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

Antonioatrylia on Talk:Asia Kate Dillon

I have a feeling that I should be posting here, but I should probably say up-front that I'm very bad at judging when someone's behaviour is harmful towards me and I might miss details that others would notice. I'm tagging User:Funcrunch here because they've seen the discussion between me and User:Antonioatrylia and feel like they could add helpful commentary while remaining neutral.

The start of this can be found here. I made a draft of Asia Kate Dillon on 2nd March 2017, it was rejected due to lack of notability but then accepted around 8th April, now being considered notable. But a mainspace article had been made in between my creating the draft and the draft being approved and considered notable. It was decided that the mainspace article contained less information and should be overwritten with the draft, which Antonioatrylia rolled back and disputed, arguing with me and another user until an admin stepped in and backed up the original decision.

They are clearly very upset about the final decision, judging by User_talk:Antonioatrylia#Seriously?: "No trace of the history of all the editors who contributed to the originally created mainspace article for Asia Kate Dillon remain. Everyone's contributions to the original mainspace article were for nothing, because a failed AFC draft was used to overwrite the original mainspace article. It is no wonder that so many editors are leaving wikipedia.". (Two people involved in that exchange are User:Anthony Appleyard and User:Anne Delong.) Anthony Appleyard notes that Antonioatrylia did most of the work on the mainspace article that was overwritten, so I can understand their upset, but they're certainly not remaining neutral or prioritising the quality of the article over their own feelings.

Antonioatrylia's behaviour since then feels to me like they are holding a grudge.

After the draft was moved to mainspace, Antonioatrylia tagged it with a Not Notable tag - something that they never did to their original mainspace article, which was much smaller and less detailed. They were upset when it was removed.

Some of my edits were removed by Antonioatrylia due to having primary sources as references. These include Dillon's birthday (which Dillon mentioned in a tweet) and Dillon's role in a movie (that is available to watch online courtesy of the director, with Dillon mentioned in the credits). When I questioned this decision, Antonioatrylia told me that primary sources are not considered reliable. I did a little research and found that primary sources are appropriate "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person ... will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." I also found in the section about film specifically, "[t]he film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters." Dillon's tweet tells us their birthday very directly, and the film itself has Dillon in the credits at the end, so it seemed to me that both of these would be acceptable cases for primary sources to be included. I explained my motives and re-added the sources, expecting that my edits would be accepted since I had shown that Wikipedia policy was very clearly on my side, but Antonioatrylia rolled back the edits and put an edit war warning on my talk page. (It is not my intent to edit-war at all, and I don't want to take part in that.) They told me, "Do not edit war to try to get your incorrect preferred version into the article." I assume the incorrect preferred version they are talking about is the one that includes Dillon's self-professed birthday and the primary source of their appearance in a movie?

They also tagged the article with WP:UNDUE, and described their reasons in a way that didn't make sense to me - that Dillon's gender and career are given undue weight in the article, implying that more weight should be given to their personal life in the article, I assume? (I may be wrong there.) Me and Funcrunch both felt that WP:UNDUE didn't apply here, and discussed it openly in the talk page, so I went ahead and removed it from the article. Antonioatrylia rolled that edit back, saying "I will be restoring the undue template because the issue has not been fully addressed." This to me reads like an intent to edit-war by Antonioatrylia. I do not want to be threatened again with being blocked for participating in an edit war. (Relatedly, the main reason there is such weight on Dillon's career and being nonbinary is because their notability is centred around them being an openly nonbinary person campaigning for visibility, inclusion and acceptance of nonbinary people, and they're using their career as a nonbinary actor playing the first ever nonbinary US TV character to do it. My edits to expand on their personal life and career aside from being nonbinary have been rolled back by Antonioatrylia.)

Overall, Antonioatrylia has been aggressive, pushy, superior. "Consider your self warned for not showing good faith. I won't bother to template your page with a notice for failure to good faith." (Here.) My interactions with this user have been very unpleasant, and left me feeling reluctant to edit because I suspect that Antonioatrylia will roll back my edits and accuse me of edit warfare if I argue with them. I'm very much a casual editor and I just want to make a good article with as much complete information as possible, but I feel like every time I do a little work on the article the edits are rolled back. And I feel that this is because "my" draft was chosen over "their" mainspace article.

Because I am not very good at judging these things, there may be important information that I've omitted. I hope that others can visit the links I've put here and post about the things I've missed, and perhaps Funcrunch, Anthony Appleyard and Anne Delong can add details too.

Thank you for reading, and I welcome your thoughts! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• The long discussion is at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Asia Kate Dillon problem with merger/redirect - please help to give proper atribution to mainspace article creator. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• My take is similar to Cassolotl's. I feel that Antonioatrylia's templating was motivated by his resentment of how the article merge was handled. When I noted this at the article talk page, specifically pointing out Antonioatrylia's own talk page comment on the merger, they accused me of not assuming good faith. My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary. I believe evidence has been provided that Antonioatrylia's templating and subsequent reactions were motivated more by his feelings about the merger than by genuine concerns about WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Funcrunch (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard for dispute resolution about Asia Kate Dillon, but I had to close it because the dispute is also pending here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment After the draft was moved to mainspace, I added some elements from the original very short article, crediting the appropriate editors. Articles aren't notable or non-notable according to size and detail, but according the existence of reliable independent sources, even if they aren't yet in the article or aren't properly formatted. There was no way to solve this to everyone's satisfaction, because both drafts were worked on in good faith. This a a bi-product of Draft space. I understand Antonioatrylia's frustration because at one point it seemed that it would be resolved the other way, so he/she kept working on it. That's not a reason to make inappropriate edits, though.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment As Anne Delong has stated above, I was frustrated about how the merge turned out. But that was it. I let out my frustration in a statement on my own talk page and went about my business. I frequently remove references from many articles when they are from unreliable websites such as myspace, twitter, imdb, blogs, and many other such places. I also apply tags or notices to articles after I have worked on them and tried to find good, appropriate, and reliable references. The original poster above tries to make some point aboint me putting a tag on one version but not the other of the article. I would not put a tag on until after I am done working on an article.

The merge happened. I started working on the article until I reached a point after my work where I felt that article subject was not truly notable. At that point I placed a notability tag. This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board. The OP is trying to blow out of proportion that I tagged the article and edited it because of a grudge, me being upset and other very colorful adjectives, none of which are true, nor non of which can be substantiated by any evidence or proof.

On the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon the OP freely admits that they are not acting in good faith. I informally warned them there instead of placing a template on their own talk page. The OP, who by the way is a SPA editor who looks to have only edited this and one other subjects biography, who both identify as non-binary or genderqueer. I mention this becase on the OP's talk page they also identify via a user box that they are agender and prefer the usage of certain pronouns such as they and their just like the article subject.Perhaps, it could be a possibility the OP is a little to close to the subject and their lifestyle to remain neutral while editing the article. They (OP) has shown WP:OWNERSHIP issues of not wanting anyone else editing the article other than themself and one other editor, Funcrunch who also self identifies on their user page as agender via a user box and uses preferred pronouns. I believe all editors from any walks of life should be able to edit the Dillon and all articles freely on wilipedia with out being tag teamed by a pair of editors that could possibly have an agenda to make the Dillon article have a slant toward agender and non-binary issues. I pointed out on the talk page article that there was too much of that going on to the point of undue, and I finally decided to mark the article as undue so other editors could see that and help fix the article to have a neutral tone as is tthe requirement at wikipedia.

One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board. There they had two points: that I removed a reference to an archive of a twitter post that was being used as a reference for the birthday of the subject. In my edit summary there I put it was unreliable as from twitter, and was considered self published. If that is not correct anyone may freely put it back. The other item the OP complained about was my removal of a reference to a vimeo video clip of film that you supposedly have to watch until the end to be able to see the credits to verify the subject as having appeared in the film. That is really way too convoluted to expect our readers to do all that. I group vimeo in with youtube and consider both unreliable in any respect, and I frequently remove other such references for being unreliable. Again, if any editors think that is a fabulous reference, go ahead and put it back if you have a consensus on that.

This entire filing is frivolous in that this is actually a content dispute. The OP admitted that they were acting in bad faith towards me on the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon. This OP SPA editor is trying to make a big blow up kerfuffle about how the article was merged in the past as a reason to object to another editors opinion in a simple content dispute. None of their schlock is true. I was frustrated by the outcome of the merge, but I let my frustration out on my own talk page, and then went back to editing as per usual. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am more than happy for others to make edits to the article, and I definitely don't feel territorial. Honestly, help would be very much appreciated; I don't have a lot of energy, and I love when people improve pages I've created or edited. So I'm not really sure where you've got this idea that I am only happy for me and Funcrunch to make edits to this article, Antonioatrylia. :/ If people have things they'd like to add to the article that are not about Dillon's gender I'm very happy about that; I've not removed anything from the article that anyone else has added. If there were facts without citations I've added "citation needed" or researched and found a source myself.

When you say that you removed the Twitter reference because it was a primary source, and if anyone feels this is not correct they are free to put it back - I did this. I posted explaining that your removing the primary source was incorrect in this case, and I put it back. I provided links to Wikipedia policy and quoted them, on the article's talk page. When I edited the primary sources back in, you rolled my edits back and threatened me with punishments associated with edit warfare.

You mention that I am editing articles in a particular subject area as though this makes me in some way biased, but I think it is pretty normal for editors to edit things that appeal to them based on interest, no? Yes, I am excited that Dillon is the first actor to play a nonbinary character in US TV, but I don't feel that I am being territorial. I am not upset that people are editing "my" article, I don't feel any ownership of it because it is a subject close to my heart or something. My problem is that you undo my edits, and when I show you that Wikipedia policy backs up my edits you ignore me and roll the edits back and state an intention to keep undoing my edits and threaten me with punitive actions if I continue to act in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Overall I feel bullied and pushed around, and like you are rolling back my edits that are perfectly valid. I would expect most people to say, "oh yes, it looks like Wikipedia allows primary sources in this case, cool beans" but instead I am having things thrown at me like that I have only edited a few pages - as if this is somehow evidence of poor behaviour? I made a new account sometime recently because I lost my login information and figured a fresh start might be nice. In fact I have been a casual editor of Wikipedia for many years, mostly fixing grammar and spelling, and tidying up badly formatted citations. I even run my own wiki on another site, so I know how it is to have something you have created get rewritten and replaced and honestly, I think you have to be comfortable with that when you are a wiki editor. I feel pretty comfortable with it. It seems unfair that this being the first article I've created is held against me.

"One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board." I will be the first to admit that I'm not familiar with how this all works. I've never had to deal with this kind of behaviour from another editor before, so I am learning how this system works as I go. I didn't know that it wasn't allowed to post in two places at once, and when I opened this complaint here I added a link to the dispute topic to let people know, hoping that someone more experienced would take the appropriate action. I note that a volunteer kindly closed the dispute topic pending the closure of this one, which I'm grateful for!

"This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board." With respect, that's not something for you to decide. I still feel like you have been aggressive and mean to me, and I'm hoping that some support here can help resolve this matter. I would just like to improve the article in peace, without someone rolling back my edits and then threatening me with punishment even when I supply evidence that my edits are in line with Wikipedia policy.

The Not Notable tag is probably not that big of a deal - the draft that was moved to mainspace was moved there because someone decided it was notable, so I don't feel that removing the Not Notable tag was in error. But I note that Antonioatrylia is focusing on this particular template, when I am more focused on other things they did. One of them being that they kept putting the Undue template on the page when other editors of the page were in agreement that it didn't apply even after Antonioatrylia had explained their reasoning. And then warning me for "edit war" behaviour, which I don't feel I've done - and when they say that they will keep putting the template back even though no one agrees with them, edit warfare is something that would describe their intended actions. If other experienced and knowledgable parties back up the decision to tag the page with UNDUE, I would be fine with that - but the opposite has happened.

I'm grateful to User:Funcrunch for backing me up here. I agree with them when they say "My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary." I would like to assume good faith, but after repeated aggressive moves I was sort of forced to the conclusion that Antonioatrylia is taking things personally, ignoring me when it suits them, and being mean. Whether or not they're doing it deliberately or they're unaware I don't know, but I don't think I'm misinterpreting this situation. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior here Cassolot has been quite poor, in that you on miltiple times throughout your report have mistated that I removed the twitter reference because it was a primary reference. Please provide a diff of me saying that. What I did say in my edit summary was that I was removing a reference to an unreliable website, and it was an archive of a twitter post that would be considered as self published. You call a removal of a reference to an unreliable website agressive and mean? You need to not take things so personal. I put the undue template back one time, not plural times and only after a talk page discussion. The two editors dicussing it besides me were you and Funcrunch, who I explained in the posting above are both possibly putting forward an agenda that keeps both of them from editing neutrally. They both possibly have a bias. Other editors need to assess the article who have no bias, so the article may be fixed and put to a neutral point of view as is required at Wikipedia. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff where you said the Twitter source was unacceptable because it's self-published. But to be clear, it's not the individual details of the dispute that I'm picking over here. It's the way that I'm feeling picked on, like you're trying to push me around, you're being rude and threatening, etc. You've threatened me with punishment over an edit war that hasn't happened while insisting that you will keep undoing an edit that only you object to, you've berated me and another editor over not having good faith, and you're continuing to chide me like I'm a child even now. It's really unpleasant. I would probably just give up and leave Wikipedia, but I'm passionate about the site and interested in the subjects of the articles I edit so I'm trying to go through the proper channels to resolve this optimally, you know? Anyway, I will pause now and await input from an admin. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment You have provided a diff that does not show that I said Twitter is a primary source. Look back in the thread. When challenged you could not provide it. So you have repeatedly misrepresented what I said, most probably to try and make me look bad. Then also you change the words in your last paragraph to self published insteasd of primary sources. That right there is you being deceptive. Why would you change the sentence, because there is no diff where I said that a twitter reference is a primary source. The diff you provide says exactly what I said that I had said. That seems to be a fail on your part and very deceptive to say the least. You, Cassotol are unpleasent to deal with. Your actions of possibly pushing an agenda and being biased makes it difficult to edit the article effectively to maintain a neutral tone. I have cut back on editing because you haveruined my enjoyment on editing wikipedia. You continuosly misrepresent what I say to try to accuse me of for instance. We had a talk page discussion where I said I was putting the undue tag back on the article. You surely, right away put the disputed references back in the article. I reverted back to the discussed version, and sent you a message warning you against edit warring. I or no one else threatened you. You should really strike that. And btw, your co- editor Funcrunch who is also possibly biased and working to put forth an agenda, reverted my change to make the section header neutral. I hope that you are aware that since you opened this thread that your behavior and actions are put under the same scrutiny as mine. It is possible that you could receive sanctions for your deceptive practice here. When you were unable to provide the diff where I said twitter was a primary source, you changed the language of your statement to match what I had actually said. I also feel like I am ready to leave wikipedia after this unpleasant incident with you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that an administrator or similar hasn't responded. So I guess I am posting to make sure this section doesn't get archived! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, editing to make sure this section isn't archived. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No one will engage that level of text walling. You should have really done a better job summarising. I suggest this be archived and you both take it to DRN where you can, hopefully, find a way to combine the best of both versions. I will be tagging this extremely lengthy report as (for our purposes) resolved soon. El_C 00:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I didn't realise! I thought it was important to include all the details so that an admin could make a good decision. I'll save the contents of this discussion elsewhere and try to submit a summary. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 10:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no word limit to ANI like there is to AE, but basically, you can see how lengthy textwalls tend to simply get ignored. The only reason I'm even here, answering this report, is because Antonioatrylia randomly picked me, soliciting my help on my user talk page. Sure, feel free to summarize, but intuitively, it feels like a content dispute, which would make this the wrong venue. I still think you two should try to find a way to combine both versions. El_C 10:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Just weighing in briefly: As I posted upthread, from my perspective conduct is more at issue than content here. Please don't be too hard on Cassolotl; while not new to Wikipedia, they are new to dispute resolution, and when asking for advice on the article talk page, I suggested DRN to them initially. But I then said that conduct issues would not be handled there, so ANI might be a better venue. Funcrunch (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Though taking this to ANI may have been worth a try, it now appears that no admin is likely to take any action on what seems to be a content dispute. This thread ought to be closed. My suggestion is that particular questions about primary sources could be taken to WP:RSN. In particular, drawing any conclusions from anything posted on Vimeo risks being discouraged at RSN. The most practical direction to take this is to improve the sourcing up to the standards of similar articles and then see if we have the appropriate amount of coverage for this person, given what the sources say about them. It seems to me they are notable enough to have an article but that if weak or self-published sources are dropped (especially about upcoming projects that don't satisfy WP:CRYSTAL) than a somewhat shorter article might result. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel like my intention here is being missed so I just want to make it very clear - my dispute is not over content and what should and should not be included, but about Antonioatrylia's conduct. They have been rude, aggressive and threatening towards me. But I can't describe how without mentioning the content disputes, which are a separate issue! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 11:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, this report has too much text and not enough diffs. Unless you're able to demonstrate misconduct briefly, I am not that inclined to involve myself, sorry. El_C 12:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute which I said in my first response to this thread. Cassolotl has called my removal of references to unreliable websites rude and agressive. I call it improving the encyclopedia. I do it every day on many different articles. After they put back disputed references into the article despite a talk page discussion going on, I warned them with an approved template against edit warring. For that I have repeatedly throughout this thread been wrongly accused of threatening Cassolotl. As I said before in this thread those accusations of me threatening them need to be struck. They take things way too personal. The next time they accuse me of threatening them by placing a template on their user talk page, I will be reporting that as a personal attack. Antonioatrylia (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attacks

User User:KazekageTR has made radical changes on Turkish War of Independence without sources or gaining any support from the talk page. Naturally, I reverted his/her edits, yet he/she was constant without even providing any edit summaries. This user even insulted me and made personal attacks here on my personal talk page. I think this user will continue doing this and not sure what to make of this. (N0n3up (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC))

That is not a personal attack... --Tarage (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@N0n3up: Well, you really did the exact same to him.... —JJBers 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and Tarage, considering you guys haven't made as much contributions to Wikipedia nor have been around long enough as I have, not to mention neither of you are even admins, I'll make it clear to first look at the edits in the talk page and article in topic before jumping to conclusions. KazekageTR made long and very extreme changes without even providing a single source nor gaining consensus for his changes. Since I opposed, he/she comes to my talk page and drops F-bomb on my talk page. That's not what I call a productive behavior and something I would never dream of doing. If someone makes radical changes like he/she did, you first discuss and or present sources to back your claim, until then, the article should stay the way it was in its original form. (N0n3up (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: this is why... —JJBers 01:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers The only thing I see is a concerned Wikipedian telling the editor stop making crazy arbitrary edits and to gain consensus. with capital letters to make the post more noticeable since KazekageTR didn't notice my first post, nothing wrong with that. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm waiting for a more authoritative figure whose made as much contributions to Wikipedia and have been around long enough or longer than I have. (N0n3up (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: That's still uncivil to just go to someone's talkpage and "scream" at them, and calling them a vandal. —JJBers 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and Tarage. Well, he/she DID vandalize the article since he/she kept adding unsourced content without consensus after been told not to, while cursing at other's talk page. You seem to not know what you're even talking about. In case you didn't notice, this is ANI, "A" as in Admin, something you're not. I think I'm wasting precious time with two interloper who didn't contribute nor has been in Wikipedia for as long as I have, bye. (N0n3up (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: Please read WP:AGF before commenting anything else on this. —JJBers 01:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@N0n3up: This is vandalism. This might have problems but it is not vandalism. Don't misuse Wikipedia behavior policy. Further, all-caps comments and edit summaries are strongly discouraged at WP:SHOUT. Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND. Before you open an ANI complaint, be sure your own hands are quite a bit cleaner than they are in this situation. And make sure you have followed dispute resolution guidance at WP:DR. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Although not vandalism, this user did constantly put radical unsourced info without consensus, not to mention that this user used the F-word on my talk page. I simply restored the page to its original form, I tried to do the right thing. As for mines, I just knew about the all-caps rule and other once you told me, my bad for the misdemeanor. (N0n3up (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

Do not tell me what to do based on edit count. You can make millions of edits and still be wrong. And you are wrong N0n3up. It was not a personal attack. --Tarage (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Tarage What are you still doing here? You and JJBers straight up walked into this discussion for Admins, not new editors who feel like posting on ANI reserved for admins. And yes, it was personal attack, this user used the F-bomb in my page and was inconsiderate and brash. And the fact that you tried to ping my name but got JJBers name instead really makes me wonder your purpose here, so it's best if you get lost, I'm waiting for Admins, not randomers. (N0n3up (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: There was no personal attack, you and the other editor acted uncivil, you violated SHOUT, and he was uncivil about it. And this isn't only for admins, and your OP is just a waste of administrator resources at best. —JJBers 15:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) N0n3up, this page is not "reserved for admins". Non-admins and "randomers" can and will weigh in as well (and before you go through the trouble of checking: I've been editing here almost thrice as long as you have, making over six times as many edits to mainspace as you have, but such comparisons are really neither here nor there, and certainly shouldn't be used as an argument to dismiss feedback from others). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do right now is warn both KazekageTR and N0n3up to stop being uncivil, and try to let them talk it out in the talk page of the article the edit warring happened. And then just simply close this. —JJBers 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked at the pages history? Every other edit seems to be N0n3up reverting someone else. I count ten reverts in the past two weeks, with two WP:3RR violations on April 8th. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed that, I'll just warn him not to edit war anymore. —JJBers 16:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: One thing is posting a message on my talk page, another is adding unsourced content without consensus after a day that the 3RR rules apply. (N0n3up (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: You seem to reverting at random, and citing consensuses that the edit repairs, if this continues, I'll be reporting at AN3. —JJBers 16:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Neither KazeKageTR nor you made your case on the talk page. I'm simply restoring the page back to it's original version. And now you because you feel vaguely offended are doing exactly that. In that case, I will as well post and ANI here against you. (N0n3up (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@JJBers: You were saying? (N0n3up (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: And what? —JJBers 16:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @N0n3up: '...this discussion for Admins, not new editors who feel like posting on ANI reserved for admins; it is not, twice over. It's for 'administrators and experienced editors,' as it says at the top. Incidentally, Tarage has been here over twelve years, so they could possibly call your insinuation of lack of tenure as an WP:ASPERSION. And since you have been involved in an edit war with the other editor (amongst others!), you can hardly blame them for joining the discussion. You should take these points as, perhaps just an encouragement to focus on any actual adminstrative issues that are required and not personalize the discussion. Many thanks, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Now this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:N0n3up reported by User:JJBers Public .28Result: .29. 17:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Honestly, at this point, I originally posted about KazekageTR adding arbitrary edits without source or talk-page argument/consensus, unwittingly making some minor mistakes along the way, but again, I'm only trying to do the right thing. (N0n3up (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

