggressive edits that were made by User:Petergstrom on the Religiosity and intelligence page [8] (from February 2 2017 mainly and up to February 14 2017) . On February 2 2017, User:Petergstrom disregarded the warnings, by at least 2 editors, that he had violated the 3RR. When User:Renzoy16 made the following edit summary "Removed information is relevant; User:Petergstrom has crossed WP:3RR" User:Petergstrom reverted with the following edit summary "I took it to talk, nobody cares. In actuality you have crossed 3RR" and continued to revert despite being notified by User:Renzoy16 and User:Jobas already.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support my impression from what I find in this huge time-sink/thread is that this editor's behavior, if permitted to continue unchecked, will lead to more huge time-sink/threads on this page. I'm seeing far too much WP:IDHT and POV-pushing, and far too little respect for the viewpoints of others. Lepricavark (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support based on recent history of remarkably unilateral changes to the Religiosity and intelligence page, a pattern of behavior which I seem to remember was also characteristic of PaM. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Note: Further to Flyer's response to the Oppose (Conditional) above. this also appears to be a case where CU was taken over Behavioural.

• Support: Alongside the note above, Peter's response about taking it to talk and nobody caring? Rubbish. Why's he getting reverted if it's the case that nobody cares? Besides, why can't you move onto something else related to the topic while you wait for responses, I know pages that can take months for replies and don't complain! I think a Boomerang is in order. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 19:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support a limited-time topic ban. Peter's edits on religious topics show a tendency to make edits which are problematic for several reasons - WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:LAWYER, particularly. Working and playing well with others are core values for wikipedia editors. Giving Peter some time to think about why he's not allowed to edit in those topics is a good thing, he'll have the whole rest of wikipedia to hone his getting along with others skills. I am not persuaded by the analysis of edits presented to support the sockpuppetry accusation, but I don't need to be to support this sanction. Peter, please take advantage of the fact you're still editing at all to consider why we're doing this. Nothing personal, just WP:drop the stick, for your own sake. loupgarous (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comments: It looks to me like this ANI filing by Petergstrom was a preemptive strike, because he has clearly been stalking Flyer22 and was about to be reported at ANI for it. There is zero evidence that Flyer has harassed Petergstrom, and there is abundant evidence the other way around, and there is also substantial behavioral evidence that Petergstrom may be a sockpuppet. That said, I don't know what the correct sanction should be. At this point, it does not seem like Petergstrom is an asset to the encyclopedia.

  I will proffer some advice to Flyer22: Bad things happen when content discussions occur on usertalk pages. Stay off of usertalk pages, and in the future things like this (retaliatory stalking) will not occur. (And don't ever accuse someone of being a sockpuppet: File an SPI, or not; otherwise keep your mouth shut.) All content disputes should only ever be discussed and resolved on article-talk or project-talk. It's that simple.

  That said, I think a fairly lengthy or indefinite block for Petergstrom for disruption may be more (or equally as) appropriate than a topic ban at this point. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC); edited 01:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on both subjects. Medicine and religion are two serious fields and vandalism should be taken very seriously, especially there. Unfortunately we seem to be giving too much leeway for an editor who has not demonstrated that they deserve an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. I don't see their use here after all this drama. I would also promote a lengthy block as an appropriate response to this behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both topic bans for six months (or indefinitely, appealable in six months). User has made too many sweeping unexplained or inadequately explained changes to articles in both of these areas even after this topic ban was proposed. Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation

For those wondering why I have called Petergstrom a sock or what evidence I have, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I must give you props for the compilation of information on all of this. I am sure it took lots of time to collect. I also looked at Jytdog's comments on another sockpuppet investigation. I agree with Jytdog that the initial edits show some familiarity with how Wikipedia is used. Also the familiarity with some WP policy, including sort of frequent use of noticeborads - which most Wikipedians never really use, strikes me as not dealing with a someone new to wikipiedia. The edits mentioned by Flyer22 Reborn do show some similarity in style to some other past accounts such as the outlining style and similar interests in medicine and religion. I am inclining to agree that some sort of sockpuppetry may be at play. Normally, new editors learn some lesson after being blocked, but the recurrent blocking and alerting that has occurred from other editors seems to show experience with the process and also how to make a defense for it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Behavioral data (analysis of the putative sock's edits) in this case strike me as equivocal, and don't establish or exclude sockpuppetry. That user might be a former user other than Petergstrom. If the CheckUser contradicts the behavioral data, WP:ROPE is indicated, not sockpuppetry sanctions. I'd hate the project to rely on subjective impressions over less equivocal evidence such as CheckUser when imposing sanctions of any sort against anyone. That's what the analysis of the behavioral evidence in this case looks like to me. loupgarous (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I second everything said by loupgarous, behavioural evidence is always 'balance of probability', in this case I am only persuaded of 'possibility' (on the strength of what has been presented to date).Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking for broader community input

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
There has been a recent discussion on my talk page which I would appreciate if you could go take a look at (User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi#Second eye..) for the full picture. But in summary, we have User:MilenaGlebova1989 who has created 154 short articles on individual Yoga positions (or 'asanas'). Winged Blades of Godric and Cyphoidbomb are doubtful they are notable, are poorly sourced- mostly WP:PRIMARY- and ought to be redirected to our List of asanas article. There being so many qualifies them, I suggest, for this single, centralised discussion to take place.
So in the interest of wider discussion, in appreciation of the benefits that 'the intervention of administrators and experienced editors' can bring (and hoping someone will know of a means of mass-redirecting if that is indeed the conclusion), here we are. No particular administrative action is requested- except, again, if there are tools available to redirect en masse- although it is probably worth noting that if this had been replied to, something could have been worked out earlier and we may not have to be here now. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect - As I noted on Fortuna's talk page, if this were a single article, I would have redirected to the List of asanas article on the basis that independent notability had not been properly established, but given that we're talking about 154 or so cookie-cutter stubs, it seems a massive undertaking to perform without discussion--and frankly, without help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect--As the iniator of the discussion, I find zero-notability in these standgalone stubs and propose an en-masse redirect to List of asanas. Winged Blades ^Godric 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: These articles contain images with promotional watermarks[9] that were originally published under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0). If I understand correctly we cannot (yet) re-license them under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Creative commons says: "The 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike allows contributions to be licensed under under a “Creative Commons Compatible License,” defined to mean licenses approved by CC as essentially equivalent to the 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike license. To date, CC has not approved any other licenses as compatible. However, CC will develop a compatibility process shortly following launch of the 4.0 licenses."[10] Also see:[11]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect, absolutely. Having spot checked a dozen of the articles I didn't find a single one that did more than mention the name of the pose, as well as some WP:NOTHOWTO violating advice and a list of titles (with amazon.com links for refs) of books that describe it - no indication of notability, and the articles look like spam magnets for various publications that mention them. It may even be the case that they were created in order to name-drop the author of the book and website that the images were taken from, given that all the images appear to have the same source - the same user has created articles about both the author and the book, in addition to all the asanas. (If so, we should be grateful that there are only 154 articles, given that the book apparently lists more than 2000 of them...) --bonadea contributions talk 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good note about the spam potential, Bonadea. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much Bonadea: does this kind of thing increase google hits, or something, d'you think? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 07:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is likely that some SEO people believe that it does, anyway - I have very little idea of how google's rankings work, but spamming the name of a person or product to various pages is something I see happen occasionally. That's not a reason in itself to delete the pages I guess, but it makes my spam spider senses go all tingly... --bonadea contributions talk 21:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yo, Cyphoidbomb... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over removed material

A few days ago I've started editing Tourism in Georgia (country) article, I study tourism in university and thanks to that background tried to find every useful material what is in connection with Georgian Tourism. You can see how the article enlarged after my updates and new materials before and after. Working on the article I decided that it will also useful to include UNWTO classification for Georgia, in a tourism industry and reports this classification is wide used since UNWTO is the main tourism international organization. In that classification, you can see tourist arrivals, receipts, annual change and many other things. In general, the classification shows how strong or weak is a country in comparison to its neighbors or world countries. Here you can see about what material is the dispute ►[12]. After some time appeared User:Chipmunkdavis and made some improvements but he also removed that material about UNWTO classification. As I understood from his summaries he underestimates that international organization's role (maybe mostly because of incompetence in tourism). I restored his remove and opened discussion on his talk page. You can see that discussion's result. Instead of cooperating with me and having good faith he 3 times reverted (1, 2, 3) that material violating WP:3RR, he could ask me for more explanations but his only goal was revert and remove. Also, he thinks that this material is there only for Georgia's promotion as the European country, and he also said that is why I removed Asian category, but I wrote why I did so because according to the WTO classification Georgian tourism industry is a part of European tourism. You can see that in the end, I tried luck to solve the dispute without a third party but his answer convinced me that further discussions will not have a result and will be only edit-wars. One thing that really irritates is his position that he is master of wiki content and his the only truth and others have no rights or importance, you can place tons of arguments but none will be heard. He claimed that UNWTO classification is not used and it is not important (why?). In favor of me, I have my tourism study background and this excel file of Georgian National Tourism Administration's report where countries are classified under the UNWTO classification what once more proves that this classification is important and Chipmunkdavis is wrong. All in all what does wrong the material? it gives more information about particular country's positions in its tourism region, I think a problem is when we have a lack of information than information in details.--g. balaxaZe★ 13:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Giorgi Balakhadze, content disputes are not resolved here. See WP:DR for your options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN yes I tried it first but they redirected me here because the case is not only about pure edits. Please do not close so fast.--g. balaxaZe★ 16:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Giorgi Balakhadze, you have zero posts on the article's talk page and opened a totally inappropriate DRN case solely accusing the other editor of wikihounding. You need to actually follow the dispute resolution process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN see here my first discussion at WP:DR: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_147#User_talk:Chipmunkdavis.23WP:WIKIHOUNDING. That wikihounding was said because of a lot of past patterns when the user was appearing after my edits (even archiving his talk page at the same time as me) and was changing them in his manner. The rest is said above.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So where to go? I just want to settle this case.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze: I've highlighted the relevant portions of the comment to you: " Report harassment or hounding at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. If there is a content issue, discuss it on an article talk page." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN how to discuss the content issue with an involvement of other experienced editors? That article is not so popular. Anyway I want to discuss this case with admins to prevent future repeats. I am sure without this there will be a lot of similar cases.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze: Admins have no more authority in resolving disputes than any other editor. They have to abide by the exact same rules, so discussing it here first won't help anything. Please discuss it at the article talk first, and feel free to post a neutral invitation to come participate on the talk page of any relevant WikiProject. That should attract enough other editors to get things handled. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze:, how to discuss the content issue with an involvement of other experienced editors? Not by using ANI for that purpose. The WP:DR link gives you the proper options. Start by using the article's talk page. Ask for a WP:30. Open a WP:RFC or go to WP:DRN if those options prove fruitless. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay I will try your suggestions. Just to mention I've used that user's talk page to solve the problem, the issue is caused not mainly by material but by his attitude.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Giorgi Balakhadze: Here are your options: You can go back to DRN and focus on content, not contributors. Any accusations of misconduct must be left out of it, but you can focus on the actual content dispute there. Otherwise, we can look into your allegations of Wikihounding here. Wikihounding is a form of harassment and, of course, we would never expect a user who is actually being stalked and harassed to engage in good faith dispute resolution with someone who's distressing them. However, you must provide evidence about the Wikihounding. You'd need to at least show us examples of how this editor is following you. If you can substantiate those concerns, of course we will help you. However coming to ANI and making bad faith accusations against an established editor in good standing with no evidence to back it up will not result in a warm welcome. Swarm ♠ 18:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Swarm I do not like to make reports about other people because they cause negative and I try to not make personally negative things. I had many confrontations with that user and he is "like controling" my edits. Of course I can start digging in histories and can find many examples of when he was appearing just after my edits but I hope this personal warning will make him stop such behaviour. --g. balaxaZe★ 18:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Giorgi Balakhadze has opened an RfC at Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country)#User Chipmunkdavis' dispute about UNWTO classification. In my view, it does not evidence a good reading of WP:RFC, and nor does it "focus on content, not contributors". I do think there are behavioural problems here. This is part of a continuous trend of misunderstanding or ignoring Wikipedia policy and guidelines (despite lecturing others on them), an unwillingness or inability to improve on that, and an unhelpful repetitive comments on contributors and appeals to authority (both in evidence here) that are not conducive to discussion. Tellingly, their participation in discussions rarely seems to last long. This has been going on for years now, and it would be nice to have some action taken on it. CMD (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze: I have closed that completely inappropriately worded RFC. Your misuse or incorrect use of various processes is now bordering on becoming disruptive editing. It is expected that editors read the all the instructions for implementing a process. You don't have to get all the little details right, but in this case "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" is in bold, simply written, and is expanded in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. You are welcome to open a new RFC if you can follow these instructions. Chipmunkdavis, do you have any diffs to show this is an ongoing issue with Giorgi Balakhadze? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What diffs are you looking for, and how far back? There have been various reports in different noticeboards (searched here), which contain relevant diffs, and I hope to some extent the posts in this latest series of events speaks for themselves somewhat.

