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

The Frankfurt School section "Cultural Marxism"

Hi, I'm just looking to get Last Contrarian banned from further editing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section of The Frankfurt School page. Having called an RfC on removing 'conspiracy theory' from the lead Last Contrarian soon found out there was a unanimous uninvolved editorial WP:consensus against their personal viewpoint that Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory. Regardless of this fact they've continued to edit war (barely avoiding 3RR) [1], [2], [3], [4], and they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits against consensus. Something must be done, and administrative action would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment

1. It seems you read my mind. I was just about to report you. You accuse me of a possible 3RR violation. I suspected a WP:TAGTEAM ( [5] [6] [7] [8]) between you and User:Ian.thomson yesterday but didn't report it because I forced myself to assume WP:GOODFAITH.

2. People are free to look at the discussion and RfC over at Talk:Frankfurt School. The page is absolutely plastered with long-winded comments by Jobrot which fail to address my original question.

3. Jobrot consistently reverted the NPOV template on flimsy reasons and by claiming a fictitious three editor consensus when most comments on the RfC there were votes without any substantive discussion.

4. Looks like Jobrot believes he owns the article, and content added using reliable sources that do not support his bias look like disruptive editing to him.

5. It looks like this issue was not urgent enough to be reported. Jobrot spent a better part of half an hour [9] leaving replies to comments not addressed to him before deciding to revert my reliably sourced "disruptive edit."

6. This is what Jobrot considers to be a disruptive edit: [10]. Well-sourced quotes and statements backed by reliable sources. Last Contrarian (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty common for the article: someone comes in, claims that we're relying too much on "leftist" sources that that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, further evidence is provided that it is a conspiracy theory, those sources are rejected as "leftist," and no counter sources are ever provided to show that anyone outside of the far-right regards it as a reality. However, it's usually new and/or anon editors who don't know how (or don't care) to nominally go through process. We have an editor going through the process, consensus isn't going his way, but there's one editor who is continually countering his arguments so that must be the problem. Seriously, though, is Jobrot handling things perfectly? No. But is he the one ignoring consensus here? Not that I'm seeing...

@Last Contrarian: I've only ever encountered Jobrot on this site, I've only ever really crossed paths with him at The Frankfurt School article and talk page, and his talk page isn't even on my watchlist -- so accusations of tag teaming would indeed go against WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Does the absence of a consensus mean I stay away from the article altogether (Barring substantive discussion from commenting editors, I still consider it to be a majority vote)? Have I added any batshit crazy stuff to the section to your knowledge?

Once the NPOV tag was reverted by Jobrot's and your actions, I continued discussions on the talk page. After discovering a WP:RS source (Gottfried) who had an opinion on the theory, I first added him to the discussion and then decided to improve the article by adding his views on the matter. If this is what you guys consider disruptive editing, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that you assert ownership over the section and only certain wording and certain kinds of sources are allowed. And anyone displeasing you guys will be sent to the principal's office. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

--

I still consider the lede to be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. I didn't touch it though, when I edited the section. My plan was to eventually involve some unbiased editors. When three different sources (one of them an admin) have noticed biased editing on the article over the last two years, who am I to claim otherwise:

• http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/misadventuring-on-wikipedia/
• http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html
• https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299 Last Contrarian (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As I'd mentioned on the talk page, and as can be found in the talk page archives - Gottfried is WP:UNDUE as he holds a tiny minority opinion (and especially can't be used for Lind's views), his inclusion in the lead violates WP:LEADCITE and you're only trying to include it there to further violate the strong editorial consensus produced by your own RfC that the mainstream view is that Cultural Marxism is a CONSPIRACY THEORY. Making the section subject to WP:FRINGE:

Main page: WP:FRINGE

"A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight"

Also; if I want to spend half an hour on Wikipedia refuting your claims via proper policy, editorial consensus and quality sourcing in line with policy, that's up to me. --Jobrot (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Several mainstream sources were provided on the talk page that referred to the idea as a conspiracy theory. You didn't accept them. You were asked for counter sources that demonstrate that any moderates or leftists regard it as a reality. You've previously refused to even acknowledge the request beyond claiming that it's "proving a negative", but I will note that you have just now cited a Slate article written by someone who has WP:HOUNDed Arbcom, called an admin a "capo" on Twitter, and generally not behaved reasonably toward anyone affiliated with this site over something a single (and now topic-banned) editor did years ago. You have instead called for treating something that only the fringe right regards as reality as equally plausible as the mainstream assessment of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia scholar. I don't spend my days and nights following news about who attack Wikipedia and for what reason. That the "Cultural Marxism" article has seen heavily biased editing is a known thing. The New York Times may not care enough to write articles about it, but the fact than we are here (and someone like me who has spent 8 years on wikipedia without ever encountering an admin) is here and the pages and pages of debate pretty much proves it.

You keep bringing up WP:GEVAL as if it means something in this context. When you label a political belief a conspiracy theory, you need to provide evidence from sources other than their opponents. The section is a case of WP:NPOV violation and the lede is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS based on the views of purely left-wing sources. Left-wing academics and left-wing op-ed writers for left-wing newspapers might believe Cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't become one simply on their say so. There are right-wing sources that use the phrase in a non-ironic fasion all the time. There is an exceedingly well-known philosopher like Gottfried who has written a book on the Frankfurt school and who actually claims that Lind does not believe in the conspiracy theory but Jobrot is trying to have him excluded using WP:DUE in spite of him being a WP:RS. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As shown 2 comments above, WP:FRINGE requires independent reliable sources; I'd hardly call an article from The American Conservative in which the author specifically says he's friends with William S. Lind and is specifically attacking Wikipedia (albeit a 2 year old article on the topic that no longer exists); independent. Apart from that, you should be using Gottfried's book, but even then he is WP:UNDUE and including him in the lead violates WP:CITELEAD (as stated above WP:LISTEN).

There's no reason to include Gottfried's minority opinion, and nowhere in the article does it claim that Lind says Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory; it in fact says he's a proponent of the theory. And as I've stated on the talk page Lind repeatedly talks of unmasking the hidden agenda of the left to reveal old Karl Marx himself. Proponents of the moon landing hoax or NWO conspiracy theory ALSO don't state that they're conspiracy theorists. So no; WP:UNDUE opinions will not be included in the lead, and you WILL respect the consensus of your fellow editors. --Jobrot (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For people who would not bother to wade through the wall of text, this is what Paul Gottfried says [11]:

Neither one of us has argued that there is a Frankfurt School or Cultural Marxist “conspiracy.” Indeed we have stressed the opposite view, namely, that certain Frankfurt School social teachings have become so widespread and deeply ingrained that they have shaped the dominant post-Christian ideology of the Western world.

So, Gottfried is not claiming that Lind is not a conspiracy theorist, only that Lind does not believe that a conspiracy exists, which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is claiming. Quoting Gottfried weakens the current lead paragraph. Perhaps that's why Jobrot doesn't want it there. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Gottfried also states in his book: "Nothing intrinsically Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society." going on to say; "The mistake of those who see one position segueing into another is to confuse contents with personalities." [12] and I wouldn't put that in there either (unless I'm pushed to cover his viewpoint fully). But I wouldn't put it in of my own accord because it's WP:UNDUE and in the case of your quote (due to where it appears and what else is said in that article) it's not an independent reliable source (as explained above and below) - we've already covered this on the talk page. Maybe you should WP:LISTEN to what people are actually saying rather than just making up the reasons they're saying it in your head. --Jobrot (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The depth, breadth and unanimous consensus formed in the very long and conclusive discussion on the talk page makes this a WP:DEADHORSE and WP:LISTEN issue, in which Last Contrarian is failing to regard policy or their fellow Wikipedia editors with any respect. Violating several policies and ignoring WP:GOODFAITH multiple times in the discussion. They've claimed that rabid left-wing editors are stopping them from resurrecting the previous article (which in fact was salted WP:SALT as part of closing the AfD to prevent this exact type of behavior), and they've also claimed they wish users to come away with a positive interpretation of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

From the talk page: "This is pure WP:OR and you cannot finish reading the article and still end up with a positive interpretation of "Cultural Marxism." If that were not the case, one should be able to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism easily without being attacked by rabid left-wing editors."

In short they're not WP:HERE for the right reasons, and instead seek to use Wikipedia as a personal political WP:SOAPBOX --Jobrot (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hang on a second Last Contrarian the accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I know I've seen editors blocked for such accusations against other editors in the past with out diff's to support the accusation per WP:NPA. Your lack of WP:AGF and automatically accusing another editor of something else in an attempt to deflect scrutiny from yourself is inappropriate. Regardless you do appear to be edit warring based on the diffs provided You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I don't care about thomson. He didn't revert my reliably sourced edit for being disruptive. The problem is Jobrot who is guarding the article like Cerberus guarding the Underworld.

You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. Do you notice a consensus there? There are a couple of discussions. Everything else is a vote. All you see there are comments primarily by Jobrot that evade my questions, ignore propositional logic (thereby constructing ledes based on false syllogisms) and replies that are a wall of text to drown out any adventuring editor. Further, what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced if it happens to go against the articles current statement? Last Contrarian (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As stated above multiple times, as well as on the talk page; it's not reliably sourced as per WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:CITELEAD (WP:LISTEN, WP:DEADHORSE). "what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced"; in this case the consensus means you should acknowledge that MOST PEOPLE don't hold your views, so you should check your edits against the consensus that Cultural Marxism is in fact; a conspiracy theory (regardless of the claims of proponents). If you'd wished to include Gottfried, you'd need something more independent than right-wing political websites (he has a book you know), and even then it's not WP:DUE and obviously it cannot be put in the lead WP:CITELEAD. You should have respected the WP:CONSENSUS you've brought upon yourself via your own RfC. --Jobrot (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Claim that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory using purely left-wing sources.

2. Obtain a consensus using 1. Make things impossible so that Wikipedia admins have a massive headache and give up. Things deteriorate so much that new mdia across the political spectrum write articles on it.

3. Use consensus obtained above to bar reliable right-wing sources from supporting statements against the so-called "common" mainstream view by claiming they are not independent.

You think that convinces anybody? And you think you're not biased at all. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban, this has gone on far too long and the article is a honeypot for ideologues even without this. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ideologues on both both sides. I'd like you to take a look at Jobrot's history and the history of the present conflict before coming to a conclusion. I know people don't have the time to do this, but this is how bias grows, by refusing to consider the possibility that the status quo is wrong. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. Oh, and law of holes. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This road has been trodden before by SecondDark, Kaffeburk, Achinoam, Ideloctober and various IP users. There's a reason decisions go against people who approach the article from a political perspective and violate WP:consensus. It isn't due to a conspiracy, admins being brainwashed, or other editors being rabid left-wing shills: It's due to the fact that The Frankfurt School were interested in analyzing Culture; not in taking it over. They'd seen the rise of Nazism in their own country; a force they had to flee from. They were anti-fascists more than anything else; not communists and not plotting the downfall of America - in fact members wrote AGAINST Soviet Marxism, they even helped determine the protocols at the Nuremberg Trials and worked for the OSS during the war. They even advised the US government during the Cold War. Their aim wasn't to take over or destroy; their aim was to teach what they'd learned from having to flee fascism; in order to IMPROVE democracy, not destroy it. Blaming modern progressive politics on The Frankfurt School makes no more sense than blaming it on Hitler. The whole world has changed since then - especially since the fall of the USSR. Politics needs to move on too. --Jobrot (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment It's nearing 3:30AM in India and I have to sleep. Will revisit this in about 18 hours. Hope admins take their time before coming to a decision. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I support a page ban. At this point the editor isn't listening. They've had enough ROPE and seem to be talking them selves into a page ban. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is my edit history: [13]. Do you see anything there that supports a ban? Or, does every single person who opposes Jobrot's stranglehold on the article (the guy has more edits [14] on the article than the next three editors combined, all of whom are inactive since forever) get banned even if reliable sources are used to provide a balance to the slanted claims? They way things stand at present, unless ten people gang up together (an unlikely event) to form a consensus in the opposite direction, Jobrot's version of events will be the de facto Wikipedia version as he seems to be omnipresent on Wikipedia. Anyone going against the status quo will be crushed by the consensus of 2 editors and 4 voters, reliable sources be damned. Last Contrarian (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, your edit history is why people are going for a page/topic ban instead of a block: you do have a lot of good edits to stuff relating to India and Indian entertainment, but your foray into American politics has been problematic. In fact, the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic, combined with the drastic increase in loquaciousness, almost looks like a WP:COMPROMISED account. Were it not for this and this, I'd've called for a block on those grounds instead of explaining this. Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, which means you should stay away from contentious topics until you've learned to do so. You say you've been here "without ever encountering an admin" like that's a bad thing. That means you haven't engaged the community here, and it shows. While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month -- and that's in total, not taking into account that you've barely interacted with the community at all before this. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Every major article I have involved myself in is due to a singular interest in the subject matter. The articles on Satya (film), Chanakya (TV series) and Anurag Kashyap needed a lot of improvement. The one on the Tata Tapes controversy didn't exist till I created it.

While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month I guess you are used to articles and editors for which sources are available quite easily. The articles I worked on are India-specific and the number of easily accessible digital sources on the subject matter and time period (1980s-1990s) are very few. The only way you could perhaps make them better is by visiting newspaper morgues in some of the major Indian cities.

rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Not sudden at all. Here's my user page from 2008: [15]:

• atheist
• libertarian
• interested in politics
• believes in logic
• is opposed to online censorship

So my "suddenly" visiting the Cultural Marxism page should make sense given the context.

drastic increase in loquaciousness On Wikipedia, sure. Doesn't mean this is the only handle I use on the internet. Further, technical subjects or subjects with some basis to them don't require long-winded discussions. Only politics and philosophy do.

Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, Consensus and collaboration work when the differences between editors are such that an agreement is possible. In case of controversial topics, they might work if others are willing to at least listen to you. I don't see it happening when it comes to this topic. When I raise a question regarding sentence construction, propositional logic and citations, and the only replies I get are those influenced by previous controversies or those simply voting for a position, what are the chances that a consensus based on substantive discussion would be arrived at?

In this instance, it's very easy to change the lede by using WP:INTEXT. But some editors seem to believe that the conspiracy theoretic position is so common, that in-text attribution is something that should be absolutely avoided. Last Contrarian (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT argues against you; sighting this as an example of what not to do: "Charles Darwin says that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars." - that's EXACTLY what you attempted with the lead: "Cultural Marxism in mainstream parlance is considered a conspiracy theory; but <insert name here> doesn't think it is!" WP:GEVAL WP:DEADHORSE WP:LISTEN WP:CONSENSUS. --Jobrot (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you misread my comments unintentionally or on purpose. This is what I said FOUR days back (see the talkpage):

What does "common usage" mean in this context? Who, exactly, "commonly refers" to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory? If it's the SPLC, then reword the sentence so that it states so explicitly. If it is left-wing academics, X, Y & Z who research right-wing movements, then use their names there. What we have here is the use of weasel words (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Weasel_word) to make a claim appear larger than it actually is.

If I had done that myself, you would have still called it disruptive editing—or by claiming that WP:INTEXT is not necessary as the conspiracy theoretic view is universal—because you don't want the section's basic claim to change. I began adding Gottfried's claims BECAUSE the entire section is based on left-wing name-calling with right-wing primary sources only being used for WP:SYNTHESIS.

Your verbose comments don't lead anywhere, and are often designed to tire the reader, or worse, change the focus away from a particular topic. Your actions seem to be designed to push away editors who don't share your bias or world view. This makes it impossible for anyone to significantly edit the article without being obstructed by you. Anyone who doesn't enter the fray with preconceived notions will find the state of the article and your behavior unacceptable to say the very least. Here's User:N-HH (see talk page) who thinks the section suffers from lack of balance and misdirected emphasis. saying he's unwilling to enter the trenches:

The term goes beyond the Frankfurt School, and beyond the modern "conspiracy theory", so it shouldn't be a subsection on this page, or be focused on modern politics wherever it is. It's connected to this page, to US Culture war and to Critical theory, and there are overlaps, but is a discrete and substantive topic in its own right; a disambiguation page might help, but I think it needs more than that. That said, I don't have the time to invest in what would no doubt be an extended rerun of old debates which would probably end anyway with this unhappy compromise outcome all over again, or something similar. Plus this has slightly gone beyond the RfC ambit, so I'll leave it there.

That's on you, and editors like you who are unable to tolerate an NPOV tag on an obviously controversial section. Last Contrarian (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already explained multiple times that it's a) a conspiracy theory to relevant sources cited in the section, b) a theory about a conspiracy to the paleoconservative minority viewpoint, c) that the sighted source for the statement is talking about the mainstream/common usage as being a conspiracy theory and d) that there are multiple examples of it being talked about as a conspiracy theory in the mainstream media:

 The Guardian [16], Al Jazeera [17], Salon [18], Fair Observer [19], The New Matilda [20], ArtNet [21], Buzzfeed [22], The Huffington Post [23].

These reoccurring discussions you wish to have will always illicit this same response from me, each and every time, and User:N-HH was saying there wasn't enough left-wing ACADEMIC coverage of the original meaning; the polar opposite of your claim that there isn't enough paleoconservative coverage (even though it already makes up a substantial chunk of the current section); and User:N-HH was quickly able to understand that the section was specifically for the conspiracy theory version of the term (as is explained on the talk page) and to ascertain that I wasn't there to push a political agenda. Unlike yourself versus those horrible rabid left-wing editors. You're grasping at straws here and showing off your failure to WP:LISTEN. --Jobrot (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic/Page ban. Topic ban from Cultural Marxism would be the easiest to manage. I find specific page bans tend to lead to the editor having the same dispute about markedly similar content on a different page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ban Jobrot already and topic-ban Ian Thompson and JzG from American Politics for defending him. He does act like he owns the page, he cannot tell the difference between the 1) school of Cultural Marxism 2) tactic commonly known as Cultural Marxism and 3) allegations about the use of the tactic, he judges the reliability of sources by whether they support what he wants the page to say, he takes a battleground stance against anyone who disagrees with him, he refuses to listen, he has never had consensus, he has his pet admins ban dissenters to maintain a false illusion of consensus, and now he shows off the severed heads of banned users to threaten another editor. Jobrot is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. How much more of this is Wikipedia going to take? 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd tag you as an SPA, but it seems more obvious that you're a sock of some editor who didn't get his way. Also, pretending for a moment you're not just WP:HOUNDing Jobrot over some past grievance, recommending that two administrators who've each been here a decade be topic banned from the very broad field of American politics would require some serious evidence of serious misbehavior all around that field. Assuming you're not just trolling or socking around some sort of ban yourself, either you're totally unaware of process here or you're throwing a politically motivated tantrum. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• oppose page ban User:Last Contrarian is a long-standing Wiki editor since 2008. He arrived at the Cultural Marxism just a few days ago, made obviously good faith edits, and appropriately withdrew to an RFC when it became clear that his edits were opposed by two editors. Jobrot is too quick to declare consensus on that RFC, it's only been open three days. There is also an interesting discussion developing at Fringe theories noticeboard. Jobrot argues for guilt by association: i.e. other editors have 'been down this path' (whatever that means), therefore Lost Contrarian must be stopped now? Doesn't make sense. Nothing about his behavior would merit any sort of ban. Also oppose any boomerang, Jobrot's expertise is much appreciated. JerryRussell (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support re: a boomerang. On that note; I hadn't seen the discussion on the fringe theories board (so thank you for bringing it to my attention) and I've actually now gone to the user page of the one descenting opinion and tried to clarify Marcuses meaning in Repressive Tolerance; as I believe their personal opinion of what he was saying is most certainly a misreading of his actual statements.

As for User:Last Contrarian "withdrawing" to an RfC; expanding to an RfC would be more accurate; and given that they're now repeating the discussion here, and continue to repeat their arguments only to find the same counter-points; I'd hardly say they're a bastion of self-control or having a good editorial nature. Especially considering their numerous violations of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:GOODFAITH on top of the standard failure to WP:LISTEN. As I stated earlier; something must be done. Otherwise this repetitive discussion (which he's now continuing directly above us with me pasting the mainstream media links I already have for the third time now) will simply never ever end. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM, editors have to be WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia on WP:CONSENSUS and not to WP:SOAPBOX without evidence or the capacity to WP:LISTEN to others; as I believe is the case with Last Contrarian. --Jobrot (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban from Cultural Marxism. Being competent and experienced means you have the common sense to read the archives on controversial articles and to be in dialogue with the work the community has already done; this exact point has been gone over zillions of times in that article already. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Editor behaviour is not the primary issue here, the odd set-up of the content is (there was a brief bit of edit-warring, but that seems to be done now). Criticism of this user on the basis that lots of people have gone down "this road" before rather suggests there is a problem with it, doesn't it? As I noted on the talk page after seeing this thread here, it's frankly bizarre that there is no standalone page for a widely referenced concept such as "Cultural Marxism". That would focus on the original, primary use – and the one most commonly encountered in academic and book sources – to describe a trend in Marxist studies to focus on cultural issues as much as economic ones (in part associated with the Frankurt school, but not exclusively so) but also note the modern use of it as a pejorative in some US right-wing circles. I struggle to understand why the original article on the concept was deleted, and why anyone searching for the term on WP (whether they wish to understand more about arcane mid-20th century Marxist theories or uncover more about the pernicious influence of political correctness) instead now ends up on a subsection of the Frankfurt School page debating alleged conspiracy theories. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support page ban. Editor behaviour is most definitely the issue in this case (that's why we're here). Anyone whose seen how often things need to be repeated to Last Contrarian (WP:LISTEN), or noticed their violations of the strong WP:CONSENSUS to refer to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory (reflecting the sources used and mainstream media coverage discussed on the talk page), or who has noted Last Contrarian's description of rabid left wing editors for anyone who disagrees with them in violation of WP:GOODFAITH, or their specific desire to have the audience come away with a positive interpretation of the conspiracy theory (violating WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL) can clearly see that behaviour is most definitely the issue here. User:N-HH as I stated to you on the talk page; you're welcome to pursue the recreation of the previous page (which had all of 3 sources using the term explicitly) by the usual means but this is not the place to do so. Finally I'd like to note that Culture War topics, as well as Conspiracy Theories attract a higher amount of disruptive editing; this case is no exception; and is most definitely a behavior problem of an editor who is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. --Jobrot (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

...and you should really read WP:NOTGETTINGIT, as it describes this situation perfectly. Hence the blow out of text here and on the talk page; which prior to Last Contrarian's involvement had become relatively sedate and inactive (a 3 month period of relative quiet on the matter dating back to the last Split Proposal in May). --Jobrot (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't deny there might be an issue with editor behaviour, I just said it's not the primary one. The point is any such problems often relate to underlying content problems, especially when that content is an unhappy compromise which people are nonetheless overly invested in, having been immersed in the debate for so long. We're now stuck at "This is what one or two of us have agreed, and we spent ages doing it, so that's that" rather than asking what actually has been agreed and whether it's the right decision (and relying on WP:NOTGETTINGIT to rebut questions can compound this kind of problem). There's also the problem, which afflicts most of WP's politics pages, that people seem more interested in scoring political points than presenting information. Here, we have people who want the page (or rather the section, currently) to go into great detail about how "godless Marxists are taking over" and others, who may indeed currently represent the consensus view, who want it to say "this is all a nutty right-wing conspiracy theory". Some of us just want a clear page explaining Marxist cultural theories and the subsequent polemical use of the term, without judgment and without the topic being buried in modern-day, real-world culture wars. But that's not for ANI of course. N-HH talk/edits 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify; on the talk page currently there is (by my count) an 8 vs 2 consensus in favor of the current section title and lead, and only Last Contrarian is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. That's why I'm here. --Jobrot (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's no law against questioning a dubious position that happens to be held by eight random, anonymous WP contributors even if it does amount to a temporary consensus (and let's not forget that the consensus for about eight years previously was to have a separate Cultural Marxism page of the sort I would favour, until all this oddness started a couple of years ago). As I've said, I think the current structure and content is terrible, even if maybe for different reasons to Last Contrarian. Anyway, just as ANI is not the venue for my opinions above about broader problems with WP politics pages, nor should it be a place to get a longstanding editor barred from a page for being on the "wrong" side of a content dispute, absent genuine disruption, abuse or continued edit-warring. N-HH talk/edits 12:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI is the venue to have administrative experts decide on these matters; and I've highlighted the genuine disruptions, bad behavior and violations of policy above. FYI the oddness started around the time that GamerGate (its self a topic that's attracted a large amount of ArbCom sanctions) brought the Culture War to the AfD as "Cultural Marxism" was a favoured explanation of theirs for why feminism had brainwashed society into allowing women to comment on video games. Don't mistake the popularity of the topic outside of Wikipedia for something caused by Wikipedians; if a topic gets attention in the public - it will get attention on Wikipedia. But thank you for clarifying "the law" and that you're "just asking questions". Albeit in the wrong venue as you keep saying; perhaps you should find the right venue. --Jobrot (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be missing N-HH's central point here which, if I am reading him correctly, is that we should not put the cart before the horse here. Having looked at the section, the talk page discussion and the history a bit here, I'm inclined to agree that LC may very well be WP:NOTHERE (he's certainly at the least inclined to view both the sources and the editorial decisions of those who oppose his approach through a highly politicized lens). But there are larger issues here, issues which must be resolved on the talk page or other content-oriented areas ultimately, but which are difficult to disentangle from the issues being examined here. To second N-HH's observations and to just be blunt, that section is absolutely awful. The first paragraph is just atrocious, frankly--it's a dense mat of nearly un-parseable academese that is virtually useless to our average reader and seems like it is lifted from someone's (poorly written) personal essay for an undergrad sociology course, in blatant violation of WP:NOTJARGON/WP:NOTESSAY, MOS:JARGON, and just the basic principle of encyclopedic tone. The language then becomes more plain as the section proceeds, but degenerates into a poorly organized and confused narrative of events and perspectives that have impacted the reception of the term.

Now, I don't know how the apparently long-standing independent article looked, but I'm inclined to agree with N-HH on another point--given the breadth of the topic, the multiple over-lapping definitions and usages, and the fact that is not, in even the remotest sense, particular to the Frankfurt School alone in it's relevance, there really should be an independent article. And any content on the subject absolutely must be written in plain, encyclopedic language, not the kind of obtuse sociological idiolect/argot that dominates the early part of the section and reduces it (for all intents and purposes of readers not steeped in that academic culture and its many idioms and idiosyncrasies) to near gibberish. Whatever consensus the regular editors of that article come to regarding what the weight of reliable sources say about the topic--valid cultural term or hyperbolic ultra-con rhetoric, it has to be presented in a better way than it is now. So sure, we could just address the strong and/or outright disruptive outlook of one editor and the potentially polemic nature of the content he wants to add. But what's the point in sorting that out if we are still left with a chunk of prose that still falls well below our quality standards, and is shoe-horned into another article in such a manner as to almost certainly guarantee further arguments on the topic? Snow ^{let's rap} 23:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have looked at the talk page you might note that I've already had this discussion with User:N-HH there, in which I've referred them to previous discussions involving editors sympathetic to your cause; I would suggest that gives you both ample opportunity to collaborate on a draft or other means of achieving your goal should you wish to do so. But as I've stated above (and perhaps you've missed my point here) this is not the venue for that discussion. --Jobrot (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If we have the time for that. Not everyone does, and as noted it will probably all end up buried anyway under renewed spats involving people obsessed with what they read last week online and wanting to use WP to carry on those fights rather than wanting to understand, let alone explain factually and soberly, the actual history and context of a term and topic. Anyway, I acknowledged that much of this has got beyond the remit of ANI and relates to pretty much insoluble problems with WP, which no venue exists for. Given that, and given that I was also simply trying to point out what ANI is here for and what you or anyone else is likely to get help with, I don't quite see the need for some of the snarkier comments in your previous post. N-HH talk/edits 09:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It's frustrating to see everyone agreeing that this isn't the appropriate place for this discussion; only to continue the discussion regardless (albeit whilst reminding everyone this isn't the right place). I've made my purpose here clear, and I don't desire to use this ANI as a WP:FORUM. My understanding is that the appropriate place for such discussions would be on talk:Frankfurt School, within a Wikipedia talk:Deletion review or by following the advice given at WP:SALT (ie. speaking to an appropriate admin). But to continue to comment with the protective caveat of "I know this isn't the right place but..." is inappropriate, and as we all agree; falls outside of the scope of this discussion. Frankly the repetition did get to me; so I apologize for any snarkiness in my previous comments. I probably don't need to repeat this again, but just to be absolutely clear; this isn't the right venue and my issue here is with Last Contrarian's behavior, attitude and policy violations on talk:Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, but the point of my acknowledging the discussion had gone off on a bit of a tangent (while nonetheless providing some context to the problem) was precisely to put an end to it, not to be cover for continuing it regardless or to elicit yet more responses in turn. And it takes two to continue a discussion of course. Anyway, any admin reviewing this can probably stop half-way down this thread, review your evidence against LC and make a decision either way about what to do with them. They don't seem to have edited for a few days now anyway. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Jobrot, just because the content issues are ultimately likely to be addressed in talk space does not mean that some discussion of those issues is not necessary for establishing and considering the relevant behavioural issues here--please keep that in mind. Nobody is suggesting ironing the content issues out here, longform, not that I've seen anyway. Nor is anyone suggesting creating a consensus to supplant that generated on the talk page. There's nothing "inappropriate" in the least in referencing the content dispute here to understand the matter better, or even to provide insight that may help the parties sort their differences or consider a compromise solution that will stand them in better and more productive relation to eachother. This just isn't the place where the ultimate consensus needs to be formed and confirmed. But I think everyone presently participating in the discussion is experienced enough to understand that nuance. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a classic attempt to WP:POV_RAILROAD a non-disruptive editor for having the "wrong" ideas. There is at this time no behavioral issue for an administrator to act upon. Jobrot and I had a nice conversation about the Frankfurt school on my talk page recently, so I'm disappointed to see this personalization of a disagreement with another editor on the same topic. One might begin to think that summarizing the reliable sources is taking a back seat in favor of trying to evangelize to editors about the merits of the Frankfurt school. Rhoark (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, thanks for this very perceptive comment. I hadn't seen WP:POV_RAILROAD before, and it seems very apropos. I was rather stunned above when, in response to my defense of Last Contrarian, Jobrot piled on with more unmerited accusations of bad faith against LC, and then he went to your talk page to have that 'nice conversation' with you!! I stand by my point, though, that Wiki needs Jobrot's obvious expertise. The essay on POV_RAILROAD pointed to another essay I hadn't seen, as the best answer to a railroad: WP:WIKILOVE, "a term that refers to a general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding among wikiusers.... if we concentrate on achieving a neutral point of view even when it is difficult, and if we try to actually understand what the other side has to say, then we can reach the state of "WikiLove". JerryRussell (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - On the Frankfurt School talk page Last Contrarian has accused editors of blindly supporting me, and has accused me of making content-less and unmerited replies and of having extreme bias for not supporting the conspiracy theory viewpoint, they've also suggested I was one of the rabid left-wing editors conducting rabid left-wing activity by preventing them from being able to resurrect the article (even though that was an administrative action I'm not capable of), as well as having blamed the current section on stupid editors. All of this is on the talk page should you wish to search it, and is on top of our discussions having been extremely repetitive (due to WP:LISTEN issues). That should go some way to explaining why I'm making the above request for administrative action, and why I'm able to be WP:CIVIL with other editors (as all Wikipedians should be). Even within this AN/I Last Contrarian has accused me of the egregious crime of spending the better part of half an hour [55] leaving replies to comments not addressed to me. I hope this clears up who here is employing the bullying tactics mentioned in WP:POV_RAILROAD, and illustrates that Last Contrarian is not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia based on WP:CONSENSUS or WP:GOODFAITH. --Jobrot (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jobrot, of course you're right that LC's comments were not perfectly WP:CIVIL. I hope he'll reconsider and apologize. But, his point was logically valid about mainstream right-wing views of CM, and I had to do quite a bit of searching before coming down on the other side of that question. You could easily make a case that there are enough mainstream mentions of CM in a favorable context, to justify his view. I thought the discussion was not so much repetitive, as it was a continuing exploration of the issue. And, a lack of optimum civility is not evidence of lack of good faith, or lack of willingness to respect consensus. You also mentioned that although LC has been around Wiki a long time, he hasn't done so much editing around highly controversial topics. So, perhaps 'keep experienced editors' and 'don't bite the newbies' would both apply?

