Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 2,011: Line 2,011:
{{od}}
{{od}}
Terabar, its because the SPI was created under that wikipedia space. "confirmed sockpuppet of Occultzone," you claimed. You even attempted to turn it around that way[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ekvastra&diff=755996355&oldid=702224161] like I said, but you failed,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ekvastra&diff=756013343&oldid=756006673] even after that you just [[WP:STICK|can't drop the stick]], you find it better to pursue with false allegations. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 17:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Terabar, its because the SPI was created under that wikipedia space. "confirmed sockpuppet of Occultzone," you claimed. You even attempted to turn it around that way[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ekvastra&diff=755996355&oldid=702224161] like I said, but you failed,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ekvastra&diff=756013343&oldid=756006673] even after that you just [[WP:STICK|can't drop the stick]], you find it better to pursue with false allegations. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 17:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
: [[User: Capitals00]], can you explain how did you come to know that you were sharing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARzvas&type=revision&diff=779665994&oldid=765607513 IP with Rzvas?] Don't think that you are very pious as you and your companion [[User: D4iNa4]] were blocked for sockpuppetry. In my opinion (not allegation) you were using the D4iNa4 in several pages to escape 3RR. [[User:Terabar|Terabar]] ([[User talk:Terabar|talk]]) 18:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

*'''TBAN and possibly Block''' This is clearly unwarranted, and should possibly lead into regular blocks if this continues. &mdash; [[User:JJBers|<font color="red">JJ</font>]][[User Talk:JJBers|<font color="green">Be</font>]][[Special:Contributions/JJBers Public|<font color="blue">rs</font>]] 17:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
*'''TBAN and possibly Block''' This is clearly unwarranted, and should possibly lead into regular blocks if this continues. &mdash; [[User:JJBers|<font color="red">JJ</font>]][[User Talk:JJBers|<font color="green">Be</font>]][[Special:Contributions/JJBers Public|<font color="blue">rs</font>]] 17:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


Revision as of 18:02, 17 May 2017

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

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

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

    This is part of an editorial war already reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dapi89 reported by User:K.e.coffman¨ I suppose its better if all matters are resolved in one forum. Otherwise, I think its rather a case of WP:OWN on behalf of User:Dapi89, proven by such statements by him as: Editors opinions count for nothing and I will do as I please. There are three editors who agrees. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Dishonest. I said I will do as I please on my talk page, not the article. Also, our collecrive opinions dont matter, its the sources that should prevail. That is the point i made quite clearly. Please dont lie. Dapi89 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dapi89:, you are required to notify users when starting a discussion about them, see the big orange edit notice at the top of the edit page. I have notified them both for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I feel I am involved. I did not edit the article, but contributed on the talk page. I notice that Dapi89 has voiced the first accusation of tag teaming on 4 April 2017.[1] Since then the editor has made no attempt of WP:DR, but confined him/herself to short comments speaking of a possible "destruction" of the article that he/she has to prevent. Thus the editor seems to perceive anyone who is not with him as being against him.(from WP:AN3RR). The editor routinely resorts to accusations. From today [2]--Assayer (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the administrator who look into this case: Wikipedia editor Creuzbourg (person who started to mass remove material on the Rudel page) tagged the article as containing excessive intricate details and contains unreliable sources even though is a GA article that requires to meet the comprehensiveness criteria and is throughly reviewed, has also tagged with the same tags these following pages:
    → FA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Kesselring&type=revision&diff=777161722&oldid=776657232
    → FA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Mölders&type=revision&diff=777174753&oldid=776113712
    → GA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Galland&type=revision&diff=777163959&oldid=776113388
    → GA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erich_Hartmann&type=revision&diff=777160461&oldid=777010274
    I don't believe Creuzbourg editing of these articles is being done in good faith, he acts as if he have consensus for tagging and removal of sourced material on these Featured Articles and Good Articles. In other words, from my observations he is biased and agend-driven editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IP 104.237.XX, please log in to your account if you wish to attack people on ANI (or for that matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history). Nobody believes you don't have one. Evading scrutiny on noticeboards is inappropriate. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    I do not believe that Featured Articles and Good Articles are beyond criticism. I am not driven by any agenda. I do not normally write about WW2 German military history or biography, but tried to improve an article that I found faulty. I tagged it and started a discussion on the discussion pages. I did not want to do, what most WP-editors do, i.e. just leave a tag and run; however the tag was immediately removed, the discussion thwarted. I am immensely disappointed with Wikipedia that such disruptive behavior can go on and on and on, and extremely tired of the whole thing. I am perfectly willing to be banned from editing Rudel or any of above articles, as long as Dapi89 also will be banned. The articles are faulty, and the tags should not be removed before consensus is reached. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update and request: Dapi89 has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring (in a conflict which is relevant to their OP complaint of tag teaming). They ought really to be able to comment here without any cumbersome please-move-this-to-ANI system, so I've offered to unblock on condition that they edit nothing other than this ANI thread for as long as the block would have lasted. They're not online and I have to go out now. If they agree to the condition, I'd appreciate it if any passing admin would kindly unblock, with a note about conditions in the log. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Response by Dapi89: Then no, on principle. I'll agree to leave the Rudel page alone for 72 hours, if the same rule is also applied to the tag team operating there . Dapi89 12:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC) (Diff). Assayer (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Assayer. So much for that, then; he'll remain blocked, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

