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

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 [1] and [2] 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. 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 [3][4] and here making further unfounded accusations that I am "dedicated to disruption" [5]. A few uncivil/baiting comments towards User_talk:Py0alb regarding spelling of Panini, with this diff [6] being one example. User:Roberthall7 is under a bit of a personal attack here [7] 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, [8] but I don't know the details of that. Travelmite (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also from the same page: [9] Travelmite (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Looking at Travelmite's diffs above, I think they lend far more credence to my assertion that he stuck his nose in and harassed me for months.
2. He says, "You won't find a single other editor to confirm these accusations." I direct attention here, where the other victim of his attention underscores my assertions.
3. Travelmite lodged spurious Conflict of interest reports against each of us, has been blocked multiple times for harassing other editors, and still claims he has the highest integrity. I disagree with his claim. I think he has proven himself wrong many times over. --Pete (talk) 07:52, 7 September 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)

Regarding the interactions, none of these are accurate. I never outed Meisianiacal nor did I try. I did not create an off-wiki page or link it - that doesn't even make sense. Maintenance of privacy was always taken into full consideration. Requests from others to explain my information on-wiki were refused, because I didn't trust them enough. Fortunately later, Meisianiacal made a solemn declaration to an admin, which took the COI issue away. Meisianiacal, just to let you know that this incident report is not a problem. You didn't open it. Your privacy remains an absolute priority. Travelmite (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This is blatantly untrue. Travelmite made a specific identification, and threw in allegations of a sexual nature. Some evidence of this remains on-wiki. For obvious reasons I shall not comment further, though I can back up my statements privately to senior Wikiofficials if need be.--Pete (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Linguist111, I'm brought out of my major off-Wiki commitments at the moment after User:Travelmite messaged me and you reverted that message on my Talk page. Your issue with his message may well have merit. Is it in keeping with standard WP practices for WP editors to remove material from each others' talk pages? Assuming it is, please explain your edit. Also, do you have a history of dealing with the editors in question, or is this your first interaction with them? Turning to the issue of this ANI:

• Due to my major off-Wiki commitments I don't have time to become fully involved.
• I know nothing about Travelmite's alleged connections to other accounts (that happen to be in China), a serious matter if true. Nor do I know about his full record of editing WP and attitude toward User:Miesianiacal which from the description, if accurate, appears to be in need of change.
• What I do know is that Travelmite's issues with Pete/Skyring have merit in at least one article. I recommend observers take a very close look at the School of Economic Science Talk page, before drawing any conclusions about Travelmite and this ANI. He, I and Pete/Skyring have for months been the most active editors on that article. Pete/Skyring has self-identified himself as a member of the School of Economic Science, an organization variously described as a church, school, cult or new religious movement.
• On that Talk page Pete/Skyring has been identified by afair Travelmite, myself and User:Fiddlersmouth as disruptive, and afair the three of us ceased to assume his good faith and identified his personal attacks. On the Talk page there, you'll see a repeated allegation from Pete/Skyring that I am a WP:SPA, and my explanatory response to it, including notice of my disengagement due to the discussion becoming both personal and adversarial. Until now, I have maintained that disengagement, averted edit-warring and direct Talk-page debate with Pete/Skring. Nevertheless Pete/Skyring has continued to bait me; one tactic appears to be a switch to referring to me in discussions with other editors as female ("she" , "her" etc), when nobody else on WP does, and despite my username being Roberthall7. I haven't taken the bait. There's plenty more problematic behavior where that came from.
• On that Talk page, afair User:Keithbob recommended Travelmite, myself, User:Fiddlersmouth and Pete/Skyring going to ANI instead of undertaking lengthy Talk page discussion about behavior. Travelmite replied that he hoped it didn't get to ANI, presumably because he wanted to keep things cool. So it may be that Travelmite's refusal to go as far as ANI was well-intentioned, but that resulted instead in a sort of vigilante 'policing' behaviour by him to deal with Pete/Skyring. That may have caused a negative impression about Travelmite to be formed. He might indeed have been better off going to ANI in the first place, as Keithbob advised.
• For the record, I have had involved content disagreements and differences of opinion with Travelmite. Even at their most entrenched, I not once found his editing or comments to be disruptive, manipulative or uncivil, which seems to be the final test of all allegedly inappropriate WP behavior. On the contrary, he has been meticulously even-handed, sometimes appearing to at least partially support Pete/Skyring, while disagreeing with me. The result has been establishment of consensus and stability to the School of Economic Science article, for which Travelmite is due for acknowledgement and praise.
• If Travelmite were to get blocked, administrators would need to observe what Peter/Skyring then does at the School of Economic Science article without Travelmite being there to provide balance. It may be that this ANI was launched by Pete/Skyring to tactically remove the balance that Travelmite has provided to that article, for a while at least.
• Pete/Skyring has a long history of blocks due to disruptive behavior, and he has just come out of a two-week block. It's conspicuous that he would choose now, of all times, to cast aspersions about Travelmite with an ANI. Is it some kind of emotional retaliation? Aside from Travelmite, I and afair at least one other editor, Fiddlersmouth, having ceased to assume Pete/Skyring's good faith on an article in which they interacted at length. As such, Pete/Skyring's ANI about Travelmite should not be concluded without further scrutiny of Pete/Skyring himself.
• At the School of Economic Science Talk page Pete/Skying has made deceptive edits, to the extent that I am skeptical about his allegations against Travelmite here.
• If the allegation about Travelmite using Chinese proxies turns out to be true, and I note that he has immediately denied them, one solution to think about might be a combination of an interaction ban for Travelmite as well as a topic ban for Pete/Skyring that stops the disruption which may have prompted Travelmite's vigilante 'policing'.
• Either way, I would now support an ANI scrutinizing Pete/Skyring's behavior at the School of Economic Science article, in which I would expect and welcome scrutiny of myself.
• Based on past form, Pete/Skyring will attempt to undermine my observations on the grounds that I'm a WP:SPA. I'm confident that administrators know disruptive behavior is the test of editors' conduct. If I've been disruptive, then please show me where and I'll apologize and make amends.
• I'm getting back to my off-Wiki work now, and give notice that I'll be preoccupied with that for the next couple of weeks. Thanks and good luck, -Roberthall7 (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Roberthall7! Perhaps you could provide a diff for Travelmite's "immediate denial" of editing via Chinese IP proxies? That would be interesting, given that his contributions show him claiming the edits made by several such proxies. You seem to applaud Travelmite for (in your words) "vigilante" behaviour. We don't support vigilantes on Wijipedia. We have well-established policies for dealing with disruption; one example is this noticeboard. Could you clarify your statements above on these two points, please? --Pete (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the 'School of Economic Science' article & haven't been involved with it. But in my past dealings with Travelmite, I've found him to be an honest fellow, who cuts through the baloney. GoodDay (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay! On the issue of honesty, what do you make of his claim to have interacted with me a "mere three times"? As you know, the true figure would be in the hundreds, and this may be checked by looking through his contributions. This is why I make the charge of WP:Wikihounding. Would you be in favour of an interaction ban? --Pete (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

IBANs tend to be problematic & short term solutions. I'm not sure how to solve this disagreement between 2 editors. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we two have some disagreements from time to time, but I think we get on amicably enough, wouldn't you say? I don't go hunting you around the wikipedia to comment on what you're doing and to !vote against you. Wikihounding is a serious business, and most of what Travelmite has done here is to harass Mies and myself. I think an IBAN would solve that immediate problem. Others here are in agreement on this point. Perhaps I'll open up a vote section. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The three interactions are Australian head of state dispute, Panini (sandwich) and School of Economic Science. Actually, it's two because I simply voted for Panini spelling under an RfC and didn't interact with anyone. Travelmite (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Panini thing was a clear example of stalking.

1. I was summoned to that RfC by Legobot on my talk page here on 3 May 2016. This is the sandwich, rather than the reknowned Sanskrit grammarian, Pāṇini, of course. I found a proposal to bastardise a perfectly good Italian word, which appalled me, and I !voted in favour of grammar on 5 May.
2. I also found one of those interesting people who "care too much" and had some enjoyable time with him, which was naturally reflected in my contributions. When someone battles over some trivial word, I find it fascinating. There were some interesting people in the "winningest" discussion in January.[10]
3. Travelmite followed me there on 13 May - he was watching my contributions - and !voted the opposite way here.
4. Travelmite does not subscribe to any RfC notification service. Nor does he participate in !votes of any kind unless I am involved in some way. Not one. That's stalking. --Pete (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, you say "The accusations above are all false" meaning that you deny that you used proxy accounts. Does that mean the alleged 'Chinese proxy accounts' were simply your IP addresses created automatically by WP because you hadn't signed in (an oversight which you then corrected)? Or do you have any other explanation? The use of the phrase 'proxy' is an accusation of puppetry, which won't be taken lightly at ANI. -Roberthall7 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert, you're entirely correct. I'm not a network expert, but I certainly don't deliberately use proxies and don't use them as far as I am aware. But let's allow Pete/Skring to make the accusations, because that won't be taken lightly either. He is a member of the School of Economic Science, but somehow free of COI restrictions [11] and seeking an interaction ban. Travelmite (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to believe you, but in that case, could you explain the three diffs above that show you signing your name on edits made using Chinese proxies? It's not possible to "accidentally" use those IPs unless (a) you are in China, or (b) you are trying to hide your actual IP address. Those aren't an "accusation", but a simple fact. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's (a) being in China, and I accept that from you, it's not an accusation. I am extremely fortunate that my explanation is simple enough, as the tactic of Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions and getting others to be suspicious is highly effective. Most people in China are affected by the Censorship of Wikipedia and need to use open proxies (policy here ), but this has not been a problem for me. Furthermore, there has been no activity in the forum to warrant mentioning it in the first place. I deny all allegations, and draw your attention to Pete/Skyrings recent block and, to be fair, his response [12], but I don't know further details. Travelmite (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, if you were located in China when doing those IP edits which you then corrected, then it would appear that you did nothing wrong and may have been in receipt of a false accusation of malice. One could also ask whether the word 'Chinese' was used pejoratively to sensationalize the accusation. On that note, have you received fair warning that your activity was being perceived as stalking, prior to this ANI? In other words, have you been given fair opportunity to explain and/or change your behavior before being forced to by Administrators? It may be that this is the first time you've heard the stalking allegation. If so, a formal warning may be more appropriate than an interaction ban, and Keithbob's recommendation not to be shy of using the ANI noticeboard may be the new course you should take, instead of dealing with problematic editors on a piecemeal basis. -Roberthall7 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

These are new allegations. Furthermore they are false. At some point, you were being attacked for being SLA and the page called out about disruptive edits and management of COI issues. Travelmite (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I might have been improperly canvassed, but I might as well comment as I've come to the page. I was involved in the debate at the Australian head of state dispute page. That article has questionable merits, as it seems to have been created to promote a fringe view that the Queen is not Australia's head of state. It had effectively become a debating forum, with endless discussion pages in which the same points were raised time and again. A lot of the discussion was counterproductive and frustrating. Criticism could be made against many of the participants, including me. I don't think Travelmite stood out as doing anything objectionable. I can't comment about his behaviour on other pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack! We're not rehashing specific debates. Editors are entitled to their views and we have procedures to deal with diversity of opinion. Seems to be working fine so far, judging by the result. The problem is that Travelmite's contributions since late January consist mostly of him following myself and another editor around the wikipedia on a range of diverse topics, always with a contrary position, always creating discord. I'm looking to put a stop to that. WP:Wikihounding is the topic here. --Pete (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Like Jack, I too question the existence of the Australian head of state dispute article, but of course that's something to discuss 'there. Anyways, I'm going to go neutral on the IBAN & allow other editors (who've not been involved much with either yourself or Travelmite in the past) to decide this one. GoodDay (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important to look at the context. Pete accused Travelmite of being disruptive of the Australian head of state dispute article in March — [13] — pointing to Travelmite's initial post in January. However, Travelmite's post is recorded in Archive 5. I had started contributing to the Talk pages in September last year, at which point the discussions began to become voluminous. Pete followed this up by calling Travelmite a troll: [14]. Note that Travelmite was essentially saying that the Queen was head of state. Hardly disruptive behaviour in itself. The article now has 8 talk page archives. Travelmite is only featured in a few. All of them feature Pete. This seems more like a case of ownership than trolling.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Be fair. I created the article, and maintain an interest. Two other editors also appear in every single archive, and together, with rthree diverse viewpoints, we found a reasonable stability. You came lately, but I don't accuse you of trolling, Jack, because you express a genuine interest, and you haven't followed me around to other unconnected articles. Your behaviour is, on the surface similar to Travelmite's, but I don't accuse you of trolling, now do I? There must be something I see in you that says authenticity. It it is because you come across that way. --Pete (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Interaction edit counts

Using one of the tools available from the WP:Wikihounding page, I have compiled a table of interactions here. --Pete (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The table (all periods) confirms the interactions relate to three issues: Australian head of state dispute (Jan-March 2016), one RfC vote on spelling Panini and the School of Economic Science (July 2016). The table of interactions over the past four months, when the Head of State Dispute was concluded is as follows:Editor Interaction Analyser

The analyser demonstrates beyond doubt how the allegation is false. Travelmite (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I had already done the edit interaction analysis and found that about 250 (140 the dispute page + 80 wikiproject + 40 their usertalk) of Travelmite's 790 edits are specifically congregated to 3 pages, that 400 or so of the total 790 are on pages that Skyring and Miesianiacal have also edited and that while there is a shocking amount of overlap it doesn't appear to me to be indicative of immediate Wikihounding, especially give that the overlap is across a total of 17 pages for all three editors, 19 for TM and Miesi and 33 for TM and Skyring (which is admittedly a lot), but, taking into account all the time lines; 7 of the overlaps with Miesi are in the past 24 hours with all of them being rather expected, however, this changes drastically in the case of Skyring where about 20 of the overlaps with Pete are in the past 24 hours with one of those being uncharacteristically out of place; Talk:Panini (sandwich). So, I'd discount Wikihounding with respect to Miesi, but, am not so ready to do so in the case of Skyring. Note, of the 20 overlaps I'd consider 15 of these to be entirely expected due to this report, the specific user talk pages, and the mutual interest in politics. It's possible that Panini is an unfortunate outlier and not an intentional following. A better pair of eyes with greater experience is needed to draw a definitive conclusion though, and this is merely my two cents based on what I am seeing and expecting to see. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr rnddude! I think we may discount some edits right off the bat, such as most of Travelmite's contributions on his own talk page. I wouldn't discount any of the Australian politics edits; they all concerned the one topic of Australian head of state. I see the Panini edits and the Brianhe RfA as smoking guns, rather than "unfortunate outliers". It is impossible to explain them as random chance. Travelmite saw them on my contributions, followed me there, and lodged a contrary !vote. --Pete (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Twelve articles and/or talk pages, totalling 256 edits.
• Nine Wikipedia project pages, totalling 157 edits
• Eight user talk pages, totalling 59 edits.
• Twenty-nine pages in total, of which Travelmite followed me there twenty-three times. 472 edits combined.
• Of Travelmite's 723 edits on en.wikipedia.org during that period, that's an intersection of 65%.
• So of Travelmite's entire Wikipedia contributions, two thirds involve overlapping contributions. If we discount Travelmite's 96 contributes before 26 January 2016, the ratio rises to 75%.

Two things are crystal clear:

1. Travelmite has focused his attention squarely on me to an astonishing degree.
2. Travelmite's claims to the contrary are risible.

I think readers will understand why I find it impossible to believe anything Travelmite says. The facts simply do not support him. --Pete (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no smoking gun. Brianhe RfC is easy to explain, because someone suggested I look at that page, and the words are "To see what I mean about community opinions on privacy and managing COI, and about "content not contributor", please have a look at this RFA, especially the concerns raised in the questions and in the oppose !votes" [15]. I didn't know he voted. I voted to spell Panini, because that's how everyone spells it, not because Pete/Skyring spells it Panino. That came up on a list of RfCs. It is inevitable that you will cross an editor who gets involved in thousands of articles every month (Total edits over 4 months: 16,932!).

Several editors hear have more interactions with Pete/Skyring that I do! Skyring also makes tenacious arguments building up the raw edit count, on the two occasions we interacted. On other pages, edits go smoothly and rarely followup is required. Broad statistics must be analysed properly. Thanks Mr rnddude for your conclusions. Travelmite (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Brianhe reference. That's plausible, but it raises the question of what you were doing arguing COI at all. Looking at your contributions, it's as if someone just flipped a switch in late January. The behaviour of the account changes radically, and suddenly instead of making rare trivial edits, you're a COI warrior. The character of the edits in articlespace changes. Even the language used on talk pages changes from almost non-existent and strained (see [16][17][18] for examples) to fluent, confident and plentiful. The difference in character is marked. What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?

I don't buy the Panini story at all. The only RfCs you've participated in have been those involving me. Three of them. I've just reviewed your entire contribution list, and there's no other examples. Not a single other instance of you joining a random RfC discussion. A normal person, looking at the list of current RfCs - and there are hundreds open at any one time - will see many that will pique their interest. In nearly two years you apparently only found one of these interesting enough to participate in, and it just happened to be one where I'd spent a week in animated discussion. Right.

And how do you explain your sudden interest in the School of Economic Science? There's only one explanation. You open up my user contributions to see what I've been doing, and you jump in, aiming to annoy me. That's stalking, and I want it stopped. --Pete (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason that one vote, once, would annoy a person. A person cannot expect to annoy someone by making one edit. This is not what stalking is and it does not make sense. That would mean any person who happened to vote would annoy you, and that it not their problem. My interest in School of Economic Science was not sudden. The COI issue was there since 2015. This is already documented on the COI noticeboard. Travelmite (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You stalked me by following me to the Panini RfC. You claim that you selected it from a list - of hundreds - after I'd been engaged there for a week of spirited discussion. I reject this as implausible for reasons given earlier. I think you looked at my contributions list, noted my activity, and followed me there. To mark the lamppost, as it were.

The same thing happened with School of Economic Science. You saw my activity and followed me there. How else would you even have been aware of it?

That's stalking. I'd like it stopped. --Pete (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the statistics, there is a major error in what Pete/Skyring presents. If he is trying to present "stalking" he must have a start date. His start date is prior to our first discussion. His statistics include our first discussion and everything that followed. He also includes this complaint. Apparently, meeting Pete/Skyring and dealing with these complaints all counts as stalking. Therefore the statistics are vastly exaggerated and cannot be relied upon, as per my original reply. Every other interaction (of which there are two) has now been explained. Travelmite (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether some of the explanations are able to be swallowed is a different question, I think. Travelmite makes a vaild point here in the beginning and ending points. However, the tool looks at pages edited by both, and isn't the definitive answer. I'd put a narrower definition of stalking than Travelmite does, and say that it constitutes following another user around the wiki to cause disruption.

If we re-run the tool, setting an end date of 16 August, rather than 31 August, we can exclude this discussion we are having now, as well as Travelmite's talk page. I'll keep the same start date of 1 January 2015, because otherwise the tool labels Travelmite as visiting some pages before I did, such as Australian head of state dispute, and that is clearly wrong, because I created the article many years ago, spinning off content from its parent at Government of Australia. I think we can reasonably ignore any line showing more than a week between contributions as not being an interaction. The tool's revised output now shows Travelmite made 346 edits to the same pages as I did, about half his total. --Pete (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for Interaction ban

Skyring feels that Travelmite has been wikihounding him, and has presented evidence supporting same. He proposes a two-way interaction ban between himself and Travelmite in order to end this nuisance. What are the feelings of other editors? Should a two-way IBAN be imposed?

• Support IBAN (as proposer). Possibly Miesianiacal could be included, given the outrageous wikihounding by Travelmite against him in January and February this year. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Travelmite's contributions to Talk:Australian head of state dispute were somewhat problematic, without doubting good faith there, while Pete/Skyring has been consistently tenacious (not necessarily a fault). But given the facts presented above, the proposed IBAN may be helpful to all interested parties. Qexigator (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom The two of you clearly can't work together in harmony, so I don't see why not. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Commnet - An interaction ban will do nothing to prevent Wikihounding (Please read on as I explain why). I think I need to explain what an interaction ban is and what it does so that both of you (Skyring and Travelmite) are aware of what restrictions it will impose. An interaction ban will impose two main restrictions on the two of you, first you will be barred from each others' pages (meaning talk, user, sandbox, etc) and second, probably more usefully, you will be barred from commenting to each other, pinging each other, commenting about each other, reverting each others' edits and thanking each other (through the thank user for their edit) function. What it will not do is prevent you from overlapping on any article page; you will both be able to edit any article page and join the same discussions on article talk pages. This is the main sticking point for my current oppose comment, Skyring, I believe you want to avoid not only interacting, but, overlapping with the other editor. An IBAN will not impose such a restriction and your concerns about Wikihounding won't be reasonably addressed by an IBAN. The reason I bring this up is because of Panini and Brianhe, neither of those incidents would violate an IBAN because neither of those incidents actually involved an interaction. It is because of this that I see little value in an IBAN. I think that you should (probably will have to) both wait for an administrator (Black Kite is one) or significantly experienced user to join this discussion. So far, Linguist and myself appear to be the only completely uninvolved parties to comment here and I don't think either of us meet the "experienced" threshold for this situation. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr rnddude! I've read your comments and appreciate the thought you have put into them. Yes, you are correct: the IBAN restrictions wouldn't prevent Travelmite from following me around and !voting in whatever RfCs etc. I participate in. That's not a problem, to be honest. All these public votes are open to all Wikipedians, and I believe the right for all Wikipedians in good standing to participate in our consensomocracy is something worth fighting for. Even if I personally disagree with the opinions expressed.

I raised the Brianhe and Panini examples as evidence of wikihounding. Travelmite gave a plausible explanation of the Brianhe RfA, and the evidence checks out. But he was unable to explain how he followed me to the Panini RfC. Well, he said he picked it from a list, but I don't believe this; since early 2015 he's participated in only three RfCs, all of which have involved me. I think I would have participated in maybe a dozen or so over that time - perhaps someone can check - out of the hundreds, maybe thousands of RfCs raised. Chances of complete congruence, if we posit only a thousand RfCs in that period, are 12/1000 * 11/999 * 10/998 , or one chance in 755 000. So I find his answer a little hard to swallow!

I want an IBAN for the following reason. In late January 2016 I accepted an IBAN (against my wishes, for the sort of reasoning you outline above). If I may be excused a minor indirect reference, both sides have adhered to the conditions, and the ANI drama dropped off. Since then I have this Travelmite thing popping up, and I'd like the same solution applied. --Pete (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I was out when you responded, and have been aware of your response for a few hours. I think I see what you're referring to, mostly what you want is to not have to interact with Travelmite regardless of whether you two end up on the same pages or whatever. I can see how this may be beneficial, even if you are being followed at least you're not also being forced to interact. I can see this being beneficial to both parties, but, only if both parties are willing to adhere to it. Otherwise the outcome will be further drama and another report either at AN/I or one of the other administrative noticeboards. For the time being I'm going to demote my Oppose vote to a Comment. I'd like to see a mutual agreement to an IBAN as this is generally the only way to avoid further drama. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support IBAN - In early August I gave Travelmite a warning on his talk page because of his/her unwarranted aggression towards Pete. It's clear from this thread alone that both parties are fully invested in this dispute and there is a strong charge between them. An IBAN is the prudent thing to do to avoid further escalation. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC) PS I also gave Pete a warning in mid-July so neither of these parties has clean hands. I strongly support an IBAN.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think your comments to me were directed at a different topic (which could well be explored here under a different thread), but never mind. It wasn't Travelmite's edits as such I found objectionable, merely the fact that he'd come after me again and again. It's like having some kind of persistent parasite. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Absolute, unequivocal OPPOSE As almost any veteran editor who contributes to this space regularly can tell you, these kinds of prophylactic/self requested IBANS (and indeed IBANS generally) are ill-advised, counter-intuitive, counter-productive and almost absolutely certain to generate more disruption, and consume more wasted community effort in bringing things into order, than they (the IBANs) can ever be reasonably expected to prevent. If two editors are already working in the same areas, and IBAN will not prevent their orbits from continuing to cross. The pretty much inevitable result of these encounters is that one or the other party (or both!) flies here immediately to try to leverage the IBAN to get the other editor out of their way. And they don't have to wait until somebody crosses the line into incivility or disruption; by virtue of the IBAN, they get to instantly assert that every content disagreement they have is in fact "behavioural issue" that is appropriate for this forum; long-winded, unproductive discussion insues, often with no consensus result other than for the parties to be sent to their respective corners with a caution. Then, within a couple of months (or weeks, or yes, indeed sometimes days) the parties are back here with carbon-copy counter-accusations of violating the IBAN again. And so it goes, over and over and over. And this happens with almost every IBAN handed down via ANI (as opposed to ARBCOM, which has a more effective, standardized, and streamlined enforcement mechanism for formal cases) and especially those that come at the request of one or both parties (each of whom can view it as a means to clear the other editor from their path, so long as they stake out territory, such as particular articles or subject matter in the areas where they work and "secure" it against the other editor's influence).

Which brings us to the other reason why IBANs are generally so mind-bogglingly short-sighted; they discourage editors in conflict from adopting the basic principles and tools of collaborative editing that define this project. If an editor can come to such vehement conflict with one person that they just cannot drop the stick and work through an issue reasonably with the aid of the consensus process and community request tools, then they absolutely are capable of developing that entrenched mentality in general, with other editors. It's really simple: if editors cannot sort out issues between themselves and one or both fall into disruptive behaviours, sanctions should result for all parties the community judges to be disruptive. If said editors repeatedly fail to clear loggerheads with others, then there's a good chance they do not have the disposition this project requires, in order that a contribute without consuming more community effort than is offset by their contributions. Regardless, the absolutely number one wrong-headed thing we can do (as this forum has born out time and time again) is to give them an excuse to not amicably resolve their disagreement (or at least bring in others and let consensus decide) and then give them a tool which allows them to bring their petty dispute to behavioural forum every time they get a glance of eachother and their hackles raise. I've said this before on this topic in recent years and I'll say it again after reviewing this particular instance: no, no, no--a thousand times NO! Snow ^{let's rap} 19:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Snow Rise. An interesting opinion. Two points.

1. This isn't about two editors working in the same areas. This is about one editor following another one around. It's about WP:Wikihounding. I think an IBAN will fix this.
2. I entered into an IBAN with another editor in late January. There have been no ANI reports raised over that in the eight months since.

Perhaps your very worthy opinions on IBANs are aimed at other cases, and if you were to review the many contributions put forth in discussion here, you might see why this isn't like the scenarios you raise. --Pete (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Civility / personal attacks / End of request

In writing and responding, Pete/Skying appears to be breaching talk-page guidelines. This is a stressful series of ongoing accusations now going over four days. Various refutations of the allegations, which I have provided, have done nothing but caused increased incivility, perhaps even paranoia. Anyway, this has become an ongoing public attack, dressed up as an IBAN request to make seem acceptable to support. This is not solving harassment - this is the harassment. Details of offensive language, aspersions etc... are detailed below for the record.

1. WP:CIVIL Civility: "I find it impossible to believe anything Travelmite says", "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?", "his dishonest denials", "this account is fraudulent"
2. WP:CLAIMS Excessive claims: "most of what Travelmite has done here is to harass Mies and myself", "Both articles were, prior to Travelmite's involvement, stable articles", "you jump in, aiming to annoy me", "It is an unhealthy fixation", "Travelmite has focused his attention squarely on me to an astonishing degree" (So Freudian!)
3. Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions: "always with a contrary position, always creating discord", "it's as if someone just flipped a switch", "This account edits via Chinese proxies" (wrong), "not subscribe to any RfC notification service", "This is not the usual manner in which editors begin their service here."
4. WP:TE Tendentious editing: "That's plausible, but it raises the question of what you were doing arguing COI at all", Replying to most comments with the same information, Refuting all comments that disagree
5. WP:FAIT Erroneous Conclusions/Fait accompli: "There's only one explanation" (there's more), "It is impossible to explain them as random chance", " I see the Panini edits and the Brianhe RfA as smoking guns" (they weren't).
6. WP:OUTING (partial): The country where I work was revealed due to WP:DOX Doxing
7. Wikipedia:Inaccuracy Statistics erroneously included this complaint and the initial interactions.

That's more than enough to get the idea. Someone should have picked up that this was happening. In conclusion, the IBAN request is moot. My "punishment" is a self-imposed block, so I can get real work done. Bye!

P.S. Linguist111 - good luck as your experience builds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelmite (talk • contribs) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel upset. I'm just trying to clear up the differences between us. You say you have refuted the points I made, but on examination, this turns out not to be the case. Let's take your points one by one.