Can we just close this at this point, this is going almost nowhere. —JJBers 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we talk about how JJBers is arbitrarily adding unsourced unsupported content on Turkish War of Independence without providing a single argument not even taking it to the talk page? As said "here" for a trouble editor. (N0n3up (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

JJBers didn't add anything, they reverted you. At this point, one wonders if you have a particular fondness for cyclically aerodynamic fibrous cellulose. Take my advice and let it go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants No, KazekageTR added new unsupported contents, so I reverted to longstanding original. Now JJBers is reverting me to the same version of KazekageTR's unsupported content. Get your facts straight. (N0n3up (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

One wonders no more. One is quite sure of it, at this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a fine thing to say. (N0n3up (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

On the same point, I'm waiting for an apology from you for your personal attack against me. --Tarage (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a mature thing to say. (N0n3up (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Yes, it is actually. I've been completely mature this entire time. I explained to you that what you thought was a personal attack was not one, and then you proceeded to attack me. Heck, you've attacked every single person who responded. Now, it appears you have completely run out of arguments all together and are now just saying statements. I hope someone closes this section before you get a block for personal attacks. Ironic. --Tarage (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You have done nothing but concentrate on editors and not the topic in hand as a matter of fact. So if I were you I wouldn't be too confident. And considering you have taken this much time to write that post, seems you got nothing to do at the moment. I think I've wasted my time. (N0n3up (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Tell me, does ANY editor agree with you? I'm having trouble finding one. --Tarage (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to tell you once again, since you seem to have problems with processing or understanding certain matters. KazekageTR added new unsupported contents without , so I reverted to "longstanding original", as in the "neutral version" that the article was "before the conflict". And if you're referring to JJBers wanting KazekageTR because whatever reason, he still didn't add sources, argumentation nor consensus to why KazekageTR's edit is on the right, he's acting on guts alone. Until then, the neutral version needs to be in place. WP:BOLD, get it? Goodnight. (N0n3up (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Last warning. Stop with the personal attacks. --Tarage (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang block

N0n3up has responded to all criticism with falsehoods and personal attacks, as seen above. All of this evinces a battleground mentality. I believe a short block may be in order until they can calm down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support I was going to give them one more chance to be civil before going this route, but yeah. Enough is enough. --Tarage (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I have never made any personal attacks. Don't mix "not getting along" with "personal attacks". I originally came here to ANI for a problem regarding a user who constantly adds unsourced contents without taking it to talk page. I think User:EdJohnston said something similar regarding the edits on Turkish War of Independence. Nevertheless this ANI discussion has gotten out of proportions to the point that it seems we're diverting from the original reason for this ANI. (N0n3up (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Question. Do you know what casting aspirations means? --Tarage (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

May you grow up to be a successful attorney!!! Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone got your joke... M151 Jeep (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Since reading the discussion, I see that WP:BATTLEGROUNDMENTALITY is fully happening with this user, and a short cool down block is needed. —JJBers 12:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Because I have more edits than all 3 of them combined and I am the newest guy. considering you guys haven't made as much contributions to Wikipedia nor have been around long enough as I have, not to mention neither of you are even admins, AN/I is not for raising middle fingers ot your fellow editors! And here is where ancient weapons break down, whats gonna happen to Kazekage? Ok, he got shouted at, its not justification to go dropping uncivil F bombs on other's talk pages. He should at least get a template. L3X1 (distant write) 13:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems fine, I was thinking of just a simple warning for civility —JJBers 16:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think blocking N0n3up would achieve anything useful at this point, and might only achieve upsetting N0n3up for whom I have sympathy. I suggest N0n3up take some of the advice and feedback included in this entire thread to heart in order to avoid future instances of shooting themselves in the foot. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Carry on: N0n3up sure has been using capital letters on most replies quite a lot, and using all caps is not polite, as this could be equivalent to screaming or shouting in anger. I would recommend to calm both sides down and part ways with all. If anything else happens, a new discussion could open up anytime in the future. Slasher405 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like so called "cool down" blocks, as per WP:COOLDOWN: Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. If he is actually engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior then we should topic ban him from that area. -Obsidi (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. If blocking a user is going to result in more aggressive behavior, then perhaps a topic block would be better. Bmbaker88 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for N0n3up

Seeing the fact that a cool down block may not be appropriate, I propose that N0n3up be TBAN'd from any major conflict related pages. This is the fact the their block log shows that the most recent block on them is in relation to the American Revolutionary War. While the most recent edit war happened on another conflict related page. —JJBers 14:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC) (Withdrawing)

• Support in lieu of a cooldown block per Obsidi. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Interesting thing about this is that the American Revolution incident involved between me and editor User:JuanRiley (now blocked forever). I usually don't stay in the same types of articles and usually before reverting, I take it to talk page. The reason for Reverting KazekageTR is because, again, he/she added massive unsourced information in the article without even taking it to talk page even after I told them to take it to talk. And now, some people here wanted to first block me, now ban me because per them, I wasn't nice enough for them, pretty much sums up this entire ANI. (N0n3up (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

I'm pretty sure that's a personal attack right there. —JJBers 20:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see your allegation (N0n3up (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

• Support Something needs to happen to let him know this behavior is not acceptable. I'll take what I can get. That he's still arguing is proof that something needs to be done. --Tarage (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Me stating what exactly happened being a reason to be banned is not really a concrete reason, besides, I think it's fair to discuss before implementing such actions, Btw, the block mentioned is more than a year ago. (N0n3up (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

Help me out here N0n3up. Do you admit that your initial report was wrong? Do you admit that it wasn't a personal attack? Do you admit that you have made personal attacks on this page? To me? Any recognition that you have behaved poorly would help. Otherwise I can't help but think you just aren't getting it. --Tarage (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Tarage I'll be blunt. I am not a perfect user, no one is. I make mistakes from time to time. Originally I came here to deal with a problem with the best intentions but not the best form of method. I wanted to deal with one problem while you and the other one wanted to deal with my behavior, and I don't blame you, I would've done the same. Although I would do it after dealing with the problem article separately. Again, not my best ANI, at this point, I think it's best to shut it down since it's going nowhere. (N0n3up (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

I have yet to see any form of apology from you, or recognition that you have personally attacked me and other users. Saying "I am not perfect" is FAR from admitting fault, which is what you need to do to put this to bed. --Tarage (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I did say it. My behavior did not help with this ANI which I am to blame and should've acted differently. Matter of fact, this ANI was wrong to begin with. (N0n3up (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

Striking then, so long as you understand that this should not happen again. --Tarage (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

So what now? (N0n3up (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC))

Let it die. The longer you reply to it, the more it sticks around. Count your blessings it didn't go any further than it did. --Tarage (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the user has fully admitted it, I think a custom warning should be it. Any admins want to do this? —JJBers 13:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman Spinner editing dab pages in breach of ban

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

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

• Blatant breach of ban, so I have blocked for 48 hours (although I don't think adding an AFD header as part of the nomination process should be considered on its own as enough to break the ban on 'editing'). I support extending the ban to nominating for deletion too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he could look at archiving that massive talkpage when the block expires. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

For clarification, as Roman Spinner seems unclear about it too, the diff I cited in the initial post was not just adding an AfD header: he made substantial changes to the dab page in the same edit. PamD 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman has now explained below that the substantial edit was accidental. It illustrates the importance of checking the effect of any edit, including those which are automated or shortcuts. PamD 12:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Well at that point you might as well make it a topic ban from all DAB pages/discussions. Very little wriggle-room there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps explicitly covering redirects to dabs too. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support extending this ban to "Wikipedia disambiguation, broadly construed". That ought to clearly cover the relevant areas being disrupted: if it has to do with disambiguation, it's off-limits. The problem seems at the core to be WP:IDHT: when told explicitly that what they're doing is wrong, Roman Spinner ignores the advice and does the wrong thing anyway, often repeatedly. Immediately renominating Ivan Saric for deletion after being told that AFD is the wrong venue to propose a merge is just the latest example of this years-long pattern. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn, i believe you misremember the result; the linked discussion, while the initial proposal was not specific about talk pages, modified the proposal to explicitly include them, which Katie's close clearly states. That minor point aside, however, i would fully support the proposal above, to ban Roman from disambiguation altogether. Some of his work is useful, but the continued wrong actions, even after being shown they are wrong, is not helpful at all, and the project should be protected from them. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

LindsayH, I appreciate your kind characterization at the start of the sentence, "Some of his work is useful", however the remainder of the sentence, "but the continued wrong actions, even after being shown they are wrong, is not helpful at all, and the project should be protected from them", leaves me puzzled. Other than this unfortunate sole exception over the entire course of the year and two months from the time the dab page topic ban was imposed, what are those "continued wrong actions" that threaten Wikipedia's integrity and where/how has it been "shown that they are wrong"? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from OP: given Roman's replies and explanation of the accidental nature of his substantial edit to a dab page, I'd be happy to see this dicussion closed now with no further action - but other editors @Boleyn: @Ivanvector: @Boing! said Zebedee: @LindsayH:might wish to continue. PamD 14:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm happy to close this now - after the comments below, I agree there's no further action needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that's fine by me. To my mind, a ban from editing disambiguation pages includes a restriction from discussion processes which affect their content, such as suggesting that two dab pages be merged, but if that is not the intent behind the topic ban (I have not read that discussion in great detail) then no further sanction is required. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I disagree, PamD, Ivanvector, Boing! said Zebedee, LindsayH. The original ban stated: Consensus is clear: Roman Spinner is banned from editing disambiguation pages and their associated talk pages (closed by KrakatoaKatie. This includes creating new dab pages. Although no alternative mechanism to allow RS to propose changes to dab pages was discussed, I suggest that Roman Spinner create a sandbox for that purpose if he so desires. Roman has continually broken this ANI by editing their 'associated talk pages', more than a dozen times in the last month. This is not a one-off infraction of the last ANI. I suggest if Roman sees something of concern, he picks an editor to drop a line to and ask to look at it. This is a persistent violation of the original ANI - I propose simply that he is made to keep to the original decision of the original ANI. Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman Spinner's reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on the above The diff I cited in the initial post here was not just "insertion of AfD template": you substantially altered the dab page at the same time. PamD 16:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In attempting to make my reply, above, as brief as possible while including all the key elements, I omitted an explanation relating to your lead paragraph mention that I "substantially altered the content" of the dab page. As I previously indicated, I made no edits to the content of the Ivan Šarić dab page and the addition of the AfD template represented the sole change I made there. Unfortunately, however, instead of adding the AfD template manually at 19:05, 23 April 2017, I took the shortcut of clicking on my earlier edit of 05:27, 23 April 2017 without realizing that in between those two timestamps, three edits had already been made to the page. Thus, I accidentally restored the page to its 05:27, 23 April 2017 form and did not know that it also automatically resulted in those changes until you pointed it out. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah. That illustrates the importance of checking the effect of any edits one does, especially using any sort of automation or "shortcut". That substantial edit of yours, accidental as it may have been, was the main thing which triggered this whole thread. PamD 12:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Response from another editor

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

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

I participated at the Talk:Ivan Šarić RM, and I agree that Roman messed the followup badly – instead of just redirecting one dab to the other (a routine action that emerged from the discussion, and that just nobody took upon themselves to execute), he opened no less than two consecutive AfDs. Still, I think the complete topic ban on dab pages is a bit of overkill. Those RM proposals were all within reason, and the last two were closed in favor of his proposed move, while the Talk:Kalinin one was rejected largely on procedural grounds (that mass nomination was inappropriate). I am not aware of history of his topic ban. No such user (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the RM proposals. As for the Ivan Šarić AfD, I did indeed mess up badly on that one and I apologize to all participants here for having to spend time discussing it as a result. In my frustration at being prevented by the topic ban from merging the Ivan Saric and Ivan Šarić dab as was ultimately done so quickly and easily by Ivanvector, I took the unwise and rash step of re-adding the AfD template, instead of the wise step of posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation and asking other Wikipedians for help in unifying the two dabs.

However, I would like to assure participants that such rashness is very atypical of me and represents a nearly unique occurrence. In my entire 11 years and 3 months on Wikipedia, I have never engaged in edit warring, 3RR or incivility and certainly have no pattern of any such behavior. The topic ban (with length of dab entries as the sole reason) has already lasted a year and two months and this single unfortunate incident should not be used as a reason for expanding the ban and barring me from editing in ever-wider swaths of Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Iran or Persia

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) recently removed Category:6th-century BC Persian people in favor of Category:6th-century BC Iranian people on a lot of articles, while making that category a soft-redirect. I reverted part of them (tried to catch as many as I could), and then the editor posted on my talkpage,[2] to which I replied,[3] and at the same time started an edit war at Category:6th-century BC Iranian people,[4][5], ignoring my call to discuss first and claiming that this is "basically 3rd grade stuff". Please explain to this editor that he must discuss such mass edits before implementing them, or at least after he has been called to discuss. User notified on talkapge,[6] but notification removed[7] with claim "Making an issue out of nothing, absolutely silly. I am not going to take part in that.", so not responsive. Instead he prefers to remind me of my "recent" block for edit warring.[8] Debresser (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically Debresser here is making an huge issue out of nothing. I already said my stuff here [9]. I am honestly not interested to take part in something that shouldn't be a problem - also, I find it funny how he simply started mass-revert crusade and now is basically avoiding to discuss with me about his actions. With all due respect, he should talk to me about it, not hide behind the users here. And yes, it is important to note that he has been recently blocked due to edit-warring.

"but notification removed with claim "Making an issue out of nothing, absolutely silly. I am not going to take part in that.", so not responsive. Instead he prefers to remind me of my "recent" block for edit warring."

Well that's clearly wrong, since I wrote other stuff to you as well actually regarding the issue, which you simply chose to ignore. If you're gonna mass-revert several articles, then you should also take the responsibilty and discuss with the user about it. Every normal person would get frustrated by that, obviously. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not avoiding discussion. To the contrary, I called on you to start a discussion instead of edit warring, and you have not done so. you even started to edit war. Please understand that posting on my talkpage is not "discussing". Discussions should be posted at the appropriate places, like WP:IRAN, WP:HISTORY, not on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, that's not really a good excuse. You still had time to respond to me, which you chose not to. Take responsibility for something you have done, that's all I am going to say. Also, if you're that of a constructive user, you wouldn't have started a mass-revert crusade, but would have written to me first, and asked why I did those edits. Not to mention I even gave a proper, non-biased justification for my edits. Also, you might wanna take a look here [10]. You brought this issue up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents way too early, and should have sit down and talked with me first. Furthermore, regarding me 'starting a edit-war' [11], I only corrected a huge error, it was a no-brainer to me tbh - you might wanna take a look here [12] [13]; This is why you write to the talk page of the user about a topic he is widely more knowledgeable about before making 11 reverts. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I left you an explanation in an edit summary, which was reason for you to undo it. I responded to your message on my talkpage, and still you reverted. So I had no choice but to take you here, which - wonder, oh wonder - instantly had the desired effect of stopping you. Now, please discuss this somewhere, post a link to the discussion here, and I am sure admins will close this soon enough as "requiring no action". Debresser (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I am sorry I didn't look at every edit summary of your 11 reverts which made my notification box explode. That's what talk pages are for mate. Also, you may have responded on your talk page, but you still avoided my justification for doing those edits, and is still doing so. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You really don't seem to get it. This is not the place for a content dispute. For that, please open a proper discussion, either on one of those WikiProjects or at WP:CFD. This page is for the behavioral issue. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't care less, I just am explaining my actions. Nope, not going to post on WikiProjects or at WP.CFD, but in the talk page of the category itself (WP:DISCUSSFAIL). --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

HistoryofIran's contributions don't look to encouraging. His conduct with other users isn't too encouraging either, in case your'e wondering what that text is, he's saying :

"LouisAragon Aleykum Salam! I write my own history with the culture of other nations? You're donkeys, you Persians, no time to write history! I am writing to you to in order to stop stealing the history of the Turks, you bastards. !!" struck out as incorrect, this was done by another user,not History of Iran

This recent comment to Debresser wasn't all that great either. He looks to have recieved a block (admittedly back in 2016 (May 2016) ) for edit warning in a Persian topic, and there are a few more besides this one, further back, and he looks like he's heading back into that territory again. I'm thinking possibly a TBAN for him might be forthcoming.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

KoshVorlon: You're completely right, my contributions [14] [15][16] don't look encouraging at all :). Besides, that text wasn't written by me, but by this guy, [17] who has a history of insulting people in another language, hence why he got banned [18]. You're basically falsely accusing me of saying something I literally didn't say. Why would I insult my own ethnicity? Also, where do you see that I am 'heading back into that territory' by looking at my contributions besides the issue with Debresser [19]? Since when did expanding articles become disruptive? I will admit that I could have been more gentle when writing to Debresser, but I wasn't outright hostile towards him, nor did I insult him or anything like that. It's quite normal to get frustrated when a person makes 11 reverts and then refuses to discuss about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: that "comment", which you highlighted here, was made by an indeffed user named "Rufet Turkmen",[20] not user HistoryofIran. What you just did, was copying the translation I added on admin Ymblanter's talk page (2 April 2017), word for word verbatim,[21] and presenting it right here as if they are HistoryofIran's words. Please strike your accussation once you read this. Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And what's more interesing about this whole "case", is that user "Debresser" never had an actual dialogue about the matter on his talk page, nor on the talk page of any of the articles in question (not counting the accusation of vandalism straight off the bat). Sure, "HistoryofIran" ignored BRD (which isn't even a guideline/policy), but its "Debresser" who found his way to this drama board pretty much right away. That much said about "proper editing". - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, FYI, all these 5th/6th-centuries BC Persian people categories were made by an user who has a long history of tendentious editing, and who was forcefully placed under a mentor until the recent past.[22][23] I don't blame HistoryofIran, who has single handedly done most work on Iranian-related aticles for years, for challenging them. Yet user Debresser, who, as far as I can see, has barely ever made any content edits to Iranian-related articles, was there swiftly to report HistoryofIran, to a drama board. Go figure. Overhasty attempt to get rid of someone, thats what this is all about IMHO. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not a "drama board", but is the place where editors go when they have to deal with edit warriors who are not willing to discuss. The fact that I don't edit Iranian-related articles that much (just a few), has nothing to do with this. Nobody owns any section of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well you're making it like a drama board, this shouldn't have been an issue from the start. Hmmm, who is the edit warrior, me, or the person who did over 11 reverts? Who is not willing to discuss, me, or the person who has time to revert/edit and write here, whilst still not responding to my justifcation (most likely because you don't have anything proper to say tbh). It was me who wanted to discuss from the start, whilst you ignored me and then brought this issue to this board. Also, did I ever accuse you randomly of vandalism? No? Did you do that to me? Yes? Well I think we've found out who the disruptive editor is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

HoI is a good editor and he does good contributions to Iranian-related articles. However, I don't understand why he removed that category from several Achaemenid articles like Cyrus the Great[24]? Weren't Cyrus and Achaemenids Persian? Is that category unnecessary? Why? --Wario-Man (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I did that because that category gives limited options compared to the Category:6th-century BC Iranian people. A lot of Iranians weren't Persians (but according to Debresser, it seems that all Iranians are Persian [25], which is heavily incorrect ofc). A good example is Mandane of Media, who was of Iranian Median descent, but yet Debresser reverted my edit on that article as well, which clearly shows that he didn't even take a proper look at the articles he reverted, but reverted for the sake of reverting, imho. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In view of the fact that HistoryofIran still tries to make the point that I am the problematic editor, which he explains with various accusations that have no leg to stand on, despite the fact that he is the editor who unilaterally decided to make tens of undiscussed changes related to categorization of a group of articles, refused to discuss them when he was reverted and asked to discuss, and still has not opened a discussion about them, I propose that this editor be temporarily (blocked or) topic banned, till such time as he shows he understands the error of his ways as well as his willingness to discuss these edits and similar edits in the future. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure I was the one that wanted to discuss in the first place [26] - it was your own choice to not reply to me, hence you are the one that refused to discuss, not me. Of course I haven't opened a discussion about it when there's an ongoing issue here, which shouldn't have been an issue in the first place if you chose to reply to me instead avoiding my argument for those edits. Obviously you still have time to answer back, so don't make it look like I am the one refusing to talk. Also, pretty sure my 'accusations' are pretty solid, especially the Mandane of Media part. Heck, my reason for those edits are literally up above, you're welcome to answer back. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this sounds more like a content dispute with the categories. —JJBers 17:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with JJBers. This is more of a content dispute concerning categories and should be discussed on article talk pages. Instead of Debresser making a demand for discussion on the talk page, why have they not started a discussion? This discussion should be closed and both Debresser and HistoryofIran should be expected to discuss this out on the appropriate article talk page(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree - I'll create a section on the talk page of Category:6th-century BC Persian people right after this discussion has been closed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Why only "after" this discussion is closed? I'd say that is additional proof of your bad faith. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How is that proof somehow? I just think it would be more suitable that way, you might want to calm down. Fine, I'll create a discussion when I am home, where I'll be eagerly waiting for your response.