The last time they posted on my talkpage it was a similar aggressive statement and a demand to use the talkpage when they hadn't touched it themselves ([13]), followed by an apparent threat to involve a wider audience([14]). Similarly relevant to this discussion, they've accused other users of wikihounding before([15][16]). The wider pattern is that they are extremely confrontational. They regularly accuse others of POV editing or similar ([17][18][19][20][21]), say others are lying ([22][23]), and call edits they disagree with vandalism ([24][25]([26]->[27])[28][29]). This takes place while they regularly change things to fit their POV (here's a dif where they call it "minor changes"), and say things like "In Armenian literature you can find many things that are far from truth". They also like to accuse others of edit warring, an interesting example being where they told someone off for edit warring with them ([30]) and then denied edit warring themselves ([31]). All this while telling others things such as that they don't understand Wikipedia policy ([32]). Complementing all this, as well as in their comments on other editors (such as in this discussion), there's a lot of WP:POT. The general tone of their contributions is easily seen by looking through their contributions. These diffs were all taken from their last 1000 edits, however warnings noting to not edit war and use the article talkpage go back to 2013 ([33]). CMD (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Putting many diffs without context isn't fair thing, I can defend all of the diffs and answer for all of them if one will have special questions. But here is one thing, your diff-readdines clrearly shows that you are wikihourding me even for me would be hard to find all my past edits and to show them is such way, I guess you are collecting and bookmarking all of them. Once more I will repeat what you show to users is a complete misrepresentation. Also what means 2013? That time I was new in wiki and had no idea about rules. Maybe better to speak about your violation of rules?He behaves very unfriendly and unfair. CMD you can revert other users but if I revert vandalism that is bad thing? I will repeat I can answer separately for each diff if someone will be interested.--g. balaxaZe★ 18:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Also if you involve Louisaragon here let me tell to the audience that you both were making intrigues against me and I wasn't tagged it was an intrigue of two users against third one, is it normal here?--g. balaxaZe★ 19:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

When I add some new materials or update existing you simply reverting it and will revert them once twice until other part will not stop but not you, you alwas push your view as the most right and correct and think that other users have no rights. That tourism classificaiton issue clearly shows that you reverted them just because you want like that and you can remove sourced contribution with a summary similar to "In my mind it is inappropriate" and that's all. This is very irritative and causes all of this.--g. balaxaZe★ 19:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)\

Your first summary when reverting: Rv map which conveys little if anything, and rv ridiculous overrepresentation of one organisation's administrative divisions. Yep, those are well written and cast-iron arguments.--g. balaxaZe★ 19:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I would have to say, having "endured" Giorgi Balakhadze's editorial pattern for a decent amount of time now, that its marked by extreme hostility, hot-headedness, no control over temper, and, perhaps most importantly (I'd say this is the root of the whole story) clear IRL grievances related to the political situation surrounding the country of Georgia, which he imports into Wiki. Its so apparant, there's simply no doubt about it. I will add that this is something that's going on for quite some time now as well. Everyone who disagrees with said user, will receive the full load from him at some point. These diffs are still pretty recent for example;

• "(...) maybe before your shameless intrigues you first talk to me a?"[34]
• "(...) so please have more dignity"[35]
• "(...) he tries to show me from the negative side and he lies ".[36]
• "Be sure Aragon if you continue behaving like this (POV based intrigues) and "throwing" to me dirty I will ask admins to review this case, to make special efforts and to call down your appetite in attempts to block me."[37]

Earlier examples, alike content;

• "You are lying".[38]
• "THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT GEORGIA IN ITS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS AND EVERYONE MUST ADMIT THIS."[39]
• "Sorry but you need more knowledge to understand what means imagined lines".[40]
• "You won't afraid no one with this cheap pathos about sanctions and my "POV".[41]

- LouisAragon (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Of course LouisAragon has appeared here, it would be pitty to miss such a chance right? As I said above those two users were involved in intrigue to blame to me that I am a sock-puppet (idea was LouisAragon's) and to achive a goal to see me blocked (because I cause trouble to them). Here you can see whole discussion without cuting some parts from a context as above mentioned users do [42]. This made me very angry and I answered to them after that LouisAragon even reportd me (because they like to report other users) but his misrepresentations and intrigues were ignored [43] (when something isn't true and one does it to fool people semantic meaning of this action is "a lie").
• Also, now I will start diging in history and will show to people that this is not a battle of a devil and angels. There is nothing new that all talks are around Georgia because I edit mainly about Georgia. Those two users have some kind of agenda towards it and do to Georgian-connected artilces biased edits but not with Russia, Iran, Armenia, Abkhazia or South Ossetia. The first big collision with them appeared when they removed sockpuppet's useful materials from the article Georgia (before sockpuppet was not blocked they had some disputes with some parts of material, but after his block they reverted everything and everywhere dispite that many of the contribution was useful), removed material was measured in thousands of bytes. I was against remove of so many useful materials and opened disscussion here ►[44] where admins clearly said Edits by a sock or a blocked user don't have to be reverted.

• Regarding LouisAragon's copy-paste of my comments about conflict regions I can put his POV when he says "Abhkazia and South Ossetia being a part of Georgia" [45] which clearly shows that he is not neutral. Even by wiki standards they are conflict or disputed regions but LouisAragon considers them sovereing as Turkey, US or Germany.
• Also, I said LouisAragon has its agenda to show Georgia as non-European as possible [46] (notice: CMD's revert about tourism was also about the same issue)

• Regarding CMD in the article of Georgia he uses every wiki rule what exists but do not use them with other articles for example with Abkhazia or South Ossetia, see here filling of the article with "citation needed" templates (only Georgia) [47], [48] of course I am not against citations but this is also some kind of biased editing, many "citation needed" make article worse (dispite that material was true and after I've found sources for many on them). Here [49] I found that other users also had same example of CMD's censorship like I have now.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Giorgi, providing diffs when being asked for diffs is not removing context. Nor is it a matter of any great hardship for editors to scroll down to read the conversation leading up to particular diffs. In fact if they do so in the case you mention, they'll note that despite your assertions neither LouisAragon nor myself thought you were a sock-puppet. The mention of the sockpuppet edit conversation is demonstrates a another continued lack of understanding of policies and guidelines, focusing on a single line instead of understanding relevant context. And this really shouldn't have to be said, but here's me adding cn tags to the Abkhazia article ([50]). CMD (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

CMD I was impressed with so many cn templates with Georgia and comparing two cn templates with Abkhazia gives nothing, even now I can fill Abkhazia or South Ossetia with cn templates there is still enough empty spaces but in Georgia nothing was left.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That sockpuppet edit conversation clearly shows that what I was saying was proved by other editors (and it is not lack of understanding), it was not only my view that you both didn't have to remove all materials. My main idea was to keep useful materials, because I see wikipedia as a place of knowledge but not bureaucratic machine.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ehm. We never thought you were a sock. How on earth you came to that conclusion, is beyond me. These responses once again clearly illustrate the point of this multi-faceted issue with said editor; its unfortunately far more than just a lack of understanding. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you were not direclty claiming that I am a sock-puppet but what you wrote there was clear fact of that you want to make intrigues to see those users blocked that have different view. You were disscussing that not with admins or someone else but with CMD and not tagging me (and as usually misrepresented reality).--g. balaxaZe★ 11:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, it is not you who can speak about others competence when you have such background [51] and speak to other user like this

It seems to me you have severe inferiority complexion like many diasporean Afghans, wich is quite understandable given the shitty history and reputation it has, and the shithole it still is nowadays. Pure barbarianism, tribalism, perpetual refugees, being ruled by foreigners for millennia, and child molesting seems to be interchangeable with people from that region.[52]--g. balaxaZe★ 11:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not even gonna respond to this nonsense. It's time for further admin action handling, cause this is going absolutely nowhere, as always with said user. We've reached that typical point just like with those editors who have issues with moderators at ANI, and then start picking 3-4-5-6 y/o diffs (in general, old adressed diffs) of that moderator in question, in order to prove a point that they "can't say a thing about the editor". Lel - LouisAragon (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already said about you, your intrigues, misrepresentations and biased editing. The last diff was to answer your accusation that you are not a measure of someone's competence. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Request to enforce breach of agreement

I am coming here following a small peregrination to ask to just enforce a breach of agreement by editor Asilah1981, much in accordance with his incident history and long-running incongruous/erratic behaviour. After I posted a report here,[53] my request was turned down for not being the right place, and was referred here by Peacemaker67.

The editor in question was given the opportunity to avoid an incremental block by accepting an alternative, more constructive sanction, 3 month mentoring (see incident below) for which me and Wee Curry Monster, familiar with his activity showed an scepticism, in a way that the mentoring agreement has been equally breached eventually by the editor, as detailed by the voluntary mentor User:Irondome, here [54] and here [55]. This arrangement resulted after a very long, unpleasant Incident for personal attacks, [56] while at the same time he was being indefinitely blocked for WP:OUTING, ultimately lifted after the administrator trusted the editor. He has lately blanked his personal page. [57]

Other editors involved are shown in the latest ANI. User:Iryna Harpy is now busy off wiki and has been notified, she may not turn up. I should also ping Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok, although they may consider they have said all they had to say by now.

I should ask for a termination to the account as the only solution to continuous disruption to the Wikipedia. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to tell that you've done a terrible job of explaining the problem. Could you please provide links demonstrating a current problem with this user's editing? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox and anyone else You are all welcome to carefully examine my editing history over the past couple of months here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Asilah1981. For the record, I have had three unsubstantiated sockpuppetry accusations launched by this editor against me linking me to random editors and have lost counts of his ANIs and attempts to get me permanently blocked, most recently a few days ago. I'm not particularly concerned by this fixation but if WP:BOOMERANG doesn't apply here, I don't know when it does. Asilah1981 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually did have a quick look at some of your recent edits, in an effort to understand the basis of this report, but didn't find any "smoking gun". From what I can tell, the idea here is that because your mentorship didn't work out, Iñaki LL thinks that automatically means you get blocked. While it's a shame that it didn't work out, WP:NOTBURO would seem to apply, you don't currently seem to be causing any real problems so there's no reason to block. Unless Iñaki LL can clarify why this is needed right now, I would advise them to just leave you alone and find soemthing more productive to do with their time. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It would help Iñaki LL's editing experience if they did not continually assume that a disagreement is a personal attack. A recent revert on their userpage has the edit summary "unconstructive, gratuituous personal attack" when it was clearly nothing of the sort. Saying does not make it so. Basically, the lesson here is not to try and use dramahboardz and edit summaries as weapons of war. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 08:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I do not have the loads of time Asilah1981 seems to collect all the evidence, or dedicate as he does to litigation and removal of content on the WP in key topics related to present-day Spanish politics and history. The agreement was an alternative to a block, enforcement applies when someone skips sanction. I was suggested I add the link of the previous ANI, where there is lots of information, and came here for enforcement. The editor in question adapts continually, brings up the same parroting (I was accused...), and it has had consequences if you check his history. Other times there were technicalities involved, and I talked previously about my disappointment with the use of Checkuser for sockpuppeting.

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Please be fair with me and the evidence, compare us both's history and collect all the data. That aggressive, gratuitous edit in my talk page [58] suggesting some kind of collusion with the Nazis (apart from being disgusting) came just after litigation with Asilah, in his former confrontational manners, when it could just have been posted on the talk page of the topic in question. It is funny that you say it was a disagreement, it was an attack, check also this with Asilah1981's similar citing of the Nazis.[59] or this [60] (here, "libel" as discussed in the previous ANI does not refer to anything legal). By the way, I consider the latest editor's tone in his talk page to be sarcastic [61], seeming to use all the mild tone he has learned lately, since he said he would have to "change his strategy" (cannot find the diff since he blanked his page at different stages), does not sound very reassuring. Now after being strongly recommended by Irondome to stay out of contentious topics,[62] now he breaches the agreement, he comes back with an attempt to remove an article he does not like from WP,[63] so not having consequences for personal attacks (see latest ANI link above) seems to be playing perfect for him. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that their behavior actually has improved, but for the wrong reason. Even if you are correct, it doesn't matter. Also, the diffs you are providing are old. Either provide evidence that there is a problem now that merits a block, or let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The OP is alluding to an earlier incident in which Asilah1981 sailed close to a permanent block as A) they had a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, B) indulged in personal attacks and were needlessly antagonistic. Mentorship was offered as an alternative to a block with a warning to abide by the terms of the mentorship or face a permanent block. The mentorship didn't work, Asilah basically did not keep their end of the bargain. See [64] where Irondome expressed his frustration. Since the withdrawal of the mentor we've not seen the same behaviour and I think this is basically tactical as Asilah has modified their tactics or is trying to stay under the radar. However, [65] is pretty typical of the old Asilah - he clearly isn't assuming good faith here. There isn't anything now that merits a block, I can understand Iñaki's frustration, but blocks are preventative rather than punative. I suggest WP:ROPE applies and when Asilah returns to the same behaviour is the time to bring up the previous discussion and failure of mentorship. WCM_email 12:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As Asilah1981's former mentor, all I can say here is that a call to sanction A in some way at this stage is unwise. It may well be that A has indeed modified his behaviours in the light of the events of dec-jan, and that the mentoring in some way focussed A's mind. (My withdrawal of mentorship was primarily due to the terms requiring liaison with myself being sloppily and poorly maintained, which in my view made the mechanics of the mentoring untenable). It may be for other reasons. Who knows? The major outcome is that Asilah's behaviour has become less of an issue than two months before. Unless Asilah's behaviours rapidly deteriorate in the future, I think we have nothing to discuss here, apart from revisiting old threads and living in the past. Let events take their course. Being an optimist, I would like to think that Asilah has indeed finally taken advice and the threat of severe sanctions seriously, and has acted accordingly on how they edit and interact. Irondome (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, let me disagree here, your outlook is overall a positive one for the WP as I see it, but sorry in this case it is doing no good. A quick look to his recent history says it all. (Going through this at the bottom of this edit) Re Wee Curry Monster, that is what I thought for a period, but does that really work out when the editor in question is left to continue for months or years? The thing is that in exchange of this imaginative alternative to a block, as I was fearing, and I think you WCM also were thinking so, the punished has been me (us, the community), in that the breach of sanction goes unpunished, and I happened to detect further irregular editing early on (below). He has also seen a free rein to get into the contentious topics he was discouraged from [66] and does what he wants, basically, while I am now spending hours involved in this negativity that two years ago was infrequent rather than common, and is dampening the spirits of not only me but droves of other productive editors.