My comment, "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?" was not a personal attack. There is nothing wrong with your grammar now. However, the contributions of this account prior to late January were very different. It is plain to see. It is as if a different person were contributing, one who wrote in a very different way. (See [19][20][21] for examples). Likewise in Wikivoyage, we see tortured, stilted English, such as this example. The contributions in articlespace were very different to what followed. Most of the year's contributions came on two days, and they were markedly different from anything done since. So what explains the vivid change? --Pete (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Skyring: "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?"—that was a personal attack, and with the comment above you appear to be gaming the system by "walking it back" instead of apologising. Travelmite, I'm sorry for suggesting you should be blocked; I was too hasty and didn't address the situation properly by listening to both sides first and looking closer. On observing the situation, what's evident is that we have someone who feels they're being hounded, and someone who feels they're on the receiving end of false accusations. The two parties are not reaching any common ground, and this is turning into a battle between them. If Skyring feels an IBAN is necessary to cut off all contact from Travelmite and put an end to this dispute, then I see no reason not to go ahead with it. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 11:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry? How is that a personal attack? I'm asking for an explanation of the two very different styles of English before and after late January 2016. I've provided samples of the first style; it is strained, the syntax and punctuation (particularly commas) are ungrammatical, it doesn't flow. Try reading it out loud; it is choppy and stiff. In comparison, the account shifts to a more natural and grammatical style in late January. I won't say it's poetical, but it certainly reads more fluently. The change is immediate and dramatic. Combined with a likewise dramatic shift in contribution patterns, it seems to me that this one account has been run by two different people, and I'm wondering if there is some explanation for this, perhaps something to do with the use of Chinese proxies. --Pete (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a personal attack to me. It looks like a sarcastic comment about someone's intellect. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 12:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a comment on grammar, not intellect. We can see for ourselves. Before:

There such a long discussion about it. There must be someone here who is objecting to it being changed? Look, let me put it this way. At the moment, your are thinking only in US current-affairs mode. In South Africa, white people once got an unequivocal privilege to vote, so that alone is probably enough to justify the wording. If there is a political proposal, fictional world or legal case involving or clearly allowing such privileges, it's also enough to justify the wording. I also checked also how it's handled in other articles.[22] - 21 December 2015

After:

None of the sources support this notion of a dispute except for some minor monarchist-republican debate in the late 1990's. If it was just that, no problem. But the government position is clear. The Queen's position is clear. The academic position is clear, in that they reasonably distinguish between de jure and de facto roles.[23] - 28 January 2016

The difference is clear. --Pete (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever it was, it was still an attack. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 18:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not intended as such. Perhaps more my sensitive soul being injured at the mishandling of the English language I see in the early Travelmite contributions. To my eye, such prose grates. At least the later contributions are easier to understand. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Statement to Travelmite: I support your closing statement above. Perhaps you could have been more polite in your defense. But you are not the main troublemaker here squandering community time and good will, Pete/Skyring is. You’ve understood that the way you have attempted to deal with disruptive behaviour may be counter-productive and can jeopardize your own standing. Your decision to disengage from Pete/Skyring from now on is the right thing to do. If it comes to any more of his disruption, please now go straight to ANI rather than ignoring it. Your contributions to School of Economic Science have moderated Pete/Skyring’s disruption there, and have therefore made Wikipedia a better place. I don’t know of your past missteps, and assume you are as capable of changing your ways as anyone is.
• Statement to Administrators: I am not going to participate in Pete/Skyring’s vote proposing the imposition of equal discipline on both him and Travelmite. First of all such a double ban would appear to be a way of consoling Pete/Skyring, by getting someone else disciplined with him soon after he was last disciplined: [24] Secondly the vote could be a case attention-seeking; per WP:DEM, Wikipedia is not a democracy and afaia ANI is a place for Administrators to take action, not to spend hours in debate about whether "he did it too". Travelmite says he wasn’t given a warning before this ANI, so he'll take this as his first warning. Besides, he has now voluntarily disengaged from Pete/Skyring, as I did several weeks ago.
• Possible action part 1: A future step could be a topic ban on Pete/Skyring to stop him disrupting the articles where Travelmite attempted to stop him causing disruption. On that note, Panini was a Sanskrit scholar; Sanskrit is taught by the church, school, cult or new religious movement known as the School of Economic Science, which Pete/Skyring says he is a member of. So the two articles are part of the same area of interest. Something needs to be done to prevent his continued disruption to this project. If Travelmite is stepping back, an Administrator needs to step up, otherwise this ANI will not be the last of it.
• Possible action part 2: It is important to assess whether some of Pete/Skyring’s allegations against Travelmite in this ANI have been false, defamatory to him and time-wasting for the community. The allegations have involved a personal attack, as explained by Linguist111 (who had been supporting Pete/Skyring’s case). Pete/Skyring then argued with Linguist111 about it being a personal attack. These allegations also come so soon after Pete/Skyring’s own last block, which he told the sanctioning Administrator Floquenbeam “was a little hasty”, that one of their assumptions was “plain wrong” and therefore asked to be unblocked: [25] It matters little whether Pete/Skyring is deceiving himself, or attempting to deceive others, or both; he’s clearly not learning to change his ways, despite ample opportunity as indicated by his long block history: [26] Another multi-week block may be in order. -Roberthall7 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is that both Travelmite and Skyring are saying "I've done nothing wrong. It's all [the other editor]'s fault.", so it's hard to tell who is actually in the right here. Skyring has made blatant personal attacks. Travelmite has been accused of stalking and hounding. If Skyring feels they've been hounded, I don't feel I'm in a position to say they haven't. It may have been Travelmite's intention to hound Skyring, or there may have been no intention at all. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, I don't recall saying I've done nothing wrong. I'm as human and fallible as the next person, and I frequently make the most appalling errors. Just ask my wife. I'm a big boy and can accept that. What I want is for Travelmite to cease his vigilante quest against me. Let him seek other targets. Clearly he is a person of some intellect and determination. --Pete (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me say this about Roberthall7's contribution above. S/he only edits on one subject, and s/he has some distinctive views. I would dearly love to get a busload of neutral editors to go through the School of Economic Science article, untangle some of the sources, and provide a counter-balance for any extremist voices. --Pete (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was you both seem to be putting the blame on the other person. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 18:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I have good reason to be critical of Travelmite's actions. From my perspective, he's come here, seemingly out of nowhere, and launched attack after attack on me. After seeing Travelmite's outrageous attempt at outing Miesiniacal, I think I'm justified in being wary. I could list the many personal attacks Travelmite has made on me. Would that be useful, do you think? --Pete (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Further statement to Administrators: With this edit [27] Pete/Skyring slipped in the above new section heading. He has positioned it immediately above my comment, which now gives observers the impression that the section heading was added by me. So he's edited my comment. As indicated in my comment, I was specifically replying to User:Travelmite's closing remarks his section entitled Civility / personal attacks / End of request and addressing Administrators about it; I had no wish to comment outside that section. Moreover Pete/Skyring's section heading is a phrase that he has homed in on from my comment, and a question mark added, which appears to be yet more sarcasm. It doesn't reflect my full comment and distracts from it. If ANI discussion is treated the same as Talk page discussion, then this goes against WP:TPO, WP:TALKNEW section 'Keep headings neutral' and WP:VANDAL section 'Talk page vandalism'. -Roberthall7 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Roberthall7! You began your contribution on the left margin, rather than following the indentation rules, so I assumed you were responding to no previous comment, just opening up a new section. So I gave it a heading to avoid confusion. No offence intended, just trying to keep things straight on what is becoming a complex discussion. I liked one of the phrases you used, thought it kinda catchy. Never mind. I've deleted it now, fixed the indentation, all sweet. --Pete (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify what Pete's allegation against Travelmite is. The claims about the change in grammar and the use of Chinese proxy accounts imply that Travelmite is a hijacked sock puppet. Based on the grammmar, Pete seems to think someone else (with better grammar) took over the original Travelmite account. I'm not sure why someone would do this when they could just create a new account. As I understand it, the reference to Chinese proxy accounts implies that someone is trying to hide his or her identity. However, it appears Travelmite is actually in China, and has made China-related edits. I don't think Travelmite has been behaving like a sock puppet because when he started editing Australian head of state dispute he appeared to have just found the article, and made an inaccurate statement he had to retract. I would have thought that a sock puppet would be used by someone familiar with the article. The obvious suspect for puppet-master would be me, as I appeared on the scene a few months before and got into debates with Pete. Is that what Pete is suggesting? If not, then the talk about grammar and the Chinese accounts seems irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Well, kind of. I don't think the account is hijacked, but the only explanation that makes sense to me is that it was set up as a "sleeper" account, and for a year it made nothing but trivial edits - adding articles to a category using an established list, and moving some text around in another article. Basically, the account had two days of editing in its first year. And then suddenly everything about it changes. The nature of the edits, the frequency of contributions, the style of language used. It's a metamorphosis. Nothing I've ever seen before.

Using Chinese IP proxies allows the account to operate without the usual sort of checks. Because of the nature of Chinese internet, proxies are used to reduce the chance of being arrested for what we would consider normal activities. There's none of the freedom of expression we in the West take for granted, but of course there is the desire to express freely. Chinese IP proxies are readily available and ever-changing. Just do a search and you'll find lists of dozens. These can be used by anyone in the world.

This sets up a conundrum for Wikipedia. We don't want to stop a huge and increasingly sophisticated population from contributing to our shared effort, but these accounts must necessarily operate outside the normal Checkuser procedures. There are ways to avoid even more intense scrutiny, and with the very real chance of being disappeared and used for organ harvesting, these ways are employed.

So it sets up a loophole for those who want to operate outside Wikipedia's regular procedures. Use Chinese proxies, be careful to use the right privacy tools, and you can avoid detection through technological means. I think that there is a market for this sort of thing. Not just Wikipedia, but packages of established email addresses, social media accounts, software setups and so on. You want to play multiple accounts in a MMO game, just buy the kit from a friend of a friend who knows someone who does this.

In this case, I don't think the article was the target. Travelmite's contributions didn't show any familiarity with the topic. They showed two objectives: to irritate Miesianiacal and myself.

I don't know who or why, but I do know that there are editors on Wikipedia who are driven by urges beyond the desire to contribute to the world's store of information, and I've certainly encountered a few of them in my career here. I'm sure Mies has as well. Buying or establishing a second account to satisfy some inner personal desire for revenge or whatever seems plausible to me. Not normal, but there are people on the internet who do bizarre things for bizarre reasons.

Anyway, whatever it is that is driving the Travelmite account to follow me around Wikipedia isn't really my concern. I just want the stalking to stop. --Pete (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack. My comment above didn't address your question. No, I had never considered you as the sockmaster for a moment. I'd always regarded you as an honest, straightforward person. Taking a contrary position to mine on one matter, but that's no sin; I think we share views on most other Australian political issues. If I had thought you were running this account, I would have filed a report at the sockpuppet investigations page. But no, I'm honestly unable to name anyone I suspect is the sockmaster. --Pete (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't feel that this was directed at me, but I couldn't think who else the sockmaster could be. As you said, the Australian head of state dispute is a fairly obscure article. Yes, people do bizarre things, but we have to look at the balance of probabilities. I think Travelmite is a bona fide editor. His early edits show a knowledge of and interest in the neighbourhoods of Beijing. This seems to confirm that he was indeed a resident of China, which explains the Chinese IP addresses. I haven't done a linguistic analysis, but I don't think that there is a significant change in language in Travelmite's contributions. His prose might be sloppy at times, but that's normal. And I don't see the relevance of this. I also don't see how you can say he came "seemingly out of nowhere". Wikipedia is not "invitation only". His story checks out. He says his interest in the topic was prompted by Australia Day (26 January). He began editing at Republicanism in Australia the next day, and then moved on to the Australian head of state dispute, probably following the link. Many people are prompted to contribute to articles based on events, anniversaries, etc. He started out making the following comment, which he had to retract: "I have checked the history of this article, and it is written by two monarchists non-Australians." Now, based on the evidence of the discussion, you are an Australian and a republican. Yet you started the article. It doesn't appear Travelmite knew you at all. He didn't arrive there to target you. It appears he stumbled on the article and was outraged at the apparent monarchist POV-pushing. I understand that, because I felt the same way. On the evidence, it appears that your darker suspicions of Travelmite are groundless.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"It appears he stumbled on the article." My italics. If you are running a sock, you don't usually want to get found out. Hence the plausible narrative. I don't think it stacks up, becuase the edits for the whole preceding year were so very different. Basically all of the 96 edits for 2015 came on two days: 21 January and 21 December. Those in January were on Chinese articles, for sure, but needed zero knowledge of China. They were just adding articles to categories according to the list already existing here. And the December contributions had nothing to do with China at all. Just a matter of moving text around. Then, nothing until 27 January, and within a day he's a full-blown warrior making attacks every day on Mies and myself. Day after day all through February and March. Displaying a familiarity with wikiprocess not explained by the unconroversial edits preceding. That's a massive change in the nature of the account. I've never seen anything like it.

But, be that as it may, Travelmite went on to follow me to various other articles. His explanation for joining the Panini RfC is thin and implausible, and no explanation at all was given for attacking me at the School of Economic Science article. Neither of those are explained by an interest in Australian political subjects. It's entirely personal. And I'd like that sort of stalking ended. --Pete (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems the relevant issues have become jumbled up with many impertinent matters here. I trust I didn't worsen that situation by raising my past dealings with Travelmite. What he did was, in truth, "come out of nowhere" in the sense that I only became aware of his existence because he started attacking me; I'd never heard of Travelmite before this nasty post on 27 January 2016. He very quickly thereafter introduced himself to the "regulars" at Talk:Australian head of state dispute by way of another, albeit less direct, attack against two editors at that article (which you've quoted). So, yes, Travelmite did "come out of nowhere" with a rancor totally surprising and incomprehensible to the targets of it.

How this relates to hounding or stalking is: Travelmite proceeded to put a laser focus on me and make a concentrated effort to out me. He didn't really follow me, but he did go from forum to forum (Talk:Australian head of state dispute, WP:COIN, his own talk page, WP:VPP) trying to find a loophole or get one created so he could write on Wikipedia what he thought my name is without being banned for it. Then he made the off-Wiki page and linked it to my talk via a comment left there by an anon IP located in, guess where... China. And, as to your remark about how people come across articles on certain topics on certain anniversaries, here's what I had to say about that in my own report of Travelmite to AN/I:

"It's interesting to ponder how it is you determined within less than the span of Australia Day that the page was under some kind of control by the Monarchist League of Canada; you make the assertion in the summary for your very first edit ever to the article. More interesting still is that you made that claim, plus the personal attacks and accusations against me, not after you 'followed the chequered history to the source', but based on 'evidence' that was, by your own admission, not on Wikipedia. And it took you only a max of 40 minutes to go through 10 years' worth of my edit history to apparently find some 'proof'? It leads one to wonder who you are and possibly also who's been feeding you misinformation off-Wiki and why."

Those strong suggestions of Travelmite having been either prepped or prepping before launching his first attack, plus all the rest of the above, is, to me, anyway, the definition of stalking.

Though he's been less intense with Pete/Skyring, I do see the similarities: following someone to an article, making constant bad-faith accusations, and getting as close as he can to identifying someone (deeming them to be a member of an organization) while using "conflict of interest" as a justification for doing so and an attempt to prevent Pete/Skyring from editing the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

Just an observation. It doesn't appear as though any action is going to be taken here. GoodDay (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Reminds me of my late uncle, who planned on living forever. He'd restate this at each birthday, declaring, "So far, so good."

It's a big ask for any admin. Maybe this should be kicked upstairs to Arbcom. The Travelmite account is an example of a "sleeper" account, set up a year in advance of use, as a sockpuppet account untraceable to any existing Wikipedia account.

• It uses untraceable IP proxy addresses.

• In its first year of operation, it only edits on two days, making no substantive edits. 96 essentially pointless edits, like adding suburb articles to a city category.

• The rare examples of original prose reveal English so strained and tortured that it is clear that the writer is not a native speaker.

• Suddenly in late January 2016, the sleeper comes to life. The edit count shoots up, the writing style changes from tortured to fluent, a clear direction and intelligence is observed.

• First, Travelmite makes an outrageous attack on Miesianiacal, which is sudden, vicious and determined in its intensity. A radical change from previous contributions, and incidentally one that reveals an excellent familiarity with Wikipedia's processes.

• Next he turns his attention to me, making similar spurious attacks - even approaching Arbcom members from over a decade ago - and following me from article to article, always taking a contrary position, always trying to stir up trouble.

• All but a handful of edits after January 2016 were directed at Mies and myself.

• Until I discreetly raised this matter on Jimbo's talk page, when the behaviour changed suddenly, with a new focus on an anodyne article.

• Be this as it may, I am unable to say who could be doing this, so I can't make a sockpuppet request, which would go nowhere, due to this account's use of proxy IPs to edit.

• I've made my case for stalking. I want an IBAN to bring this behaviour to a close.

• My previous (and continuing) IBAN works fine. Established in January 2016, it has worked well, with not a peep from the other guy.

• The !votes above are generally supportive of an IBAN. One editor, who has apparently read nothing else in the discussion, not even the thread title of "stalking", is an outlier.

• The matter of untouchable sleeper accounts, with a strong smell of being set up for later sale and use, is something above my pay grade. Perhaps ArbCom could direct some technical resources that way. Where there's one, there are bound to be more.

For me, I just want the stalking and harassment brought to a close. Let whoever is running this account find new targets. --Pete (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has incorrectly stated to users that an interation ban is in effect when no actual formal interaction ban has occured. An example from today is located here, and another recent example is here (see also, user response here). It is inappropriate to state that interaction bans exist when they have not occurred via formal processes, which amounts to casting WP:ASPERSIONS against other users. I have noticed that SwisterTwister frequently uses the "silent treatment" against users to limit communication. Here are some diff examples in addition to those above: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].

These behaviors could be potentially perceived as Wikipedia:Gaming the system, using such statements in an intentional manner as a technique to avoid any type of criticism, essentially trying to silence any opposition or concerns, because if a user then attempts to communicate directly about genuine, important concerns, (even in a calm, civil manner, as I have always done), the user can then just point to behavioral guidelines and threaten to go to ANI and such. I'm not stating that gaming is certainly occurring, but it could potentially be. While I understand that the user apparently just wants to be left alone, it is reasonable that questionable deletion nominations, prods, etc. will be challenged. Also, the user nominates a great deal of articles for deletion, and per this high rate, it is reasonable that some editors will have questions or concerns. The user has also requested to not communicate with me at this AfD discussion, which I have respected.

Inre this diff, it is concerning and inappropriate for the user to make demands to another user to not deprod articles they have prodded. Also, users have repeatedly asked the user to consider slowing down over a significant period of time, to follow proper procedures, etc. at ANI (here, here and here) and other than at ANI (e.g. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]).

In regard to performing AfC reviews, the user has many queries on their talk page from users, but rarely responds to any of them. This is concerning because reviewers should be open to providing input regarding reasonable queries from other users in relation to their AfC submissions.

Additional discussion regarding this user is located at User talk:E.M.Gregory § Re: thank you for noticing, which includes discussion about the user's AfD nominations and other matters. The discussion includes commentary from several users, including three administrators in addition to myself. Seeking community input at this time about this user's behaviors and actions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have notified users on their talk pages about this discussion who contributed to/were pinged to User:E.M.Gregory's talk page and those in the links above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A request from one user to another not to comment on each other is usually honored, tho it is not a formal interaction ban. Even a request to let other people be the ones to deal with someone's work is not altogether unreasonable, if it can serve to decrease interpersonal problems. . Even a request to let others be the ones to deprod articles can be justified. Most of us do avoid taking even routine action against any particular editor with who one is at odds, to avoid any feeling that there might be some degrwe of prejudice or personal involvement. But I do know I would never make such statements, certainly not in the manner ST is making them--as the event proves, they are much more likely to arouse interpersonal hostility than to reduce it.

There is no formal obligation to respond to another editor whose article one has tagged for deletion . But most people do, even if all they say is "I only tagged it, please take it up with the admin who deleted it." In general it is a good idea to respond to anyone other than an obvious troll, because we want whenever possible to make sure people understand we are considering each article for its merits, not acting indiscriinatly or mechanically. (This is different from the obligation of an admin to respond about articles they have deleted, where it is considered necessary to give a good faith explanation, but that is not in question here.) It's difficult to say when carelessness in this respect becomes a problem, but I think ST needs to be much more careful here; it is indeed necessary to remove bad articles, but it is not up to any one of us individually to hold the dike; each person should do only as much as they do carefully and respond to properly. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for notifying me about this Northamerica1000. I often frequent AfD and AfC to a lesser extent, but I only noticed ST's peculiar behaviour at AfD when performing non-admin closures. I find it concerning that he uses the same ambiguous argument for each deletion discussion in which he partakes. Although ST describes himself as a deletionist, it is definitely concerning for me when he continues to !vote to delete articles where other editors have taken the time to improve the article. For example, here and here. The lack of care and attention really is striking and the failure to revisit deletion discussions is a disappointment. AfD is not a vote; it's a discussion, something which ST does not adhere to. I posted on his talk page as per the link above, but I received no such reply about his AfD contributions. Every editor should be open for constructive criticism for their edits, but, not in this case it seems. --st170e^talk 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment SwisterTwister came to my attention over time as I began to recognize his name because his frequent iVotes at AFD were often literally unintelligible, because his opinions were so clearly contrary to evidence that I or other editors had presented, and because articles he so often brought articles to AFD with an assertion that his searches have found no significant sources, and yet by even doing something so simple as clicking HighBeam in the tool bar in Swister's nomination statement proved the contrary. [[45]] He edits so incredibly fast that I am almost persuaded that he simply takes pages with a smallish number of sources and editors, and throws them up at AFD without searching at all - or even without reading some of them. And that his iVotes at AFD are exactly what they look like: opinions rendered without querying the sources. (Copious examples brought by several uses in discussion on my talk page [46].) The problem with all of this is not only that it wastes a tremendous amount of editorial time, but that it makes WP a frustrating and unpleasant place to work. One editor in that discussion states [47] that Swister's "belligerence" is one reason why he has stopped giving his time to editing Wikipedia. I am in strong sympathy with that sentiment. Swister cannot, in my experience, be swayed from a deletion position once taken. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Webb, the AFD where I lost my ability to WP:AGF when dealing with Swister, I was clearly exasperated by the time of my Aug. 3 edit, the one that starts "A confession and an hypothesis..." Swister's arrogant, stubborn refusal to consider that he might have acted hastily show why I have come to the conclusion that SwisterTwister's editing is a problem that needs to be addressed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Question - I agree ST's "stay away from me" comments, objecting to deprods and comments/questions at AfD, are completely inappropriate. It seems that's what this thread is about, but it seems to also be about other ST-related issues? My question is whether ST saying "ok I won't do that anymore" with regard to self-imposed "interaction bans" would resolve this thread, or if this is more of an RfC/U sort of thing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I am very familiar with SwisterTwister because I do a lot of work at AfD. I will limit my comments at this time to the issue NorthAmerica1000 raises: the supposed "interaction ban" that ST likes to invoke. As far as I can tell there are no formal interaction bans involving ST. It is not possible for a user to create one simply by telling the other editor to "leave me alone". It IS possible to say to someone, "stay off my talk page," and such requests are usually expected to be honored. But that's a user's own talk page. Things like "don't de-prod things that I have prodded," "don't comment at AfD's I nominate" - that kind of demand is invalid and frankly a little ridiculous. (Example: "Stay away from me, that means anything including DePRODing. You repeatedly violate time after time".[48]) People who routinely patrol PRODs and AfDs are going to continue to do so, and no user has the right to say "don't do that on anything I initiate". In fact, if a user feels there is a systemic problem with another user's nominations, they are entitled and perhaps obligated to seek them out for evaluation. (In ST's case, the record shows that only 58.7% of ST's AfD nominations actually get deleted, which may be a valid reason to subject them to special scrutiny.) My reaction to this report is that ST should be instructed not to claim an interaction ban when none exists, and he should be told to stop personalizing the deletion process in this way. I did comment on ST's participation in the AfD process at E.M.Gregory's talk page, but that is not the issue being raised here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to Rhododendrites' question, SwisterTwisters dismissive response to questions raised by other editors is a problem, a particularly destructive problem for the project when he is interacting with new and new-ish editors. But it is only one of the serious problems with this editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• To be clear, I know there are a number of issues. My question was primarily to clarify the scope of this thread, as bringing in his style of AfD comments and AfD stats broadens the topic from behavior towards other users to the content/style/manner of project contributions. ST has a number of detractors, based on previous ANI threads, and without a clear scope this might spin out of control and end with an overly complex or radical proposal fails to find consensus. FWIW. Maybe I'm wrong, though. :) Might be useful to have subsections for the different issues if they're all to be tackled at once, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with MelanieN, and would add that not wanting to interact is one thing, but outright stating that one is on a ban when they are not, especially on a forum that potentially the whole community will see, is bang out of order. That can do severe (perhaps irreparable, as some people really do believe there's no smoke without fire) damage to their reputation. When he said I'm on such a ban, I assumed he had me confused with someone else; had I been aware of the other cases, I'd have brought it to ANI myself. I have other issues with ST (such as apparent WP:OWNership of edits, as others have mentioned), but I think that's the main one being addressed here, so I'll leave my comment at that for now. Adam9007 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• My personal feeling is that this discussion should be just about the so-called interaction bans. Rather than expand this into a huge discussion of all the issues that people have with this editor, that should probably happen in a different venue (possibly AN?), and with a more comprehensive introductory complaint.--MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• The one-sided auto-established interaction bans (of whom I am one of the members) are just a minor part of User:SwisterTwister's long term WP:IDONTHEARTHAT attitude. Actually, while there are a lot of problems with this editor, the worst thing is their consistent refusal in engaging any sort of discussion and their apparent rendering any critic as an annoying drama or as a personal attack, because this dismissive approach precludes anyone from improving their contributions and understand their mistakes. When someone tries to engage a discussion in their talk page, the usual response is ST's ignoring the message, deleting it or accusing others of having a personal grudge against them, then in a mixture of self-absolution and victimhood the next step is ST's asking others to stay away and not deprod or vote in AfDs started by them because the votes are in bad-faith. For anyone thinking this could be true, I just looked at my interaction record with ST, and 100% of my keep votes at AfDs started by ST were eventually confirmed by the final outcome. What I requested to ST during my discussions monologues basically was 1) making a minimal WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion 2) Notifying the articles' creators of his prods and AfDs 3) Slow down their activities, including do not mass voting AfDs but on the contrary making more meaningful and relevant comments in the discussions. Not just I have not received any answer to the issues I raised, in spite of the same issues being raised by dozens of experienced editors and admins I have not noted any minimal improvement. I keep in seeing a very bad record as AfD nominator with articles often kept per lack of WP:BEFORE, a lack of notification both for prods and AfDs, and mass-votes at AfDs generally consisting of an ultra-vague and often unintelligible sentence. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has a potential for significant improvements, but in a collective work such as WP this unwillingness to discuss, the inability to hear others and the proofed refusal to improve their behaviour are massive problems. Cavarrone 15:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment My personal read is that User:SwisterTwister's behavior is tolerated by WP policies. You can nominate and propose for deletion as much as you like. Vote to delete everything. You can ignore and be rude or belligerent to other editors. You can be incomprehensible and make stuff up. You don't have to worry too much about policies such as WP:BEFORE because it is difficult to get a consensus that you've violated them and there is disproportionately small consequence for violation. On the other hand, everything I read in the WP:DISRUPT lead appears to apply in this case (including especially the WP:AGF statement in the second paragraph). Policies aside, we need to try to make WP a better place and so perhaps we need to look at applying the remedy described in the WP:DISRUPT nutshell: "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A 6 month topic ban from all the deletion-related areas should cover it. They can use that time to try and be more productive elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would urge everyone to limit their comments to the topic laid out in the complaint, namely, telling other editors they are not allowed to comment on anything he does. No evidence for this kind of remedy (block/ban) has been established here, either in the introductory complaint, which was pretty much limited to the "interaction ban" claims, or in followup comments. As I said above, this broader discussion would need a different type of thread, possibly at AN, with a more comprehensive introductory complaint. I have an opinion on the block/ban suggestions and would state it at a more appropriate venue, but IMO this is not the place. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

May, April, February. SwisterTwister has been here repeatedly this year due to people having issues with them. This is not an isolated incident. Generally the complaints are the same, ST works too fast, does not take enough care, not open to discussion, does not perform due diligence etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The original WP:GAME complaint brought here is an individual instance in a pattern of WP:DISRUPTive editing. I think it is more productive to discuss the pattern here. We have had previous ANI discussions to deal with the individual instances. If we continue with the same approach, we should expect similar results: discussions that fail to reach consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The U5 was by a user massively removed my Draft nominations who never even consulted with me. Second, a topic ban is not solving the case where I was politely and firmly asked that the user distance themselves to which they agreed to at the Comfort Keepers AfD, stating they acknowledged and understood my thoughts. The subsequent following of me and even rollbacking my contribs thus notifying me in the notifications, took away the purposes of said agreement. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternately, repeatedly making shoddy nominations which you know are going to be picked up by someone who regularly comments at AFD is inviting trouble. Dont want someone commenting on your AFD's? Stay aware from AFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Offer Hi all, sounds like maybe I've had less interaction with SwisterTwister than others have, but in the extent to which ST and I have worked together, it's been pretty constructive (e.g. successfully resolving an issue of a rejected draft in one case and a contested redirect/merge in another), and at the same time WP:BEFORE is an issue that's been on my mind a lot lately, so if I can be of help to talk this out to a resolution that satisfies everyone, I'm happy to volunteer myself to try. (Partly I'm also motivated to try to assist in this way because I share Kvng's desire to improve the overall WP atmosphere.) I'll leave a message on ST's talk page to this effect in case ST does not see it here. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• I'll note I have even spent time away recently as my contribs will show and also then focusing with AfC in hopes the user would not come near me, yet it continued so my message had not gone through. Thus, after my repeated requests and comments, I was not confident anything would get the message through, especially if I have noticeably noted it causes me stress, something someone should take to mind, especially if they have agreed to it themselves. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, you are talking as if this was just about one person, and claiming they agreed to stay away. But this is not an isolated thing, not about just one person. In the nine links posted above by NA1000, I find "you have been told to stay away from me" comments to five different people (most of whom respond with something like "Huh? When did that happen?"). In one case you put something that sounded like a threat in your edit summary: "I have specifically told you to stay away, final time"[49] In addition to those five users to whom you said they were banned from interacting with you, there are two others and an IP where you were are less assertive but still saying "keep away from me". This is a pattern with you, and the message you need to get here is, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. Stop pretending you can impose some kind of interaction ban based on your say-so alone. It doesn't work that way. You can't tell people they are not allowed to remove your PRODs or comment at your AFDs. We are looking here for some assurance from you that you understand this and won't do it any more. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know it involves more than one person, but the person most severe here still insists in being around me and my contribs when they know they are not welcome to be that close to me; I am certainly willing to assure and have this closed; but I want it to also be understood that I can't work calmly knowing a user is following me that closely and insistent, because it has become WP:HOUNDING. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if it you have an issue with one person in particular - what about the other seven people you said the same things to? You need to get the message here that this is a PATTERN with you, that it is NOT ACCEPTABLE, and that the community is likely to take some kind of action if you persist in not hearing what people are telling you. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations of hounding are baseless and bordering on unsubstantiated personal attacks. They are not following you. If you raise an AFD, anyone is eligible to comment on it who is not under a restriction from doing so. That you do not want them to is irrelevant and something that is your problem to fix. Either by editing in an area you know they do not frequent, or learning to interact with people you disagree with. Even if you were in a formal interaction ban with another editor, this would not prevent them necessarily responding to an AFD you have created, provided they abide by WP:IBAN Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:SwisterTwister, unsurprisingly that's exactly the kind of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT frustrating response which I described hours ago in my post above. Instead of addressing the issues which were raised here (first of all, accusing editors of violating interection bans which do not exist) or elsewhere, your replies just ignore the issues, depict yourself as a victim and accuse the others of bad-faith and wiki-hounding. Will ever there be a chance of accepting a critic as genuine, and discussing it, and starting/trying to improve, let alone admitting some of your actions were maybe wrong? I am frankly skeptic. Cavarrone 19:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ektron (4th nomination) to the data set, where I explain to ST that WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and ask for an explanation of the "talking to the closer" routine.  What I think will be found with analysis of the circumlocutions, deflection of discussion, and vague to non-existent deletion arguments, is a conscious effort to avoid statements that can be reduced by the force of reason.  I stand by my statement there to ST, "I suggest that you put more effort into preparing a high-quality nomination..."  That would include visible use of WP:BEFORE including at least one WP:DEL-REASON in deletion nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Unscintillating, why am I not surprised to find you commenting about something that is not relevant to this main thread? Please stay away from discussing things pertaining to AfD, per CIR ("keep because it was kept before" is a pretty good indication). Drmies (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The nomination before the 4th nomination is the 3rd nomination, which is a No consensus.  The nominator states that the article "was deleted the previous AfD".  ST could have redacted himself, but didn't.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), admin here. It's simple. You claim interaction bans prevent some editors from commenting on you or, worse, dePRODding articles you PRODded. No such bans exist, so you cannot invoke them. Is that clear? As much as I've worked with you and appreciate your good work, I will not hesitate to block you if you falsely invoke such a claim again--those claims are disruptive and unsettling. Please don't go there again.