    • WP:BOOMERANG: the reporting editor has a long pattern of uncivility and ad hominem arguments. Just today, at the WP:3RRN, he suggested that he can also provide evidence of Coffman of violating the 3RR rule on many occasions (diff). When I invited him to file such a report, he responded with On reflection, this is a case of Wikipedia:Tag team without providing any proof for this claim: diff. Substantiation is lacking from this report as well, which I consider frivolous & without merit.
    This has been an-going pattern with the editor, please see some of the edit summaries by Dapi89 from the Rudel article as well as others:
    This pattern of behaviour is disruptive and a topic ban from Luftwaffe / WWII articles (perhaps starting at 30 days, same duration as floated at the 3RRN) may be in order: diff from 3RRN. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Although this has many appearances of a content dispute, I agree with @K.e.coffman: that @Dapi89:'s POV edits and source disputes are problematic. This user has every appearance of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to preserving "their" sources and interpretations. They frequently accuse "opposing" editors of lying, rambling, dissembling, and incompetence. Their block log shows 6 blocks for disruptive editing, personal attacks, and/or harassment. This is behavior that has persisted and show no signs of abatement after these blocks. Examples just since their last block include, but are certainly not limited to (in no particular order):
    Dapi89 clearly has an issue with K.e.coffman and seems incapable of participating in any discussion of WWII topics, especially ones in which the latter is involved, without resorting to accusations of bias and incivility. Equally clearly, there needs to be some resolution of these issues. Since I am also tangentially involved, I refrain from suggesting any specific remedies but trust to the evaluations of the folks here. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dapi89 and coffman clearly have issues with each other;l I'm very reluctant to say it's on DAPI. I'd say it's a two way street. The discussion to which coffman refers is often not a discussion at all but a barrage of wiki-rules and wikietiquette and wikipolicies, followed by edit summaries, links to old pages, and so on. It is a brilliant use of wikipedia's user guidelines to obfuscate the issue, which is fundamentally that one editor wants to control and limit the sources relating to Nazi-era articles, and another wants to include a wider array of sources. One editorial group wants to trim articles of all details, including things that are important, that might be of human interest, and that relate to post-war activities, and another editorial group who think those details might be interesting. auntieruth (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've attempted to discuss issues with the editor previously, but it was not successful; see: User_talk:Dapi89#Edit summaries. I've also attempted to engage the user in the discussion at WP:Notability (people)#Current consensus, but apart from an erroneous claim, no dialog was offered. Another contributor pointed out the personal attacks (Talk page), but the response was: I'm not going to rephrase. There is a history of disruption with this editor and I will make the point in which ever way I like and the standard ad hominem about the suspect agendas of arch-polemicists. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- despite being warned about a potential block and / or while blocked, User:Dapi89 has continued to cast aspersions and belittle other editors, as in
    • cant seem to distinguish the wood from the trees (diff);
    • it appears as if you have taken sides (diff);
    • Dishonest. (...) Please dont lie (diff).
    He has offered no substantiation to the claims at this ANI discussion, while insisting that there's a tag team operating at the Rudel article. I have concerns that once unblocked in the next 36 hours, the user would continue this pattern of behaviour, and I thus reiterate my topic ban proposal. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TB Luftwaffe Length of time is immaterial to me. And an instant 24 the next time he is incivil or makes PA/aspersions.L3X1 (distant write) 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TB Luftwaffe This argument between DAPI and 2 other editors seems to have degenerated on all sides, and I object to banning a professional historian who specializes in aerial warfare. auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just two other editors, as documented above. While this particular incident started with Dapi89's accusation of tag-teaming against two editors, but his bad-faith accusations over many, many WWII content disputes are not limited by target. The statement "degenerated on all sides" is also an apparent mis-interpretation of events. In this dispute, as in others involving Dapi89, his interlocutors have refrained from the personal attacks and incivility that are clear in his own statements. As to the professional historian charge, even professionals are expected to edit by consensus and good sources. Every time Dapi89's sources are challenged he becomes very, well, unprofessional. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
    • not sure who posted this, but I will say that the whole discussion is out of control. I'm more likely to support an "all fighters to their corners" approach to give everyone a breather. Including those of us who are trying to keep up with the opus-like volume of material posted on why such and such is bad, or good, or problematic. auntieruth (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The allegations of incessant bickering (diff) & the discussion having degenerated on all sides are without merit. @Auntieruth55: please provide diffs to substantiate this statement; alternatively, please strike it. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I refer you to your own posts. This demonstrates incessant bickering. Every week I'm reviewing something that you're editing; some of your material is very good, especially on the Russian and Ukrainian fronts.--I like it very much. As for the "diffs", I don't have time. Papers to grade, exams to write, articles to edit, reviews to do. Anyone looking at the history of the pages in question can see it. As for degenerating, the name calling -- whoever does it-- needs to stop. The bickering is not helpful, No one has time for it, and I wish it would stop. auntieruth (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Auntieruth, I understand you may well have better things to do in real life than to provide evidence (diffs) for your accusations against K.e.coffman. But in such a case, the proper course of action is to refrain from posting those accusations. Seriously. I don't see how K.e.coffman is to be expected to answer something so unspecific as "your own posts ... demonstrate incessant bickering". Especially since uninvolved editors such as me can see K.e.coffman's posts, they're right above, and I don't see any bickering in them. Except indeed in their many quotations of bickering and intemperate remarks by Dapi89. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • As a comment, not all academic or other experts are able to properly edit WP. A professional historian obtains importance in their field by finding new data or original reinterpretations; aWP editor must do neither. An academic is expected to have a distinct personal POV, and to firmly defend their hypotheses as superior to those of other people; a WP editor must do neither. Some professional historians , especially those known for writing general textbooks, are able to write and interact in WP mode; some are not. The ones who cannot resist OWNership are usually banned from even a topic area where they are experts. Their ideas are not banned: they can still contribute by their published works, which can then be used by other editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, thank you for clearing that up. This all goes back to a discussion of whether a specific source is considered reliable: Just, Günther (1986). Stuka Pilot Hans Ulrich Rudel. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History. ISBN 978-0-88740-252-4. Schiffer is a private, family owned publisher. They have a wide array of books. I'm just not convinced that this is an alt-right wing publisher promoting fascism. There has been a focused effort by one or two editors to limit the publications that are considered neutral for this range of articles, and I just don't understand the problem with it. I don't think it's DAPI's effort--although he/she is sometimes a bit abrupt--but I also think coffmann can be off target on these things too. I'm concerned that a series of articles that have been collectively valued and reviewed by the project are being taken apart unnecessarily. Can they use some discreet editing? Probably yes, but not on the scale that has been happening. Two of the editors involved seem to expect instant responses to their posts, and that just doesn't happen. We all of us have "real life" and cannot be expected to drop everything because they have posted a question. I do appreciate that coffmann is now (most of the time) posting questions on the talk page before massively unilaterally deleting information, or bilaterally doing so with the other editor's approval. I'm just not convinced yet that this is the right thing to do. auntieruth (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor who routinely says things like: "I don't give a damn what you think," and "Your opinions are not important," and "Such an assumption is colossally stupid" is not "a bit abrupt". This minimizes and papers over the very persistent attempts by Dapi89 to bully and badger editors into acquiescing to his position. Couching this behavior in terms of the dispute over Schiffer is also inaccurate. As noted above, this behavior has involved other editors besides User:K.e.coffman and User:Creuzbourg. This is hardly behavior provoked by one content dispute. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As can be seen on the talk page, the "conflict" evolved with a discussion about "intricate details". It was actually me who first questioned the bias of Günther Just's work on Rudel on 2 April 2017, not because of its American publisher, however, but because of Just's close personal ties to Rudel, the NPD and, later, the DVU. In short, Just is a well known journalist of the extreme right and his work is strongly biased. A little to my dismay that did not become a major issue during the ensuing debate and it was never commented upon by Creuzbourg. Instead the discussion focused upon style, intricate details and GA criteria (i.e. question of "comprehensivenes"). There is one thread on "sources". But what has been reverted by Dapi89 ever since were mainly copy edits.7 April 2017 or 25 April all the while he only minimally contributed to the discussion. --Assayer (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning Dapi89's habits as a "professional historian" of aerial warfare I might point out that they recently made mutually exclusive claims about two different persons. On 10 February 2017 they claimed that Friedrich Rumpelhardt was Most successful radar operator in the Luftwaffe, part of the most successful night-fighting team in air warfare , whereas on 9 April 2017 they claimed that Erich Handke was The most successful night fighter operator of the war Both statements obviously contradict each other. Dapi89 still also found words to belittle K.e.coffman on each occasion.--Assayer (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban as proposed, i. e. from Luftwaffe and WWII, not just from Luftwaffe, for 30 days. 30 days, which would be a long time for a block, is short for a topic ban, in my experience, and I'd also support a longer ban, such as three months. Reverting an established and obviously good faith editor with an edit summary of "rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive" is pretty scandalous, no matter how much you disagree with them. It's the kind of aggressiveness that's likely to ruin the experience of Wikipedia editing, not just for the target of the abuse, but for other people who are deterred from discussion by it. As for the accusations above and at Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel that coffman has also taken part in "bickering", I can't see that they have any merit. I've noticed further examples by dipping into Coffman's userpage, which names no names, but is full of juicy quotes with links to who said them. That's far too much for me to go into, or indeed read, but for a recent example, check out the history of Günther Lütjens on and around 10 March, which is where the edit summary I quoted comes from. There we see coffman removing the external links with polite references to the talkpage, and Dapi reinstalling them with name-calling. (The talkpage discussion is also interesting.) The quotes offered by Eggishorn above add to the impression of a battleground editor. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support 3 month topic ban from WW2 broadly construed per Bishonen. Coffman is certainly a contentious editor within the WW2 field, but he is respectful and follows WP conduct policy and content policy. People's issues with his views on sourcing being Nazi propaganda, etc. are a content dispute not best handled at ANI. That doesn't matter here though, as those issues are content disputes. The question is whether or not Dapi's behavior in WW2 articles is enough for a topic ban. The name calling of editors who are perceived as being on the opposite side of a content dispute in WW2 is disruptive to the project. A topic ban would not be punishment: it would allow steam to escape and hopefully encourage future collaboration. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A topic ban as proposed, i. e. from Luftwaffe, for 14 days, should be enough time for him to be reflective and cool his heels, if one is to be imposed. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as auntieruth has said many of us have greater 'real life' priorities, and most of us can't keep up with the sheer volume of edits coming through. I can appreciate Dapi's level of frustration has reached breaking point. I acknowledge I also have history with coffman's practices and it has left me dispirited and resigned that quantity and rules-lawyering will win out a common sense approach on Wikipedia. As I was approaching a breaking-point, I did a self-imposed exile from the topic unwilling to put wasted time and effort to either compile and argue for a case or to write new material when it would likely be reverted without discussion. I also acknowledge that neither side can see merits in the other's case and I don't know how this can be resolved. I would prefer auntieruth's proposal that both sides be given a timeout instead of just one being singled out for punishment and reprimand when both have exhibited questionable behaviour by different means and methods. Philby NZ (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would consider editor Philby NZ to be involved given the prior interactions; for example, here's commentary from an AfD on an article that I created (AfD: J.J. Fedorowicz), where he commented on my editing reputation, while suggesting that the article's purpose was to act as [my] platform to show how shoddy its publication reliability is (diff).
    The disagreements that Philby NZ describes were due in part to copyvios on the Luftwaffe articles that he contributed to; pls see for example: User_talk:Diannaa:Copyvio (where he had described my contributions as sabotage). Likewise, past disagreements with Dapi included in part the placing of copyvio-revdel tags in articles. Dapi insisted on removing such tags, such as here: Talk:Gustav_Rödel#Copyvio, which also showed Dapi's rather surprising lack of awareness about how Wikipedia handles copyvios. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    yes and that it why I mentioned my conflict-of-interest. The copy-vios were related to some of my original writings on Wikipedia. The tribulations of dealing with you since have meant I have barely written any article-expansions since on this topic in the last few years. Philby NZ (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It's not conditional. Dapi89 was offered an earlier unblock on certain conditions, but did not accept them, so those conditions are a thing of the past. His 72-hour block will expire in about three hours, with no conditions. He'll be free to edit all of Wikipedia after that. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Okay, below are a few edit diffs (my grading is finished for the week) that I have dredged up.
    • I don't think it's reasonable to expect an editor to respond in short order to another editors demands. see this conversation
    • I call this an unreasonable action on the part of another editor
    • acknowledgment of an editorial war here.
    • and here. Since these articles involve WP:MilHist, it may be that we have some housecleaning to do on our guidelines. Would you suggest that? I can bring it to the project's attention (again). auntieruth (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • adding another. This edit was done a while ago, changing what had been an alttext description of a picture (remember when alt-text was required?) to delete "details. See here. auntieruth (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you posted the diff's you intended? It is very easy to get the oldid parameters mixed up when posting diff's, hence my question. These tend to document poor behavior by Dapi89 with the exception of the conversation with me on K.e. coffman's talk page (at worst general frustration with a wikiproject) and the changes to Sayn-Wittgenstein (K.e.coffman has made no secret of their disdain for romanticism in WWII German officer articles and doesn't do so disruptively there). In fact, some duplicate some of the earlier-posted quotes of Dapi89's behavior. I think that history is already well-established. Did you mean to add to the record or to support the earlier statements about "bickering"? If the latter, I'm very confused as to how these help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes, I guess. I don't like pulling up old edit posts, because it seems like water unbder the bridge. And yes I did meant to chose those, because they show another side to the story. auntieruth (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We had an edit conflict while I was adding this.
    • I realize that WWII is a contentious subject. I found a reddit page with all kinds of instructions about how to disrupt wikipedia's efforts to provide some coverage of the German military. I have it bookmarked and I could post the page here, but I'm not sure it would be productive. Its instructions were very clear on how to disrupt the wikipedia processes. One of the complaints was the the abundance of articles on the Knights Cross and lack of articles on Heroes of the Soviet. I'd like to see more of those. auntieruth (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- indeed, the romanticisation of the German WWII war effort is not only being discussed on the internet, but is also a subject of serious academic study. I would recommend:
    (Disclaimer, all these articles have been created by me). I would suggest either one as required reading to anyone who would like to edit on WWII topics as they related to the German war effort.
    Separately, I believe Auntieruth55 to be involved; please see: ANI: Attempted doxxing / casting aspersions by Auntieruth55 below. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The evidence in the first two comments under "Boomerang proposal" is compelling, as is the attitude shown at User talk:Dapi89#Blocked (diff if needed). Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TB I have my problems with Dapi's editing style as well as coffman's, but both editors have engaged in battleground behaviour, and have an unswerving certainty of the "rightness" of their views. As auntieruth has pointed out, the never-ending threads and streams of wikilawyering and pointy behaviour that come from coffman are hard to keep up with. WP would benefit from both editors showing a bit more respect for consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not just between User:Dapi89 and User:K.e.coffman, its also about User:Dapi89's behavior towards me when I tried to copy edit the Rudel article. When it comes to unsubstantiated claims of "professionalism" and hints of academic employment in the present discussion, that's just ludicrous. Any real academic, whether tenured or not, is swamped with teaching, trying desperately to get time to do real research, and publish real articles; not spending their valuable time writing and fighting rear-guard actions on Wikipedia. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peacemaker67 please provide evidence of battleground behaviour and streams of wikilawyering and pointy behaviour. Please also show how I've demonstrated insufficient respect for consensus. Otherwise, please retract your statement. (Such accusations from the user are quite typical, as in Yet more wikilawyering and pointy behaviour while apparently describing WP:BURDEN as an essay: diff).
    For the record, I make a distinction between community-wide and project-specific consensus; see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS -- more wikilawyering! :-) In the Rudel article where the tag team accusations have stemmed from, such consensus has resulted in an article consisting of talkative expositions and meticulous investigations of insignificant details (see Intricate details, with participation by Peacemaker67, MisterBee1966, Dapi89 & Auntieruth55). A similar protracted discussion took place at Hartenstein#OR. Talk page participants included MisterBee1966, Dapi89 and Auntieruth55 over a month's time. Likewise, see Gollob#Recent edits, in multiple parts, with participation by MisterBee1966, Dapi89, Peacemaker67 and Auntieruth55.
    The project coords might want to consider whether its best practices are in agreement with the wider community norms, or even with its own project members. In the thread that Auntieruth55 started as part of this dispute (Massive changes of FA articles), one member commented that the articles in question should be delisted because the sources are too old or too Nazi: diff. This is while the OP states: I don't know what the problem is with these sources , which seems odd for a professional historian. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to. Give me a couple of days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to misunderstand what I meant - you did not mean that I considered the sources inadequate, but that some editors considered them inappropriate. The complete failure to find any sort of consensus or compromise and the associated edit warring is what renders the articles unstable and prime for delisting. The strident appeals to ANI to try to get anyone who opposes you to be blocked or banned, and the twisting, whether intentional or not, of what others say to make your point, only makes the situation worse. (By the way, I thought that I was meant to be informed when someone involves me in an ANI discussion).Nigel Ish (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to a request that I “put up or shut up” (my words) about K.e.coffman’s unpleasant and aggressive editing behaviour, in the context of Dapi's behaviour, I have looked at some articles where K.e.coffman and I have interacted. I assert that these are indicative of his general aggressive editing style. Most of the highlighted articles are about senior German officers who served in Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia in WWII being my main area of interest). Given his prolific editing rate, no doubt his demonstrated behaviour on these articles has been repeated hundreds of times on articles I am not aware of. So, these are just a few examples from where our interests intersect. As I have noted, when challenged he gets very pointy. As another editor has noted, this manifests in “discussion” which is often not a discussion at all, but a barrage of links to wiki-rules, wikietiquette and wikipolicies, followed by edit summaries, links to old pages, and so on. I have found his editing style to be quite aggressive and unhelpful to the encyclopaedia, so I have avoided interacting where possible given my interests. While not condoning Dapi'd editing and communication style, I think coffman's also has to be taken into account here, it can be intensely aggressive and frustrating.
    Some aspects of the behaviour which I describe as problematic with these articles can be placed under several headings. I am highlighting just three aspects here:
    (1) removal of reliable sources he has personally decided are unnecessary or “militaria” books, despite their having clear encyclopaedic value for the future expansion of an article, using a number of spurious justifications, including that their use is “over-citation”, when in fact in most cases it is only the second citation for a given piece of information. He sometimes removes the citations, then subsequently states the source is “unused” and removes it. This is not in the interests of the encyclopaedia, as it removes potential sources of information for those that might wish to expand an article; [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
    (2) highly selective removal/commenting out of what he personally refers to as “intricate detail” such as dates of promotion, family details, awards etc from biographical articles, despite long-term and clear consensus that such information is part of meeting the comprehensiveness criteria on military history articles; [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
    (3) edit warring against consensus to get his way; [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) (added here)
    This is exactly the kind of behavior I was talking about below, particularly the edit-warring demonstrated in the third point. If Dapi needs a ban (topic or otherwise), then K.e.coffman needs one too. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see a smoking gun in the diffs above. The first two sections show a mild disagreement over the interpretation of “comprehensiveness” vs “summary style” requirements, how uncited content should be handled and what constitutes overcite. These diffs do not show me referring to anyone as “dishonest, ignorant, disruptive”; a “vandal”; a “virtual-SPA newcomer” whose behaviour is “deplorable”; or telling them to “get off your high horse”, etc.
    I don’t see evidence of the “edit warring against consensus to get his way” either. Many of the edit summaries provided by Peacemaker in the 3rd section point to Talk pages where I attempt to discuss the edits. Sample edit summaries: (1) “Pls see: NPOVN" or (2) “BRD -- insufficient discussion on Talk page; pls see: Overly detailed article” (the last one is interesting as it was Peacemaker who had in the past quick failed the article's GA nomination “due to a significant amount of unnecessary detail”; see: GA Nomination).
    The diff from the Kübler article is similar, with Peacemaker's revert: "please familiarise yourself with how en WP does biographical articles". I've not performed a single revert on that article; how is that edit warring? Instead, there’s a discussion on the Talk page: Recent revert, where a response to a 3rd opinion request sided with my interpretation of BURDEN: [36]. Unless one editor embodies the “Wikipedia consensus” (and also decides what is and what isn't edit warring), I don’t see how this is outside of the normal BRD & dispute resolution processes.
    In any case, I consider Peacemaker’s “Oppose” vote to come from an involved admin, as he has participated in the reverting at the Rudel article: [37]. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Take the example of the first link in point 3, one of K.e.coffman's reverts on Gordon Gollob. If one looks at the article history, we see you edit-warring with Dapi and Misterbee (i.e., K.e.coffman's reverts here, here, here, here, and here) over the span of a couple of months. Based on the discussion, or lack thereof on the talk page, K.e.coffman seems to believe that if the other editor has not responded within a couple days, he is justified in reverting. This is not evidence of collaborative behavior.
    As for Peacemaker being "involved", this is not the first time I've seen you cite policies and guidelines you do not understand. WP:INVOLVED only prevents Peacemaker from using the admin tools in a dispute with you, it does not prohibit him from commenting on this discussion and voicing an opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of this is about content. Potential sources of information can be anything regardless of WP:RS and whether the sources in question have a clear encyclopaedic value for the future expansion of an article is indeed questionable. If an editor is actively editing, but does not care to respond on the talk page, how long is one expected to wait? For example, on 12 March 2017, while they did not find time to visit the talk page of Gordon Gollob, Dapi89 reverted K.e.Coffman on Günter Lütjens[38], commenting rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive, and, on the talk page[39] There is only one opposing it. The consensus has remained for several years. Reverted. As a side note, not only has none of the linked websites been written by a recognized authority, one even took its text directly from Wikipedia. Overall this does not create the impression that it would be worth waiting for an editor who clearly shows no willingness for collaborative behavior. Once again the editing styles of two editors, who strongly disagree on content issues, are linked in a causal manner instead of viewing them seperately. Interestingly though, only one editor is given the benefit of it. Their proposed TB is opposed because of alleged "battleground behavior" on both sides, or at least, that's another conclusion, both are to be banned. Uncivility seems to earn a bonus when it's directed against the right person. --Assayer (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously I cannot speak for Dapi's editing habits, and don't much care to, frankly. But it does seem a little disingenuous to look at this one case in a vacuum, which is to say, Dapi and K.e.coffman have been fighting over this stuff for, what, 2 years now? Neither one is much interested in collaborative behavior, at least with regard to each other. It seems to me that the only substantial difference between the two is that K.e.coffman is simply better at making Dapi look the aggressor (as evidenced by the clear gamesmanship that took place at Hans-Ulrich Rudel that produced this whole discussion, which is to say, K.e.coffman reverting 3 times in 11 minutes, and then waiting until the next day [and after Dapi was blocked] to make a 4th revert - if anyone believes that was not intentional, I happen have the deed for the Brooklyn Bridge, and I'd be happy to let it go for a pittance). Can you please address both editors' long history of edit-warring?. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Breaches of the 3RR have been reported to and dealt with at the appropriate noticeboard. I do not see that the discussion was produced by the clear gamesmanship that took place at Hans-Ulrich Rudel . Dapi89 has frequently stated that they would report K.e.Coffman to ANI for "disruptive" editing and they finally did so by reporting Creuzbourg and K.e.Coffman for alleged tag teaming. Hardly anyone here addresses this charge, whether it's substantiated or not. Neither do I see Dapi and Coffman to be basically of the same ilk. This thread is about the Dapi89's long pattern of uncivility and ad hominem arguments . That pattern of behavior is not at all limited to their disputes with K.e.Coffman and has come under scrutiny way before K.e.Coffman's first appearance. You know that, so if you want to get a more complete picture, please do not focus merely on the conflict between these two editors. I fail to see how anyone who happens to disagree with Dapi89 is exempt to his wrath. Thus I also do not see how dealing with Dapi and Coffman alike (banning both of them vs. banning noone) will resolve the conflict. --Assayer (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to hear your explanation for the fact that K.e.coffman made 3 reverts in 11 minutes, and then waited a day to make a 4th edit, after Dapi was blocked. Coincidence? Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that in the course of this ANI, I’ve been variously accused of “relentless streams of wikilawyering”, "pointy behaviour", "incessant bickering" and "barrage of wikietiquette", etc. I've also been accused of “edit warring” (in an article where I’ve not reverted once & in another article for, I paraphrase: ‘four five reverts over two months!’).
    If there are still concerns about edit warring, including at the Rudel article, then please start a new report at WP:3RRN. Alternatively, please use the section above to substantiate Dapi’s tag-teaming allegations. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't present things in a factual manner, you are not helping your case. You did not make "four reverts over four months", you made "four reverts over 30-some odd hours, with three of them in the span of eleven minutes." Can you, K.e.coffman, explain why you waited to make your fourth revert after the window for a 3RR violation passed, and after Dapi was blocked, in any way that doesn't involve you gaming the system? Parsecboy (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to this statement: we see you edit-warring with Dapi and Misterbee (i.e., K.e.coffman's reverts here, here, here, here, and here) over the span of a couple of months" (emphasis mine); also see Talk page discussions linked from the edit summaries. Re: Rudel, as I previously suggested, please file a new report at WP:3RRN instead of re-litigating Dapi's block here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for ignoring my question - that doesn't speak volumes about your editing tactics at all.
    3RRN is for on-going edit-warring, obviously it is the incorrect venue to discuss your behavior from over two weeks ago. ANI, on the other hand, is the right place. Parsecboy (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The appropriate course of action would be to start a new ANI thread, as I've suggested over a week ago re: Parsecboy's comment that "we will be heading to ANI": [40] (emphasis in the original). Otherwise, this looks like an attempt to re-litigate Dapi's 3RR block here. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I was explicitly asked: I cannot explain why Dapi89 or K.e.Coffman reverted as they did, neither do I care to do so. Both can speak for themselves and this thread is not about violations of 3RR. --Assayer (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TB Never had any interaction with any of the participants here. After a quick review I am incredibly unimpressed by User:K.e.coffman's approach to the "content dispute". For instance He raises the reliability of the source "Obermaier, Ernst" on Talk:Werner Mölders#Tags. Obermaier is a source for tens of articles on Wikipedia, a handful of which have now been tagged. Very frustrating that instead of choosing raise this issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, he is on here trying to knock out a fellow editor Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bosley John Bosley:, it hardly seems fair to accuse K.e.coffman of being "on here trying to knock out a fellow editor". This ANI thread was started by Dapi89, trying to "knock out" (if you like to put it like that) two fellow editors, K.e.coffman and Creuzbourg, on a charge of tag-teaming (which has yet to be substantiated). Those two editors should reasonably be permitted to respond. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    This ANI thread was started after K.e.coffman initiated the WP:Blocking Games Here. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - while I have had my problems with Dapi in the past, I don't believe his behavior is any more problematic than Coffman's (in fact, I said as much in the ANEW post that resulted in Dapi's block, though that was seemingly ignored). Coupled with behavior like this (deliberately hiding my rebuttal of his deletion rationale as "off topic"), I actually have more trouble with Coffman's activities than I do Dapi's. Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that I'm one of the people you're discussing, Assayer, I figure I'll respond. I didn't come here so much to defend Dapi as to oppose K.e.coffman. Coffman's behavior is classic - edit-war over an article, then head to the drama board first to get the other side blocked (carefully framing the case to omit any wrong-doing on his own part). Why we reward this behavior has always amazed me. Why Coffman (and Creuzbourg) was not similarly blocked for his edit-warring on the Rudel article over the course of the past month (or even admonished) is, frankly, inexplicable. Which is to say, if 1, 2, 3 reverts in eleven minutes, followed by a 4th a very cautious 31 hours later (after Dapi was already blocked) is not edit-warring, we have a very serious definitional problem. And since you seemingly acknowledge that both sides are pushing a POV, one wonders why you (and others) tolerate one and threaten the other with a topic ban. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thread is about a proposed topic ban for Dapi89, because of his long record of uncivility and ad hominem arguments uttered against various editors on various occasions. So far you and other editors opposing such a ban have mainly pointed to K.e.Coffman as being the (at least as) guilty party. And, yes, that argument is construed to defend Dapi's behavior. You might perceive it as if you were adding context to that conflict. I perceive it as apologetic. It gives me the impression that you tolerate Dapi's behavior, or somehow even approve of it, as if certain editors deserve that kind of treatment or have asked for it. If you consider K.e.Coffman's behavior to be disruptive, start a thread about it, present your arguments, support it with difflinks and make your suggestions, how you think that the community should deal with it.
    Re:POV I am of the opinion that anybody has a point of view and that neutrality is acchieved within a collaborative process defined and guided by the various editorial guidelines, for example WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:ONUS and so forth. I have stated this point before and the reaction was kind of "He said Jehovah", or, in the words of Dapi89: That encapsulates the problem Assayer, with you and K.e.Coffman: "I think" and "IMHO". Editor opinions count for nothing. Assayer and K.e.coffman have used Wikipedia to attack sources about any German serviceman who served in World War II if it dares to complement their personal bravery or service record. I did not threaten a topic ban, btw, I merely would like to see that pattern of uncivility being stopped. What's your suggestion? So far I perceive your argument as something like: Make Coffman disappear and everything is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assayer (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dapi's incivility is not limited to this topic - if your problem is his uncivil behavior, a topic ban is not the solution.
    • I am categorically opposed to sanctioning one editor in a conflict and allowing the other to get away with the same behavior, simply because they ran to the drama boards first. That is why I'm here. I am no friend of Dapi - this is the last time I tried to help save him from himself, and you can see what I got for my efforts. Frankly, I'd be happy to see them both indef'd, but unfortunately we're probably not there yet (and to return to my earlier comment, why the community allows this level of disruption for as long as it does is beyond me). Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy:, the narrative you laid out above fails on the very basic fact that user:K.e.coffman did not start this thread, user:Dapi89 did. Also, Dapi89's problems are not limited to K.e.coffmann. They are consistently incivil and insulting to any editor they perceive as an enemy. I see no recognition in your remarks so far in your thread that you are taking consideration of the actual facts involved. Statements like Coffman's behavior is classic - edit-war over an article, then head to the drama board first to get the other side blocked seem to be motivated instead by personal prejudgments. Dapi89's initial allegations of tag-taming were never supported and seem to have been rejected by most here. K.e.coffman's accusations of incivility and personal attacks, however, are amply supported by statements above and even trivial searching will find more. There have been additional accusations of K.e.coffman's poor behavior, again without evidence. I would think an admin would at least attempt to substantiate ANI postings about another editor. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eggishorn:, as someone else pointed out above, and you either missed or ignored, Coffman went to ANEW before Dapi started this thread. No evidence of Coffman's poor behavior? Are you bothering to read anything I've said? Try the bit I am bolding for your attention now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy:, I might reasonably ask the same of you, especially since the "someone else...above" was me. I am quite aware that I posted about Dapi89 being reported to 3RR. I note that such reporting was reviewed, accepted, bocked, and then the block was also reviewed and endorsed. Holding K.e.coffman's feet to the fire over a report that 3 admins had a hand in seems really unjustified, not to mention disrespectful. If you want call K.e.coffman's edits gaming the 3RR rule, well, I can't tell you otherwise. I note that the full history actually stretches out over five days, involves at least four editors, and was accompanied by talk page posts. It seems like edit warring and WP:BRD playing out simultaneously, making the behavior of anyone not crossing bright lines a matter of interpretation. I also note that this thread has gone from accusing K.e.coffman of tag-teaming to accusing them of incivility to accusing them of bickering to now accusing them of edit warring. Are we going to keep moving goalposts until we can find something to catch them on? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eggishorn: - I was referring to Bosley John Bosley's comment directly above my original statement, not yours. If you were aware that Coffman went to ANEW first, on what basis did you challenge my "narrative"?
    Obviously I cannot comment on why the other admins ignored Coffman's behavior on the article - but surely you would not subscribe to the idea that admins are infallible? On the article in question - take a look further in the history, and you'll see that the three editors have been reverting each other for over a month now.
    As to the rest, where have I accused Coffman of incivility, bickering, or tag-teaming? Surely you cannot insist I defend arguments I didn't make, can you? Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy:, I challenged it on the basis that you said: ...then head to the drama board first. I have always seen "the drama board" refer to this one. I cannot recall any expansion of that phrase in general use to refer to 3RR. Perhaps "the drama boards" (plural) including all the WP:AN sub-boards is what you meant. The narrative of events on this board, however, clearly started with Dapi89's unsubstantiated complaint.
    I don't, obviously, think admins are infallible or else I would not have challenged your postings, would I? When three admins, including one as respected as @Bishonen:, agree on a set of actions, however, I tend to think they might be on to something.
    I did take a look at the history. I would not have made the 3RR/BRD comment unless I had. The history shows it is not a case of simply reverting and re-reverting. Different formulations are added, refactored, reverted, partially re-added, etc. Combined with the talk page discussion, that means calling a three-party edit war is missing important qualities.
    My last point above refers to the general trajectory of the thread. I'm not asking you to defend Dapi89's or auntieruth55's comments. I do think that continually adding new charges for an editor to defend to the same thread is unfair. I get that K.e.coffman is out of step with a number of MilHist editors (and I honestly don't know if you are one of them) and that creates disputes. I think I documented that Dapi89 has crossed very clear lines of behavior. I also think that K.e.coffman tries very hard to "color inside the lines," so to speak. If walking up to the line and not crossing it repeatedly is itself sanctionable, however, then there are rules I'm not aware of in play. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eggishorn: - argue semantics all you want, the point that Coffman ran to a drama board to present a one-sided version of events that resulted in Dapi's block stands.
    I tend to think that means they just didn't examine the situation all that thoroughly. No one is perfect, whatever their reputation is.
    Look, you can split all the hairs you want, but the long and the short of it is, the three editors were editing over each other, trying to force their version of the article in for the past month. It doesn't matter in the slightest that they reformulated things as they went—in fact, 3RR specifically states "whether involving the same or different material".
    {{xt|" If walking up to the line and not crossing it repeatedly is itself sanctionable, however, then there are rules I'm not aware of in play." - indeed there are. From the intro to WP:EW: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". And when Coffman made 3 reverts, and then waited a full day to make a 4th, it seems blindingly obvious he knew what he was doing. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, stating some-one is "arguing semantics" and "splitting hairs" is a classic hair-splitting semantic tactic to dismiss arguments and avoid addressing their merits. You were the one that spoke of a repeated pattern of K.e.coffman "running to the drama board" and then changed what that meant. You were the one that posted all of one example of this supposed repeated pattern. You were the one that imputed motives to K.e.coffman that you expect others to accept just because it's what you think happened. This is all uninspiring evidence of your version of events, and I think I am well within the rules to point it out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit - you dismissed my claim because I didn't make clear exactly what drama board Coffman ran to, when you yourself admit you knew exactly what I meant. Want more evidence? Look a few threads down, for another example of Coffman running to this drama board, trying to get another editor sanctioned for a ridiculously false doxing claim. There, you will see two other similar cases linked, where his activities succeeded, at least in part.
    Ironic that your reply, where you accuse me of dismissing arguments rather than rebutting them, completely ignores my point about Coffman's edit-warring. Pot? That's an awfully dark shade of black you're wearing. Parsecboy (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could k.e.coffman provide one evidence that his contributions to Luftwaffe articles on Wikipedia (topic ban k.e.coffman wants for Dapi89) have been made for any other reason than for the advancement of article quality. We would like to see contributions to Luftwaffe articles you improved, contributed or developed. I could provide the opposite. I would like to ask for your action on an Luftwaffe article: Otto Kittel. This article was rebuild by Dapi89 and MisterBee1966 starting with 16 February 2017 (it was rebuild with different sources as k.e.coffman raised the question about using kurowski and community accepted that he is unreliable) and since then until Dapi89 was blocked, the article was stable. Once Dapi89 was blocked you edited the article and remove literally everything. See the difference: [41] Could you please explain your action on just this article. You removed literally everything, all sourced material including Obermeier, Bergström, Constable-Toliver, Trautloft etc. Are really this source non-reliable? Can you provide here or on the Otto Kittel talkpage sources that state that? This discussion is very important for you conduct here on Wikipedia as some persons raised the question for a topic ban for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, did you miss this from above? IP 104.237.XX, please log in to your account if you wish to attack people on ANI...Evading scrutiny on noticeboards is inappropriate. This post makes it impossible to believe that you are new since January (as the IP contributions would imply). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on timeline: For anyone who's keeping score on who has reported whom and to which board, here's the timeline: At 16:46, 25 April 2017, Dapi89 posted to this board over a dispute at his talk page, requesting that Creuzbourg be "blocked from his Talk page" [42]. Shortly thereafter, I posted to 3RRN, at 16:55, 25 April 2017. Dapi immediately used that forum for spurious claims directed at Creuzbourg and me (see the hatted section of the post: link to 3RRN archive). At that point I invited him to post to ANI, which he did, at 17:18, 25 April 2017. Hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the proposal: I followed the link provided by Parsecboy, and then another -- this was quite illuminating. Sample diffs: "I will (as the greatest contributor to the article) change the altered passages as I see fit (...). I don't need to discuss it nor do I require your permission" [43]; "Weak Parky. (...) Understandable as it is a struggle to make sense of what you say. Careful how you write" [44]; "Yes it does Peter. (...) Please buy the Collins German dictionary" [45], etc.
    Although these predate my interactions with Dapi89, mine have been similar: "The Germans do not refer to the current air force as the "German Air Force"! I suggest some reading is in order for you" [46]. This dispute took a side trip to NPOVN to resolve.
    The diffs show that Dapi89 is quite passionate about WW2 topics and considers himself to be an expert. But, as DGG has pointed out, this often leads to the inability to edit articles neutrally or collaboratively. Anybody with different point of view is considered "ignorant", "disruptive", "dishonest", a "vandal", "tag team", and so on, as is obvious in this case.
    This can also lead to situations when the immersion in a particular topic leads to original research or fast & loose handling of citations. I can provide diffs/links if needed. Dapi's behaviour has led to on-going disruptions over many years and a topic ban is indeed needed, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Support 3 month general ban on Dapi89 for incivility, bullying and aggressive tactics. Carlotm (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Seeing the discussion above, and my own look through, I think that this is well needed. —JJBers 05:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all clear to me how you can interpret the above discussion as consensus for any action here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    POV !vote tracking. 5-5. I still support it. Either way something needs to be done about it. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been suggested that the editor who participated in the reverting on the Rudel article (from which the tag-teaming accusation has arisen) is free to iVote here: "it does not prohibit him from (...) voicing an opinion". I note that that editors Eggishorn, Assayer and Creuzbourg have essentially recused themselves from casting a vote because of prior interactions with Dapi. @L3X1: would it be appropriate for them to do so?
    Speaking of Dapi, here's him calling another editor a "sniveling little child" after one of his prior blocks. Much of this predates me joining Wikipedia and has gone on for far too long. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    K.e.coffman I have seen involved editors !vote in AN/I proposals, so I would think so, and would count any comment with specific intent-judgements as a !vote. As for Dapi, his block log is filled with administrative action for NPA and civility violations. He hasn't edited for 2 weeks though. The diff you give is from 2011 which for me make mes want him to get a long long block. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At this time, I note that Dapi89 has effectively given himself a 14-day block (on top of the 72-hour edit-warring block from Lord Roem, which matches the length of his longest block so far. Perhaps a topic ban is moot. I don't think that can be known until (if?) he returns. For the time being, at least, I think this should remain open and in abeyance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @L3X1: - how on earth do you figure a rough 50/50 !vote is consensus for anything? If you were running at RfA, and you had roughly 50/50 supports/opposes, do you think your RfA would be likely to pass? Parsecboy (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing even approaching a consensus for a boomerang ban here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am done here; I will not vote in a conflict that I am part of. Neither will I cast any more pearls before the swine; I solemnly promise to never again edit, update, improve or add images to any article I haven't originally created. Let the dogs return to their vomit; I will not. The most I will do is to add a link to an article I have begun in another editor's article. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Parsecboy I just reread the entire thread. If you are so bent on making sure nobody gets away with anything (which BTW I am also for, slow mo EW is EW) then drop K.e.c a 24 hour and give Dapi time for each bad comment! And as for how on earth do you figure a rough 50/50 !vote is consensus for anything I believe I began this sub thread with is the 30 day TB law now?, a simple yes or no question. For the time being, at least, I think this should remain open and in abeyance I fail to see how that achieve anything. For the past week I have scrolled past these 400K bytes of monster discussion (combined from all the large arguments) to the bottom of the page. From the lack of activies, (5 days no action) I assume most other have been to. Do you want to leave this up for another 2 weeks when the proposed TB (if enacted) would have expired? Things are brought to AN/I to be resolved, not left to rot in a stalemate !vote. The stalemate can be broken mny ways: either an RfC can be held to bring in new eyes, or an admin (such as Parsecboy) could declare one way or the other. Parsecboy could of closed this as Stale, no consensus, OP hasn't edited in 2 weeks or something along those lines, couldn't you? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC) PS.[reply]
    I'm a wee bit too involved to be blocking anybody here. It also wouldn't be appropriate for me to close this thread. My problem was your characterization that the issue was settled, when it is not, irrespective of whether Dapi returns to edit or not. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that everyone acknowledges that Dapi89 exhibits a pattern of uncivil behavior quite regularly. Some seem to argue, however, that they should not be blocked, because K.e.Coffman's behavior was at least as bad. I got the impression that for some it became more important to settle their score with K.e.Coffman than to seriously discuss the issue at stake. Be that as it may, as someone who has also been subject of Dapi89's contempt, I would like to hear from those who oppose the proposed topic ban how they would like to proceed. Let Dapi89 have their way? Impose a ban on Dapi89 and K.e.Coffman? Why not impose a topic ban on all those who have interacted with Dapi89 and K.e.Coffman on WW II issues? Since Dapi89 chose not to comment, I have no idea what they are up to. As an involved party I will cast no vote.--Assayer (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, Assayer, I've had enough of your indirect, snide remarks. If you're going to talk about me or my arguments, I'd rather you did so directly. I have no "score" with K.e.coffman to "settle" - what I do have is a problem with an editor who is here to push a particular POV, exhibits a battleground mentality, and games the rules. Why you have no problem with any of that, I have no idea. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Parsecboy: I am not talking just about you and your arguments. You at least took your time to reply to my concerns, we had some discussion and I appreciate that, even if we don't agree. But you are not the only one who used this thread rather to talk about K.e.coffman's behavior than about Dapi89's, and I take the liberty to put that in a pointed manner. If you think that Dapi89 are not here to push a particular POV, that they do not exhibit a battleground mentality, and that they respect the rules, please say so. Since you obviously think that K.e.coffman are here to push a particular POV, exhibits a battleground mentality, and games the rules, please start a thread about it. The whole thread here would have been much slimmer if participants would have dicussed each editor's behavior for its own merits. This would not have precluded to point to possible interactions between editors, but it would have allowed for a much clearer picture of what has to be settled. --Assayer (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reason to open another thread. Their behavior is not occurring in a vacuum, and in fact, it is their interaction that causes much of the problem. I have said repeatedly that I do not endorse or defend Dapi's behavior, and that he is a problematic editor, but I do not believe him to be ideologically motivated in his editing, unlike K.e.coffman. I also do not believe him to be trying to game the system, again, unlike K.e.coffman. Dapi is, in a nutshell, a garden variety uncivil, arrogant editor. On the other hand, one− need look no further than his user page than to see that K.e.coffman is here to right great wrongs. On the face of it, there is obviously nothing wrong with removing Nazi apologist trash, but K.e.coffman takes his crusade a bit too far, deleting any material he believes to be problematic, regardless of what anyone else thinks, or whether it is actually Nazi apologist trash or not. Then there are collections like this, which does not particularly convey to me that K.e.coffman is here in the interest of editing collaboratively. It reminds me of point 18 (and point 48) of this excellent essay. In fact, quite a number of points there apply to this situation (particularly 3, 11, and 13, among others). Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As one of the "other" editors, I concur with what Parsecboy has written about both editors. Frankly, the facts speak for themselves. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Parsecboy:, @Peacemaker67: Thank's for clarification. I'll leave it at that. But what's your take on how to deal with this incident right now? L3X1 has raised a few questions that are still unandressed. Since Dap89 is, according to your words, a garden variety uncivil, arrogant editor , is this a kind of behavior Wikipedians have to put up with? And is the case of WP:Tag team, that got this whole thing started, settled by now?--Assayer (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already said I'd like to see them both be banned indefinitely. Unfortunately, I think my views are not in line with the mainstream, so yes, this is the kind of behavior—from both of them—that Wikipedians are expected to put up with. It seems it takes a lot to exhaust the community's patience, at least with regards to editors who at least in part are constructive. Parsecboy (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Parsecboy, both of these types of editing behaviour appear to be routinely accepted on en WP because few are willing to do the work necessary for the community to be convinced to censure editors that are at least partly constructive. That can change if someone not involved in a dispute puts the effort into developing a comprehensive case against an individual whose net benefit for the encyclopaedia is marginal. I'll add, for Assayer's benefit, that boomerang requests naturally result in closer attention to the editing behaviour of the person requesting the boomerang to ensure that the requester isn't gaming the system/taking advantage of a merit-worthy but relatively unsophisticated ANI report. That is why K.e.coffman's behaviour has been scrutinised here in some detail and compared with Dapi's. With boomerang requests, if the requester lacks clean hands, that is often detected and pointed out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OPPOSE A Boomerang's inappropriate when both sides have been uncivil and done battleground behavior to the degree User:K.e.coffman and Dapi89 have. Sanction both, or neither. loupgarous (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action K.e.coffman is a deletionist who's afraid the Nazis look "too cool", i.e. popular culture glorifying panzer or fighter aces and even kids who play video games. He wants to remove what he calls "intrinsic detail" and books by some popular authors who aren't considered highly by some modern academic authors. The content creators, on the other hand, are genuinely interested in the topic area and want to include things like the names of the training camps and other military enthusiast details. Certainly these people who write the articles need to be questioned just like everyone if needed, but what's happening now is that K.e.coffman is bullying them away one at a time. And what comes to books about military. There are some problematic books for sure, but let's be honest here, detailed biographies can't be written without popular non-academic books, simply because academics don't write biographies about every notable fighter ace or general. --Pudeo (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    A couple of recent examples:

    Warnings/discussions:

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

    He probably moved To the Max! to To the Max! (Max Roach album) because there are two other entities named To the Max. These lack the wow sign. But except for the punctuation (which is not pronounced) they are identical. It is reasonable to say "These are enough alike to constitute essentially the same title". It's a judgment call whether to ask for a Requested Move in a case like this. But a Requested Move means asking your colleagues to drop what they are doing and consider your question. You don't want to do it if you figure it's probably just a technical fix. So I can see someone going ahead and doing it, subject to a Requested Move discussion if someone objects. In ictu oculi moves a lot of pages, so some of these are going to be disputed.
    On the other hand, moving Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film), are you sure he didn't do this to make room for an article on the actual Bombay Mail train or something? (Even if he did, he needs to say so in his move summaries). If not, this would be highly idiosyncratic and I'd be interested to hear about that. If there's a pattern of this kind of move (and not making way for a new article) then that's not good. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus, both situations mentioned by B2C are covered by WP:DIFFCAPS, a subsection of WP:AT IIO knows exists, and IIO knows a related-move can be seen as contentious. Although both titles are ambiguous, having To the Max! redirecting to To the Max! (Max Roach album), because there is no other "To the Max!" (in place of simply having a {{other uses}} or an {{About}}); and not creating an article about Bombay Mail train/office and preemptively moving it to "(1934 film)" when there is no other film with the same name are common problems with IIO. Bombay Mail (train) (recent redirect) just redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line where it is only mentioned as "he Mumbai-Howrah Mail via Allahabad is called Calcutta Mail between Mumbai and Allahabad, and Mumbai Mail (some still call it by its old name, Bombay Mail)". Other examples exist, they can be found on the public log, like Haco or Mercedes (film), Dt., or Nueva Era (this is just a redirection problem, but he never attempted to fix it), when enough time has past to have written an article to make disambiguation valid, but they solely are redirects to the article they were originally titled, or back in September when he moved Sivi Kingdom to Sivi (king), unexplained, despite the fact the article discusses more the kingdom than the homonym king, also note that he decided to move it to "Sivi (king)" and not to "King Sivi", "Sivi King" or "Kingdom of Sivi", which are more natural terms. The reason for a move I guess was to justify the move of Sivi to Sivi (film), but in itself you don't need to move A to justify B. And this is just for moving articles, there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates. At WT:Notability, my talk page and WT:CDS are examples of what I'm talking about, but these aren't all the examples. Unfortunately I don't have all of them, but it is a start. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm among editors who disagree with B2C's views on titling, as he says above. B2C's view against disambiguation and recognizability tend to be outliers, as his activity on guideline Talk pages shows.
    Occasionally we all get something wrong, and if there's a discussion or objection I listen and then that's easily resolved. I do a lot of work on disambiguation, and occasionally someone objects. Looking at the last ten:
    1. Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) ([Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) summary (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2017-03-12&end=2017-04-20&pages=Wild_Boy_(song)%7CWild_Boy%7CWild_Boy_(novel))
    Wild Boy 1934 film was getting 4 out of 72 views. A dab page was needed, can anyone see any problem with creation of a dab page here?
    2. Intrigue (film) to Intrigue (1947 film) summary (Intrigue (1942 film)
    There's also Intrigue (1942 film), per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.
    3. Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) summary (Bombay Mail (1935 film))
    As the summary says there is another film, WP:NCF, but there's also Bombay Mail (train), again Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.
    4. The Scandal to The Scandal (1923 film) summary (The Scandal (1934 film) The Scandal (1943 film))
    per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again
    5. The Mirage (film) to The Mirage (1920 film) see The Mirage (2015 film), a Canadian comedy-drama film
    per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again
    6. Sybil (book) to Sybil (Schreiber book) (Sybil (novel))
    The Disraeli "novel" is also a "book" Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)
    7. The Mirage (Al-Sarab) to The Mirage (Al-Suwaidi book)
    Per author name not Arabic word for "The Mirage", Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)
    8. Metahistory to Metahistory (Hayden White) (the term was in use decades before the book)
    The problem here were mislinks to 1973 book from the adjective metahistorical and generic term metahistory. The 1973 book Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe is an important book, but a book about metahistory, not the subject itself.
    9. Haunted London (1973) to Haunted London (Underwood book)
    We don't disambiguate by year Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)
    10. To the Max! to Talk:To the Max! (Max Roach album) (not always found with !)
    As already reverted and not contested. The context not mentioned above is that this was a third album after To the Max to To the Max (Con Funk Shun album) and To the Max (album) to To the Max (The Mentors album). These were clearly mistitled per WP:NCM. The ! isn't found in some sources per Drummin' Men: The Heartbeat of Jazz The Bebop Years by Burt Koral, but whatever that was an afterthought, the main job was fixing the partial disambiguation of two (or three) albums.
    We could go on to review the last 100 moves related to disambiguation or dab pages I have created or expanded. No need to stop at the last 10, but is the work of correcting incomplete titles contrary to naming conventions per se a bad thing? If it is tell me and I'll cease contributing to disambiguation pages. More than happy to do so if this work is not wanted by the editing community. I don't get paid, any more than the rest of you girls and guys. If it's not useful tell me. I'll go. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing here we can all agree is that if not about how useful or useless is your editing, it is about how you are doing your editing. With B2C's, this is the 5th or 6th user that has a complain about your editing pattern, how many users do you need to stop for a moment and ask to yourself "Am I doing this right?" Let's take Bombay Mail as the example here:
    You create Bombay Mail (1935 film), you move Bombay Mail (1934 film), and you created Bombay Mail (train). All OK but you missed one thing, which was the reason B2C could revert the move: you didn't create a disambiguation page. At least you now create an article to rely the disambiguation, months ago you used to move pages only because a similarly titled work existed and no single article was created. In this example, B2C moved the page back 3 hours later. Also, I'm quite sure you would have never created a disambiguation page and the base title would have been a redirect until someone else noticed it, like when this took 2 months, or this 9 months, or when you moved Haco, and it still redirecting to its previous article, or dozens of similar examples that you have not fixed, but instead of fixing them, you move to another article to continue doing the same. Or even worse, doing moves like this or this with no single reason given. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 16:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tbhotch: I can confirm that I have run across instances where IIO has moved a page to a title with a disambiguator, but in the process, doesn't create a disambiguation page. However, this wasn't always the case: The lack of creating disambiguation pages may be a recently-developing issue. I recall a few years ago, IIO moved quite a few song or album related pages from base titles to tiles with disambiguators and then created disambiguation pages at the leftover redirect's base title. However, such disambiguation pages were created before the consensus was established declaring that if an article about a song or album is the only article by that name that exists on Wikipedia, then it should be at the base title. (I can't recall where that guideline is at the moment, but I am sure you know what in referring to since I think we've crossed each other's paths regarding this in the past.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict, responding to the original complaint and User:Tbhotch) -- I am confused. IIO did construct another meaning for "Bombay Mail" -- "Bombay Mail (train)". It is just a redirect, true, but so? He had to move the article to make room for the redirect.
    The original complaint implied that IIO moved "Bombay Mail" to a title with meaningless, unnecessary disambiguation. Here I was all "Whaaat? What's wrong with IIO, to do something like that?"
    But that's not the deal at all. So can we get our facts straight please.
    So now that complaint seems to come down to "IIO created a redirect, and I wish he hadn't". I mean, I guess you could take it to Redirects for Discussion, and maybe that's where that discussion should happen rather than here.
    And there are two films named "Bombay Mail", one made in 1934 and one in 1935. Right? That is what IMDb says. So is it really so terrible to name your article "Bombay Mail (1934 film)" instead of "Bombay Mail (film)", considering that there is another film of that name with which a reader might get confused? True, it's not precisely correct (Unless IIO is planning to create an article on the other film) and that does matter.
    As to "there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates"... isn't this getting a little bit scattershot here? Can we stick to one thing maybe.
    So what is the desired end here? "IIO must initiate a Requested Move discussion for any and all moves"? And maybe that would be fine and is necessary. The claim is that there's a general pattern of misfeasance. I don't see it in those two tiny examples, but if there's a pattern it ought to come out with a little investigation. Can we get some actual examples of actual specific wrongdoing? This would help. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why sticking to one thing at the time? Sticking to one problem at the time is the reason why this edit pattern has not been revised, checked or even penalized through either ANI or even his ArbCom discussion, and how he has been being WP:GAMING since circa 2012. I literally gave you a link of how he in 2013 was trying to WP:POINT the speedy deletion criteria, something he still doing, yet I'm being a "little bit scattershot". Like you want me to open below a subsection of how he has been creating BLP WP:A7 articles before and after that CSD discussion, because I can do that. Or maybe you do not want me to do it because apparently we humans cannot focus in more than one problem at the same time. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 14:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Herostratus, the problem is not with IIO creating another meaning for "Bombay Mail" (a redirect named Bombay Mail (train) that redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line), but with him unilaterally (without discussion or RM) moving the article previously at Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) (it has since been reverted). The list above is just a list of a couple of recent examples. It was not mean to be exhaustive, but he does this stuff all the time. IIO shows little respect for the need to let others weigh in on these decisions; he does not recognize that his opinion on these matters is often contrary to that of the community. --?²C ? 16:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    My apologies. I did not realize you were being quoted there. I've stricken the reference to you and corrected it. --B²C ? 16:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also worried about In ictu oculi often renaming pages when unwarranted, and also disregarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as Born2cycle noted below. Extra DAB's in certain cases simply don't help at all and very needlessly go against WP:CONCISE. It might be a case of WP:IDHT in certain instances. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Couple secondary detail points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Good analysis and I hope you can now appreciate how time consuming this is. If you take almost any one of IIO's unilateral moves like this one in isolation it appears to be contrary to policy but not that serious; it's the pattern of doing this repeatedly that's the issue. You also hit upon a key point: "You have to understand that unnecessary disambiguation drives people bonkers, and it is against our rules." IIO demonstrates no respect for this community consensus viewpoint and others too (e.g., he seems to barely recognize WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Consistently and repeatedly. This is why I think he should stop making these moves. His judgement is off relative to community consensus. He can argue my judgement is off too on these matters, in the other direction. And I concede it might be - but that's why I tend to not make unilateral moves. He should too. --В²C ☎ 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted the move of Haco to Haco (singer) [56]. --В²C ☎ 22:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The info above is incorrect. This was originally a redirect to the Norwegian king, the insertion of the Japanese singer is a more recent addition, see Talk page of article. @Herostratus: as the summary says "Haco (king) see books" "Haco was" in Google Books. It's too far back to recall but typically if I didn't create a dab immediately it was because I was giving opportunity to anyone involved in the article to revert and let any link and templates settle. And then it was peacefully reverted and I didn't make any drama. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Could you possibly be more cryptic? No. Is that an oversight or are you leaving a modicum of CYA defense while hoping to not draw any attention? That aside, so what your comment summary meant was that moving the Japanese singer from the base name is justified due to the existence of the reference to the king as "Haco" as shown by searching for Haco in Google Books? Well, the Japanese singer has been at this base name title since 2011. Again, just like in the Bombay Mail case below, you don't even bother asking the primary topic questions let alone getting the community to answer before you start moving. More evidence supporting this proposal. --В²C ☎ 13:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I dunno; reading that, my first thought was "train, ship, plane, or service?"...and it turns out it's all four. This was, and is, with a couple of m/b shifts, a ship route, the eponymous cargo, the train and a possibly even flying boat route. I expect, seriously, that the post service is far more important historically than either film. Disambguating them out seems a good call. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Except he left Bombay Mail as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Bombay Mail (1934 film), implying it is the primary topic. Well, if it is, then it shouldn't be disambiguated. But there are good arguments to made, as you did, that maybe there is no primary topic. That's the point; the issue of whether it is the primary topic is obviously potentially controversial, and precisely what needs to be determined, and that's why we have WP:RM, to make these determinations. It should not be determined unilaterally. You can't just look at each of these in isolation to see the pattern. --В²C ☎ 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because as has been explained before (a) it takes time for templates to adjust, (b) it allows yourself to follow me. I didn't delay so much before you started this. Bombay Mail is a pretty typical example of there being one major topic Bombay Mail (train) and two minor topics Bombay Mail (1934 film) and Bombay Mail (1935 film) the only thing preventing a dab page has been yourself. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody including me is preventing you or anyone else from creating the dab page at Bombay Mail (disambiguation). And it's not me preventing the dab page at the base name, In ictu oculi, it's the consensus-supported concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that's preventing it, a concept for which you have shown little if any regard. In this case as in many there may or may not be a primary topic. Do reliable English sources ever even refer to the IIO-linked train as "Bombay Mail"? Even if they do how likely is a user searching with "Bombay Mail" to be looking for the train or either of the films? These are questions you don't even seem to bother asking let alone try to get an answer from the community before moving articles affected by these answers. Sadly, that's why you need to be kept from unilaterally moving articles titles. --В²C ☎ 13:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Closer look at A True Woman