Just a quick note on the link above brought up by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I perceived immediately the animosity in the intervention of that editor, out of the blue I should say, but decided to WP:LETITGO with a short talk on the article's talk page, in a way that now that editor's version is the one that remains in the article...

Some evidence of irregular editing by Asilah1981 (with his new milder tone) I happened to find lately, e.g. in Basque conflict: altering content of sources when nothing is said of the claimed statement in the reference, [67] just after ending the latest Incident in January. In Basque National Liberation Movement: adding POV/OR comment, [68] going in the talk page that “I will add the sources” (well, do it! WP:BURDEN, plus WP:FORUM), [69] when he is claiming to be an 'experienced' editor, for which he was quick to remove a notice to his talk page, added by WMC, off the top of my head (check history anyway). Well that does not look to me a proper experienced editor if his behaviour is anything to go by, after months of discussions, notices and warnings to him in article talk pages and his own talk page, as well as ANI Incidents. It reveals, as I pointed before, a total, recurrent inability to take responsibility for his own actions, and emphasis on POV.

Very recently in Bullfighting, he tests the patience of editors to the limit, recurrently, time and again, see here lately [70] [71] (when he was breaching agreement with the community and Irondome). I seems to thrive in litigation and discussions, and needs to bring attention. See also clear removal of accurate verified content with misleading edit summary in this article, [72] looking rather WP:JDLI, or breach of WP:CENSOR. Sorry this is far from proper editing after all. I should ping Cyphoidbomb and Joefromrandb who have an experience lately with Asilah1981 if they think they can also add something. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

My only observation on the editor's recent behavior (at Bullfighting) was that they launched into an edit war after being encouraged to discuss their changes. "There is no real need to take to talk. It is not even a question for debate." Clearly it was a questino for debate, if there was another editor (Joefromrandb) who disagreed. Protecting the article got the editor onto the talk page for discussion and that seemed to go okay, although with a few bumps from both parties. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This complaint seems ridiculous to me. I found Cyphoidbomb editing an article and then locking it to be far worse than anything Asilah did. Whatever problems Asilah may have caused at the bullfighting article, the end result was a better article. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Listen, what I bring is evidence, I saw irregular editing by Asilah1981 (link I added above) and saw you were later reverting each other, with yourself claiming that you are getting tired of his editing ("inline text-citation" required, a perfect claim sticking to WP policies, you complained for his "trollish" behaviour...), so I refer to your edit summary. I do not know what the result of your discussion was to be honest. I also confirm the breach of WP:AGF (How many times?) pointed by WCM here [73]. I also add Asilah1981's latest edit here, with his customary nonconstructive editing, sticking to his personal political obsessions, like here,[74] where the editor shows a clear bias, skipping the main information by the Guardian ("the Basque separatist leader released after six years" [75], to obsessively emphasize his points (a convicted ex-ETA member, ETA this, ETA that, kidnapping, it really sounds like the Spanish government's obsession... everything is ETA...). This kind of behaviour also happened before in this very article when he tried to skip information on torture to Joseba Arregi (died). In fact, after his latest editing on Arnaldo Otegi, we still do not know that he was being released and was not a prisoner anymore, the main point is omitted (keeps calling him "a convicted"). Do not get me wrong, I am fine with adding details that may be relevant if they are in the source, but his editing is very questionable and contentious. And that just after he proposed the article for deletion after breach of agreement.

The only pedagogy I see effective here is an indefinite or incremental block as the only consistent, didactic response, and avoid further unnecessary litigation. Actions have consequences in whatever life situation, on and off WP. Other than that he is taking the EN WP for granted: he was given a constructive alternative to a block for a personal attack (calling me "a terrorist"), a sanction, an agreement among wikipedians, and he breached it, he breached the trust, got away with it, and nothing is happening but myself being in a peregrination to ask for enforcement and engaged in this kind of editing I do not like. The situation is turning embarrassing, even farcical, and not for me, but for the English Wikipedia. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line is he seems to be trying. You can't expect perfection overnight, or at all, for that matter. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I think I did not add the recent breach of AGF on top of that brought by WCM, see here [76] (I hope I did it right this time!) By the way, I reverted him in the Basque MLNV prisoners, for not adding edit summary in this sensitive article, a recommended practice of which he was informed in his talk page formerly at least two times by me and another editor. Regardless, keeps going his own way Iñaki LL (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a line and, for the most part, Asilah has avoided crossing it, but not always. Asilah has already been advised not to engage in canvassing yet s/he does exactly that here, asking for the support of another editor who has backed them up in the past in a controversial AFD. That's highly problematic behaviour. Valenciano (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A neutrally worded invitation to an AFD is not usually regarded as canvassing. However, this comment [77] is worrying, its rather evident that this user still doesn't get it. Still not enough to warrant a permnanent block yet. WCM_email 11:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Valenciano, WCM. Guys, come on, enough with this... Valenciano, I'm engaging with you positively in the AfD which I have the right to launch since there are serious concerns with that article. Maybe I shouldn't have (neutrally) asked Asqueladd for his opinion (he gave it to me privately on my talk page), WP:CANVASS is not clear on when/how you can do so. WCM note I'm backing off Gibraltar related issues and its not a strategy, I just understood how to behave on wikipedia, as you did in the past when you had similar behavioral problems. The Gib topic also bores me somewhat now. I also don't know where this idea of barring me from "sensitive" articles comes from. I edit articles where I find things are seriously wrong and need improvement. There are sensitive editors, clearly. Not sensitive articles. Also WCM, I know you and I don't get along but you are a brit and must see why I'm doing this AfD. Imagine a similar article about "Irish Liberation Movement prisoners" written in a similar way, you would not stand for it.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There were such articles Asilah, still are, but I don't edit based on nationalism. Your comment there speaks volumes; you edit based on your belief on what is right not what is neutral. WCM_email 12:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

WCMMan, had I written that you would have posted the diff everywhere as a personal attack (it's not for me, I have thicker skin I guess). I'm not a nationalist, I'm a Sephardic Jew from Northern Morocco who has lived many years in Spain and has developed a close connection to and deep understanding of that country, yes. I have political views, yes (surprisingly I don't really have them about what you and I fight about, whether you believe me or not). I have lived in the UK too and I also love your country a lot. But I also try to be NPOV as per my own understanding. Where I see manipulation or false information, I tend to get involved. Maybe you feel the same way about your own editing. No one holds the absolute truth and sometimes we end up fighting simply on the basis of our dislike for one another. Look at Inaki, he just stated today that individuals convicted of assassinating hundreds of civilians and injuring, maiming thousands more are political prisoners and victims of an oppressive state. There is no way I'm going to convince him otherwise. Its a belief which is core to his identity. Everyone has a subjective take on things and that is why edit conflicts exist on wikipedia and that is why political violence exists outside of wikipedia. Main thing is we stick to the rules, but I guess they are rules of engagement. The underlying discussions can't just go away. There is also a fair share of nutjobs on wikipedia. There is one Melroross guy who appears every now and then and I have no idea how to deal with him.... Anyways, I think I should stop editing as much. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you deliberately pinging me after being requested repeatedly to stop? That's a distinctly WP:DICKish move and unlikely to convince me you've reformed. WCM_email 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. No, not deliberate. I didn't know if you were following this page. I don't know why it bothers you so much, though. I wish people pinged me when discussing me.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

He takes now to alienating me after he tried that days/weeks ago with Kahastok and WCM (see Irondome's talk page), again calling me whatever dawns on his mind, basically spitting out his frustrations/rage on me, and spreading a profound negativity, First of all, I did not say anything he says above, it is perverse and revolting, appealing to the most irrational, visceral instincts, this is what I said, [78], the rest belongs to his elaboration.

Secondly, he has left a message in Spanish on my talk page, something he has done before and I urged him not to do so, since this is the EN WP and I perceive it as intimidating, whatever he may want to say. (In the MLNV prisoners talk page he made another personal attack against me an year ago, also in Spanish) He says that: I am being a nag, that he is trying to work and that every time he gets in the WP, "you [plural] are back to the issue again, give it up, it diverts my attention a lot". Absolute rubbish, if you take a quick look you will realize immediately that is is him meddling in all the controversial issues, adding POV/OR comments, etc. Lastly, he removed a comment by Valenciano he may have found uneasy with, so he just decided to remove it straight from the ongoing discussion/thread. [79] It is irregular in a WP article talk, and at first sight it looks totally irregular also in an Article for deletion discussion. Maybe someone can enlighten us.

The editor above is anything but collaborative in sensitive issues, where he usually engages, he seems to have an inability to take responsibility for his own actions and is overtly confrontational when someone view things differently. (May I add, in the Basque Autonomous Community, few people share Asilah's ultra-nationalist, confrontational views) The tone of his statements has changed, yes, he changed his strategy, as he pointed in his talk page in early January, now blanked. Still he keeps spreading a negative cloud over very sensitive issues that makes any collaboration extremely difficult. I think enough is enough, this editor is out of control. I should upheld my request to an indefinite block to avoid WP:Harassment (he is calling me whatever comes to his mind, in Spanish or English, obviously to keep me at bay), to prevent further escalations, and keep a smooth, positive editing. Failing that a topic ban in Gibraltar (if WCM finds that suitable) and Basque related, as well as "MLNV" prisoners and Basque conflict. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually for the record, (and this is my last intervention here), Iñaki LL you actually did say what I said above in this diff [80] where you write that these individuals convicted, for the most part, for murder are "just Basque prisoners victims of state repression. It may be ETA members, or it may be a journalist, like here, or Arnaldo Otegi, it is basically about Basques the state sees as a threat". We both know that the tens of thousands of Basques who were killed, injured, left widowed or orphaned, extorted, intimidated or forced to leave the Basque country for not sharing your political views would beg to differ. I know the Basque Country well and I know the reign of terror they imposed on its society, to the point that even today people feel uneasy discussing politics openly unless they belong to your end of the political spectrum. I do not have or want to accuse you of anything. You make your views patently clear. You have defined this collective of people convicted for political violence directed, for the most part, at Basque civil society as "victims of state repression". It doesn't offend me since I am neither Basque nor Spanish and no one in my family has been killed by or suffered at the hands of your so-called "victims". I am not leveling any personal attack or accusation against you, as you have been doing against me in these crazy ANIs which waste everyone's time. It just annoys me you want me eliminated from Wikipedia for disagreeing with your political stance and for opening an AfD on an article which has inherent WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues. I have to say, it is a very familiar pattern. Asilah1981 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not interested in your elaborations, your WP:BATTLEGROUND, and corrupt full-time for the WP. Bye. (Thanks for not pinging me) Iñaki LL (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Recommend closure of this thread. The complaint of the OP was vague, wordy, insufficient, and unsanctionable, and continued to be so. Both editors have had their say; both have been at least indirectly admonished; there is no current cause for overt sanction; and things are shaping up to be merely a content dispute(s), which should be dealt with via normal means (discussion and consensus on the talkpage of the relevant article[s], and/or WP:DR). Both editors should assume good faith, stop insulting each other, discuss content matters civilly and collaboratively on the talkpages of the article(s), stay off each other's usertalk pages, and avoid tracking the other's edits. No one should be edit-warring, and if they are, they should be reported to WP:ANEW. If all else fails, just avoid the other editor; let things work themselves out as they generally will on Wikipedia without our own interference or personal oversight. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Listen, this is my last intervention (sorry, I said that before) and I am fed up really. I may not be doing myself a favour by saying this, but at least I will be honest: I do not know if you have read anything or you have arrived on a satellite. If whatever I add here, you have made your decision with a quick overview, there is nothing I can do, no matter how many diffs I bring up here certifying irregular editing. Evidently the editor in question and me do not agree on POV, but my case has nothing to do with POV, it refers to a breach of sanction for a personal attack commited in order to pursue his goal of attempting a ban of an article, which he does with total safety. I respect his views, but he shows a complete inability to calmly discuss matters, and "treats" us with a visceral emotional rants where nothing, nothing substantial can be discussed.