I'm not that much of an old hand around here, either. This is the first time I've participated in one of these ANI discussions. What sort of ban would be typical? Are we talking about just a few days, a month, a year, forever? JerryRussell (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'd say their attitude towards other users is endemic of having bad faith, and that their stated desire to give the audience a positive interpretation of the conspiracy theory version of Cultural Marxism is WP:NPOV and seeks to go against WP:CONSENSUS. Given they only sporadically edit wikipedia (with 1 and 2 year gaps in their history); I'd say a page ban would probably benefit the community without hindering Last Contrarian's efforts elsewhere. The duration is at the discretion of the admins, I just feel it's necessary due to the volume and spread of their comments and actions (with Last Contrarian having made derogatory comments to all editors and not just myself). --Jobrot (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Findings: (1) This is a content dispute. (2) The RfC was only started on 16 August, only two days prior to the filing of this ANI. (3) Edit-warring is dealt with at WP:ANEW, not at ANI. Please let the RfC run its full 30 days, and then have an uninvolved admin close it. Simple. Now can an admin close this thread before it grows another 60,000 bytes? -- Softlavender (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The consensus here (Guy, Cameron11598, Only in death does duty end, Jytdog and myself all supporting a page ban) goes against your "findings"; also I put in a request for admin closure days ago (on the required noticeboard). Replying to this thread after 2 days of quiet is not likely to make it shorter or quieter. --Jobrot (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, the RfC was opened 16 August, and needs to run the full 30 days. It's not a clear-cut issue and there should not be an assessment or declaration of "consensus" until that 30-day period is complete. An ANI should not have been opened while an RfC is running, much less after it has only been open 2 days. If anyone is edit-warring on the article, that should be dealt with at WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

30 days is the maximum default time frame for an RfC due to bot-intervention; it's not a required time frame (see WP:RFCEND). Anyone (admin or user) can close the RfC (due to overwhelming consensus in favor of keep) and then an admin can close the ANI. --Jobrot (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: RfCs usually run for 30 days. There's no need to hurry. Wait for people to weigh in. All other drama is beside the point. While the RfC is going on, the article must stay in the prior stable version: edit-warring isn't permitted. WP:EW noticeboard handles requests which fall short of violating WP:3RR as well. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Jobrot slyly called Last Contrarian a Nazi

Above where Jobrot threatens to have Last Contrarian banned, he says "This road has been trodden before by SecondDark, Kaffeburk, Achinoam, Ideloctober and various IP users." Achinoam has not participated in the Cultural Marxism dispute. Achinoam has participated in the subjects of Stormfront, David Duke, and Jewish Bolshevism. By including Achinoam in that list, Jobrot implies that Last Contrarian and the others are Nazis. This is the propaganda method of association.

Jobrot did not participate in the Achinoam ANI thread. That thread was started by Dave Dial who also appeared at Jobrot's last ANI thread to support Jobrot's call to ban Second Dark and to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. This suggests offsite tag-teaming. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is Achinoam disputing your claim [24]. --Jobrot (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

2. Jobrot is here to fight a Gamergate war and not to build an encyclopedia

In the last thread I noted that the changes to the Cultural Marxism page were so bad they made the news. Jobrot responded by describing the news article's author David Auerbach as a "GamerGate" conspiracy theorist. I have also been told that the changes to the Cultural Marxism article began after Alexander Macris, editor of The Escapist, described a political tactic used in GamerGate as "Cultural Marxism" and cited sources to support his position.

Information which has been brought to my attention, which I will not link to due to the outing policy, connects Jobrot to an offsite account that participates in the anti-GamerGate community "GamerGhazi" and has a history of trolling the GamerGate community "KotakuInAction" and trolling people in other forums who use the phrase "Cultural Marxism" as if he searches the site for anyone using the term so that he can troll them.

Between this and the attempt to merge Cultural Marxism with Cultural Bolshevism it is clear that Jobrot is here on a political mission to make Wikipedia redefine Cultural Marxism as "a conspiracy theory used by Nazis" so as to prematurely discredit anyone who discusses the use of the tactic. He came here, or was brought here, because of Gamergate. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Every single one of those sources has been addressed on the talk page/archives and in the AfD. In summary; Weiner states he's sighting people who "fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement" - Dennis Dworkin states that his "…account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" - the Jameson source doesn't use the term "Cultural Marxism" at all except for in the title. Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome states on the cover "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia"… besides which the current section already covers the academic sense of the term and is (as the title suggests) dedicated to the conspiracy theory version of the term. If you want to re-create the old article; you should do that through the usual means. But yes; "Cultural Marxism" was an informal WP:UNDUE term that pre-dated the Culture War usage as described here and in the current section. Pointing to Area 51 does not prove Roswell aliens exist. Pointing to the existence of the World Trade Center doesn't prove the New World Order exists. If you really want to know what the Frankfurt School were about; I recommend this 8 part series by Peter Thompson: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. But you won't find anything about them being responsible for modern politics, taking over Hollywood and the media or trying to dominate the world written in there. They were in fact; individual anti-fascist Cultural Theorists from the 1960s. Nothing more, nothing less, and definitely not a communist nor feminist plot to bring down western society as the conspiracy theory or GamerGate claims. --Jobrot (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

3. Jobrot lies about everything

• "unambiguous" - wrong
• "uninvolved" - wrong
• "consensus" - wrong
• "personal viewpoint" - wrong
• "disruptive" - wrong

Jobrot proves the lack of consensus with his own list of editors he had banned or scared away. The opening paragraph to this section looks a lot different if you read it as "There is longstanding support for Last Contrarian's position and a wide variety of sources supporting him but I had my friends ban everyone who said so by claiming they were Nazis." 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

4. Ian Thomson refuses to listen

Above, Ian Thomson says "no counter sources are ever provided to show that anyone outside of the far-right regards it as a reality." Anyone reading the discussions from afd onward can see that at least a dozen sources have been provided from across the political spectrum. The entire edit war began after Macris gave a list of sources. Rhoark posted ten sources on the Fringe Theories noticeboard. I have given a source from the 1950s which said that the same tactic we call Cultural Marxism today was well known and hardly needed an introduction and gave an example of its use in Eastern Europe. Several people said that their political science classes covered it. This is neither fringe nor far-right. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark pasted 10 links with an WP:OR claim attached, the issue was later discussed and clarified on their user talk page. --Jobrot (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

5. Ian Thomson is Jobrot's meatpuppet

Have another look at the Kaffeburk and Ideloctober threads. After Kaffeburk and Ideloctober explain how Jobrot is violating policy, Ian Thomson jumps in to accuse them of a lack of competence and not being here to build the encyclopedia. These personal attacks from an admin heavily taint the discussions against these users. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh look, this thread has been posted on an outside GamerGate related forum: [33]. --Jobrot (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikihounding/harassment by User:Drmargi

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

---

I'd prefer to get this addressed in a visible way and I think this is the best place to do it.

Last week, I removed a report from WP:AIV that I considered a blatantly bad-faith attack on a well-meaning user. This report was restored by a non-admin user, User:Drmargi, with whom I'd never interacted before; she showed up at my talk to scold me for what she perceived as a bad act on my part, instigating a contentious and unhelpful discussion that ended here with almost no substantial reaction from Drmargi regarding my concerns with her behavior.

A week later, she showed up completely out of the blue at Lisa Murkowski to restore an edit that another editor and I both agreed was bad. The IP editor's edit was imperfect, mine was imperfect, and we collaborated to re-word the sentence, which is now accurate. When I asked Drmargi why she just kept reverting me instead of, you know, working on smoothing out the content, I was ignored.

Just now, for the third time in just under two weeks, Drmargi showed up in an ongoing contentious dispute, completely out of the blue, to oppose me. In this case, she reinserted bright-line vandalism and she's been here long enough to know it: per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, it doesn't matter if the text I'm reinserting is patently false: if it's a good-faith edit, repeated reverts of it constitute vandalism. That she's attempting, for the third time in two weeks, to reinsert content that isn't accurate is the icing on the cake.

I've never started an interaction with this person. She's never started an interaction with me that wasn't confrontational, scolding, completely out-of-nowhere, and at a minimum somewhat wrongheaded. When I ask questions regarding my issues, she declines to explain how I'm wrong and just reverts me. She doesn't respond to anything I say regarding her behavior. What is the appropriate way to deal with this? I'm truly at a loss for how to react to someone who is clearly monitoring me, looking for opportunities to contentiously revert stuff. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This editor has a vivid imagination, a battleground approach to editing, and a tendency to exaggerate the actions of others. Moreover, his abuse of the term vandalism is becoming increasingly problematic (see User talk:KrakatoaKatie#Clarification and Shaunae Miller as two examples). He's going to attract the attention of other editors who are interested in the pages his patrols from what I'm guessing is the new edits list, particularly given his tendency assume the worst in other editors, throw around template warnings like Mardi Gras beads, and generally act like a Wikipedia hall monitor. He is currently at 4RR at Shaunae Miller, an article I was looking at this morning following the subject's race with Allyson Felix and the somewhat controversial outcome. He can flatter himself that I'm following him if he cares to, but frankly, it doesn't make it so. --Drmargi (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"if it's a good-faith edit, repeated reverts of it constitute vandalism" - absolutely incorrect and you are dangerously close to being blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: To be clear: this edit is not vandalism given its summary? You're looking at the contentious prose change, the blatantly dishonest edit summary, and that doesn't pass the definition of vandalism for you? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Contentious = not vandalism (actually, it matches the source headline). Edit summary = not vandalism (it's just a default mobile interface edit summary) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: I never said contentious edits constitute vandalism. Feel free to strike the implication that I did.

The edit summary was a falsehood that came after it was explained to SirBartleMerryworth why his previous edits weren't going to stand and why their summaries showed he was violating policy. You're taking AGF awfully far, given that the editor repeatedly (and, because of a bad lock on the page, successfully) inserted the false claim that Miller dove. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. You need to learn what constitutes vandalism here and only call edits vandalism that meet that definition. -- GB fan 17:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@GB fan: You aren't the first to see the edit, see its contentious nature, see its blatantly false explanation, then, instead of reacting to my assertion that contentiously editing while using a false, insidious summary and refusing to discuss is vandalizing, just demand I learn what vandalism is. I haven't gotten a single person to react in any substantial way to this.

I'm asking again: The user is edit-warring. (So am I! I've explained how my edits are different! One example would be that I don't lie in my edit summaries!) The user re-inserted a contentious edit. The user declined, not for the first time, to discuss anything. The user used an edit summary that included a blatant falsehood. What are you thinking is going on here? He doesn't know what the word "typo" means? Why are we extending WP:AGF to a user who has spent days showing he's editing in bad faith? If you're going to respond to this, please do so with more than this sort of tossed-off response because it's not showing me how I'm wrong. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let me be clear. The user was not editing in bad faith and their edits were not vandalism. Continuing to call them vandalism is going to get you blocked. Relying on the 3RR exemption for vandalism for that kind of edit is going to get you blocked. I'm saying this to you as an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that your edits are not different. You both think you are improving the article and neither one of you is backing down or discussing it on the article talk page. The major concern here it's that you did not seen realize that the edits were not vandalism and continued to treat them as if they were. That is why you need to go back and learn what we call vandalism and then apply it. -- GB fan 19:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Don't worry. I can't go on forever and I promise I'm dropping the stick after this. My assertion was that if we were talking about one of the group of issues raised (inserting a contentious claim that three other editors tried to remove, refusing to discuss the claim, edit-warring, and explaining edits with bad summaries), it wouldn't be worth a big fight but combined, these issues constituted vandalism. Enough circumstantial evidence can get you a guilty verdict, etc., etc. I concede that my assertion was wrong. And while I know that I'm wrong, I still can't see how. Can you explain what I'm missing? What are you seeing that I don't see? I don't want to make the mistakes I've made today in the future. RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: What you're missing is WP:NOTVAND: "Disruptive editing or stubbornness", "Edit summary omission". Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia. Attempting to change content so it matches the source is far, far from that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Okay. I'll use this as a resource for how I should react to iffy editing from now on. Although I'm sincerely worried. Since we're talking about a combination of four distinct problems and NOTVAND doesn't address two, I can tell you that it won't be easy for me to let users ignore repeated efforts to discuss or lie in edit summaries. I hope my reactions to editors displaying behaviors like this doesn't end up getting me blocked but I have no issue with anybody monitoring me. (Well, except Drmargi. I kind of wish she'd leave me alone.) RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You're under no obligation to respond to other people's behaviour, good or bad, or refute lies. Check this out: User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values — Diannaa (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

RunnyAmiga, NOTVAND provides you with a list of points to help you decide if an edit is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia. "A deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia" is the key. You are not a pre-programmed robot. You are capable of reason and making logical deductions. We get thousands of edits with no or incorrect edit summaries per day. Some are good, some are not so good, and some are outright vandalism. If you want to judge these edits you're going to have to engage the reasoning skills you possess and look at the edit. In this case, it should have taken you about five seconds to see the replacement word matched the word in the source link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Is no one going to address the original problem being brought here or are we just going to get stuck on what is and isn't vandalism? RunnyAmga came here because they felt hounded by Drmargi. I'm not seeing that subject being broached. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There's not much to the accusation, I think. And even if Drmargi looked at RunnyAmiga's edits in the future, I believe it would be justified to make sure RunnyAmiga isn't incorrectly calling valid edits vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand RunnyAmga's concerns - especially when it comes to Drmargi suddenly showing up out of the blue to revert or voice opposition for apparently no good reason. It's happened to me with the same editor and soon after disagreeing with them or calling them out on a behavior that was non-productive. I see a similarity and that's what brought me here to comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN, Winkelvi, and Drmargi: It's not an issue that she appears out of nowhere. I do that all the time via, you guessed it, the recent changes page. (Also the pending changes page.) A bunch of people appeared out of nowhere in this very thread. The issue I had was that she appears out of nowhere specifically to confront me and undo my edits, doesn't walk back attacks she made (in, you guessed it, edit summaries) when I conclusively prove her wrong like at Lisa Murkowski, and categorically refuses to respond to anything I say, whether it's by reverting my attempts to discuss issues at her talk page or by just ignoring my entreaties to discuss things elsewhere. It's strange: her first reply in this thread, under my edit that started it, isn't a reply to me. It's a reply to the admins who hadn't even said anything yet.

I said on my talk that I encourage attempts to rein me in if anybody with more knowledge or experience than me thinks I'm getting out of line, but NeilN could have concluded my "accusation" didn't have much substance only by not reviewing the various times she's showed up out of the blue to confront. The Murkowski thing should have been the dealbreaker and I'm still owed an apology for how badly she behaved there. Instead, when I cooled off, re-worked the sentence with the third editor, and finalized the prose that solved every issue that all three of us had raised, she vanished. So yeah: if you have more knowledge than me about things, correct me when I'm wrong. That includes almost everybody in this thread but based on behavior and errors, it obviously excludes one person. And before anybody starts talking about years at Murkowski's page or whether I'm allowed to remove borderline-vandal reports at AIV, please know that this is regarding behavior, not content. It's interesting that she can repeatedly ignore at least a half dozen attempts to discuss and collaborate and fix things but when I mention that she does that, it's an "accusation" and "[t]here's not much to" it. RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You know, Winklevi, you have a habit of turning up any time something like this happens or when there's a contentious discussion that I'm party to, to grind some imaginary ax. Meanwhile, I prefer to avoid you like the plague. So, who's hounding whom? I'm done with this nonsense. --Drmargi (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a problem: This is a rollbacker that apparently doesn't understand what rollback is for. RunnyAmiga was granted rollback less than a week ago and has used it multiple times in ways other than to revert clear vandalism. His contributions are littered with it. I believed I was clear on what vandalism is in that discussion on my talk page, but I guess I wasn't since Neil had to explain it again. I'd like to know why I shouldn't remove the rollback privilege right .now. Katie^talk 21:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support revocation of Rollback due to repeated instances in which the user has demonstrated that they do not understand what the privilege is for. Good call, KrakatoaKatie. As far as I can see there is no real "hounding" issue here at all, so once the right is revoked per WP:BOOMERANG this thread can be closed. Zero^talk 09:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support giving people an opportunity to rectify errors. I also support young, ambitious editors like Patient Zero not jumping on noticeboard bandwagons as they pass by in order to lead a song of "punity". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

My age does not in any way affect my judgement, Winkelvi. Besides, this is a preventative measure as it prevents further misuse of a tool. Zero^talk 16:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as your age: If you say so. As far as your concept of Wiki-prevention: So can talking to someone and asking them to be more careful. As far as you missing the point, here's my final comment on it in this thread: I find your recent zeal to immediately take the extreme route with certain editors disturbing, to say the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And yet we both reached the same conclusion re Hawkeye75 Winkelvi. When Widr granted RunnyAmiga the privilege he clearly outlined the policy page on what it is not to be used for; that to me is enough with regards to an explanation of the tool. There is also enough evidence for me to decide that this user cannot be trusted. And no, I am not disturbed, although thank you for your concern. Zero^talk 16:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"I am not disturbed, although thank you for your concern." I hope you will re-read what I wrote (a little slower this time and without defensive glasses on) and realize that isn't what I said at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I've re-read your comment, and I do acknowledge I have mis-read it - if you are disturbed by my recent actions feel free to discuss them with me either on my talk page, or my email if you so wish. Admins, hat this exhange if needed. (Also, note I was mature enough to not make a joke about taking my actual glasses off in order to read that.) Zero^talk 17:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"feel free to discuss them with me either on my talk page, or my email" I have discussed it with you at your talk page. More than once over the last couple of months. Apparently, to no avail. And no, I will not take this to email. I think at this point, transparency is needed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Winkelvi, all I'm going to say is, I had it in my head you were willing to take the "agree to disagree" route. We discussed that on my talk page too. Zero^talk 17:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

On that issue, yes. But, as I stated above, I'm disturbed that you are continuing to take such a harsh approach with so many editors of late. Not just at noticeboards but at their talkpages, as well. That approach, in my opinion, does look like you go first for punitive over preventative. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Might I ask how revocation of Rollback would be punitive given the circumstances? Also are you referring to the Michael Hardy case? Read into that a bit more if you wish to comment on that, please. That was an admin who failed WP:ADMINCOND and resorted to personal attacks on the ArbCom case. My comments there were in order. Zero^talk 17:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Might I ask how revocation of Rollback would be punitive given the circumstances?" Allow me to request you recall previous discussions you've read and have been a part of in the past where a black mark on someone's Wikipedia editing career was talked about and how it affects an editor and how other editors treat them going forward. Actions in Wikipedia are rarely just in the here-and-now, rather, said actions have long-lasting consequences. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If I may, perhaps this discussion is one where you are both part right and also part wrong. Winklevi, you are absolutely right that punitive punishments will get us nowhere, that said, losing a minor privilege is not so much punitive here as preventative. If an editor misuses a tool that they were entrusted with, even after it is explained to them, then that begins to fall under the purview of WP:CIR. That said, Zero, other options do exist to just removing the rights, perhaps you could take a look at KTruckerGirl's comments, they suggest an equally effective remedy that cannot be considered punitive at all. Why remove the rollbacker rights when we can have the editor agree to suspend the use of the rollbacker rights until they go through CVUA? and if issues persist afterwards, well, at that point we are firmly grounded in WP:CIR and should remove the rights, should act is often much better than can act, not always, but, often. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support I thought we were done with that edit from a month ago; I issued a friendly clarification to the originating editor, asked the other editor why, didn't get a response and moved on, but RA is still harassing Drmargi about this? Meanwhile, the edit made to Shaunae Miller is clearly just two people trying to work out the wording and not even anywhere near the neighborhood of vandalism. I have people following my edits (based on topic areas and the like) and sometimes they run into conflicts with me but I'm not going to fly off because of that; RunnyAmiga needs to learn to work with others here and learn to realize that they must do so. Going through some of their edits there's no indication they know how to use rollback, and going by the responses on their user talk page they really need to build up their composure; responding to anyone like this, even someone likely trolling until the block applied is completely uncalled for. Nate • (chatter) 11:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support: I agree with those comments above, but I don't think that the admins can rekove RunnyAmiga's rollback rights, I think that he needs attending at WP:CVUA to understand what vandalism is, and when to use rollback. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• KGirlTrucker81, admins can certainly revoke rollback (and other) rights. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: (edit conflict) I know that NeilN, but just in my own opinion. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Allow the editor to process what vandalism is and isn't, issue a warning regarding rollback misuse and go forward from there. If they didn't get the message after acknowledging the warning and this discussion, then rollback should be removed - but not before. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support There is nothing punitive about removing Rollback in this instance; it is a privilege, not a right. This editor has been registered since May, has yet to contribute original content, and is a self-appointed hall monitor and fixer. He is sarcastic and demeaning with other editors as is readily apparent when scanning his edit summaries. He's proven he does not have the appropriate understanding of EnWP policy, given the repeated issues with abuse of vandalism. He has also demonstrated a tendency toward drama, a failure to WP:AGF (he's literally declared me his mortal enemy for a very mundane revert and post on his talk page!) and a battleground approach to editing. Mentoring is all well and good when an editor is receptive, but we've seen rollback rights removed for far, far less. Until he demonstrates the temperament needed to work in an open, collaborative environment, his user rights should be very limited and highly scrutinized, particularly given his declaration that he wants to collect the icons on his user page. Troubling... --Drmargi (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: We all know that rollback as a privilege here, but first time misuse of rollback should been a warning and a reminider of WP:NOTVAND. Second offense, that's all rollback rights revoked. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal of rollback. The user has abandoned this thread and hasn't given the slightest indication that they understand what vandalism is or what they did wrong with rollback. I don't know who granted the rollback rights, but granting it to someone with such a low edit count was a mistake in the first place, in my opinion. Rollback is for experienced trusted users who know what they are doing. Remove the right and let the user learn about Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. Let them humbly learn from experienced editors instead of thinking they know everything. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to AGF and make one last attempt to get RunnyAmiga to tell me why I shouldn't remove rollback. I've looked over his edit history and I see some improvement – at least he's undoing some edits rather than simply hitting the rollback button – but I want a clear articulation from him about what is and isn't vandalism, with some examples from his edit history. Otherwise, and particularly if he doesn't participate here further (in a thread he started), I'll remove it, as I have not been assured he will use it correctly once the spotlight is dimmed. Alerting Widr since he granted the privilege. Katie^talk 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've given RunnyAmiga more than 24 hours since this warning, during which he has been editing and ignoring this thread. Since he has not responded, I have removed rollback from his account. If he demonstrates clear understanding of WP:VANDAL, an administrator can restore it. I doubt that administrator will be me, but you never know. Katie^talk 00:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks Katie. Are we done here (or is there some further sort of "boomerang" sanction)? If so, I think someone can close this thread. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

TeeTylerToe

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

---

TeeTylerToe is tenacious incompetent POV pusher who refuses to listen to anyone. Even after being block for two weeks. He also tries to trick other editors into edit wars. Which lead to him being blocked for two weeks for his edits on the Assault rifle & Talk:Assault rifle pages. During said period he repeatedly accused other editors of socking.

On July 2 2016. TTT began to add unreferenced edits for which he claimed that he had consensus to make on the Assault rifle page. However, his edits bared no similarity to the talk page discussion. And, were revert by myself and later other editors. TTT did not listen.

TTT the started a disscussion on Talk:Assault rifle, the Assault rifle article is full of "False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias" Where he repeatedly claimed that "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first assault rifle. Not, the Sturmgewehr 44 that the article credits. His ideas were rejected by his fellow editors, as the article is full of reliable sources confirming that the Sturmgewehr 44 was the first assault rifle. TTT did not listen.

On July 4 2016, TTT added a requested comments from other editors for this discussion on the History and geography project [34] the only editor to respond User:Skyring who created an WP:RFC Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such? Skyring then completely rebuffed TTTs position. TTT did not listen.

TTT then began to forum shop for the first time at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities [35] Which resulted in only one referenced being added to the article. And, that reference completely refuted his position. [36] TTT did not listen.

Then he forum shopped for the second time at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [37] TTT was again rebuffed. [38] TTT did not listen.

He then began to edit the article again to match his POV. However, none of his edits to the article included the info discussed on the talk page (that the "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first assault rifle) and were unreferenced, TTT also removed references that were added to the article as a result of his forum shopping at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. [39] As a result these edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. TTT did not listen.

TTT then forum shopped for the third time when he created a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assault rifle page. This request was denied within 30 minutes. TTT did not listen.

TTT then started to add random tags to the assault rifle article. Which were again reverted. And, he forum shopped for the forth time at the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [40] Where User:Scoobydunk told him..."Whatever you do, don't edit war to get the tag put in." And, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris told him..."Most of the time it means that you should accept that you are wrong, and should retire with grace. See WP:1AM (which has nothing to do with late-night hours)." Again TTT did not listen.

TTT continued to add random tags to the article which were reverted by myself and other editors. User:Skyring then filed an complaint at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Which resulted in TTT being blocked for two weeks. [41] Once again TTT did not listen.

In fact during discussions on User talk:TeeTylerToe regarding the block not only did TTT continue his tenacious editing he again refuse to listen, resulting in a lost of his talk page access. He also, admitted that he was trying to trick his fellow editors into and edit war. To quote the discussion..."@Boing! said Zebedee: Not only was TeeTylerToe edit warring...If you read in between the lines of his own statements, he was trying to trick is fellow Users into an edit war. And, then claim that, "I wasn't edit warring, I was just adding tags to the article. Its those meat puppets that are edit warring by removing the tags." This behavior is intolerable on Wiki and I recommend a permanent block.--RAF910 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)...Thanks for explaining that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)" [42] Again TTT did not listen.

TTT then manage to get User:Huon to lift the block. However, Huon maintained a two week topic ban on the assault rifle page. [43] TTT continued his tenacious editing and spent that two weeks accusing his fellow editors of wrongdoing, socking, meat puppetry, etc. Until Huon had enough and told him ..."I see no point in continuing this discussion. If you do not want to take my advice and drop the stick, bring it up at WP:AN and see what the wider community thinks of this issue. If I see another post like the above on my talk page without evidence in the forms of diffs backing it up, I'll re-block you for personal attacks. Huon (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)" This time TTT listened, for a very short time.

After his two week topic ban was lifted. TTT return to tenacious editing this time on the StG 44 page where he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle and again made unreferenced edits to that article. Those edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. On that article talk page discussion once again he accused and tried to trick a fellow editor into an edit war. Another editor told him..."Very well colleague, I will cut to the chase. You have just come off a two week block for tendentious editing on this very subject. Now you are straight back. The issue here is not how this bloody chunk of metal was used, but your behaviour pattern. Drop it. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)" [44] This time he listened perhaps realizing that he could not win this fight, so soon off a two week block.

TTT then move on to the Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16 where he again tried add unreferenced info claiming that the StG 44 was not the first assault rifle, which I again reverted. [45] Then he did it again [46] Also see talk page [47] Then he tried something different. He took an existing reference in the article and cherry picked a quote out of that reference. He then altered the quote to fit his needs. He also took another reference and took a quote from that article that repeated info that was already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. I was then forced to revert his edit add the full quote to the article once again refuting his position. [48]

TTT has now moved onto the Colt AR-15 where he insists that the Colt AR-15 has select fire versions. Which any knowledgeable person knows is not true. Where he claims that the Colt AR-15 is "A minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem." Even tough it was the first and only AR-type rifle for decades. And, by his own admission he was completely unaware that the Colt AR-15, Sporter, and SP-1 are the same semi-automatic rifle. [49] Also, he is again forum shopping this time on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team trying to get a consensus delete the article altogether or combine it with the M16 rifle page instead of the articles talk page where he knows he will lose. title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&action=history He clearly believes that the ArmaLite AR-15, the Colt AR-15 and the M16 rifle are the same and again refuses to listen.

TTT has repeatedly shown a lack of basic firearms knowledge on almost every firearm page that he edits. Yet he refuses to listen to his fellow editor and continues to edit said pages. This forces knowledgeable editor to waste their time and efforts to correct his mistakes. Mistakes which he refuses to acknowledge and continues on the next article.

TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits. He has generally annoys and vexes every editor that he has makes contact with. He likes writing walls text where he asks multiple repetitive questions for which the answers are obvious.[50] And, which make it difficult for other editors to understand what he is talking about.[51] He comments on talk pages frequently go off topic. He demands that others answer his questions which he has no intention of listening to, causing others to waste their time and effort.[52] He make no effort to gain real consensus, he simply bulldozers the conversation until other editors give up.[53] He accuses other of wrongdoing when they disagree with him.[54] He refuses to accept any reference but his own.[55] Yet, he rarely includes references with his own edits. He dares and tricks others into edit warring.[56] He is not here to help, he is here to push his POV at all costs.

The following is a list of editors that have had to deal with TTT recently hopefully they will chime in....@Boing! said Zebedee: @Ohnoitsjamie: @Thomas.W: @Kudpung: @KrakatoaKatie: @Skyring: @Scoobydunk: @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: @TransporterMan: @OuroborosCobra: @Erpert: @BilCat: @Mike Searson: @Starke Hathaway: @Irondome: @Herr Gruber: @Huon: --RAF910 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Can you say in one paragraph, with five key diffs, what TTT has done, and what you think should be done about it? EEng 05:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you cite a case where one paragraph and five key diffs resulted in action? I don't recall seeing one, but I miss a lot on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Are there anymore people that you think don't like TTT that you would like to invite to the conversation?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE--Savonneux (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If the complainant's prose is as poor in articles as it is here, he ought not be editing either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--Savonneux (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants the cliff notes from an unbiased third party maybe ask huon for a quick summary, also, skyring, a member of that dispute was blocked subsequently for socking, although that does appear to have been unrelated. And on a side note, Is calling me "incompetent" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=735647383&oldid=735643460 a personal attack? I note raf910's comment "I believe TeeTylerToe is a troll." What about that?

The Assault Rifle article is, imo, a cesspit of pop history apocrypha, and the first Colt AR-15s sold were fully automatic and they were sold to the federation of Malay. I don't care if a strawberry danish was the first assault rifle, but I have 14 sources including an NRA journal (they're all just fart jokes /s) a published book, and popular mechanics that say that the 1917 winchester/burton was the first assault rifle. So... there's that. "he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle" I don't think I did that, but I have been trying to point out that the StG 44's primary mode of operation was semi-automatic. In effect, it was a semi-automatic rifle. German doctrine was to use the stg firing bursts only in emergencies. I of course have sources.