• This looks like a WP:CfD issue to me. Pinging BrownHairedGirl for assistance. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I too think that the category talkpage is not the optimal place for such a discussion. There exists WP:CFD and Template:Cfm for proposing category merges. One of the reasons is that category talkpages are usually not visited by many editors. Unfortunately, HistoryofIran is not inclined to take any good advice from me. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"Good advice" that's subjective. Sounds more like a way for you to avoid taking part in this issue further imho.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofIran (talk • contribs)

You really don't get it. Poor you. I came here to report a behavioral issue. I do not have to discuss any content issue with you. In addition, you refuse for the third day now to open a discussion about it, insisting without any basis in policy or custom, that you want this discussion closed first. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Poor you (speaking in your language now), you should have thought about that before making 11 swift reverts without any form for discussion, you're no saint yourself. Don't assume you're the boss of Wikipedia. I haven't 'refused' anything, don't put false words in my mouth, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I started a thread on Category talk:6th-century BC Persian people about this. —JJBers 15:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks JJBers, I'll get to it right away. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Debresser, you are the one that started this ANI thread, and you should be the one that takes it (and should have taken it in the first place) to WP:CFD. Please do that, so this unnecessary and ill-placed content dispute thread can be closed here. Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender Huh? These edits weren't my idea! Why should I take it to Cfd? Debresser (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You are making the complaint. You filed the complaint in the wrong venue. This is not the venue for a content dispute. So nothing is going to happen here. If you want something to happen, file your complaint or suggestion or request in the correct venue, which would be WP:CfD -- Categories for Discussion. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to re-read my first post, and you'll see I came here only because of the behavioral issue. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

This is part of an editorial war already reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dapi89 reported by User:K.e.coffman¨ I suppose its better if all matters are resolved in one forum. Otherwise, I think its rather a case of WP:OWN on behalf of User:Dapi89, proven by such statements by him as: Editors opinions count for nothing and I will do as I please. There are three editors who agrees. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Dishonest. I said I will do as I please on my talk page, not the article. Also, our collecrive opinions dont matter, its the sources that should prevail. That is the point i made quite clearly. Please dont lie. Dapi89 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89:, you are required to notify users when starting a discussion about them, see the big orange edit notice at the top of the edit page. I have notified them both for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I feel I am involved. I did not edit the article, but contributed on the talk page. I notice that Dapi89 has voiced the first accusation of tag teaming on 4 April 2017.[27] Since then the editor has made no attempt of WP:DR, but confined him/herself to short comments speaking of a possible "destruction" of the article that he/she has to prevent. Thus the editor seems to perceive anyone who is not with him as being against him.(from WP:AN3RR). The editor routinely resorts to accusations. From today [28]--Assayer (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

For the administrator who look into this case: Wikipedia editor Creuzbourg (person who started to mass remove material on the Rudel page) tagged the article as containing excessive intricate details and contains unreliable sources even though is a GA article that requires to meet the comprehensiveness criteria and is throughly reviewed, has also tagged with the same tags these following pages:

→ FA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Kesselring&type=revision&diff=777161722&oldid=776657232

→ FA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Mölders&type=revision&diff=777174753&oldid=776113712

→ GA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Galland&type=revision&diff=777163959&oldid=776113388

→ GA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erich_Hartmann&type=revision&diff=777160461&oldid=777010274

I don't believe Creuzbourg editing of these articles is being done in good faith, he acts as if he have consensus for tagging and removal of sourced material on these Featured Articles and Good Articles. In other words, from my observations he is biased and agend-driven editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

IP 104.237.XX, please log in to your account if you wish to attack people on ANI (or for that matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history). Nobody believes you don't have one. Evading scrutiny on noticeboards is inappropriate. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

I do not believe that Featured Articles and Good Articles are beyond criticism. I am not driven by any agenda. I do not normally write about WW2 German military history or biography, but tried to improve an article that I found faulty. I tagged it and started a discussion on the discussion pages. I did not want to do, what most WP-editors do, i.e. just leave a tag and run; however the tag was immediately removed, the discussion thwarted. I am immensely disappointed with Wikipedia that such disruptive behavior can go on and on and on, and extremely tired of the whole thing. I am perfectly willing to be banned from editing Rudel or any of above articles, as long as Dapi89 also will be banned. The articles are faulty, and the tags should not be removed before consensus is reached. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Update and request: Dapi89 has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring (in a conflict which is relevant to their OP complaint of tag teaming). They ought really to be able to comment here without any cumbersome please-move-this-to-ANI system, so I've offered to unblock on condition that they edit nothing other than this ANI thread for as long as the block would have lasted. They're not online and I have to go out now. If they agree to the condition, I'd appreciate it if any passing admin would kindly unblock, with a note about conditions in the log. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC).

Response by Dapi89: Then no, on principle. I'll agree to leave the Rudel page alone for 72 hours, if the same rule is also applied to the tag team operating there . Dapi89 12:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC) (Diff). Assayer (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Assayer. So much for that, then; he'll remain blocked, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC).

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

• WP:BOOMERANG: the reporting editor has a long pattern of uncivility and ad hominem arguments. Just today, at the WP:3RRN, he suggested that he can also provide evidence of Coffman of violating the 3RR rule on many occasions (diff). When I invited him to file such a report, he responded with On reflection, this is a case of Wikipedia:Tag team without providing any proof for this claim: diff. Substantiation is lacking from this report as well, which I consider frivolous & without merit.

This has been an-going pattern with the editor, please see some of the edit summaries by Dapi89 from the Rudel article as well as others:

• Undid revision 773585302 by Creuzbourg (talk) poor editing; dumbing down; no sense in removing these details; eliminated tag. Related discussion: Rudel#Intricate details. From the Talk page: BS.
• rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive. Related discussion: Lütjens#External links
• ridiculous. Related discussion: Lent#Alt text.
• reverted edits by Coffman. Ignorance (...). Related discussion: Uncited content previously cited to Franz Kurowski
• spurious tag and vandalism. Related discussion: Recent edit
• "No Stephan, no. A clear lack of understanding", with comments such as: No Stephan, that is how it works. The onus is on those making the allegation to prove their case. And yes it is Stephan. In Talk:Otto Kittel#Kurowski (the article was ultimately delisted as a Good Article: GAR).
• Etc.

This pattern of behaviour is disruptive and a topic ban from Luftwaffe / WWII articles (perhaps starting at 30 days, same duration as floated at the 3RRN) may be in order: diff from 3RRN. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Although this has many appearances of a content dispute, I agree with @K.e.coffman: that @Dapi89:'s POV edits and source disputes are problematic. This user has every appearance of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to preserving "their" sources and interpretations. They frequently accuse "opposing" editors of lying, rambling, dissembling, and incompetence. Their block log shows 6 blocks for disruptive editing, personal attacks, and/or harassment. This is behavior that has persisted and show no signs of abatement after these blocks. Examples just since their last block include, but are certainly not limited to (in no particular order):

• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_149#Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn#Dandolo.2C_.27Avieri-class_destroyer.27.2C_imaginary_submarine_etc.: ...if you can't understand that you've no chance of understanding the issue.... I don't give a damn what you think, I'll drown you in sources on the FAA if I have to.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#Blatant case of WP:OWN stemming from This edit on Malcolm Wanklyn: ...cease from this. This is not a requirement and it looks awful. You're not a main contributor, so your opinions are not important. (In edit summary) and Well let me spell out the obvious; his opinions on the bibliography are not important....That is quiet clearly a lie Shem.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Fringe source in WWII bio article ...His {User:K.e.coffman} attacks on the German-related articles, specifically related to World War II, looks like a crusade.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr The argument he {User:K.e.coffman again} gives is that is non neutral point-of-view. I'm saying that's BS. (Disclosure: this comment made in response to me)
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65#Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany No, I was in favour of only Bundesluftwaffe and objected to it's removal. No need for dishonesty. (Disclosure: I was also involved in this discussion)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 204#Franz Kurowski for a GA article (WWII) ...It is beyond absurd. The opinions of a few editors on Wikipedia is not enough. One editor described that it as lazy analysis, I'd go further....
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_216 ...Other editors should beware before being drawn in to this agenda-driven bull shit.
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Additional input sought for a GAR re sources ...Such an assumption is colossally stupid and exposes your own bias.

Dapi89 clearly has an issue with K.e.coffman and seems incapable of participating in any discussion of WWII topics, especially ones in which the latter is involved, without resorting to accusations of bias and incivility. Equally clearly, there needs to be some resolution of these issues. Since I am also tangentially involved, I refrain from suggesting any specific remedies but trust to the evaluations of the folks here. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Dapi89 and coffman clearly have issues with each other;l I'm very reluctant to say it's on DAPI. I'd say it's a two way street. The discussion to which coffman refers is often not a discussion at all but a barrage of wiki-rules and wikietiquette and wikipolicies, followed by edit summaries, links to old pages, and so on. It is a brilliant use of wikipedia's user guidelines to obfuscate the issue, which is fundamentally that one editor wants to control and limit the sources relating to Nazi-era articles, and another wants to include a wider array of sources. One editorial group wants to trim articles of all details, including things that are important, that might be of human interest, and that relate to post-war activities, and another editorial group who think those details might be interesting. auntieruth (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• I've attempted to discuss issues with the editor previously, but it was not successful; see: User_talk:Dapi89#Edit summaries. I've also attempted to engage the user in the discussion at WP:Notability (people)#Current consensus, but apart from an erroneous claim, no dialog was offered. Another contributor pointed out the personal attacks (Talk page), but the response was: I'm not going to rephrase. There is a history of disruption with this editor and I will make the point in which ever way I like and the standard ad hominem about the suspect agendas of arch-polemicists. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- despite being warned about a potential block and / or while blocked, User:Dapi89 has continued to cast aspersions and belittle other editors, as in

• cant seem to distinguish the wood from the trees (diff);
• it appears as if you have taken sides (diff);
• Dishonest. (...) Please dont lie (diff).

He has offered no substantiation to the claims at this ANI discussion, while insisting that there's a tag team operating at the Rudel article. I have concerns that once unblocked in the next 36 hours, the user would continue this pattern of behaviour, and I thus reiterate my topic ban proposal. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support TB Luftwaffe Length of time is immaterial to me. And an instant 24 the next time he is incivil or makes PA/aspersions.L3X1 (distant write) 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose TB Luftwaffe This argument between DAPI and 2 other editors seems to have degenerated on all sides, and I object to banning a professional historian who specializes in aerial warfare. auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's not just two other editors, as documented above. While this particular incident started with Dapi89's accusation of tag-teaming against two editors, but his bad-faith accusations over many, many WWII content disputes are not limited by target. The statement "degenerated on all sides" is also an apparent mis-interpretation of events. In this dispute, as in others involving Dapi89, his interlocutors have refrained from the personal attacks and incivility that are clear in his own statements. As to the professional historian charge, even professionals are expected to edit by consensus and good sources. Every time Dapi89's sources are challenged he becomes very, well, unprofessional. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

• not sure who posted this, but I will say that the whole discussion is out of control. I'm more likely to support an "all fighters to their corners" approach to give everyone a breather. Including those of us who are trying to keep up with the opus-like volume of material posted on why such and such is bad, or good, or problematic. auntieruth (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• You're correct, I missed adding my sig. Apologies and added now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• The allegations of incessant bickering (diff) & the discussion having degenerated on all sides are without merit. @Auntieruth55: please provide diffs to substantiate this statement; alternatively, please strike it. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I refer you to your own posts. This demonstrates incessant bickering. Every week I'm reviewing something that you're editing; some of your material is very good, especially on the Russian and Ukrainian fronts.--I like it very much. As for the "diffs", I don't have time. Papers to grade, exams to write, articles to edit, reviews to do. Anyone looking at the history of the pages in question can see it. As for degenerating, the name calling -- whoever does it-- needs to stop. The bickering is not helpful, No one has time for it, and I wish it would stop. auntieruth (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Auntieruth, I understand you may well have better things to do in real life than to provide evidence (diffs) for your accusations against K.e.coffman. But in such a case, the proper course of action is to refrain from posting those accusations. Seriously. I don't see how K.e.coffman is to be expected to answer something so unspecific as "your own posts ... demonstrate incessant bickering". Especially since uninvolved editors such as me can see K.e.coffman's posts, they're right above, and I don't see any bickering in them. Except indeed in their many quotations of bickering and intemperate remarks by Dapi89. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

• As a comment, not all academic or other experts are able to properly edit WP. A professional historian obtains importance in their field by finding new data or original reinterpretations; aWP editor must do neither. An academic is expected to have a distinct personal POV, and to firmly defend their hypotheses as superior to those of other people; a WP editor must do neither. Some professional historians , especially those known for writing general textbooks, are able to write and interact in WP mode; some are not. The ones who cannot resist OWNership are usually banned from even a topic area where they are experts. Their ideas are not banned: they can still contribute by their published works, which can then be used by other editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you for clearing that up. This all goes back to a discussion of whether a specific source is considered reliable: Just, Günther (1986). Stuka Pilot Hans Ulrich Rudel. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History. ISBN 978-0-88740-252-4. Schiffer is a private, family owned publisher. They have a wide array of books. I'm just not convinced that this is an alt-right wing publisher promoting fascism. There has been a focused effort by one or two editors to limit the publications that are considered neutral for this range of articles, and I just don't understand the problem with it. I don't think it's DAPI's effort--although he/she is sometimes a bit abrupt--but I also think coffmann can be off target on these things too. I'm concerned that a series of articles that have been collectively valued and reviewed by the project are being taken apart unnecessarily. Can they use some discreet editing? Probably yes, but not on the scale that has been happening. Two of the editors involved seem to expect instant responses to their posts, and that just doesn't happen. We all of us have "real life" and cannot be expected to drop everything because they have posted a question. I do appreciate that coffmann is now (most of the time) posting questions on the talk page before massively unilaterally deleting information, or bilaterally doing so with the other editor's approval. I'm just not convinced yet that this is the right thing to do. auntieruth (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor who routinely says things like: "I don't give a damn what you think," and "Your opinions are not important," and "Such an assumption is colossally stupid" is not "a bit abrupt". This minimizes and papers over the very persistent attempts by Dapi89 to bully and badger editors into acquiescing to his position. Couching this behavior in terms of the dispute over Schiffer is also inaccurate. As noted above, this behavior has involved other editors besides User:K.e.coffman and User:Creuzbourg. This is hardly behavior provoked by one content dispute. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

As can be seen on the talk page, the "conflict" evolved with a discussion about "intricate details". It was actually me who first questioned the bias of Günther Just's work on Rudel on 2 April 2017, not because of its American publisher, however, but because of Just's close personal ties to Rudel, the NPD and, later, the DVU. In short, Just is a well known journalist of the extreme right and his work is strongly biased. A little to my dismay that did not become a major issue during the ensuing debate and it was never commented upon by Creuzbourg. Instead the discussion focused upon style, intricate details and GA criteria (i.e. question of "comprehensivenes"). There is one thread on "sources". But what has been reverted by Dapi89 ever since were mainly copy edits.7 April 2017 or 25 April all the while he only minimally contributed to the discussion. --Assayer (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Dapi89's habits as a "professional historian" of aerial warfare I might point out that they recently made mutually exclusive claims about two different persons. On 10 February 2017 they claimed that Friedrich Rumpelhardt was Most successful radar operator in the Luftwaffe, part of the most successful night-fighting team in air warfare , whereas on 9 April 2017 they claimed that Erich Handke was The most successful night fighter operator of the war Both statements obviously contradict each other. Dapi89 still also found words to belittle K.e.coffman on each occasion.--Assayer (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban as proposed, i. e. from Luftwaffe and WWII, not just from Luftwaffe, for 30 days. 30 days, which would be a long time for a block, is short for a topic ban, in my experience, and I'd also support a longer ban, such as three months. Reverting an established and obviously good faith editor with an edit summary of "rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive" is pretty scandalous, no matter how much you disagree with them. It's the kind of aggressiveness that's likely to ruin the experience of Wikipedia editing, not just for the target of the abuse, but for other people who are deterred from discussion by it. As for the accusations above and at Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel that coffman has also taken part in "bickering", I can't see that they have any merit. I've noticed further examples by dipping into Coffman's userpage, which names no names, but is full of juicy quotes with links to who said them. That's far too much for me to go into, or indeed read, but for a recent example, check out the history of Günther Lütjens on and around 10 March, which is where the edit summary I quoted comes from. There we see coffman removing the external links with polite references to the talkpage, and Dapi reinstalling them with name-calling. (The talkpage discussion is also interesting.) The quotes offered by Eggishorn above add to the impression of a battleground editor. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC).
• Support 3 month topic ban from WW2 broadly construed per Bishonen. Coffman is certainly a contentious editor within the WW2 field, but he is respectful and follows WP conduct policy and content policy. People's issues with his views on sourcing being Nazi propaganda, etc. are a content dispute not best handled at ANI. That doesn't matter here though, as those issues are content disputes. The question is whether or not Dapi's behavior in WW2 articles is enough for a topic ban. The name calling of editors who are perceived as being on the opposite side of a content dispute in WW2 is disruptive to the project. A topic ban would not be punishment: it would allow steam to escape and hopefully encourage future collaboration. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - A topic ban as proposed, i. e. from Luftwaffe, for 14 days, should be enough time for him to be reflective and cool his heels, if one is to be imposed. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as auntieruth has said many of us have greater 'real life' priorities, and most of us can't keep up with the sheer volume of edits coming through. I can appreciate Dapi's level of frustration has reached breaking point. I acknowledge I also have history with coffman's practices and it has left me dispirited and resigned that quantity and rules-lawyering will win out a common sense approach on Wikipedia. As I was approaching a breaking-point, I did a self-imposed exile from the topic unwilling to put wasted time and effort to either compile and argue for a case or to write new material when it would likely be reverted without discussion. I also acknowledge that neither side can see merits in the other's case and I don't know how this can be resolved. I would prefer auntieruth's proposal that both sides be given a timeout instead of just one being singled out for punishment and reprimand when both have exhibited questionable behaviour by different means and methods. Philby NZ (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I would consider editor Philby NZ to be involved given the prior interactions; for example, here's commentary from an AfD on an article that I created (AfD: J.J. Fedorowicz), where he commented on my editing reputation, while suggesting that the article's purpose was to act as [my] platform to show how shoddy its publication reliability is (diff).

The disagreements that Philby NZ describes were due in part to copyvios on the Luftwaffe articles that he contributed to; pls see for example: User_talk:Diannaa:Copyvio (where he had described my contributions as sabotage). Likewise, past disagreements with Dapi included in part the placing of copyvio-revdel tags in articles. Dapi insisted on removing such tags, such as here: Talk:Gustav_Rödel#Copyvio, which also showed Dapi's rather surprising lack of awareness about how Wikipedia handles copyvios. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

yes and that it why I mentioned my conflict-of-interest. The copy-vios were related to some of my original writings on Wikipedia. The tribulations of dealing with you since have meant I have barely written any article-expansions since on this topic in the last few years. Philby NZ (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

It's not conditional. Dapi89 was offered an earlier unblock on certain conditions, but did not accept them, so those conditions are a thing of the past. His 72-hour block will expire in about three hours, with no conditions. He'll be free to edit all of Wikipedia after that. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

Okay, below are a few edit diffs (my grading is finished for the week) that I have dredged up.

• I don't think it's reasonable to expect an editor to respond in short order to another editors demands. see this conversation
• I call this an unreasonable action on the part of another editor
• acknowledgment of an editorial war here.
• and here. Since these articles involve WP:MilHist, it may be that we have some housecleaning to do on our guidelines. Would you suggest that? I can bring it to the project's attention (again). auntieruth (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• adding another. This edit was done a while ago, changing what had been an alttext description of a picture (remember when alt-text was required?) to delete "details. See here. auntieruth (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you posted the diff's you intended? It is very easy to get the oldid parameters mixed up when posting diff's, hence my question. These tend to document poor behavior by Dapi89 with the exception of the conversation with me on K.e. coffman's talk page (at worst general frustration with a wikiproject) and the changes to Sayn-Wittgenstein (K.e.coffman has made no secret of their disdain for romanticism in WWII German officer articles and doesn't do so disruptively there). In fact, some duplicate some of the earlier-posted quotes of Dapi89's behavior. I think that history is already well-established. Did you mean to add to the record or to support the earlier statements about "bickering"? If the latter, I'm very confused as to how these help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well, yes, I guess. I don't like pulling up old edit posts, because it seems like water unbder the bridge. And yes I did meant to chose those, because they show another side to the story. auntieruth (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict while I was adding this.

• I realize that WWII is a contentious subject. I found a reddit page with all kinds of instructions about how to disrupt wikipedia's efforts to provide some coverage of the German military. I have it bookmarked and I could post the page here, but I'm not sure it would be productive. Its instructions were very clear on how to disrupt the wikipedia processes. One of the complaints was the the abundance of articles on the Knights Cross and lack of articles on Heroes of the Soviet. I'd like to see more of those. auntieruth (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- indeed, the romanticisation of the German WWII war effort is not only being discussed on the internet, but is also a subject of serious academic study. I would recommend:

• The Myth of the Eastern Front by Ronald Smelser & Edward J. Davies, and
• The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality by Wolfram Wette

(Disclaimer, all these articles have been created by me). I would suggest either one as required reading to anyone who would like to edit on WWII topics as they related to the German war effort.

Separately, I believe Auntieruth55 to be involved; please see: ANI: Attempted doxxing / casting aspersions by Auntieruth55 below. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support The evidence in the first two comments under "Boomerang proposal" is compelling, as is the attitude shown at User talk:Dapi89#Blocked (diff if needed). Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose TB I have my problems with Dapi's editing style as well as coffman's, but both editors have engaged in battleground behaviour, and have an unswerving certainty of the "rightness" of their views. As auntieruth has pointed out, the never-ending threads and streams of wikilawyering and pointy behaviour that come from coffman are hard to keep up with. WP would benefit from both editors showing a bit more respect for consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Its not just between User:Dapi89 and User:K.e.coffman, its also about User:Dapi89's behavior towards me when I tried to copy edit the Rudel article. When it comes to unsubstantiated claims of "professionalism" and hints of academic employment in the present discussion, that's just ludicrous. Any real academic, whether tenured or not, is swamped with teaching, trying desperately to get time to do real research, and publish real articles; not spending their valuable time writing and fighting rear-guard actions on Wikipedia. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67 please provide evidence of battleground behaviour and streams of wikilawyering and pointy behaviour. Please also show how I've demonstrated insufficient respect for consensus. Otherwise, please retract your statement. (Such accusations from the user are quite typical, as in Yet more wikilawyering and pointy behaviour while apparently describing WP:BURDEN as an essay: diff).

For the record, I make a distinction between community-wide and project-specific consensus; see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS -- more wikilawyering! :-) In the Rudel article where the tag team accusations have stemmed from, such consensus has resulted in an article consisting of talkative expositions and meticulous investigations of insignificant details (see Intricate details, with participation by Peacemaker67, MisterBee1966, Dapi89 & Auntieruth55). A similar protracted discussion took place at Hartenstein#OR. Talk page participants included MisterBee1966, Dapi89 and Auntieruth55 over a month's time. Likewise, see Gollob#Recent edits, in multiple parts, with participation by MisterBee1966, Dapi89, Peacemaker67 and Auntieruth55.