  I will give you another unasked for piece of advice: rightly or wrongly you are under continued scrutiny for your work at AfD and at AfC. This problem here is of your own making, and the result of it is more continued scrutiny. Bad idea. If problems are of your own making, perhaps you should try making them go away. Maybe you should consider a mentor, someone to talk to. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Some thoughts: Telling someone to leave you alone is not a ban on them in any way, and SwisterTwister should not be treating that as though it is a ban. I understand how annoying it is to have people following you around objecting to everything you do but you can't forbid them from doing that just by telling them not to. Regarding the previous ANI threads regarding ST, consensus at all of those was that ST wasn't doing anything wrong. Those threads shouldn't be used as ammo against him now; they prove nothing except that he gets inclusionists' dander up, and that's more often a good thing than a bad thing. ST had a weird way of expressing himself, but I seldom have trouble understanding what he means. Those claiming he's "incoherent" are overplaying their hand. I'd like to see him put more thought into their AfD comments, sure, but I have also observed that we seem to have infinitely more patience for bizarre and nonsensical keep votes than for bad or formulaic delete votes. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please look at the comments above, which are replete with links to SwisterTwister's comments at AFD, comments that truly do range from meaningless to incoherent. Many minor articles are closed with a tiny number of iVotes, which all too often includes an iVote by SwisterTwister that exhibits no evidence of having searched for sources, and no evidence of familiarity with the topic. And are you seriously claiming that getting editors "dander up" at AFD is a positive good? From my perspective, the intransigence and BATTLEGROUND attitudes at AFD are among the most repulsive aspects of the project, one that certainly drives editors away.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of "overplaying their hand", Reyk, you are misrepresenting the case when you say that at the three previous ANI threads, "consensus at all of those was that ST wasn't doing anything wrong." There was no such consensus at any of them. The actual closes were "no consensus" May, "no consensus to implement topic ban at this time… The short of it is that there is a problem, but it hasn't yet reached the point that a topic ban is required" April, and "NO ACTION" February. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm basing my opinion on a reading of the whole discussions, not just the closing statements. The one from February, for instance, closed as "No action" because there wasn't anything resembling a legitimate complaint. Reyk _YO! 17:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Even ignoring your battleground mentality and the lack of AGF, describing the previous ANI discussions as "deletionists vs. inclusinonists" querelles is also a plain mischaracterization, the issues of ST in other fields than AfDs (eg. patrolling new pages in two previous ANI threads and failures in interacting with other editors in the current thread) show how the problems go beyond your simplified and inaccurate depiction. Side note, WP is full of "inclusionists" and "deletionists" who do not crash with other editors, raise criticism or collect ANI threads. Cavarrone 18:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that's unnecessarily hostile. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• The aspersion at the first example I provided atop remains in place at the open AfD discussion. It would be nice if the user would consider striking the offending part ("interaction ban"). If not, perhaps an uninvolved user (e.g. not myself) would consider doing so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Without implying opinion on this ANI discussion nor any thoughts regarding any statements made here, I have striked out the statement in the AFD. Regardless of how this discussion ends or if anything comes of it, I felt that in the pure context of the AFD discussion itself and in order to help keep the discussion on-topic (aimed towards building a consensus regarding the article's deletion rationale), as well as bearing Adam9007 in mind (he violated no interaction ban), I agree with Northamerica1000 (as an uninvolved editor) that striking that statement out and declaring that no interaction ban exists is the appropriate and right thing to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• I support either (a) mentoring or (b) a temporary limit (2 months) on SwisterTwister nominating more than 15 articles per week. This is due to his reckless nominations causing a tremendous amount of time loss. Having gone through a chunk of his edits, I'd say he is a extreme deletionist. I view his editing style as being detrimental to the confidence of content creators who are newbies. Alternatively, I'd say a 1 week block is in order. If SwisterTwister is allowed to continue editing as normal after this thread, I will view that as a sign of contempt towards content-creators by the wiki community. 92.19.186.75 (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • IP, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. A one week block would do nothing but punish SwisterTwister. You haven't even attempted to give any evidence that his patrolling isn't a net positive, and you've completely ignored the fact that most of his work, is in fact, very good. Omni Flames (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • What we'd like to prevent is further disruptive editing. I agree that SwisterTwister makes positive contributions. I think it is clear from this and previous discussions that there are also negatives. We're not trying to assess his net contribution; There is no formula for that. We're trying to decide if administrative intervention is appropriate to address the disruptive editing. I expect this pattern to continue and so I believe it needs to be addressed. A ban on delete activities will potentially allow us to see proportionally more of the good contributions from SwisterTwister. ~Kvng (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I just stumbled on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre Macnab SwisterwTwister iVote in an AFD he asserts that he had PRODded. I do not want to chase productive editors off, I have been inappropriately attacked on this board, and it feels awful. I truly do not know how to handle this. But I increasingly see it as a sort of WP:OWN]], not unique to SwisterTwister, but perhaps too prevalent among editors who have worked so long and hard on these pages that they have seen it all and think they know it all. I do know that it is wearisome, discouraging, and probably chases new editors off and makes others so fed up that they leave.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Voting to delete something he prodded (I subsequently deprodded it and MSJapan then AfD'd it) seems consistent and reasonable. What's the foul here? ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• The issues largely arise due to ST's deletion-related activities, and communication with him with respect to these. The quality of ST's PROD and AfD contributions is poor, to the point of appearing to indiscriminately claim subjects are clearly non-notable and lack coverage simply because the articles concerned have have maintenance tags on for some time, in some cases with sources that strongly suggest notability available on the first page of a Google search, and usually with a deletion rationale that makes little sense. This is disruptive, as is ST's refusal to interact with/take notice of anyone who challenges his behaviour, and is wasting the time of a lot of other editors. A topic ban from deletion-related activities as suggested above would likely allow ST to focus his efforts in areas that cause less stress all round. --Michig (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

na1k is a inclusionist. st is a deltionist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:76 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an "inclusionist". For example, I have performed over 5,700 page deletions on Wikipedia in an administrative capacity. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• A topic ban on all deletion discussions, broadly construed, is warranted. The users history of contributions in AFD are, as a whole, not constructive. Further participation in AFD by this user would be damaging to the healthy discussions required for AFD to function. The user repeatedly shows a lack of understanding on deletion guidelines and policies, a combative attitude and it is now reaching the point of disruption. Best would be for SwisterTwister to voluntarily agree to such a ban, and continue as a wikipedian in good standing that contributes constructively in other areas of Wikipedia. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any permanent or longterm topic-ban for ST. For one thing, any TBan for him should be short-term like three to six months (because he does in fact contribute constructively in AfD discussions he has not initiated, and is sometimes one of the few people who !vote on many discussions), and for another thing, as MelanieN has pointed out, this is not the scope or the point of this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The scope of this ANI discussion needs to be the pattern of disruptive editing in deletion activities. If someone needs to start a new entry here with that scope, so be it but we're here and deep into it now so let's finish this thing. There have been alleged instances of carpet bomb style delete voting with marginally comprehensible justifications by ST. The fact that he is sometimes the only one to comment in AfD discussions makes these potentially disruptive contributions more concerning, not less so. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Softlavender. As I said above: there is no justification for discussing a topic ban or block in this thread, because no evidence has been presented IN THIS DISCUSSION to support such an action. Some people are recommending this, apparently based on other previous discussions where other evidence was presented, but those were all closed as No Consensus or No Action, and no new evidence has been presented here. If somebody thinks there is justification for a topic ban, either from AfD discussions generally (which I would oppose) or just from nominating articles for deletion (which I might favor), they would need to start a discussion on that subject, probably at AN rather than ANI, with diffs and other evidence to support the recommendation. What we are waiting for in this discussion is 1) a recognition from ST that he cannot unilaterally ban other people from interacting with him and 2) a promise to stop talking that way. ST has not commented here in several days, and if he doesn't respond satisfactorily soon, I would recommend this be closed with an official warning from the community: that he will receive temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that I'm probably heading off topic here but, from your description, I find it concerning that so much concerted effort is required to address a pattern of abuse. I would like to see it addressed and I have the wherewithal to complete the work you have requested but I am a WP:VOLUNTEER who would prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia. Collecting or searching out and reporting evidence against a disruptive editor is the kind of notfun project that tends to dampen my enthusiasm for working on Wikipedia. I suspect others may have similar feelings and so the disruption will continue. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can make it a formal proposal (subheading) here if you want, based on past history and without a massive collection of diffs. There are certainly others who feel the same way. Personally, if ST doesn't respond here in the next couple of days, I am going to formally propose what I suggested above. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I am aware of this and I hope you did not miss my point that I prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia over addressing disruptive behavior of other editors. For the sake of the project, I do feel strongly that this behavior should be addressed, and I beleive that's why we have a policy about it. Is there someone interested in negotiating these procedural hoops. Is this an administrator responsibility? ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, a relatively new editor, this response more or less tells me that long-standing editors who do a lot of editing on Wikipeida will be protected by other very active, long-standing editors no matter how poor or destructive the quality of their actual editing is. It makes me very glad that the building I work in is not inspected by structural engineers working according to the professional standards upheld and enforced on this board.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is a new vs. old editor thing other than an a more experienced editor may better appreciate that enforcing policies requires a consensus and it is difficult to reach consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is time to round off this discussion with some actual proposals, and I am about to put mine here in a subhead. Kvng, I didn't mean to imply that you had to round up the material for a full-on AN report. (That is not fun; I did it once and it took the better part of two days just to put the report together.) Rather, I would invite you and anyone else here to put an actual recommendation into words, just based on what has been said here, and post it in a subhead of this discussion to see how much support it gets. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying next-steps and for putting something out there. I will do a little reviewing of the discussion here and and maybe work up a second proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I had not caught some of these issues, but I will say that over the last few months, even while using my alt instead of this account, I've been actively watching ST because some of his actions were problematic. To say someone deprodded an article in violation of an interaction ban when you know that an interaction ban does not exist is a bad faith casting of aspersions, and unquestionably actionable when it is part of a larger pattern. This is gaming the system in a nomination to gain favor with those that agree with deletion of an article. This says nothing of the merits, only of the methods. There have been many problems with ST and article deletions and other areas (I'm wanting to say NPP or AFC a few months ago). We are dangerously close to strong editing restrictions at the meta level. We have spent too much time discussing this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis! Great to see you back! 0;-D A question: Back in May you closed this ANI report (which was mostly about NPP), saying "Closing as no consensus to implement topic ban at this time … The short of it is that there is a problem, but it hasn't yet reached the point that a topic ban is required. IF ST does indeed follow DGG's advice and guidance, then hopefully we won't be back here." Do you have anything to add to that now? --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to just leave my statement as is. It appears plenty of the community sees the problem and I'm not sure I can add much more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• My sense is that overall SwisterTwister's participation in AfD discussions is not constructive. I've stopped reading ST's comments, and my hunch is that closing admins don't weigh them when making a determination; it is almost as if ST is a deletionist robot. I support limiting or banning ST's ability to open AfDs or close them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• "I find it concerning that he uses the same ambiguous argument for each deletion discussion in which he partakes." (St173 above)

"... SwisterTwister's participation in AfD discussions is not constructive. ... it is almost as if ST is a deletionist robot. I support limiting or banning ST's ability to open AfDs or close them." --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Very much agree with these two statements. SwisterTwister does not contribute usefully to deletion discussions. I sense that there is good intellect underlying ST's decisions to comment or not comment, and that there is a language barrier, but for a long time, and after a lot of comments, ST is failing to improve his rationale to the level of useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed closure: Warning about "keep away" orders

This discussion has gone on for the better part of a week. It has been thoughtful, and various courses of action have been mentioned. But the discussion has not been focused, and as such it is likely to lead to another "no consensus" outcome. I think it's time to propose some actual wording for the outcome or conclusion of this report. People can "support" or "oppose" each suggestion, and let's we can see if we clarify consensus for one or more recommendations.

Here's my proposal: NorthAmerica1000 has clearly shown the existence of a pattern whereby SwisterTwister orders another user to stay away from him, and then "warns" them that they are "violating an interaction ban" if they remove a PROD or comment at an AfD where ST is involved. NorthAmerica provided links showing ST making such demands on eight different people. Consensus here is pretty much unanimous that this kind of demand is invalid and inappropriate. ST's response was to blame one other user for "causing him stress". ST has not acknowledged the existence of the pattern, has not recognized it as a problem, and has not committed to stop doing it. ST has not commented here since August 30, even though he has been active at Wikipedia every day. I therefore recommend this be closed with an official warning from the community: that he must stop trying to impose "interaction bans" or "keep-away orders" against other users (except requests to stay off his talk page), and that he will receive temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again.

This proposal does not preclude other ideas. People could support this (rather minimal) outcome and also stronger measures. NorthAmerica mentioned problems with AfC reviews (too many too fast, failure to respond to concerns at his talk page), and others here have raised issues in the areas of article deletion and NPP. If someone wants to propose some wording, an actual recommendation, to deal with those problems, I suggest they do it here in another subheading, so that we can focus on resolving this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Otherwise this could all be brushed under the carpet. Adam9007 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I also think something needs to be done about the pattern of low-quality contribution to CSD, PROD, and AFD but the three discussions at ANI this year came to no-consensus on those, and the present proposal seems like a bare-minimum control on ST's misbehavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein, you are right that this proposal is the absolute minimum that ought to come out of this discussion. There is room for more. If you can come up with a proposal for what you think should be done, please post it here as "A proposed closure" subhead, and see if it finds support. I think one of the reasons these things keep coming up "no consensus" is that there is never an actual, concrete proposal to discuss - just a bunch of vague waves at possible, undefined topic bans. You or anyone else could help solve that problem by defining a proposed solution and posting it here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. To reduce the likelihood that similarly troubling behavior and unfounded accusations will continue, I propose that the warning be extended to encompass not just the self-imposed "keep away" orders but any on-wiki accusation of harassment made outside of ANI. If SwisterTwister believes someone is harassing him, he should make a complaint here; he should not be allowed to use such allegations as a debate tactic or to embarrass others. Rebbing 20:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support that extension of the warning: that he must not accuse anyone of harassing him, stalking him, hounding him, etc. at any Wikipedia talk page or edit summary, but only here at ANI. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• MelanieN should get credit for keeping focus throughout this process.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support  WP:CONSENSUS states, "When agreement cannot be reached...editors...try to work out the dispute through discussion."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Obviously. If this continues, a block is necessary, but for now, just a warning. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Acting as if you can unilaterally stifle discussion is pretty antithetical to the project. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• comment Perhaps something could be done along the lines os the current discusion on this board of JohnPackerLambert, to restrict the number of articles that SwisterTwister can PROD or bring to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think I prefer not to ¡vote on this, but since I've already said something similar on ST's talk page I feel comfortable repeating it here: I too have a sense that something that goes toward reducing the underlying source of friction (while still allowing participation) would help produce a good outcome for everyone. This has understandably become a significant stressor for numerous people, and I think dialing back the opportunities for conflict would be a good way to give everyone a breather, get back on firmer friendlier ground, etc. I'm not sure a warning or a block is likely to have that effect. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Editors don't have the ability to propose their own interaction bans. If they did this would certainly be gamed. The community and ARBCOM can place an interaction ban. This is more akin to fillebustering in an attempt to keep PROD's from being challenged.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support SwisterTwister may not ask others to leave him alone, as there is a history of problems. If SwisterTwister feels harassed by any user, I suggest inviting MelanieN to offer to mediate for SwisterTwister. I think that in most cases, it is SwisterTwister who needs something explained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but I decline. Maybe somebody else will take it on. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I don't see the problem as the "do not comments here" but using the term "interaction bans." I feel like the issue is beyond the communication one to a greater point about the editing behavior but that isn't at issue right now. I don't think they are productive but I don't see an actual problem with this edit (probably the summary though) and I don't see how that's actually different than what a lot of other editors do. The truth is, that exact same comment could (and was) be made on the article talk page following the deprod. Now, I agree that a warning against using the very specific term of "interaction ban" should be made as that's a specific term that isn't appropriate at the AFD but I think a complete ban on noncommunication is unnecessary. I agree that it's not productive if you are going out there PRODing articles and AFDing them to decide not to respond to particular individuals but that's ultimately going to hurt ST's ability to convince people not anyone else. If people have an issue about ST's prods, well we seem to have a weekly ANI discussion about that but that's not this issue today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support to this (minimal) action, uniterally banning editors from deprodding articles ST (often wrongly) prods or from voting to keep articles he nominated for deletion, and warning them for that, is not just inappropriate, it is not acceptable. The only purpuse I can imagine for this actions is to discourage such experienced editors from reviewing ST's questionable work, and to dismiss their arguments. Lack of response by ST in spite of multiple requests (and pingings) to provide a relevant comment here are enough evidences of the issue still existing and potentially repeating. His only two comments in this topic were complaints about a non-existing WIKIHOUNDING, with nothing addressing his actions or suggesting he understood the problem. A mentorship would be also useful to prevent further ANI theads related to other issues. Cavarrone 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. MelanieN's carefully thought out proposal is a minimal but effective manner of preventing disruption caused by ST's unfortunate pattern of false statements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Question - What is an offical warning and what would be the consequences of ignoring such a warning? ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

An official warning is one delivered to him by an admin as a result of this ANI discussion. The consequences would be temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - but only because to oppose would result in no action whatsoever, again, and reinforce the perception ST must, by now, have that there will never be any repercussions for his problematic behaviour. The poor-quality contribution to CSD, PROD, and AFD will need to be addressed eventually, as evidenced by the regularity with which deep concerns about their negative effects are expressed - but today, it seems, is not to be that day. -- Begoon 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Begoon: See Kvng's proposal below. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note that in at least some instances, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Gagliardi SwisterTwister's lonely and unsupported opinion can indeed (contrary to some opinions above) trump editors bringing The New York Times and the London Evening Standard as evidence of notability (AFD on bio of minor figure in the art world).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support As a new-ish editor, I was shocked when my attempts to interact with SwisterTwister were met by accusations that I had violated some unknown rule by contacting him: I genuinely thought that I had done something wrong. I have of course overstepped rules, not so often anymore, but long-term editors may forget how Byzantine the rules here are, how long it takes to learn the ropes, and how very intimidating it is to new editors to be told that one is in violation. Unfortunately, Swister is not the only editor on WP who WP who threatens inexperienced editors by falsely accusing them of violating a rule. This sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is deeply WP:DISRUPTIVE to the project, and needs to be halted when it occurs. As here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As MelanieN says, "Consensus here is pretty much unanimous that this kind of demand is invalid and inappropriate". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This is a form of bullying behavior, apparently (to this observer) being pursued as part of a deletionist agenda. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support, but I've seen similar behavior from other people, and in other directions. As E.M.Gregory says above, this is not uncommon in various situations. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I have personally experienced this behavior, it is WP:DISRUPTIVE and it needs to be addressed. The proposal is a good start. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. No user should claim an interaction ban if no such ban exists.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support This conduct needs to be addressed and a warning from an admin on behalf of community consensus is appropriate. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure how much effect this would have but it can't hurt. --Michig (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: No one needs to impose an interaction ban from any users from ST. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support – This is a balanced warning on behaviour that may look abrasive to some fellow editors. — JFG ^talk 05:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Diffs presented at start of the thread is convincing enough that this behaviour is problematic and shouldn't continue. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose He's dealing with some other issues off wiki with abuse and such about enwiki so he attempts to back away from editing a bit to get away from the drama... I've look at ALL his contribs starting from account creations, nothing but the common newcomer mistakes we've all made once or twice... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister's not a newcomer. He's been here for 6 years, and should know better. Also, I doubt that you went through all of his 103,023 non-deleted edits. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed closure: Topic ban on deletion activities

According to MelanieN, multiple resolutions may be proposed here. I have tried to write this one as a step beyond what she has proposed above. There should be no conflict supporting one, the other or both proposals (though I assume most editors supporting this proposal would also support Melanie's).

I beleive the behavior described in this thread including accusations of WP:GAMING, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, WP:OWN and ongoing reports of failure to follow WP:BEFORE clearly constitutes a longstanding pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. The reported disruptive behavior is associated with deletion-related activities in WP:NPP, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:AFC and WP:PROD. The user has been reluctant to discuss criticism and shown no intent to change behavior. To prevent additional disruptive behavior a topic ban on deletion-related activities is appropriate. My proposal is a 30-day ban on the following activities where the disruption has been reported:

1. Nominating articles for deletion through WP:AFD or WP:CSD
2. Proposing articles for deletion using WP:PROD
3. Declining WP:AFC submissions

I propose that the user be allowed to continue participating in AFD discussions started by other users. I am hopeful that the official warning proposed above will adequately address disruption in these discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am leaning toward support of this proposal. It addresses the issues brought up by many people, but it does so modestly. It is limited in scope to the proposing or nomination of articles for deletion, where his record is frankly dismal (less that 60% of his AfD nominations result in deletion), and to declining AFC submissions which is a similar activity. It allows him to continue to comment on AfDs nominated by other people, where his commentary has received some criticism but is not disruptive. It is limited in time to 30 days, which is not punitive but more of an attention-getter and an inducement to improve. Assuming he resumes such nominations after the 30 days, his work could be evaluated; if it is still disruptive, the topic ban could be extended or possibly made permanent. I would also like to see him start a Twinkle log of his CSD and PROD nominations, so that they can be evaluated more systematically, but I don't suppose we can compel him to. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment- Just to remind people, WP:BEFORE is not strictly mandatory. This has been discussed in the past and, though it's considered good advice and strongly encouraged, consensus has been that making it strictly compulsory would cause more problems than it would solve. Wikilawyerish shutdowns of AfDs on obviously hopeless articles, and deliberately trying to infuriate deletion nominators are the big two problems that have been identified previously. Reyk _YO! 19:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think SwisterTwister was actively trying to game the system. I think that because of stress, he misinterpreted our policy on wikihounding to believe he could unilaterally impose interaction bans. Alright, he's been chewed out for that, and there's a separate proposal to back that up with an Official Warning. I've voted to keep a few of the articles he nominated for deletion, and he's never said a negative or rude thing to me ever. In fact, sometimes he sends me a "thanks" for voting. There's been no consensus that his work at AFC or NPP is disruptive, and no new evidence has been provided. Despite popular misconception, WP:BEFORE is neither policy nor guideline. I don't see a good reason to topic ban him from any of these areas. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

ST does not claim interaction bans or other rudeness for everyone. I encourage you to consider the possibility, based on evidence provided in this thread, that his behavior to others has been inappropriate. And, if you find this to be so, support this proposal to improve this situation for your fellow Wikipedians. An oppose vote means that you do not beleive that ST has been disruptive to the community. An oppose vote is not an appropriate way to indicate that you have not personally been affected by ST's behavior. Also, aside from WP:AGF, the reason for disruptive behavior is not really something we should give a lot of consideration to. Please have a look at the second paragraph of the lead in WP:DISRUPT. This is where I personally believe this is coming from. But, as the policy says, it's not a reason not to address it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to do something about the general atmosphere of incivility at AfD, but, like I said, I think SwisterTwister got stressed out and reacted poorly. My interactions with him are a demonstration that this behavior is out of character. I don't think he'll cause any more trouble. He's an extremist, yes, but he's merely the flip side of the inclusionists who vote to keep nearly everything. I don't think that's especially disruptive, though it can be frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Because SwisterTwister's editing in these areas have indeed been WP:DISRUPTIVE to the project, in exactly the ways articulated above by User:Kvng.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as the first of a sequence of escalating remedies, rather than because I think this has much chance of being effective by itself. ST needs to find a way to contribute here that is not just rapid-fire indiscriminate deletion contributions. A month may be long enough to cause that to happen, but without some sort of mentorship I don't hold out a lot of hope for change. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - 30 days isn't enough if this is a real problem. To me the big issue is that this user is said to be making non-administrative closures of deletion debates — which I find appalling. This is not a person I would trust with administrative buttons — way, way, way skewed to the deletionist end of the spectrum. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that only administrators are not allowed to close AfDs if the result is delete. I find it hard to beleive that ST would do a closure unless the result was delete. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Kvng: He's actually closed quite a few AFDs (tool) as keep, including this lovely "speedy keep" where he determined that the school's statement on its website that it was accredited was itself sufficient to make the school notable. Rebbing 17:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support If it causes ST to re-evaluate his behaviour when it expires, good. If not, then as David Eppstein points out, it can be escalated. -- Begoon 02:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is basically an attempt to win arguments by removing an opponent. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  That's, ironically, a very good description of ST's behaviour, and would be an excellent "support" rationale in the section above. It doesn't, however, apply to the genuine concerns of many experienced users, expressed over a long period, regarding damaging and disruptive rapid-fire deletion contributions lacking necessary care and the unwillingness to alter this behaviour.-- Begoon 04:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  his attempts to persuade people not to revert him were improper, even tho they had no actual force--this is trying to institutionalize it on the other side DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  I disagree. This is a community discussion about appropriate steps. I think it's fine to oppose because you don't feel a restriction is warranted. I'm less comfortable with an oppose that suggests supporters are trying to "win arguments by removing an opponent" or "trying to institutionalize it on the other side". I certainly feel mischaracterised by those suggestions. Not to the extent that I care very much, because I know it's incorrect, but enough to niggle. -- Begoon 05:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

My proposal is intended to address ongoing disruptive editing. Disruptive behavior in AfD discussions is probably not particularly effective at winning an augment. But it does help create an environment of hostility which eventually removes others from the discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

True. Mild-mannered, congenial people are all too likely to be driven away. As are edittors new to htis area of WP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I've unfortunately seen this user's bizarre/incoherent behavior at more than a few AfDs and unfortunately sometimes at AfC over the past year or so. That type of behavior can be very damaging to Wikipedia (leading to improper deletion of others hard work on Wikipedia articles and/or frustrating/alienating new article creators on Wikipedia). This kind of long-term behavior needs to be stopped. Guy1890 (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I've not found ST's AfD activities disruptive. In the areas that I mostly participate (Companies, Business, and Businesspeople), ST's nominations and participation has been spot on (with one notable example of the winery article above). ST has a knack for bringing up "promotionalism" which is (IMO) is a big issue on Wikipedia. The AfD process is cumbersome as it is, and to penalise someone for using it is not constructive, in view of Wikipedia being inundated with "corporate spam" and promotional BLPs.

The Comfort Keepers AfD discussion was a good example. The first AfD closes as no consensus following an extended discussion and examination of sources. After the article was trimmed of fluff coverage and local sources not much remained. The second AfD resulted in an unanimous "Merge" vote to parent company. It was a good result overall, but it took lots of discussion and 2 AfDs to get there.