My idea, besides my own views on each topic, is to guarantee that WP rules are complied at least in front my eyes, e.g. removal of verified content, with the same criteria that have been also applied to me. Assimilating me with this editor’s emotional rants where nothing can be discussed, his divisive/alienating attitude and his irregular editing is totally out of place, sets a very bad prededent, and what you are claiming about me and this reiterative infractor is just a guess for me (check the diffs, check personal histories). Although I do not want to run into this editor again, I foresee further escalation, not on content, but form. For Wikipedia purposes, the morale is clear for the infractor, breach a sanction and nothing happens. Very bad pedagogy for smooth, constructive WP editing, it is shameful really. (Thanks for not pinging me) Iñaki LL (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Again: vague, wordy, insufficient, and unsanctionable. The next time you file an ANI case against someone, it should be WP:DIFFs only, along with a brief (five- to ten-word) summary of each diff. You failed to do that in your OP or in the subsequent walls of text you have posted here, and now you are insulting my intelligence, and casting aspersions upon me, as well. Please re-read the very specific advice I posted above: [C]ontent disputes ... should be dealt with via normal means (discussion and consensus on the talkpage of the relevant article[s], and/or WP:DR). Both editors should assume good faith, stop insulting each other, discuss content matters civilly and collaboratively on the talkpages of the article(s), stay off each other's usertalk pages, and avoid tracking the other's edits. No one should be edit-warring, and if they are, they should be reported to WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

OVERLINKING and redirect problems

Fmadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fmadd is a (relatively) new user on Wikipedia, but has already created quite a big stir. In the past two weeks alone they have created over 250 redirects and DAB pages (and a total of 942 redirs since joining). While clearly they are not all bad, the majority are somewhat nonsensical (such as thermomagnetic, Scattering_event, and a couple of not-actually-DAB pages that have already been deleted). From looking down their creation list, it almost appears as if they say "I don't know what this means", put a wikilink, and then attempts to shoehorn in a redirect to something that is vaguely related.

I was going to drop this and walk away, but after seeing three subsequent similar posts at the user's page I feel obligated to bring it up here. In the last two months there have been 5 threads on their talk page regarding overlinking and a half-dozen notices left for pages listed for deletion. They have displayed a rather alarming NOTLISTENING attitude, brushing off attempts at correction to things like "Wikipedia should be a...resource for AI training", "the more links the better", and finishing it all up with "I am utterly amazed that this is controversial" (hint: when a dozen different editors say it's problematic, it might just be problematic). A similar discussion at WT:PHYS has also been started, with similar results. Minutes after I nominated Organic dye for deletion (it had zero incoming links) they created 50 incoming links in a clearly POINTY response. Similarly, they brushed off being told that linking to dab pages like stellar explosion was not overly helpful.

Fmadd is clearly not getting the point, which is why we're here. The overlinking needs to stop, and the wanton creation of barely-usable redirects needs to stop. While we shouldn't just delete every redirect they've created, there are a bunch of them that could use some serious scrutiny and a ton of overlinking that needs to be looked at. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have had conversations as well. To be fair: Fmadd is a relatively new user and has not yet fully grasped that Wikipedia is a community project that works by consensus. He thinks Wikipedia should operate the way he wants it to, not the way it does. I do not believe any sanction is warranted at the present time, but what is required is someone with a bit more clout than us humble users to firmly explain how things work around here. With any luck, that should solve the problem. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that being relatively new is a good reason to avoid sanctions here. 10 months isn't that new, especially with 10,000 edits (I've been on here for a little over 10 months and 11,000 edits, and I understand consensus, it's a fairly easy thing to understand). 1/3 of his edits were in the past month, but you should have a general idea on how Wikipedia works with that number of edits. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit bothered by the fact that although User:Fmadd has commented on their talk page about the discussion here, and has been very busy editing, they haven't responded here. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought this was a discussion between admins. Fmadd (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

All this fretting about over-linking, when it turns out there's already a script that can change the colour of links (e.g. .. controversial pages can be marked and they no longer 'compete for the users attention'). I said I was amazed it was contraversial, because I can imagine there are technical solutions. With whats there now you can indeed de-highlight 'contraversial' articles. I bet the script or server side software could be further modified to mark certain types of page 'trivial' within a domain (hence blanked out by default) (e.g. all physics articles dont highlight trivial physics terms, all ) etc. I got the impression this is more about a 'priestly cult' mindset. It's only by arguing I managed to discover the highlighting script (several days in, he knew about it all along..) Fmadd (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmadd/linkclassifier.css there's an example, I was able to modify that link-highlighter script to display 'articles marked for deletion' blanked out. Fmadd (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd, has made other kinds of problematic edits as well, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#User:Fmadd and destruction of article leads. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems like there might be some competency issues lurking about. If someone informs you that you are causing a problem, it's not a normal response to search for a technical solution that allows you to continue to cause the problem it's meant to solve. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

lol. as I thought, priestly cult mentality. Instead of improving a system, some people prefer to nit-pick, criticise others and so on. Thats why it was only many days into the discussion that someone finally told me there *is* actually already a way to colour code links by category. It would be easy to have a category of 'exploratory links', invisible by default, which are only visible if a user goes out of their way to highlight them with a custom colour scheme. Thats the first step, but imagine if wikipedia had a concept of 'prerequisites', where you could flag content according to what knowledge is pre-requisite, and dynamically blank content depending on what a user has clarified they already know. Fmadd (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd, you're missing the forest for the trees. We're telling you that per the Manual of Style, the overlinking guidelines, and (based on other conversations) SURPRISE and LEAD conventions, you should not be creating all of these redirects, and you are saying we need to start colour-coding our links better. In other words, you're missing the bloody point. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

missing the point... there's already a facility for colour coding. My intuition was, "it is surprising that we fret about overlinking". There must be a way to improve the system such that contributing information is never a problem. Fmadd (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No Primefac, I think you're the one missing the point. If we wrote a script that flipped all our articles around for us, then we could write everything backwards, and it would automatically fix it. But instead you want to be close minded and demand that we conform to your cult of directionality. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

nice straw man there. I'm talking about colour coding (which already exists) not writing articles backwards. Fmadd (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You sure are. TimothyJosephWood 19:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fmadd, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the central point here, which has nothing whatsoever to do with color coding. The concern is that redirects you are creating should not exist at all and you are adding unnecessary links in articles. You may be surprised that this is a real concern, but it is, and brushing it off by suggesting the rest of us use a script or whatever to mitigate it is not the correct response. You don't have to agree with the concern, but you are expected to respect the established policy and consensus on this issue. If you'd like to change the overlinking policy you are welcome to try, but unless and until such an effort is succesful you should abide by it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Fmadd, I agree with Beeblebrox. I'm going to ask you to stop adding links and creating redirects against current policy. You are very welcome to argue for changes in those policies, and to propose changes to the software to allow multi coloured links to facilitate those changes. But until you achieve a consensus that those policies should change, you must comply with them. Deliberately editing in contravention of policies just because you don't agree with them is disruptive. If you continue to do so, you will blocked from editing Wikipedia. WJBscribe (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I also think Fmadd just needs to slow it way down in general. They are editing so fast it is impossible to conceive that they are really thinking things through. I see formatting errors and creation of double redirects in just their last few edits, with no sign that they are even aware of them. There's no rush, and it's always better to think about what you are doing before you do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I rather fear that the double redirects are intentional, not accidental creations - see my comment below... WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've left them a warning. Regardless of if they're right or wrong (though they're wrong) editing practices should be checked until a resolution is reached. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's another example of the sort of problem this is creating - see Remote_control_(general). This appears to have been created by Fmadd on the basis that it will one day be a page with content (despite the fact that the disambiguator "(general)" is not used). See incoming links: [81] Numerous articles have had their links changed to point to Remote_control_(general). In addition several redirects have been changed to point to that page, apparently to deliberately create double redirects. This seems to be part of a master plan to restructure our articles about Remote controls and related topics. But instead of getting consensus to change that structure first, Fmadd has created a "web of redirects" to accommodate his vision of how the articles should be structured. WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As a note, I reinstated the declined speedy and cleaned up that mess. Triple redirects! WTF. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• A thought regarding this incredibly disruptive editing - their edits have to be undone individually; we can't just unlink all links to their silly redirects because they used to point to valid targets... what a friggin nightmare. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  I've read some (not all) of the discussions with Fmadd, and my take is that this is a user who not only doesn't get it, he doesn't want to get it. He's even trotted out that old saw, the cabal of admins, in the form of a "priestly cult". Frankly, I don't believe more argumentation with him is going to stop him doing what he intends to do, so I think it's time for admins to consider a sanction of some sort to stop him. My first choice would be an indef block that would not be lifted until he promised to undo the mess he made, but more kind-hearted souls might prefer a topic ban on creating redirects and making wikilinks - I just feel it's likely that he wouldn't follow it, and we'd be back at an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) see below. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Question 1: block or no?

Slight edit conflict with BMK above, but good timing I guess. First question is easy - if Fmadd refuses to accept the requests made here to alter their behaviour, do we block, or just impose a tban on creating redirects (i.e. a page-creation ban)? Primefac (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• tban on page creation. I think a while actually making productive edits will allow Fmadd to see why we do things the way we do. After six months or so they're welcome to request the return of their page-creation abilities. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked per their replies here. If this discussion "destroyed their faith in humanity" Wikipedia probably isn't for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• support indef. This isn't going to go well. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Question 2: all those pesky redirects

Fmadd has made a pretty big mess. The question becomes what to do about their past editing history. I see two main options.

Proposal 1 (slap on the wrist)

Fmadd's past redirect actions are (mostly) overlooked. Interested parties are welcome to comb through them and RFD/delete/edit/restructure as desired, but no "official" action takes place.

Proposal 2 (more involved response)

Fmadd's edits are all looked over by some sort of task force. Unnecessary redirects (such as Particle physics experiment and India gained independence) are deleted and the pages that linked to them are reverted to their pre-redirect status.

• Support and willing to help out. There are just too many ridiculous redirects to tie up at RFD. I think a well-documented task force page (similar to the SvG case) would allow for transparency and some measure of REFUND should a reasonable redirect be deleted. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• This is pretty much where we are at. Their stubborn refusal to even try and see the issue has now earned them a block, but there's still a mess to clean up. Beeblebrox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I will freely admit that I don't understand Fmadd's master plan, so I'd be useless in trying to help undo it - but let me ask this: is it not possible to simply run down his edits in the opposite order from which they were made, and arrive at a state before Fmass started his work? Yes, surely we would lose some edits which were actual improvements, but that seems like a small price to pay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, I wanted to propose a "nuclear" Proposal 3 wherein we do just that - roll back everything, delete everything, and pick up the pieces afterwards. I wasn't sure how well that would be taken, so I didn't propose it. I suppose the worst that can happen is it isn't acceptable, so I'll do so now. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (nuclear option)

Roll back all edits, delete all pages. Small team to go through and undelete the few pages that might have been useful.

• I would support this if it was changed a little bit:

1. List all created pages in userspace

2. Roll back all edits that were not on pages this user created

3. Review all pages in the userspace

4. Delete all unapproved pages in the userspace

We did the same thing with wp:x1 (with the exception of number 2), and it worked well, I think the same approach will work here. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That would work. I've already started compiling a list at User:Primefac/Fmadd. I completely agree with rolling back all of their mainspace edits, since 99% of the time it appears all they were doing was creating a link to an odd redirect. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

In relation to point 2, I should note that Fmadd is sometimes correct that the links should be changed. The problem is that many did not need changing or, if they did, he often made the problem worse. We will lose some useful work if we mass revert his edits instead of reviewing each of them, but I estimate only about 10% based on what I've looked at in relation to Remote control. For example, there were some instances in which he changed articles that linked to that page when they would more naturally refer to Teleoperation (i.e. the process of controlling electronics from a distance, not the device that enables someone to do it). However, instead of linking directly to Teleoperation, he redirected Remote controlled to Teleoperation (which probably makes sense and shouldn't be reverted), and linked to that redirect (which doesn't). WJBscribe (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WJBscribe, I concur that there is a small proportion of their edits that were actually useful, but given that I spent an hour untangling the "remote control" issue last night and ended up only keeping four edits out of about 100, I'd say in this case we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, if only for the sanity of those draining the tub. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Primfac, Gamebuster19901, and WJBscribe. This is the best option. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I support the nuclear option, given the downside seems so low. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd support this iff the percentage of good contributions reported above is accurate. @Primefac:, yow is the listing coming? Do you have something the community can look at? Tazerdadog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, I've gotten User:Primefac/Fmadd into a reasonable shape. I've sorted the redirects by incoming link count, which will make proofing them a bit easier. I haven't sorted through their articles yet, but that's not quite as important. Primefac (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

After a spot-check of my own, I have to disagree with the assessment of Primefac and WJBScribe. I found that about 50% of the redirects were a net positive, especially with small tweaks applied. Therefore I have to Oppose this option. A more detailed review is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, are you willing to support option 2? Primefac (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I support mass revert, unless somebody else wants to wade through it all in more detail. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Option 2, possibly combined with X3 is the appropriate response in my opinion. 50% is an unacceptable error rate, and based on my evaluation both a nuke and a slap on the wrist would have that error rate. I'd be willing to wade through a significant chunk of it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

My 10% figure above was stated to be based upon review of Remote control based redirects. If link changes/redirections in other topic areas show as much as 50% positive edits, then I agree that this calls for a more nuanced step-by-step review of the edits. Such an approach would also allow editors to correct occasions where Fmadd identified a problem but applied the wrong solution - the optimal result is neither a revert nor keep Fmadd's edits in those instances! WJBscribe (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on the above questions and proposals

Fmadd, I guess this is the part where I ask you if you're willing to take into consideration the views expressed in this discussion as well as on the various talk pages you've been involved with. To summarize a few of the points:

• Decrease the number of redirects you create. Start discussions to see if they're necessary. Pipe otherwise.
• Slow down on the editing. Thing don't need to happen immediately. Finding out an idea isn't the best after two days is a lot easier to deal with if you then don't have to go back and fix fifty pages afterwards.
• Start discussions. Yes, I mentioned this above, but this goes for things like moving remote control unilaterally. Consider all page moves to be potentially contentious, and ask if it's a good idea first.