The project coords might want to consider whether its best practices are in agreement with the wider community norms, or even with its own project members. In the thread that Auntieruth55 started as part of this dispute (Massive changes of FA articles), one member commented that the articles in question should be delisted because the sources are too old or too Nazi: diff. This is while the OP states: I don't know what the problem is with these sources , which seems odd for a professional historian. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Paid editor Janweh64 moving own drafts to mainspace, again

Moves of rejected drafts to mainspace by Janweh64 were discussed at this board in February. While all agreed that such moves are not actually forbidden, the editor was given a good deal of advice by various admins, including this: "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."; this: "bad idea to move to mainspace yourself, terrible, terrible idea to edit-war back into mainspace" (same editor); this: "it would be much, much better if Janweh64 stopped moving his pages to the mainspace and submitted them for review instead"; and this: "his COI has clouded his judgement". Since then, the editor has:

• twice moved Draft:Aviv Hadar to mainspace, the second time after I had moved it back to draft, and with the (partial) edit summary "Moved per WP:IAR"
• moved the declined draft Draft:Oncology Care Model to mainspace with the edit summary "Moved WP:AfC-declined article per WP:IAR"

and also directly edited pages such as Robert C. Hilliard (attorney) and Keck Graduate Institute where he/she has a declared paid relationship.

Question: what form – if any – of discouragement is appropriate when an editor refuses to heed guidelines or listen to advice, and cites IAR as a reason for ignoring them? As far as I'm aware, WP:IAR is about ignoring rules in order to improve the encyclopaedia, not about ignoring rules in order to improve your bank balance. (Note: This is about behaviour not content – I've not examined the merit or otherwise of the articles or edits in question.) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggest sanctioning user, starting with a short block—but will refrain from doing so until they've had a chance to respond. El_C 10:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

<To the invisible voices:> What? IAR! *** Seriously though (and I wasn't joking before), is there anything that can be done to discourage this, short of blocking? Warning clearly doesn't work. What other sanction is there? Move-protecting the pages maybe? El_C 10:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read 1, 2, and 3 before rendering judgement. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"Nuke the whales?—→Gotta nuke sumthin'." I'm glad you're doing good (albeit paid) work, but you've been cautioned before against editing and draft-moving directly. So why not simply heed that advise? Plenty of editors out there willing to assist, I'm sure... El_C 10:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs), who originally rejected the article has since reviewed and patrolled the article: Oncology Care Model.

My reasoning is simple, I do not receive fair treatment in some rare cases. With most AfC rejections, I respect the judgement of the reviewer and simply delete the draft. See: [29], [30], and [31]. I have tried using WP:AFCHELP to no avail. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose when the system is failing you, IAR isn't such a bad alternative. Still, I would hope for better checks on paid editing—editing directly feels intuitively wrong to me. El_C 11:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Do the articles meet notability standards? If they do, clean them up from any other issues. If they don't meet notability standards nominate them for deletion at WP:AFD. If they are deleted then they are deleteable again G4. ~ GB fan 10:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, otherwise moving them back to languish in draft is tantamount to deleting them with no consensus. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• A few things: IAR requires that a rule exist in order to break it. WP:COI is a best practice guideline. It is not policy or a must-be-obeyed rule. COI explicitly does not say people with a COI cannot under any circumstances edit articles they have a COI with, because despite many attempts the community has consistantly failed to make it say that. Janweh is also under no formal editing restriction from doing so, beyond the same 'you shouldnt do that' that already exists in the COI guideline. Given the diffs they have posted in reply above, I dont see a problem. If the argument is 'Janweh has been making articles live they have a COI with that are overly promotional' that would be an issue. If the complaint is solely 'Janweh has been making articles live they have a COI with' you need to demonstrate *why* that is a problem. Or open a discussion at WP:COI in order to amend it to forbid the practice. Good luck with that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to dive in - the drafts created by this paid editor should be forced to go through the Articles for Creation process before they become live articles. Why hasn't this been done, or even suggested? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been, the user says My reasoning is simple, I do not receive fair treatment in some rare cases. With most AfC rejections, I respect the judgement of the reviewer and simply delete the draft. El_C 11:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what I get for diving in. @Janweh64: if you don't feel that an AfC review was fair, you can resubmit the draft with a comment such as "Request that another editor reviews this draft" and it'll happen. AfC reviewers aren't biased, most will just happen to randomly review your article having never read it before. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the previous ANI, I have voluntarily and under no clear obligation have started using AfC. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. But in some cases AfC reviewers fail to recognize a notable subject, perhaps clouded by my COI. Like I have said above with examples I usually accept their judgement. But in some case where I strongly believe the subject is notable, I take action to move the article as is my privilege under WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. I even invite the reviewer to nominate the article for AfD.

For an example of how my paid editing is beneficial to Wikipedia please read: Draft:Don_Reitz. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If people don't see that a subject of your article is notable, the onus is on you to prove them wrong. You're a paid editor, you have to abide by WP:PAID and not just take it on yourself to move your drafts to article space. Please work with us, or find another way to make money. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP:PAID only states, "If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." I follow that policy strictly: See User:Janweh64. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest actually reading it - including the sentence about editing articles that you have a conflict of interest with. To put it simply, the general consensus is that paid editors have an inherent, non-neutral point of view regarding subjects that they are being paid to edit. Create your drafts, submit them, and then walk away. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: Please read WP:PAY (not just WP:PAID). The usual process is through the AfC or edit request process. If you have been through that, and you still think the reviewer was really wrong, you can bring your proposed changes to the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where the community will review your proposed changes. -Obsidi (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• support 1 week block. COI management has two essential aspects - disclosure and peer review. The 2nd is essential to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia in light of the bias that a COI creates. Moves of articles to main space by creators after they were rejected by peer reviewers is rarely acceptable; it is not acceptable in the case where a COI is present. This is not a case where IAR is inappropriate. Janweh I advised you earlier to behave in ways that are of the highest standards. The community tolerates paid editing, it doesn't love it. The more you do to create a bad reputation (for instance here by ignoring peer review) the harder your role here becomes. It is just self-destructive, as well as harmful to Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read: WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Simply reaching a consensus on whether or not a COI editor has the right to move an article from draft to articlespace is sufficient to prevent further disruption.

A quote from WP:Policies and guidelines which, unlike WP:COI, is a policy and not a guideline: "Be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms and dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Do not be afraid to tell editors directly that they must or should do something." It is easy:

• An editor with a COI with a subject may not move a draft article to the mainspace or create a new article on the subject in mainspace.
• change "are very strongly discouraged from editing" >>>>>>>> "should not edit"
• "may propose changes" >>>>>>>> "should propose changes"

Otherwise, you are punishing me for declaring my COI religiously when 1000s of others are right now editing with no declaration. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This path of acting aggressively in order to support your paid editing and then arguing fiercely to defend your aggressiveness is just going to lead to an indefinite block per NOTHERE. None of the volunteers here want to waste time any time at all dealing with this, which is just about you making money. Don't you get that? What little patience people have, you exhaust by doing this. There are some paid editors who disclose what they are doing, and who "get it" and create no drama and they add value to WP. You could have been one of them, perhaps. Not what you are choosing... so be it. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I will step back. Please just give me clear guidelines. And I will abide by them. The previous ANI only offered advice.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You have them already. The way out of this particular hole is just to say "Hey, I get it. I am sorry. I will not move my own paid articles to main space anymore, but will appeal through normal channels if I feel an AfC review was unfair. Again, my apologies for creating drama. It is important to me that I remain in good standing with everybody. " Something like that. but mean it, and do it, and don't do stuff that causes people to drag you here.Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur w/ Jytdog. Dlohcierekim 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In light of the new changes/clarification here by Jydog on March 13 to WP:COI, I will not move my own paid articles to main space anymore, but will appeal through normal channels if I feel an AfC review was unfair. My apologies for creating drama, again. It is important to me that I remain in good standing with everybody. I was truly unaware and not informed of these changes to this guideline specifically made after just a mere 20 days from my previous ANI, which was archived unclosed. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Janweh your response promises that this particular problem will end, which is a good thing but the rest of what you write there is argumentative and... horrible. The prior ANI thread from only two months ago was also called "Paid editor moving own drafts to mainspace" and in that thread several editors told you the same thing you have been told here.

In other words, every single editor who commented there and here wasted their time. That is what you just communicated. That you are going to treat WP guidelines and policies like "rulebooks" that you will exploit as hard as you can in order to make money here, and you will ignore community feedback.

That is nothing like what I advised you to write. You can let your comment stand or strike it, but you should be aware of how bad for you, your post was. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Si Trew at RfD

user:SimonTrew has been flooding RfD with up to 70 nominations a day (see any RfD log page in the last week, or from shortly before Christmas. e.g. all-but a handful of the 74 nominations at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20 are by Si Trew), in almost all cases without having done even the most basic of WP:BEFORE checks to see whether they should be deleted or not, and ignoring feedback about what consititutes a good redirect regarding WP:DIACRITICS. [32] is a good illustration of the mentality - trying to nomiante as many redirects as possible in as short a time as possible, regardless of the disruption it causes.

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

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

It's also worth noting that my intention to bring this here was described as "bullying" [33] [34] [35].

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

That is simply not true. I time my nominations very carefully, actually. I am on different time zones from other regulars at RfD. User:Thryduulf does not own RfD, but seems to think he does and wants to bully me because of "other contributors". I have a good memory. User:Champion, who hardly ever contributed, came back this morning and bunged in a few. Several new editors I have encouraged to contribute. Because of this admin bully, User:Thryduulf, we will never get anything done. I have said at my talk page, you are not the only admin. User:Tavix got nominated and became admin mainly because of his work at RfD. There is no requirement for this bully admin to come to RfD. It is purely voluntary. "Flooding" is a joke. I split list 11 into chunks and got through 5000 of them listing about 50, that is 1% of what was on that list. I probably rcatted about the same amount and the other 90% were fine as they were. Sheesh, flooding. I am not a bot. I find this nomination absolutely ridiculous from an admin who pops his head around the door, finds he has work to do, then lists me at ANI. Don't do it, go and contribute somewhere else. Why are you an admin? I dunno. I thought to do that kind of work.

As for doing basic "WP:BEFORE". I cannot do that. The User:Eubot redirects the redirects the articles are not going to have RS are they, they are redirects. I don't care whether the article has RS but whether the redirect makes sense. I sift through the language redirects and go keep, delete, RfD. I took another route earlier today to just nominate the redirects at CSD to see what happened. Would be easier. Certianly easier than arguing with a bully admin who has to do a bit of work as an admin. Shouldn't be an admin then. And try to get my name right. Si Trew or Simon Trew. Not SiTrew. I am not some kind of meme. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I counted 8 personal attacks in this post alone. 2600:1017:B021:5EB5:995B:EC9D:49E5:E6F3 (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The example "problematic nominations" are still open for discussion. That is why I bloody well brought them there because I was not sure. The first is Finnish but a bit iffy, in English Wikipedia, the second is still open but the speedy keep is by this involved admin [[User::Thryduulf]]. That's ff--- WP:INVOLVED if I ever saw it. Si Trew (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, most of the redirects ST has nominated range from the ridiculous to the actively misleading, and I wish they could be deleted without having to go through RfD. (As a fairly seasoned editor I don't question the need for due process, these are just my personal reactions as a professional linguist and a Scandinavian. (Then again, as a Scandinavian, I was brought up in a very consensus based culture, so...)) Anyway, the underlying problem seems to be that there is not enough participation in the RfD discussions so I should put my money where my mouth is and try to participate more. --bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is for Germanic ones to be kept, including Scandinavian. I listed a couple yesterday for A, Sweden and O, Sweden I think. You may have an opinion on those. All I can do is sort and go that's all right that's a bit iffy that needs a delete. I'm just the card dealer not the players. Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

As a counterexample, I put Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_26&action=edit&section=6 this in saying "Ladies ang Gentlemen this is the kind of thing I keep". Good job I did. Nothing wrong with it. Just some bully admins seem to think I am trying to harm this project. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because I don't say I haven't done WP:BEFORE does not mean I have not done it. Do you want my listing to be sesquipedalien? I am wordy enough as it is. Take WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_22#Kestal.2FGoeltepe for example. Did you think I did not try to find that WP:BEFORE I listed it? Fucking ridiculous ANI by Thryduulf. Just because he can't be bothered to work doesn't mean others can't. Should have his admin stripes taken off him. YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Consensus is that the German and Scandinavian ö → oe (and ä → ae, etc) redirects should always be kept (but you still nominate them, e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 22#Schwyzerduetsch), not that ones that are not ones which are not German or Scandinavian should always be deleted. For almost all of the Turkish redirects you've nominated I've found uses in sources indpendent of Wikipedia that demonstrate that transliteration is used, which is a reason to keep them. This is the sort of thing you should be finding before nominating, not relying on other people to find for you. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't nearly a full-time job keeping up with your nominations - hence the request for a rate limit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Si Trew the point I'm trying to make is that I'm putting in literally hours of work (e.g. on 24 April I worked on RfD from 12:44-14:07, 14:45-15:05, 17:43-17:53, and 21:37-22:31 dealing solely with the nominations made on 19th April (almost all by you), I then worked until 23:35 on 20 April nominations (see Special:Contributions/Thryduulf, all times UTC). Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And how many hours of work do you think I put in to make the encylopeadia better? How many? Two? I have to go that's OK, that's iffy, that's a delete. We don't have an WP:X1 concession. "Three years" in your words, I will get it done in ten days, promise, if you let me, but I must flood RfD and I haven't time to do WP:RS, and RS doesn't apply to redirects anyway, I have to go keep, delete, iffy. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So I don't even get to state my own defence, it seems.

Take this little beauty for example, 15_fevrier_1839. What are you going to do with that. It's a French date that has the accents knocked off but it is not an Engish date. What are you going to do with it? Hmm? It isn't 15 February. What are you going to do with it? You're the admin, you know better than me, you bully. I would list it at RfD, but do what you want with it. Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Taking three years without flooding RfD is much better than 10 days of flooding RfD. My opinions on redirects have nothing to do with my being an admin. As for 15 fevrier 1839 that's an obvious keep per WP:DIACRITCS as it's the original title of the film without diacritics. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Its the title of the film without diacritics. Its common for non-native language speakers to search for a foreign language title without diacritics for the simple reason they may not be able to actually type the diacritics without difficulty. Nor may they be able to actually translate the title into whatever language they speak. It not being an English date has nothing to do with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Si Trew nominating a huge number of redirects per day. Many of the redirects he nominates are genuinely bad, and he's doing valuable work bringing them to RfD. But... Si Trew, if you stopped including several paragraphs of unrelated, barely related or repetitive text in so many discussions, that would save you enough time that you could have a deeper look into (and deeper think about) every redirect you nominate without slowing you down any overall.
Also, Thryduulf is not a bully; on the contrary, he's probably the single most valuable editor in RfD's history, and pretty much everybody else on RfD gets along with him spiffingly.
Also, this is pointy and you really shouldn't do things like that. And please stop nominating redirects that are identical to an obviously good redirect except for the straight lack of diacritics, unless really special circumstances apply; redirects like that are kept 99% of the time (like 15 fevrier 1839 would be), and nominating them just creates needless overhead. Sideways713 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support throttling restriction of max. 20 nominations per day, per Thryduulf's suggestion, and further that SimonTrew must carry out the most basic of checks when nominating these redirects and make a sensible argument that discussion of the redirect on its own is required, and not mass-nominating redirects for the sole reason that they were created by a particular user or bot. Many of the nominations he's made since I've been back hanging around RfD in the last week or so have been somewhere between not well researched (e.g. Vikor) to completely obviously not necessary (e.g. Correao, Impact de Montreal) to basically nonsense (JZ series 664). These include one he nominated while arguing in the nomination statement that it should be kept (i.e. he acknowledged it did not need to be nominated at all but did so anyway, making administrative work for no reason). These nominations are disruptive to other editors at RfD, but the problem truly is that Si is completely shut down to any criticism of his actions, doubling down as he has here with angry attacks any time anybody attempts to address this situation and further insisting that his way is both the right way and the only way. You can't participate in a collaborative project if you are not open to collaboration, as Si is regrettably demonstrating. Nevertheless, some of the multitude of Si's nominations do result in redirects being modified, however the signal-to-noise ratio on these is exceptionally poor. If Si can learn to nominate only the ones that need nominating, we'll do much better at RfD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In any case and I have not read Ivanvector's comments, redirects are usually open for "about seven days". Says at the top of RfD. There is no great hurry for a bullying editor to spend five minutes to close them. Some of them may want comment from other editors. Si Trew (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Your reliable sources probably lead back to the shite Eubot created if you look a bit closer. And as usual I'm the one being accused of being the arsehole here. Now, as for asides, I put them in on purpose to try to lighten the load, bring a little humour in because I know it is a burden. Still, just fuck off. Get someone else to do your hard work. Give me a fucking three year ban cos I have had enough of this shit. Si Trew (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

None so deaf as those who can't hear. There are far more newcomers and others that contribute to RfD than when I went on a break in January, from me listing these Eubots. Yes, I do a song-and-dance act. Sometimes I am even quite witty. Sometimes it's not your kind of humour. You have on your hands just today a professional translator who says "I should contribute more to RfD" and I said on I think her maybe his talk page. Don't bother. Go to WP:PNT. You won't be thanked for it. What kind of recommendation is that for the fucking nonsense at RfD. Fucking nonsense. I am trying to get a job done. If you don't like it, do the other thing. I don't mind R's being retargeted, that is exactly why I bring them to RfD when I say I am not sure. that is how we make the encylopaedia better. Now, when I say it should be kept, I would just keep it but it is another way of saying I am not really sure, I should like others' opinions on this. What else am I to do? Si Trew (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

When numerous editors in good standing have problems with the way you do things, you need to accept that it is likely you who are the problem. Blaming everyone else for having a problem with the way you do it is unproductive. You can either keep doing it the way you do and keep being brought to noticeboards (this is what, the 3rd, 4th time in as many months?) until everyone gets tired of it, or actually do what people ask you to do. Without the unnecessary attempts at wit and humour - no one is here to stroke your ego. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban from RfD, striking my earlier comment. Today Si's nominations include Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 26#Gyergyocsomafalva, a redirect to Ciumani, a commune in Romania (formerly Hungary) which is named Gyergyócsomafalva in Hungarian. tl;dr: this is another straight {{R from diacritics}}, he just keeps listing them after being asked by many editors now to stop. Instead, he called this "nonsense" and actually created a template just to illustrate this point, which someone (not me) is now going to have to delete. It's this bullshit that is the problem. It's not the first time Si has created pages just to make some point, usually directed at someone who has expressed concern with his behaviour. Admins can see his work at Ladies and gentelman I should like to annouce, a page he created so that he could embed an announcement of some Neelix-redirect-related milestone in an RfD thread. This is well past WP:IDHT and into WP:CIR territory. I would have blocked Si myself for his latest "fuck off" and "fucking nonsense" comments just now, but I am WP:INVOLVED, and while editing this I've struck out my bolded "from RfD" a number of times. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You are just taking the piss. If you think "Gyergoscsomgalva" means something in Hungarian or English, tell me what it is. Please. I should be glad to hear it. It is not a straight R from dias it is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. I was quite proud that we had got through half of the eubot redirects I thought everyone at RfD should be proud of that. I also created {{R from nonsense}} to put the rest of the fucking thirty thousand into. I don't see any barnstars coming my way yet. Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The article itself Ciumani says in the first line it is Gyergyócsomafalva in Hungarian, the redirect you nominated Gyergyocsomafalva is identical without diacritics. It is not 'nonsense'. Now you either have not read any of the information about redirects regarding diacritics which people have told you about repeatedly, or you didnt actually look at the article Ciumani which would be a massive failure of BEFORE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no way he looks at the articles before he nominates them. As an example, he nominated Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 25#Bogus Linda with some nonsense rationale, referring to the subject with feminine pronouns. Literally a 5 second glance at the target article would be all you need to find out that Linda is, in fact, male. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Sigh, yes if I wasn't involved I'd have blocked him for those completely unnecessary expletives too. I hadn't looked in detail at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 20#Ladies and gentelman I should like to annouce before just now, but it was exceedingly pointy and DuncanHill's recommendation to block Si for disruption is looking sadly more necessary with every example brought here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban from RfD As of today, the user is still being uncivil making personal attacks against bots in the log, here's an example:
  I am FED UP WITH THAT BOT THINKING IT KNOWS ABOUT LANGUAGE. Hippos is Greek for horse as in hippopotamus, river horse, hippodrome, and so on. Then give it a sugar lump, horse likes a sugar lump, that makes a horse hyppy. Then a birdie comes on its rump and it goes neigh or jae. Just.... please.... kill it... now... please. Si Trew (talk) 4:44 am, Today (UTC-4)
  Even though it seems to have support for deletion, this is unneeded for the RfD board. —JJBers 15:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I was notified of an "Officially notified incident at RfD". Administrator User:Thryduulf puts in in his own words a lot of time at RfD and the two things he nomintated he specifically put his hands in at RfD. The clean hands doctrine only applies in real life does it. I have no idea what [[User::JJbers]] is saying, because he or her is never at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: I was citing a RfD you made earlier today, here is it for reference. —JJBers 15:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The title of the section on Si Trew's talk page where I placed the required {{ANI-notice}} template is user talk:SimonTrew#Formal notification of ANI thread (the template doesn't provide a standard section heading). I don't understand what the rest of the comment is trying to say. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban from RfD at minimum. Frankly, I'd be inclined to indef and throw away the key unless a spectacularly good explanation was forthcoming for "I have a feeling the author of Eubot was Jewish.", and I have a strong suspicion that topic-banning SimonTrew from one area will just cause him to go be disruptive elsewhere. However, since there seems to be agreement between those who deal with him the most that the problems are primarily RfD-related, hopefully separating him from the area that's causing the most problems will allow him to do something useful in an area that won't provide a venue for his inappropriate attempts at comedy. The comparisons between Neelix and Eubot isn't valid; Neelix's edits were (in part) actively inappropriate and needed to be cleared up as soon as possible, whereas some of Eubot's redirects may be invalid, but aren't actually causing any harm, so there's no urgent need to rush through them that that would give SimonTrew any kind of "on urgent work" exemption from Wikipedia's usual written and unwritten rules on disruption and basic courtesy. ‑ Iridescent 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If he does turn to disruption elsewhere then that would lead to a block. Hopefully it wont be necessary, but the spirit of WP:ROPE applies here I think, and his methods are wrong and the results significantly less successful than desired he is intending to improve the encyclopaedia so I think he should be given a chance to do that elsewhere first. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Iridescent: I believe "I have a feeling the author of Eubot was Jewish" was stated because the bot created redirects related to Judaism. Neelix presumably created redirects related to Christianity. I don't think it was meant whatsoever in an antisemitic manner based on having read many comments by SimonTrew regarding a wide variety of topics at redirects for discussion over the past couple of years. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support RfD ban. Competence is required, and I'm afraid SimonTrew just doesn't have it. The egregious violations of WP:BEFORE, the nonsensical ramblings that don't pertain to the discussion at hand, the uncivil behavior every time someone tries to reason with him, and the sheer amount of work that RfD regulars have to put in to clean up after him is frankly exhausting. It's at the point where it's simply not worth it anymore. I'd bring in more examples, but I'm busy IRL at the moment. I'll just say that I endorse Ivanvector's analysis wholeheartedly. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Striking "RfD" and recommending full ban per Just fucking ban me. Just do it. Not from RfD. From all of of it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban from RFD: Instead of hearing the criticisms and using them to change their behavior, the user is doubling down and being quite uncivil in the process. I have no opinion on the length of the ban. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• As another data point on the WP:CIR and creating needless work fronts, Admin's can see the deleted history of Olivia stecker where Si Trew endorsed his own PROD, then after the page had been deleted recreated the page with a commentary about something (I'm not really too sure what) before nominating it for speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD#A9 which didn't apply (any of WP:CSD#G7, WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A3 would have though), the original article was in the scope of WP:CSD#A7 subject-matter wise but not content-wise. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to restrict it to twenty a day, then get a WP:X1 concession. The consensus of the community was that we didn't need one. You can hardly then stick it on me that I list things. What else am I supposed to do? I dunno, shove it up an already WP:INVOLVED admin or what? Tell me what else can I do with them. Where else can I send them. Tell me. Si Trew (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Doubling down. What do you expect me to do do. I am taking personal attacks about making the encyclopaedia better. How would you like it? Doubling down. Just fucking ban me. Just do it. Not from RfD. From all of of it. Then at least I know where I stand. Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And as for JJBeers remark, since I can't seem to reply to them individually. You may have seen straight after that "I am fed up with the bot. I am not fed up with the person. I can be fed up with the bot because it is a bot." or words like that. You do your WP:BEFORE on it. Si Trew (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: I wasn't pointing out the redirect you nominated, but the content of the nomination, which shows you made personal attacks to a bot, which still violates that policy. —JJBers 17:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