The AR-15 article was moved to "colt ar-15", and radically changed. What had been sort of a overview article for one of the most popular rifles in history was changed by raf910. Now it doesn't focus on any non-colt ar-15. It doesn't focus on any military colt AR-15. It doesn't focus on any law enforcement colt AR-15. It just focuses on the one ar-15 manufacturer's civilian sales who was AFAIK the only ar-15 manufacturer whose sales were so poor they drove the company to bankruptcy. So, as you can see in the talk page, I noted that with RAF910's changes, project assessments should be redone. the 1.0 editorial board should choose a different AR-15 article, I'd say the M-16 article as the armalite ar-15 article is a little threadbare atm. Also the firearms project should reassess, and it probably doesn't belong under military project anymore, although I suppose it could. I'm not trying to get the 1.0 editorial team to delete the article.

Roughly 5 million civilian AR-15s have been sold by pretty much anybody with a drill press. In the sea of the 5 million AR-15s sold by roughly 6 million different companies, colt's civilian product line is a drop in the bucket.

But yes. I did it in the solarium with the candlestick. And I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Paragraphs--Savonneux (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have a source which tells you it was first sold to the "Kingdom of Malay" you probably should throw in in the rubbish bin. There were things 100+ years ago which may sometimes be called Malay Kingdoms, but I don't think any of them are ever really called Kingdom of Malay. Malaya and Malaysia were/are constitutional monarchies, but they're not "Kingdom of Malay" any more than the United States of America is the "Republic of Americas". Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It might have been federation of Malay, as this was in 1959. Here's one reference.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I admit that I'm not a good writer. I'm more of a just the facts guy. So, please forgive my lack of eloquence. TTTs comments above perfectly represent his editing style and what myself and other editors have been faced with.--RAF910 (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by all means, let's discount the actual complaint because we don't like the prose.

TeeTylerToe is a serial edit warrior with an extensive block log. I think he feels strongly about the articles in which he's interested but can't seem to collaborate. I don't think he's a troll necessarily; he just wants to push his changes because he's right and everyone else is wrong.

If he's causing problems again after Huon unblocked him, maybe it's time for a topic ban. Katie^talk 13:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You were the one that blocked me? How exactly do you figure that I'm a "serial edit warrior"? What edit warring did I do from '13 through, say, june this year? Or before '12? I demonstrably can collaborate. It's overly simplistic and wrong to just label me as someone who thinks I'm always right and other people are always wrong.

• I concur with KrakatoaKatie. The OP was a bit of an effort to get through, but it does outline a pattern of serious behavior including edit warring and refusal to listen to other people or back down once it's clear they are in the wrong. I'd support a topic ban from firearms, broadly construed. --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do I have to go through all of that? I can go point by point if you like. From what I've seen, and as I tried to demonstrate it's quite divorced from reality. I mean, by the end it's gone completely off the rails. He accuses me of asking the wikipedia 1.0 editors to delete articles? "The AR-15 article was in, I think v0.8 and was reviewed for v1.0. Maybe change it to the m-16 article?" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&diff=prev&oldid=735435756 You tell me. How is that asking the 1.0 editors or whatever that group is to delete an article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• 3? blocks in 800ish article space edits and back at ANI. Even if they are technically correct shows a lack of ability to interact constructively.--Savonneux (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

With short 4 year stretches with no incidents.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• So is the problem narrowly focused to Assault Rifles or guns in general?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This is far too big of a rap sheet and block log for someone who has only made less than 800 article-space edits. The amount of damage wreaked (including on his talk page after his many blocks), indicate to me this user lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia productively over time. Talk page iterations reveal a mind-numbing array of problems for such a low edit count: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. I'd send him back to indef-land. At the very least a very broad permanent topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you post diffs to make it clear what you're talking about? It looks like one of those is raising the dire, and ever-present threat of rhetorical questions that wikipedia has been facing for years that RAF910 brings up in this incident as well. Before now I didn't realize quite how serious the threat of posing rhetorical questions on wikipedia was. Also it seems like you're digging up stuff from 2012. I don't mind, because if that's the incident I remember from ~ 4 years ago it was a case of basically me saying "same to you." and at the time, as you can see, nothing came of it, for either side. Would you like me to just post a diff of every warning ever posted to my talk page?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agreed with Softlavender; they've had multiple chances. (non-admin) jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITHTeeTylerToe (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC); edited 10:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact--Savonneux (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• RAF910 needs to learn that it's a violation of WP:CANVASS to only inform editors who might agree with him. The ping list that started this thread didn't include many of those who've had interactions with TTT. Felsic2 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Most of his problems seem to ceter on the issue of the history of "Assault rifle" as a concept. Maybe the problem could be solved by a topic ban covering that article. Felsic2 (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• RAF910, WP:PINGs don't work unless you type four tildes at the same time you post them. I'm certainly no advocate of canvassing, but this editor's rap sheet is so alarming that I think it worthwhile to have the other editors weigh in. So I'm repeating your ping list of "editors that have had to deal with TeeTylerToe recently": @Ohnoitsjamie:, @Thomas.W:, @Kudpung:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @Skyring:, @Scoobydunk:, @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris:, @TransporterMan:, @OuroborosCobra:, @Erpert:, @BilCat:, @Mike Searson:, @Starke Hathaway:, @Irondome:, @Herr Gruber:, @Huon:. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It may be difficult to find any editor who has been able to work constructively with TTT. I was called to the Assault Rifle article by an RfC, as were many other editors, none of whom agreed with TTT's position. We are a society that works constructively, although recognising differences, and our procedures demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach. TTT doesn't play well with others; that's the guts of it, and his staunchly defended positions are fringe. His proposal that a massive First World War anti-aircraft gun was the first infantry assault rifle speaks for itself. Time for a topic ban, I think. --Pete (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Comment: Since I've now been pinged twice, I suppose I have to say something. Well, FWIW, after an hour of checking this saga out, TTT's editing history, his contribs, his block log, and my earlier interventions, I regretfully come to the conclusion that no amount of advice is going to improve his collaborative skills. I recommend a 6-month block with TPA revoked, no UTRS appeals during this time, and to come back on a further 6-month probation with one single mishap causing an indef requring no ANI discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, can you clarify? With or without TPA? Or is "with TPA" admin jargon meaning "TPA revoked"? A little confusing there. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant TPA revoked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• (ec) Support as the block sounds nuanced enough to cover the issues, and a 6 month probabation is fair. There is no compromise with this editor, which make collaboration impossible at this stage in the editors development here. I think Kudpung means talk page revoked b.t.w. as the editor tends to use those forums as continuations of endless dreary pointless argumentation. Irondome (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer to avoid ANI, but since I was pinged... my experience of working with TTT is that s/he is absolutely convinced of the correctness of whatever position s/he takes and is completely unmoved by contrary facts or arguments from Wikipedia policy. I have also noticed a tendency for her/him to simply drop lengthy copy-paste quotes from sources into arbitrary parts of articles (includingthe lede) without regard for whether the content of these quotes fits or the negative impact on readability. I have tried to compromise with TTT, most notably at StG-44, but s/he tends to respond to even the slightest disagreement with increasingly wordy and shrill talk page screeds. TTT is very difficult to work with, and I find myself avoiding pages where s/he is active. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Kudpung's suggestion of 6-month block with TPA revoked and no UTRS recourse followed by a 6-month probation in which any mishap would result in an automatic indef. Softlavender (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense. With a block log like that, something harsher is needed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Is there any scope or room for mentoring here? Irondome (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Already attempted, back in January 2013 with Hasteur: [62], as a condition of his unblock appeal here: [63]. Didn't take or we wouldn't be here again. In fact Huon told him after his unblock a month ago that his next block would be indefinite: [64] -- Softlavender (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC); edited 16:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I do not know if he or she is a POV pusher, I tried to work with him and he seemed to get it, but he did display a definite lack of knowledge about some very basic things concerning the Colt AR-15. He thought all pre-1986 rifles were select fire (they were not) and made the claim that Colt did not use the term AR-15 until recently when in fact the opposite was true (every Colt rifle of that type was marked AR-15 until around 2005 when it was replaced by the term M4 in order to circumvent state laws that banned the rifle by name as AR-15). I did not find the editor that difficult to work with, just not educated about the topic.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Here's a small point I'd like to clarify. Why does this: "His proposal that a massive First World War anti-aircraft gun was the first infantry assault rifle speaks for itself" trump 14 sources including an academic journal, a published book, and popular mechanics? Another thing I'm having trouble with is block policy. The letter of block policy, and the spirit of block policy both rule out both punitive blocks as well as "cooling off" blocks. Not to mention that this whole blocking because they were blocked before seems a little circular. And on that subject, glass houses. Starke? I quote a lot because, particularly on that page, some editors have trouble arguing against direct quotes from their own references. If there is any specific issues with my contributions or conduct I'd be perfectly happy to discuss it, although I can't say I'd be able to do the same if I were in other people's shoes. For some reason I don't think I'd get away with calling people trolls. And I have no trouble discussing and forming consensus with people like Herr Gruber, or Mike Searson, or countless others. People who don't counter 14 references with "but I think it looks too big" though can make forming consensus difficult. If nobody brings up anything specific I guess I can write a point by point response to raf910. And Softlavender, maybe don't take so many liberties? What Huon said was "the next block is likely to be indefinite." and the context was "If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself", so maybe let me know how that applies? Have I been accusing people in bad faith? Have I been forum shopping? Let me know.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is Huon's unblock statement, from 20 July 2016: "Following a discussion with TeeTylerToe on the #wikipedia-en-unblock I will unblock him per WP:ROPE, with a topic ban for the Assault rifle article and definitions of "assault rifle", including talk page discussions, for two weeks from now (by then the block would have run out anyway). I also strongly encourage TeeTylerToe to drop the stick, accept that there is no consensus for his proposed changes to that article, and find another topic entirely. If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself, the next block is likely to be indefinite.": [65]. How you have continued to cause problems since that 20 July unblock has been detailed in the OP. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And for instance see the two relevant threads (#7 and #9) on Huon's talk page: [66]. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• RAF910, can you please fix your diffs in the last paragraph of your OP (the one beginning "TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits"?) All but two don't make any sense. Plus you need to link to diffs, not edit histories. Softlavender (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Raf910's OP. At first glance the entire first paragraph is wrong. On para 2, the edits were thoroughly referenced and the edit summary pointed to the talk page for summary of changes. Para 3 is false. Para 4 is false. Para 5 is false. Para 6, I don't think any uninvolved editor commented on the npov board, or at least not through 21 july. Para 7 is false. Para 9 is false. Para 10 is false. Para 11 is false. I could argue para 12 is false. Para 13 is false. Para 14 is debatable. Para 15 is false. Para 16 is false. Para 17 is false. If you want to throw around 6 month or indef blocks, maybe put a little more time into the due diligence.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block. TeeTylerToe is clearly suffering from competency issues. Huon's unblock warning spoke of an indefinite block if TTT went back to his/her bad habits; I think an indef block is justified here. -- llywrch (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what behavior are you talking about specifically?TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Does policy require you to include diffs with comments like that? Is there an exception for an/i and similar venues? Particularly considering your position?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Update...TTT is once again forum shopping. Again he is not listening and trying to game the system. This time at the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee [67]. Where he is "Asking for a friend" and is trying to overcome the inevitable block that will be imposed here. Enough is enough, I recommend an indefinite block, TPA revoked and no UTRS recourse. If not we will be back here again in short order, if he gets the block lifted.--RAF910 (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Has this all been a joke? Come on. You can tell me. I won't be mad. Has this all been a joke? Is this what AN/I does for fun on slow days?TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a little too extreme. I propose a 2 year block with TPA revoked and no UTRS recourse no UTRS recourse for 6 months ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block - both parties have called on me to comment; sorry for not doing so earlier. In my opinion TeeTylerToe finds it extremely difficult to acknowledge that he might not be getting his way, or that he might be wrong. When several others disagree with him, that's a conspiracy. When I unblocked him, the problems concerned a single issue, and so imposing a topic ban instead of the block served to stop the disruption quite as efficiently. However, TeeTylerToe spent most of those two weeks arguing on my talk page about the other editors. He has since brought the case to the ArbCom talk page and asked about his problems in the current RfA. He has also expanded the scope of his campaign to downplay the role of the StG 44 to various related articles. I do not see that the problematic behaviour would stop for anything short of a topic ban or a block, and I fully expect that if TeeTylerToe were to switch to some other topics, the same issues would recur there. Thus I unfortunately have to support a block. I wouldn't mind a "no appeals for six months" rule, but I don't think this requires abandoning all hope of him ever becoming a valuable contributor. Huon (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you remind me? When did I ask you to comment? Have you looked at the arbcom talk page? I'm just asking about how, if I were to be blocked with the proviso that it couldn't be appealed at utrs, on my talk page, or, presumably, on irc, how I would be able to appeal it. And I don't really think that the harmless, and perfectly appropriate questions that I asked on the rfa quite justify a 2 year block. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a 'campaign to downplay the role of the stg 44'. I did have a problem with "Unlike previous rifle designs, it introduced an over-the-barrel gas system, straight stock and pistol grip to reduce recoil and improve handling characteristics." which popped up on two or three pages, partly because, iirc, that reference doesn't support that assertion, and partly because, at best, I think it's worded in a way that wrongly implies that the stg-44 introduced any of those things, not to mention the debate on how unique or revolutionary a modified version of the winner of the machine carbine 42 competition was. You may notice that it's been weeks since I've edited about the stg 44 iirc, so maybe the threat may not be quite so dire. "When several others disagree with him, that's a conspiracy." that's a little reductionist, and I also think it's flat out wrong, but we've discussed that before and I guess I'm not going to change your mind.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue the details of weapon systems. These things may be discussed in other, more appropriate places. What bothers me is your behaviour, where you seem unwilling to acknowledge the views of others, unless they are in exact accordance with your own. No expressions of regret for the disruption, no promises of better behaviour in future. We have to work together, and to treat each other with some degree of respect. There is no one source on which we rely; instead it is the richness and diversity of contributions that has made Wikipedia so valuable a resource, including the internal processes such as this page. If you think the facts are entirely on your side, then present them, and allow other editors to make up their own minds. I'm just not seeing acknowledgement of the rightness of any views other than your own, and in order to avoid continued disruption, you really should consider other activities for a while. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So I assume you've just done a 180 and have a newfound willingness to acknowledge things supported by 14 sources including an academic journal, a published book, and popular mechanics, even if the view presented by those 14 sources isn't in exact accordance with your view? You've decided to allow for the possibility of compromise? To respect well supported views that might not fully support your views? That maybe one or two sources supporting one rifle might not be the last word on the subject, and, instead, might only represent one view, and that the article should reflect these different views? You've decided that, as I have always been willing to accept the presentation of your point of view, as well as the sources supporting it on the article, now you've realized that you should do the same? You've accepted that even if you think that facts are entirely on your side that you've realized that the article can present both views as they both have support, they're both notable and verifiable?

I guess now, once we've put that all behind us, I guess now it's time for you to realize that while you and others have categorically refused to allow any view that you don't support to be mentioned in any way, and that while you and others have categorically refused to even allow tags that show that your views are in question. Refusing even to allow tags which suggest that your views could be, in any way assailable. The next step, as you so eloquently argued, that you should acknowledge the rightness of any views other than your own, and in order to avoid continued disruption, you should really consider other activities for a while. Particularly considering your immediate past history. Especially considering the tone of this incident discussion.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

TTT, with respect, the difference between us is that I always like to get more eyes on a question, and if the wider community takes a different position than my own, I'll accept that with as good a grace as I can muster. It's always good to bring out fresh sources, but those sources aren't writing Wikipedia; we are, and we do it through consensus. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that why you suppressed the tags with the instructions "Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met." that would bring more eyes onto the question? Why do you ignore the consensus I developed with Herr Gruber? Why do you ignore when Herr Gruber said "I've said several times that I don't approve of the current article implying that there was no history of development of similar weapons prior to the StG"?TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I direct any inquiry to the article talk page rather than rehash the discussion here. Incidentally, TTT, I suggest that you re-read Help:Minor_edit before marking substantial edits as minor.[68][69][70][71] --Pete (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It was already brought up on the talk page, bringing it up again would serve no purpose. It would be pointless. As this is a talk page edit rather than articlespace, and as I was editing a comment, rather than adding a new comment, I used minor edit per Help:Minor_edit.TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You wrote above: "If someone wants the cliff notes from an unbiased third party maybe ask huon for a quick summary". Sorry that quick summary turned out to not be to your liking. At this point you should have noticed that your behaviour seriously taxes the community's patience, and the way I read the ArbCom talk page, you are already preparing to appeal what seems the likely outcome of this thread in another venue despite rather strong suggestions that a timeout, without appeal, may be a good thing. Or to be more blunt: When this is decided, people don't want to re-argue it all over again. You may want to read WP:Standard offer, particularly the part about "six months". Huon (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I should probably start with this. On the topic of arbcom, from my point of view, the only things I really have to work with are things brought up by other users, e.g. the charges raf910 made against me. I'd hope you'd be in the best position to understand that a lot of the accusations raf910 make against me are unequivocally false. Overall, from my point of view, few tangible things have been brought up against me. But I had hoped that you would understand that, faced with the accusations leveled against me by raf910, I would obviously expect that if I were blocked, that I would immediately appeal and have every reason to believe that my appeal would be successful and that I would be unblocked without delay. In actuality, though, particularly due to my recent experiences, I expect my chances of arbcom taking up my appeal to be slim to none, and the chance that they would unblock me would be astronomical. But again, RAF910's accusations are like a ridiculous elephant standing in the middle of the room, demanding attention. And they've only gotten more ridiculous. Honestly, isn't someone going to bring that up? Even if I don't understand your objection though, I don't know why it bothers you. I never thought there was the tiniest chance they'd even take up the appeal in the first place. And it doesn't matter, but my intention there was making it a little easier to settle questions of fact, as raf910 had raised several points. I guess the best argument I have now is that other than bugging you on your talk page, I don't really see anything I've done since I was unblocked as damaging wikipedia or raising any significant issues. Maybe that's not a good argument, maybe I'm wrong, and I have been doing things that would merit an indef block. Looking at the standard offer, I don't see what would change 6 months hence, and why don't you put yourself in my shoes and imagine what I would think about waiting 6 months and starting another thread like this. And ignore the waiting six months bit. Imagine what you'd think, if you were in my shoes, if the standard offer was wait 1 day and start a thread in ani asking to be unblocked. And I can't really say that I've seen any diffs that indicate where and how I've taxed the community's patience. What is being made painfully clear to me, is that, from my point of view, that of someone not familiar with ani, there seems to be a strangely insistent group of people who seem to be trying to make sure that I'm blocked for 6 months with absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting unblocked, but it's also quite clear to me that, after, I think this ani incident has been up for roughly a week, they categorically seem to refuse to provide convincing diffs. Or even unconvincing diffs besides raf910, and raf910's accusations are just getting more and more ridiculous. Another thing that's obvious is that nobody seems willing to submit these proceedings to appeal. That's what it looks like from my point of view. Maybe it's because I'm unfamiliar with some sort of tradition of 6 month blocks for when admins get fed up and just want a problem to go away or something. But again, all I have to work with are RAF910's accusations and a smattering of "You're guilty because you're guilty." I guess this can't really hurt a case that never had a chance to begin with.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support 6 month block with appeal avenues restricted. Otherwise, we will just get six months of argument about the injustice of it all and the behaviour of other editors. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block with TPA revoked and no appeal until after 12 months per WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and many others. TTT never listens to other editors, doesn't respect that others don't share his very fringe opinions (such as insisting that a big heavy totally unknown weapon designed only to fire slow heavy indenciary bullets at World War I observation balloons was the first assault rifle...), lacks the competence needed to work on a collaborative project and is just a huge time sink for other editors. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Tnguyen4321's vandalism

user:Tnguyen4321 is conducting vandalism (or at least disruptive editing) on the talk page of Battle of Ia Drang by reverting a well-ended RfC here.[72] Besides, he's also conducting intentional edit warring on the article.[73]. Dino nam (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You really must notify an editor when you report them. I have done it for you [74]. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not really a closure - but a comment. SQL^{Query me!} 02:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Happysquirrel: @SQL: Fixed. I hope no one minds. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Argh! Sorry about that and thanks Hijiri88. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

1. This is not vandalism. It is questionably disruptive talk page editing. WP:VANDALISM has a very specific meaning, and hardly ever occurs on talk pages.
2. The RFC question was in violation of WP:RFC (it was the OP's opinion, not a neutrally worded question). The same OP had previously done the same thing one month earlier.[75] Dino nam should explain their actions.
3. The RFC was very poorly formatted, with a bunch of extra sections added outside of the original RFC section when they should have been subsections. This makes me wonder whether AustralianRupert had actually noticed that the vast majority of the discussion was not where it should have been before analyzing what the consensus should be.
4. If what Tnguyen says is right, and the closer actually had misinterpreted the consensus, then what should be done is described at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; reopening a closed RFC by replacing the template with a new date is not the right way to go.
5. The fact that the original disruption here appears to have been caused by Dino nam's repeated biased RFC questions, and Dino nam has now opened an ANI thread accusing another user of "vandalism" when vandalism is clearly not what is happening here, and failed to inform the accused party, makes me wonder if a WP:BOOMERANG is in order.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree that some words might have been fixed with that RfC. Thanks for elaborating my mistakes with it; many other admins haven't done that.
• I must also remind you that all of the relevant sections you're talking about are created by user:Tnguyen4321 himself (e.g this section [76]).
• According to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE:"For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard." Therefore, user:Tnguyen4321 still failed to follow the procedures; instead he conducted disruptive editing and this should be stopped.
• Sorry for forgeting to remind the user about the issue on this noticeboard, but I have clearly stated in my allegation above that there is possibility that this could be disruptive editing instead of vandalism. Therefore, your boomerang accusation is not quite appropriate. Dino nam (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but if no one else told you that both of your RFC questions were in violation, then they may also be at fault. However, the onus is on you to make sure you have read and understood WP:RFC before you open your first RFC, and let alone your second.
• Again, I agree that Tnguyen's actions were not in line with CLOSECHALLENGE: I clearly read that page before you did, and you only noticed it when I pointed it out to you. However, your actions have been at least as out of line in this case, going back at least two months -- Tnguyen's not acting in accord with CLOSECHALLENGE is, as far as I can see, a minor infraction by comparison.
• My BOOMERANG proposal is based on your repeated disruptive abuse of the RFC process, and has very little to do with your failing to properly notify Tnguyen. The main concern about your failure to notify Tnguyen is that, like with your repeated RFC mess-ups and your repeated misrepresentations of the policies and guidelines you are quoting, you appear to have either not read or not understood the guidelines for using this noticeboard before using it. This kind of behaviour is understandable from a new editor (which arguably covers Tnguyen, whose first edit was last year), but you have been here since 2011.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I also add some info for you to consider about talk page vandalism on WP:VANDAL: "Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve." As the actions of User:AustralianRupert and other users can no way be described as vandalism, internal spam, harassment or personal attacks, the action of Tnguyen4321 (reverting the RfC closure without going through the legitimate procedures) soundly fits the definition of "illegitimately deleting or editing". Dino nam (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You are starting to act like another user who recently got blocked for constantly citing policies and guidelines that he had apparently not understood. Vandalism must, by definition, be "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia"; if someone reverts an RFC close because they legitimately believe the closer made the wrong decision, that is not vandalism, even if it is disruptive. You are honing in on a minor technicality that in reverting the close, he also removed the closer's consensus statement that in a manner of speaking kinda-sorta qualifies as "other users' comments"; this is what is called wikilawyering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think you should probably revert your mentioning of another editor above. It is unfair, too say the least, as he cannot answer here, and it is also unhelpful, as everyone's case can be different. Drawing parallels like that is misleading. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Done and done. I thought the parallel was apt, and the case is not that much different, but I see your overall point. And I hope you don't mind my moving your comment to directly below the comment you were talking about. Your comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the proposed TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for two weeks since there is definitely disruptive editing in the history page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I have to say I have real concerns about Tnguyen4321's edits here. Firstly, the editor attempts to close the RFC himself despite being involved [77] but then when I closed it they reverted citing no consensus [78]. That does not seem consistent with someone who is participating in an RFC in the spirit with which it is intended. I'm now involved so I will leave it up to others to make a decision. I wouldn't classify Tnguyen's edits as "vandalism", but frankly I feel that their edits here deserve closer scrutiny. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: You may be right, and I appreciate your drawing attention to Tnguyen's having previously tried to close the RFC himself; Dino nam should have done this earlier. However, given the bad RFC question (the second by the same user) I think it's unsurprising that no one was able to gauge a fair consensus and give a decent close until after the template had been removed by the bot. The biased question invalidated the RFC from the beginning, so it was at best a talk page section that should not be treated like a bona fide RFC, and at worst a form of canvassing and forum-shopping by Dino nam. Assuming the former, it's my impression that closing off an expired talk page section, as long as one is not trying to make one's own "consensus" statement, is usually considered acceptable even for involved users. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Tnguyen4321 did previously attempt to close off the RfC with his own consensus statement (which, BTW, struck me at the time as wikilawyering) [79]. I also don't see any vandalism here. Difficult editor to work with, based on my first encounters, but not a vandal. FactotEm (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. Tnguyen4321 had tried to close the RFC themselves which I reverted. Involved users should never close a contentious RFC. I then requested AustralianRupert (who was uninvolved) to close the discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN Dino nam from opening RFCs

The OP opened an RFC with a biased question accusing another user of OR and misrepresenting sources, and then when it was closed in a way they didn't like went on to open another RFC with another biased question. Whether Tnguyen is out of line as well can be decided above, but that Dino nam should not open any more RFCs is pretty obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dino nam might perhaps benefit from reading up on procedure, but banning them from opening RfCs seems a little harsh, especially when it would appear that there might be a case to be answered for less than perfect sourcing by Tnguyen4321. A little WP:AGF and patience might be the way forward here. FactotEm (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose One does not expect an editor to improve their skills by barring them from what they're weak at. Additionally, a topic ban would be reasonable only if an extensive history of poorly framed RFC's was evident. As it is, there is only one incidence of this. However, I would support a requirement that Dino nam seek a second opinion on any new RFC they intend to raise. Blackmane (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Oranjelo100

• Oranjelo100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oranjelo100 has a very long history of poor quality disruptive edits, characterized by dozens of uncommented tiny edits on pages (such as here) producing often incoherent and incomprehensible results (such as here and here). The user seems to have a special interest in ethnic and racial matters, as the majority of their significant edits seem to be on pages related to these topics. His edits also often use very poor sources, such as weblogs, out-of-context self-hosted Google docs spreadsheets, Google-translated foreign new sites, etc...

Other editors have tried to talk sense into Oranjelo100 numerous times (I mean dozens of times, always on the same issues) on his talk page, but their criticism seems to have been met with WP:IDHT because this pattern has been repeating itself for over three years. In 2013 there was an RfC related to this exact same issue, but RfCs probably aren't the right approach to this.

After his recent edits on Ethnic groups in Europe, which I reverted, I commented on his talk page telling him what the issues with the edit were and what he should do to fix them. He just dismissed most of my criticism and reverted my revert, and then moved his edit, which is a massive 4000-character 0-linebreak questionably sourced blurb, from the opening section of the article into a section of its own (along with half the original content of the opening section, presumably by mistake). Since it was at least not completely ruining the entire article anymore I left the issue at that, not wanting to engage in an edit war and to see if he'd carry out on his promises to fix it. However, when he did go back to the article, instead of fixing the blatant issues it had and make it readable, what he did was added a bloody 4chan link as a source.

I was in the process of improving it, as I said I'm still working on it. Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This issue should've been brought to ANI years ago, but somehow has flown under the radar for over three years. Considering how long this has been going on for and how many different editors have tried to reason with the user, I'm pretty sure nothing will change without a stern talking to from a higher authority.

-- turdas^talk 13:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A block under WP:Competence is required is certainly something to consider. There was a a previous discussion at Talk:Racism in Poland#Numerous references for various incidents. it was suggested there by User:Poeticbent that Oranjelo100's fragmentary contributions are due to use of machine translation to make his comments: "A quick look at his contributions shows that Oranjelo100 does not edit in full sentences and relies on Google translate for everything." The user has been warned numerous times on his talk, but until yesterday had never used his own talk page. They seldom use any talk page. I suggest that, since this might be considered to be a pattern of disruption, we might allow notification of people who have left warnings for Oranjelo100 in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I just reverted on Ethnic groups; Turdas, you may need to have a look to see if I undid your work. Ed has a good point: poor writing, incommunicado--and then the 4chan link and other general problems... Drmies (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You should check the history of my commits again because the vast majority of my edits are unrelated to racism or any ethnic issues at all. These were hardly my most significant edits either so I don't see why you are suggesting I have some special interest in it. I just thought that it's a good idea to mention it because it does exist in Poland, nothing more and that article looked rather one sided to me but I didn't press the issue(also on Anti-Arabism page) page after my edits were reverted to avoid further conflict. I understand that is a very controversial and inflammatory topic especially for Poles. I was even accused of being an enemy of Poland by one user that's why I didn't respond then.Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand English and do not need to use Google Translate for it. My fragmentary contributions are mainly due to my computer being slow and freezing when the editing window is open for too long and I didn't know that you can be banned just for that, though I can try to limit that as much as I can. I wasn't very communicative because I'm rather shy and some users made in my opinion quite aggressive comments against me so I didn't want to exacerbate situation any further.Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That was a link to 4chan's archive not 4chan and I did that as it is convenient and easy for me to link images through it. After that I then found and linked a study with those images anyway but I didn't know that linking to 4chan's archive is considered as such a big infraction here, especially as those pictures were unrelated to 4chan in general.Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. WP:CIR applicable policies include virtually every category:

1. Language difficulty
2. Editing beyond their means
3. Lack of technical expertise
4. Grudges
5. Inability to talk about incremental changes

The bottom line

(direct quote, could not say it better myself): At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to mischief or incompetence. There's no point trying to distinguish between fake or real incompetence—disruption is disruption, and it needs to be prevented. Poeticbent talk 17:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't hold any grudges but unfortunately it seems some people here apparently hold grudges against me. I am knowledgeable enough about topics I edited. However if you really think Wikipedia will be better without me and decide to ban me, then what can I say. I always tried to improve Wikipedia and the majority of my contributions are still in place, but if you feel they are worthless or just a disruption feel free to do what you want.Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The first time I have ever encountered you was after your edit on Ethnic groups in Europe two days ago, so I can assure you that if there are grudges involved, they would have to be very short-term ones. None of the editors who have previously left messages on your talk page have participated in this discussion. -- turdas^talk 19:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me for starting a new paragraph here, but the parts of this section above are turning into a real mess. My two cents on this matter are that Oranjelo100 has good intentions, but less in the way of competence. After I gave him feedback on his edits on the Ethnic groups in Europe page, I noticed he was actually in the process of fixing at least the line breaks in it when Drmies reverted it. There were still numerous issues with the edit, such as the poor use of sources (the first sentence had four citations after it, three of which were utterly frivolous; two 4chan /pol/ archive links and one imgur link) and generally poor language, but at least he did not ignore my criticism and made an effort to improve his contribution.

However, these are still clear CIR issues. The editor has been on Wikipedia for three years, and is still using user-generated content as sources, and writing simply unacceptably bad edits such as the aforementioned Ethnic groups in Europe one or this one on Racism in Poland. Not to mention their comments on this page here, which are haphazardly scattered around the section, and even abruptly inserted in the middle of other people's comments. If they haven't figured things out during the three years they've already spent here, can we really expect them to ever "get it"?