There are other points mentioned above, but these are the major ones. Does this sound reasonable? Primefac (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

well I can take a break from this, and amuse myself somewhere else for a while. I'm not going to stay focussed on making major changes if it takes several days of discussion.. I just wont bother. thats why I liked blasting my way through one issue at a time. If you dont like redirects then my workflow can't be used here. I might as well give up. Thanks for destroying what little faith in humanity I had.. they're just redirects.. and you have to get all "priestly-cult"/"control freak" over it. The point of redirects (or any other abstractions) is breaking problems down into smaller pieces, at which point solutions crystallise out more easily. Tension in "the plan" or ambiguity is just a sign of something else to fix. I've seen this situation many times before. Some people have more to gain from problems, than solutions. Fmadd (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's enough. Deploying block hammer. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If Fmadd hasn't been here before under another name, I'll eat my aussie hat. Flat Out (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

He seems fond of the "priestly cult" meme - anyone recall another editor using that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"Easier to make mass changes and argue later" seems to be a hallmark, this is their work too Flat Out (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If Fmadd isn't already back as Special:Contributions/Ll928, I'll eat my non-Aussie hat (it's got fewer corks). Dukwon (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• As much as I've been opposed to similar solutions in the past, I'm really leaning toward the nuclear option, at least on anything that's purely a redirect. Looking through several pages of their creations, they seems to be an attempt to...I guess...manually create a search function? Probably fully a quarter of them are created as questions e.g., "should X redirect to Y?" or "is A the proper term for B?" I'm just not seeing much in the way of harmful collateral damage that would in any way outweigh the inordinate amount of time it would take to sort through these individually. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

We could expand wp:x1 to include redirects created by this user. Just an idea I thought should be mentioned. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. The main question in my mind, and I really don't know precisely how this works with the admin bit, but if all article creations are nuke-able with the click of a button, is there anything worth saving in the ~9% of their article creations that are not redirects, which would justify having to tag and delete 950 redirects. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I won't support or oppose nuking everything outright without a review, but if it comes to it, I wouldn't get upset about it. I've added a different proposal under the Nuke proposal. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New Speedy Deletion Criteria in Response

Since there seems to be consensus at this time to revert these edits, and issues VERY similar to this have happened before (see wp:X1) I am proposing a new speedy deletion criteria.

X3: Pages created en-masse by a single user, where the community has established broad consensus that the pages are harmful to the encyclopedia, would create significant backlogs in their deletion discussion areas, and the reviewing admin believes that it will not survive a deletion discussion. Once the community establishes that the backlog is cleared, normal procedures resume.

It is similar to wp:x1, except it can be applied to more situations so we don't have to keep creating new X criteria. X1 would be merged into X3.

Deletion reasons made under this criteria should contain a link to the discussion where consensus was established, and say "TYPE OF PAGE" created by "USER", to distinguish what situation the pages were deleted in. A list of situations where this criteria has been used should be created.

Example of deletion message: "Redirects created by User:Example, see discussion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 18:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that. I should have the full list of redirects soon, which would give an indication of how much this criteria would be needed. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This is more of a procedural point, but wouldn't this really be an expansion of X1 rather than the creation of a new criteria? TimothyJosephWood 18:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I made it an X3 is because some deletion reasons currently just say "X1", and you wouldn't know that it was a Neelix redirect if X1 was expanded. It would be better to retire X1 and continue removing Neelix redirects under X3. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Does R3 "implausible redirects" already cover the case where a redirect is a special case of an existing general article/redirect? e.g. 3D unit vector when there's already unit vector Dukwon (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support the creation of a X3 criteria for his redirects, and DAB pages. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment If community consensus is necessary for a case to be added to this, isn't it just as easy for the community to authorise an X number criterion at the same time? I don't think this happens often enough for us to worry about running out of numbers. I can see this being open to the usual misunderstanding that many speedy criteria are. I'm not against the expansion of CSD criteria, but I think that perhaps keeping a specific number attached to a particular disaster one might be easier in the long run than having a catch-all criterion. I may well be missing something. (I know I'm missing my tea, and might see things differently later...) Peridon (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It would take longer to get consensus for a new speedy deletion criteria than to get consensus for invoking an already existing one. A perfect example is this discussion. A discussion similar to this would have to take place every time. In the future, someone could just propose the use of X3 instead of creating a new X. We also wouldn't have to create new template every time, we could just use X3 with values. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose creating a new speedy criteria that could potentially apply to any user, but would support X3 being specifically in relation to contributions by Fmadd (talk · contribs). This situation is rare enough that we can afford to take the time to add to CSD on a user-by-user basis. WJBscribe (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose already covered by existing criteria. If a user were creating pages in specific contravention of a ban, WP:CSD#G5 is covered. WP:CSD#G6 is sort of the WP:IAR of deletion criteria as well, if you have a good specific rationale, which is likely to be uncontroversial, G6 should cover it. Especially if a community consensus has already determined that some large block of articles should be speedy deleted as part of a long discussion, then someone could just tag each one as {{db-g6|rationale = <link to original discussion>}} should suffice. I'm already troubled by the existence of the X category anyways, and I'd not like to see it grow. --Jayron32 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment G6 only covers technical deletions, and G5 wouldn't work in this case as the user was not banned at the time the pages were created. Also, X3 would probably prevent more X's being created. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah...WP:BURO anyone? If the community assessment is that the stuff should be nuked, who gives two figs what bureaucratic code is applied to it, just go ahead and do it per WP:IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If the community decides a nuke is in order, then the pages should simply be nuked, and the edit summary should link back to this discussion. On the other hand, if the community decides a manual review of the edits is in order, a speedy criterion to keep everybody on the same page makes good sense. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Didn't we have that discussion already a few weeks back? The reason we use certain designations is that any user can see the designation in the logs and know why the deletion took place. The proposed X3 would mean people had to search for this discussion first. In this specific case, unlike the Neelix one, it would probably not be a terrible strain on WP:RFD if those redirects were listed there instead. We should take care not to create new speedy criteria unless it's really necessary. Alternatively, just nuke all the redirects he created, they are cheap and can be recreated easily. Regards SoWhy 21:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate global reverts

A great number of non-redirect contributions were just reverted out by Primefac, which does not seem supported by consensus above and is contrary to existing policy and precedent. For those arguing that nothing Fmadd did was not a redirect problem, you are very wrong, and this has been a grave error. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Last night I spent the better part of an hour undoing a mess they made with remote control - they moved it to another location, changed 100+ wikilinks to unnecessary redirects, and generally made a mess of things. In every instance I've looked, they've done this. In one instance they changed pair production into Electron–positron pair production, which is a redirect to pair production! I did not find any good reason not to nuke everything and sift through the ashes. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, that's one of the ones that tipped me something was going on. That one appears to be connected to the problems called out above. Hoever, Pair-instability supernova didn't have anything I see as a problem, he added two perfectly good links (one via a redirect, but a link should have been there from that term, and the other one went straight in to the existing article). So, question: is my watchlist the only two articles with a 50% obvious error rate for a global revert, or was the global revert too aggressive?... Sample size small, but so far I am not impressed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• [82] in "Second processor" where Fmadd removed a redundant word. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• [83] in Zeus Web Server where he linked Static and Dynamic Web Pages (appropriate, good links) via redirects (inappropriate). Just reverting was wrong-o. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ...annnd the same thing in Utopia Documents, a good link via a redirect that should have gone direct instead. And those three were just the last three things you reverted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Either fix the problems you see, or just file it under collateral damage and let's get out of the morass and back to editing an encyclopedia. I don't see this kind of nit-picking as being very useful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I also don't find the "problems" you're highlighting here as terribly significant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 5) Their astronomy work was... less bad than the other stuff. Since I checked them all earlier, I can tell you - every single DAB they created they went in and created 5-10 links to it, regardless of if it even made sense (which it didn't). I found a huge copy-paste page move (which I did fix, by the way) as well as a ridiculous number of anchors placed in the first sentence of the article. Half of their edit summaries were "I don't know what this links to, maybe we can fix it later?". I will not deny that I undoubtedly reverted some decent edits, but I know that I fixed more than I broke, and by a significant margin. If you want to crawl through every edit I made, feel free to make a list and post it on my page, but at that point it's just as easy for you to hit undo as it is for me. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delaunay triangulation which was the fifth most recent thing reverted. With all due respect Beyond my Ken and Primefac, this is not collateral damage. This is clear evidence that "nuke it all from orbit" was the wrong thing to do here. I would be perfectly happy to take some fraction of the 900-plus edits that were reverted and fix them, but the right approach is what we do with copyvios and list them all out and have people take chunks of them and review them. And given the error rate in the blanket reversion, I suggest we do so from a position of undoing all the reverts and then cleaning up the underlying edits, rather than having to back through the reverts the hard way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• You've pointed out a few trivial errors: 4 out of 900-plus. That's hardly establishing a significant error rate. Also, I can;t believe you're using copyvio as an example of a procedure to follow: if you look at the copyvio area, you'll note that some of those have lingered there unchecked for a very long time, despite the hard work done by Brownhairedgirl and others. Here we have a case that's confined to a single editor, with what appears to be a fairly low error rate from nuking (or at least a significant error rate has yet to be established). Better, in my opinion, to nuke them all, and then fix the ones that didn't need nuking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• GWH: If you're pointing out these supposedly non-trivial errors here, why aren't you reverting them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• • Those were 5 errors in seven checks; the last 5 reverts Primefac made (time wise) and the two articles I had watchlisted. So my error rate is over 70% on that sample. 4 out of 5 on the last 5 reverts, which are random vs the ones I watchlist (which aren't randomly selected, they're both astronomy/physics related, which I will accept for the sake of argument may have been better done). Maybe we should check some other random set of them, pick somewhere for me to start in the 900 and how many you think is reasonable (5 more? 10?) I am perfectly happy to / will fix those 5 articles, but I want to start doing so after we determine what the global solution is. If we have to undo all 900 reverts I'd rather baseline that than patch a few of them and then have to untangle it after. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • 37, 194, 477, 635, 743. Take 5 edits starting at each of those numbers, examine them, and determine the error rate for those 25 edits. (Don't worry about precision in counting, the numbers are just pseudo-random starting points - any five starting points throughout the sample will do.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Going backwards from [84] as there have been updates since my last comments... (apologies, going to create list, then have to get on train, then will check when I get home, so need some time for the details...)