not that i condone SimonTrew's behavior, but one can't make personal attacks against something that's not in any way a person. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I disagree. Any personal attack of a bot is in effect a personal attack of its operator. It's not at all conducive to a good editing atmosphere, and so I don't see why it should be tollerated at all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thrydulf: It's effectively very much not. If any thing, it is criticism of the edits (the work the bot does) than the editor (the creator of the bot). Writ Keeper is absolutely right. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's kind of a moot point, since as I said, I don't condone SiTrew's behavior regardless of whether it's a PA or not (which is why I put it in the small tags). But I would argue that a bot is the work of its author in much the same way that a Wikipedia article is the work of its author; if criticizing a bot transitively criticized its author, then I would argue that implies that criticizing someone's edits or articles also transitively criticizes that person. Which of course is contra the whole idea of NPA: to comment on the contributions, not the contributor. I'd argue that a bot is an extension of the author's contributions, not an extension of the author themself. Granted, in this case, the criticism was not at all constructive or civil, and thus it's totally reasonable to call SiTrew out on it, and even sanction them for it. I just wouldn't do so in the name of NPA; in my mind, NPA is a fairly bright line, and I wouldn't want to see it eroded in the way that civility has. Maybe just me, though. I don't mind continuing this conversation if you'd like, but perhaps it should be elsewhere, since it's not really germane to this discussion? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time now, but I'll think about your points and if I want to continue discussing it, I'll find somewhere more appropriate (WT:NPA perhaps) and ping you as I agree it's not really the best place here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly a comment directed at the creator of the bot. Is it an attack? Depends on context I suppose, but consider the rest of the comment is comparing the bot's behaviour to the "sins" of another editor. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll argue against you. You may have noticed I have never mentioned the nbot author's history but I did some WP:BEFORE and had made a total of fifteen edits mostly minor before this bot was allowed to run. I don't have the problem with the author (retired) nor the bot. That is a sorry state of affairs in 2008 that after a test run of 14-- yes, 14-- successful edits it was then allowed out to wreak havoc. Now, you don't see me naming names. I can have a go at User:Eubot because it is a bot, that is like kicking a kitchen cupboard when you've cut your thumb. It is not like kicking your wife when you've cut your thumb. I am not just allowed but I think entitled to moan about Eubot because I am the one editor here on Wikipedia that is actually methodically trogging through these things. Look at my contribution history today. I must have rtagged and rcatted at least twentyfive as keepers. Of course the ones at RfD are going to cause trouble. I do have a braim in my head. The admin who brought this here is WP:INVOLVED so it surprises me to see making further comments. Si Trew (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) Template:Replto We're not complaining that you are listing things. We are complaining that you are not taking enough care with your nominations, which combined with the volume of your nominations is causing significant disruption. I'm not at all sure what the lack of an X1 concession (which I would agree is not needed, as the proportion of bad redirects is so small and there is no urgency) has to do with anything. As for "doubling down" what we would like you to do is to listen to the complaints that people have about your actions and change your behaviour accordingly. Instead what you have done is made personal attacks while carrying on doing exactly the same thing people are complaining about. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You're WP:INVOLVED, User:Thryduulf. You were the one spouting off at RfD and you're WP:INVOLVED. clean hands doctrine please. Stand off. Si Trew (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works, SimonTrew. INVOLVED is a policy that relates to administrative actions, i.e. actions that involve the actual use of admin tools--it would only apply to Thryduulf if they were actually going to block you or something. It doesn't apply to everything an admin does, just because they're an admin. Bringing an issue up on ANI, and continuing to discuss it, does not involve the use of admin tools, and so INVOLVED doesn't apply. We're neither the police nor the court system, and the clean hands doctrine isn't Wikipedia policy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ban/block/trout for taking redirects way too seriously. Honestly, if these Eubot redirects are causing you so much stress, go do something else. The encyclopedia is not going to implode because of some silly redirects. clpo13_(talk) 18:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

NO it wont ((edit conflict) I don't give a shit about Wikipedia's [[[kangaroo court]] system. I am being treated unfairly. I worked not "five minutes" like the prosecutors says but hours and hours and hours over these fucking things. I sometimes can't remember what language I speak. I have worked so damned hard over them that sometimes I literally can't tell left from right. Then I am told to do WP:BEFORE. I take it as implicit that I do it. What am I supposed to fucking do, list every eubot redirect as "WP:BEFORE I listed this I checked on Google and could not find anything, and it is still WP:RFD#D5 nonsense". In any case, as I have said many times, WP:BEFORE does not apply to redirects it applies to articles. I have no requirement to do WP:BEFORE at all. I have a requirement, in my head, to make the encylopaedia better by making it easier for people to get to the information they want. Not pissing about at ANI by an editor who has a grudge against me. Now, shall I get on to try to make the encylopaedia better are all you all little admins going to waste more of my precious editor's time? Si Trew (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to stop wasting peoples time with RFD's that are obviously pointless and where you have done zero checks to see if it is a valid redirect? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If your time is so precious, why are you wasting it on increasingly pseudolegalistic arguments defending a practice every other editor commenting here has cautioned you about? Why not use some of that precious time editing in one of the literally thousands of other areas? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

They're not pseudolegal. I am one of the very few editors I imagine who has actually stood up in court and said yes your honour and no your worship. I know that this is WP:NOTLAW. It is not a kangaroo court either. Si Trew (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I also do actually find its slightly offensive that [[User::Thryduulf]] even in listing here could not be bothered to get my name right. Si Trew (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support RfD throttling - I don't care about redirects really, as long as they redirect to an appropriate target I'm happy. What I do care about is people creating extra work for Wikipedia editors - who are, after all, volunteers, not paid for our time - especially when they're told that they're creating extra work and they pig-headedly refuse to cooperate. Redirects are like the bits of a building between two walls, or between the ceiling and the floorboards of the room above - there's a lot of crap in there but it really isn't worth worrying about. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf is not the only admin at RfD. Other admins such as User:Tavix have got their adminship from RfD. Thryduulf don't own the shop. The accusations of bullying still hold. I think it is just a simple case of bullying. "I'm an admin do as I say, love, Thryduulf". Well, some people stand up to bullies. Now, let me see how many things Thryduulf has listed in his adminship at RfD.... er.... sorry I don't have a finger to count 0. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I care about exactly what you care about User:Exemplo347. This is a storm in a teapot. And it's a bit ridiculous to suggest throttling it to 20 a day. I am the only editor doing it. I don't see anyone else doing it. There are spits and spats but I go through the lists because we don't have, by amazing consensus, a WP:X1 concession. The very admin who is now nominating me said it was not needed. I forget the greek word but in English it is, um what is the word, when you say one thing and do another. I better check on Wiktionary. I could have got on and done some real work and made the encylopaediae better were it not for this fuss. I will try to start doing that right now. It is the last I have to say on the matter. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban from RfD The combination of WP:IDHT and many very questionable RfD's seems to require that. Nothing short of a ban will seem to stop him. I wish there was another way.... -Obsidi (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have blocked SimonTrew for 31 hours for this new set of personal attacks, notwithstanding INVOLVED. If you would like, please discuss this block at AN. This block is not intended to conclude this discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, 31 hours is lenient given the block log. That being said, I think this is further evidence that a full ban is necessary, given this took place outside of RfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure a full site ban is necessary over those personal attacks, but he might need more than a 31 hour block. You might even want an indef block until he at least says he understands the problem with this behavior and that he wont repeat it. -Obsidi (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban from RfD Sigh, maybe he will find something better to do with his time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban from RfD - Frankly, I agree with the comment above that, given this editor's stance he's likely to move to another area and cause similar problems there, so an indef or site ban would be justified, but since we don't do preventative blocks of that nature (but probably should), we can start where the immediate problem lies, as shown by both ST's editing behavior and his comments in this very discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

• note I've renamed the tread and changed all instances of "SiTrew" in my comments to "Si Trew" per his comments above and on my talk page. I have not changed any other comments. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• I won't bold vote an opinion, because I don't frequent RFD and don't have a good feel for this. I just want to ask a question to the RFD regulars who know him better than drive-by ANI watchers. Si Trew has been here 10 years and made 61,000 edits, much of it redirect related. Surely most of them valuable? Instead of an RFD ban (or a site ban), would it make sense to narrow the scope? Perhaps a 2 week ban from RFD until he calms down? Or a ban from nominating Eubot redirects? It depends on whether he's generally a help at RFD but is getting overwhelmed by the scope of Eubot's contribs, or if he's generally not a help. I get the sense that he's generally a help (I see @Thryduulf: saying nice things on his talk page from December, and I recall @Tavix: being pretty patient during a previous dispute because he does do good work). But it looks like when he gets a bee in his bonnet, he becomes difficult for others to work with. Maybe focus more on getting the bee out of his bonnet? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Simply put, Simon is a net-negative at RfD. Sure, he's got a lot of contributions, but it seems like every other one is an off topic rant, remark or what have you. I'll admit I've got a very long leash, but I feel it's been completely used up. The current flavor of the day is Eubot, before it was Neelix, and his obsession with Neelix didn't end until a months long block. I'm sure if it's restricted to Eubot, he'll find another situation to flood RfD with. This is, what, the seventh or eighth ANI thread dealing with Simon? At what point will we realize that he simply doesn't have enough clue to operate as a competent editor on this site? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've blocked him more than anyone, so I'm not trying to be his Official Apologist or anything. Just seems a bit of a shame, after being complimented for his Eubot work a few months ago. Perhaps it's my knee-jerk reaction to people talking about a 10-year editor as clueless and incompetent. I do know what you mean, it just seems... a shame, like I said. I won't try to oppose anything here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

A few years ago there weren't many problems with him though. They've gotten significantly worse as the years go on. It's like he's degenerating or something. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. I know I'm degenerating. Getting old kind of sucks (Speaking for myself, not Si Trew). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Amen to that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Currently the negatives (which have been increasing) significantly outweigh the positives (which have been decreasing). If he is to return to RfD it must be with a rate throttle, a demonstrated understanding of the point of WP:BEFORE and a requirement to demonstrate he has carefully thought about each redirect nominated. A restriction from redirects related to foreign languages, diacritics and/or mass-created redirects would be the minimum necessary before I'd consider his return. At the start of this thread I would have accepted just the throttle, but it's become clearer the more others have commented that the level of competence displayed has been worse than I was initially aware of. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Full site ban, somewhat regrettably. In a nutshell, I agree with the ultimate conclusion Tavix made; if SimonTrew's gotten to a point where he's requesting a full site ban on himself, let's just do it. I recall in the past, SimonTrew was indefinitely blocked for legal threats, in addition to all the other RfD-related blocks he's had. At this point, as much as SimonTrew has been cordial (and the opposite) to me in the past, it's quite difficult to see how he's still a WP:NETPOSITIVE for the project with his recent serious lack of WP:BEFORE research on his recent nominations, plus his off-topic comments on RfD nominations are getting to a point where they are now throwing red herrings into the discussions. In addition, with SimonTrew's editing style and personality, I don't see how he could follow a "daily-limit" ban, and editors' daily monitoring of such activity from SimonTrew would be rather exhausting. In my conclusion, at the present time, SimonTrew's capability to provide beneficial additions to Wikipedia is nearly nonexistent, and he and the entire community need a break from his contributions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  In addition, I think WP:ROPE was referenced in regards to only banning SimonTrew from WP:RFD and not all of Wikipedia. My response to that idea: SimonTrew honestly has been provided "WP:ROPE" so many times now that the rope has been destroyed. The amount of editor resources it takes to reel him back in after any of his tangents, whether they contain malice or not, is too taxing on editors and admins. (I mean, legal threats and RfD are two exclusively-different issues.) This really shouldn't be allowed again ... since, at this point, the rope is figuratively broken. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "community bans" and in this case, I wonder if it is truly necessary. The proposal for a restriction on their editing in a problematic area is nearing a consensus and they are currently blocked for incivility and personal attacks. If they return and continue then there appears to be ample behavioral and policy grounds for extending new blocks of longer lengths, including indefinite, at admin discretion. Creating a site ban adds a layer of punitiveness that seems unhelpful and non-constructive. It is also harder to undo a community site ban. I recognize that the difficulty in removing a community site ban strikes some as a feature instead of a bug. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of site bans either, but given the extent of what SimonTrew has done in regards to legal threats, bombastic off-topic outbursts and the addition of flooding RfD with nominations that lack WP:BEFORE research, I truly think that it is the best option in this case. I've been following SimonTrew's activity for about 4 years now, so I'm not making claim that he needs a full site ban without any knowledge of some hard evidence to back it up. Looking back on SimonTrew's block log, the indefinite block that he had for legal threats lasted for about 3 months (June 2016–September 2016) and after that was lifted, here we are at yet another issue created by SimonTrew that needs immediate attention and requires an ANI discussion. All of these back-and-forth issues are really becoming taxing for the community. And given the fact that SimonTrew is familiar with how to go through the venues to request getting unblocked when he doesn't have talk page access (such as WP:UTRS), and since he had to go through that since his talk page access was revoked during that time, he'd have to go through it again to get the ban lifted with the stipulation that lifting a ban takes more than lifting a block, possibly including consensus to lift the ban. Seriously, if I thought at this point just banning SimonTrew from RfD would prevent any further issues he may cause, such as legal threats, I'd be all for it. But at this point, it's almost like he's already used up any chances he had to redeem himself after all of these issues, especially with his mannerisms of interacting with others on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You have obviously more familiarity with this editor than I. I hardly ever go to RfD, for example. I will humbly defer to your greater expertise on the issue. The only community site ban I have had previous familiarity with was SlitherioFan2016, who was banned for obvious and repeated trolling and block-evasion [36]. I didn't think this editor has raised anything like the trouble that one did, so I expressed caution. Especially since, as Softlavender says, they are currently unable to reply it seemed proper to wait until the current block expired to see if it has any benefit. Perhaps, though, they have reached that level of disruption that simple WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE indefinite blocks are not sufficient. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

While I would support a WP:CIR block (I'm still thinking about whether I support a ban), a WP:NOTHERE block is not justified. Si Trew is attempting to improve the encyclopaedia, and I think believes that he is doing so with his RfD nominations - indeed some of them are beneficial (just not enough to be a net positive, at least at the moment). The problem is with the results of his actions, and refusal to act on feedback about them, that are the issue not his intent. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm inclined to recommend waiting until SimonTrew's short block has expired before any admin closes this thread. I'd like to see whether at this point he understands the problematical nature of his behaviors, and what he intends to do (or not do) to correct that. If he is unable to do (respond to) those two things satisfactorily, well, then there is indeed a WP:CIR issue and measures should be taken in accordance with an admin's assessment of the consensus in this thread and the nature of the overall problem(s). Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• COmment Y'all know I hate incivility, so I am more than displeased with an edit summary like this. If Si can't behave around others without resorting to rudeness, PA, and incivility, they shouldn't do work that requries them to work with others, who may have a differing opinion. L3X1 (distant write) 01:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

break

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

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and it's talk page
• Subpages of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and their talk pages
• Any templates with names starting "RfD" (in any capitalisation)
• Any redirect currently (i.e. at the time of the edit) tagged as nominated at RfD, and the talk page of any such redirect.

Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I support that definition pretty much. —JJBers 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: I moved your comment here. Your edit here has oddly duplicated the entire thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, the visual source editor is broken. —JJBers 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I too would not like to see Simon blocked indefinitely. His passion for improving the encyclopedia is obvious, he is just unable at this point to accept that his enthusiasm for redirects is seriously impeding other editors who would also like to improve the encyclopedia, to the point that he needs to have a community-imposed break from that venue. I have seen no evidence that his disruptive behaviour here would carry over to other areas of the encyclopedia. As for the ban from RfD, I would like to see it defined as a ban from all redirect deletion, broadly construed. This would include RfD itself and all its subpages and templates, tagging redirects for deletion (speedy or otherwise), and discussing speedy deletion criteria related to redirects. I'm not sure what Thryduulf means by the discussion of a "suspended community ban": topic ban violations are normally addressed by blocking. I think it's already pretty clear that Simon's next block for a civility concern (NPA, NLT, etc) will be indefinite. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, where are these "lists" of Eubot redirects? I've not been able to find them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Champion/Eubot list. Sideways713 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Rather clear definition ... but will probably be breached at some point. Per my comments regarding implementing a full site ban on SimonTrew, given his history of blocks and actions, my ability to have confidence that such a ban will be followed is, unfortunately, very low. As I stated above that my opinion that SimonTrew should have a full site ban is "somewhat regrettably", it's because as Thryduulf and Ivanvector have alluded, he really is performing all of the edits on RfD in good faith and belief that he is making improvements to Wikipedia. However, the actions he takes following most edits he performs at RfD causes commotion that results in blocks (such as legal threats). If a RfD ban is the route that we are going to take (which I say is rather lenient at this point), then due to his history, after the first offense of breaking such a ban, the response shouldn't be a limited time or indefinite block ... it should immediately be a full site ban. Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Request for Clarification: What about existing redirects? Would Si Trew be able to change existing redirects? For example: Let's say A redirects to B; would Si Trew be permitted to change A to redirect to C? Likewise, what about tagging for speedy deletion? --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943, Ivanvector, and Darth Mike: I agree that including nominating redirects at RfD should be included in the definition of breaching a ban from RfD, I'll add it above. CSD is not part of RfD so should be specified separately, i.e. "topic banned from RFD (defined as above) and from nominating redirects at CSD". I strongly dislike "deletion of redirects" because RFD is Redirects for discussion and Si does nominate redirects there for retargetting or further input* and I don't want there to be room to wikilawyer that a nomination for retargetting was not breaching a "deletion of redirects" topic ban. Retargetting a redirect without involving RfD is not covered by the currently proposed topic ban, I had not thought about it before you mentioned it (thank you!) so I am presently unsure whether we do want to restrict him from that or not. If we do, it should be as a third bullet to the topic ban not lumping it in with the RfD bullet.

  * This is fine when done coherently, with thought and not rapid fire - see my nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 27#Foreign language redirects to Portugal (Group 3) from earlier today for how it can be done. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty neutral on whether Simon should be banned from editing redirects entirely. When Si does take the time to actually analyze a redirect and its background and utility, he's usually right, or at least his action can be justified. The problem of late has been that he is not taking this time and just rapidly nominating huge lists of redirects for discussions with no apparent forethought at all, and also the outbursts when he's confronted on this. I think it would be fine to allow Si to go off and edit redirects on his own where he believes that editing them improves the encyclopedia, to the extent that he can do so without interacting with RfD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I think Od Mishehu's extension of Simon Trew's block was a mistake that did not take into account the fact that Simon Trew's input is needed (in my opinion) to fully resolve this thread. Now he cannot comment on this ANI thread. If he was able to comment, he could possibly assure us now that he understands what he has been doing that is problematical, and propose what he is going to do to change his behaviors. We could also see if he has calmed down and is refraining from personal attacks. Now that he can no longer comment here, and there are so many proposals on the table including a full site ban or indef block, I don't feel that this thread is going to wind up in as productive a resolution as it could if ST were able to comment further. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Simon can comment on his talk page if he desires, and Ivanvector has made that clear after his block was extended. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Simon has put some additional comments on his talk page which I can't copy over at the moment (my phone doesn't have enough memory). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

@Ivanvector: OK. Here is my basic position. There are thirteen lists of User:Eubot redirectd on them. Many of them, as was said yesterday at the ANI by a professional translator, a new to me editor. (who to make it clear I did not magic up like I can magic up User:Plantdrew on botanical subjects or User:Mjroots on railways).)