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

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

    I'd have expected there was a guideline for this, that might be modified in occasional cases -MBE (as opposed to my own favorite, MBP). I'd also expect that a book by a prominent, if adopted, British author would go by the title published by in London, rather than New York. I think someone would have to make the case pretty strongly for it to be otherwise.
    On the other hand "might not get noticed" does cut both ways, it implies that this is a bit of a coin-toss. Anmccaff (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anmccaff, it "might not get noticed" because it's an obscure article with few if any watchers. And even if it is a coin-toss, that means it can go either way, indicating it is potentially controversial. Precisely the kind of decision that should go to RM - not made unilaterally by one editor, let alone by one with a reputation for often having opinions contrary to community consensus on such matters. --В²C ☎ 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of 10,000s of edits you are going back 12 months to April 2016? This is a level of forensic investigation that no active volunteer on the encyclopedia could pass. Yes Google Books indicates that the American title is better known, possibly because it is still in print in this title but out of print in the UK one. But really 12 months ago? Out of 10,000s of edits? A more common US title is suddenly urgent enough for ANI? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no CSI "forensic investigation" drama over here. The Heart of a Woman was the TFA for April 4, 2017. The original article included links to two unrelated albums, so I changed to to the dab page that already existed. There I noticed the weird title "The Heart of a Woman (Baroness Orczy novel)" as we shouldn't be using royal titles for disambiguations. Then clicking the article you find that A) it starts with "A True Woman (US Title The Heart of a Woman)", B) the infobox says "A True Woman" and it includes a book cover with this title, so why it had a different title? I didn't had to go further to know why. It doesn't matter if "Google Books [sic] indicates that the American title is better known". This is a British book by a British author, and WP:RETAIN applies. Otherwise Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is to be titles Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. This is the exact thing B2C is complaining (and others below not completely understanding), that you decide by yourself over and over again how to title articles ignoring policies and guidelines when convenient for you. WP:NCBOOKS, a guide you already knew by then, would have suggested "The Heart of a Woman (Orczy novel)", assuming it was a needed move, and any normal editor would have asked if original English titles are to be used over adapted English titles. The same applies to Sivi below. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 17:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Closer look at Sivi

    Tbhotch also linked to this above.

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

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

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

    September 20, 2016? 10 months ago? Again, how did you find this needle in the haystack? Before the minor Tamil horror was created, Sivi would have lead searchers to Sivi the king in the epic Mahabharata. look in books "Sivi" + India refers to "good king Sivi" "fabled king Sivi", 4000 results the 2007 Tamil horror film directed by K. R. Senthil Natha gets no book hits at all. It's simply in the wrong place squatting on a reasonably well known character in India's national epic. Do you see any India project editors objecting to the film being titled (film)? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In ictu oculi, as noted at the top of this subsection, Tbhotch linked to this even further above, presumably from memory. I didn't find it. Your final sentence speaks volumes. Instead of assessing per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria, you think whether "India project editors" object is how one should decide whether a given move is justified. If nobody notices and you get away with it says anything, then it's all good, right? --В²C ☎ 16:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to WP:AN?

    Born2cycle, the thread is going to be archived very soon. This message that I'm writing would stall the archiving of this thread. May I move the thread to WP:AN please for bigger attention? George Ho (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No George Ho, you may not move the thread to AN. This is the correct venue; AN isn't. In addition, AN gets less attention than ANI. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks George Ho, but I think this is the right place. Not sure what to do here. We could provide (many) more examples of the disruptive behavior, but I don't know if that will help. --В²C ☎ 18:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... titles are getting messier. Discussion about titling the Fabergé eggs, which doesn't involve IIO, led to using parentheses for precision (via parenthetical disambiguation?). Also, after the discussion about notability and ambiguity at the "Notability" talk page, I see IIO expanding some articles, including ones that he started: [61][62]. Conflicting principles are... weirder or entangled or something? But actions based on such principles... I think there's enough evidence of his renaming things. As said before, I don't want to get too involved in IIO's contributions, especially after the Faberge egg discussion. However, I see the proposal below, but I'll hold off until I'm ready to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC); already did. 01:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Informal Collaborator

    I just found a note on In ictu oculi's talk page asking him about his unexplained/undiscussed move of Informal collaborator to Informal collaborator (East Germany) [63]. Typical. I reverted it. [64]. --В²C ☎ 05:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact when you check the history of the article you will realize that that this was a revert to the longstanding title of the article which was only recently changed. WP:BRD covers this case. The next revert (yours) goes into editwaring territory. The change to Informal collaborator should have been subject to a WP:RM. Agathoclea (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agathoclea is probably correct in this case, User:Born2cycle To go over the sequence of events.
    And, you know, fine. It was just a second reversion, things happen fast here, it was different editor who made the first move, it's hard to always do the exact right thing by the letter, sometimes one forgets to check the move log, and so forth.
    But here's thing: you stand by this and avow that you'd do it again. That's very different from "Oops, sorry".
    At User talk:In ictu oculi#Your "informal collaborator" move, we've discussed the title of this article. My conclusion is that possibly "Stasi informers" would possibly be the best title, but that Informal collaborators (East Germany) would be at any rate be more informative than Informal collaborators... it's all at that linked thread. It's a point that reasonable people could disagree on and discuss, and to your credit you have engaged and explained your thinking.
    But you appear to be standing by your point "I am correct, period, and thus justified in rolling back".
    As far as I know, we're only allowed to edit war on WP:BLP grounds. Expanding that to "WP:BLP, and titles with parenthetical elucidation further explaining what the article is about" would be a hard sell I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Born2cycle's move was the first reversion, not the second, given that In ictu oculi changed the article to a different name than the original one. Also, I didn't think my page move was that bold, since putting "(East Germany)" at the end of a name that doesn't require disambiguation is a clear violation of Wikipedia naming conventions. My rename was an obvious fix. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp OK then. "Obvious fix", okey-doke. Herostratus (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus and Agathoclea I can understand your reaction to my choice to revert in this case, but there are a few missing key pieces. I'll copy and update Herostratus's timeline accordingly.
    As I noted below, if it was anyone else I almost certainly would not have reverted IIO's 27 April move so quickly (if at all). It's fallout from repeated similar behavior on his part, and his ignoring repeated reminders that he not engage in this disruptive behavior. Maybe this one time it was arguably a legitimate revert on his part, but given his reputation (read the Support !votes here), I hope my choice is understandable. That said, I hear what you're saying and I'll try to be less hasty next time, even with IIO. --В²C ☎ 00:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally an issue related to an article is best copied to and discussed on the Talk page of the article, however with User:Born2cycle because they relate to his own positions on titling, I have moved his messages back from my Talk page to his own Talk page rather than the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In ictu oculi: We've spoken about this before, and the customary place to raise problems with your edits is your talk page. It's hard not to see your refusal to discuss things there as an evasion.--Cúchullain t/c 14:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the customary place to discuss edits to an article is the Talk page of the article. In this case for example the actual creator of the article who has expressed a preference for his title (which I restored) is on the article Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Deflection again. When you're causing the same problems across a number of pages, it is appropriate to bring this to you, rather than having to post the same thing across every page you've edited. There is nothing wrong with addressing the matter on your talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 19:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another example: Tokin

    Perusing IIO's talk page I found this interesting section: User_talk:In_ictu_oculi#Move_of_Tokin_to_Tokin_.28headwear.29 from the end of March. Yet another example of a dubious move by IIO with no justification/explanation (and certainly no discussion)[74], an inquiry from a user (Nihonjoe), again very cryptic responses from IIO, until finally Nihonjoe essentially shrugs his shoulders ("It's fine"). Can't really blame him, but now we have yet another case where we have a dab page instead of the primary topic at the base name. Instead of reverting it, since there was some discussion (albeit after the move), I went ahead and created an RM request for this one: Talk:Tokin_(headwear)#Requested move 4 May 2017. --В²C ☎ 21:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another example: James Taylor at Christmas

    So the lowest fruit on this tree can be found on IIO's talk page, it turns out.

    By the way, IIO also edited the At Christmas dab page, changing the references to the article accordingly [77]. Nobody ever undid this, until I just did[78].

    Not only are there countless examples of these unilateral moves, so many of them demonstrate bad judgement. Being BOLD is one thing, but this is ridiculous, and causes a lot of work for a lot of people. --В²C ☎ 22:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to have been tied to In ictu oculi's move of At Christmas (album) to At Christmas (Sara Evans album), which I've just reverted.[79] In short, it looks like he moved the James Taylor article to an incorrect title to justify adding additional disambiguation to the Sara Evans album (and created a incomplete dab issue by not redirecting At Christmas (album) to the dab page). This is unfortunately a pattern; last year he created Toil (Tolstoy book)[80] to justify moving Toil (album);[81][82] as it turns out the book is not by Tolstoy and is not titled "Toil".[83] Cleaning that up considerable work. It's disappointing to see that this habit has continued.--Cúchullain t/c 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    OK User:Born2cycle but I have a couple questions. One thing is -- a person moved an article. I mean OK, maybe they should have initiated an RM. But isn't WP:BOLD in play? Moves are harder to undo so I can certainly see an argument that its not. So I don't know, I'm just asking. If not, maybe we should write this down somewhere, if it isn't already.

    The other thing is, how do you know that it is James Taylor at Christmas and not At Christmas (James Taylor album)? I'm asking. User:Kellymoat seemed pretty sure ("The actual title is James Taylor at Christmas"). The cover does indeed say "James Taylor at Christmas". How is it different from At Christmas (album)? The cover of that says "Sara Evens At Christmas". Is it the capitalization of "at"? I'm asking.

    Why is it Greatest Hits (Spice Girls album) when the cover says "Spice Girls Greatest Hits"? I don't know. It looks like a lot of album articles don't start out with the artis'ss name. I guess that's because the artist's name is usually there to tell the person buying the record who made it rather than being part of the title.

    I guess in this case it is different? Is it the lowercase "a"? But a lot of albums use various kinds of typographies, all caps or whatever. Is it that "X at Christmas" makes a grammatical sentence? In that case shouldn't Go Girl Crazy! be "The Dictators Go Girl Crazy!"? On the Threshold of a Dream -> "The Moody Blues On the Threshold of a Dream" and so forth? "Spice Girls Greatest Hits". But then we do have The Monkees Present not "Present (Monkees album)". So it's messy I guess.

    But so anyway:

    • A person moved James Taylor at Christmas to At Christmas (James Taylor album).
    • Another person didn't like that and inquired at the first person's talk page. (They could have brought it up at the article talk page, possibly filed an RM, but OK it's all good)
    • No reply after a while, so moved it back.
    • Bob's your uncle.

    What's the problem? Looks like it worked out, to me. It's only a problem if James Taylor at Christmas is so obviously correct that only a moron, troll, or madman could think otherwise. Is it? Herostratus (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, Discogs (which is my personal usual go-to source for album info, although I don't know how much weight they really carry) has it as "At Christmas" (you can tell that they don't consider "James Taylor (2)" to be part of the title. If they did they would have it as "James Taylor - James Taylor At Christmas". Compare Jan And Dean Meet Batman, where they do consider the artist name to be part of the title -- it says "Jan And Dean ‎– Jan And Dean Meet Batman".) Just to point another reason why the complaint, which seems to come down to "Look what he did, he again made a move that just obviously wrong" is arguable. Herostratus (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: However, AllMusic definately goes with "James Taylor at Christmas". Amazon also appears to be in that camp -- or are they? I think Target and Barnes & Noble are though. And the James Taylor official site! And I think others. But not WalMart.

    Oddly, we have James Taylor: A Christmas Album but A Christmas Album (Barbra Streisand album) and A Christmas Album (Amy Grant album) and A Christmas Album (Bright Eyes album). So maybe it's a James Taylor thing. Which doesn't affect the Italians. Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Herostratus, it would be helpful if you read WP:RM. The main thing is that BOLD does not apply to moves if the move is "potentially controversial". When sources don't agree is one situation where you need an RM discussion to work it out, as a move without such discussion is potentially controversial. If somebody does a unilateral move once, it's not that big of a deal. If someone has a history of doing so, and has been reminded multiple times by multiple people that it's a policy violation but keeps doing it, that's a problem and why we're here. Its a problem not only because it's against policy but also because it sets misleading precedents and creates work for others. It's not that IIO is necessarily wrong in all of these unilateral move decisions, it's that they're not his decisions to make (that he has a history of often getting them wrong, doesn't help). Does that make sense? --В²C ☎ 04:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, some. But WP:RMUM (part of WP:RM) says "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move... Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.". It is true that WP:RM#CM (which comes later) says "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if... Someone could reasonably disagree with the move."
    So I dunno. It says two different, contradictory things, actually. The language could be tightened up too. You could read it as WP:RMUM being the controlling authority, sending people to WP:RM#CM if your bold move is reverted. Or it would certainly be reasonable read WP:RM#CM as at least indicating to use it right away if someone could reasonably disagree with the move. This would be common sense I think.
    Here's how it worked for me recently regarding John Hancock Tower:
    • It had been at John Hancock Tower a long time (looking at the log, I now see had gone though a quick move-revert cycle in 2016, but that doesn't matter)
    • An editor (with his first edit FWIW) WP:BOLDly moved it to "200 Clarendon Street" in February 2017, with an edit summary of "The name of the building has changed to 200 Clarendon Street"
    • Noticing this in April 2017, I moved it back (per WP:BRD), with an edit summary "What the name is is debatable, but it was apparently moved with no discussion. Let's move it back and have a discussion". And then I opened a discussion -- an advisory RM, here: Talk:John Hancock Tower#Requested move 23 April 2017, which I believe is the proper next step. Note that I opposed the move as nominator -- that's what an advisory nomination means. IMO an RM is (or sometimes can be) an invitation to talk and learn, not necessarily a courtroom of prosecution and defense. So I don't need to support the proposition in order to open the discussion. I could have been Neutral also.
    • Nobody came -- including the original page mover -- so after I while I closed the RM myself and end of story. (Somebody might have come and said "No, it should be 200 Clarendon Street, because [data] and [strong argument]", and won the day. Would I have been upset? Of course not. It's a win for the project to get things correct is what matters.)
    Anyway, this was easy. I didn't get upset or break a sweat. Yes it took a few minutes, but I could have made it pretty short by just saying "Moved, reverted per WP:BRD, advocates for the other name invited to make their case here". Takes 20 seconds. I could make up a template to paste in if I was doing it a lot, I guess.
    Yes I had to wait a week for resolution. Oh well, that doesn't matter. But I don't move pages much. I can see how it would be a problem if it's holding up other work.
    I mean, OK. If this user was doing this to dozens of articles a week and I was rolling them all back that would possibly be annoying. Yes I can see approaching him and saying "Look, I'm going to roll back every move you do and put it to RM. Would you mind just sending your desired moves to RM first, to save me that step"? and if they wouldn't, yeah that would suck. So I haven't walked a mile in your shoes. So I'm reluctant to criticize anyone when I haven't walked their path. Herostratus (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone whose attempts to speak to IIO about such problems resulted in little change and eventually a request not to comment on his talk page anymore, I can confirm that it really is frustrating. The bigger problem with this particular move to me is that there was no reason for it, it was just a justification for adding more disambiguation to another article. Moving articles to inferior, uncommon, and even just plain wrong titles is a pattern with IIO; it's at least the 4th I can recall; 2 others came in the past year, and I'm willing to bet there are others.[84][85][86][87] It's a small percentage of his many edits, but it's still 4 articles that a not insignificant amount of time and effort to clean up, for no reason other that to justify IIO's titling preferences.--Cúchullain t/c 15:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that, Herostratus. WP:RMUM probably should be clarified to say "Anyone who has no reason to believe a particular title change might be controversial can be bold and move a page without discussing it first..." to be consistent with the other section. Among editors experienced with RM this is how it's generally understood. --В²C ☎ 16:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • By coincidence I just opened a thread on this at the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Submergence

    So I just went to WP:RM and at the top I find this request:

    ===May 8, 2017===

    Immediately, I suspected... Sure enough, in the history of the current Submergence dab page is IIO's signature.

    As usual, IIO demonstrates no interest in questioning how often people look for the vehicle using "submergence", whether one or the other is a primary topic, whether it's even appropriate to create a two-entry dab page in this case, especially when one of the two entries is partial dab, much less discuss these questions with his colleagues.

    IIO's unilateral decisions in this area create a lot of work for others, as in this case where somebody didn't notice the problem until 8 months later, and now we have to have an RM discussion about undoing what he did, instead of discussing it first. --В²C ☎ 19:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well yeah. I see what you're saying.
    On the other hand, the concept of Submersion is a very big deal... having do with submarines, sea diving, coastal archeology, and more.... and closely related to Immersion, also a huge deal. And Submergence is close to this... I would be surprised if many searchers on "Submergence" weren't looking for Submersion. These are two words with very similar construction and meaning, easy to confuse.
    Against this, Submergence (film) is just a movie. Not out yet, it may tank and be forgotten. Even if not, in the long term is it the dominant subject? (Page views right now and for the next few years will probably be elevated, true.)
    So IMO it is useful in some way to open a conversation about this. IIO's method of doing so is to just move stuff. Since this is demonstrated to be driving you (and apparently some other editors) to claw at the draperies, it's probably not a good approach, since it is leading to contention. Even if he was justified (which maybe) it is causing contention, on at least reasonable grounds, so he should stop. Whether he should be just advised to do so or enjoined from doing so is above my pay grade.
    But just to point out, on the merits he has reasonable case. I would have done similar maybe. IMO the dab page would point maybe to the two items "Submergence (film)" and "Submersion", and the wiktionary link, and maybe Deep-submergence vehicle and Deep-submergence rescue vehicle too although those could be a See Also, I dunno. 'course, I like dab pages.
    But one way or the other, just leaving the yet-to-be-released-and-may-tank film as the main meaning for "Submergence"... not too sure about that. Maybe. Matter of opinion, I guess... pageview stats could offer some enlightenment. So anyway IIO is to be credited for getting things moving. I do agree that he needs to do it opening an conversation though. Herostratus (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote elsewhere recently, the issue is not that IIO's unilateral decisions are always wrong, it's that he's making decisions (alone) that are not his (alone) to make. Once an article is at a title changing that title is much more likely than not to be contentious. After all, somebody put it that original title, likely with some thought and consideration. Perhaps things have changed and there are other uses to consider now, but the original article might still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. These are issues that by definition are supposed to be decided by consensus in an RM discussion. As to your points about this particular case, you might want to make them at the actual RM. --В²C ☎ 22:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: ban In ictu oculi from moving articles without going through RM

    Proposal: Per the above discussions In ictu oculi doesn't recognize or ignores when article moves are potentially controversial and does it often enough for it to be disruptive. In addition, he tends to create unnecessary and trivial dab pages. I hereby propose an indefinite ban on In ictu oculi from moving articles (changing titles) without going through the process at WP:RM.