• First group: [85] this was an inappropriate link, [86] complicated - old link to central processor unit, new link to category of families of CPUs that he created, right answer is probably a new article to explain what a central processor unit family is (the CPU article doesn't now) - neither Fmadd nor the revert actual best solution, [87] new link to redirect to category he created - not obviously wrong but revertable per discussion above, [88] one link replaced three; link to redirect to category (same as prior entry) that was less subject-appropriate than the original three, probably wrong of Fmadd [89]

two links - first: straightforwards, correct link. Second: created improper redirect, but a direct link to target was appropriate - right solution should have been to direct-link the second instead of via the redirect. Reverts respectively right, (neither), right per consensus, right, wrong/should have fixed instead for 2 halves Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Second group: [90] two links to one link via a redirect into the second link's article - neither way best, should probably be single link to anchor in Matrix (mathematics) where real and complex matricies are defined, [91] new link to the same topic problem as first entry second group - same solution, [92] same as first, second entries, [93] same as first, second, third entries, [94] ah, new problem. Link to redirect (consensus bad) that should have direct linked to a vanchor I believe was appropriate in Addressing mode which was reverted out as part of all of this, so is broken now. four (complicated, should go to vanchor that was never placed instead); fifth should have been direct linked to vanchor that should be replaced (how do we score *that*...?) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Third group: [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]
• Fourth group: (approx start) [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]
  • Plus next one: [105] just because I watchlist it, will not count for 25
• Fifth group: [106], [107], [108], [109], [110]

(bottom of list) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, five of Primefac's reverts of Fmadds edits show up on my watch list, all of which I checked, and only one of Fmadd's edits were, in my view, OK (which I restored). Paul August ☎ 02:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ll928

• Ll928 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

New user LL928 and Fmadd seem to overlap quite a bit. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. Clearly a sockpuppet. Blocked. WJBscribe (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Refocusing

There, at some point here, were definitely some coherent options that got muddled by formatting and a lot of other issues. There seemed to be some general support for mass reversion and deletion, which itself got muddled by bureaucratic issues about creating a new CSD criteria, which then got muddled by specific reversions. So I guess my question to those involved is: what are the options that are still on the table, can we condense those into a couple that have general consensus, and can we decide between them? TimothyJosephWood 22:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: can chime in here, but unless I'm counting wrong, it appears to me that all of Fmadd's edits have been nuked, pursuant to the consensus in the sections above this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be impressed to find that all 1k of them have been taken care of, but if that's the case, and everyone's fine with it, then I suppose we can close and move on with ourselves. TimothyJosephWood 23:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I definitely don't see the consensus to nuke in the sections above. I'm happy if they were all legitimately reviewed, but I doubt that is the case. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The consensus seems quite clear to me, and I applaud Primefac's decision to follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Like BMK I support blanket removal. Those complaining that the removals should not have occurred without weeks of argument are welcome to check all edits and reinstate those that are genuinely helpful to the encyclopedia. If Wikipedia ever grinds to a halt, it will be because of the navel gazing and pointless bickering that occurs when the community responds to inappropriate contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted about 1700 of Fmadd's (current) edits, and I've been undone about 20 times. An error rate of <2% is perfectly acceptable to me. Due to some (understandable) hesitation (mostly by Tazerdadog) I have not nuked all of his redirects.

Given the apparently p<0.05 validity of their edits, my guess would be <5% of their redirects would be salvageable. I've taken a couple of days off to clear my head from the "nuke everything" blinders, and will be going through User:Primefac/Fmadd and seeing what could legitimately be kept. Hopefully I can get through this by the end of the week, and I'm thinking something like another week after that if there is no further input I'll delete what's in the "delete" pile. I'm pretty sure I started a talk page discussion and yall are welcome to join in. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if Primefac is committed to sorting through the issue, especially if Tazerdadog is willing to act as a second opinion, which should and seems to be respected by PF, is there anything here left which requires administrator attention or broad community input? TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think it would be beneficial to hear from @Georgewilliamherbert:, who objected most strongly (but politely) to the nuking, to see whether his examination of the 25 edits I suggested has changed his mind. Certainly, the complexity of what he has reported so far has not changed my mind that nuking was the right option, as opposed to having numerous editors dedicate large portions of their lives to undoing the cat's cradle Fmadd created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please ping me @Primefac: when you have the list of redirects to be deleted, and I'll check them over. I wish you hadn't done the mass rollback on Fmadd's edits, but I will acknowledge that consensus might not be with me on that point and it doesn't seem to be breaking the wiki. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, will do. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, Primefac: I'm just gonna say, I think you guys may be in the wrong place, since this seems a heckuva lot like civil editors cooperating to work through a well reasoned compromise. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed at ANI. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll notify the media. EEng 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Paid editor moving own drafts to mainspace

Early today I wrote at User talk:Janweh64 "Wikipedia, for reasons that I just can't understand, tolerates paid/COI editing in draft space. But where exactly do we say that paid editors can then freely move their own drafts into mainspace? As a paid editor, "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". But by creating a draft and then moving it yourself, you are effectively doing exactly that. I've moved Matt Holmes (entrepreneur), Himanshu Khagta, Legs4Africa, Miss Tara and KDDL Limited back to draft space. If and when you think they are ready to be included in this encyclopaedia, please submit them in the normal way."

Janweh64 had written those pages in draft space, with an apparently proper declaration of paid COI, but then instead of submitting them for review, just went ahead and moved them. The editor has not troubled to reply to my post (and indeed, is under no obligation to do so), but since moved two of those five drafts, Miss Tara and KDDL Limited, back to mainspace. While I don't see that any hard-and-fast rule (that I know of, anyway) has been broken, this appears to be highly inappropriate behaviour for a paid editor. At the very least, I suggest moving those pages to draft space for now. If others agree that the behaviour is inappropriate, a page move ban might be considered. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It is my belief that I have not violated any policy as stated above. However, moving articles to draft space is a move to circumvent the readily available avenue for addressing this issue which is to nominate such pages for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers has essentially achieved their goal of deleting these articles without any consensus or input from other editors. I believe the inappropriate behavior is theirs. I have made every effort to follow the policies.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You should not move articles into mainspace when you have a COI. You should request review as the template allows for. You absolutely should not move an article back to mainspace after it's been moved back to Draft. Wikipedia is a volunteer-run, charity-funded project. Writing for profit is already evil. Overriding the judgment of others like that? It will just get you banninated. Guy (Help!)

Guy, can you please explain what you mean. Where do I place said template when the page does not exist.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, I get it now. Can you please return the articles to draft space so I may request the edits on the draft talk pages so that a volunteer may evaluate them. I am sure that they are notable per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2, WP:LISTED and WP:ORGDEPTH. They do not qualify for speedy deletion per WP:G11.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Is that the policy? Is it forbidden for a paid editor to move an article from draft to article space? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is ever forbidden here, but it's a terrible idea, especially for the subject - being identified as a person or firm that paid to get an article on Wikipedia is not exactly a badge of honour. I'm happy that you now get it and have moved them back to Draft. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Guy, the discussion below leads me to believe I was perfectly within my rights. I only meant I understand what you mean. I would rather wait for the outcome of this discussion. As for badge of dishonour, the list of subjects that employ paid editors is extensive. Clarification: you have first deleted then you have moved them to draft after (I assume) reading discussion below. I am of the belief that a move to draft is not necessary and was just capitulating per your warnings.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:COI - content should be left to people without a conflict. Fine to create a draft, fine to request review and posting to mainspace, bad idea to move to mainspace yourself, terrible, terrible idea to edit-war back into mainspace after it's moved back to daft. That's not especially controversial I think. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, that's a guideline, not a policy. Second, it does not say that editing is forbidden. The most I saw was that editors "should" not edit, but I can't find a policy that says it's forbidden to move an article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Accusation of edit war maybe premature. I only reverted the move once because I believed it was inappropriate as I stated above.

WP:COI says "generally advised not to edit affected articles directly." This is clearly intentionally left ambiguous.

WP:COI - no where states "content should be left to people without a conflict." It also has no mention of "posting to mainspace" therefore posting to mainspace is simply an edit which is only discouraged. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, AFAIK there is no policy or guideline that forbids a paid editor from moving an article from draft to article space. - GB fan 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

GB fan, thanks, so we can then close this thread. The OP reverted a valid move and the paid editor rightly (or wrongly) moved it back. Nothing to see here other than some COI warriors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not to stop the process but the articles in question have now been inappropriately deleted through WP:CSD by Guy.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That was a piss-poor action. I would ask an admin to undelete. This is an admin action by an involved administrator and is not cool at all, especially for someone throwing guidelines around. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to add that I have no idea if the articles in question are good or should indeed be deleted, but it reeks of INVOLVED for an admin in this thread to do the deletion. There is no urgency to have an article deleted that another admin can't do the job. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) is at Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur), Himanshu Khagta is at Draft:Himanshu Khagta, Legs4Africa was deleted, Miss Tara was deleted and KDDL Limited was deleted. - GB fan 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: I stopped short of moving Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) and Draft:Himanshu Khagta back because I believe Justlettersandnumbers action in regards to those articles is appropriate. There is not enough to prove notability as I state in my user page. They should probably stay there till notability can be better established.

The other three though I have nominated for undeletion: here—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:COI is a guideline, and as it says in the Subcat guideline template transcluded to the top of our guideline pages: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It does represent consensus, and should be followed unless there is a valid reason not to. Ignore it at your own peril. Mojoworker (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So, Sir Joseph, you appear to be trying to suggest that JzG should not have posted here after deleting those articles. Why not? Isn't it rather normal for an admin to explain an action after making it? What exactly do you see as "piss-poor"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Is that what I wrote? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph ought to refresh his understanding of what WP:INVOLVED means. In particular, an admin is not involved when their actions have been administrative and not as an editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh and "very strongly discouraged" is about as close as the Wikiworld gets to "don't do this". What it means is that most editors wanted to forbid it but enough people objected that a compromise was reached. What it should be read as is "You're going to get into a heap of hurt it you do this." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Examples of Wikiworld "don't do this": WP:HARASS, WP:PERSONAL, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:VANDAL.... —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk)

The articles have been undeleted and Guy's actions or involvement is besides the point. The questions are simple:

1. Is a paid editor not permitted to move an article from draft to mainspace?
2. Is a paid editor required to submit articles for review before moving to them to mainspace?

All assuming off-course that paid COI was properly declared as I did. I would like the answers to these questions as much as anyone.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The community has repeatedly chosen not to ban paid editing. Accordingly, a paid editor is allowed to create articles and move them into mainspace. As I gather you know, the proviso to that is the need for full and public disclosure of your relationship with the client.

With that said, while it is allowed, if very strongly discouraged, you run into other problems. Most paid jobs I've seen have tended to be for articles that are marginal at best, and even good editors, faced with pay if they create it and none of they don't, tend to be poor judges as to the viability of the content. Having someone independent decide if it should be moved to mainspace allows that bit of distance which helps everyone - Wikipedia is more likely to get a viable article, the paid editor is less likely to have to explain why the article has been heavily tagged and sent to AfD as soon as it was created, and the client is more likely to get an article that stays. The other issue is simply practicality - if you are doing something controversial (and paid editing remains controversial), it is best to stay as far on the right side of things as possible. By not editing it directly, or not moving it to mainspace, and having independent editors help, you might still fail to get the article up, but you'll avoid most of the ire that you can provoke by ignoring the guidelines. - Bilby (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A few minutes ago I moved Draft:Legs4Africa, one of the drafts discussed above, to mainspace. It seems tolerably good as is. Please don't take this to mean that I think it was a good idea for its creator to do the same thing a little earlier, or that anyone was wrong to move it back. I chose this particular draft rather arbitrarily. I haven't looked at the others and I do not intend to do so: I hope that some other editors will look at them and judge them on their merits. -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hoary, I did. (Janweh64), I hope you will take a look at those individual edits, not because I'm necessarily right about them, but because I think I have a point: excessive detail and references that are really links to the company website and to (promotional) videos are hallmarks of COI editing. When all that stuff is stripped (and the article has now lost half of its size), what we have left is six newspaper articles, which in the current atmosphere is enough to pass notability guidelines, I suppose. Anyway, I think the article is more encyclopedic now, though your boss may like it less; still, I think I did you a service, and you can transfer my fee to my off-shore Wikipedia account. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Has a paid editor the right to move their drafts to mainspace? Technically, yes, although it is a very bad idea. Has any other editor the right to move these pages then back to draft space? Yes, there is no policy forbidding this either (and lots of reasons to support this). To avoid such a cycle, it would be much, much better if Janweh64 stopped moving his pages to the mainspace and submitted them for review instead. Fram (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• It might not be strictly forbidden by policy, but the content of those drafts make it pretty obvious why review is an extremely necessary thing in these cases. Legs4Africa is actually pretty decent. Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur), on the other hand... An article about the holder of the world record for the longest handshake? Really? Sourced to blogs, self-promotion platforms, LinkedIn and business database entries? I'm not seeing it. Draft:Himanshu Khagta is, in a way, worse, because it appears to be sourced to well-known reliable sources... but those articles are not about him, they just use his photography. Buying a photograph from a stock images collection does not constitute significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Some of those articles are clearly not ready for article space and the fact that this editor chose to move them there shows that his COI has clouded his judgement. GoldenRing (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I invite you to examine the statements I made on my user page long before this discussion began. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies:As far as I know, references to the company website are permitted as per WP:SELFPUB. A close inspection will reveal conformation bias in anything. And (at the risk of poking the bear) your actions are slightly WP:POINTy behavior as OP has taken your edits as license to continue by removing everything from the infobox. Two editors have found the article acceptable before you. What would happen if we chose an article you created and put it under a microscope. Or even better what would happen if we chose another article I created but have no COI (and there are a few). Where does COI end and simple incompetence begin?

On the contrary, my "boss" would be just as happy. His only concern is the lack of understanding in the absolute dominance Wikipedia has. You fail to realize the amount of power you have and how easily large corporations can influence your decisions, not by direction but sheer size and media influence. Please consider the examples: Apple Inc. reference section which has (94 out of 429) references to apple.com with a couple press releases and endless product pages, FA-articles Ace Books (8 out of 55), BAE Systems (37 out of 199, includes press releases), Holden (6 out of 179, 3 press releases), Cracker Barrel (9 out of 89, 5 press releases) and you can check the rest yourself. What you have demonstrated is my sheer admiration of Legs4Africa!