It's too many. We don't have a WP:X1 concession. What am I supposed to do, take each to WP:CSD? Then we would end up in the same boat with the admins at CSD saying I am flooding them. It's too many.

User:Champion made the lists, I am going through them. If you want WP:RFD#D5 nonsense such as Thoekoely at an encyclopaedia, have it. I don't.

My WP:BEFORE is to check the internal consistency of our encyopadia. Techinically WP:BEFORE does not apply to redirects anyway, but let's not get hung up on it like User:Thryduulf does. My job, as I see or saw it, is to go through the eubot ones and say "is this greenisholives" or is it "green olives"?". That is all I can do. Si Trew (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's my secondary position. Apart from speaking French, English, a bit of Hungarian and some other languages, more than that, I have a kinda "connecting" mind. It just makes connections all the time I wish it didn't sometimes. I just "connect" things all the time. For example right now I just remembered it was E.M. Forster who said "Only Connect" and Victoria Cohen Mitchell has a tv programme. I can do that without checking. I am that good. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok I got her name wrong. Alan Coren her father one of the funniest men you will ever read. See. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And as for personal attacks, the thing is that "Simon Trew" is my real name. So, yes, I do start treating it as a personal attack. I am an idiot for using my real name, I suppose, but I don't hide behind a veil. It is my stupidity nine years ago but if I switched names now what good would that do? Nobody's. As we all know, Wikipedia is not the whole world. I don't want "Simon Trew" to become a synonym for "idiot". Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you know how to get started with something. You just get started. In the time this ANI nonsense has gone on I have painted a new hallway and fixed my house and various other jobs, all for no money. Oh and got meself a new house which is in about the same state as these redirects are. The way to get started is to get started. I am a bit fed up nobody else seems to join in, but you can hardly blame me for flooding. Five or six other editors could join in. The fact I am doing it on my own is some testament to why people don't like to edit at WP. Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Further comment from Si:

"I think it would only be fair if you take out my hazardous contributsions you also take out all the {{R from other spelling}} and {{other language|fr|en}} or whatnot that I do from Eubot without bringing to RfD. Can you please copy that in too, User:Thryduulf? And I am sorry if it felt like a personal attack on you. It was not. I think you were wrong to bring it, absolutely and then go "Right, I've warned you, next time, you're at ANI" and then SMACK I am at ANI. That is not how Wikipedia works. Can you please add those comments at ANI because I can't. Si Trew (talk)" copied by Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Right so since the above is basically stream-of-conciousness irrelevant waffle, can someone put this thread out of its misery? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• In terms of Simon Trew's usertalk comments now copied over: Although they are no longer outright personal attacks, they are still pretty much rambling self-justifying meanderings (one kicker is "I can do that without checking. I am that good.") Regardless of whether Eubot is a problem or not (that is a subject for another conversation and probably for another venue), I'm worried that we do have a CIR problem with Simon, and that his ability even to communicate clearly, much less collaborate and learn, is somewhat questionable. Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, I'm increasingly now thinking we need a block or ban and a topic ban that will take effect if/when he returns. I'm obviously way too involved with this to close this thread but the topic ban (from RfD and from nominating for redirects for speedy deletion) at least looks to have widespread agreement. Whether it should be a block or ban is less clear, but I'm leaning towards the latter. It's such a shame how quickly this keeps getting worse. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support RfD ban of indefinite length. It is clear from the comments copied from their talk page above they have not heard any of the concerns expressed and intend to continue as before as soon as they can. It is conceivable that they will, after some period of time, realize why their RfD interactions were damaging and can request dropping the ban at that time. I'm of no mind to even attempt to determine what that length of time might be, however. I think it should also be made explicitly clear that their leash on civility matters upon return from the current block is extremely short. Is "civility probation" still a thing? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• No, it's not, Eggishorn. ArbCom has had some unpleasant experiences of what's likely to happen if an editor has a target painted on their back by a "civility probation", and it's been a long time since they tried it. The community shouldn't either. They're cursed things. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

Fair enough. Sounds reasonable. Thanks for filling in the blank space in my memory. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I just want to say that I !voted above for an RfD ban, and that Simon Trew's comments copied here from his talk page have not changed my mind one bit - in fact, they've hardened my position, and have started me thinking that an even stronger sanction might be warranted. My advice to Simon Trew would be: If you want to keep editing here, stop commenting, you're only hurting yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose full site ban - I cannot, regrettably, oppose a ban from redirects for discussion, but I don't think a full site ban is due at this time. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Havenx23

Since starting an account in Nov 2016, this user's sole focus has been changing the first appearance of Gambit (comics) and now Wolverine (character). After a discussion at the Comic project talk page, he continued to change against consensus without sources for three days before disappearing. He reappeared in March with the same behavior. I reminded him of the prior discussion on his talk page, and he vanished again for a month. He reappeared recently doing the same thing, and another polite warning from me resulted in a wall-of-text that ended with a declaration that he will not stop until he gets his way. He has since continued to modify the articles. Based on this comment from last September where he uses the word "buying" to explain his point of view, I believe he may be a dealer who is trying to profit from misinformation on Wikipedia. This issue is not limited to User:Havenx23 and has been discussed on other articles as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The user's response to the ANI notification includes a personal attack. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• User has not edited for 4 days, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC).

Repeated replacement of un-cited, and often incorrect, information at Weapons of the Vietnam War

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

---

An IP, [[37]] has repeatedly added unsourced, and often completely inaccurate information, at Weapons of the Vietnam War. This has been discussed on the IP's user talk page.

dif

dif

While this is a shared IP, the articles from it all share a theme - military weapons- and look like a single writer.

Anmccaff (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of the most recent additions after @Anmccaff:'s most recent reverts include adding ludicrous aircraft, such as the F-35 Lightning II which isn't even in operation yet. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes they are, but I get your drift. L3X1 (distant write) 01:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, barely entered into operation, is that acceptable? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's on the other end, too, of course, with stuff that never made it past WWII; my favorite is this diff, which lists most of the oddball US tanks of WWII, including the M6 heavy tank, that was, for all practical purposes, experimental, and never saw combat, or even left the US; only 40 were made, and they are all accounted for; and this which is also vanishingly rare, and was also always jeezly expensive. Neither the Russians nor the Viets were stupid; passing these to a guerilla was like giving a strad to a busker. Anmccaff (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

I have requested page protection to assist with this issue.

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Note, though, that the fellow is "editing" other related pages, with the same standard of accuracy. PP will help, but it ain't gonna fix it. Anmccaff (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn and Anmccaff: The IP hasn't edited a a couple days. If they resume please report to AIV or ping me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As a passing comment, these kinds of articles are magnets for vandals, with the vandalism generally being along the lines of what's occurred here. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

A couple of recent examples:

• Yesterday, he moved To the Max! to To the Max! (Max Roach album) [38]. (I reverted [39] and asked him to stop on his talk page[40])
• Today, he moved Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) [41]. (I reverted this undiscussed controversial move adding unnecessary disambiguation to a title [42].)

Warnings/discussions:

• By PaleCloudedWhite PBS, in an ANI notice, in August of 2012 [43].
• By Tbhotch, in another ANI, in 2014 [44].
• By me, on IIO's talk page, in October of 2016: [45]
• By me, on IIO's talk page, yesterday [46]

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

He probably moved To the Max! to To the Max! (Max Roach album) because there are two other entities named To the Max. These lack the wow sign. But except for the punctuation (which is not pronounced) they are identical. It is reasonable to say "These are enough alike to constitute essentially the same title". It's a judgment call whether to ask for a Requested Move in a case like this. But a Requested Move means asking your colleagues to drop what they are doing and consider your question. You don't want to do it if you figure it's probably just a technical fix. So I can see someone going ahead and doing it, subject to a Requested Move discussion if someone objects. In ictu oculi moves a lot of pages, so some of these are going to be disputed.

On the other hand, moving Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film), are you sure he didn't do this to make room for an article on the actual Bombay Mail train or something? (Even if he did, he needs to say so in his move summaries). If not, this would be highly idiosyncratic and I'd be interested to hear about that. If there's a pattern of this kind of move (and not making way for a new article) then that's not good. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, both situations mentioned by B2C are covered by WP:DIFFCAPS, a subsection of WP:AT IIO knows exists, and IIO knows a related-move can be seen as contentious. Although both titles are ambiguous, having To the Max! redirecting to To the Max! (Max Roach album), because there is no other "To the Max!" (in place of simply having a {{other uses}} or an {{About}}); and not creating an article about Bombay Mail train/office and preemptively moving it to "(1934 film)" when there is no other film with the same name are common problems with IIO. Bombay Mail (train) (recent redirect) just redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line where it is only mentioned as "he Mumbai-Howrah Mail via Allahabad is called Calcutta Mail between Mumbai and Allahabad, and Mumbai Mail (some still call it by its old name, Bombay Mail)". Other examples exist, they can be found on the public log, like Haco or Mercedes (film), Dt., or Nueva Era (this is just a redirection problem, but he never attempted to fix it), when enough time has past to have written an article to make disambiguation valid, but they solely are redirects to the article they were originally titled, or back in September when he moved Sivi Kingdom to Sivi (king), unexplained, despite the fact the article discusses more the kingdom than the homonym king, also note that he decided to move it to "Sivi (king)" and not to "King Sivi", "Sivi King" or "Kingdom of Sivi", which are more natural terms. The reason for a move I guess was to justify the move of Sivi to Sivi (film), but in itself you don't need to move A to justify B. And this is just for moving articles, there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates. At WT:Notability, my talk page and WT:CDS are examples of what I'm talking about, but these aren't all the examples. Unfortunately I don't have all of them, but it is a start. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm among editors who disagree with B2C's views on titling, as he says above. B2C's view against disambiguation and recognizability tend to be outliers, as his activity on guideline Talk pages shows.

Occasionally we all get something wrong, and if there's a discussion or objection I listen and then that's easily resolved. I do a lot of work on disambiguation, and occasionally someone objects. Looking at the last ten:

1. Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) ([Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) summary (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2017-03-12&end=2017-04-20&pages=Wild_Boy_(song)%7CWild_Boy%7CWild_Boy_(novel))

Wild Boy 1934 film was getting 4 out of 72 views. A dab page was needed, can anyone see any problem with creation of a dab page here?

2. Intrigue (film) to Intrigue (1947 film) summary (Intrigue (1942 film)

There's also Intrigue (1942 film), per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.

3. Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) summary (Bombay Mail (1935 film))

As the summary says there is another film, WP:NCF, but there's also Bombay Mail (train), again Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.

4. The Scandal to The Scandal (1923 film) summary (The Scandal (1934 film) The Scandal (1943 film))

per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again

5. The Mirage (film) to The Mirage (1920 film) see The Mirage (2015 film), a Canadian comedy-drama film

per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again

6. Sybil (book) to Sybil (Schreiber book) (Sybil (novel))

The Disraeli "novel" is also a "book" Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)

7. The Mirage (Al-Sarab) to The Mirage (Al-Suwaidi book)

Per author name not Arabic word for "The Mirage", Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)

8. Metahistory to Metahistory (Hayden White) (the term was in use decades before the book)

The problem here were mislinks to 1973 book from the adjective metahistorical and generic term metahistory. The 1973 book Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe is an important book, but a book about metahistory, not the subject itself.

9. Haunted London (1973) to Haunted London (Underwood book)

We don't disambiguate by year Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)

10. To the Max! to Talk:To the Max! (Max Roach album) (not always found with !)

As already reverted and not contested. The context not mentioned above is that this was a third album after To the Max to To the Max (Con Funk Shun album) and To the Max (album) to To the Max (The Mentors album). These were clearly mistitled per WP:NCM. The ! isn't found in some sources per Drummin' Men: The Heartbeat of Jazz The Bebop Years by Burt Koral, but whatever that was an afterthought, the main job was fixing the partial disambiguation of two (or three) albums.

We could go on to review the last 100 moves related to disambiguation or dab pages I have created or expanded. No need to stop at the last 10, but is the work of correcting incomplete titles contrary to naming conventions per se a bad thing? If it is tell me and I'll cease contributing to disambiguation pages. More than happy to do so if this work is not wanted by the editing community. I don't get paid, any more than the rest of you girls and guys. If it's not useful tell me. I'll go. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing here we can all agree is that if not about how useful or useless is your editing, it is about how you are doing your editing. With B2C's, this is the 5th or 6th user that has a complain about your editing pattern, how many users do you need to stop for a moment and ask to yourself "Am I doing this right?" Let's take Bombay Mail as the example here:

You create Bombay Mail (1935 film), you move Bombay Mail (1934 film), and you created Bombay Mail (train). All OK but you missed one thing, which was the reason B2C could revert the move: you didn't create a disambiguation page. At least you now create an article to rely the disambiguation, months ago you used to move pages only because a similarly titled work existed and no single article was created. In this example, B2C moved the page back 3 hours later. Also, I'm quite sure you would have never created a disambiguation page and the base title would have been a redirect until someone else noticed it, like when this took 2 months, or this 9 months, or when you moved Haco, and it still redirecting to its previous article, or dozens of similar examples that you have not fixed, but instead of fixing them, you move to another article to continue doing the same. Or even worse, doing moves like this or this with no single reason given. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: I can confirm that I have run across instances where IIO has moved a page to a title with a disambiguator, but in the process, doesn't create a disambiguation page. However, this wasn't always the case: The lack of creating disambiguation pages may be a recently-developing issue. I recall a few years ago, IIO moved quite a few song or album related pages from base titles to tiles with disambiguators and then created disambiguation pages at the leftover redirect's base title. However, such disambiguation pages were created before the consensus was established declaring that if an article about a song or album is the only article by that name that exists on Wikipedia, then it should be at the base title. (I can't recall where that guideline is at the moment, but I am sure you know what in referring to since I think we've crossed each other's paths regarding this in the past.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to the original complaint and User:Tbhotch) -- I am confused. IIO did construct another meaning for "Bombay Mail" -- "Bombay Mail (train)". It is just a redirect, true, but so? He had to move the article to make room for the redirect.

The original complaint implied that IIO moved "Bombay Mail" to a title with meaningless, unnecessary disambiguation. Here I was all "Whaaat? What's wrong with IIO, to do something like that?"

But that's not the deal at all. So can we get our facts straight please.

So now that complaint seems to come down to "IIO created a redirect, and I wish he hadn't". I mean, I guess you could take it to Redirects for Discussion, and maybe that's where that discussion should happen rather than here.

And there are two films named "Bombay Mail", one made in 1934 and one in 1935. Right? That is what IMDb says. So is it really so terrible to name your article "Bombay Mail (1934 film)" instead of "Bombay Mail (film)", considering that there is another film of that name with which a reader might get confused? True, it's not precisely correct (Unless IIO is planning to create an article on the other film) and that does matter.

As to "there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates"... isn't this getting a little bit scattershot here? Can we stick to one thing maybe.

So what is the desired end here? "IIO must initiate a Requested Move discussion for any and all moves"? And maybe that would be fine and is necessary. The claim is that there's a general pattern of misfeasance. I don't see it in those two tiny examples, but if there's a pattern it ought to come out with a little investigation. Can we get some actual examples of actual specific wrongdoing? This would help. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Why sticking to one thing at the time? Sticking to one problem at the time is the reason why this edit pattern has not been revised, checked or even penalized through either ANI or even his ArbCom discussion, and how he has been being WP:GAMING since circa 2012. I literally gave you a link of how he in 2013 was trying to WP:POINT the speedy deletion criteria, something he still doing, yet I'm being a "little bit scattershot". Like you want me to open below a subsection of how he has been creating BLP WP:A7 articles before and after that CSD discussion, because I can do that. Or maybe you do not want me to do it because apparently we humans cannot focus in more than one problem at the same time. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 14:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Herostratus, the problem is not with IIO creating another meaning for "Bombay Mail" (a redirect named Bombay Mail (train) that redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line), but with him unilaterally (without discussion or RM) moving the article previously at Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) (it has since been reverted). The list above is just a list of a couple of recent examples. It was not mean to be exhaustive, but he does this stuff all the time. IIO shows little respect for the need to let others weigh in on these decisions; he does not recognize that his opinion on these matters is often contrary to that of the community. --?²C ? 16:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

My apologies. I did not realize you were being quoted there. I've stricken the reference to you and corrected it. --B²C ? 16:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Couple secondary detail points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good analysis and I hope you can now appreciate how time consuming this is. If you take almost any one of IIO's unilateral moves like this one in isolation it appears to be contrary to policy but not that serious; it's the pattern of doing this repeatedly that's the issue. You also hit upon a key point: "You have to understand that unnecessary disambiguation drives people bonkers, and it is against our rules." IIO demonstrates no respect for this community consensus viewpoint and others too (e.g., he seems to barely recognize WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Consistently and repeatedly. This is why I think he should stop making these moves. His judgement is off relative to community consensus. He can argue my judgement is off too on these matters, in the other direction. And I concede it might be - but that's why I tend to not make unilateral moves. He should too. --В²C ☎ 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the move of Haco to Haco (singer) [47]. --В²C ☎ 22:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

• Bombay Mail is a 1934 American film. The article has existed since 2016 when it was created by Koala15.
• On April 26, 2017 at 13:56 In ictu oculi unilaterally moved it to Bombay Mail (1934 film) (I've since reverted this move).
• On April 26, 2017 at 13:51 In ictu oculi created Bombay Mail (1935 film), a Hindi language film.

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

I dunno; reading that, my first thought was "train, ship, plane, or service?"...and it turns out it's all four. This was, and is, with a couple of m/b shifts, a ship route, the eponymous cargo, the train and a possibly even flying boat route. I expect, seriously, that the post service is far more important historically than either film. Disambguating them out seems a good call. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Except he left Bombay Mail as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Bombay Mail (1934 film), implying it is the primary topic. Well, if it is, then it shouldn't be disambiguated. But there are good arguments to made, as you did, that maybe there is no primary topic. That's the point; the issue of whether it is the primary topic is obviously potentially controversial, and precisely what needs to be determined, and that's why we have WP:RM, to make these determinations. It should not be determined unilaterally. You can't just look at each of these in isolation to see the pattern. --В²C ☎ 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Closer look at A True Woman

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

• 2007: Created as A True Woman
• April 29, 2016: inexplicably moved by In ictu oculi to The Heart of a Woman (Baroness Orczy novel) [48]. No explanation in summary. Nothing on talk page.
• April 3, 2017: reverted by Tbhotch with summary: "Unexplained move"

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

I'd have expected there was a guideline for this, that might be modified in occasional cases -MBE (as opposed to my own favorite, MBP). I'd also expect that a book by a prominent, if adopted, British author would go by the title published by in London, rather than New York. I think someone would have to make the case pretty strongly for it to be otherwise.

On the other hand "might not get noticed" does cut both ways, it implies that this is a bit of a coin-toss. Anmccaff (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, it "might not get noticed" because it's an obscure article with few if any watchers. And even if it is a coin-toss, that means it can go either way, indicating it is potentially controversial. Precisely the kind of decision that should go to RM - not made unilaterally by one editor, let alone by one with a reputation for often having opinions contrary to community consensus on such matters. --В²C ☎ 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Closer look at Sivi

Tbhotch also linked to this above.

• 22:09, March 8, 2006‎: Sivi Kingdom created by Jijithnr [49]
• Sep 20, 2016, Sivi Kingdom inexplicably moved by In ictu oculi to Sivi (king) [50]

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

• 2007 LRBurdak creates article about the film as Sivi.
• Sep 20, 2016 Sivi inexplicably moved to Sivi (film) by In ictu oculi (well, we can divine that he did it to make room for a dab page)
• Sep 20, 2016, now that Sivi is a redirect to Sivi (film), IIO converts the Sivi redirect to a dab page [51] with three entries: Sivi Kingdom, Sivi (film), and a link to SIVI.

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

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

LibStar abruptly closing AFD

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

---

Could some administrators please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luerhmen History and Culture Museum, where editor User:LibStar has twice improperly closed the AFD. It is improper for a non-admin or an admin to close the AFD while it is new and there are votes which disagree. LibStar, the deletion nominator, "withdrew" the AFD. I [reverted that with "Not cool. Nominator should update their view, but this is an open discussion. BTW improper closure also failed to note AFD info at article Talk page" and advised them at their Talk. This is wp:BADNAC. After they were notified, they re-implememted it, in what becomes edit-warring.

Then I saw they already reverted it. I considered maybe they didn't understand they were breaking a rule, maybe there was a misunderstanding. I assumed that and re-reverted them with clear notice: "READ the AFD rules. There are votes both ways. This is not your personal game-space." They doubled down and they threaten me!

It seems like this high-handed treatment of the AFD system for impression management. The editor has been putting forth multiple AFDs on museums in various countries in recent weeks, which have sometimes succeeded and more often have not. They responded poorly to criticism of their failing to notify article creators of AFDs. Now this smacks of managing the portfolio of AFDs out there, so that ones where their views are doing poorly are swept away, and their views where they are not severely challenged are left open for AFD editors to see. It also dismisses the good work done by other AFD editors, including good work done to develop the article while the AFD is going on.