I'll leave any decisions to the admins, but I would prefer if what seems to happen to many other ANI issues doesn't happer here, and that the issue would be handled to its proper closure instead of being left up in the air until it gets automatically archived. -- turdas^talk 15:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't fixed that upper comment in fear of being accused of making too many edits again, my bad but that's quite ruthless of you, mentioning that in this way. In regards to links and citations, I used that Imgur and that 4chan srchive links because it's convenient for me to link relevant images through it. I didn't know that it was such an offence, though now I see that was a mistake and I was planning to remove that links when Drmies reverted everything, as I found an article with the source of those images.

Wikipedia's rules are rather vague in general and it only says that links to things like blogs are generally unacceptable, and only in the case of living persons they are always unacceptable. In my opinion Eurogenes links are reliable as official researchers like Lazaridis used that data, and even in the case of lesser known blogs it should be permissible for PCA plots etc, because they use respected and readily available software. That's just my opinion tho. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Your comments here are a stark difference to your history. I'm not saying that as a bad thing, as they have changed at least my opinion on the matter slightly, and I'm sure some of the admins would agree as well. That doesn't unfortunately change any of the issues already pointed out here. As another editor so eloquently put it on your talk page:

"The onus is upon you, to stop writing broken English and generally unreadable prose, and stop citing non-WP:RSes. Stop citing weblogs, spreadsheets, and other random stuff. Stop making tons of little edits, incomplete edits, and edits without comprehensively justifying descriptions. Stop doing these things, ever, under any circumstances. This is all I've ever seen you do for years, and it's totally unencyclopedic."

If you can improve on all of the issues other editors have been bugging you about on your talk page for years, then I think you can still make a good editor. When an experienced editor tells you something, even if they seem harsh, it's usually a good idea to listen. Your talk page is littered with criticism, often good criticism with pointers on how to improve, dating all the way back to 2013. Some have been less than tactful, but you have to understand that Wikipedia has no shortage of disruptive editors. That is what you have come across as to those people, and they have better things to do than to coach people on the very basic fundamentals, especially when there's a good chance their coaching would fall on deaf ears.

If you wish to keep editing, please start by (re)familiarizing yourself with the basics. If you are in doubt about how to write, consult the Manual of Style. Familiarize yourself with what constitutes reliable sources, and if you're still in doubt, ask the reliable sources noticeboard. Learn to use the preview button when editing so that you can avoid making dozens of tiny edits; it's still alright to make multiple edits in succession, but when your consecutive edits fill up an entire page in the edit history you've gone way overboard. If your computer has issues freezing during editing, you should sort that out: the Wikipedia editor (especially the old wikitext one) is not very heavy at all and even my dad's 8-year-old Celeron laptop can run it with no problems. And most importantly, listen to what other editors tell you, and reply to them if you disagree. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and the only way it can work is by discussing issues with other editors.

I would also tell you to use common sense, but I'm aware that not all people are very good at that, and most people who are would probably already have figured out by themselves to use it.

-- turdas^talk 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ownership behaviour at Amway

Dear administrators, I am asking you to ban the User:Rhode Island Red. This editor seems to be engaged in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and negative WP:POV pushing regarding the article about Amway (and other MLM companies). He constantly reverts all edits I make, trying to keep only the negative information about the company and holding back important information from the readers such as the most recent one, which was my addition of upcoming legislation in India to the paragraph about Amway cases in India which got reverted with an explanation that "It's out of context, having no connection with the rest of the details in that section regarding legal cases against Amway India" which is not true and I explained that on the Talk:Amway. I have provided more sources that refer to Amway cases, but each time I add something to balance the biased information in the article, it gets reverted by the very same user using apparently fabricated arguments. I have experienced this type of behaviour several months ago. I have also noticed that the very same user has a long history of this kind of behaviour in many articles about MLM companies on Wikipedia including for example USANA Health Sciences, Protandim, Juice Plus, MonaVie... to name a few. His edits are characteristic by adding only negative information and not allowing other editors to add anything positive. He had been notified by other editors in the past about his behaviour, including User:Lord Roem, User:Wikiwiserick, User:Leef5... According to User:TraceyR on Talk:Juice_Plus, he has been banned previously (verified here: User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red/Archive_1#You_are_now_blocked). But I can tell I can see no improvement in his behaviour over the years.--Historik75 (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC) — Historik75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RIR was blocked, not banned. That was also six years ago. You should also provide diffs of problematic behavior to support the claim that things haven't changed since then. clpo13_(talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This report originated here, until I closed it for being in the wrong place. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that RIR is being disruptive. To me this looks like a content dispute. You want to add content and RIR does not believe it belongs. Please read WP:BRD. You took the Bold action of adding new content that you feel improved the article. RIR then Reverted you with the opinion the content does not belong in the article. This should have initiated the Discuss portion of Bold Revert Discuss. Then when there is consensus to include the information it is readded. Instead you discuss and revert the removal at the same time. Two editors have removed the content saying it does not belong in the article and you are the only one arguing that it belongs. If you believe you need help resolving this content dispute, you can use one of the dispute resolution options that are available, if you do you will need to convince editors that the information belongs in the article. -- GB fan 19:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Linguist111, I've re-opened this thread since there are several other options beyond the mere two you posted, and you (WP:BOLDly) closed it before it had been open even six hours, and you are not (as you noted) an administrator, and nothing had been resolved or even discussed. The OP made claims that the problem existed across several articles and that the user in question had been warned by certain other editors, and that the issue is behavioral rather than strictly content related. Talk-page discussion was already proceeding, and DRN had already been initiated at least once for this article, in March. I think it will be instructional for the OP to let this thread run its course. The OP has been requested to show diffs. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Historik75, you absolutely need to provide WP:DIFFs of the problematic behaviors you claim in your OP, or else this thread is going nowhere. Also provide diffs of the warnings from other editors. Also, bear in mind the fact that as someone with a conflict of interest, and as a single-purpose account, your behavior will come under scrutiny here as well (so you may want to withdraw this ANI filing before proceeding further). Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Additional comments: I'm going to ping Collect, who appears to be a neutral occasional editor at that article (at least I see that he has participated on the talk page). I'm also going to mention that if it is eventually generally determined that this is indeed mainly a content dispute, that Historik75 should note that there are many options available at WP:DR (in other words, not just DRN). Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Softlavender, for providing me with details of what I exactly need to do. As I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not know all the rules and routines. I am just trying to use common sense and learn on the way. Right now I am busy and I will get to this discussion later. I will provide detailed information about the behaviour (diffs) of RIR in the next 24 hours. And yes, I have a conflict of interest and I am, for the present, an SPA (as virtually every newcomer I believe is), but I believe I have information that could improve the article. I am not trying to hide anything, I just want to present both sides of the stories, not just half-truths and twisted information. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, "virtually every newcomer" is most decidedly not an SPA, especially not for 300+ edits across seven months. Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have the exact statistics. What I'm trying to say is that RIR started the same way, editing only Juice Plus (MLM company) article for 10 months before he has moved to article about Oxidative stress (and I believe it was only because oxidative stress was mentioned on Juice Plus page). Every newcomer choses the first article he/she starts to edit. When he/she experiences the same kind of behaviour I have experienced (and this is I assume most of the time in the case of controversial topics), then it is only logical that he/she becomes discouraged (which makes him an SPA) and finally disappears. It happened to other users such as for example User:Icerat. I now have more duties but I will get back later and will provide the requested details. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You're making nonsensical claims and conclusions based on two users' edit histories, apparently to deflect from your COI. Most new users do not have a COI and are not SPAs. I wouldn't continue in this vein if you want this ANI case to hold much water. Softlavender (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Amway is a horrid article. It includes editorial opinions that it is a "religion" of some sort, and material unworthy of Wikipedia has repeatedly been added. Material about a non-notable living person is prominently used, etc. I recommend TNT on this article, that it might be created with some semblance of neutrality. It contains SYNTH galore. RIR has, indeed, over an extended period of time, been extremely interested in this article, and, IMO, has contributed to rancor in discussions. Historik75 is a newcomer to this cf, and seems to be trying to wage an uphill battle. Inshort, a vacation from this article would be wise for RIR, to say the least, and I would hope someone like Arthur Rubin or Newyorkbrad might be able to assemble some actually unconflicted editors to clean up this spelendid example of the Augean Stables. Collect (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So, Collect, instead of commenting on the issue at hand – which boils down to a content dispute (misdirected as a baseless WP:OWN complaint) from an SPA with an undisclosed COI – you opine that you don’t like the article and that because I have shown interest in it, I should take a vacation? That convoluted logic reminds me of the kind of editing disputes we had when locking horns over the Melaleuca article (an important detail which you inexplicably failed to mention). Not impressed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Historik, while definitely an SPA, does not appear to be a "newcomer" at all based on their editing history -- i.e., from their first edit showing a fairly deep understanding of WP policy and procedure well beyond what would be expected of a true newcomer.[80] I ain't buying this "newcomer" angle. Seems a lot more like a WP:SOCK.[81] Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you raised your sockpuppet concerns at WP:SPI? This isn't the place to raise sockpuppet concerns. Unsupported allegations of sockpuppetry are a personal attack, and, in my view, one warranting a block. So take the sock concerns to SPI, or drop them, and stop using them as aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't intend it to be an aspersion. I felt that it was no less important than the concerns that others on this thread raised about WP:COI and WP:SPA with this user. Nonetheless, I will take up the issue at the noticeboard rather than continuing to mention it here. I ask you to show the same level of concern about Historik's personal attacks, like mis-characterizing the reversion of his edits by consensus as WP:OWN or when he digs through my edit history in an attempt to besmirch my reputation and makes a false claim that I was banned 6 years ago. These personal attacks offend me deeply. In fact, the entire basis of Historik's complaint has been nothing more than a content dispute masquerading as a series of personal attacks. Thanks in advance for providing equal protection. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would point out that the place to voice accusations of socking is at WP:SPI and not here. In fact, one might be sanctioned for making such a deliberate accusation on this noticeboard in this manner. Collect (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I already obviously know where to raise concerns about socking, since it was me who filed the sock report that uncovered a disturbing pattern suggestive of sockpuppetry (although the outcome was ultimately inconclusive due to steps taken by the SPA accounts in question to mask their IP addresses). There is nothing unreasonable about casually mentioning WP:SOCK as I did, just as it wasn't unreasonable when other editors raised concerns on this thread about WP:SPA and WP:COI, especially in the midst of these wildly off-base accusations about WP:OWN flying around. Sanctions? That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say over such an innocuous remark -- it borders on concern trolling. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, where should I start?

First, let me tell something about continuing personal attacks from RIR. I was labeled by him as a WP:SOCK here and elsewhere. This is simply not true. I don't know how to provide differential edit for archived page, but read the Ivanvector's conclusion here.[82] Despite the outcome, I am still accused of being WP:SOCK. It is sad that this type of behaviour on RIR's part still continues after more than 3 months from the day the investigation was closed. However, I am not surprised, because I have found that similar unfounded claims were made by RIR about other users too. Again, it is an archived page and I don't know how to provide differential edits, but you can read the paragraph. It seems to be RIR's way of trying to discredit editors and it continues to these days. Other editors had problems with RIR too in the past, which was the reason why he was blocked [83] (sorry for that ban accusation, I didn't know there is a difference between the two terms).

It is no wonder that User:Collect said what he said about the rancor in discussions and I agree with him.

Now about the Amway article. As User:Collect concludes, the article about Amway is everything but neutral, and I and User:Icerat agree with him which is apparent from RfC on Talk:Amway. The problem is that when we try to put information to balance the article, it is always reverted. Always. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is characterized by:

An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

RIR has been repeatedly reverting sourced statements that I and other editor put there not even trying to improve the text. Just reverted it using always the same claim: unjustified, irrelevant, whitewashing, etc. When asked to answer the question, he does not do so. Let me remind you that the whole debate started over this recommendation by User:Arthur Rubin here [84]:

I object to the (present) FTC finding that Amway is not a pyramid scheme being in the lead, because some other countries' judicial or administrative systems have found that Amway to be a pyramid scheme.

RIR immediately agreed with this unsourced statement and this resulted in the removal of FTC case from the leading paragraph keeping only the accusation and not the outcome. RIR simply didn't answer the question and pushed the POV to the lead. I repeatedly asked (the last time here: [85]) whether there is one court decision proving that Amway was a pyramid scheme to justify the overall tone of the first paragraph which only cites the charges and not the outcomes or the court decisions. No answer. When we started to have an NPOV dispute, RIR even removed the POV template from the page that I had put in [86]. The tag was re-added by another editor [87], but was again immediately removed again by RIR [88] and it stayed removed even when the NPOV dispute was running.

User:Robert McClenon then offered help with mediation. Unfortunately, it went nowhere, so the RfC was started. Again, no consensus was reached. But I suggest you read the whole RfC (yes, it's a little bit long, but worth it) to make a picture of what has happened to the Amway article and what I and other editors consider to be a negative POV pushing campaign.

I don't know what TNT means, but I assume it means something that the article should be completely overwritten. If this is the case, I strongly agree with User:Collect. I am not insisting that I must be the one who does this, but I am willing to provide the materials I have to anyone who is willing to do that. But IMO it should be someone who is not biased or who is at least willing to write unbiased article and who will present all the sides of the story.

This is the first time I am writing such statement, so if you find something is missing from my statement, please let me know. Contrary to what RIR says about me, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia. I really didn't expect that the first thing I would be doing here, is to study all the terms WP:IDONTKNOWWHAT that RIR and other editors use. But if there isn't any other way, I am willing to do that. The last thing - you have probably noticed that before from the way I am writing, but I am not a native speaker. So if you have problems with my English, I apologize. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Historik, the fact is that this is simply an editorial dispute over content and not even remotely an issue of WP:OWN. Several editors looked into the disputed edits and agreed that the content you were trying to insert did not improve the article, and they raised concerns about your conflict of interest. This includes Grayfell[89] and Richard Keatinge[90], and Lemongirl942 who said: “you seem to have a conflict of interest here and you are clearly not able to edit neutrally.”[91] Noq reverted your edit as well.[92] Softlavendar said: “You're making nonsensical claims and conclusions based on two users' edit histories, apparently to deflect from your COI.”[93] GBFan said: “Two editors have removed the content saying it does not belong in the article and you are the only one arguing that it belongs.”.[94]

So clearly, there is a consensus weighing against your edits and raising concerns about your COI, yet you persist in misrepresenting the situation as an issue of WP:OWN on my part when it is in fact an issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on yours. When you continue making this accusation when it is so wildly off-base it becomes a personal attack. As for your status as an WP:SPA, bringing that up is a legitimate concern in line with WP policy, as were the concerns raised about apparent sockpuppetry. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I will comment. The dispute over Amway has gone on a long time. A request was made by User:Historik75 in March 2016 for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is where I became involved. I soon concluded that there were issues about the wording of the lede paragraph, and no compromise. The next step was a Request for Comments. The Request for Comments was just as inconclusive as prior discussion, and was closed with No Consensus in May 2016. I tried to be neutral and will continue to try to be neutral. I agree that the article is a mess, as are many articles about contentious topics. The most common reason for messy articles on contentious topics is the repeated addition and removal of slanted content; I haven’t studied the history. Yes, TNT refers to a high explosive, sometimes used to demolish ugly buildings, and means to blow the article up and start it over. I wouldn’t recommend that an editor whose first language is not English take the lead in blowing up an article and starting it over. This dispute is fundamentally a content dispute. I would suggest either that the editors agree on who will take the lead on the article, or that the editors request formal mediation, in which case a reworking can be done with a neutral mediator. (I am not a member of the mediation committee and don’t do formal mediation.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert, I am totally OK with formal mediation if need be. It will allow us to bypass all petty squawking and focus dispassionately on content. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, just to clarify - I meant moderated dispute resolution when I said that you had helped with mediation. Still learning the terms used on Wikipedia. --Historik75 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

RIR, You constantly call me WP:SOCK even when the investigation was closed 3 months ago with no result that would support your opinion. Do you find it necessary to continue in these personal attacks? I remember that User:Icerat admitted that he stopped editing Wikipedia mainly because of you. If anybody can ping User:Icerat (don't know if and how I can ping him from here) I would be glad if shares his opinion here. The problem is much wider than just recent few edits. The problems arose in March and they continue to this day. You are not allowing anybody to edit the article unless they agree with your negative POV pushing campaign. However, when they do, then you quickly agree even with unsourced statements.[95] How you can agree with unsourced statement that Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme when there is not a single court decision which would prove that is really beyond me. Is this what you call a consensus? How many times I have challenged you to back it up with a source? The last time here.[96] No answer. Isn't this called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? And when I question the argument and put an NPOV template you simply remove it? Isn't that at least a sign that you are not so unbiased as you try to present yourself to be? This is not a content dispute, this is about your behaviour and as User:Collect says you "contributed to rancor in discussions" which is a statement I fully agree with. I don't know why you do it, but you do it. Again I repeat that I agree with both User:Collect and User:Robert McClenon that the article is a mess and from my point of view you have contributed to that more than anyone else with your one-sided view of the whole MLM industry. --Historik75 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not the article is a mess, as you allege, is irrelevant to your wild accusation of WP:OWN and inane request to have me banned, which was the sole basis of the ANI you filed. If we are going to reach a resolution, then the onus is on you to admit that the accusation was misplaced and that what we were really dealing was a refusal on your part to accept that the changes you proposed making were negated by consensus. If you can admit that, then we can move past the pettiness and discuss, in good faith, the larger issue of overall article quality, which is much broader than the narrow issue we were dealing with from the outset (i.e., your reverted edits on Amway India). Content disputes should not be personal, yet you made it so with your baseless accusation of WP:OWN. Recant and move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

RIR, you again completely fail to address the behavioural issues. Instead you focus on the last couple of edits. How can you talk about consensus? RfC was closed with no consensus at all. Yet, you pushed your unfounded and unsourced WP:POV version to Wikipedia and didn't provide a single document which would prove the edit was justified. You completely skipped all the points I made towards you, such as if you find it necessary to call me WP:SOCK, or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to answering my and Icerat's questions, or your removal of POV template and your apparent unwillingness to let others edit the article unless they agree with your negative opinion (again, this is not a matter of recent edits only - it spans over a long period of time). It may seem funny to other editors that you call my request to be "inane" but it doesn't seem funny to me. After several months, my patience has come to an end when it comes to personal attacks made by you. Some may consider it a compliment to hear from you that from the first edit they "show a fairly deep understanding of WP policy and procedure well beyond what would be expected of a true newcomer", but not me. Just because I can read and understand a written text doesn't mean I have to be a WP:SOCK. I consider this as a personal attack because in other words you are saying that I lie about myself. Perhaps to block you from editing the article would solve the problem and will save much frustration to other editors. After reading some of the discussions between you and other editors, I can only tell that even though several years have passed since then, nothing has changed in the way how you interact with others. So, let others decide if a complete ban or at least a block is necessary, but in my opinion you deserve it.--Historik75 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is concerned here are just few examples of RIR's behaviour:

• On March 8, 2016 17:15 I re-added the FTC case into the leading paragraph because the previous deletion was based upon a false argument - immediately reverted by RIR without proving that the basis for the original edit (removal of FTC case) was substantiated. In this case, shouldn't we revert to the original edit (before the edit based on a false argument took place)?

• On March 10, 2016 16:42 I have added POV template - immediately removed by RIR; User:Icerat re-added it and RIR again removed it. NPOV dispute was running, still the POV template remained removed. Is this acceptable?

• On March 12, 2016 14:44 User:Icerat removed claim not supported by supplied sources and updated the text with the latest court decision - immediately reverted by RIR.

• On March 12, 2016 15:09 User:Icerat added a sourced text about a class action case in Canada. It was again removed by RIR. Later, User:Icerat re-added it after the sources were found to be acceptable on RSN which makes RIR's original reversion unjustified.

These are just 4 examples from 5 initial days of our interaction but I could go on and on. Basically, almost every edit I or User:Icerat made and backed it up with RS has been immediately reverted by RIR. One of the weirdest claims by RIR was made on March 25, 2016 15:22 when he removed my edit on the basis that www.quixtarresponse.com site "is not registered to Amway or any of its affiliates" which, of course, was later proven not to be true. This is not a simple content dispute, it is a pattern of behaviour - immediately remove all the information RIR disagrees with not taking into account the sources. However, RIR at the same time accepts the unfounded and unsourced claim that Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme and "justifies" the removal of FTC case from the lead making the lead biased, unbalanced and WP:POV. WP:OWNERSHIP says:

An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

If this is not a classic example of WP:OWNERSHIP, then what is? --Historik75 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Now you are simply grasping at straws. The simple fact is that the dispute in question that led to you bringing us all here pertained to the Amway India section of the article, and the reversion of your edits by two different editors (myself and Noq). There must be at least half a dozen experienced editors that have now told you that your edits were inappropriate, and yet you persist with this canard of a WP:OWN accusation, even though the feedback you have received is loudly telling you that you are off base.

Rather than admitting that your accusation was unfounded, you are now trying to support your ongoing accusations by flailing around complaining that a few edits on Amway by a WP:SPA/WP:SLEEPER were reverted 6 months ago, even though that has nothing to do the reversion of your edits about Amway India that enraged you so much and led to us all being dragged here in the first place. That’s highly disingenuous to say the least, not to mention counterproductive. Going through pointless fire drills like this every time you don’t get your way is a colossal waste of time and resources. To make matters worse, even your latest attempt to re-litigate innocuous edits from 6 months ago is purposely deceptive, as you failed to mention that those very same edits you are now complaining about were reverted at that time by two other editors.[97][98] Even the removal of the drive-by POV tag that the SPA/sleeper added, which you complained about in your most recent comment above, was reverted by another editor.[99] In other words, none of the mud you are slinging even vaguely supports your accusations of WP:OWN.

I’m OK with any kind of informal or formal dispute resolution to settle disagreements about content, as it brings more uninvolved editors to the article (rather than the narrowly focused SPA/COI types that have been weighing in so far) and that’s a good thing. What I am not OK with is your persistence in making this baseless WP:OWN a personal attack. I am asking you now, nicely, to stop. So stop.

As WP:NPA policy states, “comment on content, not on the contributor”. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add that I and User:Icerat were not the only ones who challenged RIR to prove there is a decision which would rule against Amway regarding the pyramid issue. User:Robert McClenon challenged him on DRN here as well. No answer. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Perhaps, but not on my part. As far as I know, RIR still has not provide one such case. However, all the time he insists that the change was justified. Is this the way how consensus should be used? Not taking into the account the reliability of source(s)? Just gather one or two other people with apparent POV that "agree" regardless of sources and it's done - we will revert everyone who disagrees with us regardless of sources he/she provides. As I said, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia but I certainly hope this is not the way it works. I believe I have read somewhere that revert should be the last option and the first option should be tp improve the added text. It clearly didn't work here that way.

I would stress that above were only few examples and certainly not a complete list. I don't know how many examples I have to bring here, so if somebody finds it necessary, please let me know. I can provide more examples of the same pattern of behaviour.

While looking for the User:Icerat's reaction, I have found his diff where he provides another example of RIR's behaviour:

The two "opposing" users here are reverting virtually every edit I do, no matter how well sourced or "balanced". I replaced a section that was using a Sri Lanken newspaper opinion column with one using a published trade magazine and a John Wiley book, and it was all reverted.

I suppose I do not have to specify that RIR was one of the "two opposing users". User:Icerat also admits here that he quit editing Wikipedia for 2 years because of "constant battling to make any contribution done with tag team reversions (clearly to avoid 3RR) by users who don't like the edits".

In other words, he had experienced the same kind of behaviour as I did in the past several months.

The last thing, as I am trying to address behavioural issues of a certain editor, not content issues, I assume I can tell something about the editor's behaviour. It is surely not meant as a personal attack, it just doesn't make sense to me to comment on content when trying to address the behavioural issues. As far as WP:OWN is concerned - it doesn't make a sense to me to retract the case. After all, we are here to find out whether RIR was or wasn't involved in WP:OWN or disruptive editing and I think that's on others to decide. Again, it is not meant as a personal attack. --Historik75 (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I will reiterate again, the current dispute that led you to drag us here was the recent reversion of your edits on the Amway India section of the article. Your edits were reverted by two different editors and the consensus of multiple editors, after you complained about it, was that your edits were inappropriate. That non-incident gave you no basis whatsoever to make your accusation of WP:OWN. Instead of recognizing that fact and withdrawing your complaint, as suggested by Softlavendar,[100] you are now changing direction and trying to re-litigate a different stale dispute from 6 months ago on behalf of Icerat (an Amway SPA who has been editing the Amway article since 2006 despite having a COI[101][102]), who isn’t even participating in editing or discussing the article. In other words, this is degenerating rapidly.

I repeat – this has devolved into a pointless personal attack, so again, I ask you nicely to withdraw your malformed complaint, as it has now crossed the line into harassment, not to mention being a waste of time and resources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

RIR, you apparently fail to understand that there was much more than just recent few edits that led me to file this case here. There is a saying "The pitcher goes so often to the well, that it is broken at last." You can't just put a dividing line between your actions. It is sad that I was not able to explain to you all the reasons that had convinced me that this was necessary. Now it's up to others to decide. --Historik75 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What is readily apparent Historic is that the recent non-incident you tried to label as WP:OWN on my part is clearly not WP:OWN – that much is certain based on the fact that your edit was reverted by more than one editor, and that the reversion was supported by multiple editors. You were wrong but stubbornly refuse to admit it. Now you are trying to deflect from the fact that your charge was misplaced by vaguely pointing to some edit of yours that may have been reverted 6 months ago and trying to call that WP:OWN. Give up this futile witch-hunt and apologize. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So now that you admit that there were edits which had been reverted, let's focus on the way you allowed the initial edit which started the whole dispute. Would you please explain how can you agree with an unsourced statement which led to the removal of FTC case from the lead? Based on what? Again, this is not a matter of a particular edit or a content, this is about your way of reviewing information and a misuse of WP:CONSENSUS to help you push your apparent WP:POV. Also, you have tried to discredit me by calling me a WP:SOCK even after the investigation was closed - and I am the one who should apologize? Okay, I apologize - I am not an experienced editor, so in my initial complaint here I forgot to add few other of your misconducts as well, such as WP:PA (WP:SOCK and "not a newcomer" accusations), WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:POV. I am sorry for that.--Historik75 (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been pinged on this too, and just want to support most of what Historik75 is saying. RIR seems to have unlimtied time to monitor and edit the articles he is obviously passionate about and it is virtually impossible to contribute as he constantly reverts edits he disagrees with - which is anything that doesn't paint Amway (or other MLMs) in a negative light. I previously had to run Amway through mediation to get some kind of semblance of balance to the article but it remains a mess that does not even come close to reflecting WP:DUE - "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published". The vast majority of RS sources for the topic make little or no mention of the "controversies" around the company, yet they make up a significant portion of the article, and attempts to address this balance are vigorously fought by RIR to the extent that editors like myself simply give up. --Icerat (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the WP:SLEEPER awakes! This thread concerns a specific accusation of WP:OWN based on the recent reversion of Historik’s edits on the India section of the Amway article. He complained that it was WP:OWN on my part, which was a misplaced accusation because his edits were reverted by more than one editor and the reversion was supported by multiple editors. In short, that non-incident is clearly not WP:OWN. If you are suggesting otherwise, then you are being dishonest. This incident report is not a general discussion about article quality. Please focus on the issue at hand and don’t try to divert the discussion where it doesn’t belong. Also, it would behoove you to be forthcoming about your WP:COI issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Icerat, if the article has any quality deficiencies, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest that you and Historik together shoulder the lion’s share of the blame. You have made a total of 220 non-minor edits to the article; Historik has made 60; I have made only 196. You have added 28.7 Mb to the article; Historik has added 14.6 Mb; I have added 24.8 Mb. In other words, my contributions to the article amount to slightly more than half of what you and Historik added. You have made 290 non-minor edits to the Talk page; Historik has made 148; I have made 107 (roughly a quarter of the number of edits that you and Historik made). It’s clear that together, you and Historik have contributed most to the article and have monopolized the article’s talk page. And yet, mind-bogglingly, you two WP:SPA’s (both with WP:COI’s) have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of ownership??? And what precipitated the accusation? Historik’s recent edits to the Amway India section of the article got reverted by two different editors, and the other editors who weighed in supported the reversions. Your campaign here is ridiculous; a waste of time and resources, yet again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the main problem is that you do not add anything that is not painting Amway in the negative light. And also, have you counted how many Mb you have removed? The POV resulting in a biased article is not only done by addition, but also by removal of things you do not like. --Historik75 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Now to your argument that I and User:Icerat are responsible for the way the article looks now. I have done my own checking. Overall, I have made 60 changes to the article, some of which were minor changes which I forgot to designate as ones. Icerat made a total of 240 changes. You made a total of 259 changes. The question is, however, how many of those changes made by us are still present in the article when virtually every change we made has been reverted by you? That is the number which is relevant in order to say who contributed to the mess, not the total count of edits or non-minor edits. And, by the way, the number of edits on a Talk page do not relate to who contributed most to the article.--Historik75 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Still stridently refusing to get the point. First, as I have now repeated several times, it is clearly was not article ownership on my part when your edits got reverted by more than one editor and those reversions were supported unanimously by several other editors. You need to acknowledge this before moving on to the next part of your witch hunt. Secondly, when the statistics show that you and Icerat together have contributed more non-minor edits to the article than any other single editor, it makes your accusation of article ownership seem all the more absurd. Third, you are now complaining about POV instead of WP:OWN, which is an entirely different issue, and if you wish to pursue it, withdraw the current complaint (as suggested by Softlavendar) and start a new one. Your WP:OWN accusation would be laughable if it weren't such a waste of time and resources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

To recap, here is the sum total of the feedback that Historik received in response to his recent edits on the India section of the Amway article (aside from my reversion).