Can we please end this before someone accuses me of WP:PAYTALK or I am to be flogged and paraded some more? Consesus is clear. I am not strictly forbidden to move articles to mainspace. I am strongly discourage from doing so and very strongly encouraged to use a review process.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Janweh64, SELFPUB doesn't say we can stick in a ton of links to the website of the subject of the article. It allows for verification, not for promotion. If facts are supported by real sources (reliable, secondary ones) a self-reference is unnecessary, and if a self-reference is the only available reference, one should ask whether that information is necessary in an encyclopedic article in the first place if no one else has noticed it. I have not investigated all articles on Wikipedia, but I'm working on it, and if you peruse my edit history you will see that I am quite consistent in this, or at least I try to be. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

And to the question by Mojoworker: Why do I even ignore this guideline instead of the review processes available? Please notice the 8 months backlog for request edits most of which are nonsense no one has bothered to decline? And Hoary, thank you! —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Janweh64, have you suggested to your clients that they should read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Are you suggesting that I should tell my current client Geronimo Trail National Scenic Byway that an article about them will be detrimental to their mission.[111] —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not what Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing says. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't hurt. I will send them the link.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at this from a COI content perspective, we have:

• Draft:Matt_Holmes_(entrepreneur) "He is one of the two current world record holders for the longest handshake." Notability seems marginal.
• Legs4Africa is about a charity which has coverage in the Guardian, BBC News, and the London Daily Mirror, indicating reasonable notability.
• Draft:Himanshu Khagta is about a photographer who follows others around while they do something notable, or semi-notable. One "attempted to set the Limca World Record for the longest Himalayan expedition on a tractor". He's working on two books of pictures. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON for notability.
• Draft:Miss Tara is about a DJ. The usual standards at WP:MUSIC should be applied.
• Draft:KDDL Limited is about a company in India which makes watch parts. Notability may be there per WP:CORP, but the article reads like a corporate brochure.

Right now, the only article of the group that's in mainspace is the one which seems to belong there. So no COI article repair or deletion activity seems necessary at this time. John Nagle (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Modern Sciences, disruptive editing

I want to inform that the User:Modern Sciences heavily pushes POV, removes content from articles and vandalises articles.

• Robert Kocharyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Serzh Sargsyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aşağı Ağcakənd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shusha massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Guba mass grave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Baku pogrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Füzuli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lachin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Economy of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Puppet state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of territorial disputes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• History of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Madrid Principles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I regret that after 4 warnings and many reverts the user is still engaged in disruptive editing. Therefore, I ask admins to take all the necessary measures to stop the user from disruptive editing. Boaqua (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Pleas supply actual WP:DIFFs that show the disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. His edits are a bit WP:POINTY, but are referenced. OP seems to be an Azeri upset with the edits based on the editing history.70.209.144.80 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You can check the history of the articles I linked. For example these edits:

• Robert Kocharyan : (1), 2 hierarchy? City, Province, Country.
• Serzh_Sargsyan: 1 hierarchy? City, Province, Country.
• Aşağı Ağcakənd, Shahoumian, Shahumyan, Shaumyan is an Armenian name
• Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum, 1991 :
• Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast: 1, 2
• Azerbaijan this article (Manipulation of the source material)
• Karabakh horse: 1
• Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh: this edition
• this
• Zəngilan: 1
• Azerbaijan: 1
• Armenian: 1, 2
• this
• Shahbulag Castle this
• Economy of th Nagorno Karabakh Republic: this (Manipulation of the source material and delete a big par of it)
• Lachin: this

Unfortunately, All of the editions of this user done be this method (Manipulation of the source material - deleting sentences, replacing with of other words or sentences, ...), Examples that above I mentioned are only a few of them. Dear reviewer admin I wanna inform that the User Boaqua heavily pushes POV, removes content from articles and vandalizes articles. I gave some Warning to him no responses

I dont know why Admins Waiver to his disruptive editions I dont know??

Modern Sciences (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You can check the history of the articles I linked. For example these edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madrid_Principles&type=revision&diff=765881957&oldid=765881587

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh&type=revision&diff=765882469&oldid=765882276

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Kocharyan&type=revision&diff=764738072&oldid=746419341

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serzh_Sargsyan&type=revision&diff=764737838&oldid=762912719

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guba_mass_grave&type=revision&diff=765881808&oldid=765881495

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_the_Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic&type=revision&diff=765638657&oldid=754064945

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puppet_state&type=revision&diff=765631561&oldid=761130010

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_territorial_disputes&type=revision&diff=765633057&oldid=765599902

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh&type=revision&diff=765639212&oldid=764597602

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madrid_Principles&type=revision&diff=765632003&oldid=756138341

The user was also warned by an admin, but continued his disruptive editing. Boaqua (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Devencci2005 – disruptive editing, part 3

• Devencci2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previously reported here twice and blocked each time for not using timestamps when updating statistics, Devencci2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just doesn't seem give a s*** while also using transfermarkt as a source which is considered unreliable here as they have been told repeatedly. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User constantly adds unsourced information to articles and his changes are usually reverted. He has never posted on a talk page and doesn't use edit summaries. Since he has made no reaction at all to two previous blocks, I suggest that an indef is the obvious next step. EdJohnston (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked. Any admin may lift this if they are convinced the user will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by User:Fanoftheworld

I made a self revert at Steinway & Sons after Huggle misfired and caused me to revert the wrong page. However, when I was reverting the erroneous warning at User talk:193.33.148.24, I noticed a previous block by User:Edgar181 regarding block evasion from User:Fanoftheworld on the same article using this IP. Therefore, I believe this user is repeating the behavior which spawned the block. Home Lander (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I blocked this IP on Feb 16 because it was reported to AIV as an IP-sock of Fanoftheworld and was editing disruptively. Edits since the block expired appear to be constructive to me, so I would let it go for now - but I don't really know the history of this editor, so if there is an admin who knows more and feels a different action is needed, I won't object. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

reporting myself (and Jytdog)

User:Jytdog has posted many warnings to my talk page about my egregious actions [112] [113] [114] [115] Now either I am in the wrong (am I) or this looks like attempts at bullying (especially as another user has also made 3 reverts and got no warning).

I would point out I asked for the contested material to be disused, [116], and received no response from the reverting editor. Which is why I kept reverting, no attempt was made to discus the matter. I was just expected to accept it.

So I am asking, is Jytdog correct here? In addition is it acceptable to issue warnings to one editor but not another then they are both committing the same act?Slatersteven (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

To add I do not feel intimidated, but do think it is an attempt at that. I fell as if I am not being held to the same standards as another editor based upon my perceived POV. I feel that there is massive bias in Jytdogs "enforcement" attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I should make this clear, this report is about me a Jytdog, not any other editor I am just pointing out Jyydogs (to me) perceived double standard. No user on the disputed pages breached 3RR, nor (as far as I can tell) intended to.Slatersteven (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know about any other editors, and it sounds like you are not really asking about that anyway, but I looked at the diffs that you provided. Aside from one warning about 3RR, everything else seems to be notifications of discretionary sanctions enacted by ArbCom. As the templates say, they are purely informational and do not imply any wrongdoing on your part. That said, it's a widespread problem that the templates keep getting interpreted by the editors who receive them as implying wrongdoing, so you are not alone in that, and it's not Jytdog's fault how the templates are written. In fact, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19#Please fix the wording of Template:Ds/alert, several editors including me discussed revising the wording with ArbCom, but the discussion didn't result in anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• I can see how by assuming bad faith you could see Jytdog's actions as "intimidation", but, similarly, I could easily assume bad faith of you and interpret this thread as an attempt at counter-intimidation. What would seem to be best is to edit according to the Discretionary Sanctions you have been informed of, avoid edit warring (the warning for which is often given before any edit warring has started, in order to avoid it happening), assume good faith of Jytdog while he does the same for you, and that the both of you discuss the disputed edits on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If you care to check I do not go beyond the 3rr rule, and again why did he not warn all uses who were close to edit warring?. Now maybe you are right and the templates are not threats, but two for the same (in effect), maybe three (after all there is not even any indication of what I did that was wrong, despite requests for said information? All given with no prior interaction over the matter in question, including no advice, just straight to the warnings? That is why this looks like bullying, I do not even know (in a couple of cases) what edit it is that was wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You're not reporting yourself, you're reporting Jytdog. That title does nothing except try to paint yourself as the victim. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I ask if I have done wrong, before I ask if Jytdog has. And I am still asking that, was Jytdog correct that my edits may have been actionable?.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This ANI was in response to this threat [117], I am trying to clear the air so I know where I stand. I need to know if I have a sword of Damocles hanging over my head.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Whooh, maybe I was wrong and this is about Jytdog, I have now seen this [118] the wording he now supports is the same as the edit of mine he undid here [119] claiming it was a breach of PSCI (which it now (apparently) is in accordance with). Can people see why I am not sure about whehter or not I am the one whose actions are at fault?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

ANd I have now found his self revert [120], but it does not alter the fact he just lept straight in with an accusation of breaching policy like he has done with every single template he has left on my talk page. Quite frankly (given the above) I am not even sure he bothers to read what is being written, he just leaps straight into "POV pusher mode, must be opposed" and makes accusations of breaches of policy, issues warnings and reverts.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Without looking at anything except this section: Of the 10 signed contributions to this discussion (excluding this one), 7 are signed by you. May I suggest that you slow down a bit? Step back, look at the situation with a bit of distance, interpret the actions of all involved in the best possible way (per WP:AGF), then decide if you still want to pursue this, and if so, rewrite the request with a bit more structure and less breathlessness. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment : Looking at their talk page, that they had been blocked for 24 hours [121], for edit warring, and numerous concerns on their talk page, of edit warring, it reflects, that they are not taking concern of other editors work. I suggest, that they should learn to consider other editor concern, and stop edit warring.Junosoon (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I have just had a comment here reverted - under what PaGs was this revert made? DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• @DrChrissy: Do you seriously think it's wise to comment in this section when you have a two-way interaction ban with Jytdog? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

My comment related to Slatersteven. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Horizonlove

It is with a great deal of reluctance that I have to report the editor User:Horizonlove to the administrators. They have done great work on articles on black entertainers and musicians, an aspect that is greatly under represented here. Unfortunately, the attitude of the editor towards others has been very argumentative and combative over the past three months. Most recently here where the editor engaged in an edit war and failed to reach consensus with @Rebbing:. In addition, they falsely accused the editor @Jennica: of Wikihounding here. On other occasions has taken a very argumentative tone without assuming any WP:GOODFAITH towards other editors, such as here towards @Jax 0677:. Last month the editor was asked by @Magnolia677: to provide reliable references for the Soul II Soul page and behaved very dismissive (edit summary: reply to this stupidity) towards an experienced editor. He subsequently accused the same editor of Wikihounding here. In December, the editor had a conflict with @TheMagnificentist: on the Kym Mazelle article that led this this WP:3RR report (without sanction). Following the editor indicated that 'I'm here to play an-eye-for-an-eye with you'. This discussion was halted after an intervention from the admin @Anachronist:. Today, after the issues on the Talk page of the Deliverance (Joi Cardwell album) I left this notice in that hope that the editor would engage more constructively with others. Instead I was accused of 'jumping in and taking sides'. I hope that one of the administrators can clearly outline policy to the editor and explain that levelling unwarranted accusations towards others and goes in against us striving to reach consensus. I sincerely hope that the editor will continue in his work and is not discouraged by this report. Karst (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This is very ridicious. "Unfortunately, the attitude of the editor towards others has been very argumentative and combative over the past three months." I have always been open to conversation with editors and have discussed many topics with them. To put forth what looks like a lot of bad history is very unfair and inappropriate. I never accused of User:Rebbing of Wikihounding, I accused User:Jennica of Wikihounding because every edit that I made was followed by him/her. Evidence of that are these pages: [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], and on a discussion [127] where I did not name her or anything related but she commented in after I open the discussion. Wikihounding is defined as 'the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.' This is how I felt when she kept coming out of nowhere and making edits behind me. She may have edited other pages, which is okay, but there were specifics edits that were only made after I edited on said-pages.

To address the situation with User:Jax 0677, I did assume good faith at first. When I began editing the Joi Cardwell pages, he soon began creating blank pages for the purpose of redirecting them elsewhere. The history logs of these pages [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], support that. I talked to him on his talk page here and asked him to stop doing that. It is very misleading for to reader. However, he continued to create and redirect pages. So I opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Redirect talk page and discussed it. The consensus was that it was a "terrible practice" and User:Plantdrew talk to Jax 0677 on his talk page and told him so here.

"Last month the editor was asked by @Magnolia677: to provide reliable references for the Soul II Soul page and behaved very dismissive" is a lie. User:Magnolia677 acted very combative and dismissive towards me. After I retrieved several sources and information for the page, he kept removing information from the page without discussing it or adding a "needs verfication/citation tag" as editors are encouraged to do. And in my free opinion, the process was very stupid because he kept asking for source after source; and challenging each thing that I added. The page's history log supports that. When I started editing Kym Mazelle, a page that User:TheMagnificentist has edited several times, he behaved in a way that asserted himself as owner of the page. I talked to him on his page here to address the situation. User:Anachronist evaluated the situation and decided that TheMagnificentist behaved inappropriately which almost resulted in a block of TheMagnificentist. Also note that TheMagnificentist has been blocked before.