In my view, the sanctions proposed would have a chilling effect on editors participating or planning to participate in the AfD process. One just needs to have a look at CAT:NN backlog of 60 000 articles, or see the low activity at AfD, some of which go beyond three weeks for lack of participation. So I would encourage anyone commenting in this thread to take the time to assess three article from CAT:NN and/or participate in three AfD discussions per day. The process would definitely benefit from wider community engagement. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• User:K.e.coffman I took your point, went to Cat:NN, clicked almost randomly on Criminal Conversation mistaking it for the old-fashioned legal term. It turned out to be a minor novel by a notable novelist. I continued with 2 entries just below it. Sourced one of them, but my 3rd click led to a minor politician who had run for and lost for statewide office in Oklahoma. For this I needed to run a news archive search, Bill Crozier is a somewhat unique name, searching him + Oklahoma showed that it was at least the 2nd statewide office he had run for unsuccessfully, but all that I could find otherwise on this 2008 article tagged for N in 2013 was a small amount of routine coverage of those campaigns. I PRODDED it. Now I am not at all certain that I searched long enough or hard enough. I used Proquest, should I have also used Highbeam? Provelt? JSTOR? And, really, I ought to have searched also on "William Crozier", and maybe checked if he sometimes uses a middle initial Lesson learned: assessing notability notability of old articles is a painstaking task. It is impossible to assess them at speed. But it is all too easy to SPEEDY or PROD a minor article. If an experienced editor goes through and Prods say, an old Elmore Leonard or Ed McBain novel, or a minor politician form a few years back, teh article is very likely to disappear. We operate on a trust system, i.e., that when an editor PRODS, SPEEDY, or AfDs an article, it is because they know have determined that the topic is not notable. (I am aware that controversial topics are regularly deleted on political grounds) but, in non-controversial areas we operate on trust, and the exercise you set up has persuaded me of how deeply and regularly SwisterTwister has violated that trust by PRODDING and AfD-ing articles on topics that he has not looked into.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ran that search again, he uses Bill, William very rarely, and I am now confident that he is not notable. Searching to establish non-notability is usually time-consuming and there is no shortcut.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm inclined to assume that Swister was perhaps stressed and misread wp:hound to think that he could give out ibans, but after this thread, I'm going to assume that he won't make the same mistake again. There's been no evidence provided of Swister's disruptive behaviour at AfC; in fact I find his quick declines of promotional PR waffle there very useful, but the bigger problem there is that he doesn't reply to queries left on his talk page, which is a vital part of the AfC process, and alienates new users. I think however a warning will be sufficient, and whilst there seems to be a problem with his AfD nominations, I can't agree with this proposal because of the inclusion of a ban from AfC, which I disagree with. jcc (tea and biscuits) 07:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we haven't had a lot of discussion about AfC behavior at ANI. The issue there is the same as WP:BEFORE, rejecting submissions based on smell instead of doing the research. He also does not reliably handle queries from AfC authors on these rejections. If you need evidence about these issues, you can either go find it yourself or make a suggestion to alter the proposal remove AfC contributions from the proposed ban. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. per guy1890. Pwolit iets (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose- Firstly because the proposal seems to require strict adherence to WP:BEFORE which, as I argued above, is off the table as far as I'm concerned. I also oppose bundling together the AfC and AfD stuff because there hasn't been a convincing case that his Articles for Creation work is wrong. As others have mentioned, ST has a better nose for spam than most and performs valuable work keeping advertisements off Wikipedia. The only behavioural issues I see are the poor quality and allegedly "incomprehensible" votes (which I seldom have any trouble understanding) and the habit of telling people to go away and then pretending that is an actual ban. Well, if we are going to ban people from AfD for robotically making weird and low-quality votes then there will need to be quite a cull on the inclusionist side too and I do not think many of those wanting to ban ST will want that at all. As for the unilaterally-imposed IBANs, it looks now like just telling him to stop has had the desired effect. Reyk _YO! 07:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Although during the proposed ban on deletion activities, WP:BEFORE adherence would be irrelevant, the proposal does not require WP:BEFORE adherence. I appreciate that WP:BEFORE can be a problem. However, most editors are able to negotiate this. There have been ongoing complaints about ST and WP:BEFORE and so I listed this as part of his pattern of disruption. With only 60% of his deletion nominations being deleted, I have to take issue with your claim that ST has a "nose for spam." I agree that we haven't had a lot of discussion about AfC behavior at ANI. The issue there is the same as WP:BEFORE, rejecting submissions based on his "nose" instead of doing the research. He also does not reliably handle queries from AfC authors on these rejections. If you need evidence about these issues, you can either go find it yourself or make a suggestion to alter the proposal remove AfC contributions from the proposed ban. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as written, because of the prohibition against declining AFC submissions, and many AFC submissions are crud, and good declined AFC submissions can always be discussed with the reviewer or at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support However if there is a *better* way of making sure ST takes more care over their AFD submissions (I dont think the AFC is really an issue) it needs to be proposed. The failure rate is too high when those failures are causing significant disruption - both in time wasted and in general irritating other editors. Perhaps some sort of mandatory second opinion before raising an AFD? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support and suggest serious mentorship in the meanwhile. At a different stage I would had supported a simple warning or even a "friendly advice", but such politics clearly failed, as ST is quite coherent in ignoring opinions, suggestions or advices from wherever they come. There are long term issues in this field, and ST has showed so far a constant unwillingness to discuss them, let alone admit them or trying to change behavior. ST needs to finally reflect on them, and to understand these issues could lead to more serious consequences. A month long-break from deletion activities could be precious and could prevent more severe administrative actions in the future. Cavarrone 22:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Yes, quite clearly. He keeps ignoring opinions, and his apparent refusal to respond to new users at AfC is disturbing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A month-long topic ban from AFD, NPP and AFC? No way, I don't think some of the people commenting here realize just how big the backlogs are, at least in the latter two areas. They're both thankless jobs which we desperately need more help with. If there are problems with a user's participation in those areas, we should be trying to help them, not topic ban them. As for the interaction ban issue, I'm confident that ST has learnt from his mistakes and will be more careful in the future. Omni Flames (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Many have tried to help. ST's typical response is to ignore though there has also been belligerence. ST does do a lot of work and that's useful and I've tried to construct the proposal so as not to interfere with his productive contributions. I have not proposed a direct ban on NPP activities though he would be temporarily banned from deleting new stuff. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I continue to see good work from ST. He does sometimes seem to favor speed over quality, but I think he's trending in the right direction.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Only a one month topic ban may not be long enough, but a good start. The user has not yet expressed in any way that they understand what they were doing wrong, and the user has not yet expressed in any way that they are willing to work to improve their methodology. Any comments about backlogs is downright preposterous and relies on the invalid assumption that this user is "too big to fail". They are not. They are disruptive to the deletion processes here, and they need to be woken up. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. While ST may arguably have a penchant towards speed over quality, I am familiar with his work which manifests an undeniable dedication to the project and is thus a net positive needing no special sanctions. I am sure that he, as a mature individual, will learn from this exasperating ANI thread, and will take care not to appear here again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  I know you are familiar with NPP, but I also know you are keen to increase the quality, so this surprises me a little. You say he'll learn, and take care not to appear here again - but isn't that exactly where we were two or three times already? Why would this time be different? Also, I'm more than a little concerned that we haven't yet heard this from him. -- Begoon 16:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm in favor of making blocks and bans punitive. However, that's not the policy here. This recommendation sounds punitive for behavior that is really just bothersome and sloppy. I'm supporting the official condemnation in the hopes that an otherwise good editor can right the ship. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You may see it otherwise but this proposed block is not intended to be punitive. There is a pattern of bothersome behavior that many see as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The community has not been able to address through discussion on talk pages or here at ANI. The behavior has continued through these attempts. I am aware of no reason to believe it will cease without intervention. The proposed block is intended to prevent it from continuing. ~Kvng (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. In the absence of a commitment from ST to take the feedback on board and improve the quality of his contributions in these areas I feel this is necessary. --Michig (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. SwisterTwister's AFD nominations frequently demonstrate an alarming lack of preparation. This wastes a significant amount of time and goodwill in a project area (AFD voting) that suffers from a lack of participation. Worse, his refusal to respond to reasonable questions and to withdraw when overwhelming evidence has been offered to satisfy his concerns (see, for example, the Willamette Valley Vineyards discussion) only compound matters. I have no opinion about his PRODs. In line with BITE and ADMINACCT principles, I think it's inappropriate to fail to respond to good-faith inquiries about declined AFC submissions, even if only to say: "Please re-read the comments I left on the draft." I don't view this proposal as punitive; I see it as a way to help SwisterTwister be more useful. (Technical note: I assume this proposal doesn't cover requesting speedy deletion for attack pages (G3 or G10), for pages in his own user space (U1), or for moves (G6).) Rebbing 18:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. I've never interacted with this user. I'm active at Deletion Review and I've had the opportunity to see a lot of his comments (an awful lot of them; I think SwisterTwister has to be one of top three the most active people in our deletion processes). The number of his comments is very high, and the quality is very low. It would be worth taking a look at the average time gap between comments at AfD. I have not done this exercise, but on the evidence of his behaviour I suspect that if it was done, we'd soon see that he's not taking the time to look for sources.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. My experience is that he is someone willing to spend a huge amount of hours at AfD and is often the only person commenting on deletion threads. I don't think his votes are perfect all the time, but he's generally accurate. This is way too harsh and unnecessary, having never even been warned before. I definitely do not support this, and think we should encourage more activity in these areas. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The above is convincing enough for me to support this because I'm convinced that ST's conduct at this places is convincing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: This behavior is quite disruptive, always biting newbies when CSDing, PRODing new article that are notable. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've seen ST vote delete and keep, it's not all one sided. ST's "interaction ban" thing may need attending to, but I think the AfD activities are being mischaracterized. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – From what I've seen, SwisterTwister does a lot of work and acts in good faith; we cannot expect them to make the "right" judgment call in all cases they address. I see a slight deletionist hand but nothing to be overly concerned about. — JFG ^talk 05:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This doesn't prevent ST from !voting in AfDs, which I would've opposed if proposed. This seems like a reasonable, limited restriction given the facts. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per WP:NOTNOTHERE and WP:AGF Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support  The 1 May ANI closing stated, "Closing as no consensus to impliment [sic] topic ban at this time. Even those that oppose generally find fault with...ST's methods, and there is a lot for him to read and learn from."  I've not seen that this plan for him to read and learn has been a successful feedback process.  This multi-topic ban also doesn't seem likely to be a successful feedback process, but it is at least an attempt to communicate.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As DGG noted earlier, this user along with others has only been adamant about removing a Delete voter from the AfD process; the user above has repeatedly voted Keep including with thin explanations such as "It was Kept six years ago, why should we renominate again?" and they get only respond with hostility if anyone tells them WP:NOTAGAIN applies. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

kick to arbcom

Not likely. Blackmane (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:7A (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Why? Your comment sounds like stirring the pot. There's a proposal above that's currently being discussed. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Uh.... No. Why would they even accept this case? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

AFD closes

User:SwisterTwister closing AFDs early, such as they did today on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthy Habits, is troubling. That ST also tagged the article AND did the AFD close is more troubling. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

user:Mathsci not respecting 'in use' template

• warning (17:10, 31 August 2016) not to do so after a first removal of the {{in use}} template at Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" (17:00, 31 August 2016)
• removing the template again (17:13, 31 August 2016)

Pinging Bishonen as I read something about editing conditions on Mathsci's talk page which seems like Bish knows more about, and I'm not going to investigate (probably totally unrelated to this, but nonetheless). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Mathsci notified --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Can an admin undo this edit and explain to MattschiMathsci to please respect "in use"? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Francis Schonken's current editing restrictions resulting from his edits to articles on Bach's sacred music. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive925#Francis Schonken's disruptive conduct is preventing content creation on Orgelbüchlein

I am the principal creator of Canonic Variations which has stayed in a stable state since its creation at Christmas time in 2009 (when I learnt to play the variations on a famous German Christmas carol). In addition I created the lilypond files from which the midi audio files were created (now on commons). Francis Schonken is not creating new content but fundamentally modifying a stable article to suit his own preferred format for sacred organ music by Bach. He has not sought any consensus. As fate would have it, I am the main editor on wikipedia who has created content on sacred organ music by Bach. I reverted his edits per WP:BRD because I did not think his changes benefited the reader in any way. He did not respond on the talk page but reverted. That is not how BRD works. There has been no prior discussion and I fundamentally disagree with his edits. Why has he not explained himself?

On a previous occasion (see the link above), Francis Schonken made similar edits to BWV 625 in Orgelbüchlein, one of the 46 chorale preludes described in detail in that article. As a result of my ANI report and his disruptive editing on other articles on Bach's religious music (eg BWV 4), he was limited to IRR per month. He has tried here to circumvent this by adding an "in use" tag to the article while not adding new content. Then as now he was simply removing material he dislikes (text and images) and reformatting my content. Why has he not had any discussion on the talk page of the article to explain what his thinking is (beyond what he wrote about BWV 625)? This particular article has stayed stable since its creation in 2009, so the large scale reformatting without adding new content is unprecedented. I do not own the article but I disagree with the changes Francis Schonken made. He has given me no opportunity to discuss his radical changes to a stable article. He is repeating the conduct that led to the previous report. (Orgelbüchlein is still being created as the to-do list on the talk page indicates.)

I am currently busy editing BWV 39, at present creating hundreds of lilypond files off-wiki which result in audio files like these:

These take a long to time to create because every note of every instrument (including the figured bass, for which I use two recent scores) has to be encoded, checked, voiced with a soundfont and modified for barqoue articulation/dynamics, etc, etc. The new techniques I have learnt in this exercise apply equally well to the audio files in Canonic Variations which can be recorded as permanent ogg files with baroque organ sound fonts. Unlike midi files these ogg files do not rely on readers' software. BWV 39 was originally written using CD liners instead of academic books. I am gradually correcting that. I have made just under 450 edits to that article. I started by adding a large number of new sources to replace the CD liners.

I have no idea why Francis Schonken has not entered into a discussion on the talk page of "Canonic Variations". Escalating things to ANI is a strange thing to do, without prior discussion. His editing restrictions arising from his edits to articles on Bach's sacred music are still in place. The same type of edits as he's making now were what precipitated those restrictions. Perhaps he could explain here why he has not started a discussion on Talk:Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her". I know the material and sources very well and am surprised to see a stable article so radically changed in this way. I'll keep asking the same questions. Why has he not discussed this on the talk page? Examples of new content are edits like this on BWV 39: [50] and this on Orgelbüchlein: [51]. In that case I add in use tags for the sections. Mathsci (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Which "recent scores" are you using for the figured-bass realisation, Mathsci? Are you sure that they are out of copyright? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In all I have consulted six sources, including old and new vocal scores, but have invented the figured bass myself as rudimentary chords, using what I was taught as a schoolboy about realising a figured bass. Two recent explicit realisations, which have complicated right hands, have been useful for guidance; equally well Bach's own autograph manuscript, written a full tone lower. The right hands have to be simple and unobtrusive so as not to interfere with the two alto recorders. Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Again, can an admin please undo this edit and explain to MattschiMathsci to please respect "in use"? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Have you read Mathsci's comments above, posted half an hour before you repeated your request? The only way this will be resolved at all is for you to discuss the matter. So discuss. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re. "Have you read Mathsci's comments above, posted half an hour before you repeated your request?" – Yes, they are totally unrelated to my request. The only slim analogy I see is that Mathsci asks to be left alone when working on articles: that's what I ask too, for a few hours (when there is an {{in use}} template). --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I say no, too, and concur that discussion is the way. Since Francis Schonken pinged me: yes, I know about Mathsci's editing restrictions, I formulated them (at the behest of the community) and here they are. It doesn't look to me like they have any relevance to this kind of conflict. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: there I read:

"I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills."

At WP:TALKNEW I read:

Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)

Then, these are MatschiMathsci's talk page comments [52], starting with the section header "== Francis Schonken's edits ==", followed by his opinions against me. That doesn't look like "dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments" to me. Could you please address this situation? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is obvious gaming. Francis, you can't use the in-use template to evade your 1RR editing restriction, namely "Francis Schonken is restricted to one revert per page in any calendar month. The restriction is to last 6 months and applies to all pages except his own user and user talk pages." [53]. Mathsci is indeed by far the principal contributor (97%) to the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her": [54]. The in-use tag and this ANI filing constitute classic WP:GAMING, and if I were you I'd withdraw this ANI before it WP:BOOMERANGs on you. You're merely re-engaging in the same disruptive editing which got you that 1RR editing restriction in the first place, and on an article by the same editor [55]. Pinging Johnuniq and Voceditenore for further review. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing those links which show that FS needs to proceed differently. Nevertheless, Mathsci should follow the "dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments" advice above—there is no need for an article talk page to have a section with a user name in its heading. I can understand Mathsci's frustration, and his suggestion about the six articles that might be created is good, but both sides need to reduce drama and find a way of making the same content points without the commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, these two can't seem to stop insulting each other. Mathsci just reverted Francis on Orgelbüchlein with the edit summary "it's not very bright classifying organ music as instrumental" [56], when in fact organ music is obviously instrumental (not vocal), since an organ is a musical instrument. I believe this violates the promises that were the conditions of his unblock [57]. Pinging Bishonen, who unblocked and made those conditions. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, come on, Francis. No, you shouldn't address other users in a talkpage header. But people do it all the time, because it's one of our least-known rules. When people do it, it may be appropriate to ask them to stop. But it's not a "situation". Bishonen | talk 04:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
• The problem is Francis is under 1rr which means they *cannot* revert any reversion when they are working on an article. Mathsci is perfectly well aware of this so knows that a single revert will prevent Francis from continuing when working even when making minor changes. The use of the 'in use' template is a reasonable response by Francis so they can work on an article without having to resort to offline editing. 'In use' is used extensively precisely to prevent knee-jerk reverts from interfering when an editor is making changes - clueful editors know to wait until they are finished then judge based on the final result. I dont see from the edit-cycle above that there has been a reason provided for reverting other than 'I dont like it, you need to justify making changes', which is pretty much the essence of ownership. In Francis' case it means if anyone just ignores the in use template, he has to stop working straight away. At this point I think a 2-way interaction ban between the two should be considered, its clearly becoming disruptive, and as Softlavender points out above, has degenerated to insult edit summaries. Either that or topic ban them both from the area and let someone else deal with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't Only in death taken from the same fantasy novel series as Anroth? I already privately discussed your editing with arbitrators (and Bishonen), particularly the false allegations you made about me in a previous ANI request. This is more of the same. Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh what a surprise, you once again (I think this is the second or third time actually) make reference to an account on another website in a blatant outing attempt. But by all means, continue to attempt to out me in violation of policy. Shame your 'report' has gone precisely nowhere because it was completely baseless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
      • You've lost me there. Are you talking about www.bach-cantatas.com? Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, Francis added the in-use tag while making a completely undiscussed 1,000-byte deletion [58], as if the tag would somehow give him impunity from reversion of his undiscussed mass deletion and subsequent complete re-working of an article Mathsci has built from the ground up. This is exactly the same sort of mass disruption and bulldozing he was engaging in on Orgelbüchlein, which got him his 1RR restriction [59]. Mathsci rightfully reverted the mass re-working once he logged on [60], and Francis spuriously "warned" him in an attempt to circumvent his 1RR (not to mention WP:BRD): [61]. The major and mind-boggling infraction is Francis's and he should get a further sanction beyond his six months of 1RR. Mathsci probably needs some sort of warning or sanction for his ludicrous edit-summary insult (and for the gratuitous "Isn't Only in death taken from the same fantasy novel series as Anroth?" above), but the problematic editing is by far Francis's on this particular article. I don't know that an IBan would work because they rarely do and because of the two editors' overlapping interests; and since the offending party is clearly Francis here we may want a one-way IBan or a topic-ban on Bach's sacred music as was proposed in the last ANI: [62]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A two-way iban would prevent either from reverting the other. If anyone *else* has issues with Francis' changes, they will soon show up. Large edits are not by themselves 'disruptive' and I have still yet to see a credible reason against Francis' work (which would be out of scope here anyway as a content issue). BRD is for unrestricted editors, when you apply it to editors under a 1rr restriction its completely pointless because all the reverting party has to do is not discuss and there is nothing that can be done about it. Really the only alternative that would stop the issue between them is just to ban one or both of them completely from the topic area, as anything else (as has been clearly shown) is just going to end up in gaming the system. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There was no gaming in Mathsci's two edits -- Francis made massive undiscussed changes and Mathsci reverted him to the status quo ante. This was completely acceptable under Francis's 1RR restriction (which was designed for just such undiscussed mass changes and bulldozing that were the reason for it in the first place). The gaming was all on Francis's end, and I'm beginning to think he added the nonsensical in-use tag for his massive undiscussed changes specifically in order to bring Mathsci to ANI (in this silly unwarranted thread) and to goad him. The problem from the beginning has been Francis, and in my opinion Mathsci should not be IBanned because of Francis's misbehavior. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I find it odd that FS wasn't immediately blocked for essentially admitting, by opening this discussion, to trying to game the system in order to get around his editing restriction. My reluctance to call for harsh sanctions against long-term contributors who usually act in good faith (even if they are wrong a lot of the time and can be incredibly aggressive in defending their wrong edits) is the only thing causing me to say he should be given a block of between one day and one week, and keeping me from suggesting that the restriction should be made indefinite, or broadened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't know much about the history here I have 2 comments. Firstly I agree with Ultraexactzz that it seems to me this should have been discussed more rather than brought here.

But I'm also not sure I see a reason not to respect the 'in use' tag. The edits don't seem so harmful that they require immediate reversion like BLPvios. If Francis Schonken and Mathsci were editing at different times, it seems to me the dispute over inuse would never have happened. (Well I don't know how often each person edits but I presume theres at least ~ 7+ hours a day when they generally don't edit when sleeping, eating etc.) Mathsci is free to revert edits they feel are harmful after Francis Schonken has stopped presuming Francis Schonken isn't asking for an unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag.

If Francis Schonken makes a large number of edits and quite a few of them are harmful and it's too difficult to assess each one they may have to accept wholesale reversion of their edits. It's the risk they take whenever they are editing (since it's always possible no one will notice their edits) but even more so when they are insistant on people respecting the in use tag. (In other words, I'm assuming Francis Schonken understands the isuse tag means if they can make some clearly helpful edits along with others which seem more questionable ones, there's a risk it's going to be difficult enough to sort the good from the bad that all their edits will be reverted and isn't going to come here complaining about all their edits being reverted when they are the one who partially created the situation by making a large number of edits and asking people not to edit while they were doing so, meaning that others didn't notice the problems until they were done and it was too difficult to try and sort the good from the bad.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...this should have been discussed more rather than brought here" – Note that MatschiMathsci immediately removed the talk page section I had opened about this on their user talk page (17:17, 31 August 2016), which they are of course perfectly allowed to do, but indicates "not open for discussion about this on my talk page", ANI being the logical next step.

Re. "... I'm assuming Francis Schonken understands the isuse tag means if they can make some clearly helpful edits along with others which seem more questionable ones, there's a risk it's going to be difficult enough to sort the good from the bad that all their edits will be reverted and isn't going to come here complaining ..." – Of course, I understand completely. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag..."

Re. "...presuming Francis Schonken isn't asking for an unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag" – I think a few hours is not unreasonable, and I propose no more for my edits. Here's what I consider unreasonable behaviour for keeping an {{in use}} tag in for two weeks (!) and then starting a slow edit war (!) with the bot that removes an {{in use}} tag after 24H of inactivity:

• MatschiMathsci places an {{in use}} tag 04:33, 10 August 2016
• ...keeps it in virtually without interruption until 17:01, 23 August 2016
• JL-bot removes the tag 21:05, 25 August 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} tag 18:46, 27 August 2016
• JL-bot removes again 22:38, 1 September 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} 06:30, 2 September 2016
• JL-bot removes again 12:13, 3 September 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} tag 19:03, 4 September 2016

(all of this on the same article, see history). MatschiMathsci's excuse: I'm busy with audio files at commons... which has nothing to do with possible edit conflict during a major restructuring (what the {{in use}} tag is for).

In the above I didn't suggest to come down on MatschiMathsci like a ton of bricks, and I still suggest no such thing, but could someone please explain to MatschiMathsci *what the {{in use}} tag is for, that it shouldn't be abused like they appear to be doing, and should be respected when others use them for a few hours* Please. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, I thought I'd chosen the user name Mathsci, not Matschi. Matschi sounds German, whereas Math-sci has a very English pronunciation. Frau Matschi sounds like a shady character Lotte Lenya might have played, with a steel knife ready to spring out of her hob-nailed boot.

Blanking audio files Since 27 August the talk page of BWV 39 has had a section explaining that I am in the process of preparing content for BWV 39#Movements. I have been extremely busy preparing files like this:

together with miniscores, some of which are already in the article. This audio file took over a week to create and is only in a preliminary imperfect state. This 2 minute 40 second file is an excerpt to illustrate the intended commentary on third section of the first movement. Just like the other two audio files in this thread. The talk page of BWV 39 clearly states that I am preparing that content and the encoding of the score is part of that process. So why—without any warning of any kind at all—did Francis Schonken precipitously remove these files while I am obviously still in the process of editing? A slow and scholarly process. I even said the process would be slow; it is very time-consuming. From his edits, Francis Schonken wants to blank all of these audio files and presumably all the other audio files I have created for Bach articles since 2009. But there are audio files everywhere. I have helped others write lilypond code for midi files within wikipedia articles related to Bach chorales. Nobody has ever raised an objection to my audio files: only Francis Schonken this afternoon. He wasn't interested in discussion or on how the article was being edited. He knew somebody else was actively editing the article.

Francis Schonken's wikilinks in section titles Francis Schonken criticised me yesterday for using a wikilink to an article title in List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. But when he created that list in February 2016, he added wikilinks in the section neaders to all wikipedia articles that had so far been written (probably 60-70% of that content is by me).[63] I started creating Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 today, already having written content on it 6 or 7 years ago in Clavichord#Pedal clavichord and elsewhere. I simply followed his example in the list when I added the wikilink. His response was that he had not added wikilinks in the headers when creating the list. But the diff shows that to be false. How can any discussion proceed in those circumstances

Blanking audio files without discussion (they have been displayed here for a week with no objection and others have been in WP articles since 2009) is also just disruptive. His WP:IDHT attitude regarding the conventions he himself had introduced in his list is also disruptive. But this is the same conduct which got his editing restricted last time. I am editng in my usual plodding and meticulous way, being quietly aided and encouraged by Graham87, the musical wikignome. Wikipedia has all the advantages of multimedia and for some readers audio files in music articles might be a pleasant surprise. Graham87 thanked me for adding audio links to Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 (it sprang form an idea of his). I am also going to make my own ogg files. Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

MatschiMathsci corrected. Other than that, Mathsci's comments are –again– off-topic: e.g. the audio files are a content matter, not discussed on this page, but on the article's talk page.

The point being, from the outset of this thread on ANI, that Mathsci doesn't know how to deal with {{in use}} tags, so I still ask the same: that someone explains the purpose of this template to them, explains to them what is excessive use of this tag that should be avoided, and that the {{in use}} tag should be respected when others use them correctly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken knew that I was editing the section BWV 39#Movements at a relatively slow speed, but he deliberately chose to disregard that. There is content to add to the article. He has been told that repeatedly, yet refuses to understand. I've explained what that involves often enough and will not repeat it now. Francis Schonken cannot dictate the speed at which other people edit. Elsewhere I don't know why he's criticising me for things which are due to him.[64] It is a strange thing to do. He has created similar problems with many other editors and his editing style, sometimes dogmatic and by edict,[dex.php?title=Talk:Brich_dem_Hungrigen_dein_Brot,_BWV_39&diff=737814612&oldid=737745106] has resulted in his current editing restrictions. He recently created a confusing template which was deleted by consensus although he was certain it as the right thing to do. He tried to write Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 on a list page. Suggesting that my audio quotations had no place on wikipedia was an unpleasant thing to do.[65]

The files have a clear educational purpose/value. Francis Schonken announced that he thought one of them almost satisfied his own standards. On the commons page it is described as mimicing the sound of a positive organ. It was created be encoding each of the four snging voicesand then using an old bland ocarina sounfont from expats, Clicks caused By repeated note s had to be removed by manually encoding dozens of microrests into the parts (including repeated notes between separate parts). The initial crackle on ogg files is a linux-related problem: the timidity/debian/ubuntu bug, due to one simple coding error, has been reported on wikimedia pages[66] which seem to be administered by WMF staff like jdforrester. It might also be something to do with wikipedia software. There is no simple workaround for a linux user apart from recompiling another version of TiMidity++ away from the original package. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong there. An {{in use}} template doesn't give you the right to own a page for 24H, 48H, two weeks or whatever other amount of time (even when accompanied with more or less extensive talk page statements). An {{in use}} tag is for "avoid[ing] edit conflicts" when the page is "actively undergoing a major edit for a short while" and should be removed if the "page hasn't been edited in several hours" – adding a media file every few days is *not* a "major edit", nor is that a "reasonable timeframe for the 'in use' tag".

How many and which media files will be contained in an article, is not appropriate discussion material for this board: it is not a behavioural issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New content is being slowly created for the article—miniscores are being meticulously created by me, along with audio extracts, images, etc. While that elaborate and time-consuming process is happening, you have been leaving very negative and irrelevant comments on the talk page. On the other hand you have absolutely no idea about my intended content. I will take all the time I need to create it as the content is not straightforward.

You have been told multiple times by administrators and other editors that your conduct is disruptive and inappropriate. That is the reason that your editing is restricted.

I am slowly and quietly editing one section BWV 39#Movements of BWV 39. Why are you concentrating on my editing of BWV 39/1 and the creation of audio extracts like this:

and musical extracts like this:

Couldn't you please let me edit in peace for while? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I sought a third opinion about the above audio file. I was told that the current version has no crackle at the beginning, was of reasonable quality and that it was fine for illustrating the article. That's good to know. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"...Couldn't you please let me edit in peace for while?..."

Re. "...Couldn't you please let me edit in peace for while?..." – sure. Same applies for my work at Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her", for which these two reverts were highly disturbing (as explained in the OP with which I started this ANI thread): the {{in use}} tag Mathsci removed twice from the same page contains "To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed". The first of these reverts had provoked an edit conflict, yet Mathsci proceded with the second within less than 15 minutes, after being warned on their talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken hounding me on the articles I am creating and/or editing —he is using this page as his blog

Francis Schonken seems to be in the process of harassing me by whatever means he can think of. Lately has has made a number of edits which. rather than being to the benefit of wikipedia and its readers, have been designed as attacks on me. As well as preparing content for BWV 39#Movements (I am attempting to create a vocal score in lilypond by combining 12 separate files, but am having problems with the "beaming" of notes), I have been busy creating Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530. (I am an organist and play these sonatas.) The article is in the course of creation and will take a while. I don't intend to rush and will set my own pace. User:Graham87 has been helping me. While it was still in the early stages of creation, Francis Schonken started editing the page. Perhaps an in use tag had lapsed during the night, but he moved the title and started tagging the article in a gortesque way.

Even a newbie to wikipedia or indeed a ten-year-old could have seen that Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 was still under construction. Indeed User:Graham87, who wikignomes on articles, had assisted me at an early stage and apologized for making edits while it was being created. On his talk page, I thanked him for his help and encouraged to help with some of the later sections (discography, arrangements).

I do not need Francis Schonken's help while I am in the early stages of creating this article (it is a list at the moment and does not resemble any of the stable articles I have written on Bach's organ music). The comments Francis Schonken has made here and on Talk:BWV 39 show that he does not seem to have much idea about how I edit complicated articles which require musical quotations and audio files. Even when it speeled to him, it does not seem to sink in; it might be that he deliberately chooses to ignore it. He certainly has not asked me if he can help and has not added any contents to the talk page.

His current editing undoubtedly violates the restrictions he is under. He is nevertheless perfectly aware that the article is in the course of creation. Why then tag it in this way? I would like to be able to edit in peace without being disturbed in the middle of what I'm doing.

This file for BWV 39 eemed simple

but took a while to create, because Bach's beaming is unusual (the way notes are joined together) and also has to fit the notes. The vocal score I'm preparing at the moment is a nightmare. Francis Schonken is aware of this off-wiki work. That is presumably why he started editing an article which he knew I was in the course of creating. Given these disruptuive attacks on an article I am creating, I think his editing needs to be further restricted. Even if I spell out on a talk page what processes are required for creating the article, Francis Schonken has chosen to ignore that and find new ways to edit disruptively and hound me, folowing my edits around. His conduct today has gone past the acceptable limits. Using this page as a blog did not help. It seems to be part of his scheme for following me to articles that I am editing, where he has not been active. Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no hounding: here (17:12, 31 August 2016) Mathsci suggested I start articles on the organ sonatas ("Francis Schonken: there are no articles on BWV 525, BWV 526, BWV 527, BWV 528, BWV 529 and BWV 530. These are amongst finest secular works for organ. You could improve wikipedia by creating that content."), and here (09:36, 3 September 2016) Mathsci suggests I add content to the organ sonatas article ("...Francis Schonken is welcome to create or help create a table for the section Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530#Earlier compositions and borrowings..") I'm following up on such suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

At it again

Now there's another page where Mathsci reverts the bot that removes stale {{in use}} templates:

• JL-Bot removes stale {{in use}} template 22:49, 7 September 2016
• Mathsci reverts 06:21, 8 September 2016

At the article's talk page Mathsci explains their intentions: "... could other editors stay away? It will take roughly two weeks ..." – Here's a suggestion: could Mathsci do that updating in their User: space? It seems quite inopportune to claim a two-weeks ownership of the mainspace page (see above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC) 'Francis Schonken knows that the article is in the course of being created. He is now doing his utmost to prevent that. Indeed he is using this thread—like a blog—as an uneding commentary while in the midst of adding complex content. Even before I have created a proper article, he has disruptively tried to move the article and then tried to open a move discussion. From his editing since the opened this thread, his aim seems to be to dream up any possible he can disrupt my editing. He is now gaming the system by transferring the restrictions on edit reversions to page moves. He is attempting to move the page, even before the article has been created in any reasonable form. Francis Schonken is perfectly aware of what a fisrt sate of a finished article looks like; so this disruption is willful.