Noq: “Reverted 1 edit by Historik75: Not really appropriate here.”[103]

“Support Rhode Island Red's comments. I'd also add that the article already contains far too much un-encyclopedic advertorial - all of the eSpring section for a start. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)”[104]

“Historik75, you seem to have a conflict of interest here and you are clearly not able to edit neutrally…I suggest you move away from this article and contribute positively elsewhere. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)”[105]

“Accusations of ownership are misplaced and missing the point. Just because another editor is active and disagrees with you doesn't make them an owner. COI editing is a problem in part because it makes it hard for editors to assess an article's neutrally. Many editors, some very gently, some not so gently, have been trying to guide you away from this article for good reason. It's time to listen to them. Grayfell (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2016”[ (UTC)[106]

In other words Historik, your edit was reverted by two editors. Those reversions were unanimously supported by 3 out of 3 editors who commented. And yet you have the temerity to accuse me of WP:OWN? The problem, clearly, is your refusal to get the point (as well as your COI and inability to understand what WP:OWN means). I suggest you heed their advice and find a new page to grouse about. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You have probably overlooked my questions regarding the way you acted. So I will just copy them here: So now that you admit that there were edits which had been reverted, let's focus on the way you allowed the initial edit which started the whole dispute. Would you please explain how can you agree with an unsourced statement which led to the removal of FTC case from the lead? Based on what? Again, this is not a matter of a particular edit or a content, this is about your way of reviewing information and a misuse of WP:CONSENSUS to help you push your apparent WP:POV. Also, you have tried to discredit me by calling me a WP:SOCK even after the investigation was closed - and I am the one who should apologize? Okay, I apologize - I am not an experienced editor, so in my initial complaint here I forgot to add few other of your misconducts as well, such as WP:PA (WP:SOCK and "not a newcomer" accusations), WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:POV. I am sorry for that. Again, this complaint is not about a particular edit, it is about your behaviour.--Historik75 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by 23 editor

23 editor started a discussion ("Ethnicity") at Talk:Davor Štefanek not because of article content, i.e. as discussion title imples the ethnicity of Davor Štefanek, about what editor even openly stated "I couldn't care less what he is" (and showed no intention to discuss it), but to openly discriminate other editor. He, as an experienced editor, deliberately ignores the fact that the sources which were given as an example (about another personality) were unreliable and the case controversial (the topic is also discussed at Talk:Branimir Štulić), all in order, as he says, the article content is "not the point", but the "point is one user insists... simply because the assertions they support don't match their POV". My personal point of view and activity have nothing to do with following WP:NPOV principles. However, the user did not stop the discussion and continued to ignore the fact those sources were unreliable for the claims they made (neither he participated in the related discussion), and incomprehensibly interpreted my replies as "chauvinist babbling", and that my whole activity is based on my "own Croatian nationalist world view". He ends it with "pathetic", but I don't think it is more pathetic than such behavior by contributor with Veteran Editor II level. I reported 23 editor not because I want him to be blocked, but because I will not reply to his personal attack, and to be warned that such behavior is not supported on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What can I say? Double standards and lame excuses are nothing short of pathetic. Pointing out double standards and lame excuses is not, despite teetering on the edges of WP:CIV. I stand by that. 23 editor (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Whilst 23 editor is definitely skirting the edges of civility, I do need to ask, Crovata; on that talk page, why have you removed the sections sourced to the three sources mentioned? Why do you believe they are not reliable? Just saying "they are" is insufficient. I am unsurprised that you have received so much antagonism when you don't appear to have done that anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Black Kite there is no hypocrisy and excusing from my part - that are 23 editor's unjustified accusations, and instead to accept he was wrong or to move on, he called me a chauvinist. You don't understand the complex situation about the biography of Branimir Štulić, neither the political-nationalist pretentions about his ethnic-national origin or identity (and going into detail about that is not the point of the report), and 23 editor who generally edits Serbian or former-Yugoslavian articles should know that. I already explained, in the Serbian Glas Javnosti and Politika is claimed that it's "well-known that his father is a Serb from Niš, Dalmatian Zagora" (it's not a well-known fact, actually there only 2-3 sources to claim his Serbian ethnicity; his family is not from Dalmatian Zagora, neither in Dalmatian Zagora exist a settlement with that name), and that his father is a "Serb by origin from Nin near Zadar" (his family is from Nin, but father's ethnicity is unverified and non-factual information by the journalist with the only intention to reclaim Branimir's national identity, the news article is even pathetically titled "Kidnapping of Johnny"), as for the Croatian Index.hr (actually Bosnian-Herzegovinian Dnevni Avaz) it is claimed that allegedly told the journalist (but here can be seen that on the question "Do you write in Croatian language?" he replied "It is not Croatian language, it is literary Serbian language"). These claims like [107] ("I have not one Croatian blood cell nor am I a child Croatian-Serbian marriage") or Slobodna Dalmacija ("Croats do not exist at least 600 years") compared to the opposite claims (there is no need to source and cite everything here) where reliable sources confirm the genealogy of his family ("Croatian family Štulić lives in Nin for at least 500 years"), show his Yugoslavian-socialist point of view on ethnicity and nationality, rebellion against not what he is not (of Serbian origin, neither he or his cousins claimed any Serbian origin, actually noted there exist "strange statements, unverified information, all sorts of stupid caption" related to Branimir Štulić), but against what he is and where he comes from (the Croatian origin, Croatia), the history, the identity-crisis ("My family members are from Nin, Croats", "I am a Turk, and I am a Turk for myself, not for you, also I am a Macedonian", he is in Serbo-Croatian "anacionalan", meaning "nationally uncommitted"), to belong to nobody and nowhere, and so on. His father's ethnic origin, or Branimir's controversial (subjective) personal considerations, are out of scope for an encylopedic article on an artist. And like in the case of 23 editor's link, where IP said "content is dubious only for a Croat", the IP was warned by K.e.coffman that "calling out an editor's nationality in an edit summary is inappropriate", only that 23 editor is not an IP, but a Veteran Editor II level contributor who must know that. --Crovata (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much the same thing as here @Crovata: 141.138.54.39 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a summary of that case which is virtually the same. Removing valid sources and making personal attacks [108] [109]. Requesting CU with intent to fish for users with the same ISP [110]. Opposing the sources material with no basis in sources of his own, he simply claims the only posted source is wrong [111], funny for someone that has the following stated on his user page:"This user believes in using Reliable Sources.". His opinion must be more reliable that a published source. He and several other users exhibit the same disruptive behavior. I made a record of that here 141.138.54.39 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The only similarity with this case is the saying by 23 editor that ethnicity "it's irrelevant" or "The genealogical lineage is completely irrelevant" (which is generally not true), but that's a totally different article and talk page discussion, don't relate them.--Crovata (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What about this "where you edit-warred with a host of IPs and sock-puppets pushing the opposite agenda" and this "Suzichi, don't resort to sockpuppets; I *will* report you".--141.138.54.39 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The only IPs involved were 178.222.51.163, 212.200.247.167, and 79.101.66.244 and they were from Belgrade, Serbia. Whether those IPs were sock-puppets it's his conclusion, but it is obviously not related with the case of Suzichi. Please, don't relate the cases.--Crovata (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The similarity is in the behavior. 89.164.174.221 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I collaborate with 23 editor on occasion, so I'm going to consider myself involved and won't close this thread. However, while the language cited is robust, it appears to be caused by understandable frustration, so I don't see any need for sanction on grounds of incivility. I recommend both parties compare and contrast reliable sources in the article rather than attempting to remove or discount a set of sources they don't agree with. The former method is what we do on en WP when reliable sources differ on an issue. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 why is the frustration "understandable" when openly was no 23 editor's intention to discuss both articles sources and content except to attack fellow editor? By what criteria his frustration is understandable? Your recommendation is something we already know, it's basic logic, but whether there is a will among the editors to do it? Did I continue to discuss the topic with 87.184.138.221 IP? I moved on. --Crovata (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to what Asdisis's IP sock would have you believe, the IP that edit-warred with Crovata at the Štulić article—causing both to violate 3RR—was entirely unrelated to myself. I don't edit from Europe (or, more precisely, Belgrade) but from North America. I would like to ask for administrative assistance in dealing with Asdisis, who, as evidenced by this AN/I thread, has clearly been stalking me.

Crovata's troubling tendency to pick and choose between sources, deeming some reliable and others not, simply on the basis of how they conform to his own POV, especially in WP:BLP articles, should be subject to community scrutiny, my own remarks aside. If Crovata felt "discriminated" against (don't know why he would use that particular term, but OK), I apologize. But claiming to have your feelings hurt doesn't make one's own actions any less reprehensible. The fact is that Crovata deems both reliable Croatian and Serbian sources unreliable simply on the basis of the claim they make for an individual's ethnic background. If they claim a person has a Croat parent or is fully Croat, Crovata thinks this is by definition reliable. If they claim an individual has Serb ancestry or is fully Serb, Crovata feels the sources used to back this up are by definition unreliable. Those are the "double standards" and "lame excuses" that I was referring to, and I still wouldn't hesitate to describe them as such. 23 editor (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are being reported for such behavior and in this very own report you are repeating the very things you are being reported for? Strange thing to do. Bold, some may say, but it depends on which terms you are with admins. It's easy to attack an ip, but I didn't report you did I? I find your behavior generally disruptive because you think that your opinion is more important than sources and when someone questions that you personally attack him. I've tried to engage you in the discussion about sources in the talk page but you have just personally attacked me. I'm not interested in your personal attacks. If you don't want to discuss sources I will open a RfC. 89.164.174.221 (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, 23 editor, but as you continue to falsely accuse me I won't accept your apology. You crossed any measure of common sense. It is incredible that you're again openly lying - where is the evidence for my "troubling tendency... to conform own POV... on BLP articles"? It's incredible that you're still considering that, and not only that, but that mine edits were done because of Anti-Serb sentiment? Are you at all aware of what you say? Suddenly he became so interested about the proper "ethnical background", only that he finds it "irrelevant", and yet he continues to ignore the fact those claims are simply not true and never discussed both the information and sources "reliability", even "neutrality" - of course, how could I forget, because that is not even the "point" (his saying) of the whole talk page discussion - it is to discriminate other editor on the false grounds of "nationalism", "chauvinism" and "hypocrisy". You tried to make your intention to look like it's only about "reliable" sources, which you did not discuss, but you were a little too hasty and showed your transparent intentions.--Crovata (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, he pretty much does that in every discussion where he can't beat the sources. He goes into personal accusations of nationalism and sock accusations with newer editors by fishing for isp with multiple cu requests.213.202.111.130 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: A number of the IPs that have appeared here and are active on the articles in question have subsequently been blocked. There are probably also socks at work. I would pretty much ignore any IPs without a reasonable editing history when closing this report. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What really puzzles me is why the Asdisis socks would swarm a random An/I? I made a two or three remarks at Talk:Novak Djokovic, sure, but nothing to make Asdisis have a vendetta against me. Curious. 23 editor (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a sock and among your edits on Novak Djokovic there's a clear personal attack against me. This isn't a random report but a report on your behavior that you also exhibit on the page where I'm involved. You are also pow pushing, by saying that all posted sources are wrong and that your opinion that isn't backed up by any source is right. You had also tried to remove the most valuable source posted there. When I saw you are being reported for virtually the same behavior by another user I had to mention that I had experienced the same behavior from you on another page. Stop calling me a sock,stop pow pushing and I won't have "vendetta" against you. Fishing for ISP providers to block other users is very disruptive and against rules [112]. Of course that you can find 2 editors with ips from the same block when you fish with cu requests. 213.202.111.130 (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive promotional user

Kamalikachanda has created her auto-biography. After I nominated the article for AFD. She repeatedly calling me stupid, idiot joker on my talk page and Marchjuly's talk page. She is removing AFD template and also disrupting the AFD page. I am exhausted with her behaviour. The article was tagged by Jim carter, when she removed the tag, the edit showed on Huggle.

I had given her welcome message few hours ago, which she has blanked from her talk page. I am exhausted with her. I request Administrators to take suitable actions. Now after final warning about personal attacks, this is the reaction --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I would request indefinite not 72 hours for this. --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Though a personal attack was made, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marvellous_Spider-Man&diff=736414193&oldid=736413628 thing you are requesting indefinite for appears legit. Kamalika Chanda starred in Miss Teacher according to the article and the xvideos link they added to your talk page is to that (going by the URL, haven't actually visited it), presumably in an attempt to show notability. Please don't overreact. BethNaught (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Overreact!!! How many times before that she called me stupid, idiot, joker, before those comments. Xvideos is a porn site and the section heading was "notable breasts of Kamalika Chanda" Marvellous Spider-Man 09:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like one of those Neelix redirects. EEng 14:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So she got pissed you AFDd her article and made personal attacks against you. Fine, they got a 72h block. But trying to prove a porn actor is notable by linking to porn is not indef-worthy. BethNaught (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Bethnaught, the article is not about a porn actress, it's mentioned "erotic drama". Something like a low budget "Basic Instinct" without any X rated scenes. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand your frustation Marvellous Spider-Man and think you warning this editor was appropriate. At the same time, I think what BethNaught is trying to say is that this is a new editor and sometimes new editors do things they shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out, but sometimes a little tact is needed as explained in WP:BITE. Removing notability templates is not always a bad thing, and it seems from this edit sum that Kamaikachada felt the sources were sufficient and the tag unnecessary. Maybe at this point it would have been best to try and discuss things on the article talk page instead. As for the article being an auto-biography, Kamalikachanda posted on your user talk that they are not Kamalika Chanda. Of course, we cannot know that for sure, but we need to take them at their word for the time being. If they are telling the truth, then their choice of username is problematic WP:IMPERSONATE which actually can lead to an indefinite block. FWIW, this could just be an overzealous fan who just does not understand what Wikipedia is about. That doesn't excuse the PAs they made against you, but they have been blocked appropriately for those. If they continue this type of behavior after they are unblocked, then some administrator will step in and block them for even longer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: check this welcome message and this and then you will know why it was not WP:BITE. And the welcome message was given before all this drama. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And the first warning was level 1 warning. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are checking her every edit on my talk page, how did you miss that she admitted on my talk page that she is editing for 3 years ? Marvellous Spider-Man 10:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess I missed that because you yourself removed it from your talk page with this edit. You also removed the previous discusion between you two from your user talk so I didn't notice them too. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but I didn't check your user talk's edit history as carefully as I should've so sorry for that. Anyway, I had your page on my watchlist because of my earlier post to you regarding something else, so I noticed this post. I then checked the other editor's talk page because of their user name and posted a username warning there. I then checked their edit history and noticed they had removed the AfD template from the article. I re-added the template and then posted something at the AfD about removing templates and personal attacks. Kamalikachanda posted on my user talk, and I advised them to to stop removing template and stop the personal attacks. I have Jo-Jo Eumerus's user talk on my watchlist because I often post there about image files. I noticed that Jo-Jo reverted the Kamalikachanda's blanking of the AfD and then saw your post on Jo-Jo's user talk; so, I commented there. I was informed about this AN by RainFall who responded to my post at User talk:Widr#User Kamalikachanda. I think that pretty much covers the extent of my invovement in this up until now.

FWIW, the fact the this person has been editing as an IP for three years does not mean they might not still be a "newbie" in some sense. Moreover, what is written in WP:BITE#How to avoid being a "biter" does not lose its relevance just because someone has been editing for a certain period of time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I repeat again, I welcomed the user with welcome message (before she started her personal attacks) and the first warning I gave on her talk page was automated huggle warning for removing a template added by User:Jim Carter, which was a level 1 warning. And I am not going to waste my time anymore, discussing about this user. ThanksMarvellous Spider-Man 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, she moved her name well up in the billing for the two films she was in that were wikilinked. I've reverted that, and whatever the outcome, we don't allow autobiography on Wikipedia. MSJapan (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor has been indefinitely blocked for a username violation.. So, when their block for personal attacks is up, they can request a username change and return to editing if they wish to do so.

Finally, just for reference, they have stated they are not Kamalaki Chanda here. In the same post, however, they also wrote Even if you delete it I will again create it with the "it" being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamalika Chanda, which is not a good thing. It's not certain whether they are trying to write an autobio; They could be a fan, relative, manager, etc. Moreover, even if it was an autobio, the statement "we don't allow autobiography on Wikipedia" is not correct per WP:AUTOBIO. Like COI editing, autobios are very strongly discouraged by Wikipedia, but they are not expressly prohibited. A person could try to write an article about themselves, but we would encourage them to do so via WP:AfC so that it could be reviewed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrators Nyttend and Jehochman

• Nyttend (talk · contribs)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs)

Administrator Jehochman (Or JHM for brevity) redacted[113] part of a comment I made at RFA after Nyttend came to his talk page[114]. Nyttend came to JHM seeking a block of me on basis of this[115] from November of last year. In it JHM wrote 'I could indef block your account right now'. Before that, JHM cited these two examples- [116][117].

An indefinite block for telling Nyttend not to violate WP:NPA after Nyttend called me[118] a stalker. That seems more than a little extreme.

Let's examine the more recent post first.

Nyttend wrote- "He's even attacked me at an RFA page over an incident more than a year ago. When you're demonstrably holding grudges over a period of years, attacking others' actions as "colossal failures" for no good reason, it's beyond time for assumptions of good faith, beyond time for additional warnings."

Nyttend blocked 20 accounts by his own admission for sockpuppetry that proved to be wrong. That's a failure all right. My post to the RFA didn't just single out Nyttend but another administrator also who I thought overstepped.

Where is it said at RFA you can't criticize anyone? JHM writes at his talk page- 'That RFA isn't the place to rehash an old incident.' Old incidents are rehashed at RFA every time once of these comes up.

Nyttend has a long history of not taking criticism of any type well. He actually gave me a uw-npa3 once for personal attacks over this[119]. Was anything I wrote in that thread a violation of NPA? He's accusing me of harboring grudges but his behavior (and I can give more examples. Like his going off wiki[120] to seek a block of me and using his backup account another time[121] for the same purpose where moments later he was back in his main account, plus his threat[122] to seek sanctions against me for something he in his own words to not occur[123].) can be called questionable. The two cases I cite above may or may not constitute administrator shopping especially after his categorical dismissal at Commons and his citing it when using it in his backup account post.

In a recent ANI thread here[124] Nyttend was told to drop the stick.

JHM seems on the verge of taking action against me. See edit summary here[125].He told me not to follow Nyttend. I haven't and Nyttend has supplied no proof of such. I, like all wikipedia users, get notified of RFAs. I have participated there before on at least one occasion. Nyttend and my paths cross sometimes but like here[126] he said it was coincidence. A threat of an indefinite block for trivial actions seems like administrator overstep. Nyttend's persistence to get me blocked needs to be examined. Nothing I've done at RFA constitutes a violation of any warning given to me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of this thread and will not be taking any actions other than to say that William's comment speaks for itself. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

JHM here[127] says I'm wiki lawyering based on my request of proof I did something wrong at RFA. Ironically in that RFA thread I had an administrator asking me to cite WP policy to justify why I said something was wrong....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note Both Nyttend and JHM were notified of this thread. JHM subsequently deleted[128] my notification of him....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Question @WilliamJE: do you read ANI threads that you have started? Vis-à-vis, Jehochman acknowledged your notice by commenting above. It looks rather as if you wish to portray his every edit to be either at fault or a personal attack. As a seasoned user, you know that editors are allowed to remove (almost) whatever they like from their own talk pages. FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

First, your RFA comment was redacted because it was completely off-topic and way out of line. You discuss the behavior of the candidate at RFA, not the behavior of a third party. You found an excuse to criticize Nyttend and took it. If you think the candidate is somehow soft on sockpuppetry or too hard on it, say so, but leave others out of it. Second, I take that ANI thread as telling both of you to drop the stick. You picked it up again, not Nyttend. I'm not going to block you because I'm the co-nom on that RFA and I think it would be improper, but I certainly think you deserve it. Katie^talk 15:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And how is not Nyttend not picking up the stick by going to JHM and trying to get me blocked? Nyttend didn't cite the ANI thread but something else. My being critical of administrators around here has a long history and in a recent case[129] justified....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I put the 'please note' in to make sure people know I did notify JHM as required. It was done innocently. He had the right to remove it, I wanted to prevent my being accused of not informing him. How about showing WP:AGF?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If he hadn't posted here immediately above you, then it would be a valid point. But he did, so it isn't. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not this again ... This is an attempt to reinvigorate WilliamJE's long-term grudge-farming against Nyttend, which I had hoped had subsided. William really should know better. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Unrelated to most of the issues concerning Nyttend and WilliamJE's bad blood, but to chime in if I may, but keeping old grudges fresh goes directly in contravention of our principles against personal attacks and battleground conduct. Whatever the history between Nyttend and WilliamJe, that is absolutely zero excuse to bring up Nyttend into unrelated venues. What does Nyttend have to do with Oshwah's RFA. There was entirely no constructive purpose in WilliamJE's comments and a good move on Jehochman's part for redacting that comment. One shouldn't be going out of their way to criticize an editor whom they have a "history" with, whatever their reasons might be. I think the core difference here is WilliamJE brought it back up, not Nyttend. This thread is an attack on both Nyttend and Jehochman for calling out his behavior. I would strongly suggest WilliamJE to cease commenting on Nyttend ever again and to go find something else to do. This has gone on long enough. —Mythdon 17:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• William has spent years demonstrating that he will not drop this grudge. When his attacks are reverted, he restores them. Why do we permit this person to remain a member of the community? PS, just to ward off any accusations to the contrary: I'm not following William. I voted in the RFA, and someone else pinged me, so I went back and searched for my username and found this attack by coincidence. Had he left it after I went to look at the ping, I doubt that I would have ever noticed. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Then he should receive a block on both the grounds of edit warring and for restoration of the gratuitous comments. I haven't followed up on all of the history, but judging from the diffs, its blatantly clear that WilliamJE is just not going to drop the stick. His editing demonstrates a fascination with the edits of another user (in this case, with yours), following you around. I can't fathom how he's been allowed to do this for years. I've seen less severe cases in the past and those editors had already gotten interaction banned or indeffed for doing far less severe cases of harassment and personal attacks. —Mythdon 23:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend went to Commons over a year ago and where I had never edited before in order to get Sphilbrick to block me here for harrassment. Sphilbrick replied back here[130]. I'll quote SP's reading of the WP harrasment policy, SP's reply to one of Nyttend's charges and his overall summary and let you go. First-

"

the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor

You've demonstrated that the first part of this statement is true. There is no question that William is not randomly choosing articles to edit which occasionally include articles you have edited. We don't even have to invoke statistical evidence; he said he was going to watch your edits and he has. But the policy doesn't simply say it is inappropriate to follow someone else around. As I noted earlier and can explain again if necessary, there are many legitimate reasons one might identify a particular editor and choose to examine all or a significant portion of their edits. However, we have to look at the second part of the quotation. Are these actions done (mainly) "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work"?"

Second- "In Monticello, Arkansas William change the heading from "notable residents" to "notable people". He has stated elsewhere that he believes this is the better choice. I concur. His edit did not affect your edit, modify or in any way challenge or inhibit your edit. It was an improvement to the article. No rational person could possibly see an edit by you making some improvements of the article, followed by an edit by William making different improvements of the article and think to themselves that William was confronting or inhibiting you." Bold added by me

Third- "I stopped looking at diffs at this point. If the best argument you can make is that William likes to improve articles where you've contributed, we should be debating which barnstar to award not talking about a block."- End of SP's reply. SP reviewed Nyttend's behavior involving me on another occasion. Here it is.[131] Read the whole thing but one SP quote 'it is the responsibility of admins to set a good example, and I don't think your interaction with WilliamJE meets that standard'.

One last thing and I have raised it many times (SP, JHM, and Acroterion have all heard it) and gotten silence. Why is it acceptable for Nyttend to threaten[132] to get sanctions against me for something he himself said[133] wasn't what occurred? For more context, here is another post[134] backing up what did occur. Is an editor supposed to tolerate that conduct or just take it because they fear they'll be made into the bad party?

What I am mad about is Nyttend got Orlady to block me in 2014 for BS and the block was overturned. However it is still on my block log. As goes for every editor ever blocked including a 2016 case where it was termed by an administrator 'the worst block I have ever seen' I have written before and SP has shown sympathy about bad blocks on an editor's history. Administrators read the history and make foolish judgments of my intentions based on it. Case in point Administrator Fram on SP's talk page not too long ago where SP replied in part 'I've had a long interaction with William — to oversimplify, he thinks there is admin abuse on this project, and I think admin abuse is something we have to be very careful about and make sure it doesn't occur, so I promised William I would look into such allegations. As William noted, I don't always agree with his assessment. On some occasions I think he has made a good point, and in other situations I have sharply disagreed with William.". You say I'm carrying a grudge? Is WP not carrying a grudge when a editor's block log shows a block that was wrong, universally condemned, and saw a administrator say it was the worst block he ever saw instead of having it deleted?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's long since time you two stopped interacting. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WilliamJE editing restriction

• Propose swift and short WP:BOOMERANG block against the filer: having been advised repeatedly to drop the stick, deliberately does not wish to WP:GETOVERIT. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• I oppose a block as excessive force, and likely to be ineffective once it expires. I think WilliamJE should be restricted from interacting with or talking about (directly or indirectly) Nyttend, with the usual exception that if Nyttend mentions WilliamJE, then WilliamJE is allowed to respond, or request assistance. This is what WilliamJE should do voluntarily, but if they won't agree to it, then we should make it a formal restriction. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• I also think an interaction ban should be an order. History demonstrates that this user will only continue to harass Nyttend, as demonstrated in their 3 year long history, and blocks alone are generally ineffective with harassing users without the teeth of an interaction ban. —Mythdon 14:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would support an interaction ban, but not a block. I have been involved with both editors and their interactions. Both editors are prolific contributors and this encyclopedia owes each of them a debt of thanks for their significant contributions. For reasons I have not been able to fully tease out, they don't play well together. This place is big enough that both can contribute without having to interact. It has been my impression that both have been voluntarily doing this, so I ask both to redouble their efforts to stay away from each other. (I do commend Nyytend for asking another admin to take action, rather than taking action themselves, although I suspect that may not be viewed as positively by William as I viewed it.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• A formal interaction ban is needed. This latest incident and WilliamJE's latest contribution to this thread indicates that William is not interested in leaving years-ago events alone and continues to seek out opportunities to air this grudge. I don't understand why he thinks that appearing at ANI every three months is a good way to clear his record, it's doing the opposite and tends to support the assertion that there was a problem with his behavior during the conflict he so resents. I agree with Sphilbrick that asking for sanctions rather than applying them oneself shows restraint on the part of Nyttend in the face of repeated provocation. WilliamJE is a prolific editor whom I've helped from time to time and wish him well. The only thing standing in his way is this tendency to cherish grudges. Acroterion (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• FIM is way too rash in choosing a side and carrying a stick for rough action. A block would barely do good here - rather the IBANs proposed by the other seem to be a much better course of action and I personally suppose a formal one will finally lead him to drop the stick. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 21:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich

The page protection came off of Murder of Seth Rich and they went right back to edit warring. As before, no one individual has so far reverted too many times, but we have a lot of individuals who have shown themselves to be willing to revert rather than discuss.

Clearly page protection won't work unless it is made permanent (or at least until the election). Could we possibly try issuing warnings to each edit warrior as he/she reverts? Better to have an uninvolved admin do that, not an involved editor such as myself. Would 1RR help? Related question: would this be under the American Politics discretionary sanctions? If so, could we tag the talk page and send DS notices to the participants? Again, best done by an uninvolved admin.

Full disclosure: I have taken a position regarding the content dispute behind this and there are some interesting interpretations of BLP policy regarding material that only implies something forbidden by BLP that may be worth admin scrutiny, but the edit warring is a separate issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

More edit warring, ignoring warnings

More edit warring[135] and we now have someone who is participating in the edit war (still no individual making too many reverts, just what looks like a restart of the previous bunch of people reverting), and doing it after being warned not to edit war.[136][137][138][139][140] This would be a good place to apply an admin warning. I don't see a need for stronger sanctions unless he repeats the behavior after the warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• I locked the page for four days back on August 22. I see that hasn't helped matters much, though there is an RFC now. I have no opinion on the inclusion or exclusion of the material, and I only edit politics articles in an administrative capacity.

Here's the way I see this. If you don't include the Wikileaks stuff, it's not an ARBAP2 issue – it's another unsolved crime where the victim was employed by a political group. If you do include it, it is an ARBAP2 issue because you've brought the email leak into it, and discretionary sanctions apply. That may be overly simplistic, but that's the way it appears to me. Katie^talk 21:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks! What if we only include the bare fact that Wikileaks offered a reward, with no mention of any of the email leak or any of the other online speculation concerning Seth Rich? Would just the bare mention of the reward being offered make it an ARBAP2 issue? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but yes, because that brings American politics into it. Does Wikileaks offer rewards for other unsolved murders? Nope, and they have only one reason to do so here. Others may have differing opinions, though. Katie^talk 02:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. It seems like a reasonable interpretation of policy.

(change of subject) I may have been unclear that I was asking specifically about ARBAP2 and that the page is already under NEWBLPBAN discretionary sanctions. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This complaint seems to be weasel-worded aspersions and battleground ruminations from one of the very few editors on this page who has taken an aggressive, hostile, or argumentative stance. e.g. [141] [142] [143] The editing process was going reasonably well and the page did not require protection. The protection request and PP were precipitous. OP's recent actions are blockable per AEBAP2 and WP:NEWBLPBAN, but in lieu of enforcement, I suggest OP withdraw this and stand away from the article and the other editors for a week or so. Nothing more than semi-protection should be reinstated. Steve Quinn was not edit-warring. He undid a one-edit IP's drive-by. If semi-protection had been in place, we would not be here. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What you are saying is simply not true. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Re: "OP's recent actions are blockable" I have made one edit to the article, over a week ago.[144] Please note that "weasel-worded aspersions and battleground ruminations" SPECIFICO was advised of the possibility of WP:BOOMERANG.[145] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Katie, thanks for weighing in. Two things. First, there are clearly BLP issues, so BLP DS are applicable (it is within the scope authorized by Arbcom). Secondly, one of the key points of contention at the article is exactly whether or not to include the Wikileaks content, so it seems to me that the DS for American politics are also at play (it is within the scope authorized by Arbcom) as long as that is an issue (and as long as the article exists, I reckon that will remain an issue). The only question is whether the subject matter of the article and discussion about it falls within the scope authorized by Arbcom, and for this article we have both. No DS have been applied by an admin (no editing restrictions like "1 revert per day per editor") and no one has yet been brought to AE over this; the only question The only question here (and it is not really a question to me) is clarifying that the subject matter is within the authorized scopes of two DS. Do you disagree that it is within the scope and if so why? And if you agree would you please confirm? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Okay. Guy asked if it fell under ARBAP2, and I gave my opinion. The BLP question wasn't posed. Since you have now asked, yes, this is absolutely a BLP.