I voted "Keep" in the AFD and want the article saved, so it is weird for me to ask for the AFD to be re-opened, but that is the correct process. The bigger problem is the editor's behavior. --doncram 02:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

doncram is hardly an innocent party in this. he has also been following me around for weeks in AfDs that is bordering on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I closed the AfD because as I said in my nomination if sources in Chinese were found I would reconsider. sources were subsquently found. secondly it would have headed to a WP:SNOW keep on the basis. so in the interests of good faith I closed it. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

may I refer to what's on top on AfD close The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page LibStar (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• What are you trying to achieve with this ANI thread? Nominators can withdraw nominations, and this was likely headed for a WP:SNOW close anyway. Reyk _YO! 03:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

precisely. if it was a disputed AfD I would not have withdrawn it. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It IS a disputed AFD. The deletion nominator is not allowed, by the rules, to withdraw it. --doncram 03:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is disputed (there was one delete), so withdraw was not appropriate. Given what appears to be a good faith change of the nominators mind due to new sources, and all but 1 editor saying keep (for what appears to be good reasons), I think a WP:SNOW close is appropriate. -Obsidi (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

agreed, it was withdrawn on the basis of new sources found by a Chinese speaking editor. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The deletion nominator was advised they could update their views. They should have acted politely and done so, which happens all the time. What they did instead was NOT LISTEN to what they were being told, and re-implemented a disputed action and make threats and accusations (including accusations here, above). --doncram 03:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) First, to address the specific AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luerhmen History and Culture Museum. Technically, Doncram is correct. Per WP:CLOSEAFD, a nominator may withdraw, but may not close an AfD if there are outstanding delete !votes by other editors. Therefore, this AfD should have been left to run its course. On the other hand, I don't believe that withdrawing AfDs trending keep constitutes "impression management." LibStar and I have disagreed on many museum AfDs, and we disagree on whether the page author should be notified. I try to provide additional sources, and most of the time it isn't enough to convince them to strike their !vote. I do appreciate it when LibStar was convinced by the new sources, and responded by withdrawing their AfD. I've always seen an AfD withdrawal as a gesture of good faith, as it saves time for all the discussion participants. Altamel (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you. yes I wanted to save community time . I've always seen an AfD withdrawal as a gesture of good faith, as it saves time for all the discussion participants. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

so far 3 uninvolved editors have said it's an ok close yet doncram continues to argue and argue. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

All in "good faith", huh? Get in some more bashing while you can. This gives rise to bad taste, along with their badgering at many of the AFDs. --doncram 03:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

hopefully an admin can come along and see if this discussion is worth continuing. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you then arguing in favor of WP:Ignore All Rules? -Obsidi (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

perhaps, this is an instance where I tried to save the community the time and effort of going through an AfD that was clearly heading to keep. all uninvolved editors can see it was heading that way. I refer to article improvement since nominaiton. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading what they write here, i think they still have not acknowledged a) that it is a disputed AFD and b) they cannot withdraw in that case. They should leave it to an uninvolved other to close by any "ignore all rules" or SNOW-type closure (and I don't think SNOW was yet justified). They are reading this as approval of their actions. --doncram 03:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

still arguing... LibStar (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Obsidi, were you asking me? Perhaps I did not make myself clear: LibStar should not have closed this AfD. Doing so deprived the one other editor who voted delete of the chance to have their concerns heard out. My point is that it's counterproductive to accuse LibStar of closing AfDs early in bad faith. The best outcome now, along the lines of Doncram's proposal, would be for an uninvolved editor to reopen the AfD for a few days, and reclose it later on. Altamel (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Normally, yes, unless it's unanimous keep, a nominator can't unilaterally shut down a deletion discussion they started. So, technically it was an improper closure. However in an open and shut case such as this, WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY come into play. The rationale for the deletion discussion was lack of coverage, and this was seconded by another editor, but after that existence of coverage was demonstrated so as to render the "delete" rationale moot. If the nominator was mistaken (and by extension the other user who endorsed that point of view and did not raise any other concerns), there's no reason to keep an unnecessary discussion open as a matter of procedure. This is not a big deal. There's really no reason to turn it into one. If any new concerns come to light it is a simple matter to make a new AfD. Swarm ? 03:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The one delete !vote was made before the article was expanded and more sources added, addressing concerns. There's no point re-opening an AFD just so that it can be closed by someone else with the same result. WP:IAR tells us to use common sense - very applicable in this situation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you Neil and Swarm. you explain it well. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't even get a chance to look at the new sources because I was at work. Nice to know my opinion isn't needed. SL93 (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's now been closed by an administrator. This ANI has achieved nothing. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it was a big issue this time, but it's a very good rule that if there's disagreement you can't just close as withdrawn. Basically it's about whether SL93 changed his/her mind as well. The IAR approach assumes he/she probably would have given the new evidence, and the comment above indicates that's the case, but the awful situation is when someone hasn't changed their mind but the discussion was closed improperly. If it were me, I'd take a real issue with the close, especially if it were followed by edit warring to reinstate it, and I think that you would, too. FWIW. That said, I understand how it could be messier given what sounds like extenuating circumstances (outside of this particular AfD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

yes the extenuating circumstances is that doncram has essentially been appearing at almost every AfD I nominate usually as the first commenter... not a coincidence. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• LibStar and Shirt58, please read WP:WDAFD: AfD nominations can only be withdrawn "[i]f no-one else has supported the deletion proposal". Moreover, LibStar, you cannot ever close your own AfD, no matter what. Please refrain from trying to do that in the future. Just let the process play itself out. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

nominators can withdraw their nomination in certain circumstances. what is being disputed in this case is whether the one keep and the substantial new evidence was enough to keep it going. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To repeat, since apparently you still have neither read nor understood: LibStar, please read WP:WDAFD: AfD nominations can be withdrawn only "[i]f no-one else has supported the deletion proposal". You cannot withdraw a nomination that has a Delete !vote, which yours did. Moreover, you cannot ever close your own AfD, no matter what. You were triply in the wrong -- by erroneously attempting to withdraw your nomination, closing your own AfD, and edit-warring to preserve both of those errors. If you didn't know the rules, now you do; so don't do those things in the future. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not true, Softlavender. While Libstar shouldn't have withdrawn it when another editor had voted delete (or edit warred over it), it is perfectly acceptable for someone to close their own AfD after they have (correctly) withdrawn it. From your link: "If no-one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep, or you may leave it for someone else to close the discussion." Libstar was wrong here, but not "triply in the wrong" as you erroneously claim here. A withdrawn AfD may be closed by the original filer. Fram (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fram. Softlavender needs to WP:CHILL. LibStar (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fram, LibStar: Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luerhmen History and Culture Museum. The VERY FIRST !VOTE is "Delete". Therefore, someone had "supported deletion of the article". Therefore, Libstar was acting against policy in (1) withdrawing the nomination, (2) closing the AfD, and (3) edit-warring to retain that unauthorized close. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, you claimed "Moreover, you cannot ever close your own AfD, no matter what." This is clearly wrong. If one does a correct withdraw, one can then also legitimately close the AfD. The problem here was that the withdrawing was done at a time when it wasn't allowed (and then edit warred over), but you don't make this any clearer by making incorrect statements about what is or isn't allowed in our policy. Fram (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree Fram. Softlavender's stubborn persistence that no nominator can evet withdraw is clearly wrong. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Why is this here? This seems like something for WP:Deletion review. In any case, it looks like a straight-forward WP:NOTBURO/WP:IAR/WP:SNOW decision where common sense should prevail over the rules. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

LibStar's original close comes under straightforward NOTBURO/IAR, but conduct issues were also raised (Doncram complained about LibStar's uncooperative attitude; LibStar accused Doncram of following them around; both Doncram and LibStar edit warred over the close); and while those issues may not (indeed, likely won't) lead to any admin action here, they clearly belonged here rather than at WP:DELREV. In any case, since Doncram fully agreed with the keep result, that would have been a fairly silly deletion review. Sideways713 (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

yes doncram's motivation is clearly not this AfD. He has a recent history of following me around so saw this as a a golden opportunity to jump on me. At the end of the day it has zero impact on the deletion result. Instead the community's time has been wasted here. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Unacceptable behaviour at Template:Infobox royalty/doc

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

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

Note the mistaken and misleading edit summaries:

• The Rfc he was referring to, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes was closed by Iridescent who has confirmed that the religion parameter was deprecated only in {{Infobox person}}. Other biographical infoboxes may need the religion parameter (e.g. {{Infobox clergy}}, so each infobox needs to make its own determination.
• There is no existing consensus to deprecate religion from {{infobox royalty}} where the edit-war is occurring, as can quickly be ascertained from the talk history.
• There is no agreement to his changes at Template talk:Infobox royalty.

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

• Having looked at the edit history at Template:Infobox royalty/doc, I am very disturbed to see DrKay has been edit warring against multiple other editors and has been doing so since 4 April (and accusing others of 3RR breaches in the process while ignoring their own sub-3RR warring). Had I seen the current spate of reverts while it was still active, I would certainly have issued a block. This, accompanied by the uncivil rebuffing of attempts to discuss the matter, is lamentable behaviour from an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Apologies – I should have included a convenience link to the edit history of that page. Here are the last 50 edits up to today. --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Per my comments here my closure of the original RFC explicitly only applies to {{infobox person}}. The question being asked there was Proposal: Should we remove from {{Infobox person}} the |religion= parameter (and the associated |denomination= one)?, for which there was an overwhelming and policy-backed consensus, but it's clear that only this specific infobox was under discussion, not all biographical infoboxes in general.

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

I'm not trying to "impose my version". I have no strong opinion on the parameter per se. I am merely an administrator trying to implement community consensus. Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter[52] so I am confused by his actions at the template documentation page, and as he has never posted to talk I am still not clear. When I posted to talk it was only to clarify widespread community consensus that whether to use a parameter is decided on a case-by-case basis at each individual article, to which two editors agreed readily (and no-one has opposed). So, again I am baffled by the extreme responses to what should be uncontroversial re-statement of existing norms. I told Andy to fuck off because he was attempting to stoke the embers of Only in death's harassment, which were long since cold. DrKay (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

DrKay, I am extremely close to indefblocking you on WP:CIR grounds here. Since you seem to have missed it despite it being pointed out directly above and explained in detail, Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter is an outright lie; OID was writing in support of removal of the parameter from {{infobox person}} explicitly. If you want an RFC to remove the parameter from {{infobox royalty}}, by all means start one, but don't edit-war to enforce the outcome of a RFC which never took place except in your own head. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

DrKay, here's a question I'd really like to ask you at your reconfirmation RfA (because I think you seriously need one), but I'll make do with here for now. If multiple people disagree with your interpretation of consensus and revert you, what are you supposed to do?

a) Edit war

b) Discuss

c) Something else

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: CIR is an essay. "Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter" can be easily re-drafted as "Only in death, the main interlocutor, supported removal of the generic parameter"; there is no intention to deceive. Nor was there ever. Your accusation of lying is just another bad faith assumption tantamount to harassment. I'm not starting an RfC because I hold no strong opinion on the matter of whether the parameter is retained or removed.

@Boing: There is no edit-war. It's over. DrKay (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be over now, but I'm trying to ascertain your understanding of relevant Wikipedia policy and assess your fitness as an admin. So can you please explain what went wrong and how it should have been handled? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Since there is no misuse of the tools, removing them will be of no benefit to the project.

I regret saying fuck off, which is out of character, and came about largely because of private events off-wiki involving the ill-health of a third person.

I have read and understood the comments here and at the template talk page. I will continue to follow the consensus of the community and work collaboratively with others, as I have done on many occasions in the past. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

So you will not answer my request for you to explain what went wrong in this instance and how it should have been handled? (And I don't mean just the "fuck off"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There sure is a LOT of this type of WP:CIR from administrators these days... Is it at all possible to get a review system going already? --Tarage (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's still going on, see the edit summary here, which seems like a personal attack (never mind a complete inability to comprehend reality) - "remove harassment from disruptive editors who find themselves in the minority against a longstanding community decision, and so are attempting to subvert it". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Block them. --Tarage (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Surprised no one pinged me on this. Not that anyone wants my opinion but as background - religion is rightly irrelevant for the vast majority of people covered by infobox persons. For royalty it can be a lot more important (despite not being the reason for their notability) as anyone with even a passing familiarity with world history can see. So this started when I reverted the incorrect removal of the parameter from Royalty which had been done by DrKay under (assuming good faith at that point) a misapprehension that the infobox_person applied to all biographical infoboxs. Given the closer has repeatedly explained no it doesnt, and having informed DrKay of this, he kept removing it citing what he knows to be an 'untruth'. I find no benefit in using soft wording in this case with someone who is both experienced enough and intelligent enough to know better. You can be mistaken once or twice (or longer) if no one has explained things to you. After someone has explained something to you in clear English, its no longer a mistake. I removed the royalty infobox from my watchlist after my last revert due to the clear intractability of DrKay (which is why I suspect I missed the ongoing kerfuffle). I am generally not interested in arguing with someone who persists in being wrong. -ninja edit- Just noticed the above 'harrassment' editsum was related to me informing him why he was wrong. I know wikipedia likes to redefine harrassment in strange new ways but that one is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Only in death, a couple of paragraphs above he accuses me of "harassment" for pointing out that his claims that you supported the removal of the religion parameter were untrue. I wouldn't take it personally, this is fairly obviously just general lashing out at anyone in range rather than specifically directed at you. ‑ Iridescent 16:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is completely unacceptable behaviour from an experienced editor, let alone an administrator. At the very least I think we need to be looking at a topic ban of some sort (perhaps from making changes to infoboxes?) but possibly even more than that. Certainly if they continue doing this or make any more personal attacks while this thread is active I don't think we should be overly hesitant to block. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment People like RexxS and {U|Boing! said Zebedee|Boing!}} don't raise concerns about an admin's behaviour (or anyone else's for that matter) without very good reason. Looking at the situation, I must concur. I think perhaps a voluntary re-confiration RfA could be the answer, failing which, an Arbcom case would appear to be the only way to go, even if all it did were to issue a formal adminoshment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Leprof 7272 and tag bombing

TOPIC BANNED:

Leprof 7272 is banned from adding, removing, or editing any cleanup banner within any article. The anonymous IP the user has been recently using to continue tagging articles after being warned to stop has been blocked for 72 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

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

---

• Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 73.210.155.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not a happy thing. LeProf can bring a lot of value and improves articles, but keeps tag-bombing articles like this:

• diff series April 13
• dif series April 7
• diff series April 3 - 6
• diff series April 4
• diff series April 4
• diff series April 3
• diff series March 31
• diff series March 31
• dif March 29
• diff series Feb 11
• diff series in April 2016 including many all caps editing comments

I get it (I do!) that there are parts of WP that are really bad, but tag-bombing this way is not OK.

Leprof has been asked to stop doing this many, many times (Leprof selectively removes or overwrites stuff from their talk page, as you can see in its history). The list below is just some of the discussions people have tried to have with Leprof over this. The list starts with recent and goes backward in time -- start from bottom if you want chron order.

• January 2017: Noted here at ANI
• Dec 2016: asked to back off tagging here at their talk page
• Nov 2016: warned on their talk page here
• Nov 2016 complaint about overtagging at Peptide synthesis and generally tagbombing at their talk page here edited other editors' comment and replied here, then removed here
• May 2016 complaint about overtagging Sophie's Choice at their talk page here, removed here
• April 2016: noted here at ANI; extensive related discussion at their Talk page here, a great deal of that about LeProf edit warring over his edits to the archived ANI discussion (oy)
• April 2016, complaint about overtagging at Chromosome conformation capture at their talk [age here, removed here
• April 2016: complaint about overtagging generally at their talk page that had been removed, re-added here, defiant replies added inline here, overwritten by LeProf here, request to stop overtagging in response, here
• April 2016: complaint at their talk page here about Merlin Mann tagging, removed by LeProf here
• April 2016: complaints at their talk page about tagging/editing of Scum of the Earth Church here, removed by LeProf here
• March 2016 complaints about tagging of Intrinsic factor at their talk page here, overwritten w response by LeProf here;
• March 2016: complaint at their talk page here on March 25 about Acetone peroxide, with follow up here about Villa Baviera; other editor's comments edited, section header changed, and response by LeProf here then later completely overwritten here
• March 2016: complaint about inline all caps tagging here, removed here
• Feb 2016: response to editing tagging at Chirality by 2 editors here; responded to by LeProf here in mid-March, with justification of his tagging practices yet noting I am routinely reverted and accused of bombing
• January 2016: overtagging at Abbvie noted here, removed by LeProf here in March
• October 2015: two editors warn about over-tagging here. removed by leprof here during March 2016 discussions above
• July 2015: complaint about overtagging at their talk page here
• was part of the problem in this ANI thread from 2014

For several reasons, I posted the stuff above on their Talk page here on 16 April asking them to stop.

They did not reply there but did do this series of diffs, tagging the heck out another article.

I waited longer for them to log back in and reply. Today they were back and did this tagging, so it is clear that they do not intend to reply or to stop.

A prior discussion about this here at ANI last April was abandoned because LeProf didn't respond (see thread). We can probably count on them not replying here as well, and they may not log in at all while this runs. They have had plenty of notice that this would happen.

I think a TBAN from tagging articles would be appropriate here. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - I first encountered LeProf at A Prairie Home Companion (see history around Dec 2016), and it ended up at ANI (I think I started one of the threads linked above?) and AFC and... well, everywhere. I eventually threw in the towel because it was like talking to a brick wall. As mentioned by Jytdog, LeProf does do good work, but the excessive tagging is, well, excessive (and disruptive). Primefac (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and it also really bothers me the way this user always has to attack articles as both an account and IP, but apparently this is allowed. Sro23 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing the same articles both logged in and logged out is not allowed, and is sanctionable. Softlavender (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, if you want to throw in an alternate proposal to ensure they're (usually) logged in, be my guest. They have been asked by admin and non-admin alike to stay logged in, and we have yet to receive a straight answer as to why they keep doing it. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I propose a final warning about editing logged in and logged out on the same articles, and if he does it again, blocks of increasing length. Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from tagging. This has gone on long enough and is extremely disruptive and aggravating, not to mention unnecessary, heedless, legalistic, and over-the-top. It is disruptive editing, plain and simple. Softlavender (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Block till he explains his behavior. Else he's going to get that TBAN. L3X1 (distant write) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from tagging - An attention-getting block wouldn;t be a bad idea, either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from tagging Seems fairly egregious to me despite long term warnings that got ignored. -Obsidi (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support the above. Or at least restrict them to a max of one tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN because of the long-term tag bombing by the user and editing logged out (that might be considered sock puppetry). Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• comment - just want to note that the editing while logged out which was already problematic (not really policy-violating as it is always pretty clear it is him and I have never seen him deny an IP was him when asked) but it will become probably unacceptable once this TBAN is in place. Nobody wants to take time guessing if an IP was him in this context. Too bad as he takes some odd pleasure in editing while logged out but upsetting people like he has for so long leads to ... unpleasant restrictions. Which I know will chafe, and will probably lead him to act yet worse. This is unhappy. But there it is. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOCKING policy reads: Sock puppetry can take on several different forms [including]: Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. ... Editors ... who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse. (emphasis mine) See also: Template:Uw-login. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep am aware of that. :) It is definitely annoying but as I noted it doesn't appear to be malicious and they have never (that I have seen) actually pretended like an IP was not them. Just some weird quirk. But our tolerance of that annoying quirk will no longer make sense once there is a TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not "an annoying quirk". It is against WP:SOCK. Please re-read what I typed out. Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, in checking WP:EWLO, the statement must not actively try to deceive other editors is not being broken here. LeProf is very clearly announcing on the IP's page that it's their IP. In other words, it's annoying as hell, but it's not (technically) forbidden. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: you're right in the general sense but I disagree with you here. It seems reasonably clear that Leprof deliberately logs out to edit as an IP when they start getting in hot water over their logged-in edits, and whether they own up to it after the fact or not, editing logged out to avoid scrutiny in this way is expressly forbidden. They've been warned many times not to repeat this behaviour while logged out; as such I have blocked the IP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, you're right. I think I was letting semantics get in the way of reason. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - this has been a long time coming, I've had numerous dis-tasteful experiences with LeProf, usually with the editor hounding my TP - I'd support either the above TBAN proposal or a general block. XyZAn (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support – I and others have tried to reason with this editor that redundant use of attention banners is contrary to long standing conventions. Yes, Leprof is highly skilled and could make a significant contribution to this project. However their strident defense of tag bombing in contravention of consensus is disruptive. A topic ban is long over due.Boghog (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment just for the record, I added the IP which they're currently editing (and tag-bombing) under. They've all but stopped editing with their actual account. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Topic Ban. And if the disruption continues, then a long, preventative block without any further discussion. This has gone on long enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

---

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

British Israelism

This article is under a constant assault from believers of the ideology who can't seem to take "no" for an answer when Doug Weller gives it to them. Would a round of admin warnings or even topic bans be out of the question?

I'm serious, the entire talk page except for the first section is from the last month. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the behavior of specific editors, you need to name them and provide diffs to back up your complaint. Otherwise it is unrealistic to expect admins to do anything. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if an admin were moved to page-correct here, we would need to look at the behaviour of specific editors if we hoped for any lasting resolution to the issues. However, a quick perusal of the article and talk page demonstrates the the OP/IP is not being altogether histrionic in claiming that there are major issues there; most of the threads of that talk page demonstrate a whole lot of activity from some inexperienced editors with a limited understanding of Wikipedia sourcing standards, neutrality principles, and the requirements of encyclopedic tone.