At present, within the article, there is no material from the principal source beyond the listing of movements, which was composed using one of my private scores. Francis Schonken is currently following me to articles that I am in the course of creating and doing his utmost to disrupt that process (see the previous section), User:Graham87 clearly understood the process of creation, helped with external links and thanked me for creating gthe article. Your editing is quite unlike his. It is pure disruption; an extreme example of why your editing has been restricted.

It is perfectly reasonable that I create this article on my own. Francis schonken has shown that he cannot tell what I have in mind for my edits, cannot prepare either audio or miniscore extracts, and generally has deliberately misunderstood my editing intentions. If he cannot stay away from artivcles that I am creating (taking a leaf out of Graham87's book), I suggest that his editing be further restricted. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And now blanking talk page sections

Mathsci blanking of an entire section at a talk page (07:44, 8 September 2016) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I wish Francis Schonken would stop using this page as a blog. It is pointless discussing moving an article when it's only in the very early stages of creation. Making a suggestion at this stage is aggressive and designed to obstruct editing on the article. Because Francis Schonken is editing so disruptively, I will ignore his edits in future. He already blanked my audio files with false claims that consensus was against them. While I am busy editing these articles (I have only added the instrumental parts to the vocal score for the extract from BWV 39/1), Francis Schonken is busy finding ways to disrupt my editing. Pure disruption that probably warrants a block at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken has violated his editing restrictions

He appears to have violated his editing restrictions with these edits.[67] [68] User:Graham87 thanked me for adding audio files for each of the 18 compositions. Francis Schonken has started a diatribe on the talk page about the files. He is simply piling on his negative commentary while the article is being created. He tries to find a negative spin on anything he can think of. Yet he has absolutely no idea what I intend to add. How can I be expected to edit when I am subject to such disruptive conduct? It is exactly why his editing is restricted. Instead of trying to improve articles for the benefit of the reader, he seems to view them as places to play his games. That is exactly why his editing was restricted. He follows me around to articles and I find that creepy. I have been quite patient with Francis Schonken, but if he cannot stop making disruptive edits like this out of the blue to articles in the course of being created, please he could he blocked? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no violation of my editing restrictions, Mathsci's accusation is disingenious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Summarizing:

• Mathsci's prolonged use of the {{in use}} template prevents content creation: here (09:36, 3 September 2016) Mathsci suggests I add content to the organ sonatas article ("...Francis Schonken is welcome to create or help create a table for the section Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530#Earlier compositions and borrowings..") – which is not possible because they won't relinquish the {{in use}} template on that page.
• Mathsci's removal of short-term {{in use}} templates placed by others prevents content creation: at Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" I extended the content with over 1500b – Mathsci removed it all, together with the "in use" template I had placed --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Reasonable editors can tell when an article is in the course of being created. Francis Schonken refuses to accept that even after being told multiple times. Indeed he claims that while creating brand new content that has been absent from wikipedia for years, I am exercising WP:OWN while creating that content. Why does he refuse to accept how the process of creation goes? He has been told that the capitalisation in the title was chosen because other editors had created the titles Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel), Organ concertos, Op.7 (Handel), Concerti grossi, Op.6 (Handel) and Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach) (the first three are articles created by me a few years ago, but with slightly different titles). He knows the article is being created by somebody and seems to be doing his utmost to prevent that editing happening. He is constantly militating against me here and misrepresenting consensus on talk pages with withering comments. Pure disruption. Why can he not respect the process of creation?

Francis Schonken is editing disruptively. Compare him to someone familiar with my editing of articles on Bach's organ music, Graham87. He apologised for interrupting the process of creation on Organ sonatas (Bach).[69] Francis Schonken's edits are the exact opposite. He is determined to find every possible means to interrupt that process. Indeed he followed me to the article and all its redirects I had made. Normally that is called wikihounding or wikistalking (I don't remember which). Presumably he was or is trying to make a WP:POINT. But can he not leave editors in peace while they're creating articles? Breathing down their neck like this and making these absurd reports on this page is just disruptive editing . At 9 am I was busy preparing the lilypond excerpt for a vocal score from bar 23 onwards of BWV 39/1. I hope I can continue doing so, without constantly being interrupted. At present, I do not wish for any advice or assistance from Francis Schonken while creating the content for the article on Bach's Trio sonatas for organ. If he thought I had asked him for help, he was mistaken. Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Section for third parties

I had a look at the most recent fuss, and it appears that Francis Schonken has been disruptive. Consider the complete history of the new article Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530. That was created by Mathsci on 3 September 2016, and the history shows him working to build the article. Then Francis Schonken moved the page to his preferred title with no discussion that I can see. We know that no one owns an article and bold editing is great, but hello? Everyone can see that these two editors need to be separated, yet FS thinks it would be helpful for him to fix a new article created by Mathsci by moving it, and then rub it in with a formal move discussion after his move was reverted. It is clear that if left alone, Mathsci would continue developing quality articles. We do not need to work out which editor threw the first stone, we just need the bickering to stop, and this incident shows that Francis Schonken's editing restriction should be expanded. Any suggestions? Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it occurred to me that if we were to levy a fee on both of them - say 10 cents/100 words, 25 cents/image, 50 cents/sound clip - for future additions to this thread we might be able to make a decent charitable contribution when this is over, at least. -- Begoon 11:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a fee; it's a donation. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Seek advice from your personal financial consultant for information on any legal, tax, or financial obligations or benefits regarding your donation. Valid only in select areas. Certain exceptions apply.

• (Non-administrator comment) Look at FS's "contributions" to Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife a few months back. Whatever may be the problem with Mathsci, being difficult to work with appears to be a recurring problem with FS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

66.235.36.153 on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations

66.235.36.153 (talk · contribs) has been active on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations for quite some time. Recently they have been making particular contentious edits. Last month they were warned twice for adding that the accusations were made without evidence with no source.[70][71] A similar edit was made without a source today[72], though after being reverted they did finally provide a source.[73] Over the past few days they have been in an edit war over whether to list Cosby's status as a civil rights leader in the lede of the assault allegations article.[74][75][76] The last three warnings on his talk page are from making incendiary comments about other editors and general talk page misuse. After my procedural revert of his last addition to the article in question, he posted this rant on my talk page, saying that other editors have ganged up on him and, after referencing Hitler and George Orwell, said I was piling on as well.LM2000 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• A short block for edit warring seems appropriate here, at the very least. Their edit warring has been slow, but it's edit warring nonetheless. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Page semi protected. That's all that's needed here for the time being.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • • Hello Folks First, let us get something straight, when there has been a request to go to talk about a subject this good faith editor has done so. This was pointed out to LM2000 before they came here whining about being 'picked on', this good faith editor merely pointed out other editors at Cosby biography talk had deleted RS and deleted a reply to an editor who rambled on about the 'good' Hitler did and Cosby was like 'Hitler'...you can confirm this at Cosby bio talk. Pointing this out to LM2000 is not a 'rant' it is a fact, easily confirmed.

When it was requested this editor provided the proper RS for the painfully obvious fact that Cosby is noted for aspects of his civil rights activity it was provided. That was what, is, being referred to as 'slow edit warring' of which there is no such thing. This editor requested numerous times that the Cosby allegations article have some kind of protection as every time there was some juicy gossip in GAWKER or even the NATIONAL ENQUIRER some editors would rush in drooling to get it into the article...so it is rather hilarious to request article 'protection' when entering a fact of a Living Person is placed in the article with a proper RS, an RS cited in the biography of that person. There is the expressed concern in the Cosby allegation article that the Cosby legacy is being suppressed by means of the allegations, part of that legacy is notable civil right activity, activity some editors have deleted multiple times even in the talk section. With deep concern...Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

I'm afraid page protection may not be enough in this case. 66.235 denies slow edit warring exists and continues incendiary comments by saying that I was "whining" by coming here, a claim they doubled down on in their edit summary.[77] 66.235 has discussed the civil rights issues on the main Cosby article but not the allegations article, that's a separate dispute and is no justification for edit warring. 66.235 has done good work on both articles and brings a different perspective but has recently ignored policy and their talk page behavior has elevated tensions.LM2000 (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello LM2000 Thank you for acknowledging this fellow good faith editor has done 'good work'...when the edit about the Cosby civil right legacy is restored with the proper RS that 'good work' will continue. What has 'mounted tensions' is pointing out that editors who compare Cosby to 'Hitler' and drone on about the 'good Hitler did' were deleting posted RS from the Cosby talk page to be perused by other good faith editors such as yourself. They would then rush over and threaten this editor with being 'blocked' if the editor then reposted the various RS at Cosby talk to be reviewed for the article....soooo get your story straight before joining editors who ramble on about the 'good' Hitler did and threaten fellow good faith editors with being blocked...this an archived site so all can be confirmed at the Cosby talk pages. Yes this editor considers it 'whining' when another editor does not return a conversation at the proper talk page and runs to get a fellow good faith editor disciplined for doing what editors are suppose to do...provide edits that improve the article with proper RS. With deep concern 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
      • • Hello LM2000 This is a sort of PS to you of the above...the only 'perspective' this editor has is to stick to wiki standards of neutrality. Pointing out that editors who compare Living Persons to 'Hitler', delete RS from the talk pages and threaten editors with being blocked is a very, very, very proper subject to comment on ...at the proper talk page. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
      • Hello Folks Just to make things clear to any who may read this an editor who added, at the request of another editor, a proper RS about Cosby's civil rights activity is labeled 'slow edit warring'. The article is then put 'under semi-protection'. Keeping any IP editors from improving the Cosby allegations article, even temporarily. Yet editors who deleted RS from Cosby talk, deleted responses in Cosby talk and editors who edit from a bias that here is a 'mountain of evidence' that Cosby's civil rights activity should be censored from any wiki articles, Cosby should be treated like 'Hitler' and Hitler did some 'good'. Those 'Hitler' editors are suppose to be able to run the content of articles about a Living Person while IP editors are shut out. With deep concern 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

At the very least someone needs to instruct 66.235.36.153 to tone down the rhetoric here, on article and user talk pages, and anywhere on Wikipedia. Accusing editors in a content dispute of censorship and describing editors as "whining" and "drooling" interferes with reasonable discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello Sundayclose What is better than your demands for teatime talk at wikipedia would be to confront editors who state that Cosby should be treated like Hitler and that Cosby civil rights legacy should be censored. Your time would be better spent demanding to know why RS sources were being deleted. Yes there were editors who were high fiving at every piece of gossip from TMZ, GAWKER and even the NATIONAL ENQUIRER that got into the article ...and yes they were drooling to get it in. Simply put better enforcement of wiki neutrality, instead of threatening to block fellow good faith editors...as you have done. With deep concern Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

I'm not talking about other editors or the content of any article. I'm talking about your inflammatory comments that you are even continuing in the post immediately above. The fact that you can't seem to restrain yourself in making such comments even after asked to stop is very revealing about your attitude about collaborative editing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello Sundyclose What is really revealing is your sticking your head in the sand that an editor who likened Cosby to Hitler was seemingly given cover by another editor by deleting RS and talk of accountability for a bias in violation of wiki neutrality, all on a proper talk page...you seem to have joined the Cosby is Hitler crowd with your continued badgering this good faith editor with threats of being blocked and a schoolmarm scold. You have been asked before not to clutter up talk pages in this manner but you ignore that. Stop equating a lively literary reference or two as a snub...or being so thin skinned. With deep concern. Scincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Discussing with you is a pointless effort. You can't restrain yourself from false accusations that are very, very close to personal attacks. I never once compared anyone to Hitler. If you think I did provide the diffs. So my comments here are finished. Your comments speak for themselves to any admin or anyone reading them. Sundayclose (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Hello Sundayclose You are correct that discussing things with you is pointless, anyone can look at the Cosby talk page or this good faith editor's talk page and find out you did not discuss anything. All there is on those talk pages is your doing your schoolmarm scold of a fellow good faith editor and threatening to block a fellow editor. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that you showed up at the same time as the editor who deleted comments asking accountability for the Cosby is Hitler or the same editor who then deleted the RS provided to add the Cosby civil rights material to improve the article...deletion equals censorship. But there you are saying there was no censorship, even when it is obvious. You then make absolutely no contributions to improve the article just the same scolding tone you are using here. This entire exercise in accusations of 'slow edit warring smells' of trying to scold a good faith editor . Meanwhile the Cosby is Hitler editor has a freehand in the article in violation of wiki neutral policy. With deep concern. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC) A Contibutor
• Strongly support block of at least one year. IP's behavior is inexcusable at this point. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 12:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • • Hello Electricburst This good faith editors sees you are up to your old trick again. To any who may read this the editor called Electricburst has tried to censor through deleting the comment about their behavior concerning censoring RS at Cosby talk pages and deleting responses to an editor who stated Cosby should be treated like Hitler. This can be confirmed by checking this talk page's History. Here is what Electicburst deleted about their behavior of censorship through deleting... "Hello Electricburst Of course you support a ban of any kind...you are the editor who was deleting the proper RS at the Cosby talk page as anyone can confirm...you are also the editor who deleted the replies to the 'Cosby is Hitler editor' then rushed over and threatened this good faith editor with being blocked...with no good reason...again it can be confirmed with a simple check a this editors talk page. You seem to be the perfect wingman for the 'Hitler did good' 'Cosby is like Hitler' editor, one assumes you support those positions. In the meantime this editor is hoping to make some improvements in the article as has always been this good faith editor's intentions. With deep concerns. Sincerely A Contributor" With deep concerns. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
• Support block a year seems excessive though. They've been watching Cosby articles for a long time, short-term page protection won't do anything in the long run. They continue to elevate tensions during discussions.LM2000 (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Folks To those reading this please be aware that the goal of LM2000, Electricburst and Sundayclose sole objective is to make this IP editor an issue while they collaborate with an editor who claims that Cosby should be treated like Hitler and that the Cosby legacy of civil rights should not be represented in any of the Cosby pages. That their goal is to block this editor can be confirmed by a simple check of this editor's talk page and Electricburst's behavior of deleting RS about Cosby's civil rights legacy at Cosby talk and deletion of comments by this editor on this page. Deletion equals censorship. There has been no effort on the part of these editors to go to any talk page to discuss the Cosby civil rights legacy, just threats to this editor to be blocked for having raised the civil rights issue with proper cited RS and proper discussion at the proper talk pages. This editor has asked for their contributions to this discussion as can be confirmed by this editors own talk page. The response to that request for a discussion to improve the Cosby articles is the pressure campaign displayed here on this talk page to 'block' this editor. Without an examination of the behavior of these editors this portion of the discussion is incomplete. This good faith editor who it has been acknowledged as doing good work on the articles is looking forward to making further improvements to the Cosby articles. With deep concern. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

• • • Hello Fellow Good Faith Editors, Here is the title that has been and better expresses the concerns discussed in this section of talk.."66.235.36.153 on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations and Concerns about other editors censoring RS sources on Cosby" ...this title continues to be deleted by Electricburst, this can be confirmed by this page's talk History...here is the edit reply of Electricburst for this deletion and their own behavior of deleting RS sources at the Cosby talk pages..."(Undid revision 738549847 by 66.235.36.153 (talk) It's not censorship, you little s**t!)"...deletion equals censorship...also this good faith editor is not by any means 'little' or associated in any other way with the vulgarisms that Electicburst has resorted to in petty name calling of a fellow good faith editor. Please again note that the concerns of this editor are about the improvement of the Cosby articles with acknowledged RS about his civil rights legacy. With deep concerns. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Can this IP be blocked now? They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello fellow Good Faith Editors Here is the part of wikipedia policy this good faith editor is asking to be applied on an even basis of the editors who have done nothing but threaten to 'block' an editor for adding to the article information they disagreed with and thus deleted the RS and other comments on the talk pages..."Being "here to build an encyclopedia" is about a user's overall purpose and behavior in editing Wikipedia. In considering whether or not a user is here to build an encyclopedia, the user's overall pattern of editing and behavior, as well as the clarity of past warnings or guidance and their attempts at improvement, should be reviewed as a whole." This editor is here to build better article in Wikipedia. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

85.74.31.101

Saying rude stuff about admins. Also made violence threat on my talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomPerson81 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Who, what when and where? We need some 411 please. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No contributions from 85.75.31.10 (talk · contribs) but recent activity from 85.74.31.101 (talk · contribs) including on your talk page.-- Dane2007 ^talk 04:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I show that this IP has been blocked for 31 hours by Widr, so I think this can be considered handled. I do see they are editing their talk page to make further commentary, might be worthwhile to revoke talk page access as well. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This in particular is not acceptable and if there is even a hint of that kind of editing in the future I would support a very long term enforced vacation from the project for this IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I added RandomPerson81's talk page to my Watchlist so I can look out for it since i'm pretty active on here. If the IP Vandal returns under a new IP address, might need some semi-protection for those pages until the activity subsides. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am also somewhat confused by this. It's past my bed time... sigh. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a typo I think, I got a similar post. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

After following up with comments like this, I'm not sure 31 hours is enough. I know that IPs can't be indeffed, but can an IP user have his/her talk page access revoked? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we should block his /1 for being rude to admins. We're not putting up with that, except on days with a Y in the name. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well so much for their magical IP change...they just restored their talk page. I think a longer block and a talk page revocation are in order. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Missed me boys? Anyways... I hold no gruge against you anymore. Although you are extremely biased and 75% of the wikipedia community has pointed that out many times yet you do nothing, but that's not the point... My feelings about you were expressed days ago on 85.74.31.101... Sorry Dane2007 ^talk that it took a bit for my magic IP change, I hope I did not let you down! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.82.89 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Time for a range block? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 23:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I don't see a block in place for either IP (unless it expired, of course). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved admin to review The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

The latest discussion can be found at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television)#Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016. For those not familiar with the history, the prior ANI report can be seen here, and further details of the history can be found in my talk page archive here.

A new user FastNLoud (talk · contribs) has been continuing the disruption and personal attacks. I'm not sure if it's more of the same, or if it has rolled over into trolling at this point.

First, they submit an edit request asking to add a person as a producer (using IMDb as a source). However, a few months ago an IP that claimed to represent the producers had insisted that all mention of that person be removed from the talk page. When this was pointed out, the new user changed directions and demanded the name be removed from the talk page.

They then proceeded to accuse me of being a "former disinfranchasied disgruntled member" (I'm not) due to their belief that I am a "West Coast Californian" (I have never lived in California, I live in the Pacific Northwest), and asked if I am Werldwayd as well as user C.Fred (do I really need to say I'm not?)

In addition to links to relevant policies and guidelines, the user has been provided links to WP:RSN, WP:SPI, and WP:Files for upload to address their demands and accusations. Yesterday they asked that I upload the title card for the program. I tried to point out that I cannot upload a document that I do not posses. But to no avail, as they then demanded I upload the title card and undo edits by myself and others who have worked to cleanup the article to Wikipedia standards.

Their most recent post today was also colorfully laced with expletives. I'm requesting another admin to review and to take whatever action they see as appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

For crying out loud, why don't you just ignore them? EEng 15:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of replying to their most recent post. However, due to the long history of disruption at the article and related pages, I chose to report it here at this point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Now 50.204.235.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has begun blanking talk page content at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television), blanking content from World Tomorrow, and editing against previously established consensus at the disambig The World Tomorrow. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Persistent and unfounded allegation of Sock puppetry

Gravuritas (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been persistently reinserting material at Causes of Brexit even though it was unsupported by any of the provided references. He has desisted from this for now so this is not the subject of this complaint. However, during the discussion on the talk page, another editor (IP 85.255.237.66) made a post broadly opposing the insertion of the unsupported material. In amongst Gravuritas's response was an allegation that this other editor and myself were sock puppets (presumably because we were agreeing the Gravuritas was wrong - even though he would not accept it). Diff:and also check the edit summary. Gravuritas was warned about unfounded allegations of this sort (diff). He almost immediately responded with another allegation (diff). Another warning (diff). And yet another allegation (diff).

Note to checkusers: I know that you do not publicly connect user accounts with an IP address. In this case I have no problem with a check user being performed because I know that a connection will not be made. --Elektrik Fanne 17:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Notified user in question of thread. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: Well give us a chance! Our notifications appeared simultaneously. --Elektrik Fanne 17:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both for the notifications. The original disagreement revolved around section headed 'Lies and misleading information' in the WP article. Material which I felt was justified for inclusion with WP:RS effectively describing it as 'misleading' was deleted by EF because she/he felt that the RS had not described it as 'deliberately misleading'. She persisted multiple times with this straw man, and could not seem to grasp that changing the term under discussion by her own addition of 'deliberately' to the criterion for inclusion was clearly illegitimate. The degree of persistence in this error I found very surprising and unusual. When another editor joined in and repeatedly made the same error, it seemed stretching the bounds of likelihood that two such persistent enthusiasts for the same straw man could be different people. It certainly looked like a sock.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not discussing your continued attempts to insert material claiming that the remain campaign's claim was deliberately misleading when the sources did not make that claim. Indeed they stated that the fundamental claim was correct but that there was difference in opinion over the size of the financial penalty. That is not evidence of intent to mislead and the other editor clearly agreed as did one other editor who contributed to the discussion. That editors agree that you are wrong when you are wrong is not evidence that they are the same person and WP:SPI is littered with such allegations. This discussion is over your repeated and unfounded allegations of sock puppetry, which you have repeated once again above - and nothing else. --Elektrik Fanne 18:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the thread topic, and I was trying to explain how a reasonable person might have cause to believe that you and the other editor were one and the same. Your first sentence in the para above once again repeats the falsehood based on your repeated error. I have not ever tried to insert material claiming that the Remain campaign's claim was deliberately misleading. Your inclusion of 'deliberately' in the sentence suggests that you have not understood a word of the multiple posts on this subject. Can you seriously, seriously, not understand that 'misleading' is not the same concept as 'deliberately misleading'? Because if so, then you and one you claim is not a sock are probably in a 0.1% minority.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You kept inserting the claim in the section "Lies and misleading information". Lies and misinformation is by definition a deliberate attempt to deceive. Thus you are claiming that your continually reverted claim was made with intent to deceive. The point that you cannot seem to grasp is that there is nothing in the sources to support that assertion.

Administrators: Gravuritas has now repeated his allegation for a fifth time above and yet not offered a shred of evidence beyond the fact that three editors have agreed that he was wrong to disruptively edit in the manner in which he did. Since making allegations of sock puppetry without evidence is prohibited, I must now insist on sanctions of some description in this matter. --Elektrik Fanne 07:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Take the whole conversation- here and previously- to someone who can parse an English sentence and ask them to explain it to you.

Gravuritas (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I have lost count of the number of times that have explained to you how an opinion from a committee (and committees are notoriously unreliable sources of anything) that the fundamental claim was correct but that they disagreed with the financial impact is not evidence that the entire statement was made with intent to deceive as you keep maintaining. On the other hand, you have never addressed how the sources support the clear implication (by including it in the lies and misinformation section) that it was deliberately misleading.

However, you are attempting to carry the discussion of your disruptive editing here. That is not what this ANI complaint is about. You have not addressed your persistent and unfounded allegations of sock puppetry with zero evidence. --Elektrik Fanne 10:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are genuine in your misapprehension here, so I will attempt to explain once more. If I insert material and justify it according to a criterion, then you cannot claim that my insertion was based on a different criterion. To do so is a 'straw man' error- you built a straw man of your choosing and demolished it, but claimed that what you demolished was mine. (And you've just done it again in the para above- you say that I keep maintaining that the entire statement was meant to deceive and that is false: I have never once claimed that.).

Your inability to understand the straw man error is unusual: most WP editors would have grasped it way back in our posts. The IP address editor was unusual in exactly the same way, in the same words. That's evidence that you are one and the same. It's not knock-down evidence- it wouldn't justify a criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' conviction, but I think there is a fair chance that it would get me the verdict in a civil 'balance of probabilities' case. In any case it is not zero evidence, as you say above. We'll see.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, I'm getting fed up with this. Gravuritas has continued to claim that everyone else is failing to comprehend what is not in the references. He is deliberately trying to derail this complaint into being treated as a content dispute. This discussion does not belong here. For anyone interested in how the references do not support Gravuritas's claims, I have posted the discussion where it should be on the article talk page. Do not discuss it further here.

The only point Gravuritas should be addressing is: his persistent and unfounded allegations of sock puppetry - the point of this ANI and completely unresponded to by Gravuritas in any satisfactory manner. --Elektrik Fanne 17:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I should add that this user has persistently been impolite. He has pushed me to the point that I would post a message saying "Stop it! Right now! I'm not kidding!" on his userpage, what I would not normally do. Whenever I would edit Impact of the privatisation of British Rail, he would revert my edits without responding properly to the verbose justification I left on the talk page. That's not nice. He furthermore suggested (this is not a joke) I would ejaculate prematurely (see his talk page and edit history of the said article), he posted, as a response to one of my inquiries "See the appropriate Talk page, and don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, sonny." and also otherwise, in his edit comments on the mentioned article he's not being nice. To be honest, I'm fed up with that (although it's also funny in a way). --Mathmensch (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• In this case I have no problem with a check user being performed because I know that a connection will not be made. Obviously a connection will not be made between Elektrik Fanne and 85.255.237.66, because EF doesn't usually edit from Vodafone (who would?). If the Vodafone user is to be connected, it would have to rely on behavioural evidence. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The only behavioural evidence here is two editors (supported by a third) disagreeing with an editor hammering in material unsupported by the provided sources on one point on one talk page. --Elektrik Fanne 10:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't studied the conversation in detail. It's entirely possible there is a Vodafone user following you around (and I believe I have previously been mistaken about who it was). BTW, while we're talking about false allegations of sock puppetry, I should caution you to desist from making allegations like this [78]. As you know, your allegation was investigated and dis-proven. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. But you have (very conveniently) only told half the story. It is true I made an SPI complaint about you and a fellow troll. The bit you failed to mention was that I was momentarily blocked for raising an 'unfounded SPI complaint', but equally quickly unblocked as the complaint was determined to have been made in good faith (which implies that a reasonable person might have made it). --Elektrik Fanne 16:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I have not "only told half the story". Your past unblock has nothing to do with the fact you knew that your socking allegation had been mistaken, when you repeated it on this noticeboard several months later.

You seem to have trouble grasping the distinction between a mistake and a lie. This is something in common with the IP under discussion, so I see Gravuritas' point that there is some behavioural evidence. I also see some strawman arguments in Talk:Ignition system, where you were supported [79] by an IP you subsequently used yourself [80]. Burninthruthesky (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Going off at half cock again. First edit is not mine, but that is dynamic IP addresses for you - they are nearly a month apart. With dynamic IP addresses, you get a new IP address every time you log on to the internet and there is no control what you get. If you bothered to check the edit history for the second, you would have noticed that I noticed that I had somehow been logged out and made the fact that the edit was from me crystal clear [81] and [82] so there is no demonstrable attempt to avoid scrutiny. But in any case, the IP address is not related to the one in question. But perhaps the main reason for your contribution here is because I was instrumental in stopping you and your trolling companion (or alter-ego), Hengistmate at Plasticine. --Elektrik Fanne 16:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

More misdirection. This discussion is about persistent and unfounded allegations of sock puppetry, the latest of which is in the post above. [83] For the last time, I am not Hengistmate. [84] Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Gravuritas now suggested I was a "stalker" and engaging in "POV pushing". This series of insults has to end. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I should like to be informed whether further complaints about Gravuritas shall be moved to a distinct section. But his behaviour is not as polite as it should be, and he seems to suggest that I do not possess sufficient maturity to participate. I think this kind of impoliteness could be disruptive and it is not nice towards the authors. --Mathmensch (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"Impoliteness"? More like incivility and possibly WP:NPA. Something must be done about that immediately. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User: 2604:2000:7111:7E00:59D5:5432:A297:1AB6

This user has been disruptively editing the page about the tag team known as The Usos. I noticed that he changed a date on the page from 2011 to 2010, and left a comment at the end of the paragraph to stop changing it back. I then undid this edit as a disruptive edit, and changed the year back to 2011. He reverted it back to his original edit, and then I left a warning on his page to stop changing it, as there is evidence to support the year 2011 in place of the year 2010 in the article. I then reverted his edit. He has since reverted it back, and I've decided to report this here in order to resolve this situation.Dohvahkiin (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

My edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Usos&oldid=738376497 His revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Usos&oldid=738383872

The user is still reverting edits. I've noticed he's also been making the same disruptive edits on the pages for Primo & Epico, Carmella, and Natalya. I tried explaining to him on both the edit summary and his talk page that he needs to stop the disruptive editing, but he just reverts every edit that goes against his. Can someone help with this situation. It's getting bad that he's providing false information on multiple pages.Dohvahkiin (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:AdamDeanHall jumping the gun with WP:AIV reports

A month ago, User:Howiebraunstein made several well-meaning but not-good edits here.

Shortly after the last edit, User:AdamDeanHall:

• reverted all of Braunstein's edits with a really literal, really unhelpful edit summary at 22:49
• provided Braunstein with a strange, template-seeming-but-not-actually-a-template first-and-only warning for vandalism at 22:51
• and reported him at AIV at 22:53.

That's reverted, final warned, and reported, all in the span of four minutes.

Braunstein has not edited that article since the last in that series of edits Hall reverted. Per this message from User:Mrschimpf, a lot of work has gone into converting Braunstein into a better editor and Hall's highly inappropriate report could do real damage to that work. Hall did not respond to questions in that thread from Mrschimpf or me and it's since been archived.

Today, User:KyloRen123 added a claim to Star Wars: Episode VIII claiming that the film, which is still in production and doesn't come out until late next year, will be released in 2D, 3D, RealD3D, and IMAX formats. (I've looked around and found a few possible sources but nothing ironclad. At this moment, it looks like nobody, including director Rian Johnson, knows what format they'll use.)