SPECIFICO, we're not going to semi-protect a page that's undergoing a content dispute. I can put a 1RR on it under BLPDS. I'd rather not since I already locked the page once but hey, I don't flex the DS muscle very often. It feels like it could be stretched. Is it warranted right now? You guys tell me. Katie^talk 03:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Katie, I did not understand why the article was put under PP, since there was discussion on the talk page. Editors for the most part were disciplined and there was not edit-warring on the article page. In my opinion, the editor who requested PP was overreaching. The reason I raised semi-protection was simply that the edit which apparently prompted this complaint was Steve Quinn's undo of IP vandalism, an edit that I do not believe any of the registered editors would have made and which was a clear BLP violation that needed to be undone. I don't think any form of protection is warranted, especially now that editors can no longer deny that the two Arbcom remedies apply to this article. SPECIFICO talk 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Everything seems to be calm, so I don't think it is necessary for 1RR at this time. That is just imho. Steve Quinn (talk)

Genre warring and blanking

There's been a disruptive IP editor blanking content, mostly in film-related articles. I first noticed this in late July, when 187.205.65.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) engaged in a spree of disruptive genre warring by way of blanking Category:slasher films from several dozen film articles. I reverted the ones that were sourced, added a few sources to obvious examples, and just left the rest alone. I'm not interested in genre warring over whether something is a slasher film, just reverting IP editors who blank content. In August, I noticed the same editor has been blanking more content, mostly from infoboxes:

• 187.205.34.241: [146]
• 187.205.38.181: [147], [148], [149]
• 187.205.43.192: [150], [151]
• 187.205.43.108: [152], [153], [154]
• 187.205.52.47: [155]
• 187.205.62.201: [156]
• 187.205.73.16: [157]
• 187.205.95.112: [158]
• 187.205.128.12: [159], [160]
• 187.205.124.142: [161], [162], [163]

Note that this comprises the majority of edits made from this range in the past four weeks. If there's essentially nobody else editing, and there's extensive, ongoing blanking, I think a really wide range block might be warranted; there's virtually no collateral damage even on a /16. If that's not possible, I guess maybe semi-protection for Hellbound: Hellraiser II and Tintorera might suffice, as those are the most commonly targeted articles. However, it won't stop the ongoing genre warring and blanking in other articles. I guess I can keep checking the range contribs every few days, but it's a tedious time sink. On the positive side, I rediscovered an article I wrote three years ago that I never put my on my watchlist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Range blocked. I agree the range seems to be used for little else than unsourced changes on film articles — certainly not for anything useful, that I can see. Of course I haven't clicked on every single diff, just a good sample. I've blocked 187.205.0.0/16 for two weeks. If it just starts up in the same way after the two weeks, please let me know, NinjaRobotPirate. Or if you should see similar edits from outside the /16 range. Psychologically, /16 may be something of a limit for me, though. And I'd appreciate if another admin, who actually understands about IP ranges (I pretty much only pretend to), could take a look here. Pinging the little @Ponyo:. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: This IP hopper has been editing disruptively on the range for months. There's minimal collateral on the range block placed, so no worries there.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Second try here, re: long term unsourced edits

Last week I reported user 174.105.181.77 (talk · contribs) both here and at AIV, and neither report was deemed actionable, with the explanation that I hadn't provided diffs. Since then the account has continued unabated, despite accruing more warnings and being reported again tonight at AIV. I'm bringing this here again not so much to request a block--if we're still functioning at all, and working by the basic guidelines, that's inevitable, if long overdue. What I'm requesting is a review of all edits, not some half-dozen cherry-picked diffs. This is a textbook example of an account adding trivia anywhere and at random, without regard to scholarship or sources. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• For instance, some already rolled back: [164]; [165]; [166]; [167]; [168]; [169]; [170]. Some of hundreds of such nuisance edits. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is supposedly a dynamic IP. What would you have done? A sampling of their edits indicate that the things they are adding are not particularly contentious nor do they appear to be incorrect. Provide an indication of what you feel should be done. Other than that, you always have the option of citing the material yourself. This really doesn't seem like a matter for this board. If it really bugs you warn then incrementally and after 4 in one day report them to AIV. Or better yet, start a dialog with them to encourage them to do better.John from Idegon (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Then I give up. Thanks. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've run out of the desire to chase down and revert crap like this [171]. At one time it was expected that a block would follow dozens of unsourced, nuisance and non sequitur edits like that--the terminology was 'disruptive' or 'incompetent'--especially when warnings from numerous editors had been persistently ignored, and the user hadn't responded. Reversions would be standard. But if the attitude has become 'they're not contentious edits, and why bother with a dynamic IP?', then I truly have wasted years here. That's my mistake, rather than the website's. Per your observations, John from Idegon, I've instructed the account to continue. There's no reason for them to stop. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely. First, AIV will not and should not (due to collateral damage and no punitive blocking) block an IP without 4 warnings in the last 24 hours. Second, TV is a subject of great interest to many and with expertise from nary a few. Wouldn't it be better to serve the project by teaching a new editor how to source his edits rather than just templating them on the fly then coming here (which is still not the right place) and pitching a bitch? Collaboration is a two way street. Four and a half years into this and I have no clue how to properly source a TV article, and I'd bet you would be similarly puzzled as to how to source an article on a high school. If you cultivate the new guys skills you've improved the project. How does your course do that? I realize there is an if in that statement, but without an attempt, how do you know? John from Idegon (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to respond contentiously, but I'd just as easily say my point is missed, as well. There are multiple problems with the user's hundreds of edits, some of which are evident in the diffs I chose. Lack of sources is the most obvious issue, but the insertion of trivia, sometimes in the wrong places, is another. Poor writing --the intent to copyedit for the sake of making changes, without discernible improvement to the article--is another. Most recently, edit warring with another editor in order to retain unsourced content. Surely I could have engaged the user in a different way, but my take from the start was that the user has no interest in conversation or collaboration, but merely in adding factoids, at their pleasure, encyclopedia be damned. Keep in mind, I'm no longer arguing on behalf of sanctions for the individual user, nor just for rolling back much of what they've done, but am addressing a broader weakness of the project, the lack of enforcement of a basic guideline. If the content can not be properly sourced--be it for a TV show, a biography or a high school--then it's not good to go. Otherwise the editing process is easily abused; it's not difficult for someone to make up dates and numbers in this circumstance, and I've reverted one or two such spurious edits by this account already. Given their volume, it's not unlikely there are many more. Finally, I brought this here twice because of persistence, scope and lack of response at AIV. Also, after the initial report, an administrator counseled that the problem was not having provided diffs; I've tried to do so now. So yes, I've pitched a bitch, as you say, and for that I'm not proud. But I'm amazed that I have to make a repeated and futile case on behalf of disallowing unsourced edits. If I'm correct in doing so, I have reason to be exasperated with the project and lack of response. If I'm incorrect, then I've misread the way we function, after casting around here for over a decade. Either way, I don't belong. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"...AIV will not and should not (due to collateral damage and no punitive blocking) block an IP without 4 warnings in the last 24 hours" - right in specific cases but wrong as an absolute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Failure or refusal to "get the point" leading to Distructive, Tendentious, Edit warring, Accidental / Misinformation and Vandalism!

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

---

The user Kintetsubuffalo started a page called Boy Scout of Nigeria on November 28, 2005‎, though such organisation never existed in Nigeria as at that time. It took 10 years or constant edit for the user Kintetsubuffalo to know the name is not existing and it must be changed.

The History It was registered as Boy Scout Association of Nigeria in 1942. So, the name Boy Scout of Nigeria (BSN) was last used in was 1942. In 1999, Boy Scout Association of Nigeria was changed to The Scout Association of Nigeria, so as to accommodate all Genders both Boys, Girls, Men and Women.

Knowing fully that such name never existed in Nigeria again, In October 2007 I tried to start a page called The Scout Association of Nigeria but was nominated for deletion by the user Kintetsubuffalo, since I don't know how to argue or protest it, I let go.

Ever since then, I always try my best to correct the information available on Boy Scout of Nigeria (BSN). I added references and some notable facts but he (Kintetsubuffalo) will always undo it and add an insulting phrase under (Briefly describe your changes). Each time I try to ignore it.

Recently, I wrote a paper about scouting in Nigeria because I am a dual citizen, a Nigeria and a member of the association (a National Officer) and also an American, also a volunteer with BSA. Though I am living and working in the USA but I know 100% about scouting in Nigeria because I am still a trainer there. After written the paper and was delivered in Nigeria, people talked about Wikipedia and wrong information it has about scouting in Nigeria.

I was thinking I could correct some of those information but user Kintetsubuffalo will not allow it. Then I decided to re-started "The Scout Association of Nigeria" and I wrote true information about scouting in Nigeria with references, while I was waiting for more information and edit from those that know the history of scouting in Nigeria, Kintetsubuffalo nominated the article for deletion and also motivated speedy deletion. He achieves his aim only to use those information to form a new page but it was done wrongly. Two good heads are better than one but he believes more in lone input which is not Wikipedia policy. The policy of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopaedia."

I contacted him to let him know my mission which was to only to pass true information about the association but he preferred to use bad words on "Briefly describe your changes" against me. I don't exchange words with people when I am educating because that will show to the world that I don't know what I was doing. I am a new and young editor and I have seen a lot of old editors encouraging people like me, correcting references / put it in order when it is added wrongly but Kintetsubuffalo prefers to discourage people instead of correcting.

The user Kintetsubuffalo claimed to know more about scouting worldwide "I am one of the founders of Scouting WikiProject" but that does not mean you know Bible than Pope. I was only trying to correct the accidental or Misinformation of 10 years he added on Wikipedia about Scouting In Nigeria and I was not doing it rudely. 90% of African scouting stories are not correct and new editors would be frustrated day in day out.

Even though he would not accept the correction but today, he has decided to form "Scout Association of Nigeria" with old Boy Scout of Nigeria story, he copied some of the stories on the page he nominated for deletion "The Scout Association of Nigeria" and redirect the page "The Scout Association of Nigeria" to "Scout Association of Nigeria". That shows that he did not even know about the association he was writing about. I don't know why he chose to be a sole editor or final decision maker for Wikipedia on scouting matters and he does the wrong things with impunity. He deleted the right name to form a new wrong name, the "The" has a meaning in the association name, but for a reason known to him, he would not let it be.

The questions are:- Does he want to form Scout Association of Nigeria or what association was he writing about? Why can't he edit the page "The Scout Association of Nigeria" rather than forming a new page? Was Wikipedia integrity upheld? Was the deletion of "The Scout Association of Nigeria" made in good faith?

Today, he has formed another wrong association on paper "Scout Association of Nigeria" and this may go for another 10 years. Does that promote Wikipedia in a good manner? What does it say about the editors and writers?

By these, I see Kintetsubuffalo action as:- Distructive, Tendentious, Failure or refusal to "get the point", Vandalism: Writing wrong stories about an organisation. Edit warring, Accidental or Misinformation.

I hereby appeal that "The Scout Association of Nigeria" should be made available to the public (recall back from deletion) and the wrong information or name about scouting in Nigeria should be deleted. Wikicontrol 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, could I as another member of the WikiProject Scouting try to calm this down a bit. The reason why the article was deleted is that there was already an article on the same association. We do not start new articles on the same topic. If the name is wrong, we move the article to the new name thus preserving all the history of the article. That has now been done and the name is Scout Association of Nigeria. Whether that title is preceded by a "The" or not is not really that important, but I think you will find that the "The" is not normally used in the title even if it is part of the official title of the organisation. So, the material in Scout Association of Nigeria is not going to be discarded, but the article can now be edited to correct any errors and add new material. In that way the history will be retained. So I suggest that you add to Talk: Scout Association of Nigeria any changes that you would like to be made and any new additions. The problem with your earlier edits was also that they were not really in an encyclopedic language, or they were too verbose or they were not supported by references. So put you ideas on the talk page and I will suggest what you should add to or change in the article. We will try to help you. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Bduke for the response. I did not start new article on the same association. His article was on "Boy Scout of Nigeria", mine was on "The Scout Association of Nigeria" but he deleted it on August 24th 2016 and started "Scout Association of Nigeria" on August 25th 2016 and directed the page I wrote to the new page he wrote. Lastly, I supported all my writings with references, I provided all those references in those page, some of those books where written by me. Wikicontrol 07:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If there's no such thing as Boy Scout of Nigeria and the article was intended to be on the same organisation you were writing about then yes, it is the same thing. It's unfortunate the article was wrongly name but the correct course of action is to ask for a rename of the article supported by references not to start another article on the same organisation. If you believe there is still useful info on the organisation in the article you created, you can ask for the article you created to be undeleted to aide in recovery of that information and to preserve the edit history. Note you will need to appropriately transfer the info to the existing article which will still be the main article. Note also that provided your article is deleted, no one except you (for any parts you wrote by yourself) should copy any part of it to the existing article. It's possible for information or references to be taken provided it's not sufficient to be a copyright violation although even then it's IMO far better to keep the edit history to avoid doubt. Alternatively since the article you created is 9 years old, it may be simply better for you to rewrite any important parts, especially if what you wrote had the same problems highlighted by Bduke above. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scout Association of Nigeria, it's clear Wikicontrol is quite knowledgeable about the subject, but just as clear that he has no idea what is appropriate for Wikipedia. I started the original article, as I did about 80% of the national Scout organizations, over 10 years ago, but it is not a subject I care anything about nor is it on my watchlist. The only reason it came to my attention was because of Wikicontrol's persistent and insistent vanity additions to List of Scouts. I went down the list to see what else Wikicontrol had edited, and cleaned them up. The Scout Association of Nigeria was poorly written, and filled with hyperbole, honorifics, trivia and anachronisms (as is the rant about me above putting words in my mouth and skewering the chronology, which he has now plastered on a dozen admins' pages). I moved the parent article to the 1999-changed name Scout Association of Nigeria, and salvaged all relevant, verifiable, non-vanity information from the article being discussed. I further fact-tagged and inline-tagged it, the research is there but it is not added in where it should go. All other information must be left out. Wikicontrol's self-bio vanity article Soneye Philip was deleted as non-notable and should in no way be recreated.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Looking a bit more, you already recreated the article here [172] a fewy days ago. That article has not been deleted, the edit history is still there. If you still think there is something in the 2007 article worth salvaging or if you believe that the may be other editors involved in the 2007 article then it could be undeleted as well, but otherwise I don't see any reason. As said above, any info in the 2016 article needs to be integrated into our existing article appropriately, your article will remain an undeleted redirect. Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you Nil Einne, yes I re-wrote it 4 days ago (not 9 years ago) with the correct name "The Scout Association of Nigeria" when he would not want the name on the old page (Boy Scout of Nigeria) to be changed. So, I wrote the new one on August 24th 2016 only for him to copy part of my writings and added it to the old page. He then change the name of the old page to "Scout Association of Nigeria" after he has deleted the one I created and also directed the page I created to the old one. Wikicontrol 08:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh! fine Kintetsubuffalo, I understood the issue you have now, I was only writing latest information as per the organisation. I wrote about Bennet B. Shotade, Gabriel Ofotokun-Goodwill and Soneye Philip because they are missing in your 10 years article. Scouting in Nigeria has made history with references. Please, care to read those attached references/document before removing them and also try to respect other people hard work and contributions, we are in 2016 not 2005 for Christ sake. Even what you wrote 10 years ago was wrong about Nigeria, the name was wrong, the story was wrong,..yet, you don't like to be corrected. The trio I mentioned served in Nigeria and in the USA with award and history of Nigeria scouting will not be completed without them, even without their names, let us write true story about scouting in Nigeria not just formulated stories. Mr Kintetsubuffalo, you wrote wrong article 10 years ago and you still don't want people to correct the errors you made 10 years after. It will be wrong of you to think you can write scouting stories in about 160 countries without help from their NSO. c 16:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Could someone here distill this down to, I don't know, a paragraph or two? Brevity is a virtue, and massive walls of text detract from the point of the person writing them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought I had distilled it down above, but that has been swamped by more rants. We should forget about what was done 10 years ago. We have an article with essentially the correct name. We need to update it with reliable data. Wikicontrol needs to learn more about wikipedia. He can not even sign his contributions correctly, even though several of us have shown him how. His contributions are clear examples of how people who are too close to the organisations can not distinguish between what should be included and what should not be included. We do not write articles about national Scout organisations with help from their NSO. We write them using reliable sources. Some of those may be written by the NSO. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see now, not sure how I missed it before. I think you're spot on, and that Wikicontrol needs to back off and chill out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would have love to know the reliable sources or whom in the NSO that gives such wrong or fake information about its NSO but when people failed to understand seven points; and all thinks just in one direction while those giving fake and wrong information rant and happy that they have misled people for over 10 years. It's better to be quiet rather than making them realize again and again because you can only give what you have anyway... Thank you all and bye Wikicontrol 05:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontrol001 (talk • contribs)

• (Non-administrator comment) So ... this is at present a dispute about whether the "The" should be in the article title? Why is this not covered under WP:THE? (I know there was an earlier problem with the name being "Boy Scouts of Nigeria", but that appears to have been resolved before this thread was opened, and Wikicontrol001's current complaint is about the current article title not including "The".) And why is a content dispute and a TLDRwall of textbeing treated as a legitimate topic for ANI? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor not here to build an encyclopedia

• Part (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have concerns about the conduct of an editor, Part, regarding claims that they have made about conducting research with a team on systemic bias on Wikipedia. While there is no problem on conducting research about Wikipedia, I believe they have crossed several serious ethical lines which had led to a significant disruption. Part has seemingly made these claims after they became involved in an edit war with other editors. In fact they have been blocked as recently as June 2016 for edit warring. Most troubling, every time an editor has engaged this editor over the current disputed content, Part has made comments like "thank you for participating" ([173] [174] [175] [176]) implicating their "research". I have followed the discussion as it has unfolded and I believe, along with several others, that these statements are actually being said to discourage them from participating in the discussion; threatening the use their usernames, comments, and other information without their consent in this so called "study": [177][178] [179] [180]. Part has alluded that they are apart of a "research group": [181]. Some editors have expressed they do not want to participate and other concerns have been brought up: [182] [183].

• Part initially disclosing they're collecting information on editors for their "research": [184].
• Part reiterating their research on systemic bias: [185]
• Part has on several occasions copied and pasted entire discussions from all over Wikipedia to Talk:Nelson Mandela -- sometimes not even in their entirety [186], [187]. In many of these cases, they have been done without the approval of the editors whom commented. I believe this misrepresents the context of some of these conversations which took place on user talk pages and away from the article Nelson Mandela.
• Part has adopted an attitude of WP:IDHT since coming off their last block. This is demonstrated by raising issues and then saying it's for the purposes of the study.

I'm concerned that this so called "research study", whether legitimate or not (as I'm also skeptical like Katie), is interfering with the process of building an encyclopedia. Their actions seem to be solely based upon the purposes of the study. As a result, it's causing distress to the other editors who are actually here to improve the article; while I don't believe Part is here to build an encyclopedia. Moreover, I believe we have a responsibility to the other editors to protect their privacy and protect their ability to work and discuss the article without being inhibited by being studied expressly against their will -- and certainly not by someone involved in the content dispute.

I'm asking the community to endorse an indefinite block. If this "research group" does indeed exist, they can request an unblock to which I would strongly urge them to consult with the community as to how this can be done if they're planning on being involved in the content and direction of an article. Additionally, as an ethical guideline, they should seek the consent of editors before their information and words are used in their study. Mkdw^talk 06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, fabulous, just what we need -- another idiot "researcher". EEng 06:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• I highly doubt that there is any "research" occurring, in any real sense. What we have is an editor whose edits have been rejected on numerous occasions, and because it cannot possibly be him who is wrong it must be everyone else - therefore "systemic bias". From his talk page: This is real Ian.thomson, at some point I realized this is a good opportunity to study the dynamics and get some insights. It didn't start out as such but rich data has been generated. As pointed out above, any references to "research" only began after their edits had been rejected and the edit-warring had begun. Subsequent references to the "study" are little more than an attempt to say to editors who disagree with him: "I've got a little list, and you are going on it." Pure disruption, and I support the block proposal. --Begoon ^talk 07:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say all that, but too pooped. Agree. EEng 07:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• If Part is actually doing research without the consent of the users in question, then that is unethical and worthy of an indefinite block. If they are not actually doing research but are saying they are with the intent of intimidating the editors they are in a dispute with, then that is indefinite block worthy. Blackmane (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support block; on the grounds that threatening to put editors on lists* is clearly intended to displace discussion and have a chilling effect.

*...do they think they're Nixon or something?!_Muffled ^Pocketed 08:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Some action must be taken because Part's comments are outrageously inappropriate (suggesting that opponents have a systemic bias that Part will document off-wiki—see Talk:Nelson Mandela#Ancestry section and user's talk and the diffs in the OP). I have not checked the user's other contributions but imagine there is evidence that WP:NOTHERE does not apply, so an indefinite block may be a little extreme. Perhaps a six-month topic ban from all articles and talk pages that directly relate to Mandela, and an indefinite topic ban from mentioning any claimed research or anything else that may have a chilling effect, on any page including user pages? In case anyone wonders why I joined in, I have been following the article for a long time (example from December 2014). Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  Except it isn't just the Mandela page. The "systemic bias" and "research" nonsense began in October 2015, and related to edit-warring and a block on the Philip Baker (obstetrician) article.[188] Part has continued to use the tactic in subsequent content disputes - "systemic bias" has become their standard explanation for why they are right and everyone else is wrong, and adding editors to the "research" the standard attempt to chill discussion. Further down that talk page, in a dispute over Jamie Vardy, they say, in an unblock request: Although technically I violated the three-revert rule, I was using the - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". This is part of my ongoing research (see above) to document systemic bias and how editors including administrators are involved in its perpetuation. Qed237, The Almightey Drill, Slakr. and I of course did not expect to be unblocked. I am collecting data Boing! said Zebedee and Ian.thomson. It's nothing more than disruption, and I don't see the circumstances being different in other areas unless Part can understand why the behaviour is unacceptable and convincingly undertake to desist. An indef block could be lifted in that eventuality. --Begoon ^talk 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks All for the comments. I along with a research group are indeed conducting a genuine study on systemic bias. Anonymity and confidentiality are guaranteed. Text as you know on Wikipedia is released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, we thus plan to conduct thematic analysis within the strict limitations of this license adhering to research ethics guidelines. I am here to build an encyclopedia. Part (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, dual claims of being here conducting a genuine study on systemic bias and to build an encyclopedia are dichotomous. Even if it were possible to achieve both, you seem unable to do so without threatening editors. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• In view of the above failure to grasp what other editors have said, I support an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support block as per everyone above. If Part is genuinely trying to conduct a systemic bias survey by engaging furtively in editing/discussion on-wiki and then reporting it off-wiki, that is unethical and should be stopped. If it's genuine, they need to present their credentials and seek permission in advance (I confess I have no idea where, but I'm sure someone else can help with that). If it isn't genuine research, it's dishonesty and still warrants a block. Anyone is, of course, welcome to analyze Wikipedia's content any way they please off-wiki, but the CC BY-SA 3.0 license does not grant permission to make active edits in the course of research. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

  This comment by User:Hpesoj00 captures the issue well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I apologise on my own behalf and the research group for unforeseen unintended consequences. Unfortunately it is a weekend and I do not have immediate access to research group members. All I can say is that a genuine study was being conducted and we tried to give advance notice of this. We will have more information during the working week. Part (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note Thank you for your confirmation of organised WP:MEAT. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block. I answered an {{admin-help}} yesterday at Talk:Nelson Mandela that wasn't so much a request for help as it was a request to fix all his problems. Then I got pinged back to ask about "possible abusive corruption of (his) username," which had been misspelled 'Prat' by another editor. (I was admittedly a bit snarky in my reply.) Part isn't here to build an encyclopedia; he's here to promote an agenda. I don't know what that agenda is, but the researchers I know don't call their data 'fodder' and don't insert themselves into the study by arguing with the participants. Katie^talk 13:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have managed to get hold of the protocol-chair. The study has been stopped with immediate effect. We apologise unreservedly for these unforeseen and unintended consequences and we would like to reiterate that confidentiality and anonymity were key aspects in the study's design. Part (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Why should we believe you? BethNaught (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

My instinctive question too. I think we would also need to know who the other members of this 'research group' (and / or 'Protocol chair'??) are on WP. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

We have done what we can to rectify our mistakes. We accept the consequences. Part (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you enlighten us as to precisely what you "have done ... to rectify [y]our mistakes" (apart from your extremely dubious post about the alleged "study" being allegedly "stopped")? Just for the cynical, like me, who don't believe a single word of this. --Begoon ^talk 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Part I suggest you email arbcom - arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org - with details of your study and how to contact your protocol-chair if you wish to repair your credibility. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Part, it's important to note that it is your conduct here on Wikipedia that is being discussed here. As far back as October 2015, in your several unblock requests that were reviewed by JamesBWatson, you stated "Thank you Huon, Ian.thomson, Nomoskedasticity, JamesBWatson and Erpert for participating in a Wikipedia experiment whose results will appear next year". You were in fact warned by Huon about WP:NOTHERE in that discussion. I see this latest series of behaviour in a long pattern of disruption. There is a unanimous consensus here for an indefinite block. All blocks can be appealed through unblock requests though I am going to mirror NeilN's advice that you should email arbcom about this situation if you wish to return to regular editing. Mkdw^talk 14:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have refactored out Part's overuse/misuse of the template {{outdent}} for readability. Mkdw^talk 14:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• For heaven's sake, stop addressing this jerk. Can't you see we're being trolled? Protocol-chair my ass. EEng 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You've been watching ANI long enough to know quite well that being an obvious troll is not nearly enough to warrant a block. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Recommend a Ban

In view of the long pattern of disruptive behavior and the questionable claims about a study, I recommend a Site Ban for the following reason, which is a dilemma. Either there is a study, or there is not. If there is a study, then the conduct of the study is unethical, in that it is being done without consent, but isn't following the rules for an anonymous study. An anonymous study really should be done like a fly on the wall, without mentioning the study, and in this case the subject keeps mentioning it in ways that appear intended to have a chilling effect. If there is no study, then the claims that there is a study are lies, probably intended to have a chilling effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - It looks as if I just was beaten to the punch and that there was consensus for an indef. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A WP:CBAN can be placed overtop of a block. An indefinite block allows for the editor to submit an unblock request which can be reviewed and potentially granted by any sysop. A community ban requires a consensus from the community to unblock or through special process at ArbCom. There is a unanimous consensus for an indefinite block but I think this ANI should remain open to examine whether the community feels a community ban is required as well. Mkdw^talk 14:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Ban on top of good block. It is true he has just been blocked indefinitely; but in this matter, the community itself was undermined, not just individual editors, as no-one will (presumably) ever know which of us was (or was not) subjected, ananalysed, assessed or critiquéd by this study (if indeed, as RMcC points out, there actually was one!). Since it is the community's confidence that has been hit, the community should be the arbitor in any future appeal. This is, perhaps, End of 'Part' One ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my comments in the section above. --Begoon ^talk 15:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per me above. EEng 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban per my earlier statement above. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support In light of evidence going back as far as 2015 and based upon the fact that the indefinite block was essentially endorsed by community consensus, then I think it should require community consensus for an unblock. Mkdw^talk 05:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban on top of block as per earlier comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Alleged "study" is flagrantly unethical (no consent of participants) and is admittedly non-compliant with WP:HERE, and edit-warring to "document systemic bias" and then claiming exemption under WP:IAR is particularly egregious. Diffs like this and those cited above are very revealing. GAB^gab 14:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per FMI. TimothyJosephWood 14:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support I'm pretty sure there isn't a study and we have given them enough to eat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I am inclined to agree with RickinBaltimore and other editors that there probably never was a study, and that the talk of the study was merely intended to have a chilling effect, but it doesn't matter. I already expressed support, and was advised not to withdraw it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support The "study" probably doesn't exist, and even if it does, then the above conversation and diffs show the way they're conducting it is unacceptable. Joseph2302 21:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support because, if there isn't a study, then they lied and intended to scare editors into complying with them. If there is a study, they had people participate in it without ever telling them they were and (likely) without getting authorization from the Wikimedia Foundation (If nobody else, they should've been told.) to conduct a study without telling us. That's rather unethical and I would consider it an invasion of privacy if I was told (or I found out) later that I participated in a study without my knowledge. Just ask Facebook users how they felt. I'm also wondering if WP:SNOW would apply to this discussion, as I'm counting 17 "supports" in bold (including mine) and no "Oppose"s at all. (I'm only quickly counting the bold not-votes.) I do realize WP:SNOW may not apply here because we're discussing a community ban. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto: incivility and rejecting community input at Talk:Noël Coward

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

---

There has been an RfC running at Talk:Noël Coward on whether the article should include an infobox. Cassianto (talk · contribs), who opposes inclusion, has been bludgeoning the process by making personal attacks against third-party editors !voting for inclusion, using WP:Uncivil language in violation of WP:5P4:

• What an immature, offensive, and down-right moronic thing to say. It's ironic that you should then predict that people may call you an idiot; with comments like that, "idiot" is certainly a word I'd use to describe you in the absence of there being a more suitable word elsewhere. Show some fucking respect!
• Are you even bothering to read the arguments?
• Quit your bullshit snark

I had no previous interactions with Cassianto [189], although I'd noticed and admired his content contributions. I saw the RfC and !voted for inclusion, and also objected to this language (without naming Cassianto),[190] as did others.[191][192] Cassianto responded, unbelievably, by asserting his opposition to the WP:Consensus and WP:Own policies:

• The main authors who took this to FAC should be the ones to have the last say on this; not a load of nobodies
• What gives the "community" the fucking right to enforce a piece of vandalism onto this article?
• After I reminded him that Consensus and Own are policies: I'm past caring what you think.

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 states A disruptive editor is an editor who...rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment. Cassianto's behavior violates this guideline; the Civility, Ownership, and Consensus policies; and the Fourth Pillar. I suggest he be forbidden to edit Talk:Noël Coward until this RfC has been closed, with the ban to be enforced by short blocks if necessary. FourViolas (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• If FourViolas knows that infobox wars have raged for years they should not frame this report in the simplistic manner shown above. There is a long timeline from which people can cherrypick incidents to show their opponents are truly dreadful. However, it is actually the whole situation that is dreadful, not occasional lapses under siege. There is nothing ANI can/will do about the mess, but picking off content builders who become frustrated when the usual suspects descend on featured articles is not helpful for the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Infobox warring for an example of how entrenched are the positions, and how unwilling are participants to compromise. One side acts as if they OWN a particular article, while the other side acts as if they OWN the whole encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Indeed. AN/I is not another weapon in an arsenal to 'win' a dispute- or, for that matter, an arena in which to do so. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is this infobox issue so contentious? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To quote Laser brain: This is a stupid waste of time and there is obviously no consensus for such a silly restriction. Infoboxes have already been through ArbCom and the war is still going. At this point the only way forward is to file an amendment request authorizing Discretionary Sanctions in this topic area. Please stop opening ANI threads about it. I think, in the interests of energy saving we should recyle his close. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I honestly do not care about infoboxes, and I"m not trying to win a content dispute. As the diffs show, Cassianto has been shockingly uncivil and disrespectful to third-party editors at this page; the editor being called an "idiot" noted that they have never engaged in the infobox wars, and so like me is hardly a "usual suspect". I've presented clear evidence of a conduct problem that clearly meets the definition of disruptive editing and violates three conduct policies; Cassianto has expressed no remorse or intention to desist from his disruptive behavior. That is precisely what AN/I is for: reporting incidents that are disrupting the encyclopedia and require admin action to resolve. FourViolas (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am undoing Jaguar's hatting of this thread, as Infobox discussions are the sublect of an active Arbcom restriction, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Decorum, which reads in part "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." Also, Jaguar has participated in the discussion at Talk:Noël Coward, and is not an uninvolved person here — Diannaa (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What a pointless move, generating yet more dramah.... At least Jaguar used common sense in bringing one part of the silliness to an end: you should take a leaf from his book Diannaa. – SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe Cassianto's behavior at Talk:Nöel Coward is in violation of the Arbcom ruling on decorum during Infobox discussions, and would like more input on that point from the community, particularly admins experienced in enforcing Arbcom restrictions. — Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If you enjoy the dramah that much, then it's no wonder ANI is such a pointless sinkhole. – SchroCat (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

When you find some admins willing to enforce Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing, please ask them to deal with those who continue to open & reopen discussions and RFCs regarding infoboxes on articles like Coward's and deal with this page which appears to be a plan for starting infobox conflicts. We hope (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@We hope:. Yours is quite an apt username  ;) that page is an bit of a Schlieffen Plan, eh odd thing to allow. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

[Left] Perhaps mentor-ship by a friend would help here. We have to take into account not all have the debating skills we expect to see here...perhaps someone could help him with his wording? ..as in help him tweek his comments so they are productive in nature over offensive. The community should not try and burn this guy out ...but help him with the skills hes lacking....hes a great writer ...just bad debater. -- Moxy (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I note that I am one of the frequent editors at the Noël Coward article, and I have also collaborated on article improvement with Cassianto in the past. So this is just my 2 cents. I do not approve of the language used by Cassianto in this case, but he has been sorely provoked by the pro-infobox forces who are regularly driving by Featured Articles regarding arts biographies to try to force infoboxes into them by any means, including RfCs, canvassing, ANIs, and all other tactical dodges imaginable. Although some of Gerda's restrictions were lifted by ArbCom, I believe that she and her collaborators have been engaging in a long-term, bad-faith campaign to force infoboxes into these FAs over the objections of those who have contributed the most to the research and writing of these articles in violation of the spirit of the ArbCom case. As all long-term editors of Wikipedia know, persistence pays, and you can defeat others' point of view by being persistent over a long course of time. Cassianto is clearly impatient with this; Wikipedia punishes the impatient and rewards the patient, regardless of their motives. [Addition: The accusation above that Cassianto opposes our rules on WP:Consensus and WP:Own is not true; what he and others have repeatedly noted is that the pro-infobox folks have consistently accused anyone who opposes adding infoboxes to these articles to be asserting ownership, which is a spurious assertion. Cassianto obviously believes deeply in WP:Consensus, as he has collaborated successfully on numerous WP projects in which high-quality articles were created or expanded, and sometimes even promoted to FA. It is frustrating when one has spent hundred of hours on researching and writing an article, and then people who have no interest in that article, but only in infoboxes, come along to try to force a completely repetitive and unhelpful infobox into the article.] -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Cassianto has tenure, therefore all arguments against him are invalid.