    • Support as nom. I don't think anything else will stop him from continuing to engage in the disruptive behavior which he has done for years. --В²C ☎ 18:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Too many controversial moves without discussion, concerns have been raised on his talk page for years and no changes. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, having undone some of his controversial/"what the?" moves (most were months ago) myself. Ss112 04:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, largely. Must use WP:RM (including Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves), unless:
      (1) The page is under 100 days old and he is the sole non-minor author.
      (2) The page is in his userspace.
      --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that's reasonable. That would mean he can still create dab pages too, with the (disambiguation) parenthetical. He just can't disambiguate the title of the article at the base name to make room for the dab page at the base name without an RM discussion to establish a lack of primary topic. --В²C ☎ 05:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Noticed this after reading Tbhotch's !vote below, so commenting. (1) is a reasonable exception, but (2) falls outside the proposed parameters of the ban, which is about "moving articles". If what is meant is publishing userspace drafts, then it should be a given that it is an exception, as moving it out of the userspace is the first time it is given its "article title"; if it refers to non-articles in the userspace, it is already not covered, as B2C's proposal relates to articles, not user pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, (2) in SmokeyJoe's addendum is redundant since the original proposed restriction was not intended to prohibit moves from user space into article space for the first time (after all creating articles in article space is not prohibited so a copy/paste from user space to a new article in article space is clearly allowed and it's effectively the same thing as moving from user space except moving also retains history). But, whether an article is not an article while it's still in user space is something of a semantic thing and I don't see how redundant clarification can hurt. --В²C ☎ 00:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (2) Redundant with regard to your intent, but I've seen people get in trouble for violating unintended letter or words in ANI topic bands before, commonsense not invoked. Of course he can move and rename in his own userspace. Renaming draft articles in other's userspace, or others draftspace page would be a violation, broadly construing the proposed ban. (1) is important. There is no real intention to straitjacket IIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Bold moves of low-traffic pages has long been considered perfectly acceptable, and this seems to be the case with virtually all, if not all, the examples listed above. No page move is controversial until someone opposes it, so the moves in question would only be controversial if IIO was edit-warring over them, or was moving them against the consensus of a previous RM. I know from personal experience that IIO has more respect for discussion and consensus on these matters, and if anytging is overly careful when it comes to following the proper process. I seem to recall an incident from four years ago when I BOLDly moved a page, and a sockpuppet of the banned user JoshuSasori RMed the page back (because IPs and new accounts can't unilaterally undo page moves), and IIO, despite himself, actually supported the RM on procedural grounds, even hough he agreed with my unilateral move on the substance and knew that the OP was a sock. Forgive me if I'm misremembering; I'll find the exact diff if anyone needs it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find the recent behaviour of IIO unexpected and out of character. It is as if he has tired of discussions and is no longer reading them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes @SmokeyJoe: I've dropped in to read them, but what can I do. It's the same couple of editors following me to pages they have no interest or involvement in and hunting for something from 10 months or a year ago to offend among 1,000s of edits. I can't win. If I wait for the templates to readjust and leave a decent period for someone following me to revert then I'm guilty of having not yet made the dab page, if I make the dab page I'm guilty of making the dab page. You can see from B2C's edit history that a substantial proportion of his limited contributions to article space are following my work. With the system being that repeated bites of the cherry will eventually "get" someone, what would you have me do, defend and justify in detail the last 1% of my dab work. Yes I'm tired, but more tired of having B2C's shadow. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. A page move is easily reverted if not needed, while every time I participate in a RM I feel like wasting time. Let's not create more RM. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait ... what!? What about naming conventions? Our article titles are not all automatically perfect. If they can be improved, they should be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Incessant fiddling of titles, of article urls, in pursuit of the nebulous concept of perfection, especially when by editors with no interest in the actual articles concerned, is disruptive. Fiddling of the title, url, links, lengthy narrow-focus discussions, repeatedly, in the absence of a non-trivial good reason, is disruption. The relevant policy line is found at WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfection is a goal or direction, not a destination that can ever be actually reached. But the alternative to aiming for perfection is not aiming at all, but instead going every which way, haphazardly. It's chaos. And, in the context of WP titles, much more resource and time consuming. In this context we have two very different concepts of perfection: 1) every title meets WP:CRITERIA as well as possible, including concision and being recognizable to those familiar with the topic, or 2) every title is recognizable to everyone, even those who are not familiar with the topic. These two destinations are incompatible. From Chicago we cannot head towards both Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. And if some of us are trying to go to one while others to the other it's not going to be pretty, while those who are fine with staying in Chicago are going to wonder what all the bickering is about. I think trying to make every title recognizable to everyone is too nebulous a destination to even aim for. Not that WP:CRITERIA is perfect! But at least in most cases we get a solid answer out of it. With "make it fully recognizable to everyone" there are a myriad of valid choice for almost every title. It's unworkable. That's why I push us to aim CRITERIA compatibility. It's not perfection, but it's doable. --В²C ☎ 00:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The operative word in WP:TITLECHANGES is "controversial". Nothing there applies to changes that are not already controversial before they are made. WP:AGF takes precedence here; unless it can be demonstrated that IIO probably knew that one or more of his changes would be controversial before he made them, then unilateral BOLD changes are not a problem meriting a formal sanction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have the ban with my exceptions apply to every user. BOLD page moves on old or other people's new pages is at least confronting, and worst disruptive. Better to ask the author for agreement, if they agree it will not be a unilateral bold page move. If it is old, lay out the one paragraph proposal in a formal RM, and encourage non-admins, even if involved, to close and enact all one week old unopposed RM proposals. An articulated rename proposal made after a week is way better that a bold move with no real explanation that anyone can respond to, short of this sort of drama. There are some few expert editors, particularly with DAB pages, who this shouldn't interfere with, but I think it is clear that IIO can attempt everything he wants to do more collegially by using the RM processes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Better to ask the author for agreement, if they agree ..." – Totally inconsistent with WP:OWN, WP:EDITING, WP:BOLD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all,  User:SMcCandlish. It does assume that the author is the only other interested party. If they don't agree, use WP:RM. If they do, it's by agreement. EDITING and BOLD are not good for page moves. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "It does assume that the author is the only other interested party", which is never a safe assumption and an assumption we're directed to not make, by the policies and principles I just cited.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is probable, for new pages, but importantly it is not to be treated as an assumption. The point is that before acting on an urge to do a BOLD page move, you raise the issue on the talk page. It need not be a formal RM, but why not? After 1 week, you *can* reasonably assume other interested editors will have responded. If there is no opposition, close your own RM and do the move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support until demonstrated While it is more work, better to set them up for success by restricting them to RM's then allowing to fail by either doing what they want or preventing them from moving at all. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, unfortunately. This has been a recurring problem for In ictu oculi for many years now, and it appears to be escalating. At the center of this is his idiosyncratic preference that most articles be given parenthetical disambiguation, which conflicts with how most others view the recommendations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DAB, etc. He's been making undiscussed moves to unnecessarily disambiguated titles - and leaving the base name redirecting to the disambiguated form - since at least early 2014.[89][90][91] He's said his intention is to allow others to object before creating a dab page,[92] and to be fair he follows through in many cases, but in many others, the problematic title just remains in place forever.[93][94] I've spoken to him about this,[95] and many others have as well. I've also spoken to him about the fact that when he does create dab pages, he often (almost always) neglects to format them correctly.[96][97][98][99] Unfortunately, In ictu doesn't take such discussions well; he accuses others of following him around, aggressive behavior, picking fights, and even stalking.[100][101][102][103][104][105][106] I take this as an indication that he's avoiding the RM process and just unilaterally making controversial moves to avoid scrutiny. He's told me[107][108] and others not to post on his talk page, so unfortunately dialog isn't going to resolve this issue and further steps are necessary. Considering the vast scope of the problem - there are likely thousands of articles that he's moved to problematic titles - I think it's wise to restrict In ictu's move privileges as proposed. This is unfortunate, as In ictu oculi is a valuable editor when working on article content, but this has been a problem for a very long time. His input will still be valuable to the RM process when he uses it.--Cúchullain t/c 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support SmokeyJoe's alternate proposal as a second choice.--Cúchullain t/c 17:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I once had a similar interaction with In ictu oculi, where my Patliputra Medical College and Hospital page move was reverted by In ictu oculi because it "appeared" to them that there exists another college with a similar name. I requested them to provide a source for the same and after recieving no reply, I reverted their page move. Now having read the thread and gone through contributions of In ictu oculi, I do think the user has an unwanted special affection for disambiguations. I feel the user has good knowlege of the wikipedia policies (including page move policies) but they prefer to game the system. The ban (if imposed) will still allow the user to use their experience and make page moves using RM, while at the same time prevent them from gaming the system. Pratyush (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose All this is trivial in terms of content. WP is edited for our users, and I see no case where the titles would confuse a user; some of the specific ones like Bombay Mail have a reasonable justification . Yes, it's technically against our rules, but with so many real problems at WP, this does not seem worth bothering with. A little more tolerance from others would solve the problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were really trivial, that would be the end of it. But with thousands of these changes every month, over the course of many years, becomes a serious problem for others to clean up. As someone who has devoted much of my time to the RM process so that readers can locate our content, I don't consider the vast amount of time I've spent cleaning up after In ictu oculi trivial. And there's no indication it will stop through our normal mechanisms of discussion and consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 19:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctantly support - Even with the titling mess in general, and even when IIO does a lot of good, I hate to admit that IIO's unilateral moves are becoming more troublesome and tiring. I trust ourselves the community to resolve this matter immediately. --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    – On second thought, I'll try to support SmokeyJoe's alt proposal. After seeing more newer contributions/edits and comments, probably best to allow IIO to do some moves under special conditions. George Ho (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I do recall this editor in past, unilaterally moving articles from non-diacritics to diacritics titles. These unilateral page moves, seem a continuing pattern. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually incredibly surprised it took so long for anyone to explicitly name the elephant in the room. No, that is the opposite of what happened. Back in the bad old days of the "diacritic wars", several users (now mostly sitebanned; Kauffner, JoshuSasori, LittleBenW...) were going around unilaterally removing diacritics in contravention of Wikipedia's style guidelines. IIO frequently responded by opening RMs to move pages back to their properly (and stably) diacriticized titles. If there were instances of the reverse, I would hazard to guess they were exceptions rather than the rule, and I would need to see evidence to believe otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember him creating many articles (without diacritics titles) and then immediately moving them to diacritics titles. Several years ago, I described IIO as a train gathering speed (partially due to support from others & partially due to little opposition) during those disputes. I suggested that should he come to a sudden stop, it would be a quite a train crash. It appears that 'crash' is now in progress. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait ... so you are complaining about him creating articles with the wrong titles, realizing his mistake, and self-correcting? Who are you to criticize him for that? I thought you had created articles without diacritics in their titles, and had good, PAG-based reasoning for doing so, and IIO had come out of nowhere and moved the articles without discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm continuing to support the proposed page move ban & will not be changing my stance. You're free to continue trying to persuade me to change my recommendation. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I created French Polish and Vietnamese bios in 2010? Yes. I may be taking a back seat on this, but having looked in cannot not comment on this editor's grudge. Firstly "diacritics" is a non-issue for 99% of the editors on en.wp. It is only a small minority such as GoodDay (see block Log) for whom it has been an issue. Secondly, how many 1000 bio articles have I created? (see contributions) Anyone creating bio articles knows to create them with both full Unicode "François" and ASCII/tabloid "Francois" so that both Francois does not redlink but leads to François. [I'm surprised to even see this editor resurface, has someone been canvassing by email?] In ictu oculi (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here, is that you have a tendency to ignore folks, when they're requesting that you stop changing titles of articles. It comes across as arrogant on your part & thus off-putting. Even in this ANI report, you're continuing with an attitude that you're right & most of us are wrong. Either you go the RM route from now on 'or' eventually end up being reported to ANI by someone else. When you have a big number of editors supporting a page move-ban on you? it's best you start taking a gander into the mirror. You can either help yourself or sink yourself. Trust me, the Bunker mentality isn't the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus ... I did take a look per IIO's invitation, and ... User:GoodDay, after an indef site-ban not repealed for a year, why would you even want to wade back into the diacritic wars, let alone restart them in a venue that (prior to your involvement) had no direct connection to them? And I'm saying this as someone who is in the small minority to whom IIO referred. I don't care about them in real life, but a diacritic warrior on Wikipedia (who had less respect for MOS than I do) started harassing me both on-wiki (hounding, later posting my home address in multiple places) and off-wiki (contacting my workplace, and doing stuff on various external sites that I don't want to go into). Also, you appear to be in violation of the same TBAN that led to your earlier SBAN. It's not clear that you remembered the ban when you first posted here (your block log is clean for three years), but after IIO explicitly mentioned your having been blocked over diacritics, you should have shut up and/or stricken your earlier, TBAN-violating posts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Shit. I didn't notice that, apparently, the ban was "suspended for one year" last fall, according to the entry on WP:RESTRICT. I haven't located the actual discussion and/or ArbCom decision that led to the suspension, and the concept seems rather fishy. Was the ban suspended to allow for hounding of users wih whom he disputed years ago over the diacritics "problem"? Or is this discussion in violation of some kind of suspended sentence/probation? Anyway, striking for the time being. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The concern here, is IIO's tendency to 'move pages' without going the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as I have interacted with IIO in the past and have a great deal of respect for this editor. I haven't sifted through all the moves in detail, but from what I can see this thread is an over-reaction by B2C. Naturally there will be disagreements among editors about what is best in any given situation, but I see nothing here that merits any kind of ban. IIO and B2C have different views on titling, which is a more complex subject than some would have it. Omnedon (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could be called an over-reaction by B2C, and I think I usually agree with IIO and disagree with B2C on traditional titling battlelines, but here B2C is right. There is a simple principle: When asked to stop doing certain BOLD things, you must stop. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SmokeyJoe, that would be true but assumes that my editing has not become progressively more cautious (and my contributions reduced) as B2C's contributions become ever more closely following my own edits. I have reduced work on disambiguation, I have created less dab pages, I have erred on the side of caution, as for example in the last 10 dab/move/edits above when not immediately creating the Bombay Mail dab page despite the need for one, to allow B2C to revert where he wishes to do so. In fact although edits following myself make a good proportion of B2C's article space edits, B2C only reverts a small proportion of disambiguation work. It is difficult to fully anticipate correctly everything B2C will object to. Effectively it means ceasing disambiguation work in anticipation. If B2C was representative of norms in the encyclopedia then fair enough, but [ [Talk:Thriller_(Michael_Jackson_album)#Requested_move_15_March_2017]] does not represent a normative position. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I definitively agree B2C is not normal, and that his blinkered relentless pushing of minimalist titling theories are disruptive time wasting for others, but that does not justify any bold page move that someone else would object to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnedon: Actually, opposing this proposal based solely on the principal that IIO is a respectable editor whom you like is not a good idea, as the proposal is not all that restrictive to begin with, and most reputable editors have found themselves subjected to such sanctions at one point or another anyway. I think B2C's actions in this thread have been ... somewhat questionable (honestly I didn't notice it because I was active on ANI and a familiar name showed up -- I noticed it because of the insane number of subheadings), but that also is not the best rationale for opposing the limited sanction. Note that this advice comes from someone who actually is opposed to the sanction, for what it's worth. I think a strong warning about making potentially problematic moves, and perhaps unnecessary disambiguation, would be more appropriate. I'm just speaking my opinion because if I only spoke my opinion when it undermined "support" !votes (see above and below) that would make me a terrible hypocrite. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiriji88, you don't seem to have quite gotten what I wrote; my oppose is not based solely on my opinion of IIO. I have looked and I see nothing here that merits a ban. I've expressed my view here briefly. This does not belong at ANI, and IIO does not deserve a block. That many editors are subjected to sanctions at one time or another doesn't make this acceptable. Omnedon (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The link is malformed, so here you go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BoybandPH naming and Hollyckuhno ([109]). --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It should probably be noted that PogingJuan is lucky he wasn't site-banned for some of the shit he pulled a few months back on a certain BLP talk page and a couple of ANI threads spun out thereof (veiled threats of off-wiki violence, insincere claims that said threats totally weren't meant as the threats they looked like, despite repeated refusal to strike them as allegedly unintended threats). He really shouldn't be !voting to apply sanctions to other editors, especially not based solely on personal opinions and general principals that aren't widely accepted by the community. If Hollyckuhno deserves a TBAN, that's Hollyckuhno's problem, not IIO's. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, after looking into this a bit, I suggest that both plaintiff and defendant be enjoined from moving pages without permission. If not that, then neither should be enjoined, as that implies too much fault for one side in an ongoing squabble where it's not clear where the main fault lies.
    After all no one should be moving pages without a discussion, if there's any chance that someone might object. Both plaintiff and defendant seem to have a tendency to conflate "looks fine to me" with "no one could object" (which is a common human failing). Points against User:In ictu oculi are well taken, but at the same time User:Born2cycle is on occasion a little rigid and sometimes of the mind "there's no dispute here, and we won't have a discussion: I'm just right, is all" when there possibly is reasonable basis for discussion. In fairness to User:Born2cycle he has thought about these issues a lot, and cogently. That doesn't necessarily make him always right though.
    All this is a violation of WP:RELAX as User:DGG points out. I would suggest to all parties that titles aren't that important, as long as the proper redirects and hatnotes are in place. I don't think that that will be taken to heart, though. I honestly don't know know how to solve this difficult and distressing standoff between two veteran, productive, and respected editors. But just an all around reminder as I said: no one should be moving pages if anyone might object, and "anyone might object" should be considered liberally. Herostratus (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus: I understand what you're saying, but I want to reiterate that the problems of In ictu oculi's edits go well beyond any dispute between him and B2C. We're talking about thousands of bad moves and all the problems associated with them: misnamed articles, misleading redirects, hindered navigation, and poorly formatted dab pages, plus all the community time spent cleaning up after (if it's ever cleaned up at all). Individually the issues are minor, but when compounded thousands and thousands of times, despite repeated requests to stop, it's not a minor problem anymore.Cúchullain t/c 14:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe you are right, User:Cuchullain. I just worry that the line between "misnamed article" and "article named differently from what I, personally, would prefer" is getting a little muddied. If I move New Orleans to the The Big Easy, that is a misnamed article. Disagreements about what might or not not be the best way to elucidate or expand on the information in the title, and if so what format should be used... that's a different thing. Herostratus (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus, the point you keep missing or overlooking is that whether expanding a title for elucidation is acceptable is a well known point of contention (or "likely to be contentious" in WP:RM parlance), but IIO regularly makes such title changes unilaterally anyway. I don't. --В²C ☎ 20:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you don't but at the same you reserve the right to, since you refused to agree not to when I suggested it informally as a peace compromise. And I mean look at #Informal Collaborator right above. It was you who was move warring and demonstrating an attitude of "There'll be no discussion, I'm right and that's an end to it" even when IIO's move supporting the original page name demonstrated that there was opposition to your version, from him.
    I mean... if, has been avowed by you and others, IIO just off the reservation, then it is understandably maddening to have to engage him over and over on stuff he's never going to get his way on anyway. However, I'm not convinced it is that simple, is all. Herostratus (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus, I think that's the ticket. The problem seems to have gotten worse lately with Iio making more and more moves of the type that fail when they go to RM or face scrutiny. And there have been some that aren't just misnamed, but are flat wrong (ie this). At any rate, under these sanctions, he'd still be able to propose and discuss any move he wanted through the process.--Cúchullain t/c 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Herostratus, of course I agree to not makes unilateral moves that are potentially contentious, which is all I've ever asked IIO to do. But I reserve the same right that everyone else has to revert undiscussed/unsupported moves (including reverting alleged unexplained/undiscussed "reverts" of well-supported moves made two months earlier, which is what happened at Informal collaborator). IIO has repeatedly demonstrated either an inability or an unwillingness to make distinctions between potentially contentious and clearly uncontentious title changes, and often ignores requests to provide explanation. --В²C ☎ 21:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you don't make unilateral moves, then what's this? I gather that your feeling is "well, that's not really a possibly-discussable move, it's just a correction, like fixing a spelling error". But it's not that simple I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Herostratus, what that is is a revert of yet another unilateral move by IIO that came to my attention when I saw it questioned on his talk page a few days after I opened this AN/I. It was just a few weeks after he deleted (without responding; not even in the comment summary) another reminder from me for him to stop making potentially controversial unilateral moves[110]. Perhaps it's a bit unfair but hopefully understandable: if it was anyone else I almost certainly would not have reverted it so quickly (if at all). It's fallout from repeated similar behavior on his part, and his ignoring repeated reminders that he not to engage in this disruptive behavior. Maybe this one time it was arguably a legitimate revert on his part, but given his reputation (read the Support !votes here)... again, I hope my response is understandable. Does that answer your question? --В²C
        • Yes it does, to some degree. Yes this diff (IIO blanking a talk page thread instead of responding) is something I hate to see (although, heh, you did it to me just recently (no hard feelings)). It may be justified if person feels they were being hectored (which I'm not accusing you of).
    Yes, though, I get it. As a practical matter, it is both human and functional to treat people differently based on their history. You're saying you wouldn't have rolled back if it was someone else... OK. That is reasonable if justified. Whether it is justified I'm not sure. You guys are having a difficult time getting along and respecting each other's point of view, I guess. This I think is a problem that needs to be resolved somehow, and I'm not sure that you "winning" is the best way forward.
    One reason I'm not sure that you "winning" is the best way forward is than on the merits I have have issues with some specifics of your approach to titling in general, and I fear that your "winning" this case will further valorize that point of view... But also, the sight of two veteran, dedicated, able, and highly respected colleagues at loggerheads in the manner distresses me, and I would prefer a win-win to a win-lose outcome. That may not be in the cards, but lose-lose may be the best option available... Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus, at least I responded/explained in my edit summary, right? And I've responded/explained to all of your queries. You can't say I'm ignoring you. I think the problem IIO and I have in getting along, to the extent that it exists, is not central to this AN/I. Even though I started it, I acknowledged the rocky history I have with IIO in the opening sentence here, and let's not forget that there were at least two previous similar AN/Is in which I was not involved, not to mention all of the accounts relayed in the Support !vote comments logged here. I'm open to getting along better with IIO, and any assistance in that direction. That said, IIO's disruptive behaviorial issues that are the subject of this AN/I are really the only serious issues I have with him. There are quite a few other eidtors I disagree with just as often, but don't have any working issues with them like I do with IIO. By the way, have you seen his comments and my responses in the Bombay Train and "Let's look at one ..." subsections above? I think they help explain why we need some action here. --В²C ☎ 18:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have responded and explained, and this is to your credit. As to rest, OK; I'll wait for what others say. Herostratus (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait to hear what others have to say about what? I'm far from perfect, but while many here have confirmed that IIO's move behavior is problematic, none besides you have even suggested that I do anything close to what IIO does with respect to unilateral moves. --В²C ☎ 16:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not at all necessary that the move-related behavioral issues raised about IIO must be mirrored exactly by B2C. If B2C also exhibits move-related behavioral problems, even if they are different ones, that is sufficient for remedial action to be taken with regard to them, whether or not any ais taken with regard to IIO's. I've addressed this with specifics in longer commentary below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral as proposed, but support SmokeyJoe's proposal. As I said above, the move-pattern is just the tip of the iceberg. There are more serious problem with his editing, but they were decided to be off-topic, so I will assume this ban (if applied) will reduce the gaming from his part. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 17:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this user has already way too often renamed pages when unwarranted (particularly to add unnecessary parentheticals) and should at the very least discuss controversial moves before performing them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per all the above. Another important point to remember here: there is no WP:DEADLINE. If an editor believes a page to be at a suboptimal title, it won't kill anyone to wait a week or so for an RM to confirm this. bd2412 T 02:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. IIO makes controversial moves without discussion to obscure pages and they often aren't picked up on for quite a while. Considering his relatively narrow view of what constitutes primary topics, I would much rather he be made to put them up for discussion first. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mutual and temporary manual-move ban, or just a mutual but final warning. A three-month ban seems to be pretty customary. SmokeyJoe's terms in the third non-nominator comment seem to be the right approach. Over the last decade+, I've seen both of these editors improve in various ways, and yet both dig their heels in on certain views and tactics that don't mesh with the consensus approach to article titling. One thing I've noticed – and directly experienced! – is that a limited-time ban on making manual moves forces one to think more carefully about moves, their rationales, their impacts, and (frankly) the basic human politics involved in getting consensus. I rarely do manual moves these days, and I know other editors given short-term bans who have also taken to using RM religiously. We're here at ANI to remedy not punish.