Just like last month, shortly after that edit, Hall:

• reverted Ren's edit with a weird edit summary, this time one that could constitute a violation of the WP:OWN policy, at 18:19
• provided Ren with a strange, template-seeming-but-not-actually-a-template first-and-only warning for vandalism at 18:22
• and reported them at AIV at 18:25.

That's reverted, final warned, and reported to AIV, all in the span of six minutes.

I am not defending Ren's behavior or contributions. This person was causing more problems than doing good work, they ignored repeated offers to help and warnings to stop, they're gone for a month, and the project is better off thanks to a good, wholly unobjectionable block by User:Widr. I'm concerned that twice, Hall went through the revert-warn-report process when you're not supposed to go from warning to reporting unless the person has re-offended. These problems have been raised repeatedly with Hall in various places and he never seems to respond to anybody raising objections. Note that it's been over two hours since I created a thread at Hall's talk to ask him to explain this. He's edited several articles since but has not replied to me, nor to User:LLArrow's message right below mine. (And this pattern of inappropriate behavior and refusal to explain is probably a lot more substantial than just these two situations, per Mschrimpf and LLArrow.)

When I brought this up last month, after a long, contentious discussion (What? I was involved in a long, contentious discussion? Weird, right?), it was decided that since Hall was apparently aware of the issue, good faith would be assumed and admin User:KrakatoaKatie asked me to go to ANI if I ever felt that "there's a long-term behavioral issue". I was on the fence about this then; now, I believe this clearly constitutes a long-term behavioral issue. Others have noticed. And as I said before, it's really strange that Hall, who has been editing for just over ten years, remains so perpetually unaware of how to do stuff around here. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding, I tried to notify every user I mentioned here except KyloRen123, who is blocked for a month. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm in and out for the rest of the weekend, so I'll give my two cents now. As an AIV admin who is increasingly frustrated with the revert/warn/report cycle taking place in the space of mere seconds sometimes, I'd like an answer from ADH about his behavior. I expected him to say something in that discussion on my talk page that's linked here, but he didn't, and I find his lack of communication to be disturbing. I'll check back to see what ADH says. Katie^talk 22:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• This "jumping the gun", as you put it, seems to be an increasing problem at AIV recently. I agree with Katie here. BethNaught (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Give them a strong warning & that if they do it again they'll be blocked, If they do it again block 'em per WP:Disruptive editing which is what it is anyway, Reverting, Warning and then reporting to AIV all in the space of 5 minutes (and when the editor hasn't even been on) isn't really how it's done and if they think otherwise then I question their competence but anyway warn them & if they repeat it block 'em. –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Not entirely sure why they've decided to ignore this entire report and simply edit a wikilink in my above comment, Not really productive nor helpful ..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it be more appropriate to warn and then immediately block? clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• That sounds beautiful!, Yes let's do that instead :) –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• This particular user has been the bane of many other editors existence for quite some time now. This is just a few examples of the disruptive/ownership qualities they have demonstrated time and again. I'd like to see decisive and permanent action taken. LLArrow (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• ADH responded on Katie's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• It should never have gone to AIV to begin with, it was an ANI issue. The free form format here is designed to deal with those issues. AIV is more rigidly formatted as there isn't much discussion, just decision making. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• This really needs to stop; I also had this interaction with ADH last week where I uploaded a properly licensed PNG image of WPWR-TV's new logo which lists a cable position and is used on-air, and they reverted back to a low-quality direct JPG saying 'If I still had Comcast, I'd be watching CW 50 on Comcast channel 184', which is not appropriate at all. Their WP:OWN issues with Chicago television articles really need to stop (I had to walk on eggshells trying to get my sourced edits to the WGN-TV/WPWR affiliation switch to stick). They also have major OWN problems with 2016–17 United States network television schedule (and years before) where his terms for time periods ('late fall/winter/spring' is more direct for a scheduling period but they refuse to consider that and go with a vague 'follow up' which is not a television industry term at all, and they refuse any attempt at compromise by not saying a word; I've given up there) are their rule of law. Their reactions to vandalism are beyond the pale, and these issues with ADH need to be dealt with once and for all. I must also ask for ADH to respond to this; their silence on any issue brought up is unacceptable. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's learned that silence works given he's never been blocked for his various issues and editors give up rather than tie a can to his tail and get that infernal "follow-up" term gone. Time to take back the article and make an important point. --Drmargi (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hall responded on Katie's talk and my talk with the same message:

I warned KyloRen123 not to add unsourced material to the Star Wars: Episode VIII page, but I shouldn't have reported him on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Jumping the gun with my WP:AIV report was a mistake. Next time, I just warn him. AdamDeanHall"

I responded:

"If you look at the discussion I started on Widr's talk page, no, you were actually right to do that. That's not even scratching the surface of the issue, though, and if you don't mind, I'd like to keep any more discussion at WP:ANI. It's not really about me so it probably shouldn't be on my talk page. RunnyAmiga"

Update: Okay. I should have come here first before replying to him. After reading what everybody said here, I removed that message and posted this one:

"Go to WP:ANI and discuss there. People are not happy, and it's not just about your bad AIV report. RunnyAmiga"

Predictably, nothing but that ridiculous refactor of User:Davey2010's link. Oh, but he's also since added an infobox at the article for a 19-year-old TV movie starring Yasmine Bleeth. So that's nice. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So what happened? He found the one complaint I made that wasn't really on the ball, seems to have copied text from my headline and pasted it into his replies, apologized for something that wasn't as offensive as everything else, and ignored the several other issues that have been raised, including the problem of going through the vandalism-reporting cycle at supersonic speed. And he still hasn't posted here. Whatever happens, happens, so let me just say: I'm really not impressed, and I doubt anybody else is either. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

But he had enough time to slip in and do this. That's ADH in a nutshell. We've got a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. --Drmargi (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I warned KyloRen123 not to add unsourced material to the Star Wars: Episode VIII page, but I shouldn't have reported him on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Jumping the gun with my WP:AIV report was a mistake. Next time, I'll just warn him. AdamDeanHall (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: Adam, I already posted that here. It's not even close to the only problem with you. Can you please read this entire thread and respond to people, and maybe have something to say other than text you copied from somewhere else that's already been linked to and copied here? You're doing nothing to help your cause. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And what about last month ? ... Was that a mistake too ? .... I call bollocks on the whole thing - You wanted said users blocked so you thought fuck it I'll try & game the system .... Unfortunately for you it's backfired spectacularly, Back on topic I would suggest you don't revert anyone (even if it's vandalism), Don't warn anyone and certainly don't go to AIV, Stick to editing. –Davey2010^Talk 02:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I do apologize for all the trouble I've been causing, like reverting all edits with really literal, really unhelpful edit summaries, providing people with strange, template-seeming-but-not-actually-a-template-first-and-only warning for vandalism, and reporting them at AIV. I won't do this ever again. I'll just stick to editing from now on. AdamDeanHall (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Adam, I have absolutely no doubt that you haven't read this entire thread. Right up there I said you should "maybe have something to say other than text you copied from somewhere else" and you replied with text you copied from somewhere else. (And that's not to mention that per Widr, your report of KyloRen123 at AIV was good! It was appropriate! Why are you saying you won't ever report anybody to AIV ever again?) I mean, I'm trying here, but you've not given any real indication that you understand what you're doing. Maybe a topic ban would do the trick, but you've done so much harm at such a wide range of articles that I couldn't list all the topics you should be banned from. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He's copying what Davey2010 said. It honestly sounds kind of like a Jedi mind trick: "You will stay away from AIV and stick to editing." "I will stay away from AIV and stick to editing." I honestly don't know what to make of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall, we'd like to hear in your own words – in your own words – that you understand the problem here. We're wondering if there's a CIR issue, and you're doing yourself no favors with this copy-and-paste routine. Katie^talk 12:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand what's going on here, and I'm sorry I broke the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Next time, I'll just follow the rules and not vandalize any other editor's pages. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you say that every time to duck out of trouble. You need to actually engage and discuss rather than just throwing up a boilerplate apology, a couple WP: mentions and thinking that's it. This is a collaborative community and I have seen no signs you actually intend to do so. I'm afraid I remain unconvinced that you have understanding what is going on; this is not about vandalizing at all, but taking an iron-fist approach to first time editors and incredibly minor vandalism by IP's, along with page ownership concerns and removing issues you don't agree with and hoping we'll forget and move on. Expand on this and understand the issues, please. Nate • (chatter) 21:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I have trouble understanding that Wikipedia owns the pages and I don't. And I also try to avoid starting an edit war, like I did twice, and to avoid violating the three-revert rule, like I did once. In addition, I keep trying not to edit disruptively, especially in good faith. And finally, I try to avoid getting blocked, like I did three times. Please let me know what you think. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: In my first message in this thread, I said this:

"I'm concerned that twice, Hall went through the revert-warn-report process when you're not supposed to go from warning to reporting unless the person has re-offended."

In the situations with Howiebraunstein a month ago and KyloRen123 the other day, you took those three steps (revert an editor's bad edit, warn the editor, report the editor to AIV) and in the meantime, neither user had edited anything. I don't want a promise that you won't do it again. I want to know: why are you "not supposed to go from warning to reporting unless the person has re-offended?" Why is that something you shouldn't do? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to violate the WP:AIV thing until you started this discussion yesterday. It seems that I have taken this reverting-warning-reporting thing a bit too far. Does this help at all? Please let me know right away. AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: But if I did that, I'd be in trouble too. And so would anybody else. Why can't you, I, or anybody else do that? What exactly is so offensive about it? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Really, I find nothing offensive about that. It just...didn't occur to me until now. What do you think? AdamDeanHall (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall:My previous questions weren't worded very well. Please disregard them. Here's a re-wording:

In the situations with Howiebraunstein a month ago and KyloRen123 the other day, you took those three steps (revert an editor's bad edit, warn the editor, report the editor to AIV) and in the meantime, neither user had edited anything. Why are editors "not supposed to go from warning to reporting unless the person has re-offended?" Why is that something nobody is allowed to do? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 06:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, this has become a blatant farce. Hall is manipulating the system and playing it like a fiddle. This sort of behaviour warrants a particular response. That response should be enforced, or else what's the use of our regulatory system?. LLArrow (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the page Star Wars: Episode VIII. Days ago, the user KyloRen123 added an unsourced content about 3D. I was just trying to make sure no unsourced content was added. That was what I found to be offensive. Unsourced content shouldn't be added to all Wikipedia pages. AdamDeanHall (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: I understand but answering my question is a way for you to demonstrate that you know what the problem is with going from warning a possible vandal to reporting that person for vandalism without waiting for the person to vandalize again. So please re-read my question (posted here on September 10 at 6:25) and answer it. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I knew I couldn't wait until the person vandalized the page again and again, so I had to act real fast to prevent the Star Wars: Episode VIII page from being vandalized. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• One thing I'mm certainly noticing in Adam's responses here are "What do you think?" and "Let me know right away" .... Perhaps I'm misreading this or at worst assuming bad faith but It really comes across as the user has no understanding and is simply telling RunnyAmiga what they wanna hear ......, I really do get the impression there's no understanding here at all, Perhaps this should be closed with a "Do it again and you'll be blocked for a very long time". –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Davey2010: What I think the problem is with a response like this is that it's not a final, established resolution, the sort of thing that several users who've had these negative interactions with Hall deserve. Let's say an admin closes with a note at his talk saying literally what you're going for here: "Regarding the discussion at ANI, do it again and you'll be blocked for a very long time." If you're right and the level of understanding is that problematic, his response, if it comes, would almost certainly be something like, "Do what again?" And we'd have to wait for him to screw up again, which could take another month. Preemptively stopping this stuff, whether it's Hall understanding what the problem is or whether it's him proving he doesn't get it and an admin responding by blocking or topic banning, is why I started this thread.

  I don't know. I'm going to keep nagging for a response to my re-worded question up there until either I get it or an admin just puts a stop to everything because an actual response (and he has posted a bit of worthwhile stuff here) will provide closure, whether or not it's the sort of closure he's probably hoping for. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I just gave you my response to the question you've been asking again and again. It's up there. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: That's true, but I feel that you and others misunderstood me because I didn't word it very well. The re-worded question is quite different from the badly-worded question that I asked and you answered. Can you take a crack at the re-worded version? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Editors are not supposed to go from warning to reporting unless the person has re-vandalized because it is the wrong thing for them to do. And they would get indefinitely blocked for that. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

KyloRen123 is a suspected sock puppet of Kingo7672 (who was indefinitely blocked for severe WP:CIR issues). Because he is currently being investigated, AdamDeanHall's report and the current 1 month block are likely redundant and probably won't matter in the long run. DarkKnight2149 21:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Had KyloRen123 returned, it's almost a given that they'd have been indefinitely blocked after five edits at most. And per the investigation, yeah, Ren's about to be gone for good anyway. That's not really the point of this thread, though. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

After ADH's last response I have to agree with User:Drmargi 's raising of WP:CIR. Meters (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: I don't know how many times I've tried to get a clear, valid answer. That, yet again, I tried to get one and didn't is obvious: if something is against policy then of course it's wrong. The simple question is "why is it against the rules?" I've asked that several different ways and I haven't gotten a substantial answer.

So I'm done unless there's a vote or something. I'll defer to Katie or whichever admin comes along but at this point, all I can say is that I strongly oppose an indefinite block per CIR because anyone who can edit like this is obviously something more than wholly incompetent. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: Competence is part of the issue, youth appears to be an issue, too, given the juvenile nature of many of ADH's responses. But I must say, I'm also uncomfortable with the way RunnyAmiga has been badgering him, particularly given his own all too recent issues with abuse of anti-vandalism tools and procedures. I think questions put to ADH might best come from one admin, by way of a dialogue, rather than a series of editors. I think the responses will be better and more on point. --Drmargi (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: While I'm not sure how anything to do with me is relevant, nor am I clear on the accuracy of the term "badgering," nor do I have access to the source of the term "youth" given that Hall has been editing here for ten years, I still kind of figured something like this would come up. To be clear: I persisted solely to get an answer to a question that I now am pretty satisfied won't ever come, and as I just said, I'm done trying. Are you wrong that an admin taking over will make a difference? I don't know. I also don't know what you've seen to make you consider that possible. Because given a decade's worth of circumstantial evidence, I'm pretty comfortable making a guess that there are almost certainly behavioral issues here that run deeper than some consideration of Hall's age. (Which, uh, how old is he? Is this known information?) RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible bot?

220.255.100.134's contributions and associated edit summaries on WP:UFAA [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], and [91] have me curious if this user is possibly improperly running a bot script. I left a note on the user's talk page with links and also spoke with admin Bishonen, who recommended I post up here to get a better opinion. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 00:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

His edits are irregular and his summaries inconsistent, so I don't think it's a bot. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy1221. Sometimes use of – tells me they are probably writing it in some other program, making a list, then copy/paste once they have several. Essentially at the end of a session. Looking only at the diffs provided, looks like they have a good track record with reporting as well. No issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible breach of WP:NPOV,WP:V,WP:CON by user. Dispute - Geographical naming/decription in the article lead and geographical section

There have been an ongoin dispute in the article of Eritrea regarding which naming/region should be included in the lead sentence and in the geogarphical section of the article. It used to include "East Africa" before user user:soupforone changed it to only include "Horn of Africa" the 25:th of June 2016 [92]. This sparked of a dispute in the talk page [93] where I suggested to restore usage of "East Africa" or "Eastern Africa" since Eritrea is considered to be part of "East Africa/Eastern Africa" by Africa Union, UN and literature. I even suggested to include both "Horn of Africa" and "East Africa" in the lead and the geographical section of the article as an compromize which an admin also suggested. When this was rejected by the user:soupforone. I searched for outside opinions to get their views as an first step to get some outside input to the dispute, [94], [95]. When this failed I started a case in the dipsute resolution notice board [96], in the request I specifically asked for "Comments and opinions on what term should be used and opinions why both can't be mentioned" (referring to East Africa/Eastern Africa and Horn of Africa). After long discussion it resulted in a Rfc in the talk page of the article [97] dated to 15:th of august 2016. During the Rfc several helpful users (including user:DonFB, user:Iloilo Wanderer, user:SMcCandlish etc.) enagaged to try resolve this issue. At some stage a majority of five users favoured to include "eastern Africa" as a compass direction alongside Horn of Africa, which read "Eritrea is a east African country located in Horn of Africa", resulting in me basically implementing the suggestion based on the suggestions by involved parties in the Rfc. However these changes where reverted [98] by user:AcidSnow, which may be considered as a breach to WP:CON by possible interference of the consensus process. AcidSnow has for most part not enagaged in the dispute that has lasted for weeks other than simply agreeing with the standpoint of soupforone, which the case in the dispute resolution board and the talk page of the Eritrea article shows. However, the dispute later continued in the Rfc section in the talk page of the article, resulting in both parties providing their cases yet again.

User soupforne has rejected to accept and aknowledge the fact Eritrea is part of the "Eastern Africa" region, and is only willing to accept a suggestion that compromize only of "Horn of Africa." (and possibly also willing to include northeastern Africa). The user deos not rely on sources but rather opinions. The main argument by this user is that the usage of "Eastern Africa" could lead to confusion with "East African Protectorate" or "German East Africa".

My arguments and what other's has explained 1) Eritrea is considered as being part of "Eastern Africa" region by UN (United Nations geoscheme), [99] (M49 coding classification), [100], [101] and by African Union [102] etc. Those two organizations are central to this issue but Eritrea is regarded as an "East African" nation by other organization such as African development bank [103],[104] and Ethnologoue [105] to mention a few.

2)Eritrea is in literature [106] referred as being a country located in "Eastern Africa" even a simple google (books) search shows this. The country is associated with the term "Eastern Africa" in contemporary nomenclature, as seen in the AU eastern region, a UN designation, and the country's membership in different organization.

3) Eritrea was part of Italian East Africa in contrast to East African Protectorate (Kenya) and German East Africa (Tanzania,Rwanda,Burundi). So therefore the country has an history as being labeled as a East African country. Making user:soupforone's theory that "East Africa" is only entitled to countries that was included in East African Protectorate or German East Africa not legitime. To prevent confusion we even suggested to change usage of "East Africa" to "Eastern Africa/eastern Africa". We also suggested to linking "Eastern Africa/eastern Africa" to the wikipedia article East Africa which explains Eastern Africa thoroughly (e.g EA protectorate, African great lake region, Horn of Africa) yet to avoid confusion and to assist the reader with information on East Africa/Eastern Africa.

4) Usage of "Northeast Africa" cannot be used as an compass direction or a region desciption that Eritrea is part of. -since "Northeastern Africa" is sometimes confusingly referred to as "Horn of Africa". Making it redundant. -since "Northeast Africa" is not a recognized region like "Eastern Africa" as mentioned above -since the term "Northeast Africa" is difuse and vague -since this area sometimes includes North African/Middle Eastern country as Egypt, placing Eritrea in a different region than East Africa. or as user:Iloilo Wanderer desricbed it "Northeast Africa" seems to lump Eritrea in with Egypt, putting it in the Middle East, which it is not in (though it is part of the periphery).

5) Most Africa countries use a single cardinal direction on wikipedia. Intercardinals directions (e.g "Northeast Africa") to describe a country's geographical location are not common. For example, Senegal, Cabo Verd, Mali, Gambia are all locatated at the same lattitude as Eritrea or higher and all are located in Western Africa in their respective articles, pointing at the region they are a part of. This information is sufficent enough for the user to get an understanding of where a country is located. There is also a map in the article that compliments the lead sentence.

6) At least five users in the Rfc agreed to add more than one naming in the lead, besides Horn of Africa. Simply because it is helpful for the readers of Wikipedia.

For the reasons pointed out above I think the usage of "Eastern Africa" is legitime as a country location description, as a compass direction, and as a cultural decription for the article.

Since the dispute has come to a standstill I would like admins to: 1) Provide opinions on this matter. Suggestions that has been povided so far that does include Eastern Africa/eastern Africa: "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa, a region in Eastern Africa" "Eritrea is a country located in eastern Africa" (leaving out HOA) "Eritrea is a eastern African country located in Horn of Africa" "Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa region of northern East Africa" (Maurutania example) or assist in providing new suggestions.

2) Consider if the behaviour of user:soupforone does breach wiki edit policy of WP:NPOV, WP:V and the act of good faith. In the Rfc a user pointed out this user's behaviour to be "careless at best and deceptive at worst." with regards to distorting what other's user has stated in the Rfc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0048 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - The RFC hasn't been closed yet, and the posting party hasn't alleged disruptive behavior with respect to the RFC. Is there any reason why this dispute, which is correctly labeled as a content dispute, needs to be considered at this conduct forum? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Sorry I re-labled it now. I am basically the posting party, I started a case on dispute resolution notice board that basically lead to the Rfc. The dispute is in a standstill since some users are refusing to compromize &/or possibly are interfering with consensus process. Therefore I would suggest that admins do take actions in order to try to assist in this issue. Or are you suggesting to redirect me to another board? Richard0048 (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Basically, Richard0048 changed the geographical location of Eritrea from Horn of Africa to East Africa without any apparent justification [107]. While tidying up some unlicensed files, I rolled to the original toponym. He subsequently objected for the reasons above. After some fruitless discussion on the talk page, I contacted the administrator SilkTork to facilitate dialogue. SilkTork then suggested noting the three primary locations for Eritrea (Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa) [108]. However, Richard0048 objected to all geographical phrasings that gave equal weight to Northeast Africa. I pointed out that the Eritrean Ministry of Information indicates that Eritrea is situated in the Horn [109]. It also draws a geographical distinction between the latter region and East Africa [110], but apparently not with North East Africa [111], and it doesn't appear to use these toponyms interchangeably. Chipmunkdavis then explained that both Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa were unnecessary regional qualifiers since it is already geographically implicit that the Horn of Africa is located within these areas. Otakrem, AcidSnow and myself agreed with this reasoning; especially since the country policy stipulates that the lede should indicate the "location in the world" in the singular rather locations in the plural.

However, this rough consensus was apparently not satisfactory for Richard0048, so he posted on DRN [112]. After some fruitless discussion there, Richard0048 objected to the presence of the volunteer moderator Iazyges, whom he suggested was not being impartial since he too wound up favoring Horn of Africa only in the lede sentence. Consequently, the DRN discussion was eventually closed and the other moderator PlatypusofDoom instructed that the matter should be resolved through an RFC question on the Eritrea talk page, which I then initiated [113]. Support for Richard0048's preferred "East Africa" was a bit stronger in the RFC discussion, but still no consensus supported his change. For some reason, though, Richard0048 concluded that it did, so he then proceeded to alter the lede sentence to point to "East Africa" [114]. I reverted his change, explaining that the RFC question was still ongoing per RFC:END [115]. Unfortunately, this caveat apparently did not get through either. Richard0048 reinserted the non-consensus link shortly afterwards [116], only to be promptly reverted by Chipmunkdavis, who explained that "the RfC has not concluded" [117]. This second warning fell on deaf ears too, as Richard0048 simply reverted again [118]. AcidSnow then reverted him a third time, with a similar explanation that "the RFC hasn't ended" [119]. But this too was seemingly not enough, for Richard0048 reinserted the non-consensus link [120], forcing me to remind him that the RFC question was still ongoing per RFC:END [121]. While all of this was happening, Richard0048 also vowed on the talk page to open a mediation dispute over the geographical naming issue. I explained to him that doing so would be pointless since mediation is a voluntary mechanism per WP:RFM/COMMON, and it is a final stage in Wikipedia's content-dispute resolution process after an RFC question and a Third Opinion. Richard0048 ignored this warning as well and went ahead and sought mediation [122]. The mediation post was quickly dismissed on the grounds that it "fail[ed] to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums"", and that "an unclosed and unexpired RFC [was] pending on this issue and RFC's are a form of dispute resolution proceeding." Despite all of this, Richard0048 has continued to insist that the RFC has ended, and protests that I have unjustly impeded a supposed consensus in favor of his preferred East Africa locale. The fact that the RFC is indeed still ongoing has apparently not quite sunken in yet, though, even after SMcCandlish told him this outright-- "This is getting very tiresome Richard. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Simply asserting that everyone agrees with you to include "eastern" does not make it true. Not only does it not convince anyone, it is liable to turn them off from the idea, since it looks suspiciously like pushing some kind of political agenda. Please stop." [123]

I tried to extend an olive branch to Richard0048 by reassuring him that I, he and all the other parties would be bound by policy to respect the outcome of the RFC question, whatever that may happen to be. Unfortunately, this too doesn't seem to have been of much comfort since the long post above was evidently intended as a last ditch effort to sway consensus in favor of Richard0048's preferred "East Africa" geographical locale. One of the many ironies in that post is that he apparently continues to be believe, despite the plainly-worded admonishment above, that SMcCandlish is in favor of his "East Africa" link. The allusion to some supposedly "careless" statements on my part was taken out-of-context; it pertains to some paraphrasing I had made on the talk page vis-a-vis SMcCandlish's and Bermicourt's positions on the geographical location. I already laid to rest this confusion with direct quotes of their actual statements [124]. So as to remove any further ambiguity, SMcCandlish himself has also just clarified on the talk page that-- "I prefer the following (besides including HoA, which seems to be a cnosensus), in descending order, if we include a compass direction in the lead sentence at all, which strikes me as unnecessary, and the source of most dispute: northeastern, eastern, northeast, east, Northeastern, Eastern, North, East. Both the capitalisation and the truncation independently suggest that the term is a proper noun or term of art, yet in this particular usage it is neither, just a compass point. I consider that confusion potential more important than the more-specific vs. less-specific issue of north[eastern] versus east[ern], and prefer the former both because it is more specific and because it is less likely still to be confused with some specialized conception of what "[E|e]st[ern] Africa" means." [125] Thus, the claims that the RFC question has ended and that consensus is in favor of Richard0048's preferred "East Africa" locale are spurious. Soupforone (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

How about "Eritrea is a Northeastern African country in the Horn of Africa region"? It captures all three: "Northeast", "Eastern", and "Horn of Africa"?Otakrem (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I would support such a comprise at this time, this is not what we are here to discuses. AcidSnow (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My actions were not a breach of consensus, so its not a surprise that you have presented no supporting diffs or anything else relevant for such a claim. The only user that has broken consensus throughout this issue is Richard0048 which can clearly be seen on the articles revision history (see here: [126]). Despite you their (see here: [127]), I have no affiliation with Soupforone. We're even currently engaging in our own dispute on my talk page, so I suggest that they drop this baseless accusation. In addition, Richard0048 has been continually forum shopping to receive support despite being repeatedly told not to: Admin C.Fred, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, threatening to call for more admins (see here, here, here, here, ect, there are more but these diffs are enough), and and now here. This is clearly evident in his decision to present his various arguments rather than solely focusing on his accusation of policy breaches: "My arguments and what other's has explained 1) {...}2) {...}3) {...}4) {...}5) {...}6)". I suggest that Richard0048 familiarize himself with WP:BOOMERANG. AcidSnow (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Oktarem it has been already described why "northeastern" is not prefered, see above. AcidSnow the dispute has been ongoing for months , therefore I have followed every step in the wiki dispute resolution, this cannot be called "shopping". I prefered opinions that where neutral which the talk page of the article or the DRNB did not provide. I have been close to ask for interference by admins at various stage during the dispute since I did not think the behaviour of you two was acceptable and that it might been a breach to the wiki edit policy's mentioned above. AcidSnow I did keep it only to this dispute, however there are other article where you might have breached to the policy of neutrality etc. as in the East Africa article where you have resorted to reverting and adding content without relying on sources. Which is a problem in the Eritrea article aswell where you support Soupforone who do not use sources. Richard0048 (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem and AcidSnow, that "Eritrea is a northeastern African country in the Horn of Africa" is actually a geographical phrasing that SMcCandlish suggested. It could indeed work as a secondary alternative to the "Horn of Africa" only locale in the lede sentence. Soupforone (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you were informed by multiple users (see: here, here, and here) and an administrator (see here: [128]) that your actions were forum shopping and were instructed not to continue such behavior. Nor have you kept this discussion simply to your accusation of policy breaches as I have clearly shown above. Anyways, I did provided a source supporting my edits in regards to East Africa (see here: [129]). Soupforone has continusally done the same on Eritrea (see here as an example: [130]). Plus, "northeastern" is supported by multple user, so I am not sure why your claiming it's not (see here: [131]). I once again suggest that you drop these baseless accusations since they will only come back to bit you per WP:BOOMERANG. AcidSnow (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe the reason he began objecting was that I originally proposed the neutral ground of both east africa and horn of africa with him, however after reading the above mentioned WP:'s, I switched to supporting horn of africa, and attempted to explain to richard why it would be better to no effect. Iazyges (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Lazyges, you were not involved in the Rfc, you was a volounteer in the DRNB. The dispute did continue a month after the DRNB. However during the Rfc there has been atleast five or more users that has been supporting a second naming in the lead, not only the cultural term/naming "Horn of Africa". Most favouring the most common description for the country which is "Eastern Africa"! The dispute has been ongoing for two month and I still don't know what sources they rely on and are referring to?!?? Therefore the breach of the mentioned wiki edit policy's. Richard0048 (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze on pro wrestling articles

Ranze (talk · contribs) is a frequent contributor to professional wrestling articles. It's not unusual for Ranze to interpret a source totally differently than everyone else, or for him to hear something an announcer said on television one time which is not backed up by sources, and edit war to keep that vision in the encycopedia. When this happens, the wikiproject has to stop what it's doing and clean up his mess.

Championship disputes

May-August 2015:Ranze spent last summer edit warring on Grand Slam (professional wrestling) over which potential candidates to list in the article.[132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143]

November 23, 2015:Ranze believes that two title histories merged into one. This is almost unanimously rejected at Talk:WWE World Championship/Archive 3#WHW contributes to reign total.

• He simultaniously edit wars on several articles during this time, including:Sheamus[144][145][146][147][148], List of WWE World Champions[149][150][151][152]WWE World Championship[153][154][155], Randy Orton[156][157][158][159], John Cena[160][161][162], Dwayne Johnson[163][164]
• This episode was put on hold when Ranze was blocked for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ranze/Archive#23 November 2015) when he editted while signed out to support his position on Talk:WWE World Championship/Archive 3#WHW contributes to reign total.

July 2016:Ranze revives the discussion at Talk:WWE World Championship#WHW counting resurrection, saying that despite the overwhelming consensus against him the first time it "did not get totally resolved". The result is no different than the first, Oknazevad and I both say we'll support a topic ban on professional wrestling articles if he cannot accept consensus and WP:DROPTHESTICK

August 2016:Ranze hears an announcer say something that leads him to believe another two title histories have been merged. He starts a topic at Talk:WWE Women's Championship#Charlotte 309 days and provides no sources to back up his theory. This theory is unanimous rejected.