This ANI thread is not about infoboxes, that's a separate matter. If we are to even have a working environment in which to discuss them, we first have to get rid of editors whose approach to CIVIL is along the lines of the diffs and edit summaries cited at the top of this section. This is not new behaviour for Cassianto (see Citroën 2CV and related, just this week). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And what about those who engage in Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing? Those who are involved in Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing#Principles ("Civility is not limited to superficial politeness but includes the overall behavior of the user. Superficially polite behaviors still may be uncivil. Some examples are politely phrased baiting, frivolous or vexatious use of process, ill-considered but politely phrased accusations, unrelenting pestering,...") are violating the concept even though they haven't told someone to fuck off and may have caused an editor to make the comment. Personally, I'd prefer being told to fuck off as it's honest and straightforward. We hope (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not much better. But one major difference is whether other editors are allowed to do it too. There are a range of "filibustering" tactics which any editor may use, as they are within policy. Even when, as you note, those tactics may themselves be considered disruptive. Cassianto, and a few other well-known editors, have extra tactics available to them as well, approaches which other editors would be insta-blocked for. This is wrong. We need to stop handing out get-out-of-gaol-free cards to favoured editors, because of who their friends are. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:UNBLOCKABLE. EEng 19:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I truly hope we can keep things in perspective and stay on point because Cassianto's behavior is a serious issue and I also doubt it begins and ends with infoboxes. He may well have tenure and he certainly does great work but it doesn't excuse the behavior. I ended up at Coward because of a BOT request [193], and I often participate in RfCs because I feel it's my "civic duty" as a WP editor. I wasn't there for any other reason. If other editors start behaving at other RfCs like Cassianto did at Coward, we'll be lucky to get 3 participants at any RfC. I don't see how this case has anything to do with the infobox war other than using it to divert attention away from the behavior issues where the focus should remain. His behavior has been acknowledged in the past as noted above but nothing was done about it, so as we should expect, the behavior hasn't changed and will continue. My experience at Coward was one of disbelief over the repeated insults and badgering, so here I am at AN/I - the last place in the world I want to be - hoping there will be some form of action taken to help Cassianto change for the better, but first he has to acknowledge that he was rude, belligerent, and noncompliant with civility policy and will change. If infoboxes are causing such behavior, I would certainly support a restriction of some sort - perhaps something like a 2 post limit at RfCs and similar discussions regarding infoboxes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The noise generated by infoboxes is not one-sided, as can be seen by this recent AN/I discussion. A limit for BOTH factions of two comments may help to stem some of the issues. We hope (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Atsme above. RFC's are an important process and many struggle to attract commentators at the best of times. There are too many civilians who are just responding to a RFC getting caught up in the Infobox war. I understand that it is frustrating when you have put lots of work into an article and other editors want to change some small part of it that you disagree with, but that is unfortunately one of the prices for working on a collaborative project. Unlike some I also believe that good content contributors should be given a some slack, but there are limits. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I stepped into the mess of the Infobox wars unknowingly from this request at AN/I. In fact, I had never heard the infobox wars prior to my involvement in that AN/I. Green_Cardamom (talk · contribs) made a compelling argument and request over a discussion that had gone stale. I reviewed the discussion and agreed on the RfC as a good way to get final resolution on this issue from the community. clpo13 suggested just opening the RfC and I was bold and opened the RfC in a good faith attempt to find resolution to this particular discussion. I have attempted to stay outside of the actual arguments - the closest i've gotten in the active RfC is contributing the second draft of the infobox others were proposing to provide a visual idea of what the proposal was. After reviewing the contributions of Cassianto (talk · contribs), I have to give some observations. He feels very strongly about his viewpoint on not only this particular infobox, but infoboxes in general. That being said, I think we should respect that Cassianto has a right to his own feelings about infoboxes and whether they belong here. I'm definitely in agreement that his involvement at this specific discussion is bludgeoning the process and not very civil - his viewpoint has been made extremely clear and I don't see why he is continuing to respond to every !vote or comment for inclusion. It has not contributed in any way to the discussion and may in fact cause someone to reconsider giving their input in the discussion. I don't know if I agree with a block of Cassianto because he does make great contributions to the encyclopedia but I would be in support of him voluntarily agreeing to withdraw from further comments at the talk page in question so that consensus can be achieved. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

His valuable contributions elsewhere were the reason I proposed a temporary ban from Talk:Noël Coward specifically, rather than a simple incivility or disruption block. Cassianto has clearly expressed his unwillingness to voluntarily change his behavior in that discussion.[194][195] FourViolas (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:Requests for comment under the section Suggestions for responding specifically states Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved.^{Not the section I wanted to copy 22:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)} Disruptive editing is a guideline but when it becomes UNCIVIL, it becomes a policy violation which is where we are now. I do not support a block or anything along that line; however, something needs to be done - perhaps it should involve comment restrictions on both sides when an RfC is involved. The section I added below was an effort to keep things on topic and to encourage a positive road to resolution of further disruption. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Recommend 2 post restriction

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

---

As a means to avoid future disruption resulting from Cassianto's uncivil behavior during discussions about infoboxes, he should be restricted to a 2 post limit on that topic.

• Support ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC) ^{Adding that I also support the position that the restriction include both sides in the case of infoboxes. 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)}
• Oppose This does nothing about the civil POV pushers who follow you to your talk page after you've voiced an opinion which is counter to theirs. Limiting everyone to two comments would tone things down overall. We hope (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment If a limit of two comments becomes the norm, it should not just be for the Noël Coward talk page issue, but across the board for all discussions/RFCs of this nature which tend to bring out less than the best in those on both sides of the issue. We hope (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a discussion about a single incident. Your suggested change would be a matter for WP:VPP or WT:RFC or something, per WP:CONLIMITED. FourViolas (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If you read what the originator of the proposal has written above, it says there should be a limitation re: comments on the topic of infoboxes. We hope (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Agreed with We hope. I think this is unnecessary and should have been closed a while ago. JAGUAR  20:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is downright the most stupid proposal I have ever heard. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What an uncivil response. You could have simply written "Oppose" and saved yourself lots of key-strokes. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as a general sanction on Cassianto. Support on the specific talk page of Noël Coward. As We hope has stated, it would not be a bad idea to explore this for everyone. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support in the specific case of Talk:Noël Coward; Cassianto himself has acknowledged that the behavior is likely to discourage community input [196] and is therefore disruptive by definition. Oppose for Cassianto in general, as no evidence has been presented that his behavior is similarly disruptive in similar infobox discussions. Support establishing discretionary sanctions to enforce Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Decorum in general, although I don't know how to submit such a proposal myself. FourViolas (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  FourViolas, I'm not well-versed on the basic infobox fiasco - never had a reason to be - but it would seem to me that it may be something AE could impose. I would not oppose such a restriction, especially if it's designed to end disruption and PAs on both sides. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as unfair - now, everybody getting a 2 post limit, on the other hand..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Cassianto's reaction to my comments, and others, on the subject felt like a form of Bludgeoning. In part or whole because of the confrontational nature (accusations of 'sheep' being one - though later retracted by editing out). I do not think a hard two post limit is necessarily useful without surrounding it with caveats but Cassianto should use judgement and care in their interactions with others, and realise when a response to another opinion is not actually constructive or that when trying to elicit a response that a harsh tone is less likely to gain a useful answer than a polite one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, considering the silliness from people on both sides (which includes some baiting too); per Ritchie, if this was for everyone that would be better (although it would have been better if the disruptive IB thread hadn't been started in the first place). – SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see this working, for one or both sides. It is too easily gamed (I see some big posts ensuing) and too restrictive as sometimes you need to respond (if you are asked a question or for clarification). IMO authorising discretionary sanctions in the topic area is the best way to go. AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

ArbCom Amendment Requested

I have officially made an ArbCom Request for Clarification or Amendment for a general sanction that will affect all parties and put a stop to the behavior that is causing the concerns resulting in these AN/I posts. Several administrators have commented that we would need some sort of action from ArbCom and i'm hoping we can have a fair outcome for all parties involved. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What an unbelievably one-sided selection of parties, with none of the trolls from the Warrior side selected. Even more of an attempt at a kangaroo court than normal. – SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize you feel that way. I attempted to find the most active parties in the AN/I's and in the specific example (Noël Coward). I would like for the request to be balanced on both sides -- if you feel other parties should be notified or involved to balance out the request, please notify them and link them to the page. Anyone can add statements. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No. If you want to open Pandora's Box, you do the work properly yourself and not cherry pick evidence that blackens the side you oppose (which the Arbs will see through). I will not be taking part – I've had my say on IBs to the Arbs recently and I am sick and tired of the harassment and bullying from a minority of aggressive, activised and organised warriors who prefer the darker and shadowy side of truth. – SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

See also

WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Overdue RFC closure review, relating to further developments in this incident. FourViolas (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Civility issue / personal attacks

In the following comment User:SPACKlick stated "Did the word some hurt you as a child Quack because you have an unhealthy aversion to it I feel would benefit from discussion with a professional. Learn to English"

I consider this comment to be inappropriate and block worthy. Wondering other peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly surprised that the editor felt he had the high ground in telling people to learn English... But it seems intemperate rather than actually rude. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Absolutely it was a petty comment. But no pettier than Quack's insistence across several articles that source phrasing like "there are bar like ones, and one's with lounges" cannot be paraphrased, as has been stable for months as "some are bar like and some have lounges". Across three articles Quack marked several instances of the word Some with failed verification and called it weasel words without ever being able to articulate a problem with the meaning of the word or showing any understanding of the meaning of the sentence. He posts discussions of these in talk page sections where he doesn't say which parts of the article or which sources he's talking about. Those commenting on this should be aware that the e-cigarettes area is subject to discretionary sanctions in which Quack was specifically warned about his pattern of editing being disruptive. So yeah, I snapped at Quack, after years of his bullshit editing, he's back to his old tricks.

As for the poor grammar, it's a common meme among language teachers I know used sarcastically to disparage.SPACKlick (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Right... So you intended 'sarcastically to disparage' that editor? In the vernacular, that's called Taking the piss (We even have an article on it...) and, honestly, doesn't particularly improve your case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see little point in denying that I was grumpily sarcastic at Quack when it's plain on the face of it that I was grumpy and sarcastic at him. If it's block worthy, it's block worthy. I'm not going to waste someone's time by pretending I didn't do what I plainly did. SPACKlick (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I heartily deny its block-worthiness. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And we appear to have a history of similar comments such as It's soul destroying reading Quack's gibberish. for which this user has been previously warned [197] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see it as uncivil but it isn't a pattern of attacking random editors. I see someone who is reaching the end of their role with a particular editor, and that is the to repeated issues where the person is refusing to improve. I don't see anything worth action currently. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru is inclined to be obsessive over trivial matters, and to assert that tiny departures from his preferred content amount to wholesale violation of fundamental policies of Wikipedia (search QuackGuru in the archives for a long list of examples). Even people who agree with him on substantive issues, as I generally do, find it virtually impossible to get along with him. My reading is that SPACKlick is similarly dogmatic in certain areas. It may be time to separate these two from each other and from the bone over which they are fighting. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• How about if any editor with more than ten edits to the subject area of e-cigs over the last month, is banned from the topic for three months? That would solve most of the problem. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Stalking

WP:Wikihounding is:

the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Here's a textbook case:

1. User:Travelmite opened an account in January 2015, making 92 edits, mostly on two days, where he added articles to a category using an existing list, and shuffled text around in an article. See [198] and [199] for examples, here for the complete list.
2. At the end of January 2016, this account's behaviour abruptly changed from making trivial edits to actively targeting two editors: myself and User:Miesianiacal, whom he attempted to WP:OUT, claiming a conflict of interest here.
3. In February 2016, Travelmite made 246 edits, some aimed at Miesianiacal, but most (198) directed against me via the Australian head of state dispute article, which I created in 2011 and has a handful of regular editors on this rather specialised topic. Examples of his behaviour here, here, here, here and many others. Only a few edits during this time were on other matters, such as support for Brianhe's failed admin request here and some triva concerning Ugg boots here.
4. In March 2016, all of this account's 101 edits were aimed at me via the head of state and related articles, continuing the previous month's behaviour.
5. This account quietened down during April, May and June, apart from two edits at Talk:Panini, taking a predictably opposite position to mine. I had been called there via an RfC request. Travelmite simply followed me there.
6. In July 2016, out of 52 edits, 49 were again directed at me via the School of Economic Science article, which has been a subject of some interest to me. Travelmite again caused disruption, mainly via another WP:COIN topic here.
7. In August 2016, after I attempted to raise this matter discreetly in other forums, the account's behaviour abruptly changed, with edits after 16 August moving away from me.

Out of 569 edits made by the Travelmite account in 2016, 393 (or 69%) were directed against me via articles I edit, or through various other harassments, such as the WP:COIN issue. Fot most of 2016, this account has followed me around Wikipedia for the purposes of harassment, making few edits that were not connected to me in one way or another. Looking at this account's edits, I think that the charge of WP:Wikihounding is clearly demonstrated. Again, I quote:

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

This account edits via Chinese proxies (apparently accidentally revealed here, and here, and here among others). It is apparently not connected with any other Wikipedia account, as determined by discreet Checkuser requests. (The requests were made discreetly for legitimate reasons I am unable to disclose here.)

I suspect that this account is fraudulent, based on the fact that its behaviour changed abruptly in late January 2016 from making a few sparse innocuous edits to being concerned almost exclusively with myself and Miesianiacal, disputing over various articles, talk pages and noticeboards day after day. This is not the usual manner in which editors begin their service here.

In late January 2016, there was some discussion here about an interaction ban involving four editors, one of whom was myself. I opposed the application of an IBAN then, but I am seeking one now, between myself and Travelmite. I don't mind if Travelmite makes constructive edits (and he shows a good deal of familiarity with wikipractice), but I do find the continued stalking offensive and disruptive.

I request the attention of other editors here to consider my request for an interction ban. --Pete (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a reasonable request. Until an IBAN can be implemented, I recommended you try and WP:SHUN the user for now. Better yet, I think this long-term wikihounding warrants a block. I haven't observed this user's contributions closely, but from what you've written, and from the diffs, there is a possibility of a WP:NOTHERE case. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 14:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am a person of the highest principles and integrity. The accusations above are all false, including the details and statistics. You won't find a single other editor to confirm these accusations. I deal with hundreds of issues on Wikipedia, only three involving Pete/Skyring. Why three? Pete/Skying's incivility towards other editors has unfortunately generated incalculable complaints and counter-complaints. And everyone sees them here on the dispute pages - that is the only way I know about them. Travelmite (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Travelmite: Please could you provide evidence that Skyring has been uncivil (diffs)? Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are many. Let's start the 23rd March where I am called a "troll" when defending against false accusations against another editor [200][201] and here making further unfounded accusations that I am "dedicated to disruption" [202]. A few uncivil/baiting comments towards User_talk:Py0alb regarding spelling of Panini, with this diff [203] being one example. User:Roberthall7 is under a bit of a personal attack here [204] which led to the discovery Pete/Skyring was a member of the organisation in the article and making sympathetic edits. But there's more than just my dealings, because this block from 8-August shows a more serious attempt at making accusations, [205] but I don't know the details of that. Travelmite (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also from the same page: [206] Travelmite (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"I deal with hundreds of issues on Wikipedia, only three involving Pete/Skyring." Maybe. That's like saying our planet has thousands of landmasses, only seven of which are continents. Looking at Travelmite's contributions, we see how much attention is given to various issues. 45 edits (totalling 14 212 characters) on School of Economic Science, one (17 characters) on Tragedy of the commons. The pattern is clear. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What has happened recently, to suddenly warrant an Hounding report? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've not heard from Pete/Skyring for about a month. From User:Roberthall7, I learnt he was blocked due to some other dispute. I guess the block has ended and well ... this. Travelmite (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The two of you are clearly not seeing eye to eye. I think you should agree to disagree, and get a two-way IBAN. You obviously aren't able to collaborate in harmony, and what's happened has just caused animosity between you. Until then, you should just deny all communication with each other. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 19:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you were summoned here GoodDay, through one of several canvassing edits here, misleadingly headed "Beacon Reader". I've done my best to ignore Travelmite since March, WP:SHUNing him as per Linguist111's comment. I could see he was putting more effort into trying to irritate me than I was in being irritated, but he made one reversion too many, and I decided to get more eyes on the subject. It's like having a stalking ex, and applying for a restraining order. Wikipedia's equivalent is an interaction ban, and that's all I'm looking for here. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is akin to workplace bullying and corruption, with a duty on all of us to help stamp it out. We have seen the accusations are false. Although I've been involved a mere three times, it has been confirmed above that the overriding issue is how other editors complain and request help from the community (via the dispute pages) to deal with harassment, bad faith, tenacious arguing and ignoring existing consensus positions, outstanding conflict of interest complaints and so on. (Note: Currently, due process is also at issue here. See Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard#Right_to_defense.) Travelmite (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite has above demonstrated the problem in the relationship. A look at his contributions from late January on shows very little else but a focus on my activities. He claims "hundreds of issues", but apart from a few, every post has been concerned with two topics:

• The issue of the Australian head of state, through the lead article here (171 edits totalling 60 714 characters), an RfC about the Australian head of state (79 edits totalling 29 925 characters), and some related pages. Contributions here.
• The School of Economic Science (45 edits totalling 14 212 characters) and related pages. Contributions between 15 July and 16 August.

Both articles were, prior to Travelmite's involvement, stable articles maintained by a handful of editors each. Travelmite's edits in article space were either destructive, or modest and superficial, his edits in talkspace fixated on my doings. His contributions list demonstrates the facts, rather than his wildly inaccurate clams, and may easily be checked through the hundreds of edits. This is not the "mere three times" claimed above! It is an unhealthy fixation, and his dishonest denials of the problem's extent underscore this. I think a two-way interaction ban would fix the problem, allowing Travelmite to pursue other targets. --Pete (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"You won't find a single other editor to confirm these accusations." Er, I am a single other editor who will confirm the accusations. Travelmite was not only sternly warned against making further unfounded and bad faith accusations against me, he threatened and then attempted to WP:OUT me, first by trying to have COI and OUTing rules changed and then by creating a page off-Wiki and linking it to my talk page (that edit was permanently stricken from my talk page's history). He eventually left me alone due to, I assume, a combination of the warnings and my ignoring him.

I didn't fail to notice from time to time that Pete/Skyring had indeed become the new permanent target of Travelmite and his obsession with and misunderstanding of conflict of interest. I recognize the behaviour, as I made an AN/I report about Travelmite myself for the same reasons. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mies! On looking at the previous ANI link I notice that Travelmite was attacking you in an outrageous fashion, earning a 48-hour block and several warnings in the process. The use of Chinese proxy addresses was also noticed by two editors, as well as the "out of nowhere" approach that caught my eye. He likewise made a spurious COIN report and badgered you on your talk page; familiar behaviour. I strongly suspect this account to be run by someone with a longer wikihistory than meets the eye, using proxies to avoid scrutiny. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Georges Koussouros and PROinvention

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

---

Hi,

Koussouros seems to be here and on Wikimedia Commons only to promote his inventions. He use images from and links to http://www.proinvention.com/. His contribution seems to be rarely in the interest of Wikipedia only.

• May 2007 [207] and [208]: promotion of his Selbolting door.
• January 2008 [209]: set his Selbolting door back on Door.
• June 2008 [210]: set his Selbolting door back on Door security.
• March 2016 [211]: here, he added "rollerball" pen and remove a link to Caran d'Ache; but the whole contribution aim seems to be adding his complexball pen inventions[212]
• March 2016 [213]: Added the image of his pen which his not listed.
• August 2016 [214]: replace an inexpensive ballpoint pen by his low cost ballpoint pen.

I think he should be banned from Wikipedia, from Commons and his proinvention.com added to spam blacklist.

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale 14:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Indef spamblocked. That's ridiculous. Note to OP that we can't do anything about Commons. If he has a sleeper or tries again to add the link we can add it to the blacklist, but there's no need to do that at this point. Katie^talk 14:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by PoetryFan

PoetryFan is a very new single-purpose account (self-described as such: [215]) exhibiting erratic, disruptive, and aggressive behavior.

1. It has twice replaced the entire content of another user's talk page with a warning template ([216] and [217] -- this second is my talk page). In my case, this was accompanied by the summary: "Final warning due to repeated insertion of unsourced / hoax material in poetry articles (Maryann Corbett, Wilbur Awards, Richard Wilbur Award -- see diffs)" Even if this were true, a final warning would have been far from appropriate, but it is objectively false. My total contributions to these articles are: [218], [219], [220] -- and once on a talk page: [221].

2. It has twice blanked a page it previously nominated for deletion ([222] and [223])

These edits, and at least 4 additional ones ([224], [225], [226], [227]) have all already been reverted (mainly by @Mooseandbruce1 and @Bonadea), bringing this editor's rate of disruptive and subsequently reverted edits to at least 42%.

Further, while I have no opinion on the quality or notability of the articles to which this editor objects, PoetryFan's characterization of Richard Wilbur Award is plainly (I have to believe deliberately) false: it is characterized as a "hoax" [228] and later as "pure vandalism" [229] -- despite the fact that it is quite obviously a thing [230].

I honestly can't tell what this editor WP:QUACKs like, but it seems to me that PoetryFan is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Phil wink (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. There's no need for the jury to retire on this. As per WP:NOTHERE. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. I was watching Recent Changes yesterday and noticed that PoetryFan blanked user Alicb's talk page and replaced it with a block notice, even though that user's block log was empty. Also, a few of the user's edits were pure vandalism (mostly blanking). Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is somebody who does not quite understand what Wikipedia is for or how it works, and has very strong opinions; they dove into nominating articles for deletion without knowing the process at all and as a result the nominations were never completed. Believing that a week had gone by with nobody weighing in, they thought that they could delete the article, hence the article blanking. When I explained on their talk page that they were going about it the wrong way, they apologised and tried to fix things - still not quite knowing how to do it, but I think it shows some good faith anyway. This (blanking, fake block notice, edit summary) is of course unacceptable and shows no good faith at all, but unless they keep up the disruption after having been warned I'm not sure I see a reason to block them just yet. Just my non-admin two cents, of course. --bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed a pattern of conduct on my talk page and apparently the talk page of a few other people. Earlier this month I was accused by a CheckUser of being a sockpuppet of the User Ryulong -- someone I have never heard of -- and a block message was placed on my talk page. I have also received received numerous unfair warnings and criticisms dropped off on my talk page without any attempt to engage with me or respond to my questions about the meaning of them. I don't know if this current issue is related to those but I thought it was context since this is not the first time that I have received a fake block.

As far as the current situation, I agree with Bonadea that the issue may take care of itself after she warned the user not to do this again. It may be that they are just overeager or aggressive and if they don't plan to do this again then I am also fine with not blocking them and only giving them a verbal warning. I also would like if an administrator would ask them not to post block notices to my talk page or to the talk page of any user ever again; I don't think that such a thing is ever appropriate. Alicb (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

PoetryFan has implied that they "and other reviewers" have been monitoring what they believe to be abuses for a while: suggesting either that they have some previous experience with WP, or that (again) they are being dishonest about the extent of their experience (and it is implied, authority). Well, we know from PoetryFan's first edit that PoetryFan is an extension of (at least the most recent edits from) IP: 128.177.40.53, which exhibit perfect continuity of habits. Given that we know PoetryFan previously posted on Alicb's talk page under an IP, it does seem appropriate to wonder if this and this extremely similar IP edit -- exhibiting not only the same overweening "administrative" agression, but even a familiar refactoring incompetence in the first example -- is also PoetryFan's work. If so, then it seems extremely likely that this corker, by the same IP, 2 minutes earlier, and with a familiarly cavalier attitude to blanking and edit summaries, is by the same hand. Should we be surprised to find that the edits made just previous to this near-total blanking of Buddy Roemer were by none other than Alicb? I don't know if Alicb's edits are good, bad, or indifferent, but it appears that he or she has gained an unhinged enemy. I fear that PoetryFan is a menace to WP, and deserves even deeper investigation than I have been able to manage. Phil wink (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think my edits are THAT bad. I mostly focus on relatively noncontroversial areas such as poetry. Buddy Roemer is a political figure but none of my edits seemed contentious at the time or even in retrospect -- mostly just clearing up some clunky sentences if I recall correctly. Alicb (talk)

• @Alicb: Perhaps poetry is not noncontroversial to a "poetry fan". ;-) But seriously, what other user talk pages have you seen similar recent activity on? I've seen the now familiar warnings posted to Maryannz by PoetryFan under their own account -- but are there others you're aware of? Phil wink (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• @Phil wink: Not to my knowledge, but if we're dealing with IPs or multiple people (or one person with multiple accounts) I wouldn't be able to tell what they are saying to others. I haven't been in any major content disputes with anyone though and I don't think the edits that I made were controversial even within a poetry context -- I was mostly filling out awards that poets have won and bibliographies, and no one has even bothered to revert that content. Alicb (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User: Ruud Koot discrediting nature-based metaheuristics and authors

Biasing the discussion
User: Ruud Koot has made extensive changes to nearly all Wikipedia pages concerning Swarm Intelligence, removing a lot of scholarly material and links,and replacing them with a copy and paste of disparaging remarks on the topic. Amongst the pages affected by his changes there are those related to the Bees algorithm, Artificial bee colony algorithm, Harmony search, Cuckoo search, Glowworm swarm optimization, and Firefly algorithm. He also re-arranged the Swarm Intelligence page, moving arbitrarily a large number of sections to a separate page (List of metaphor-based metaheuristics), and introducing them with a long section of disparaging remarks, often misrepresenting the views of the authors he cites (see Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics).
By removing a vast quantity of information documenting the success of nature-based metaheuristics, and replacing it with his own negative opinion, he effectively biased the entire presentation on Wikipedia of an important and thriving field (6000 citations in 2015 according to the Web of Science).

Trying to have Wikipedia pages deleted
He proposed deletion of the following articles: Bees algorithm, Artificial bee colony algorithm , Glowworm swarm optimization, Intelligent Water Drops algorithm, Cuckoo search, Imperialist competitive algorithm , Fish School Search. Many of these techniques are very popular and successful optimisation techniques.

Preventing other users from restoring material / changing his edits
Myself and other colleagues in the field were impeded to reinstate our deleted contribution, as he promptly removes or undoes any change. He has also semi-protected Swarm Intelligence to hinder other contributors from making changes. When one user hijacks the entire presentation of a wide topic on several Wikipedia articles, I believe we have a democracy problem.

Lack of any will to reach agreement
Myself and other authors (User:Zwgeem and User: Aheedar) tried to no avail to ask him to respect our contributions and present the topic in a fair and impartial way on Talk:Swarm intelligence, Talk:Bees algorithm, Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics, on User talk:Marco castellani 1965, and on the motivations for undos/changes in the articles.

Personal attacks / Attempts to discredit other editors

• User: Ruud Koot accused me of Conflict of Interest in User talk:Marco castellani 1965 (I rebutted his accusations), and after my rebuttal he accused me again on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marco castellani 1965.
• He accused User:Zwgeem of Conflict of Interest (Talk:Harmony search)
• He accused User: Metafun of Conflict of Interest (Talk:Cuckoo search)
• He accused User talk:Aheedar of being a sockpuppet of mine (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marco castellani 1965)
• He accused User talk:Aheedar of being a sockpuppet of User:Zwgeem
• He blocked indefinitely User: Aheedar who supported my objections on Talk:Swarm intelligence. Although User: Aheedar might have made a procedural mistake in good faith (he apparently tagged both title and content of one page), I believe his comments reflected genuine concerns and did not constitute personal attacks. I also question the rationale for banning indefinitely an inexperienced user without warnings.
• If I understood correctly, he accused User: Metafun of having 105(!) sockpuppets Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Metafun/Archive.

Interestingly, he had similar quarrels (destroyed contributions) with User: Gogol 1367 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ruud_Koot&oldid=732258826), and got him banned too. He seems to have a knack at upsetting people and having them banned once they make a wrong move.
I added further comments on Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics and Talk:Swarm intelligence to clarify my objections, and tagged Swarm intelligence for neutrality. However, I believe this is a question of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Should I open a separate section on that noticeboard?
Thanks Marco castellani 1965 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a few observations:

• user:Gogol 1367 made three edits, all to Koot's userpage, none of them were appropriate. So he got banned.
• Requesting a SPI isn't a bannable offence (unless disruptive)
• User:Aheedar was blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing. A block appeal failed.
• You write "Myself and other colleagues in the field...". To me that implies you do have a conflict of interest, especially if I see the name Castellani appearing as a reference in your contributions.