      The complainant here (B2C) has a long history of problematic RM behavior himself, going back to at least 2010, and resulting in an ARBCOM case (which warned and admonished him by name) in 2012, another admin warning in 2013, an ANI sanction in 2013, an AN case, etc. I could diff-pile all that stuff and more (and maybe doing so would be deserved, given the mountain of questionable or at least differently interpretable evidence dumped here to demonize IIO, with little attention paid to the wealth of "B2C has unclean hands" material that could be dug up. I actually wrote most of that, but I don't think it's productive of resolution, so I scrapped it.

      Look, this two-editor deathmatch just needs cold water dumped on it. B2C's "my way or the highway" manner, incivility, and excessive devotion to WP:CONCISE as if it's the only one of the five WP:CRITERIA that really matters contrarian interpretations of WP:CRITERIA, all just desperately need to be given a long rest. So does IIO's "I'm pretending I can't hear any of you critics" act, and his similarly excessive insistence on leaping directly to parenthetical disambiguation (WP:PARENDIS) of and only of the WP:COMMONNAME, when the policy clearly favors avoiding disambiguation entirely by testing the available sourced names against the five CRITERIA (hint: COMMONNAME is not one of the criteria at all; it's just the first name to run through the actual CRITERIA tests as the most likely to fit them best). Only if that fails should we resort to disambiguating the COMMONNAME, and the policy is clear that we try WP:NATURALDISambiguation of that when possible, and only if that fails do we resort of parenthetic.

      Both editors have been failing to be civilly open to others' views on such matters, and abusing WP:BRD as a WP:FILIBUSTER weapon – concerns raised about article title disputes since 2012 in the WP:ARBATC ArbCom case. If curing these problems requires a two-editor break from moving articles around at will, then so be it.
       — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [Revised to be less specific about interpretational conflicts, which aren't the issue here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)][reply]

      SMcCandlish, please don't misrepresent my views on title decision making. I give all WP:CRITERIA due weight and treat concision primarily as a tie breaker. That is, if all other criteria don't indicate a particular title between two, then concision kicks in preferring the more concise. I can't deny my past issues and I'm certainly not perfect now but have I done anything in the past (say) year that warrants some kind of sanction as you seem to suggest? If so, please identify that behavior because I have no idea what you're talking about, besides stuff from long ago. And if there is anything recent how about bringing it to my attention on my talk page first, to give me a chance to resolve it? I came here to AN/I regarding IIO's behavior because he ignored attempts from me and others to address his behavior on his talk page as documented above. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 07:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Born2cycle: This is a red herring (though I've replaced the policy-interpretation comment, above, with something more general). Also, protesting your innocence and encouraging people to provide further evidence against you is not advisable. The principal issue with your RM-related behavior in this proceeding and the matters behind it (for way more than, say, the past year) is WP:CIVIL/WP:AGF/WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:BATTLEGROUND-related. It's your failure to change after ArbCom admonitions [111][112], admin warnings [113], a narrowly escaped topic ban from move discussions, at WP:AN [114], contingent upon promises that you have not kept [115] (though some improvement regarding some of them is observable), and WP:AN sanctions [116], all about your move-related behavior pattern. It's not about policy interpretation at all, and these arguably stack up (among other incidents/warnings I've not cited) to suggest an indefinite T-ban from RM, though I advocated a short one or just a final warning.

      Have you done anything worthy of sanctioning lately? This direct accusation of bad faith of at least two kinds, without any evidence, in this very discussion, appears to qualify, both as to normal ANI admin civility enforcement and – very particularly with regard to you – per the discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:ARBATC#Remedies, in a "title warring" ArbCom case in which you were not just a party but specifically instructed to stop that kind of behavior (first raised, that I know of, in an even earlier AN dispute in 2010 with PMAnderson, which culminated in ARBATC in 2012). That's seven damned years to figure out how to approach article titles more reasonably. That AGF-failure diff is just one instance from one discussion; as I indicated, I'd prepared a lot more evidence but restrained myself from posting it. I would think that you're familiar with the kind of comprehensive diff dump I'm prepared to do to see "style and titles warring" disruption curtailed, and that you would not want to goad me into posting one.

      Anyway, I speak from both direct and observational experience in suggesting that a mutual short-term move ban would be instructive for both you and IIO, and would dispel a lot of unnecessary drama for other RM editors. If you end up back here again over the same matters, I think you should expect the long-term move/titles topic ban you almost got last time. I strongly suggest you refrain from lodging any more move-related ANI complaints, because they just draw attention to your own issues in this area, and raise concerns about "move-stalking" of "enemies" (IIO appears to have a good case that you've been doing this to him). If you think someone is being a real problem with regard to moves, step away and let someone else deal with it (e.g. ask admin Cuchullain to look into it, since he's well-versed in the nature of the issue and willing to speak up about it). Your hands are just too unclean on this to bring a case yourself, and you are far too devoted to titles debate as your no. 1 activity on WP for you to have a balanced viewpoint on the matter, anyway.

    Venue-related stuff:

    When an ANI thread is already open about a user's behavior (regardless who opened it about whom), and remedies have already been proposed (including some unilateral and bilateral BOOMERANG suggestions), then that noticeboard thread is the proper venue for addressing the behaviors (especially in light of previous AN/ARBCOM incidents about the same behaviors), not user talk. It's also not at all encouraging of use of your user talk page when you hat the relevant discussions there specifically to stop further commentary about these matters. Despite your hatting, I did try reopening related policy-interpretation discussion there anyway [117], before I posted here, and I did so specifically to correct someone else's policy misinterpretation, so I'm hardly picking on you (and you did not respond anyway).

    Policy interpretation stuff∂:
    I'm going by the CONCISE-related manifesto essays you wrote, which had the character of proposals to change AT policy, and which you cited incessantly as if they were guidelines, until they were both WP:MFDed and userspaced [118], [119]. If your views on the matter had perceptibly changed as a result of these clear community indications that they were anti-consensus, that would be great. But your above statement is simply a reassertion of one of your MFDed essays, without any significant alteration, and it is still inconsistent with consensus policy interpretation and the wording of the policy itself. There is nothing whatsoever in WP:AT that even suggests that any of the five criteria are specially used only as some kind of "tie-breaker". If WP:CONCISE wasn't important in its own right, it would not be one of the five WP:CRITERIA, and the community does not agree with you that concision considerations only enter into naming decisions when all other things are equal between two names.

    Nor does the community agree with you that a shorter name must always be used versus a longer one if both satisfy the criteria (which is what my struck comment was referring to). Most of us understand it's more complicated than that, since a slightly longer name may much better satisfy multiple criteria than a too-clipped one. If [I can't read minds!] you've actually moved away from your other MFDed essay's contrarian position about the latter point, then I might have misinterpreted your current position after all, and stand to be corrected. (This possibility is why I struck my original comment.) Feel free to clarify – in user talk, since "how B2C interprets AT, and who or how many agree/disagree" isn't one of the matters that are before us at ANI. Similarly, people have also disagreed with your interpretation of what the word "concise" operationally means in the WP article titles context, but that's another matter for another time and venue, and has no relevance to the behavioral matters that are actually the ANI concern. I won't engage with you or anyone else in further discussion of such off-topic interpretational detailia in this venue.

     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish: This sounds reasonable and a good step for the future should restrictions not be implemented here, but I do want to reiterate that IIO's editing problems are serious and go beyond the dispute with B2C. If I thought a final warning would do the trick, I'd be right there with you, but IIO has shown an unwillingness to listen to any of the many people who have questioned or challenged him over the course of years, and it appears that the problem is escalating (he admits that he's attempting to avoid scrutiny by doing this).[120][121] I expect we'll be right back here at ANI pretty shortly.--Cúchullain t/c 15:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cuchullain: Well, I did suggest a 3-month ban could be appropriate. But I also see IIO making it clear that he's intensely frustrated by B2C in particular, and feels that he's being hounded and edit-stalked by him, and that IIO's actual editing history is being manipulatively misrepresented, that B2C is just cherry-picking largely unrelated mistakes and things that are just "I don't like it" non-mistakes, out of thousands of smoother moves. There's evidence both these assessments are correct. I have a strong feeling that if this two-party problem has cold water dumped on it, that IIO's "my fingers are in my ears" behavior will stop or at least lessen, especially since this ANI is raising this behavior as a primary concern about IIO. He'd have to be a bit nutty to get a signpost this big put in his face and not adjust his behavior, wouldn't he? As I noted above somewhere, it is not necessary that the problems exhibited by B2C be identical to those exhibited by IIO in order for ANI to restrain the both of them, only that they both exhibit move-related problems that are long-term, have been raised before, and need to be addressed. If anything, I might modify my suggestion to call for a manual and speedy move ban on IIO's part, and broader move ban for B2C, who has been exhibiting multiple and serious problems in this area for about 7 years straight, despite repeated admonitions and sanctions. From what I can tell, the only reasons he escaped a topic ban from moves and RM last time was a long list of behavior-change promises that have not been fulfilled, and a couple of his friends claiming he's an "expert" we need on WP title policy, which is clearly not true since his two attempts to codify his views on the topic were MfDed as against actual consensus. I know far more editors who sharply disagree with B2C than agree with him, on more than one AT-related matter. But the incivility issues can't be ignored, all interpretational and consensus matters aside.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish: I hear you. It may be the case that IIO feels aggrieved by B2C, but as I've said, IIO has accused many unrelated editors who bring up problems with his edits of hounding and stalking.[122][123][124][125][126][127][128] The "I didn't hear that" problem isn't only stemming from the dispute with B2C.--Cúchullain t/c 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. This thread is so long and diff-heavy, I haven't seen every item.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I've been following the whole thing from start, and just now, I can really agree SMcCandlish, I feel a final warning for IIO, and a large trout for B2C for the incivility. —JJBers 18:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    JJBers, if there is anything about my behavior that you believe deserves a trout please bring it to my attention on my talk page, to give me a chance to resolve it. I came here to AN/I regarding IIO's behavior because he ignored attempts from many including me to address his behavior on his talk page as documented above. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 07:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I personally find it very annoying when people post essentially the same comment, in the same words, in response to multiple different editors (or in response to several unrelated comments by the same editor[129]). I'm not sure if there's a policy or guideline that explicitly discourages this, but if there is none there ought to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: WP:BLUDGEON covers the first (though not the "in response to several unrelated comments by the same editor" variant). B2C was admonished by ArbCom already about this stuff: "Findings of fact: ... Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses" [130]. It was also a major issue in his previous WP:AN sanctions: "... hounding the opposition is not helpful. It discourages uninvolved editors to participate, it raises tensions, and it puts folks in a more defensive mode than collaborative. I find that there is strong consensus for some kind of sanction. By strong, I mean overwhelming to the opposes. ... Unfortunately, getting B2C to see the light has not solved this problem in the long term." [131]. The same basic pattern was also central to an RM topic ban at WP:AN that he narrowly escaped [132] by promising to change this pattern, the failed "seeing the light" referred to in the second quote.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hijiri88, sorry about the near-duplicate replies. You're right. Not normal for me. I wanted to reply to each of you. Should have made a combined response. Not sure why I didn't. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --В²C ☎ 04:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I would go further and ban In ictu oculi ("Iio") from initiating a move using RM, because his past behaviour over moving article that can be spelt with diacritics, IIio will simply create lots of RMs, that are not justified under the guidelines (or will justify his/her move by cherry pick sentences from guidelines that support Iio's move but ignore wider guidance). IMHO Iio has done immense harm to this project by his obsessions in moving articles to native spelling of articles, without even a pretence of considering whether the native spelling is commonly used in reliable English language sources (see for example Archive 7 and Archive 8). This thread shows that Iio transfer's similar tactics to other areas. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotta call "shenanigans" on this one. Far too few of the "cases" against IIO are being examined (though I thank those above for their efforts to analyze some of them). It's standard operating procedure for WP to use diacritics for bio subjects who use them and/or for whom English-language RS can be demonstrated using them (even if some other RS do not use them, which is often the case with American newspapers, sport governing bodies, etc., many of which have jingoistic house style rules against diacritics, and which are thus the opposite of reliable sources when it comes whether someone's name properly has a diacritic in it, even if they're reliable for the subject is married to or what her sports stats are). There is no "immense harm" to the project in using culturally correct name spellings for the individuals they belong to; it's what we do, by long-standing consensus, but on a case-by-case basis to determine whether its appropriate. The middle of an ANI about behavioral problems is not a place to relitigate the tedious and perennial case against diacritics on Wikipedia. A handful of editors have been at war against diacritics for years, based on the common-style fallacy and a severe misinterpretation of WP:USEENGLISH (both of which PBS's argument above is also based on) and will not listen no matter how many times they're told they're wrong. They even tried to start a "wikiproject" devoted to hunting down and eliminating diacritics in article titles and text, and it was deleted at MfD as an anti-consensus cabal.

        I remember the Ana Ivanovic case in particular, because IIO was doing general cleanup in this area (all the rest of it successful, if I recall, even in the face of proven sockpuppeteering against his efforts) and he wondered about Ivanovic in particular. We had a discussion about it in 2015, in considerable detail (and the thread above that one is also pertinent). IIO's attempt to add diacritics in that article (with a source, but apparently unaware that her own English-language website, which doesn't use the diacritics, is a better source for her as a BLP, per WP:ABOUTSELF policy) was way back in May 2012. That article has has five RMs and one MR, all about the diacritics issue, only two opened by IIO. His first was the third, in May 2013 (waiting a full year to re-raise the question after being reverted – very rudely and with accusations of bad faith – in the article text). That RM closed as "no consensus", which the MR upheld. He then waited another two years, and no consensus was the result again. So, clearly, IIO was not doing anything against consensus, nor rash, nor by manually moving pages, nor by ignoring other editors, nor anything else raised in this ANI as an IIO behavioral issue. He was trying to apply WP:CONSISTENCY policy, using standard move discussion procedures, and was patiently seeing if consensus would emerge (not even whether it would change). This is not in any way problematic behavior, though I would have opposed that particular proposed move for reasons I gave in the discussion I've linked to and which I've summarized here.

        As admin Joy (Shallot) observed in the 2nd RM, back when, the original move of this article to a name without diacritics was performed on the basis of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that conflicts with site-wide practice, WikiProject Tennis declaring that they're going to do with/to player names what sport governing bodies do, come hell or high water. This is actually against policy in multiple ways. A gaggle of topic-focused editors do not get to declare other sources void and use only the ones that agree with their personal style preferences. This is simultaneously a WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV problem, and their soapbox behavior on the matter is a WP:NOT one as well. It's pure coincidence that in this one case the potentially-diacritic-bearing name shouldn't actually have one because the subject herself intentionally and provable doesn't use it in English.