Nicknames and redirects

August 2015:Ribbon Salminen warns Ranze that the redirects he is creating are "best useless and at worst completely misleading".[165]

September-November 2015:Ranze edit wars to list "Captain Morgan" as a nickname for Seth Rollins. Rollins had been called this as a joke.[166][167][168][169][170][171]

September 8, 2015:Nikki311 tells Ranze that while there is no set number on how many times a wrestler must be called a name for it to be a nickname it needs to be more than once.[172]

November-December 2015:Ranze asks WT:PW on what goes into a nickname, nobody seems to agree with his view.[173]

February 2016: Ranze creates redirect Iron Man of the WWE, it's deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 12#Iron Man of the WWE. Two users comment that the redirect is misleading, one says that the name was only used once.

August 2016:Ranze edit wars to list "queen" as a nickname for Charlotte (wrestler).[174][175][176][177] Dismisses my edit war notice as "harassment"[178]

August-September 2016:Unicorn Freaks and Madame McMahon redirects are deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 31. Multiple users point out that the names were used once.

Today:Five of his redirects are listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 7. After nominating them for deletion, I warn Ranze that continued disruption would lead me to request a topic ban.[179] He first responds with an ad hominem attack on one of the delete voters,[180] then says several members of the pro wrestling wikiproject are biased against him and their !votes should be overlooked; he argues that it shouldn't be deleted because unverified youtube channels, random twitter feeds, and reddit called someone by these particular insults which he made into redirects.[181] In a separate discussion, he then says delete votes aren't based on policy[182], and after I told him which policy[183] he tells me I'm wrong and links me to an unverifed twitter for proof.[184] He then goes to the admin that deleted Iron Man of the WWE and tells them that they did so in error.[185]

Discussion

We've tried to work with him and be patient with him. I've given him ample warning and other editors have to, but we've seen no change. Can someone step in and take a closer look at this? Given his history, this behavior is probably enough to warrant a harsh block but I am requesting a topic ban for professional wrestling articles. He has previously been handed topic bans on gamergate and gender issues and has been blocked for edit warring.[186]LM2000 (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I also have given user multiple warnings. Most times when confronted or warned, Ranze removes warnings, or attempts to start discussion from their talk pages labeling it as "harassment". They show no intention of being a constructive contributor to professional wrestling articles. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 04:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He has just now created the redirect Leader of the Altitude Era. Note that a similar redirect, Dawn of the Altitude Era, currently is at a unanimous delete at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 7.LM2000 (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The input of @ClassicOnAStick: could be valuable for this avenue of discussion given that special:diff/670290070 7 July 2015 is when they added this to the article under nicknames. I ended up finding a source to confirm the claim, which I added recently, from MTV. A redirect made sense. But this is not my original idea. LM is in a rush to brag about how many WP:VOTES his nominations are getting and hesitant to point out how 2 points of WP:RKEEP supports retaining my redirects while misrepresenting a point of WP:DEL to try and argue for deletion. Ranze (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

In trying to discuss anything with them and why it is not sourced or unreliably sourced they simply dismiss your argument and then move to another set of unsourced/unreliable links to try and make themselves right. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong and should be ignored/dismissed in their opinion. Ranze has been warned by several users and they simply delete the warnings and claim they are being harassed and go back to doing exactly what they were warned about. Everyone has tried to work with them but it's their way or no way. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing I occasionally ARCHIVE my talk page, which is not the same thing as deleting warnings. I don't ignore them, I have responded to them. The inversion you're attempting here is hilarious, because I am primarily the one who does bother to cite sources in these arguments, and others ignore this and just WP:POLL/WP:VOTE "Delete, per nom" type comments. Ranze (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Classic Ranze behavior going on in the redirect discussion right now. He tells everyone that voted delete they're wrong and dumps several unreliable sources to prove his point.[187] When I explain why this isn't right,[188] he links me to a tweet where one of the subject's onscreen enemies used a hastag and youtube video of him talking.[189]LM2000 (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Telling people they're wrong requires administrator intervention? If so: you also call me wrong, should the admins intervene with you? Citing a TV series is acceptable, that is why we have template:cite episode. Even Twitter is fine, thus template:cite tweet. WWE makes a big deal out of using Twitter lately. The 'YouTube video' is an officially authorized clip of the television program from WWE. I could link to the video on WWE.com but then I couldn't use &t= to help you find the minutes/seconds more easily. Ranze (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He has a list of reliable professional wrestling sources pasted at the top of his talk page, I pointed this out in that discussion because he was posting unreliable sources. Less than an hour later, he posts even more from the unreliable list.[190]LM2000 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You ought to be more specific. Re special:diff/738478778 you refer to PWmania and WrestleZone? The problem with the first is while special:diff/640048968 had it listed at the outset as unreliable by User:Starship.paint, no actual reasoning was given for alleging it was unreliable. Generally to support the allegation of unreliability a source is listed next to it. I've gone ahead and tagged the ones listing that. I linked to that page because I was curious about it, not because I put any stock in it. Starship doesn't exactly have the authority to blast any website he likes and declare it unreliable without a source. Especially not authors, due to BLP concerns. Anything without a source should be under "not yet proven" until a source proves an example of unreliability.

WrestleZone has 2 references listed next to it, so I can address that here.

• The first argument is because apparently this archive (I'll check later, can't access archive.org lately) says Becky Lynch was taking time off and 19 Nov 2015 she tweeted she isn't taking time off. I see nobody has trouble relying on tweets from wrestlers if it supports their agenda. They do appear to have removed whatever was there though, when I view http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/663647-big-update-aj-styles-will-reportedly-not-debut-in-the-wwe-royal-rumble-match-new-plans-being-discussed-for-styles right now.
• The second argument alleges that Nick Paglino's article http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/710329-kevin-owens-joins-undertaker-in-reaching-wwe-milestone-the-new-day-undress-tom-phillips-video-wwe-csc-setup-news-and-ticket-info supposedly "took this information from Reddit as reliable". I do not agree with that interpretation. Paglino clearly prefixes the statement with "According to a user on Reddit," but doesn't say anything about the redditor being reliable. The argument "he did not wrestle at SummerSlam (1991)" is given. This is not actually true. Although not an official match, Undertaker did attack Randy Savage with an urn during the wedding segment of the pay-per-view. He did "compete" in that he and Jake Roberts were competing against Savage for dominance. It just wasn't an officially sanctioned match, nor did it have a winner declared. Ranze (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Tonight he has given us a couple of textbook examples on WP:CIR. Here's another dump of unreliable sources: He again lists something he heard on commentary without a secondary source. He again lists something from the unreliable sources (Bleacher Report) list that is stickied at the top of his talk page (WP:PW/RS) [191][192]

LM2000 and Crash Underride have been stalking my edits due to past disputes with me.

What LM mentions are completely supported redirects they have spuriously nominated without adequate investigation.

"Dawn of the Altitude Era" is used on official merch for the wrestler:

• http://shop.wwe.com/neville-altitude-era-authentic-t-shirt/W09608.html

"Leader of the Altitude Era" is something he is introduced as:

• "@WWENeville's Music Taste Makes Him Leader Of The Alt Hip Hop-itude Era". 27 November 2015. we couldn't have predicted just how much of a huge alternative hip hop fan the man billed as the Leader of the Altitude Era when he flies in, around and over the ring is away from the ring.

As you can see, they are not legitimately interested in bad edits or deleting bad redirects, just picking at anything possible they think they can use against me, and here it backfires, showing they are assuming bad faith and not investigating before objecting.

As can be seen at the July review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive194#Ranze the topic ban I received in 2015 is not in place (funny LM forgets to mention this) and as can be seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive171#Ranze in a May 2015 review, it was initially put in place special:diff/654927319 in April 2015 by User:Gamaliel, who has mysteriously retired from Wikipedia after, as @The Wordsmith: has pointed out to me, several similar sanctions were overturned on appeal after he was determined to be WP:INVOLVED and thus not a neutral party in relation to the issue I was given restrictions for. Ranze (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I ask administrators to look at a long term pattern of abuse here, not just one incident. He has long avoided blocks by skirting the rules; he'll edit war over long periods of time but will seldom break three reverts in one day, he'll create a redirect that somebody did actually call a subject one time but never again... just enough for it not to be a blatant hoax, he'll dismiss critiques as "harassment" and question editor's "honesty" but will stop short of making an egregious personal attack, he'll drop the stick for awhile only to pick it back up at a later date. I think the evidence provided speaks for itself.LM2000 (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 there is no long-term pattern if so-called examples you present to try and argue one exists fall apart under scrutiny. Ranze (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze I find nothing about this funny or humorous, so unfortunate to see that you don't take this seriously. As for your "sources", Just like [this] site its the only one to ever call him that since 2015, one time doesn't make it notable. Just like this redirect The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking its nothing more than an insult and should be deleted. Your history speaks for itself and for these reasons I Support a topic ban Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Right after you say that he creates Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking. No regard for BLP and he knows it'll get deleted, The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking is at RfD and the discussion is unanimously against it.LM2000 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So he made another redirect because the other redirect is voted against so he can keep it. WP:Rope is all I have to say. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: actually the reason I created it was because I listened to Tyler Breeze again and he actually doesn't prefix it with "the" so using it without that is more proper. I had initially been reviewing The Man Who Gravity Forgot and simply cut off "Gravity Forgot" and started with "Mother Nature". Ranze (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 (is special:diff/738493481 considered WP:WIKIHOUNDING folks?) implies I don't have regard for BLP concerns, as if this phrase is going to cause damage to Adrian Neville's life. Clear system-gaming going on there. This was said by Tyler Breeze on an episode of WWE NXT. They would not have aired the footage if it was a BLP concern. Ranze (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

We edit in overlapping areas from time to time. I saw that edit in your history but it's likely the kind of thing I would have responded to anyway. We often agree in areas outside of wrestling, like when I voted keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabani (gorilla), which you had created. The thread in the diff you shared highlights many problems with the complaints in this one though, specifically your general lack of understanding of WP:RS. Breitbart isn't a WP:RS. Neither is Bleacher Report. Neither is an announcer on TV. Neither are most twitter feeds.LM2000 (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

LM2000, Appropos I saw that edit in your history, WP:HOUND clearly advises caution in tracking another editor's contributions. Regardless of the merits of this filing, it may be opportune that you not do so with respect to this editor. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@LM2000: as I already pointed out, your "they're not a reliable source" objection is irrelevant because I wasn't arguing they were reliable, just NOTABLE. For example, if Osama Bin Laden said "care bears suck" I would not consider him a reliable source on the quality of care bears, but still consider that to be a noteworthy statement worth discussing on some talk page. Ranze (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment At the very least he should be banned from creating redirect's, as he's really wasting everyone's time with nonsense nicknames that are getting deleted left and right. And why is that? Because they are incredibly implausible search terms, the only reason to create redirects.

But frankly, after the incompetence I've seen, I think it should be a broader topic ban. Not because of the content, but because of the behavior, and the utter unwillingness to work collaboratively. He's constantly wasting other contributors' time, and shows a complete inability to drop the stick and accept that consensus doesn't agree with him (which itself largely stems from his inability to recognize that his pet theories amount to WP:SYNTH despite having this explicitly explained to him in very simple a, b, c form!) oknazevad (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: if making comments about me should be transparent about prior involvement that indicates you are WP:INVOLVED in the dispute and not a neutral party. As can be seen at special:diff/731788343 Oknazevad blanked my attempt to engage in collaboration. I was willing to collaborate, Oknazevad was not willing to. Ranze (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

topic ban

I am completely unimpressed by Ranze's behavior here and at the RfD discussion linked above. "Notable sources"? Are you kidding? This user clearly understands neither sourcing nor redirects. I propose a indefinite topic ban from wrestling articles, broadly construed, and from creating or editing redirects. This nonsense needs to stop.

• Support as proposer. Katie^talk 11:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as someone who's had to deal with this behavior for months now. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 11:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I'm sorry that you've all had to deal with this for so long. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support more than enough here to qualify for that.LM2000 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Katie. Some "superfans" simply lack the objectivity to edit articles on their passion, and this is one of those cases. The burden this editor is putting on the community is greater than the sum total of usable contributions in this area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment, @Dennis Brown: well said. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 14:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment @Dennis Brown: Your first sentence is plausible, but if true, the superfans lacking objectivity are not me. More likely we have Neville/Ryback fans who don't like a redirect based on the creative nicknames Breeze/Jericho created for them. I am not placing any burden here. WP:Redirects are cheap after all. Critics are instead manufacturing unnecessary work by trying to delete harmless and helpful redirects. What would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken? Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Katie. Way too much work that could be better served elsewhere here is used to fix this editor's behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @RickinBaltimore: the behavior in question is creating a redirect (a minor thing, a few bytes) and then, when a stalker digs into my edit history to get back at me for past disputes and nominates the redirect for deletion, I make an argument for its inclusion and why I made it. How is this creating work? If my redirects were truly spam then it would be very little work to get rid of them. The whole reason so much conversation surrounds this is because an argument exists for them to remain. I should not be punished for making that argument and explaining how I added them (and want to retain them) in good faith. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - the editor has too much experience for me to just write this off as WP:NOCLUE, maybe some time away from this topic will help them to see the error of their ways. PGWG (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Template:PGWG if I have spare time from not being able to limit professional wrestling articles, perhaps you could spend it with me discussing where you think I err in my reasoning. People seem to be jumping to the conclusion that the defenses I have made of my redirects are in error, yet you haven't even entered the debate or made arguments yourself. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As per Katie and all the diffs showing disruptive editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What diffs? My talk page is open if you want to share. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

All the diffs that have been shown in this incident. They clearly show that you have no interesting in being constructive to the topic of professional wrestling. Just getting as much info in as you can, no matter if it could be considered an attack such as Man that Mother Nature Forgot to Make Good Looking. God forbid you'd been around in the late '90s-early '00s when The Rock would insult everyone, then every wrestler from that time period would have 20+ re-directs and "nicknames" by your standard. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 10:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment & question - The editor has more than 1000 redirects created. Is there any evidence of an issue outside the Professional Wrestling topic space? If not, suggest that a prohibition on creating or editing redirects is not required. Also suggest, without comment as the probity, that the topic ban should be explicitly "Professional Wrestling", instead of "wrestling". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just did a quick glance at his history, Stanford swimmer was deleted in June. Pussy crushing redirects to Sponsored Content (South Park), it seems they said it an episode once. Combined with his egregious history with pro wrestling redirects, I don't think I'll need to dig further. I have not seen abuse in amateur wrestling, MMA, or other forms of wrestling though, so I agree the ban should be just for professional wrestling. LM2000 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  Have you actually watched Sponsored Content? The phrase or its variations is used 9 times, and it's a central part of the joke of the PC initialism. As for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_16#Stanford_swimmer that was due to concerns about ambiguity... MelanieN didn't exactly give examples of other notable swimmers though, or evidence that they were also called this alliterative phrase. If you Google Stanford swimmer it's pretty clear who the prime topic associated with this phrase is, so I think that redirect was justified. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• If the response above wasn't enough proof that he's just not grasping it, see this edit to Talk:Donald Trump regarding nicknames made today.LM2000 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support As I previously stated his history speaks for itself, too much work having to be done cleaning up their mess. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment you might be WP:INVOLVED and thus, rather than a neutral observer, coming here for payback because I disagreed with you in the past. Special:Diff/736243448 shows you have a habit of removing things from your talk page without archiving them. This is interesting irony considering that above you said of me "they simply delete the warnings" even though we can see here that you deleted a warning from @Jim1138: about edit-warring. It also appears that you and Crash_Underride are buddies, although you have removed the evidence of that by taking the messages he sent you off your talk page. Special:Diff/736819447 shows you WP:CANVASSING LM2000 to collectively badger me. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Response 1.I had asked LM2000 why you had not been topic banned yet, which was over a week ago there was no canvassing to badger you, don't flatter yourself. 2.Yes I did remove that warning Jim placed as it was proven I was set up and tricked into an edit war by a sock IP, hence the reason my page is now semied, as usual you have no clue what your talking about, If Jim felt it needed to stay he was free to put it back. 3.My page is archived by Lowercase Sigmabot III. 4.Crash is the one who showed me how to use it, doesn't make us buddies. 5.Yes I'm involved as I keep having to clean up after you and like others I'm tired of it, its not just redirects either, it's all these nicknames which are unreliably sourced, just like there was no disagreement with you, you were wrong and it was proven and your still clearly bitter about it. 6.Your responses here to all these editors are nothing more than WP: Boomerang Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm confounded by the war on multiple fronts we have going on here but I'm glad others are able to see what we've been dealing with. A topic ban is all but certain, he has only dug that hole deeper by going after the support voters here. On another front, he refuses to WP:DROPTHESTICK on his deleted redirects, when Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking was deleted for being an attack page he again went after the deleting admin as well as Black Kite for pointing out that it was an attack page. On the eve of this ban passing he made two new wrestling redirects.[193][194] In his responses here he obfuscates his edit warring as reverting "vandals", as if anybody that checks the diffs can't tell otherwise, and in another response he accuses editors of making personal attacks. His defense of redirects and unreliable sources that fall outside of wrestling again highlight his incompetence abroad.LM2000 (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I love the fact they keep trying to find ways and accusing us of teaming up to "badger" them. When all we're doing is trying to get them to learn policy and follow the rules. It's gotten old, but it's still kinda funny. :D ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 10:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Crash Underride, This was unnecessary and incivil. It would be better struck. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Evidence suggests long history of edit warring and a fandom obsession with the topic that isn't helpful to this encyclopedia. Joseph2302 18:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • comment @Joseph2302: any cases of editing disputes generally had to do with my adding reliably sourced material and people removing the material and the sources. Why aren't you going after those vandals for warring? Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Nickag989^talk 18:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Making a comment like that indicates you haven't looked very far into my edits. I believe you are making an assumption based on others' heresay. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I've seen it all, from creating/editing redirects to editing disputes and from tagging unreliable sources with to personal attacks, it clearly shows the level of incompetence that you have. Nickag989^talk 08:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support WP:DISRUPTIVE editing needs to stop. MarnetteD|Talk 18:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @MarnetteD: I haven't disrupted any articles, but I can see mob rule is basically taking effect at this point. I'm beginning to wonder why I bother addressing people's criticisms when they persist in ignoring the particulars of a dispute and snowballing in generalized insults. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support and to be honest why aren't we having a conversation about a ban for an editor who's so far shown they can't be trusted to edit in at least THREE areas? Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You have no evidence supporting my being untrustworthy in any area Black Kite. If you bring up the old topic ban you'll see it was put in placed by a WP:INVOLVED ex-ArbCom who has fled Wikipedia. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Editor shows a pattern of disruptive editing which I do not believe can be remedied by discussion- clearly, previous attempts to discuss this have failed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @PeterTheFourth: how can you say that when so few critics are actually open to engaging in discussion? People are moving to sanction me while in the process of unclosed redirect discussions, preventing me from engaging in discussion, and assuming conclusions. They are rapidly closed and not left open long enough to receive widespread input. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my above comments. (And to respond to the above response to me, hounding a talk page with the same nonsense is not collaborative). oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Twist it as you like Oknazevad, you accused me of not collaborating but you were the one who prevented my collaboration by deleting my comment. Only users can be hounded, I can't "hound" a WikiProject which is meant to be open to community discussion. I only contacted you personally after you blanked the section I created there, and you blanked my attempt to communicate with you. You're clearly being hypocritical here, saying I'm not willing to talk when you're the one continually shutting down conversations and insulting me. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: the quality of sourcing needed for redirects is not on the same tier as that needed for article inclusion. The redirection of plausible typos is evidence of that.

I don't see how LM2000 trying to distract from the wrestling conversation by bringing up Breitbart is relevant to warranting a ban for me. As for Bleacher Report: an argument still has to be made on why it is awful to use, reasoning hasn't yet been presented on the WikiProject. That's why I fact-tagged it, as others actually have reasoning presented on the project for an example of them being unreliable.

I find your personal attacks pretty unwarranted. I have demonstrated both on and off of wrestling articles that I do understand sourcing. I have also created completely acceptable wrestling redirects such as Radical Mongoose.

You say I don't understand redirects, but I am versed in policy about them which is why I bring up WP:RDEL and WP:RKEEP to support the arguments I make.

Why, when this dispute is focused on redirects, should I also be banned from editing articles on wrestling?

Crash/Under supporting this should be disregarded since they are WP:INVOLVED and have been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me the past months. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ranze, please read WP:BLUDGEON. The first line sums it up well: "It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion." Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment, I would like it shown how many times Ranze has attacked me and accused me of hounding them. I have never hounded them, I have only been trying to get them to cease this behavior. But I've had it, I'm sick and tired of these person attacks and false accusations of hounding. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support User:Ranze may well be here to build an encyclopaedia, but is clearly not here to communicate; this is fundamental. As the walls of text and instinctive need to attack any opposition demonstrate, it is clearly best for all that he is kept away from those areas in which he is unable to discuss in a collegiate manner. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support, User:Ranze's response to this discussion is instructive. My advice to them, since this is clearly going to pass, is that if they want to appeal this down the track, to build a solid record of uncontroversial editing in some other topic area, and come back in a few months. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC).

Talk page harassment by Alexis Ivanov

This editor has been restoring content I have deleted from my own talkpage, [195] and [196] and has also been making harassment posts in other threads [197]. It comes about just after the end of a period of enforced mentoring given as the result of a previous talkpage harassment case [198]. I raised the issue [199] with the closer of the last ANI case, and he suggested starting a new one. This harassment arrived out of the blue, I have had no recent disputes or indeed any recent interactions with this editor prior to this harassment occurring (the only prior interaction I recall was over some content on Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent almost a year ago). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I left a note (but I don't see evidence that you have notified the other party, please do so).--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I had left a notification on the page of the editor's mentor, in a thread which Alexis Ivanov has been posting in, so I assumed he was aware. However I will now place a note on his talk page too. Thanks for pointing this out. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You stated "I will be opening an ANI" so I wasn't aware of your future actions Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it was an unwarranted assumption to make. Now rectified. However, I think I've initiated just one ANI case before, so was not aware of the procedures (I now have noted the instructions in red at the top of the page). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

However, while the reversion was improper, labeling a warning as vandalism is not helpful. While other editors should not react to such misinformation, it doesn't help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

His first restoration of deleted content was a breach of talk page protocol (a protocol someone already undergoing sanctions for breaches of talk page protocols should really have known about). His second restoration of the deleted content can fairly be called vandalism because it occurred after I had warned him not to do it again and it served no purpose other than to harass. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I was never undergoing a sanction based on your talk page protocol, I wouldn't recommend saying false things about me, as you have already done in another user talk page who recommended you to create this ANI. It seems your only interest is opening old wounds, especially coming from someone like you notorious for hostile attitude and harassing other users. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I just realized by reversion of the talk page was improper, I was actually following the 3RR rule, I made sure I made only two reverts, and afterwards I backed off, I wasn't acquainted with any so called "talk page protocol" . I believe this user Tiptoe was disrespecting a long time contributor and I made sure he read the warning, I took it as a form of disrespect from him to remove the words of the contributor. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If the only thing that was stopping you was your awareness of 3RR (which, btw, is not actually a fixed definition for edit warring) does this mean that (in the absence of advice given by your supposed mentor that this reverting was wrong) you would have continued with your reverting once the 3RR had lapsed. If so, I think you should be thanking me for initiating this ANI because it stopped you from digging yourself into a seriously deep hole. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov, I see from your talk page history that you have on a number of occasions blanked your talk page, deleting numerous posts and numerous warnings made by other editors. By your standards professed in the above, do you consider this to be "a form of disrespect" by you against those editors? Would you have considered it acceptable if an editor had come along and reverted your talk page blanketing? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Having now read your contributions here, I think it would be wise to complete the required notification, then urge that this request be closed. Read Wp:Boomerang if you need help understanding why. You also should apologize to Irondome, but coerced apologies aren't very useful, so I'll let you decide whether you understand why it is warranted. (I've already contributed to this thread, so don't think I should close it myself, but there nothing more to do at this time.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

8th Sept 19:15 I inform Irondome, mentor to Alexis Ivanov as a result of that editor's prior ANI case decision regarding talkpage abuse, that Alexis Ivanov has been restoring deleted content onto my talkpage. I ask him to advise Alexis Ivanov that this is an abuse of an editor's talk page. However, Irondome, at 20.33, does not give any warning to Alexis Ivanov - he dismisses the breach of guidelines as unimportant, and aggressively tells me "I would suggest you stick to the talkpage". In what way had I not "stuck to the talk page"? It was Alexis Ivanov who had not "stuck to the talk page", who had in fact not used any talk page, had arrived out of nowhere and started making harrassing and insulting posts such as [[200]]. Irondome's lack of advice to Alexis Ivanov, and his trivialization of the act, was surely partly responsible for Alexis Ivanov at 21:01 feeling able to repeat his earlier edit [[201]]. How long was I expected to put up with Alexis Ivanov's harrassment, let him (an editor who has been characterized in the past as an unrepentant bully) do it three times, let him do it five times, or let him do it ten times? And actually get threatened by Wp:Boomerang when I decide the harassment needs to stop at three posts? I initiated this ANI as the direct result of advice given to me by an administrator [202]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the admin who advised you to be here did not know that most of these problems were stemming from your own personal attack and this raises the possibility of a block for you considering your background. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I would take Wp:Boomerang seriously and listen to S Philbrick's and Irondome's suggestion of leaving here! Did you forget that you had already attacked me? Did I take you here while I knew you had been blocked multiple times for similar behavior? I did not do that for I knew we'd better put energy on editing the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption on List of natural horror films and its talk page

I've brought this up on the noticeboard previously, but it seems the problem has gotten a tad worse. There has been some edit warring going on over at this list article, but up until now, it appeared that that the IP user that I am in disagreement with was acting in good faith. This was made evident to me when I attempted to have the page semi-protected a few days ago. But, seeing as I've been called a "fuck face" and that my attempts at discussion on the article's talk page were blanked twice, I'd like to request some sort of administrative action, or at least a direction for going forward. –Matthew - (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP has twice attempted to remove a talk page post by MatthewHoobin, which to my mind is more serious than the (30-hour-old as of the opening of this thread) use of the expletive "fuck face". In the talk page post in question, Matthew appeared to be calling the IP a "welp" (misspelling of "whelp"?). Clearly, both parties are frustrated with each other, and iIt seems both have behaved in an uncivil manner, but as far as I can tell disputes like this are unavoidable with unverifiable OR-magnets like the article in question; whoever has been aggravating the situation by making the article worse is the one who should be taken as being at fault, as far as I am concerned. As far as I am concerned, no item should be included in a list like that unless an external source has described it as "natural horror", and adding citations to the article that don't use this phrase or the equivalent "nature horror" ("eco-horror" and "green horror" as defined here are not the same thing -- our article's definition of "natural horror" is much broader and has nothing to do with "man tamper[ing] with nature—or worse, ruin[ing] nature") is the worst thing you can do with such a page. MattheHoobin has done this at least twice, but I can't find the IP doing so. If I am missing some instance of the IP inserting OR or misrepresenting sources, I apologize, but this looks to me like a content dispute that Matthew would be likely to lose if it were taken to the community in the form of an RFC, so it is being spun as a one-sided user conduct issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC) (Edited 07:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Randomly jumping in here: MatthewHoobin did not use the term "welp" as an attack. It's a common slang pronunciation of "well," at least in the US. Matthew is free to correct me, but I'd bet money that this was not meant to be an insult. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 07:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Shit, really!? Okay, I didn't know that (looked it up on freedictionary.com, which assumed it was an acronym for something), so striking that part. That said, it takes two to edit war, so my view that no one's hands are clean on the user conduct issue stands, and the fact that the IP appears to have been right on the substance when reverting several of Matthew's edits is concerning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Would a mass revert of this blocked editor be appropriate?