Kleuske (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think I have a problem with Ruud's actions here. At Swarm intelligence, on July 26, he indefinitely semi-protected the page with the rationale 'persistent spamming,' but the only link in question was a link to another Wikipedia article that was inlined instead of wikilinked. That's not spamming, and indefinite protection is certainly not warranted on an article that had no previous protection log. And the block of Aheedar for NPA is excessive at least and punitive at most, not to mention these alleged personal attacks were on the talk page of an article Ruud has heavily edited. I saw a UTRS appeal of Aheedar's block and sent it back to be addressed on-wiki, and it struck me at the time as a weird block. I'd like Ruud to address these issues and explain how he believes he's not involved. Katie^talk 18:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Marco and colleagues have been spamming their research fairly widely on Wikipedia for years (see several of the links and contributions of account mentioned in Marco's report; these are rarely external links but instead inappropriate citations or mentions of their work). There's a line between cleaning up spam being introduced by single-purpose accounts with a conflict-of-interest and being involved, and I don't think I've crossed that line. The User:Aheedar account, like the User:Gogol 1367 account, has made little contributions beside making some personal attacks. (I'm intrigued why Marco picked out the User:Gogol 1367 account from all those who I've ever had a "squabble" with. This was a month ago, do they know each other?)—Ruud 19:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see User: Ruud Koot to back up his claims.
I have re-written Bees algorithm a couple of years ago, fixing broken links and updating the list of references. Out of 31 citations, 6 were to my works, the other 25 from the team of creators and sources found in the literature (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bees_algorithm&oldid=728207831). My 6 self-citations were the first journal article on the topic, two articles on the benchmarking of the algorithm, and 3 applications of the Bees Algorithm.
I also added one section on the Bees Algorithm to Swarm Intelligence, with two citations, one was the first and most cited publication on the algorithm, the other the first journal paper on the topic (see above).
I don’t believe this is inappropriate citations of my work. According to the definition:
“Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation”.
If the problem was an excessive number of citations of mine, User: Ruud Koot would have been very welcome to remove the inappropriate material, and explain the reason in the motivation for changes.
My complaint is actually about him making radical changes to several articles, presenting an entire topic under his very personal negative slant, blocking other users from making changes, and abusing of his admin role to block and harass other editors.
User:Kleuske, if you believe that it is proper that an editor requests an SPI for whoever disagrees with him, and doesn't constitute an attempt to intimidate/harass other contributors, that's fine with me. I am relatively new here, I trust the judgement of more experienced admins. However, I still believe the indefinite ban of unexperienced User talk:Aheedar without warning was excessive and retaliatory (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers).
Regarding my conflict of interest, I have worked 20 years on Evolutionary and Swarm Algorithms, I am an active researcher on the topic, and I lecture on it. I have written several articles on the Bees Algorithm, and collaborated in several occasions with the creators. That's why I contributed on the topic on Wikipedia. If a practitioner is not supposed to write in his field of expertise, please let me know and I will refrain to contribute again on the topic. However, I find very unfair User: Ruud Koot's accusation of our contributions being "spam being introduced by single-purpose accounts with a conflict-of-interest". Most of us are experts who are here to disseminate their knowledge and findings. User: Ruud Koot is free to have his opinion on nature-inspired metaheuristics, but shouldn't hijack the entire presentation of this field on Wikipedia, and discredit the work of hundreds of researchers in this area (see also my objections to the neutrality of his edits in Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics and Talk:Swarm intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco castellani 1965 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I developed an interest in this field some years ago. When I first saw examples of "nature inspired" heuristics they seemed interesting and overdue. I wrote Wikipedia articles related to this area such as shoaling and schooling, self-propelled particles and swarm behaviour and helped maintain some integrity in articles such as swarm intelligence. Most of the heuristics involved revolve around some form of collective animal behaviour. However, it has become evident that this field has been progressively spiralling out of control. Authors, often from certain regions in India, have discovered this is a way to endlessly generate articles with an appearance of academic respectability. All you need is to take some sort of interactive animal behaviour, such as shuffled frog-leaping, set up a heuristic, and you're away. However, this is at base an area of applied mathematics. Many of these heuristics have a related underlying mathematical structure, and it is these underlying structures that should really be the focus of inquiry. This is a field that will sort itself out eventually, but in the meantime it has become somewhat ragged and disorganised. In my view Ruud Koot has done the right thing by creating a new article, List of metaphor-based metaheuristics, which attempts to keep these seemingly disparate but frequently related offerings together. I gave him a barnstar for this inspiration. However I have a reservation; it is not really Wikipedia's job to sort out this academic mess. The academics need to sort it out themselves. We should merely be reporting the mess they seem to have got themselves into. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. To summarize the situation: there's a group A of academics and journals who believe these nature-inspired/metaphor-based metaheuristcs to be the best thing since sliced bread and a group B of academics and journals who see it as little more than junk science. It has been group A who has been controlling the articles in questions for the past decade (using throw-away accounts, without declaring their conflict-of-interest, and generally responding with insults to anyone who obstructs them). Macro's comments above imply they have not only been doing that, but also been doing that in a somewhat organized fashion. This is all highly undesirable. —Ruud 11:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User: Epipelagic every new rising scientific field has good science and bad science, original and derivative work, gaps in knowledge, serious practitioners and opportunists who jump on the bandwagon. To tar a whole are under the brush “authors, often from certain regions in India…” seems to me extremely unfair (by the way, none of the affected pages seems to correspond to your description). In any case, I believe you are not addressing the problem here. If this was a content-related issue, I would have reported it elsewhere. If you are interested in my scientific objections to User: Ruud Koot’s modifications, you are welcome to visit Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics and Talk:Swarm intelligence.
My complaint is about one admin slanting the entire presentation of an area, removing a lot of other user’s contributions, blocking other people from contributing, banning critics for specious reasons. There is no neutrality and no consensus now in the presentation of metaphor-based metaheuristics, and nobody is able to change User: Ruud Koot’s slant. Katie has pointed out as well the inappropriateness of User: Ruud Koot’s actions.
I also would be grateful if User: Ruud Koot started addressing his behaviour issues seriously, instead of smearing whoever disagrees with his views with accusations of sockpuppeting, using throw-away accounts, being single-purpose accounts spammers, insulting him, acting in organised fashion.
As a relatively new contributor to this encyclopaedia, I don’t feel this continuous sort of bullying and smearing makes me want to stay here much longer.Marco castellani 1965 (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr. Also, bolding excessively is very annoying. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Seth Rich - restore category:living people

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

---

Hello,

I am a current editor on the Seth Rich article, which has been contentious lately. A new editor removed category:living people [231] and this needs to be restored. I am assuming this was a good faith edit. Hopefully, it is understandable why I don't want to do a revert, and maybe the other editors don't as well. I request an admin please restore this category to avoid needless argument (if that were to happen). This article is under BLP (WP:BDP - recently passed away) and Arbcom sanctions - American Politics 2. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: If I understand correctly, Seth Rich (which redirects to Murder of Seth Rich), is about a recently deceased person. Why then would you wish to reinstate Category:Living People? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: This person, as the victim, falls under BLP per WP:BDP specifically for (and I quote) "people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime".

The family has publicly expressed grief about his death and distress pertaining to Julian Assange's actions as noted by the press, and the rumor mongering and conspiracy theorizing occuring on the internet. Steve Quinn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

We still don't put dead people in a category which says they're living. An article does not have to be in the BLP category to be covered by BLP/BDP policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Steve Quinn, have you actually bothered to read Category:Living people, which explicitly states Possibly living people, missing people, and dead people are not included here, including the recently deceased? You are unquestionably the one in the wrong here, and you owe Politrukki (whom I note you haven't bothered to notify despite the enormous bright orange instruction you saw when you created this thread) a fairly grovelling apology. ‑ Iridescent 16:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Oh I agree entirely that BDP applies in this case Steve, wasn't disputing that - only the fact that the category is for living people, which this person is not. I don't see why we would want a deceased individual in a category for living people -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To the admins -- Please see this: Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Administrative reminder re: BLP policy. ---Steve Quinn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I am not interested in Iridescent's attitude - it is inappropriate in the venue. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If that wiki link didn't work well try this [232] (it goes to the same intended place). Thank you. 16:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs)

OK. I am beginning to see your point. I will have a discussion with others related to this article. Apparently, I misunderstood why this category is in place.Steve Quinn (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input Steve Quinn (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Ashley Massaro, copyvio images, and tweets from the subject

• Ashley Massaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tweets from @ashleymassaro11:
  • "Hey guys I have a big favor to ask.Can any one of you guys PLZ change my pic on Wikipedia 2 ANYTHING other than the horrible photo up now?"
  • "Thanks so much doll! Sent you a DM-lets change this 1 tho-I would pic 1 but it has 2 b licensed or something idk how"

So, apparently the barrage of image changes today, which were all scraped from elsewhere on the web, was set off by Massaro herself. Do we have some way to handle situations like this to reach out to the subject (or her agents) about properly donating an image, if she'd like to change it? Since, as far as I can tell, Massaro herself wasn't directly involved, there's no way to do it on-Wiki. And off-Wiki, I'll leave that to WP:VRT and others further up the food chain. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-protected the page. A publicity photo has to be freely licensed, and they invariably aren't. As you said, we can't do it here, and OTRS is available if Massaro wants to do it herself. Katie^talk 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There's an FAQ about that. She did notice Katie's semi-protection: "Welp, the moderator came in and kicked us all out lol everything is back the way it was now I guess we are gonna have a hard time changin it" I also see that a reasonable response to her was from Nat Gertler, but she seems to have ignored it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Being the idiot I am, I also gave my two cents. I don't think it'll be regarded as everybody is insisting that the picture should be changed. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User not assuming good faith

Abcmaxx doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. Four good examples are as follows:

1. In the first example, they, in their own way, say that most editors on Wikipedia are "holier than thou". (That's what I got from the first part, anyway.) I've clarified this point and a couple other things below. See my comment with the green text. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
2. In my second example, the editor is not assuming good faith with another editor. He seems to go so far as (in my opinion) insulting the other editor. The discussion also shows that the other editor knows what AGF is, as they use it as a defense.
3. In the third example, the editor borderline insults (in my opinion) an editor who reviewed their draft, Draft:Adana derby (The draft was deleted moments ago under WP:G4 while I was preparing this. I apologize for the inconvenience.), which is apparently a recreation of a deleted page (Adana derby). There was a discussion related to this draft at WP:THQ#Draft: Adana derby and previous deletions, where I found out about Abcmaxx.
4. In my final example, I left a template warning about the third example on Abcmaxx's talk page. Because I was personally involved in this example, I'll leave it up to your interpretation.

-- Gestrid (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

In an effort to keep this discussion as fair as possible, I have not pinged any other involved editors, other than the editor this discussion is about. If someone else believes they should be pinged, feel free to do so. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell the problem is. Any edit (and none of them qualify for vandalism or disruprive or any of the other crap I get accussed) I do seems warrant a warning mesaage and an immediate threat without an explanation. Any reaction it is just taken as an insult. Either take the time to explain stuff without having to resort to questioning/threatening me on every edit I make or just leave me the alone. I'm allowed to submit as many drafts as I like btw and what I like and if you reject them it should be for a different reason than "i don't like it" or "i re-hased the same argument over again" Abcmaxx (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, you appear to be an experienced editor who has created many articles, so why still use AfC? You could move the article to mainspace yourself and not have to go through the hassle of review. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason why User:Abcmaxx submitted the draft via AfC is obvious. Their article had already been deleted three times, so that, by submitting it to AfC, they were trying to game the system and get it past a reviewer. They knew that if they just moved the draft to mainspace, it would probably get another WP:G4, or at least a third nomination for deletion, and were trying to pull a fast one. When the reviewer noticed that it had been deleted three times, and as a result declined it, they chose to insult the reviewer, saying that I hadn't reviewed it (which I had). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As has been noted many times before, White Arabian Filly there is no need to place "non-admin comment" in front of your comment. Feel free to remove this notice (I guess?) and preferably redact your NAC declaration. Most comments on this page would have that pointless template if it were needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's what I got from the first part, anyway and in my opinion are not phrases one should ever see in an accusation that another user is violating AGF. It essentially says "I am assuming this user is acting in bad faith". Saying that many editors on Wikipedia holier-than-thou is not an AGF-violation, and that isn't even what is there. Criticizing another editor for what in one's view was a faulty review is not an AGF-violation, or even an insult. I am now a little afraid I will get a new ANI thread opened about how I am assuming bad faith, even though all I did was check the links and form an opinion about whether the OP's claims were accurate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, criticizing another editor for what is in one's view a faulty review is not an AGF violation, but suggesting that they didn't review the article is an AGF violation and is insulting. Submitting an article that was identical to a deleted article via AfC was an attempt to game the system also. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, I now see that your rationale for rejecting the draft was not just because the article didn't include inline citations, but the OP didn't present any evidence of that in the form of diffs, so I commented based on the evidence that had been presented to me. You then responded, and still did not present any evidence, so I had to go hunting for what actually happened in the contribs of you and Abcmaxx. I have seen plenty of people who accept or reject all sorts of things based on them being well-referenced or poorly-referenced, when it really didn't look like they had even reviewed the page. So when all I see is one user saying "you didn't review it, did you?", all I can do is assume good faith on their part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I had no obligation to review the draft, although I did review it. I could see that the draft had already been deleted. One of the questions for a reviewer is whether the draft will survive a deletion discussion. I could see that it already had been deleted three times. Their resubmission of the draft in the exact state in which it had been deleted was not a good faith act. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I do now realize that my initial post could've been worded better, Hijiri88. With the "my opinion" stuff, I meant that that's what I got from it and others may read it differently. This was my first time starting a discussion at ANI, though I have participated in some ANI discussions. As for the thing about their user page, there was, as an example, this from the opening paragraph: Wikipedia used to be for everyone, now it has just been narrowed down to small a group of frequent contributors who steamroll every decision that they don't agree with, and seek the self-destruction of Wikipedia, hence the rising number of stubs and declining number of articles. This says that frequent editors of Wikipedia essentially shoot down everything new contributors (later referred to as "outsiders" on that page) do that they don't like, no matter what. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and if eight years into your Wikipedia career you had a stalker force you off Wikipedia for a while, and when you came back you were reluctant to log into your account and had to edit from a shifting IP for personal safety reasons, and every couple of days someone referred to you as a "new editor" or "the IP", you would know that, yes, new contributors and "outsiders" are treated differently. But I acknowledge that your opening comment was poorly formatted and you may have had a point. I don't want to go hunting down diffs to find out if what you said is accurate or not, so I'm just going to recuse myself from the rest of this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What's more worrying is that this isn't a new problem but rather a long-term incivility problem. Here's collection of some of their comments:

Fucking joke really is (diff)

you guys just like being irrational by posting stupid messages like this (diff)

you just hashed out the same old stupid argument. (diff

you're too far up your own arse to admit it (diff)

everyone is a little butthurt that they didn't get their way beforehand (diff)

AFC wank wank wank (diff)

I referenced it you idiot (diff)

Stop being a complete idiot please. (diff)

it's usually the more active "contributors" who just go round AfD debates going "delete" (diff)

I wouldn't class "Dead Bull Drinks FC" as a Leipziger club (diff, this is insult directed at RB Leipzig)

The last of these is particularly worrying since it suggests that this not just a simple matter of not keeping a cool head in a dispute. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm allowed to be frustrated when every edit seems to be reverted, slapped a warning message on and then assuming bad faith. If you can't accept criticism or bother to explain stuff just going for the straight "gung ho" approach then that's how any normal person would react. I don't know why everyone is so sentitive, I'm assuming everyone is an adult and hears much worse in the real world. Also I explained my position in User talk:Abcmaxx#Edit summaries. I'm allowed to express opinions as much as I like, not classing RB Leipzig as Leipziger club or being of the opinion articles are deleted far too often are ones I'm perfectly entitled to. Also double standards, look at any MK Dons related discussion, there's at least a few people directing all sorts of anti-Dons stuff even seen a ridulous userbox once "say no franchising like MK Dons" - that's pretty much is an insult, but I don't go crying about it. Despite the best attempts to delegitimise my edits none of them have ever been in bad faith. I've made articles, I've hugely expanded some - Relocation of professional sports teams and Relocation of sports teams in the United Kingdom, Górnik Konin, I cleared up the BSG Chemie Leipzig/FC Sachsen Leipzig mess. - just a few out of many examples and in fact in the contributions list you'll see that in fact I've contributed more than a lot of people. If you want to force me off Wikipedia then fine, I don't really want to be hounded and waste my time on discussions like this. Like I've pointed out, this is not a job, I don't get paid, I don't have a boss and there's no point me doing something that I do just for a little fun to wind down if I'm just going to cause me grief and be nit picked all the time. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

IGI Global loss of history

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

---

IGI Global is a contested article and has been for a while, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global. Both the article and the talk page appear to have lost their history somehow. Could that history please be restored in some fashion please? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)if the new ar

Stuartyeates, I'm not an administrator, so I can't be sure, but it's possible their histories were deleted on purpose by an administrator for some reason. There are many reasons why page history can be deleted. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The article was speedy deleted by JzG per WP:A7 last week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note it was recreated as a new article IGI Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on the 28th which is why Stuartyeates could not find the old edit history. It might be worth an admin comparing the two versions of the article to determine a course of action - ie merge the old and new one, delete again, or leave the new one as is. MarnetteD|Talk 04:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• There was no claim to notability. There still isn't. It exists, and that is literally all we can say about it. Guy (Help!) 06:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's only of the highest profile 'vampire presses.' Here are some sources with in-depth independent coverage https://copy-shake-paste.blogspot.co.nz/2007/12/write-only-publications.html http://bogost.com/writing/blog/writeonly_publication/ https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/07/16/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-new-journal-spam-and-%E2%80%9Copen-access%E2%80%9D/ Alas, these kinds of sources don't appear to last very long in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like it's getting the discussion it needs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Soteria place

Soteria place (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've come to report Soteria place for being WP:NOTHERE. For the past month, ever since a strange edit quickly reverted at a project page, I've been patrolling Special:CentralAuth/Soteria place for the utter nonsense test edits he/she's been doing in the sandboxes and occasionally on article pages, only to have them reverted. This user's also been testing, making nonsensical edits and misusing templates at Wikidata and Meta. The user's been warned repeatedly at these wikis, and it includes a block at Commons.

It's tiring chasing an editor around cross-wiki to cleanup. I've already issued a level4 warning, which the editor has ignored. I suggest the user has editing privileges removed from at least enwiki, and possibly locked for being NOTHERE on all projects, given the evidence in contributions. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Saint-Peterburg at Binding energy again

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

---

Re this, you might like to know that this same person 91.122.0.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (compare with 91.122.11.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) ) has now re-emerged with a string of similar edits at Binding energy. I have reverted the edits ([233]) and left a pointer to User talk:91.122.11.68 at User talk:91.122.0.253. I also left a message at user's EdJohnston‎ talk, but Ed might be on a leave.

Meanwhile anon already has restored their content ([234]) with yet another ip: 91.122.2.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). In view of this, the article might need semi-protection. - DVdm (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And reverted again: [235]. - DVdm (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And again [236]. Also warned for 3RR at User talk:91.122.2.106. - DVdm (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Now taken to AN3: [237]. - DVdm (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• The relevant SPIs are
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Systemizer/Archive
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Antichristos/Archive
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/8i347g8gl/Archive

These SPIs should be merged, if anyone thinks it's worth the time. The IP has caused the permanent semi-protection of at least one article. In March 2015, HJ Mitchell range-blocked 91.122.0.0/21 and 89.110.0.0/19 for one year.[238] I would suggest doing this again. Too bad for the people of Saint Petersberg using that Internet provider, but this is a fiercely dedicated edit warrior who has been inserting nonsense into articles for at least six years. Manul ~ talk 13:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Antichristos. - DVdm (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ahem... we now have a message at User talk:EdJohnston‎, this here, an entry at AN3, and an entry at SPI. Talking about forum shopping, right... ah well . - DVdm (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:MTrilochan: violation of unblock conditions

I blocked this user for spamming last week. Following this, they were unblocked after explicitly agreeing to not write about their business. However, User:MTrilochan/sandbox does exactly that.

Please also revoke talk page access for blatant dishonesty. MER-C 10:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

While it's true they agreed not to write about their business, their sandbox article is a considerably improved attempt over their deleted Draft. I'd be willing to AGF and let them work on/submit that; a sandbox article isn't causing any harm and I wouldn't even say it qualifies for G11. Sam Walton (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• As Sam Walton says: they agreed not to write about their business; that seems pretty explicit, and as such, a pretty explicit breach of their assurances. As we say to everyone else- if it's notable, someone(else) will write about it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

While I don't disagree, they agreed not to write about their business because they weren't doing so neutrally. They have now written a fairly neutral - if not great - article, so I think that while the literal word of the unblock condition has indeed been violated, re-blocking them would accomplish very little. Sam Walton (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Having now actually looked at the page you link to, I see it's not bad (and, indeed, there's far worse here already). Think it could probably do without most of the stuff below the 'History' section, condensed into a sentence or two perhaps, and that that opening section itself needs to avoid terms like "They successfully XYZ". As for the block question, yep, it would probably be punative now. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am currently helping the user on IRC. He is writing in a neutral fashion. He misinterpreted what an admin told him, that's why he made the draft. But, I don't see a point in blocking him, as he is editing constructively. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case I would advise making the edits suggested. From one content contributor to another :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack by user User:WWGB

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

---

User:WWGB has engaged in a personal attack against me, by calling me an idiot, in contravention to Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, the time of the offense was 17:25, August, 29 2016 (UTC) please see further details. [[239]] --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 12:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Not particularly impressed by the behaviour of either of you. Yes that was a trifle pretty uncollegiate; but perhaps the editor was becoming increasingly exasperated by your line of argument? You fail to assume good faith, claim that reports from a Supreme Court are effectively not a reliable source, and finally say the subject's death was natural selection. I also see that after he says that, you say "And there were have it give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves"; this suggests that you were intentionally provoking the other editor with the intention of getting the response you did, and the excuse to file at ANI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  Disagree with your "increasingly exasperated" reasoning. No one was forced to continue arguing with the OP. S/he could have been granted last word and the RfC allowed to play out. Granting last word is not concession, and there is no "persistent bad reasoning" exception in WP:NPA. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, it already followed an assumption of bad faith and a perceived misunderstanding of sourcing. (BTW, you mentioned '"persistent bad reasoning"'- not me) _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As always, I oppose the deserved personal attack doctrine, which is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I merely observe that 'deserved' and 'understandable' are not synonymous. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please point me to the policy that allows personal attack to be forgiven as "understandable". I don't see that provision in NPA. And again, the argument could have been cut short long before the point of exasperation. It takes at least two to keep an argument going. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In this particular case, am echoing WP:IUC: A user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken. There is undoubtedly responsibility to be allocated in this case, and that is to both parties (as, indeed I said in my first post here). As you say: it takes two. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

From that same page, baiting is "deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." There is zero evidence that the OP was deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility. You are confusing persistent bad reasoning (and AGF failure, etc.) with baiting, with predictably poor results. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please try and desist from the personal attacks yourself ("with predictably poor results", indeed). No I am not confusing the two. as I pointed out above, I never mentioned 'persistent bad reasoning': that is yet another misattribution on my words. I have already shown how the OP could be perceived to have shown bad faith towards the other editor, and also that they seem to have deliberately pushing towards this result. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. I see nothing in the OP's comments other than an inability to let go and a bit of AGF failure. Since this has now devolved into equating a phrase like "with predictably poor results" with personal attack, I will follow my own advice and move on, lest I become increasingly exasperated and call you an idiot. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I note that 'a bit of AGF failure' is actually the same as 'incivility,' so that's snap. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Whether or not the subject's death was natural selection is merely my opinion, as is wheather it was murder or not, the more accurate descriptions would be homicide. The basis for the claim is that it was murder originates from a claim by the Supreme Court of NSW, you maybe familiar that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources. Nonetheless whether it was murder or not will depend upon the law, not Wikipedia policy, it is already reported that there was a conviction and the reader would be of the view that particular jurisdiction determined it to be murder. However from a encyclopedic view it should be described as a homicide. The user was getting sentimental about the facts, and resorted a personal attacks, a clear violation of Wikipeidia policy and ought to be reprimanded for that in accorance with policy.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 13:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't the forum to revist the content dispute, even your WP:STRAWMAN argument. The Supreme Court isn't the article's source; the various WP:RS that reported its verdict are. In any case, I stand by my original assessment of a breach of WP:CIVIL on both parties' parts.

_Muffled ^Pocketed 14:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, WWGB consider yourself chastised for using impolite language when responding to the OP's characterization of a murder victim (as described by secondary sources) as an "alleged victim". Eng.M.Bandara, please refrain from espousing what is merely your opinion. See WP:NOR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I was merely using it to put in to perspective that WWGB claim even if supported by an RS, are an opinon of the facts, WP should report facts not options. This discussion should take place at the talk page, I would like to see policy put in place to maintain consistency globally around articles such as these. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 14:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That is, unfortunately, very much not the case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

United States Commission on Civil Rights

Could I please get some additional eyes on this page? Thanks very much, GAB^gab 15:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted back to your version. The issue I'm seeing, among the multiple "we are..." in the lede, was that a large part of the page was a copyvio from [240]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

While the wording should be changed to reflect "we" to "It is", etc. Because the document is a government document there technically is no copyright issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Patrick.net

I wanted to request some additional eyes at Patrick.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as the related AfD discussion.

The article was nominated for AfD; since then some additional third-party refs have been added to the article, and article improvement appears to be ongoing. But, over the weekend, the forum posted a discussion soliciting their members to comment in the AfD.[241] I tagged the AfD discussion with {{not a ballot}}; but also had to purge some cruft that had been added by one of the contributors to that website.[242] Given those developments, some additional monitoring of the pages would be helpful. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, be prepared for the flood of SPA's. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Tjdrum2000

Not heeding warnings, genre warring, overlinking. Just a major pain, as is. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Could probably do with a bit more that that mate ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the user is obviously a newbie, and I believe is making edits in good faith, not realising they go against policy. I don't believe he/she has been warned prior to now about genre warring, for example. 16:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Since they have continued the same "newbie" disruption, maybe you would be so kind to "School them". I've tried. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I've tried too. See their talk page! Popcornduff (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation

Many editors are raising concerns about the biased writing that had turned the Clinton Foundation article into a fluff piece. Some much-needed editing has begun to be undertaken to eliminate the fluff from the article. However, after I suggested that we consider an RfC to make sure that the needed clean-up to the article will be made by unbiased editors, an editor shut down the entire talk page thread. Can somebody look into this ? Given that the talk page thread got shut down exactly points to why I though that there was a need for an RfC.. Thank you. --maslowsneeds🌈 16:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, I had a bit of a run in with this user a few days ago when they attempted to simply remove another user's comment because they disagreed with it. It does seem they are a touch overzealous when it comes to attempts at unofficially moderating talk page discussion. TimothyJosephWood 17:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That first thread should have been deleted, closed, or archived, and the editor starting it (and this complaint) either warned, or depending on their editing history, blocked, indeffed, topic banned, or referred to SPI — a familiar screed against the editors on the page, accusing them of working for the Clinton campaign or some similar nonsense that plagues the American politics articles every four years. The second thread deletion was perhaps overzealous in removing what was becoming a BLPVIO. A warning, proposed close, and archive might have worked better, but that second editor too is getting out of hand on the political articles. Several editors had to repeatedly redact, and ultimately close, that thread because the promoter of that thread was getting into conspiracy theories involving Hillary Clinton, the Orlando shooter, and the shooter's father. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Given that you apparently think that everybody is running an agenda on the Clinton Foundation article, don't you then therefore believe that the fair course of action to take would be to raise an RfC, so that outside editors can suggest/make edits ? --maslowsneeds🌈 17:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The first thread seems a great deal like "ending a discussion over the objections of other editors" by someone who is already fairly involved in the discussion. The second was simply contrary to WP:TPO, and ended up being a protracted discussion and a currently open RfC. The RfC seems likely to fail, which is fine, but that's how you decide consensus, not by unilaterally dictating what discussions are and are not worth having. TimothyJosephWood 17:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Why come to the defense of the disruptive editors? Involved or not, cleaning a talk page of content-free screeds accusing the editing community of bad faith is necessary work. Similarly, dealing with people proposing BLP-violating conspiracy theories is necessary work — the editor proposing the nonsense promoted the pointless RfC, not the editors dealing with it. The decision on which discussions are worth having is set by policy and talk page guidelines having to do with collaborative editing an encyclopedia. Article talk pages are not forums for editors to taunt and swipe at each other. That's what AN/I is for. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Because both actions were fairly evidently against 1) guidance on the use of Template:Collapse, and 2) policy regarding editing other's comments? I figured that would have been fairly clear from my comment above. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
          • In the present case, deleting, collapsing, or archiving a clearly disruptive thread is the preferred action. In the earlier case, the disruptive editor could possibly use some mentorship, guidance, or administrative caution. In both, coming to the defense of the disruption, or trying to scold the editors who are doing something about it, only encourages it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
            • In the present case, the thread was started by a user with 22k edits and a clean block log, so I think it's a little presumptuous to stamp it as clearly disruptive and stifle discussion. They certainly could have gone about things in a more constructive way, and that can be addressed, but if someone wants to open a discussion about POV, there's nothing self-evidently inappropriate about that.

At the end of the day, circumventing policy to end personally distasteful discussion, is probably part of the reason frustrated editors end up resorting to accusations of systemic bias in the first place...because...well...if stifling discussion in this way is a recurring theme, that's pretty much the definition of a systemic bias. Either way, it's fairly clearly against policy. TimothyJosephWood 18:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Managing talk page discussions is clearly supported by policy. Further, if you compare outcomes, your interpretation of coddling disruptive editors increases disruption; mine avoids it. That's the point of policy to begin with. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to take some time to actually review the relevant policies and guidelines I've linked to. TimothyJosephWood 19:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So you've run out of arguments? Fair enough. My point stands. Broad screeds accusing the body of editors of being paid employees of a political party have no place on political article talk pages. The correct response to minimize disruption and encourage orderly article editing is to remove, archive, or collapse these promptly. Personally, I would archive in place after a warning, but if the editor is a repeat offender best to follow the lessons of WP:DENY. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And DENY is an essay (not policy) about vandalism (which this isn't). Please see WP:RTP and note that both the refactoring and the failure of the editor to self revert when someone took issue are both against guidance there. Please review guidance at WP:TPO and note that refactoring should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. TimothyJosephWood 19:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards. Broadside attacks on other editors should be archived and BLP violations removed, even if over the obvious and inevitable objections of editors causing the disruption. Throwing up a wall of misplaced policy defenses to clearly inappropriate use of the talk pages simply encourages disruption, and doing so here on AN/I encourages people to waste our time with frivolous reports. The bottom line of this incident is that an editor who should know better shouldn't be making those accusations on article talk pages, there is some concern there about possible sockpuppeting, and as we've discussed on other pages it sometimes takes a little patience and finesse to keep the talk pages in order without unduly biting or inciting the people who don't have the hang of it. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Point of order : I'm not requesting a RfC about the breakdown in communication on the Talk Page. I'm requesting the RfC for editors without a vested interest in keeping the fluff in the article to ensure neutrality of the article. That is what an RfC is supposed to achieve : Bring in outsiders to offer an uninterested perspective. maslowsneeds🌈 20:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You're requesting a conduct RfC which is pointless. If you have a specific edit you'd like made, either to remove or add content, then start an RFC on that. If you have numerous edits that you think would make the article more neutral, start a complex RFC on that. Otherwise, if you want to just gripe about whether or not there is a class of editors with a bias on that page, that's not the appropriate place. If it's sockpuppetry, that's for WP:SPI. If it's NPOV, then it's a content issue. If it's purely one-sided disruptive behavior from someone, then WP:AE can be a remedy. It is subject to general sanctions so if there's a violation of 1RR or other issues, then it's best to just let non-involved admins police it but general complaints about "bias" go nowhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not a conduct RfC. This article needs to be updated. If I were to make updates to improve its neutrality, I would be flagged and reported, and the article would be put on lockdown, and you know it. I have asked for extra eyes from this page, because of indication that there have been bias edits made to that article that turned the article into a fluff piece. I came here in good faith prior to making a request for an RfC, bc somebody, who is independent of the politics of that page should update the article. As it stands, since I have mentioned the need for an RfC, the relevant thread on the Talk Page was shut down, and now who knows how many other threads were just purged from the Talk Page. Does Wikipedia countenance this kind of obvious shilling ? maslowsneeds🌈 22:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up but pulling the ole shill gambit generally doesn't end well. Capeo (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

REVDEL

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

---

Hi all,

As my userpage and talkpage have come under attack lately, may I request an admin to revdel the IP edits on User:MeowMoon/Articles & User talk:MeowMoon. Thanks.

Also if an admin feels as though the IP's involved should be blocked they are:

• 2607:FB90:985:8733:2139:DA4C:33F7:C9BD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:484:C102:1FA0:28E0:6D20:D68D:414F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks. MeowMoon (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Done. If it comes up again, the articles subpage can be semi-protected. Just ping me or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks Ricky81682! :-) MeowMoon (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Notation

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

---

I thought I'd make a note here in case I ever applied for an Administrator. [[243]], This edit here was made by someone whom accessed my account as I forget to log out of a shared school computer. (Yes. I know. Massively stupid mistake.) I am changing my password as a result of this. I just thought I'd note it here so that if I ever applied people would understand why this edit occurred. Thanks for your time. TheGRVOfLightning(talk) 00:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, you reverted it, it's a minor edit, and I doubt anyone would have cared. This notice board is for incidents that require administrator intervention. You probably would have been better off just pretending it never happened. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The edit was made on your userpage, I don't think a single person would have cared about it being made, let alone an administrator. This thread here would be far more detrimental to your application as an administrator than that relatively minor edit. As such I am going to pre-emptively close this thread as unneeded. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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