        As with several other "cases" listed in this is ANI, the behavioral evidence is actually strongly in IIO's favor. The only issue it raises is that he opened his final RM on the page after I explained to him why that article shouldn't move, as an unusual case. "Didn't agree with SMcCandlish's policy interpretation", however, is not an ANI-sanctionable offense, nor is it any kind of "immense harm". It's also noteworthy that this 2012–2015 stuff actually predates some 2016–2017 reinterpretation (during and in the wake of the MOS:JR RfC) of the importance of WP:ABOUTSELF with regard to name spelling and punctuation for BLPs. IIO has not raised this move suggestion again, so I assume he understands now why that move cannot happen just on the basis of his WP:CONSISTENCY argument; other factors outweigh that one criterion (which is the least and last among the WP:CRITERIA, because it is not sourced-based, but grounded in editorial maintenance concerns, and to a lesser extent the expectations of long-term readers who become very familiar with our naming practices).
         — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong oppose, this is just the typical controversy at RM spilling over. These two have complete opposite (and both extreme) views of article title policy and regularly have drawn-out arguments at RM. In my view, B2C is just as tendentious as IIO, and as such banning IIO and not B2C would be unfair. I was recently involved in an RM that B2C closed, despite it being a) controversial and b) having expressed views on the topic before. After being asked to revert by multiple editors, he, of course, did not. B2C has an (IMO) extreme view of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The analysis by SMcCandlish is an excellent overview. Laurdecl talk 11:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And now he appears to have started a very large RM on Faberge egg articles immediately after a thorough RfC was closed, simply because he disagrees with the outcome. He also disdains the closer, a well-respected editor, again because he disagrees with the outcome. Laurdecl talk 11:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I started an RM after a group of articles were moved without the moves being advertised on RM or even their respective talk pages as policy requires. Is following policy and starting a proper RM a problem now? And I did agree to revert my close of that other RM discussion if anyone previously uninvolved (and without a history of disagreeing with me) disputed its outcome. Nobody did. Of course, even those involved can file a review at WP:MR. Is it also a problem to report a serial unilateral page mover who has been ignoring policy and consensus on this issue for the better part of a decade? I know I have tone problems. Probably exhibiting them now. I'm sorry. It's a character flaw. I have a hard time believing anyone could think ill of me, so I'm less careful with my words than I should be. I know I mean well. Don't you? So it's "fair" to ban me too? --В²C ☎ 16:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the RfC already concluded to move them, that is consensus, and is sufficient. I know you know this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You opened the RM because you disagree with the result of the RfC, which takes precedent over an RM in any case. I don't want you to be banned from moving pages, and I don't want IIO to be either. When you say he ignores "policy and consensus", do you mean your interpretation of what you think the policy and consensus are? The consensus in the Faberge RfC was to move the articles, so why aren't you respecting it? Of course you mean well, but so does IIO. What I'm trying to say is that disagreements over titling policy should not result in formal sanctions being thrown around. Laurdecl talk 07:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)w[reply]
    @Laurdecl you write "RfC, which takes precedent over an RM in any case". What guidance are you are using to come to that conclusion? It is contradicted by the AT policy section WP:TITLECHANGES "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made". The fall out from the great "Men's rights movement title debate" of 2012 was that page moves ought usually go through RM process and not the RfC process for two reasons. (1) The RM process is tailored made for controversial page moves; and (2) those with an expertise on the AT policy and its naming conventions tend to lurk around RM and not RfCs. There were some instances such as AfD that could result in a page move but by an large it was agreed that RM was usually the best forum to discuss controversial page moves. To see the debate that took place see The RfC, talk page complaints about the RfC and the ANI. There is yards and yards more on that drama in the archives at Wikipedia talk:Article titles and other places.-- PBS (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, PBS. I did not know all that background but I certainly knew the clearly stated policy at WP:RM which you quoted, and that was the basis for my revert of the moves that resulted from the non-compliant RFC, and for the RM discussion I initiated after my reverts were reverted by an involved admin. Now that RM failed and the whole thing is a cluster with about 20 articles with unambiguous names (no other uses on WP) that are never-the-less disambiguated with parenthetic disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 17:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONSENSUS, as one of the overriding behavioral and structural policies of the entire enterprise, trumps AT, which is basically just the parts of MOS that have been raised to policy level to help curtail some bickering. The consensus policy makes it clear that consensus, about any matter, can form anywhere, by whatever process; the only important part is that it forms. See also the WP:POLICY policy, which by definition is also above AT: our policies are to be interpreted in the spirit in which they are intended, not as to their exact wording (see also WP:LAWYER, WP:GAMING, etc.). While it may be generally preferable for moves to be conducted by RM, ones that result from the outcome of RfCs and other consensus discussions are not magically invalid. This is also a matter of clear WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY policy, and WP:IAR policy, and the WP:Common sense meta-policy. In short, our rules are flexible, are not Holy Writ, and exist to serve the project not vice versa. RfCs frequently do take precedence over RMs, when they address something in a general way that affects multiple articles. Same goes for MoS changes, and changes to various other guidelines or policies. If, for example, our guidelines changed to stop giving names in the form "X. Y. Zounds" but to use "X.Y. Zounds" we would not have thousands upon thousands of redundant RM discussion, we'd just move the articles. The only RM discussions needed would be for unusual cases, e.g. where the subject and sources about that subject are alleged to uniformly use the spaced version. (We know this is true, because we have exception to the current "space out the initials" rule, largely handled at RM, and on precisely that kind of source analysis, and we've had many proposals for more such exceptions, where the analysis has shown the claims to be faulty. The exact same process has been used with regard to "comma-Jr", and many other matters. The aftermath of the MOS:JR RfC is a fantastic example of how and why the result of an RfC can and should just result directly in page moves. Instead, we actually tried discussing it page-by-page, and it was a total time-sucking nightmare that almost got several editors hauled to dramaboards for tendentiousness, IDHT, forumshopping, and personal attacks, and almost had at least two editors resign from the project in frustration. Any time a process can be used to just get on with it, instead of re-fight what was just decided, go the former route. See also WP:DRAMA, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm a bit late to this discussion (not that it matters) and I see IIO's name a lot at WP:RM anyway. He does some great work and I've never had an issue with any of his page moves, regardless of them going through WP:RM or not. I can see that some people may have an issue with the odd move here and there, but I fell he's acting in good faith with all the page moves. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Truite? Ou boomerang?

    I'm sorry, but the more commentary by B2C I read here and on IIO's talk page, the more I think he/she seriously needs to be taught the importance of WP:CIVIL. I find it incredible that someone who routinely engages in this kind of sniping rhetoric could have been editing for twelve years without a single block. Did this just happen recently? Understanding/misunderstanding policy is one thing, but civility should be a given, and in fact is by far the most important policy on Wikipedia (for good or ill). Everyone gets frustrated/angry from time to time, but I don't see anything IIO did that could explain this. @Born2cycle: do you understand why this kind of comment is inappropriate? Do you regret it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I still disagree with B2C, but to quote Jeremy Barton, "I'm starting to root for this guy". I can definitely sympathize with B2C on some of the details here. So I say WP:TROUT. I can see that consensus is actually moving toward a formal sanction for IIO, and if some of the others (including Cuchullain, who I trust even more than IIO) are right that something has changed about IIO's behaviour since I last interacted with him, sobeit. I can actually accept this because I had essentially the same thought back in 2015 when IIO posted this bizarre and hypocritical attacks against me. I'm not withdrawing my opposition to the formal ban, though, as I don't see any evidence that people have tried to convince him to voluntarily pull back. This is just to say that I don't think my TROUT proposal is likely to go anywhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: What about B2C's attempts to challenge the consensus of the "Fabergé egg" articles?
    Your response to the above? George Ho (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be creating a multi-page RM when I have time. --В²C ☎ 16:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hijiri88, regarding the comment you linked above, I'm sorry but I don't see what the issue is with it. This whole AN/I, and at least two others prior to this one (in which I was uninvolved), are all about IIO making undiscussed/unexplained moves much like that one. That is what he does, that's all I said, and it's why I think only prohibiting him from making unilateral moves will resolve it. The examples identified above are just a sampling, there are many, many more. I don't mean to disparage him, but it does no one any good to pretend otherwise. If I'm missing something, I apologize in advance. --В²C ☎ 16:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Born2cycle: Don't question the ability of inexperienced editors to perform non-admin closures of controversial discussions. You'll get repeatedly threatened with a site-ban. Believe me. My experience with this is the same reason I said above that CIVIL is the most important policy, and outweighs all others combined. Ask ArbCom and they will agree -- the highest court in the land doesn't care a lick about content, sourcing, verifiability, original research, or good faith; if you are easily driven to write snide remarks some of the stuff in the diffs above, you need to just follow the Wickedly talented Adele Dazeem's advice and step away, or talk to other users you trust about reviewing closures in your stead, because you're not going to get what you want acting like that. I actually agree that Exemplo was out of line with that close (email me if you want a full explanation why, or look at the contrib history of AlbinoFerret and figure it out for yourself), but you need to know how to express yourself in a manner that those who don't agree will appreciate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you and I really appreciate what you're trying to do here, and accomplishing. Exemplo347, I apologize for questioning your abilities and experience. I've seen it done before (about others in similar situations) and thought it was acceptable and appropriate. But now I'm not so sure, to say the least. --В²C ☎ 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone around here knows about BADNACs, it's you, not Exemplo347. The first thread on your talk page has no less than seven editors asking you to revert your close on Iznik pottery, and at least two of them completely uninvolved. Laurdecl talk 11:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All of them were either involved or have a history of disagreeing with me, as noted in that discussion. I would have reverted if a single person objected to my close who was uninvolved and had not expressed animosity for me or my views in the past. There was nobody. --В²C ☎ 17:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like you were moving the goalpost. Do Dicklyon or Omnedon have "a history of disagreeing" with you? They both asked you to revert. Laurdecl talk 07:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes they do! People with strong opinions like mine tend to pick up antagonizing friends along the way, and I'm proud to include Dicklyon and Omnedon among mine. You can search for either of their names in my talk page archives to confirm... Consider Archive 7 from 2013, for example[133]. --В²C ☎ 21:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Figures

    @user:Gerda Arendt you wrote "A page move is easily reverted if not needed, while every time I participate in a RM I feel like wasting time." Are 24 easily reverted? That is how many move OiiIio made in on 26 April, 25 April "only" 5, on the 24 April 21 moves ... According to this search OiiIio had made about 20,400 edits that involved the word "moved page" since December 2009, to put that into perspective you have made 404 "moved page" edits since August 2009. This year you have moved 16 articles ie in a third of a year less than OiiIio made on the 26 April alone. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope your figures are more precise than your abbreviation of a user name. Let's stay with 24 moves one day: not all of them will be contentious, and the few left that may be can be handled (discussed or reverted) by the different people who care about these articles. I don't see the problem. I have bad experiences with requested moves, for example The Flying Durchman, an impossible title (the only stage work by Wagner in English, while all others are in the original language), but consolidated by a RM. Waste of time. I won't try again, rather leave it impossible ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the abbreviation thank you for pointing it out. I think my numbers are correct why don't you look for yourself? I am willing to correct them if not.-- PBS (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hijiri 88 searching on "moved page" returns about 179 (less than one can score with three darts), if OiiIio was moving so so few articles this ANI would be inappropriate, but we are talking about an editor that has made 500 moves in March and April of this year. So whether or not you think there is a boomerang problem, there is a real problem that needs to be address in with OiiIio and excessive moves in this ANI. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to be addressing my initial !vote's rationale that non-controversial moves are fine because they are not controversial. I stand by that statement because, even if he had moved 10,000 pages in two months, I would still need to see some evidence that some of those were bad moves or were counter-consensus. There are (indeed were a week ago, when I cast my !vote) a lot of people !voting based on the assumption that someone making a lot of unilateral page moves must be a bad thing. In case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia has a lot of shitty articles, many of them probably having shitty titles that don't conform to MOS. Again, I'm reminded of JoshuSasori, who proudly advertised on his userpage having created a bunch of pages with titles in contravention of MOS guidelines (as in, he specifically stated that he didn't like MOS and had titled those pages deliberately). It isn't beyond belief that IIO noticed a similar, much larger, problem recently, and even if his moves were wrong (again, I trust Cuchullain's judgement most of the time) I think a warning to take a bit more care would be enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As above, the high number of moves are the result of a high number of article edits and high number of disambiguation edits and disambiguation page creations (or restorations where a search term previously leading to content such as "Sivi" is displaced by a minor entertainment article.
    Also above, and again ancient history being raised now, but also as above a high total number of moves over the years are the result of creation of bios or implementation of RfCs about use of full Unicode fonts not ASCII 24 letter fonts. PBS, like GoodDay, is entitled to a view on "diacritics" contrary to WP:FRMOS etc as Talk:Édouard Deldevez, but the die is cast, the entire encyclopedia (except for one Serbian lady sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb) uses full unicode for BLP, I am not to blame for that, hundreds of editors participated in well attended RfCs at WP Hockey WP Tennis and elsewhere many years ago. It maybe in 2017 with Brexit there's momentum for a move of the entire article corpus back to resemble the Daily Mail, but it's not relevant to discussion here about whether I was somehow malicious or "gaming" by leaving Bombay Mail (a) for templates to settle and (b) for B2C to follow my edits. I was in good faith improving the encyclopedia by allowing readers looking for the 3 possible topics of Bombay Mail to find them. And similar. I have no further interest in continuing to create disambiguation pages, even when obscure entertainment topics are inserted over a search term with many more meanings. And thus no need to move terms like Submergence to make room for them. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Iio I think you are confused the 20k+ has nothing to do with requested moves, these are move you have have made, not those you have requested or participated in using the WP:RM process. By way of comparison taking the edit count of the editor one above and below you who are not admins returns 180 344 (I have missed out the admin next to you because admins may have unusual profiles compared to other users (although in this case the admin has only made 45 page moves). The point being that you moving of pages is not 10 time that of the people I have compared you with, but more than 100 times as large. SO even if you make no more misjudgements that average you are likely to have made 100 times as many misjudgements. -- PBS (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As an editor with many article creations, many edits, many dab pages, if the worst that someone can say is that some were reverted, and I did not contest but happily left, without creating further drama, that doesn't sound to me like it is related at all to your own issue: "immense harm to this project by his obsessions in moving articles to native spelling of articles" (i.e. by following RfCs and WP:FRMOS etc). If you want to resurrect the diacritics issue, then please go back to 2011-12 and all the RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez, go back to the RfCs, and make a case to reverse the use of "native spelling" as you call it throughout the article corpus. This is the consensus of 100s of editors, not just myself. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More than "some" were reverted. But that's not even the issue. Almost certainly more should be. What's problematic about these unilateral moves of yours is you rarely provide even a short explanation in the edit summary, let alone real explanation on the talk page, much less wait for input. Not to mention that on many of these pages probably those few who are watching understand WP title-decision-making less than you do, so waiting isn't going to be fruitful anyway. Most of these moves are clearly in the potential controversial area that require WP:RM listing. You're just not collaborative on these moves. WP:BOLD does not apply to moves like it does to edits. That's what you don't seem to appreciate and respect. That's why you need to be forced to stop. --В²C ☎ 21:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is another red herring. An editor devoted to title cleanup will of course have a much larger move rate than average. Someone totally focused on dogs will have a tremendously higher rate of dog-related edits than average; and so on. The stark obvious problem with this ANI (aside from it being a grudge thing), is that the whole "IIO made this X number of move-related errors over Y number of years, so should be move banned" so-called reasoning is statistical nonsense and fudging. You could easily demonize anyone who is an editorial specialist by this misleading method. "Jimbob the dog-obsessed editor should be T-banned from dogs, because over the last decade he's introduced typos to dogs articles 297 times! He must be doing it on purpose!", when what's really happening is Jimbob has produced a glorious river of content and actually has a lower typo-introduction rate than an average, but someone who seems to be more concerned about fighting another editor than working on the encyclopedia has spent hours, maybe even days, cherry picking every error Jimbob has made, in an attempt to paint him as destructive. I ain't drinking that Kool-Aid.

    We should focus on IIO's "I'm not listening" behavior, and how to get that to stop, then the entire set of issues will be resolved. It's clear that the vast bulk of his move work is productive and uncontroversial, and that the actual problem is him being unresponsive (or insufficiently responsive) when a move, or a category of moves, or a type of move, is actually controverted or will predictably be controverted because the last several near-identical moves were. [Hijiri88 said somewhere above that a move cannot be controverial until after it is controverted, and this is not true. I know this for a fact, since I got a short-term move ban several years ago by insisting on the same interpretation, and learned the hard way that it is incorrect.]
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is true that defendant "rarely provide[s] even a short explanation in the edit summary" then that's not OK, especially under the circumstances. You don't have to provide edit summary for regular edits (it is nice though), but for page moves? It ought to be essentially required. One outcome could be (in addition to anything else (or nothing else) stemming from all this might be "everyone is strongly suggested to use edit summaries for page moves". Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • SMcCandlish claims: "An editor devoted to title cleanup will of course have a much larger move rate than average. ". I'm an editor devoted to title cleanup and my move rate is pretty low. Anyway, nobody has made an issue of IIO's move rate. It's the number and percentage of those moves that are clearly potentially controversial (usually a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue), so obviously potentially controversial that he should definitely know they are supposed to go through an RM discussion before they are moved, that's the problem. --В²C ☎ 16:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Side matter

    Can we stop referring to editors as "plaintiffs" and "defendants", and cut out the talk of "enjoining" people? It sounds silly. EEng 16:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I really don't want to feel like this is some court case. —JJBers 13:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, the powdered wig was itchy anyway.

    Also as what is probably a side matter: at the time all this was happening the operative page, Wikipedia:Requested moves, contained the advice "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first" which had been there since 3 August 2014. So I mean technically at least, it's kind of hard to fault someone for following that advice, although many normally-allowable procedures can be overused to create a pattern of disruption, which is what is alleged asserted here, so this may not really apply.

    FWIW, this advice has been removed, leaving "Anyone may move a page without discussion if... no one could reasonably disagree with the move" as the now-operative guidance. But this is just recent and doesn't apply to these past actions (and is not even fully decided, discussion continuing on the WP:RM talk page). Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As per that Talk page discussion this wording was inconsistent with what was said elsewhere on the page and IIO never defended his actions or disputed when he was repeatedly reminded by multiple editors about what the rest of WP:RM said against making potentially controversial moves. He knew. He didn't care. He did anyway. --В²C ☎ 21:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that (as far as I know) nobody has made reference to the "Anyone can be bold and move a page" advice; it may be obscure and not well know, and as you say also contradicted by other material on the page. That's why I put in the "side matter" section, it most probably has little bearing. Herostratus (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus, as you initiated the conversation at WT:RM#This page offers directly contradictory information why are you ignoring my point that I made at 09:34, 9 May 2017 that when I drafted the wording I used "can" and "may", so that there was no contradiction on the page unless the person reading it did not know the difference between can and may. Do you? -- PBS (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:PBS, I'm not ignoring it, I just don't agree. Your point was that there is subtle distinction between "can" and "may", the former describing a technical ability and the latter describing permission, a distinction that has been driven home by generations of teachers to students asking "can I go to the bathroom" -- but unsuccessfully, I think. Since unsuccessfully, I believe that most people reading "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move..." to be using "can" in the "giving permission" since, in context. If the second sentence was "You can but you mustn't" that'd be different. But the "you" in the second sentence refers to a second person, since it speaks about reverting. If it doesn't, then the advice devolves to "1) make a bold move 2) think about it a bit 3) maybe revert it you realize someone might object". But that would be silly advice. Since it would be silly, the "you" in the second sentence must be a second person. Since that's so, the only the first sentence addresses the first actor. And in that context, the "can" implies permission, to most readers, I think. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely correct. EEng 14:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus when you write "student" do you mean "pupil"? When you write "bathroom" do you mean "toilet"? Are you an American? You write "Your point was that there is subtle distinction between 'can' and 'may'". You are putting words in my mouth I did not state there was a subtle distinction, what I stated was "There is a reason I used the word 'can' and not 'may' (and why the point about moving back uses 'may')". You write "I believe ..." but that is only a belief and you seem to be arguing that because you did not notice the difference between "can" and "may", most other editors would make the same mistake. If you do understand the difference between "can" and "may" and read the three sentences making that distinction, then please explain not how you initially misread the first sentence, but why you are sill trying to argue that "can" and "may" mean the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, brother. EEng 07:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK @User:PBS. I hear you, OK. Yes as a technical matter of grammar you have a point, my point was regarding how the words are usually used and interpreted by the general public. Anyway, as I said, it's a side matter and probably not important to this case, although IIO could point to it as justification if he wants to. On the merits, looking at it again, I did conclude that
    "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move..."
    could be read as meaning
    "Any [fool] can be bold and [wrongly] move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move..."
    except for one thing: it doesn't say "can be bold" it says "can be bold" with a link to WP:BOLD, which opens with "Be bold can be explained in three words: 'Go for it'" and continues in that vein of general enthusiasm for intrepid audacity. This would make no sense in the context of bold moves being deprecated. Herostratus (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:HOUND