After@DMacks: blocked Shirin.berkeley (talk · contribs) for spamming and @Yamla: declined the editor's unblock request with a warning that further spam would result in an indefinite block, the editor continued to spam adding similar links (many of which are just unicode proposals, hardly appropriate in an encyclopedia even if not spam). Yamla has suggested posting here and asking if a mass revert would be appropriate. And of courses if anyone thinks the editor should be unblocked, I'm not going to complain so long as the spamming stops. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have never used the nuke scripts and don't have any installed, not sure if we have that option somewhere else, but I would agree that is the best option here. I'm not comfortable doing it myself, but would loved to be pinged with the info so I might could in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I nuked, don't have time to talk more...will be back in a little while to discuss. DMacks (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: A good script for something like this is User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That massRollback.js is what I used, with also some manual cleanups where another editor had made an edit before I got there. And obviously I agree that rollback and blocking were both correct actions per NOTHERE/IDHT/CIR/etc. There might have been some reasonable links being added (or changed from an older/now-obsolete target to a more modern one), but the nature of this sort of editor is that it's not worth our time or and it's not mandatory that we check each of the edit flood manually. If someone wishes to look more carefully and see if there is anything salvageable, obviously I have no objection. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up, will check out and use with extreme caution, that is certain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Burningblue52

This newbie is having many problems and is not heeding suggestions or warnings. Seems the user knows all and is never wrong. Maybe someone can adopt them before they get themselves blocked. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If they're willing to not be stubborn and learn, I'll do it. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not caused any problems, nor have I added any false information. I have taken the issues to the talk pages of the band Bon Jovi, as well as to the respective talk pages of the albums. User:Mlpearc's reverts are purely opinion-based and unfounded. I have cited my edits and stated the facts given. The above user is using cyber-bully language, and hearsay. I am not a 'newbie' and have contributed to much of this website's grammar, and structure error corrections. This one edit does not found a "blocking" nor an "adoption". Bon Jovi's album Burning Bridges is a studio album. Burningblue52 (talk)

Some background at Black Sabbath, check the 'tribs here and the related discussion here. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Burningblue52: Please stop making comments on user pages, that's what talk pages are for. User:Mlpearc and User:Campingfreak3599. Thank you, Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 17:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor's comment on your talk page,[203] @Mlpearc: says "Hateful words and bullying online (cyberbullying) is against the law, as is hearsay. Stop doing so on other users' talk pages immediately". Does anyone else see this as anything other than a legal threat? Doug Weller talk 18:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Mlpearc, something went wrong with my ping. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I didn't read it before I removed it, It can be seen as a legal threat, yes. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 18:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

While I concur with Mlpearc on the content dispute, and have previously advised Burningblue52 so; respectfully, Doug Weller, that particular comment on Mlpearc's Talk page is not even remotely close to a legal threat (as defined by WP:NLT). We need far stronger, and clearer, threats of specific legal action to block. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72: BurningBlue52 has already been blocked indefinitely for said "legal threat". Do you believe that action should be taken to remove the block? DarkKnight2149 00:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, While I think there are a number of concerns w.r.t the editor and WP:IDHT and understanding of P's & G's, and that some administrative action might be advised; an indefinite block on these grounds is not supportable. I would speak in support of an appeal of the block. NOTE: I am not supporting of the comment at all; it's rude and incivil; but it's not a legal threat. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72: I see. I went ahead and notified the admin that blocked BurningBlue52 of your concerns. Hopefully he will respond shortly. DarkKnight2149 01:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User now seems to be abusing multiple accounts See diff editor and editors signature. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Mlpearc Phone That's a rename. I've blocked the editor and told them how to get unblocked. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it thanx. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Might I ask why BurningBlue52's userpage was moved by Céréales Killer? I can't find anywhere in BurningBlue52's edit history requesting such a move. DarkKnight2149 20:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have accepted his demand for global renaming:

De

Burningblue52

À

Lorem ipsum5656

Raison

I no longer wish to have the previous username

Statut

approuvé

Demandé

10 septembre 2016 à 20:34

Terminé

10 septembre 2016 à 20:55

Par

Céréales Killer

There was no mention of any block for this account, no reason to reject this demand. I am not a number (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Céréales Killer: Okay, thanks for the clarification. DarkKnight2149 20:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Just got back online. Lorem ipsum5656 (talk · contribs) as they are now called hasn't yet appealed, although they normally edit during the time period between my block and now. @Ryk72:, are you asking me to unblock the editor now or just saying that you'd support an appeal from them? The thing about such indefinite blocks is that they are normally easy to have undone, all the editor needs to do is make it clear no legal action - or support of others taking such action, is intended or planned. As it stands I think the statement isn't just uncivil but is chilling. If I unblock without an appeal from the editor, it could be seen as suggesting such a statement is ok. I guess I could unblock saying that another editor felt it didn't reach the level of a legal threat but if similar statements are made the block will be reinstated. Comments? Doug Weller talk 08:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Many thanks for the reply; appreciate it. Neither of us wish to be seen to condone either this particular statement, or the general behaviour surrounding it. (See this clarification, made for similar reasons). I do concur that the comment was chilling, but chilling of what the editor perceived as harassment/bullying. On the core question, I am explicitly not requesting that you unblock the editor now. In an ideal world, I would ask for the block log to be amended to reflect a different reason (civility, IDHT, or other), but understand that this is not possible. I would explicitly support an appeal (against a block made per WP:NLT, based on the block reason only), but, given the editor's rename, doubt that one will be made. I would, however, also support administrative action which obliged the user to seek a WP:MENTOR1 or to discuss reverted changes (1RR or similar). The editor has ~2800 mainspace edits, and an obvious commitment to the project, I'd like to think we could channel that into something productive. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Ryk72. Thanks. Why do you think that the user rename might mean there won't be an appeal? Your suggestions sound good but I don't think they can be implemented as all I or anyone else can do at the moment, given the block reason, is to either accept an appeal if appropriate or deny it. Now if I'd indefinitely blocked (or even given a long block) for the reasons you suggest, we could negotiate a binding agreement as a condition of unblocking such as you suggest. And I'm kicking myself for not having remembered that. I sometimes think that it would be a good thing if we did have such alternatives to blocking that didn't depend upon the existence of some sort of other sanctions. Simply putting an editor on 1RR for a prescribed period of time might be an excellent alternative to blocking, but we can't do that normally. Technically I could reblock with a different reason, but I'm not sure that would be the right thing to do. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Problems with the Greco-Italian war article.

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

---

I wish to draw all editors to an on-going problem with this article.

The article uses pejorative language of the Italians and editors refuse to concede that as the Greeks were unable to defeat the Italians, they had to eventually surrender to them.

Both attempts to rectify these two issues have been prevented.

The Mask of Zoro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.4.11 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is a sock of Annalesschool and is a nuisance edit.Keith-264 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention, their spamming comments have been addressed on several occasions yet the same stuff is re-posted without any indication they are even attempting to make a rational discussion towards any constructive edits.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This is blatant block-evasion. Quote sock: " I am afraid this article will know no peace. It may need to be locked indefinitely." This is standard master AnnalesSchool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): " But the battle for fairness and justice for the Italians will continue and will go on regardless.I can guarantee one thing though: there will be no rest for the likes of Dr K and Co.". Dr. K. 20:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• OP rangeblocked. I'm familiar with the idiosyncratic style of AnnalesSchool (see extensive communication in their talkpage history) and this IP and the one editing the article (90.174.4.80) are surely being used by them per WP:DUCK. I've blocked the 90.174.4.0/25 range for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC). P.S., please let me know if the block helps. If not, I'll semi the article. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC).

Wow. This sock is relentless. Oshwah addressed some of their posts for me for the two consecutive day prior to this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Copyright issues with XPanettaa

XPanettaa (talk · contribs)

I originally saw this editor after they repeatedly used {{OTRS permission}} tags illegitimately. I asked them to stop adding those tags and they did. But it doesn't seem like the issues have stopped there. XPanettaa has repeatedly stated that images have had permission when they don't have it. They have repeatedly changed non-free tags to free tags illegitimately. Regardless of the number of times they have been told to stop. This person is blocked on Commons for repeated copyright violations and now it looks like they have taken that here. Either they need to be blocked here as well for the same issue or they need to be banned from the file namespace entirely. This has to stop. --Majora (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: Look, I made a mistake. I'm sorry. I promise not to do this again, please. XPanettaa (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It is quite clear that you don't plan on stopping. I wouldn't have brought this here if I thought you would. --Majora (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I am now editing articles rather than editing files. I promise to stop doing what you said. However, it seems that I made a big mistake. XPanettaa (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about this particular matter, but I've been running into this editor and, while I'm still staying on this side of AGF, I have my doubts about their competence, esp. in regard to what are reliable sources. Like in this edit--it only takes a quick look at http://2-dutch.nl/ and the rest of the sources to know that this subsequent edit was invalid. There's a bit more in the history of that article (like this edit summary), but I have hope that it won't end in disruption. They seem to be a fan of a particular genre of music, writing up every artist they run into. That's great, but given those edits and others I've seen them make (like comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Noise (2nd nomination)), they are just not well-schooled in policy and guidelines. I just hope that rather than protest they will take the opportunity to learn. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• The promise to stop editing files lasted about 12 hours. An edit to a fair use image on an article [204] increasing the size of it which shouldn't be done and a subsequent edit to that file's page [205] adding information that is not confirmed by anyone. As stated above, I have zero confidence that they will stop doing what they are doing without administrator intervention at this point. --Majora (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Range block for IP addresses possibly used by blocked vandal

2A02:C7D:75D7:9300:8E64:22FF:FE39:6B8A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked as sock puppet of Callump90 (talk · contribs) after this SPI case. This specific IP address remains blocked, but the associated range, 2A02:C7D:75D7:9300::/64, seems to be outputting a lot of vandalism. I don't really know much about Callump90, but these edits are definitely disruptive no matter who it is.

Some of it is centered on date vandalism to articles about the BBC ([206], [207]). Other edits change the BBC to a publicly traded corporation ([208]). The edits that drew my attention were changes to other corporations to make them publicly traded, including Lego ([209], [210]), Amblin ([211], [212], [213]), Blumhouse ([214]), Imagine Entertainment ([215], [216]), and others. I'm not really sure if this is worth mentioning, but this talk page post is a bizarre rant that looks like a BLP violation. It says a celebrity who was found not guilty of a crime is guilty. If it helps get this range blocked, though, I'll throw it into the mix. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the range for one year. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

JamesJohnson2 v. Philip Cross

JamesJohnson2 (talk · contribs) Philip Cross (talk · contribs)

Originally posted by Philip Cross (talk · contribs)

This editor is intent on adding claims to the Trial of Slobodan Milošević page that Milošević has been 'exonerated' by the ICTY in The Hague. This is sustained breaking WP:PRIMARY, but the claim has been made recently by contributors to multiple non-RS sites like Global Research, the website of the pro-Putin Russian RT (TV network) and other sites which defend Milošević. It is also an issue on the main article about Slobodan Milošević, but this has not yet turned into an edit war. There are multiple articles on reputable sites which debunk these claims. This is probably not a complete list: "Milosevic’s Old Allies Celebrate His 'Innocence'", Balkans' Insight, August 16, 2016; William Marsden "Milosevic doesn't deserve exoneration for war crimes", Ottawa Citizen, September 7, 2016; Serge Brammertz "Slobodan Milosevic is no hero", Al-Jazeera, August 24, 2016; "Ex-Hague prosecutor upset over 'rehabilitation' of Milosevic", b92, August 17, 2016; Gordana Knezevic "Milosevic 'Exonerated'? War-Crime Deniers Feed Receptive Audience", RFE/RL, August 9, 2016. The account of JamesJohnson2 appears to be single-issue. Philip Cross (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that the ICTY has been quoted in the articles as rejecting the interpretation the other user insists on using. Philip Cross (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Originally posted by JamesJohnson2 (talk · contribs)

User Philip Cross is making false claims about my modifications. At the same time he is making opinionated changes on Trial of Slobodan Milošević article based on opinionated and unreliable sources. None of the articles he presents have any evidence in them, but are in fact personal opinions, of journalists or of people they are interviewing. At the same time they are ignoring direct evidence provided in court transcripts from "International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia" including following reports: "Public Redacted Version of Judgement Issued on 24 March 2016 in Prosecutor vs. Radovan Karadžić, p. 1303", International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 24 March 2006; Case No.IT-95-5/18-T

Other then opinionated articles he has listed above which present a point a view of individuals and nothing more he is yet to show any evidence why my conclusion is not correct. There are many WP:IRS articles which support my point of view and some that support his point of view, but the fact to the matter is that my point of view is also supported in WP:PRIMARY I have listed above. Bellow are some WP:IRS sources I have found that do support my point of view ignoring the fact that Philip Cross has already mentioned some above in abhorrent effort to discredit them: "Milosevic exonerated, as the NATO war machine moves on", RT, August 2, 2016; Neil Clark "ON TARGET: War crime blame game not so cut and dry", Herald Opinions, July 31, 2016; SCOTT TAYLOR "Milosevic exonerated—but who’d know it? The media keep mum.", The Greanville Post, August 31, 2016; JOHN PILGER "Slobodan Milosevic exonerated by the ICTY", caucus99percent, August 1, 2016; Alex Ocana "The Exoneration of Milosevic: the ICTY’s Surprise Ruling", CounterPunch, August 1, 2016; Andy Wilcoxson "Blair admitted it, Milosevic found not guilty, but Hillary remains unrepentant", globinfo freexchange, August 16, 2016; "Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic Found Not Guilty of War Crimes", The Conservative Papers, August 6, 2016; alpineski "Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic for Bosnia War Crimes Ten Years Too Late", slobodan-milosevic.org, July 18, 2016; Andy Wilcoxson "Milosevic Exonerated by International Tribunal, Media Is Silent", telesur, August 8, 2016; "Former Serbian Leader Milosevic Exonerated from Genocide Claims", NTFU, July 24, 2016; Hmk Enoch

• 1. Why is this issue here? There is NO discussion on the talk page of the trial article at all. That's where you both need to head NOW.
• 2. Edit-warring on the article is not going to help anything. I have no idea why JamesJohnson2 (amongst others) was not blocked on the day he reverted the article around ten times.
• 3. If you're going to use a 2,615 page PDF as a "source", you'd better damn well say where in the document supports your claims. or your "sourcing" is worse than useless.
• Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not use the talk page, because few other users are likely to access it. It also seemed likely that a problem with the dubious sources which put forward an utterly false interpretation that have been debunked by numerous writers, on a contentious subject, was likely to persist. For such a significant issue a decade or more ago, it is astonishing that the article has fewer than 30 page watchers. As you point out Black Kite, User:JamesJohnson2 has been reverting for several weeks. He also removed the reliable sources I added to try and prevent such sites as slobodan-milosevic.org, a site for Milošević's apologists, being treated seriously in error. Milošević is one of the most contentious political leaders of recent decades whose supporters write articles for obscure websites which are hardly RS. Quite a few of these should have been blacklisted long ago. My intention was only to protect Wikipedia from such material as quickly as possible. Philip Cross (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit by JamesJohnson2

• 3. The reference is on page 1303. in finding 3460. The page reference is included in original wiki article I forgot to add it above. The reference has been updated.

Not sure what reason Philip Cross had to hide the discussion on this page, rather then to start it in appropriate place. Also it is highly hypocritical of him to accuse me of removing "reliable" sources like B92 and other pro NATO proxy news agencies, in which word of Milosevic's prosecutor is taken like a gospel, with no other proof necessary, not only that but he has at the same time been removing the reference to "International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia" finding which is only real reliable source in regard to this issue.

User:Lysimachi WP:OWN and WP:CIR issues

Lysimachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Lysimachi seems to have competence issues: constantly engaging in disruptive editing, a failure to discuss edits, edit warring to keep their own version of the article and total lack of response on their talk page. Here are some of the edits.

1. A total lack of knowledge about their talk page. I doubt they even know it exists.
2. Weird understanding of "redundancy". See diffs [217], [218]. I tried to discuss this here as well.
3. Repeatedly adding a bunch of citation needed tags [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], despite being reverted multiple times by multiple editors [225], [226], [227],[228]. Even though a compromise edit was carried out [229], per another talk page discussion it was still reverted and the citation needed tags were added again.
4. The editor had engaged in similar behaviour about the language section for which I launched an RFC. However, this is extremely tedious. If for every small change we have to launch an RFC or a talk page discussion, it is seriously disruptive.
5. The editor never makes any attempt to initiate a discussion even though many of their edits are bold edits. On being reverted, the simply do the same edit again.
6. Failure to understand how references work. I removed this reference as it was essentially a youtube video - a recording of a concert. Nothing in it mentioned that the music was related to "Han Taiwanese" and the source is also not reliable. Yet it was added back again without an explanation [230].
7. The user also seems to have a "weird" understanding of NPOV. Apparently using the word "Chinese" in the article Han Taiwanese is not acceptable. The user has constantly changed Han Chinese to Han people even though one redirects to the other and our article is at Han Chinese. Diffs [231], [232], [233]. The user keeps saying that any mention of "Chinese" is a violation of NPOV. The user also keeps removing stuff to this effect - see [234], [235], [236]. To be honest, I am sick and tired of dealing with this. I had tried a dispute resolution on this (mediated by UY Scuti) but it failed as the user did not respond later. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_141#Talk:Han_Taiwanese.23Lead_sentence_WikiLink.

I'm not sure what steps to take. I cannot keep calling an RFC for every small edit, so I am asking the community to have a look and decide what to do. The bigger problem which I feel here is the lack of response on part of the editor and an inability to understand that collaboration and discussions are important. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

See a previous complaint at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive324#User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Blocked). On August 19th Lysimachi was blocked 24 hours for edit warring at Han Chinese. He seems to have strong opinions on how certain ethnic groups ought to be defined and will revert to enforce his ideas. For example, Lysimachi insists that 'Han Chinese' are not the same thing as 'Han people'. This appears contrary to normal Wikipedia practice, since we have a redirect called Han people which redirects to Han Chinese. The issue was discussed in the DRN mentioned above by Lemongirl942. The DRN had to be closed because Lysimachi stopped participating. In my opinion, an admin such as myself would be justified in warning Lysimachi that he may be blocked for disruption if he makes further reverts about the definition of Han-related groups without first getting consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Zppix's competency issues

Zppix clearly does not have the competency to do many things on Wikipedia. For example, look at his RfA. Also see his mentorship, which worked out disastrously, this link, which shows that he completely ignores copyvios at AfC [237] his inability to copyedit, and, most recently, the two most bizarre opposes that I have seen on ANI, here, where he claims that an editor of 6 years is a newbie and has gone through all of his over 100,000 edits and here, which doesn't make sense at all. I am requesting a topic ban from AfC, deletion discussions, copyediting, and ANI. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wednesday Thursday Friday- is he doing accepting AfC noms?!?!? _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm a bit worried about AFC. Carolyn Frohmader seems to have been most likely a COPYVIO with the previous revision deleted and a warning left on the original article creator's page. Yet, the article was accepted and moved into mainspace prior to that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

(Just came across this and saw the examples given.) I honestly don't know what to make of Zppix. I don't know if they understand quiet how Wikipedia works. Someone needs to explain it to them from start to finish. At least give them a final warning and if they do something out of line again, block. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

H'mmm- I also note that they have >6K edits, and reviewer / rollbacker privileges- so they must have some commitment to the project, and at least one admin thought they earned extra rights. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Zppix doing anti-vandalism work, he seems competent at that, so I'm fine with him having rollback. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, first off. The fact you are claiming i'm compent for anti-vandal work confirms I pass WP:CIR. I also have a reason to believe I'm being targeted by ThePlatypusofDoom. I've done more then just anti-vandal and i've done plenty of AFC work. Regardless I don't need to volunteer and/or do multiple tasks on wikipedia to be considered wp:CIR. My edits are also in line with WP:NOTNOTHERE. Remember to always WP:AGF Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zppix: May I ask why you think PlatypusOfDoom is "targeting" you? You just asked him to always AGF and then you just accused him of targeting you without assuming good faith. ??? CatcherStorm ^talk 21:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CatcherStorm:,I'll try to give you the short version... I'm thinking about starting an ANI myself. Anyway, Platypusofdoom has been name-calling and yelling at users, i've noticed alot on ENWIKI's IRC... @SwisterTwister: (for witness proof) and has been uncivil and when i confront him he always argues and leaves and comes back a short while later... He's long term abusing users and just plain WP:UNCIVIL. I'm aware he has Aspergers but he himself is barely WP:COMPETENT Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zppix: I'm going to advise you that a "tit for tat" report on AN/I is almost certain to boomerang back upon you. To put it more simply, it's only going make it worse for you.

I also want to add that a comment that you're competent for anti-vandalism means you're competent for anti-vandalism. It doesn't mean you're competent, or not competent, for anything else. To quote the essay that you linked to, two forms of incompetence are:

Editing beyond your means

"Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Wikipedia works. They may still be able to do some easy jobs, but they'll probably run into trouble if they try biting off too much. Encourage them to keep to the simple things, or suggest a break if they're getting frustrated about their edits getting reverted." and

Lack of technical expertise

"Insufficient technical knowledge is not usually a problem, unless when adding, deleting, or changing technical content. Not everyone needs the same skill set—and as long as people operate only where they're capable, differences in skill sets are not a problem."

I think the issue you are having is that you are lack insight into, and so are overestimating the competency and skill sets that you have. If you were, in theory, to mature, you could be a more productive editor.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Zppix, you're good at anti-vandalism work and you've done lots of good there, but admins have to do other things. They're expected to be able to create content, lots of it if needed, and it has to be neutral and reliably sourced. They also should be able to !vote on AfDs in a way that demonstrates they understand the criteria for inclusion. I don't think you're ready to be an admin now, but I'm not saying you won't be ready someday. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zppix: Show me evidence of competence, and I will happily close this ANI. See WP:Don't link to WP:AGF. Also, the ad hominem attacks aren't helping your case here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: How about all my anti-vandal edits, my help getting an article out (see my user page), i've created an template... Platy I'm not the bad guy, I don't know why this ANI exists, I'm obviously compentent enough to have reviewer, rollbacker, and AWB rights. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Your anti-vandalism work is fine, and I have no problem with it. Creating a template means nothing to competence in topics that I have remarked that you do not have competence in. Pinging the 2 editors that I discussed this with previously (I was asking if filing this ANI was a good idea). @I dream of horses: @Primefac: ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment The comment was redacted. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Should I be blocked?

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

---

I'm being warned about a possible block for sending obsoleted/orphaned files uploaded by Giano to community discussion. I'd really be interested in an outside opinion - especially since given this ruling by ArbCom, Giano is apparently nonetheless now free to engage in this kind of conversation. Opinions welcome. Kelly ^hi! 17:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• User not notified this discussion takes place. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  I'm asking for comment on my conduct. Kelly ^hi! 17:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, you should be blocked. There are currently 20 templates on my talk page all left by you in the space of a few hours. Almost all for perfectly legitimate images which I have uploaded expressly for articles which I have written. Almost all these image have the 'keep local' template. I have better things to do with my time here than run around after mindless trouble makers who know perfectly well what keep local means. You have even tried swapping images in content space, to insert erroneous images [238][239], just so you can say an image is unused. You are blatantly dishonest and a trouble maker. So the sooner you are blocked the better. Giano (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• I was going to make a Boomerang joke based on a bogus report, but, clearly you are actually concerned about your conduct. I'll take a look and post thoughts in a min. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Giano, I'm going to start off by warning you for WP:NPA for this insult against another editor. Regardless of any personal animosity you may be feeling, calling another editor dumber than a "gnat" is inexcusable. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Get lost! Giano (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Warned with template. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You do realize telling someone to "Get lost" is the same as telling them to Go Away right ? .... Whilst it perhaps isn't polite to tell someone to get lost it's not really something to template someone over is it?..... –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It was directed at the initial comment, not the get lost (which was seriously uncivil the way it's written). Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict), Ah my apologies, I thought you were warning them for the comment above, –Davey2010^Talk 17:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I'm looking at it Kelly that arbcom ruling has not been in effect for over 7 years since it was only meant to last for a single year between 2008 and 2009. Subcomment (edit conflict); for that matter, since Kelly appears to have desisted from FfD (Files for Discussion) with regards to Giano's work, there shouldn't be any block issued. Giano, you do realize you can delete those templates right? or just deal with it image by image and then remove the template. The key thing here is for Kelly to stop FfDing Giano's work and give Giano a chance to deal with all of the work currently on their talk page. Jehochman mentions other editors but no specifics, probably avoid touching the works of those people for the time being as well. I see no reason to block, I see no reason for Giano's PA's and I see no reason for Jehochman's aggressive approach. Jehochman could have had that discussion far more calmly. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. But I'm guessing that doesn't mean Giano is no longer required to be civil to fellow editors. Kelly ^hi! 17:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Plastering people's talk pages with dozens of ridiculous templates is also far from civil. You went looking for trouble. Congratulations; you have found it. Giano (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Course, Callmemirela has warned for the inappropriate comment directed to you. I've expanded my comment above, key thing for you is to desist from Giano's work for the time being and let them have a chance to deal with their current workload. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh I have no intention of "dealing with it." I have restored all the images to their rightful places in articles, and now they are no longer obsolete. Wasn't that a easy solution, no trouble, no problem? Giano (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of those images are in GIF format, which is in contradiction to WP:IUP#FORMAT, but that in itself isn't a huge thing. Kelly ^hi!

Will all of you leave Giano alone? This is a perfect example of badgering an editor with templates and warnings and then templating him for being irritated about all of the templates and warnings. Cripes. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• My AGF has already been exhausted, badgering an editor who wasn't even the topic of discussion, are you kidding me? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Besides the fact that it is customary to leave a notice, through a template, on the uploader's talk page when making a FFD nomination (or any XFD nomination actually). Would you rather Kelly not do that? --Majora (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I would rather Kelly looked at what she was templating. Photographs of people who died 130 years ago.............C'mon if she is so ignorant of copyright laws, then she should not be permitted to do this work. Giano (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's customary to notify the uploading editor, but if Giano prefers not to be notified I'd be happy to abide by that. Kelly ^hi! 18:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just look at what you are doing, and stop trying to win a prize for the most images for deletion you can nominate. Giano (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Giano and civility

Linked above, but Giano has been hit by ArbCom itself about incivility.[240] Here's the block log.[241] I've learned over the years that Giano can do what he wants, but it's not exactly fair to hold his opponents in disputes to standards that he doesn't have to live up to. Kelly ^hi! 18:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh do be quiet. what are you trying to be - the project historian as well as the winner of the competition to delete the most images? Giano (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Giano is not a child, nor are you. The problem isn't the FfD templates (which should be used when sending to FfD), however it would have been more appropriate to have a discussion before sending of 20 files. We aren't talking about one or two images, after all. As for this, I don't see a personal attack, just a very blunt statement. We aren't here to build the perfect society, we're here to build an encyclopedia, it will get a little rough and tumble at times. It is expected that if you are experienced enough to dabble in meta things like deletions, then you can deal with minor hostility once in awhile. The Arb case is irrelevant here, btw. The language is undesirable, but it was a singular, mild outburst. Finally, for you to nominate so many of his files in such a short period of time looks odd, like you were baiting him. It would be easy to think you were trying to push his buttons, and frankly, had you done that to me, I don't know that I would have been as reserved as Giano was. So to answer your question: Should you be blocked? I can only say: Maybe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  You'll notice I ignored the personal attacks until an administrator showed up on my talk page threatening me with a block. Kelly ^hi! 18:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  I have a lot of sympathy for Giano here, especially with tagging like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So, you have "learnt over the years" have you? I wan't aware we had had much interaction. How much better your memory must be than mine. Giano (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• That's good, and they weren't personal attacks as defined by WP:NPA. Continuing to ignore them is probably best since they aren't actionable. Perhaps what you might instead focus on is empathy: Understanding that if you nominate a wheel barrel load of images from someone without discussing it with them first, they might get upset, and they might assume you have a vendetta or nefarious goals. Really, Giano has pissed me off before (and the inverse is probably true) so no one is calling them a saint. The issue at hand is your behavior, which WAS subpar here. Forget it was Giano, and simply walk a mile in the shoes of ANY editor who wakes up to a wall of deletion templates that they must defend. Particularly when it appears you made a number of technical errors in your tagging. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks - not to be pedantic, but could you be more specific about the technical errors? Kelly ^hi! 19:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Since when do we need permission from the author for works asserted to be in the public domain? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh on one file, she even wants my great grandfather to rise up from his dusty mausoleum and speak personally to her and grant permission. She is quite mad. Giano (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• (ec)For PD works, you don't need permission but you do need proof, per WP:IUP#Copyright and licensing. Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  So, an error in your tagging. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Possibly, I do make mistakes. Which file are you referring to? Kelly ^hi! 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  As in my first post. [242] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  @NeilN: No error. There's no information on that file regarding authorship or date of first publication. Kelly ^hi! 19:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  If you think that tag is appropriate then I have even more sympathy for Giano. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, WP:C is one of the few bright-line legal policies laid down by the Wikimedia Fondatation. See WP:COPYOTHERS. Kelly ^hi! 20:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Your tag was incorrect. Plain and simple. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Conceded. We don't have a specific tag for "no proof" so we use "no permission" instead. Probably an opportunity for improvement there. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you really think a photo from 1860 might be under copyright? And you haven't answered this: why did you nominate so many files of Giano's? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

While it might not be under copyright, it could be under Publication right, which is why we need to know when and where it was first published. As to now I came across Giano's work, I spend most of my time on Wikipedia researching and sorting photos of heritage sites and architecture in England, copying them to Commons, and sorting them. Kelly ^hi! 19:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I suggest you stop copying things to Commons and leave them where they are. Try doing something useful for a change and stop harassing people and trolling for trouble. Giano (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:5P3. Kelly ^hi! 19:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Giano You're not aiding your case mate; take a step back- some of your remarks are approaching the WP: CIVIL boundary. On the other hand, although not an admin here, Kelly's actions do not reflect well on their understanding of procedures in this place. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Forbidding people from copying things that have been released via Creative Commons/public domain is not going to happen. You can {{keep local}} all you want. But by releasing those images anyone can upload them to Commons. Oh and [243] was really really uncalled for. Regardless of how you feel about the templates. --Majora (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Quite. Therefore the easiest solution is just to restore the images to their rightful place (as I have done) and forget all about Commons and those who seem to love it so much. Giano (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Self-destructive behavior by Giano

I really can't come up with an explanation for this, the deletion of a bunch of discussions that didn't even involve him. I haven't sent a new notification for this discussion as he's been participating just above. Kelly ^hi! 21:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification made here, clarified it was a new discussion and not notification for the prior one. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we would all benefit from a break of this. I suggest you give it a break and, if the problem persists, come again. Otherwise, nobody needs to go through this again. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's not like we've ever had any problems with Giano before. Kelly ^hi! 22:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Giano is allowed to do whatever he wants. Just ignore him and save yourself the trouble. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem at Sedgley

Hello, I've noticed that an IP range of 92.24.x.x keeps trying to edit the Sedgley article to add stuff that is not even true. The article is configured with PC1 protection, but it sounds like they are trying to cause harm to the article. Would a /16 range block be appropriate here? I'm not even sure. I'm not sure how to notify them as it is multiple IPs. Thanks! (ping me when replying) Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 20:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think just switching to semi-protection for a bit would help here? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Your probably right. I know pending changes gets most of the edits, but it lets the IPs continue because they don't know that it has to be accepted. Also, PC doesn't block them from editing the page. I think switching to semi is a great idea! Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 20:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I originally applied PC1 as there were a couple of IP editors who were fighting the vandalism but as all recent IP activity has been negative I'd support a long period of semi-protection. There's probably a lot of revisions need rev'del for BLP reasons. Nthep (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User "JamesE GB" removing request for page deletion and vandalism.

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

---

I just witnessed user User:JamesE GB remove deletion request banner from top of the OPNsense page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPNsense&type=revision&diff=738940200&oldid=738937113

He is also the same person who created that page inserting various hoaxes and promotion for OPNsense project, which has been known for abusing Wikipedia multiple times: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=OPNsense&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

Please prevent this person (and others alike) from vandalism. --Mr.hmm (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Notification of this discussion left here at users talk page. I have also renominated the article correctly under G4. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Hmm, it's not a hoax and a rather fair factual statement in my opinion, that I though, contained no original statements. My home and work is in the UK and other than using it have no connection to the developer. Just noticed today it didn't exist and added it, which took me a few hours to do!. From reading the previous notes and your Twitter account you got a notable mention due to the effort of which you post negatively about the open source product for a number of years now.

I am happy to identify myself to Wikipedia directly and have never posted to Wikipedia before in my life.

Not sure if it is vandalism by adding a new article. Can the reason why I have been reported be reviewed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesE GB (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) Mr.hmm, this is not a hoax or vandalism (also, check your user page - JamesE GB mistakenly posted there). That being said, Dane2007 correctly identified it as a WP:G4. Also, JamesE claims to be a new user and claims to have created the article from scratch. That is utterly implausible given the structural similarities to the old article. The account is therefore blocked as a sock/meat puppet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)