That said, I'm not sure if there is a whole lot of behaviour that I would describe as per se WP:Disruptive. I've seen no evidence that the inexperienced editors are doing much that is improper, other than being really, really persistent while also being really, really wrong. Maybe there has been edit warring or other behavioural issues that did not become immediately aware to me as I moved through those threads, but if not, I'm not sure we are at a point yet that requires administrative attention. There's only a small number of editors contributing right now and though I certainly feel for Doug as he attempts to keep this situation in check, if the only obnoxious thing the "believers" are doing at present is being long-winded in advocating for their approach, I'm not sure what is to be done at this point. I think we need more perspective on the issues here before we can consider any course of community action. And even then, RfC might be a better first stop, before ANI. Doug Weller, any additional thoughts? Snow ^{let's rap} 04:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Dear IP, the non-specific and WP:DIFF-less nature of your report means that this thread is just going to get ignored. You yourself have never edited either the article or its talk page. If you are merely wanting "admin eyes" on the article, Doug Weller is already monitoring the article, and he's a big boy and can handle things. It's also worth noting that the OP has had an enormous amount of warnings in the seven months he has been editing [53], mainly regarding the Israeli/Judaism subject area, the most recent warnings being yesterday and the day before, so perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Foks, WP:DOLT tells us that a complaint about an article should be taken seriously, even if the complaint includes legal implications (WP:NLT). In the same way, there is no need to pile-on to the IP unless some examination of the issue has occurred. I have been watching British Israelism for a while and a glance at Talk:British Israelism shows it has a massive WP:SPA problem with 426 edits this year, compared with 329 edits in the previous thirteen years. I wanted to help but have been driven off by the blizard and Doug Weller should not suffer alone—obviously he's not there for recreation. Attention to the article and talk page is needed, although how to get that attention is unclear. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The page was also the subject of edits by socks for quite a while - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive, but that's not a current problem. At times this last week or so I've thought of giving up but some more editors have joined in. It's not just this page, British-Israel-World Federation is being edited by its president, and a move request I've made at Talk:British-Israel-World Federation has had only 2 responses, one from the president (as an IP but making it clear in his edit summary who he is) and the other by the secretary of the Victorian branch who has also been busy creating new articles. The editor this is mainly about is User:Wilfred Brown. Although he uses quotes from policies, guidelines and essays and their acronyms, I'm not convined he understands them. Right now he's looking for a 'neutral' source, one without bias that doesn't take sides. I think he may mean that doesn't mention the anti-Semitism and racism that has been part of the movement and that spawned Christian Identity, which is really hard to avoid by any acdemic studying the subject. He recently commented saying that some of the text is "filling up the article with info about 'Christian Identity' to the point where Christian Identity should get it's own page. .. Oh wait". See also his response to User:Agricolae at Talk:British Israelism#Central tenets redux. On the other hand it has always been a bad article and he's spotted some terrible sources that have been removed. But at the same time he wants to use self-published sources, telling us that the Bible was self-published. I'd better stop now or the malware that crashed my first reply in Chrome might move over to FireFox. Neither Norton nor MalwareBytes have solved it, a mess. I'll go make sure Wilfred Brown knows about this discussion. Doug Weller talk 08:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Just recalled something I'd written in Chrome saying that it would nice see this resolved without sanctions and without other editors giving up in despair. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, as the new editor in question, I admit that I'm totally green when it comes to editing Wikipedia, however, I have read many of the policies, and have a much better understanding of how things work now. I like to believe I make valid points on the talk page. Are they numerous? I don't know. I do know the topic itself is large, and 100s of books have been authored by British Israel adherents over the centuries. It's not my intention to promote anything, but having read many of those books over the past 30 years, I do recognize that this article is grossly lacking information on the subject, and is unbalanced towards it's critics. It's a little better now, but has a long way to go. And as I stated, I only want to see a clear version of What British Israelism is, and how the adherents came to those beliefs. Then add all the refs to counter those views. You won't see me deleting any of it unless they violate Wikipedia policies. But endeavoring to get to this point has been a non-stop battle. For a recent example; There's was a section 'Theological claims that assert a racial lineage'. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Israelism&diff=777403948&oldid=777390438 It's nearly incomprehensible, and raises points unrelated to the title. But, it's completely unreferenced. It's been sitting in article since before 2012. I said 'it needs to go' in talk, nothing got changed, so like you say, be bold, so I deleted it with 'WP:V Violation 'All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable'. But it was reverted a short time later by Agricolae, without any references. It took a third party to agree that it needed sources. However if I add a line or topic, and the reference I use isn't considered good enough, it's often deleted within minutes. So completely contentious, unreferenced posts can sit there for a decade, but try to add a well known and understood British Israelism belief, (which is the majority viewpoint on the page, right?) well, be prepared for a battle. One thing I was completely unaware of was that a little sarcasm or suggesting that there's bias gets you dragged here. I'll keep that in mind. Wilfred Brown (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wilfred Brown: No one dragged you here. You were being discussed by others who didn't name or notify you about this discussion, and I thought it courteous to let you know. I didn't drag you here at all. Yes, I commented on my view of the problem your sarcasm, but I didn't say you said there was bias, the word "bias" was used in the context of the sort of source you wanted, and it's fine to say that there is bias. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(since I have been accused of . . . something?) All I wanted was a little bit of time (by which I meant less than a day) to improve the text that had only been flagged for concern just a few days earlier along with over a dozen other passages - fixing problems does not happen instantanously. So, I reverted a single time, and when I was reversed by a third party that was the end of it, at least for me and I turned by attention to trying to forestall further deletions of newly-flagged material. That this interaction should be turned into a cause célèbre, prime evidence for some grand design to present a biased view of the topic, seems disproportionate. Agricolae (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Why then do you not show the same courtesy to new edits? Wilfred Brown (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have already explained in much detail on the Talk page both time I reverted or removed new information and I see no good coming from playing this out again here in ANI, where it really isn't relevant. Anyone interested can look at the Talk page and the edit history. I don't anticipate the servers crashing from everyone rushing to see. Agricolae (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And just to add, an example of how messed up this article is, there isn't even a consensus on the definition of British Israelism itself. I've been collecting a list on the talk page. So far we have 16 different definitions. Wilfred Brown (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not an issue with the article. that is an issue with BIism and the fact it is not a unified movement or organisation. This is one of the issues that I am seeing, edds who want to try and make it seem like BI believes X when different "branches" disagree on it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, where in the world are you getting legal threats in the OP? I've read it several times and as far as I can tell it's just a standard "need eyes/help on this article" post. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the confusion—legal threats are not relevant here! When I replied, three editors had commented, each pointing out that the IP had not identified specific issues or editors or diffs. My comment was to say that DOLT tells us to consider a complaint even if it violates NLT, and in the same way it is obvious that the IP is reporting a real problem, even if the report violated the norms of ANI. By the way, the topic of the article is extreme WP:FRINGE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a serious issue with POV pushing by edds with COI, but (as Dougy points out) at least one of them has also made a few valuable edits.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:The1337gamer ignores my discussions and humiliates me

Hi there, I would like to report User:The1337gamer. I have had various edit disagreements with him, but ultimately, I agree with edits because he's more experienced with Wikipedia then I am. However, that should not excuse his rude behaviour towards me in which he's intentionally ignored a discussion that I started with him regarding his rudeness with me. For example, he interrupted a discussion by assuming that I have "A tendency to not bother reading instructions", without understanding the full context of my post. He's also insulted me personally whilst I was in the process of modifying the Template:Bandai Namco hardware template. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) −

Welp, I can't help but notice that I don't see that you notified them of this discussion. Dlohcierekim 16:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Also the lack of diffs backing your statement up... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: I have notified The1337gamer for you but without diffs showing the problem it is unlikely any anything will be done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This looks like an old dispute, and I'm not seeing anything like what you're describing Iftekharahmed96. The Bandai Namco hardware template dispute goes back to December 2016

with nothing any more recent than that. The only discussion I see between you two also happened on your talk page and it appeared to end amiably enough. I see no evidence of any interaction between you two after that, so unless I'm missing something, it looks like this is an old dispute and it should be closed up as such.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  18:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Will close when OP gets a chance to see/comment in 12 hours or less. L3X1 (distant write) 20:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with the dispute itself, rather its this user's tendency to act hostile towards me. I just used that particular dispute as one example of his behaviour. He intentionally ignores me when I want to have a serious conversation with him and that's concerning because Wikipedia is a community driven website. All I ask is that he treats me with respect and respects my point of view. So far, he's treating me like a joke of an editor. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not rude, I did not attack you, and I did not make an assumption. I made an accurate observation based on [54], [55], [56] and previous encounters. In fact, this ANI you've opened further bolsters my observation because you did not provide diffs and you did not notify me of the discussion, therefore you did not bother to read or follow the instructions at the top of this page. If you're humiliated by what I said, then maybe you should re-evaluate your own behaviour and editing habits. You are reporting me because you don't like my tone, but have you ever considered how yours is perceived by other editors? Every time you get reverted, you seem to take it as a personal offence and start blindly reverting. Your attitude towards other editors is awful at times. In this diff ([57]) you asked GB fan to stop taking the mick because they rightly reverted you for incorrectly following deletion processes. GB fan then explained to you why your edits were reverted and they directed you to the correct instruction pages to learn how to properly complete your task. GB fan was being helpful and giving you advice and your reply to them was that they had ridiculous bias which isn't at all what they displayed. ([58]) And then, as usual, you run off to get another editor to intervene by presenting them with misleading statements that try to favour your side of the argument. Let's not forget one of your previous attempts to get an uninvolved editor to initiate an edit war with me by telling them that I was making so-called "incorrect" edits ([59]), all while I was trying to resolve the content dispute in a discussion that was already taking place. Even when I told you not to request other editors to edit war with me, you somehow took offence to what I said, completely ignoring your own actions as though they were perfectly fine ([60]). After GB fan opened the RfDs correctly on your behalf and deletion was unanimously opposed, your remark to him just shows off your childish behaviour even more Well, looks like you win, I've pulled everything I can. You played fair and square. ([61]). Rather than trying to understand the other side of an argument or in this case, simply Wikipedia's deletion policy, you treat the dispute as a game that you must win at all costs. Your attitude is terrible and you're not going to get anyone to collaborate with you if it continues like that. Re-read the comments, which you consider to be a serious conversation, that you posted on my talk page ([62], [63]): You open with a with a rhetorical question stating that I am rude. You say that I barged into a discussion as though I did something wrong; I am not prohibited from posting another user's talk page. You take an aggressive tone by demanding that I explain myself. When I don't answer immediately, you threaten to report me. You were trying to bait me into an argument, not a serious conversation. My comment on you not always reading instructions or following deletion processes properly was completely valid and not hostile in any way. I'm not humiliating you, you're doing that yourself. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm humiliating myself? There you go again, that's a personal attack. Running with assumptions as if you know who I am personally. I'm honestly disgusted by your confrontational attitude towards me. The way you present yourself, you sound as though you have a superiority complex over me. I've had differences with other editors, but I've been able to eventually come to an agreement with them. Heck, I'm very collaborative too, and I like to learn from more experienced editors. You're the exception to the rule because you're rude and you like to humiliate me when the opportunity strikes right for you. The quote Well, looks like you win, I've pulled everything I can. You played fair and square. wasn't even an insult. It was me admitting that GBFan was right. I even apologised to him and ensured that I'll take his edits over mines next time. This is what your assumptions (to a discussion that has nothing to do with you, mind you) end up doing. Is it too much to ask that you talk to me with civility and not someone starting a flame war in a YouTube comments section? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Good job not reading almost the entire of my post and trying to badly twist specific parts to paint me in a negative light. Love how you choose to ignore all the evidence I provided of your own uncivil behaviour just so you can write more nonsense about me. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence presented that indicates that The1337gamer requires a warning or other admin action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Attempted doxxing / Casting aspersions by Auntieruth55

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

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

For prior comparative attempts, please see ANI archives:

• Attempted doxing by IP (DGG has stated: Anyone who continues to play games to see how close they can come to doxxing will be blocked.)
• Attempted doxing by User:HicManebimusOptime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Had Auntieruth55 not themselves removed the material upon being alerted to its nature, I would indeed immediately block. If Auntieruth55 continues to interact in a negative spirit, it will be difficult to consider that posting accidental, and I will block. This should not be taken to preclude whatever action the community might want to take to deal with more general issues involving that editor or others.

I hope that this discussion and the related ones will be carefully noticed, because after this I do not think anyone involved in these disputes could be considered unaware. Everyone should know that it is considered as very serious misconduct to refer to off-wiki discussions that might even possibly identify another editor; if it rises to the point of harassment, it will almost certainly lead to an indefinite block. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The possible attempted doxxing is not on, and I am glad that auntieruth has removed the material. Anything approaching doxxing must be stamped out. However, the "casting aspersions" idea is just another example of the wikilawyering, pointy behaviour and relentless and TLDR threads by coffman defending his style of editing and complaining about people who don't find it helpful to WP and have told him so. I consider this tendentious behaviour that makes editing unpleasant for other editors, but based on past interactions, I have no hope coffman will stop. I have taken to avoiding most areas being edited by coffman because they are so unpleasant. At some point they have to take some responsibility for the effect that their editing style has on other editors. This complaint (less the doxxing issue) should be ignored. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I wasn't aware that it was one of the undocumented responsibilities of admins to inform others what to take seriously and what to ignore on this noticeboard. I think most of us are mature and perceptive enough to determine what to ignore ourselves, thanks. (In case it's not clear, it seems highly improper for an admin to pick sides by justifying allegations and then making a further attempt to cast stones.) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was one of the undocumented responsibilities of admins to inform others what to take seriously and what to ignore on this noticeboard

So, you don't hang out here very often then? Or are you conflating "should" with "order"? --Calton | Talk 07:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

what most admins would have done was block, especially because this site has been previously linked to in this connection twice, each time from a different editor. I was in fact considering an oversight block. But I almost never block if I can possibly help it; I prefer to give warnings, and I usually word them as advice. I have no desire to judge the behavior of the different editors here--I explicitly said that just above. I think almost any other admin , upon seeing the previous warning ineffective, would have proceeded to block. But I prefer to think the ed in question here may have been unaware of the seriousness, and I give the benefit of the doubt yet again. I'm not an admin because I want to enforce the rules by sanctioning people; I want to enforce the rules by guiding people, and I'm an admin because the ability to use sanctions if necessary can in practice sometimes make the guidance very much more effective. If I do have to block, I will regard it as a failure. DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The reported incident, about a page mentioned before and reported by the same person before (surprise) clearly was no doxing at all. During the respective discussion several people had brought forward criticism about the project WPMILHIST; and all Auntieruth55 waid that there apparently exists an exterior discussion about the project, too. He didn´t mention Coffmann in that post or the followup; the only "pattern of behaviour" is that he was part of that discussion again, the repeated disturbance of the project's work and the repated reporting by said user. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• As an editor involved, I didn't ever see the MILHIST post, just what was on the noticeboard, and am the editor Auntieruth replied to on the talk page. (I never saw the final comment about history) If GELongstreet is right, than there is no doxxing involved. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• The material involved had been oversighted twice in the past. I agree with DGG that the initial removal suggests this was unintentional, but the talk page reply to L3X1 on her talk page is the definition of trying to get around our rules on outing and harassment. Telling a fellow editor how to see material that has been deemed oversightable in the past is not okay. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've struck part of my statement above based on the replies here. I agree with DGG and Peacemaker that anything approaching doxing by linking off-wiki accounts is not good, but think it was done without malice in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

response from Auntieruth

• I'm the editor who posted the reddit link and when I was told that it was not a done thing, I immediately removed it. Never heard of "doxing" (still not sure what it is). While doing some online research about the sources involved in the content dispute that underlies the discussion, I discovered an exterior discussion of our ongoing conversation (about military personnel in the Nazi era) with detailed instructions on how to get involved, how to use wiki guidelines against wikipedia, and generally how to disrupt the military history project. The instructions were not just detailed, but outright invitations to confound the project, and contained links to the intro to wiki pages. There was also considerable ridicule of our good faith efforts, some self promotion about a vandal's cross (which I've never heard of), and instructions on how to get involved in sabotaging the project, starting with WWII German Luftwaffe bios. Some editor--I don't know who it was (well, I know the reddit name, but will not mention) --had actually bragged about the disruption that he or she was causing, and named at least 2 wikipedia editors by user name. If this is being done by (an)other wikipedia editor(s), then I wonder if it is violation of WP:NOTHERE because said editor(s) would clearly not be here to build an encyclopedia but to promote an agenda and for self-aggrandizement. Is this something that should be investigated? If so, not by me. It needs someone higher up in the food chain, with higher pay grade, and seriously better internet skills.
• As for posting instructions from me to another editor on how to find "stuff", that's laughable. You can refer to conversations that are still ongoing in a previous ANI complaint (I cannot find it) that I am basically clueless about how to post differences. Eggishorn actually questioned whether I intended to post the differences I posted, and s/he is right, I'm not sure. When I get it right, it's sheer luck. I should take some lessons from a few people here.
• As a WPMILHIST coordinator, I'm very willing to help develop guidelines on "reliable sources" for potentially contentious material but I am not willing to do this in the face of a phalanx of editors with an agenda to limit the project's scope and subject matter. auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

I'm inclined to agree—I've just wasted a chunk of my life I'll never get back reading the thread in the Link So Serious It Needed To Be Revdeleted to see what all the fuss was about, and there's not a whiff of outing, doxing etc anywhere that I can see. ‑ Iridescent 15:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Auntieruth55, I accept your explanation that the link was not posted with malicious intent. However, the on-going pattern of casting aspersions still concerns me. For example, could you please point to the phalanx of editors with an agenda?

It seems the only editor that the MilHist coords are concerned about is my person, while anyone who happens to agree is part of a "tag team". Please see the other ANI thread on this board, where one such claims remains unsubstantiated: User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel &Boomerang proposal: Topic ban for User:Dapi89.

Likewise, the only disruption that has been mentioned before is me again: We need to deal with this. Coffman is disrupting what I thought was a resolved issue, this time at the Featured level diff. Please also indicate how I've attempted to limit the project's scope and subject matter. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Tag-team enforcement of MYWAY

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

---

... by Harout72 and Chrishonduras at David Bowie. Discussion here. Collusion here. —ATS 🖖 talk 07:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, violating 3RR was the wrong move. El_C 07:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This was the correct move per WP:BLP, El_C. The tag-team reintroduction of a manufactured "however" situation intentionally used original research in a direct effort to cast aspersions on a reliable source. By policy, such an edit cannot stand. —ATS 🖖 talk 07:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:ATS is objecting the addition of the 100 million in sales alongside the 140 million without providing any reasonable explanation. The sales figure comes from a reliable source. I and another user do not wish to remove the 140 million, we simply believe that the article should include both figures stating that Bowie has sold between 100-140 million records. Not allowing this insertion without any grounds, indicates Ownership of content--Harout72 (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a false statement. I objected to the users' self-identified mandate to supplant the data, and the later effort—properly removed under BLP—to undermine the cited source with a manufactured, nonexistent "however".

During the discussion, the editors decided among themselves that they were just going to change it anyway. —ATS 🖖 talk 07:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing a content dispute—what I'm not seeing is a pressing BLP issue. El_C 07:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This was textbook "I don't believe it" that devolved into one of the worst examples of WP:POINT I've ever seen. —ATS 🖖 talk 07:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think all of you should have taken kept it to the talk page instead of engaging in an edit war. El_C 08:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

So did I. —ATS 🖖 talk 08:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Chrishonduras:

Hi, I hope that the administrator can takes note about this incident. I don't know how to start with this. First, I will apologize for my English, I'm not native but I hope that gonna be understandable :).

• All start with this edition that I made with a summary edit. I was later reverted by user ATS. I followed the recommendation in his edit summary and I started the discussion in the talk page. So, later I opened a consensus and asked in music Wikiprojects that are related with the David Bowie's article. At the moment, I asked an "opinion" of two users, including Harout because I always thinks that he is neutral with any artist and he can add an opinion, like he does.

• Unfortunately, with the opinion of the users involving in the talk page, everything was wrong for the user ATS and a basically a violation of the Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and essays. He just support one "truth" about the sales of sir. David Bowie, and the other one, even, if has reliable sources, are unacceptable.

• One of the solutions was presented by Harout (his first intervention), that is keep both sales figures. Was denied by ATS and Harout edited in the article but ATS reverted him. Some contradictions, that I personally see, came from the user ATS. Harout added on the lead with the properly evidence that both figures have references and was later reverted. Later, was added by ATS and just in one section. Even, current article status is irregular (the last edition by ATS). For me it's important point out in the lead: both figures. And also, he puts the "150 million records" estimated by "additional sources". However, this sales don't have reference and can be a primary source.

• Also I wanna report the edit war that this user virtually made/started by himself. He reverted Harout and me. And the pretendious break of Ownership of content. The true is gonna be the same and wanna remind why we have to hide a fact that has have reliable sources as well. I don't understand what is the probem to be neutral. Is not just 1 or 2 references, are several. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 08:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

In a content dispute, it's always better to go through dispute resolution options like 3rd opinion than to solicit someone directly, as it may be construed as canvassing. El_C 08:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Chris, I have every confidence that the admins can read and parse the facts for themselves, including fuck-him-we're-just-going-to-do-it-anyway. —ATS 🖖 talk 08:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Class project at Ancient warfare

Several editors making large additions to the article. A bit seems ok but there's a lot of unsourced material, an OR comment about begging the question, and I'm not sure about the total impact on the article. I can't do much on my iPad and we really need to find their teacher. Help would be appreciated. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had to redact it; I tried, but it was just too much to fix at once, with too many unsourced and undue claims. El_C 08:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing some possible copyvio, too, for the first edit that I let stand (Naval warfare)—someone should look into that as I am signing off. El_C 09:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The instructor for this class is listed as Ieremu and Tokyogirl79 is associated as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both. Editing in a moving car on an iPad is chancy, so I stopped. And of course on my PC or laptop I can highlight and right click to search Google easily for copyvio, not that simple on a tablet. Hopefully we'll hear from the editors associated with this project. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:170.254.144.84 and repeatedly changing IPs

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

---

Here is the IP user that's been repeatedly changing the IP address (only 170.254.144 remain the same):

• 170.254.144.88
• 170.254.144.57
• 170.254.144.61
• 170.254.144.35
• 170.254.144.84 (Current one, though the user is likely to change IP address again)

Basically the result of calling the edit in Manaus as irrelevant even with viable source, which is one thing, but because this user has been repeatedly changing IP address, it obviously violates ToS (which is obviously known as ban evasion from changing IP addresses, also includes backseat moderating) as a result of changing a number of IP addresses in order to continue deleting sources. Do please deal with the current situation. Thanks. VGN34D (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

A viable source does not mean that content must be included. Changing IP address is not a violation of anything, and probably not even under the user's control. The subject is under discussion on the article's talk page, where it belongs, and the article is currently semi-protected, so it's not clear what exactly you'd want done. As far as I can tell this user is not banned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose. I've seen banned users evading them by intentionally changing IP address before, but you're right. You are free to close it, apologies for the inconvenience. VGN34D (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Senor Freebie

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

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

See history leading to previous blocks at Talk:Battle_of_Brisbane and [64].

Drama/reality perception:

• Removal of source supporting statement in article, while claiming material is unsourced. He has continued to blank the content despite my documentation, with quotes from the source, that the statement is indeed verifiable, ie [65], [66].
• Obviously inaccurate claim of "unsourced". Repeated claim of "no corresponding source" after blanking what was source #49.
• Claim of "unsupported" to content that faithfully matches source, as pointed out here
• Here we have already agreed that this paragraph is unwarranted, but SF accidentally reverted it back in. Here is SF's response to my observation that we are in agreement.
• Described content as "unsourced" after a 2nd citation was added at his request.

Personal attack allegations:

• [67]
• [68]
• [69]

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

Notified [70]. VQuakr (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Borderline personal attacks

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

I am not that anonymous editor and have no idea who he is. What SPECIFIC TO ME are you objecting to?deisenbe (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above regarding the second edit. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this edit was inappropriate, in at least two ways. I have closed the discussion and asked Deisenbe not to do it again. John (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be zero tolerance for that kind of attack. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a mild aspersion, not a blatant personal attack. John's post on Deisenbe's talk page struck the right notes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)