"Today, after the issues on the Talk page of the Deliverance (Joi Cardwell album) I left this notice in that hope that the editor would engage more constructively with others." is strange to say because I don't understand what would have lead Karst there to begin with considering that he/her had no visible interactions with those users. "Instead I was accused of 'jumping in and taking sides'" would be a very accurate statement because Karst did not evaluate the situation. He immediately came to me as if I was the bad guy and very appropriately to him on my talk page. I have not violated any rules or policies of Wikipedia. Time after time, I have acted in good faith, been productive, retrieved resources, talked out disagreement, and discussed whatever situations I did not understand on the appropriate talk pages. To say "I hope that one of the administrators can clearly outline policy to the editor and explain that levelling unwarranted accusations towards others and goes in against us striving to reach consensus" is contradiction in itself because the Wikipedia policy was made to guide us editors as well as protect us from the verbal attacks and dismissive behavior of other editors, which time and time again I followed. The history is all there to support what I have said. Horizonlove (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note - Also when this is over and done, I would request that users Magnolia677 and Karst be somehow banned or restricted from interacting with me. While I am aware that editors are free to edit whichever pages they choose, whenever these editors get involved with something that involves me, it creates a problem that is impossible to settle with them because they (specifically Magnolia677) are very dismissive as seen here. [That wasn't first time, just the most recent] It is very discouraging to continue editing and have your contributions challenged even after you have added sources, but still they are labeled with the undeserving { BLP sources } and { refimprove } tags. Horizonlove (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Horizonlove apologized to me but just above accused me again of "following their every edit" which is untrue. I saw that they were adding songwriting credits to Personnel sections on album pages so I checked a few of their other edits to see if they were doing it. They created a new album page, which popped up in this new albums page, which I check nightly. After editing on a page they created, Horizonlove took to my talk page again to accuse me of following/hounding them. I appreciated the apology but by their comments above, they've practically rescinded on that apology, apparently, since they still believe I was hounding them. They are taking the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia and twisting them to fit their opinions. Horizonlove also does not seem to read what I type to them because I told them I follow the album style talk page - yet they still seem to think I am following them. Horizonlove clearly didn't check my contribution history because I was not targeting them. I am certainly allowed to check other's contribution history and if you can't handle the fact that people can, maybe wikipedia isn't the site for you. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Jennica Please read carefully. It's outlined. I said, "This is how I felt when she kept coming out of nowhere and making edits behind me. She may have edited other pages, which is okay, but there were specifics edits that were only made after I edited on said-pages." If you feel the apology was not genuine, you are free to feel that way. I can't control how you feel. If I did not mean the apology, I would have never posted it on your talk page, even after you dismissed me as "I don't really wish to discuss this since I didn't do anything wrong." But right after that, you said to me, "I checked your edits after I saw you are apparently obsessed with listing songwriters in Personnel sections." How some of people feel may not be how you feel. An clear example of that was when you kept removing songwriters in Personnel sections, even though you felt it was redundant and I did not. And honestly, I still do not think it is redundant.

Personally, I don't feel the need to check other people's edits, nor do I have time. I think that it is constant violation to keep looking at people's contributions and following what they did. "They are taking the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia and twisting them to fit their opinions." is a lie because I have never done that and you know that. After I accused you [Jennica] of hounding, I gave you a quote description of Wikihounding which I felt you were doing. And even then, I was very polite to you when I approached you and said, "Please stop following me! Thank you". Horizonlove (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You said I was following "every edit" you made. It is simply not true and I resent being accused of it in the first place. I already explained the redundancies with the songwriting thing. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The point was to address the accusations of Karst when s/he said, "they falsely accused the editor @Jennica: of Wikihounding here." I address why I accused you of Wikihounding. I'm not trying to be rude, please read more carefully. I have always chosen my words carefully, despite a few typos that we are all entitled to like when Karst posted that I said "I'm here to play an-eye-for-an-eye with you". The intended comment was "I'm [not] here to play an-eye-for-an-eye with you" as the tone of the conversation follows. Horizonlove (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support any sanctions visited upon Horizon. Clear and egregious battleground behavior. The conversation on Jennica's talk page was especially disgusting; when an editor tells you not to post on their talk page, you don't immediately post there again multiple times. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - do note (if it means anything) that Jennica has a custom watchlist of several users (including me) here. - TheMagnificentist 12:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That is perfectly normal for the gnomish work that Jennica does. Quite a few people (including myself) watch your edits for reasons that are not really relevant to this ANI. Karst (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Norwalk et al.

Users involved:

• StephenTS42 (talk · contribs)
• Ɱ (talk · contribs)
• JJBers (talk · contribs)
• Ceoil (talk · contribs)

Pages involved:

• Norwalk, Connecticut and talk
• User talk:StephenTS42
• User talk:Ɱ and archive
• User talk:JJBers
• User talk:Ceoil
• File:NorwalkCTseal.jpg
• File:CityofNorwalkSeal.jpg

Ceoil, JJBers, and I collectively desire a block for StephenTS42. This is because that user has, over the course of several days, been very disruptive. The most egregious acts were: 1. Accusing me and JJBers of being sockpuppets based solely on our editing at the same time and our like viewpoints, 2. Copying user warnings we placed on his talk onto all three of our talk pages solely to be disruptive, and 3. Nominating my and JJBer's file for deletion on no valid grounds as retribution for my legitimate nomination of his file.

We have tried a great deal of reasoning and understanding, considering he is an inexperienced editor, however he has page ownership attitudes towards articles about Norwalk, and he repeatedly refuses consensus. He doesn't believe article precedents (other articles, especially FAs and GAs) stand as a precedent and thus as a passive consensus, even though Wikipedia:Consensus says that. He refuses to understand and thus constantly questions other basic fundamentals, like why symbols (flags, seals, etc.) used on articles should be the official municipal symbol. He fails to even read Wikipedia policies we clearly link to him. After the case of him accusing us of sockpuppeting and us providing solid evidence against it, he immediately put a resigned template on his userpage, blanked his talk, and left Wikipedia, only to continue his Norwalk edits a few days later, which, I should add, rarely fit Wikipedia's Manual of Style, rarely follow standards set by WP:USCITIES, and very rarely follows the standards set by other municipal articles. Please check page histories as well, there's plenty that has been removed from these pages for various reasons. Again, we desire a block, however if this disruption is not to that high of a degree, I would recommend other restrictive measures. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support As one of the users involved, this is really needed. —JJBers 02:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Further disruption was caused when StephenTS42 moved his user talk page to that of a non-existent user User talk:Nod12345. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Block for now None of the acts that were pointed to, (without links by the way), are not egregious enough for a block. It's not against any policy or guideline to add warnings to another users talk page and it's not against any policy to nominate files for deletion. It can come off as a bit rude however, to accuse other users of being sock puppets, buts its not a blockable offense. In the future, it might be wise to provide links to disruptive behavior, instead of just saying someone did something and ask other users to look through another users contributions. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any offense worth blocking.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly there's so much and it would be so messy to link individual diffs, and thus I provided links to the relevant pages above. Disruptive editing is enough for a block, and adding warnings and nominations solely to disrupt and troll are egregious acts. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

But you still must demonstrate the disruption with diffs. Just saying 'this editor is disruptive, go look at the history of a half dozen pages' is not going to get a block and, since it is essentially an ANI complaint which has no chance of being resolved, is a bit disruptive itself. Please provide diffs demonstrating the disruption if you feel a block is necessary. Jbh ^Talk 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Diffs

Here you go!

Edit Warring Batch

[137] [138] [139]

Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut

[140]

User talk:Ɱ

[141] [142] [143]

Mine and Ceoil's talk pages

[144] [145] [146]

The files

[147] [148]

—JJBers 03:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• @JJBers: those are not diffs, they are links to old versions of the pages. Please see WP:Simple diff and link guide for instructions on how to make a diff. What you need to show are the individual edits or series of edits which demonstrate the disruption you are claiming. Jbh ^Talk 04:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

While these are good suggestions, see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. A less-then-technically-perfect presentation of the case should not prevent us from duly considering the substance, especially if the user is not a serial complainant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not a matter of bureaucracy it is a matter of people being able to identify the behavior which is being complained about without digging through a half dozen page histories. I note that the only uninvolved responses to the issue raised are two people asking for more focused information/diffs and one person commenting on the request, yet no one has cared to address the issues raised by the OP. Likely this is because no one wants to dig through stuff without specific diffs. Maybe I am wrong in this and lots of people will chime in but my best advice, if the OP wants a resolution, is to present edits illustrative of the issues they are complaining about. Having enough information presented in a complaint allows more uninvolved editors to address the problem which means there is a much better chance of the matter being resolved rather than it languishing, getting archived with no action, festering and then coming back as major drama in a couple of months. Jbh ^Talk 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

After skimming through the pages mentioned I see a couple of issues; StephenTS42 made a sock accusation without backing it up at WP:SPI (StephenTS42 don't do that) and StephenTS42's signature does not have links to their user & talk page (StephenTS42 please return your signature to its default or include wikilinks to your user and talk pages in your custom signature. If you do not know how to do that please see Wikipedia:Signatures or ask me on my talk page) Other than that everyone needs to step back, assume good faith and consider dispute resolution. This looks like a block request to get rid of an editor seen as troublesome but nothing jumps out as block worthy, maybe there is more but - ya'know, diffs... Jbh ^Talk 15:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• So instead of arguing about diffs or no diffs, it takes about three minutes to look at the page history and see that the user is basically openly edit warring to restore the image of the seal that they themselves uploaded ([149], [150], [151], [152]). The alternate image does in fact appear to be the official seal adopted by city ordinance, per the link provided, and even if it wasn't, whatever local consensus there is on the talk page is pretty clearly in favor of using it, rather this user's personal favorite. Their response on the article's talk that My argument is that there is no stipulation within Wikipedia that dictates the the use of official images, while apparently technically correct, misses the point that the applicable policy is WP:CON, and their accusations on the talk about others being WP:SOCKs is about as baseless as it is a blatant personal attack. Their insistence that others use the talk page, while themselves completely failing to engage in good faith discussion therein, only makes the whole thing worse.

So let's put this to bed, issue what is probably a lenient 24-72 hour block for edit warring, and give a well deserved link to WP:DR along with clear instructions that they are expected to use it, period. TimothyJosephWood 16:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not see the seal edit warring. It looks like they are still at it even after this ANI was opened. I have placed an edit warring warning on their talk page [153]. If they revert again WP:ANEW would probably be the best venue for a quick response.

It looks like there is a bit of an edit war going on on the talk page as well [154], [155], [156], [157] with JJBers but there JJBers is warring to keep in a personal attack referring to Stephen as a troll. JJBers, stop it you can just as easily be blocked for personal attacks. Jbh ^Talk 16:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Range block requested

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

---

Persistent disruption of United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016 by a dynamic IP editor claiming to be third-party candidate Kurt Evans. This editor has previously edit-warred trying to remove all mention of his candidacy. He has mad numerous complaints on the talk page, in edit summaries, and in a previous AN/I thread. These complaints lead to an RfC, on which I collaborated with @Tazerdadog: and @Cunard: in closing. The IP address continued to edit-war, resulting in indefinite page-protection. In these edits, they made repeated legal threats1,2, despite NLT warnings in other summaries and on at least one IP talk page. They have now gone farther on RPP, stating: I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's "NLT" policies, but it's true that after months and months of dealing with this garbage, I'm now planning to pursue defamation lawsuits against Wikimedia and several regular Wikipedia editors.

IPs used are from at least two ranges: 208.53.224.26, 208.53.225.8, 208.53.226.58

216.249.247.102, 216.249.247.177, 216.249.248.209, 216.249.248.237, 216.249.248.92, 216.249.249.156, 216.249.249.46, 216.249.251.158, 216.249.252.39, 216.249.252.72, 216.249.253.233

@Mifter: blocked 208.53.231.242, but these are probably more that I didn't find. He is prolific and changes IP's with almost every comment.

Apologies if this is on the wrong board, thank you in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I would endorse this range block...this is definitely needed. Constant legal threats and disruption led to the page requiring indefinite protection after the IP user claiming to be Evans was dissatisfied with the outcome of the RfC. -- Dane ^talk 04:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

More eyes needed

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

---

More eyes needed for Wittgenstein123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): plenty of warnings, he just deletes them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

He deleted the above too. -- Hoary (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Das osmnezz

User: Das osmnezz has recently returned from a 2-week block for disruptive editing (adding personal opinions into football articles), and they show no understanding of why they were blocked, as they've continued doing it, see [158]. As a background, during their editing history they have been:

• Blocked for using multiple accounts
• Repeatedly warned against creating articles about non-notable footballers- at least 5 times on their talkpage
• Repeatedly warned against adding own personal opinions into articles, and blocked for 2 weeks
• Blocked for copyright violations

This continuation of unhelpful behaviour has led me to believe that they aren't willing to listen to advice, and lack the competency required to edit Wikipedia. I am therefore requesting an indefinite block per WP:CIR. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Move Human like you activity from User:176.33.80.23

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

---

In the last hour 176.33.80.23 (talk · contribs) re-instating edits by sock-puppet Wikisiki999 (talk · contribs). Compare the contributions, and note previous Human like you edits on those pages. Perhaps an IP block? Batternut (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Obvious sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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