    User:The Banner His focus on FFA P-16 is obvious. He suggests articles from FFA P-16 for deletion for example Bucher aircraft tractor while he ignores similar articles in case their not from FFA P-16. He even started a Sockpuppet investigations on me and FFA P-16 although several others told him that we're clearly not the same person (see there). We both asked him to stop following FFA P-16 (see WP:HOUND and Stop Wikihounding me! with no success. --MBurch (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I was assuming good faith when I posted my first several comments, but as it turns out, when one looks at The Banner's edit history a bit more closely, he posts AFDs on an almost daily basis, so the claims that his focus on FFA P-16 is obvious and he ignores similar articles in case their not from FFA P-16 are demonstrably false. The only one who is "obviously focused" on hounding one particular editor is User:MBurch, who has barely made a single edit not related to The Banner in months (his edits to de.wiki are irrelevant, as it seems he is only on English Wikipedia to harangue The Banner). I think that unless this thread is withdrawn and the above baseless remarks about The Banner stricken, a block and/or one-way IBAN (they are possible) should be put on the table for MBurch, and his tag-team partner FFA P-16's disruption should also probably be dealt with appropriately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's indeed not good faith to automatically assume sock puppets on all those that don't agree on someones deletions requests especially after several people mentioned that we're clearly not the same person. At least in German Wikipedia where I mostly edit it would have been just part of common sense for the petitioner to at least excuse yourself after such a mistake. --MBurch (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MBurch, a clerk endorsed CU on you, and CU confirmed that you were a sock, and you were blocked accordingly for several days. The idea that you were a sock of FFA is not some idiosyncratic idea manufactures by The Banner to punish you for opposing his AFDs. And, more than that, the incident in question was three months ago. Drop it now, and go do something that doesn't involve hounding The Banner, or you will likely be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether you are in fact a meatpuppet (which you still really look like, even if CU was wrong to declare you a sockpuppet). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please stop calling me a sock!? Doug Weller statement was very clear (see his investigations).--MBurch (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88:} You should not make the statement that I confirmed an editor as a sock when I later stated that I was mistaken and apologised. It doesn't help and it might be misread. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: My apologies. As you know, CU is a bit inscrutable to those of us who don't have it. My point is that, regardless of whether it was a mistake or whatever, MBurch is not doing himself or anyone else any favours by constantly ragging on about it like he is, nor by insinuating that the whole SPI was a revenge action by The Banner, since clearly the evidence convinced several other good-faith users. This same thing happened a few months back with someone else who was CU-blocked as a sock of User:Kauffner. Apparently on that occasion too, there was some mistake, but even after being unblocked the user continued to do nothing but complain about how he had been mistreated. I do not, of course, think you unblocked someone whom you had already confirmed was in fact a sock -- I don't even think MBurch is a sock. I just think he needs to drop the stick already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijiri88 (talk • contribs)
    I accept your apologies while one from The Banner is technically still missing, but I won't insist on that if we find a solution that ends this whole drama. --MBurch (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I was apologizing to Doug for my unfortunate language. I was not apologizing to you because I was not wrong to say you were determined by multiple independent parties, based on several different types of evidence, to be a sockpuppet. So you are still very much in the wrong to repeatedly insist that one of those multiple users was motivated solely by revenging you. Rather than insincerely claiming that you "accept my apology", you should be the one apologizing for continuously trying to game the system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You insulting me calling me several times a sock and when I kindly ask you to stop and even the checkuser Doug Weller tells you that there's no reason to call me a sock you excuse yourself but not towards the person you insulting? It's true I'm mostly active in German Wikipedia, but I have globaly more than 25'000 contributions which is a bit more than you have thought I'm two years longer active as well but fun fact is that you got several times blocked [134] (one time even for abusing multiple accounts). Maybe you shouldn't really hand out advice yourself. --MBurch (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You insulting me calling me several times a sock Wrong. I never called you a sock. I said your behaviour made you very much look like a sock, so much so that an SPI was opened, a clerk endorsed CU, a CU was performed, and you were blocked for several days. I said this because you kept insisting (indeed continue to insist) that the SPI was baseless, and was only opened as revenge for you !voting in some AFDs. I am not saying you are a sock: I am saying you are engaged in gross ABF, hounding, and otherwise disruptive behaviour. These are not the same thing. when I kindly ask you to stop Wrong again. Nothing about your conduct in this thread has been "kind". even the checkuser Doug Weller tells you that there's no reason to call me a sock Is that what Doug said? I thought he told me to stop using the phrase "CU-confirmed sock" because it was misleading. you excuse yourself but not towards the person you insulting? Yes, I apologized for my unfortunate choice of words. I used the phrase "CU-confirmed sock" to mean "account that has been CU-blocked as a sockpuppet because CU 'confirmed' (in the technical sense used in SPIs) that it was a sockpuppet". I did not apologize for "insulting you" because I did not insult you. I said you were misrepresenting history to make The Banner's behaviour sound worse than it was, and assuming bad faith on the part of the user who opened the SPI but not the clerk that endorsed it or the CU who blocked based on it. It's true I'm mostly active in German Wikipedia Nope. You are only active on German Wikipedia. Before November 2015, you had eight edits on en.wiki. Then you started showing up on deletion discussions involving The Banner, and your rate of editing on English Wikipedia went up exponentially. Your spurt of edits since February of this year has been devoted almost exclusively to The Banner. Stop hounding The Banner. but I have globaly more than 25'000 contributions which is a bit more than you have Umm... so what? thought I'm two years longer active as well That's ungrammatical and doesn't make a lot of sense. You first became active on de.wiki (the only Wikimedia project to which you have made a substantial number of edits) in 2013, while I have been fair consistently active on English Wikipedia since 2012, and my account's official age is five years older than yours; I was an active contributor between 2005 and 2008, then left the project while in university, as I was during that period awarded credits for the same type of writing that I was doing on Wikipedia for no reward. But again, what does this have to do with anything? but fun fact is that you got several times blocked Actually, if you look at the background, most of those blocks were for technically violating a couple of IBANs, while the other users with whom I was banned have since either been site-banned for obvious NOTHERE trolling and the hounding of me that originally led to the IBAN (in the case of Catflap08) or left the project because ... they were obvious NOTHERE trolls, who, once they were no longer allowed troll me and other users active in a particular topic area, they eventually gave up and left (in the case of Tristan noir). Both of these IBANs have been dissolved, one back in February 2013 and the other in March of this year. But again -- what does any of this have to do with the dispute between you, FFA and TB? Are you just being deliberately antagonistic? Going back through other users' (years ago) block logs) is a fairly good indication that you are the one engaged in hounding. You are, at the very least, behaving in an extremely uncivil manner. one time even for abusing multiple accounts Again, context. I was not abusing multiple accounts. I accidentally edited while logged into this account because this account had email enabled and (at least at that time) I was unable to use the same email address with more than one (declared, legitimate) account. This account (which I had said I would not use to edit English Wikipedia during the period in which the Coldman the Barbarian account was active) was then blocked from editing English Wikipedia. If I had not volunteered not to use my main account to edit English Wikipedia (because of some off-wiki harassment by a site-banned troll who had figured out my workplace and parents' home address) it almost certainly would not have been blocked. I was, at the time, formally retired from editing, but I became aware that a user with whom I had previously conflicted was going around systematically reverting my edits, and decided to report the problem, but I didn't want to log into my main account to do it because another user was actively monitoring my main account's contribs, and harassing me off-wiki. Again, context. Please apologize for your gross, off-topic personal attacks against me, or I will request that you be blocked. Maybe you shouldn't really hand out advice yourself. Right back at ya, big guy. You should be blocked for your behaviour in this thread, let alone your disruptive hounding of The Banner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @MBurch: I'm going to repeat the most important part of my above response -- please apologize for your gross, off-topic personal attacks against me, or I will request that you be blocked the next time you make a comment like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't mean to attack you at all, I just believe you're comments were not much helpful. In my personal opinion you increased the conflict while others tried to find a solution in short, brief words. Fact is I signed up 21th of November 2010, I have globally over 25'000 contributions mostly in German Wikipedia, but a few on commons, wikidata and others, too [135]. --MBurch (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good to know you didn't mean to attack me, but that's what you did. And if we discount FFA and The Banner themselves, you are the only one here who has not been working to find a solution to the problem, as you are yourself a significant part of the problem (indeed, you have scarcely contributed anything to English Wikipedia beyond fanning the flames of this dispute). You opened this thread as part of a tag-teaming/hounding campaign on your part, and since opening it you opposed my first pro-active attempt to resolve the problem, posted an extremely suspicious support for Kleuske's (which made it look like you intend to game and undermine it), and would probably oppose any solution MilborneOne might have that doesn't either specifically single out The Banner or allow you to continue specifically singling him out. It's not even clear who you are talking about when you say "others". Apart from Kleuske and myself, and the involved parties themselves (you, FFA and The Banner), the only people who have commented here have been one-off drive-by commenters. Speculation as to the reason for that aside, it would be appreciated if you didn't continue to insinuate that I have been "not much helpful" and am working to "increase the conflict" when the one who is being deliberately and needlessly inflammatory is clearly not me. Also, you still have not apologized. Demanding that others apologize to you for using unfortunate/misleading wording in a good-faith attempt to deal with the core issues here, while simultaneously refusing to apologize for your own blatant and unprovoked personal attacks, is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • He "worked" only on 3 Airports, Amsterdam (probably because he is from the netherlands) , Dublin (probably because he live in Ireland) he doesn't worked on any other Airport article.. except of deleting out informations of Zürich Airport (the biggest Airport of SWITZERLAND).
    • The only Air Force Base he was "working" on was the Dübendorf Air Base (an Air Force Base of SWITZERLAND) trying to delet out informations about the Zero-G flight and other stuff.he doesn't worked on any other Air Force Base article of the whole world.. and BTW Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dübendorf Air Base[136] The only Air Base he want have deleted was an Air Base from SWITZERLAND. No oter tiny dusty airfiled somewere...
    • The only aircraft project he want have deleted was not for e.g. the Bartini A-57, Lockheed L-2000 or Belyayev Babochka no, he wantet the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALR Piranha[137] from SWITZERLAND , created from me,do be deleted.
    • The only aircraft (build) aircraft page he nominatet for deletion from him was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85 from SWITZERLAND, created from me.
    • The only airshow page(again created from me) he nominatet for deletion[[138]].was the one about the Air14
    • The only page about an Aircraft Type he was deleting out Informations is the Pilatus PC-24 from SWITZERLAND, interestingly what is "not-notable for ihm there

    not bother him on any other page like Fairey Delta 1, Avro Ashton, Hawker P.1052.

    • From all Modern aerobatic teams and Disbanded military teams his only interest is to suppress Informations of all 4 Teams of the Air Force of SWITZERLAND, on no other Modern aerobatic team or Disbanded military team was touched from Banner. Things which he can not stand in any relation to the 4 Teams (Two of them the Superpuma Display and the F/A-18 Hornet Display had I creadet) of the Air Force of SWITZERLAND not bother him on any other page even with a hint he doesent touched the Dutch Solo Display Team or F-16 Demo Team.
    • The only Air Force page who he tryes to "clean " is the one from SWITZERLAND.. Even if ther is an update or change in some projects (for eg. That the C-17 is no more a candidat as Cargoplane for the Swiss Air Force he does not want to admit.
    • He attacked in this timeframe my userpag. Inn my eyes he has also much not notable stuff on his userpage.. but I would never touch it.

    So he is usualy not active in Aviatic topics most of the time with total differend topics , like Restraurants, Beautycontests,... But if it is something about swiss aivatic, and if I had creadet the page or just add a few words, all hell breaks loose. I have the feeling this is Wikihounding.


    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nils Hämmerli[139] Kunstflugkommandant
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medisize Schweiz AG[140] Swiss plastic industrie
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terxo AG[141]Swiss plastic industrie
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isopress AG[142] Swiss plastic industrie
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AGP 3 Trailer[143] sole article about a bustrailer he nominated for deletion
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug[144] Only Museum he want have to be deleted
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)[145] he wanted the next commander! of the Swiss air Force deleted
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force ALBA[146]The only military mission he wanted to be deleted
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPHAIR[147]
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucher aircraft tractor (2nd nomination)[148] ‎But no other Aircrafttractor (like M2 High Speed Tractor) got nominated for deletion..
    • The only air surveilance systems he nominadet ever are two from switzerland/ I had creadeted:[149] The FLORIDA System and [150] SRF System.

    Also on EVERY Article from me who was nominated from someone else for deletion.. guess what.. he voted for delet, not a single who he didn't touched.

    Non stoping provocations [151] Verh unfriendly acting and threaten to persons who speak up against his wikihounding on me.[152]

    Everyone who came across from the german Wikipedia to support me in a deleting discussion got attacked from him in rude words. But not enough.. he started also a checkuser against me and several other persons.. knowing very well that no one is a sockpupped.. He had done this only because of its maliciousness.

    If I add some informations somewhere he deled it out with comments like fancuf, fanboy, not notable, irrelevant ,.. But on the other hand he is insisting on such nonsense:[153]. all this is only the peak of all the mobbing, editwarring, stalking from The Banner against me... and this again is only his constant attacks against me.. a lot of other users have to suffer because no one stop him.. a lot of users (who brought in valuable Informations ) have resgnated and left Wikipedia for ever.

    Also he is constantly watching My talkpage.. If someon had left there a positive feedback about an article from me like here: [154] he starts to provocate [155]. Not only that he is stalking me in the “open” part of Wikipedia, he is also browsing on my not “open” pages on Wikipedia. He cleaned all this informations out and threatened me with a block warning on my talkpage. Also nomnadte he my ‎User:FFA P-16/workpage19 for deletion. He is damaging Wikipedia with his non stop deleting nominations. Also the Banner is behaving very aggressive against other people in other deleting discusions [156] FFA P-16 (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    When I edited the page of Zurich Airport (the circle section) the user The Banner delated my New adding without a giustification. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z%C3%BCrich_Airport&type=revision&diff=688550466&oldid=688546793 The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) BOOMERANG, anyone? The OP was blocked in February as a CU-confirmed sock of FFA P-16, and the two were shortly thereafter unblocked because CU was apparently a false positive or some such. But whether or not they are the same person, MBurch has not made any edits to English Wikipedia since being unblocked except to !vote in several AFDs opened by The Banner and otherwise harangue The Banner. Whether The Banner is hounding FFA might need to be looked into (I haven't), but that MBurch hasn't made any edits that haven't been related to The Banner is obvious. The evidence that the Banner is hounding FFA seems to be limited to the claim that the former has been posting several of the latter's articles for AFD (and this is borne out by this). But per AGF, we must assume that The Banner sincerely believes his/her stated rationales for said AFDs, and the fact that several of them have passed with consensus to delete means that said rationales may be justified. If one finds an editor writing a lot of articles on topics that one sincerely believes do not meet GNG, posting said articles for AFD is not "hounding". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hijiri 88, it is not that he nomiated Coincidentally this for AFD because he is thinking it does not meet GNG. like I sayd above.. The ALR Piranha was the only aircraft project he nominated he did not put one of this in question Bartini A-57, Lockheed L-2000 or Belyayev Babochka. He nominadet Bucher aircraft tractor (who i had writen) [157] for deletion.. it had a few references ‎But no other Aircrafttractor (like U-30 Tow Tractor and MB-2 tow tractor who have NO referenc) got nominated for deletion.. The number of from The banner nominated articels i had written (especaly about the Divison General) shows exactly that it is not about GNG and draves a clear picture...The only UAV he ever nominadeted was writen from me he never nominated ANY other UAV Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85. Very interesting is that ther is now a long line of AfD s from against articels from me..it is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like Austrian air defense or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker. That are just a few exampels.FFA P-16 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to contest the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucher aircraft tractor (2nd nomination), ANI is not the place to do it. If you want to nominate other pages for deletion, ANI is also not the place to do it. The fact that most of the AFDs you referred to above resulted in deletion means that the nominations must be taken in good faith. If you think someone is hounding you, you need convincing evidence thereof. I have only so far seen convincing evidence that your friend MBurch is hounding The Banner in your stead. I will admit that I have not read your wall of text, and I do not intend to; writing a massive wall of text with very few diffs is normally a pretty solid indication that you don't have such evidence. Maybe you should have told MBurch to hold off on this ANI thread until you had the diffs prepared? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Honored Hijiri 88.
    It's not about rebooting AfD's, but about the abusive position of AfD's and wikihounding of The Banner against me.
    Please do not made the victim to the guilty and the guilty to an victim.
    MBurch was massively attacked by The Banner when he spoke in AfD's for the receipt of my articles. He also saw The Banner battling systematically against me, and merely asking The banner to stop it. He never bothered any work of The Banner. Likewise, Zurich00swiss also knew that he had never bothered the work of The Banner but was attacked massively by The Banner in his work on the subject of Airport Zurich and the AfD's where he spoke out to not delet my articles.
    You do not seem to understand. The Banner is systematically following me, and specifically targeting AfD's against articles written by me. It is not about quality. If you would read the text from me, you would see that he makes various articles of me AfD in subjects where he is never active (UAV, Air Base, Aircraftprojects, Radar system, ..) In all these areas it has Several articles written by other users who meet much less the requirements, but he has not proposed any of them to the AfD. Some have not a single referenc or weblink ..he never touched it, but my article with references... This makes it quite clear that he has it only on me. Examples I have brought above enough.
    Just to look at the some articles from me(not all!) who In AfD's had been deleted .. not to read my "long" text and then to decide The Banner is innocent. Sorry but this is not a factual investigation of this problem.
    I ask you to take the time and really read and examine all my foundations. If you do not look at everything it makes no sense that you deal with this case. Then I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. Thank you.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, first, please learn to indent consistently. It's difficult to respond to you otherwise.
    If you are not interested in undoing the AFDs, then why are you trying to go back and discredit the grounds on which they were posted for AFD? The Banner's behaviour in posting those particular pages to AFD could have only constituted hounding if he didn't sincerely believe that those pages should be deleted on their own merits. If you are creating a bunch of articles that should be deleted per our inclusion criteria, the problem is with you, not The Banner. Even if he found those pages by checking your contribs, that is still legit and does not constitute hounding.
    No, MBurch only posted in those AFDs because they were opened by The Banner and because the articles in question were started by you. Maybe The Banner attacked MBurch for that (you still haven't provided any diffs...), but it's abundantly clear that MBurch has been hounding The Banner -- MBurch hasn't done anything but hound The Banner.
    Again, if The Banner's AFDs had merit, then what he did was not hounding. Even if it was systematic, the problem is with you writing articles that almost uniformly get deleted when posted to AFD, not with him posting them at AFD. I will explain this by giving an example. About three years ago, I noticed that a certain user was showing a severe failure to read sources and present what they said accurately, on an article that was on my watchlist. No matter how hard I tried to explain it to him, he just didn't seem to get it. I then got suspicious that he might have engaged in similar disruption on other articles, so I checked his contribs and found that my suspicion had been correct. When I pointed this out on the talk pages of the other articles (which weren't on his watchlist and which I had "followed" him to) I too was accused of "hounding". But I wasn't hounding: I noticed a user engaged in problematic behaviour and dealt with it accordingly. Even if that is what The Banner did here (and you still haven't presented any evidence that that is even what is happening), the problem is most likely with you, not The Banner. Otherwise, why would almost all of the pages have been deleted?
    For what it's worth, I did check how often The Banner posts articles for deletion. Of his past 300 new page creations in the Wikipedia namespace, 296 have been AFDs, and that's only since January 1 of last year. That's 0.61 AFDs per day over a period of 16 months -- are all of those AFDs hounding of the users who created the articles? And do you really think you're the first one to try to accuse him of hounding rather that reflecting on your own understanding of our includion criteria? (I actually don't know. You might be. But I doubt it.)
    And no. No one is under any obligation to read your massive wall of text, in which you provided no diffs or other clear evidence, before commenting to the effect that you have provided no diffs or other clear evidence. If you don't provide evidence in support of your claims, all the rest of us can do is go looking for ourselves. And if what we find doesn't support your claims, that also is not our fault.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To follow my edits and then delete the article created by me is wikihounding. Again, it is not about quality. Otherwise he would have to nominate other articles on the same topics that were not written by me. I have listed this above. It is also not so that all articles of me, which he nominated has been deleted. The article about divisional general Bernhard Müller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)shows very well that he acts AfD abuse. Only because he does 's 0.61 AFDs per day is no sing that this is right..it shows only exesive use of AfD.. and if you look at the topic of this AfD's articles.. you see that my articels are quid "exotic" to the other topics.. he is usualy not active in this topics.. a clear sign that he his wikihounding me. ..it is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like [[[Austrian air defense]] or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker.Again you do not want to read my text and look at the links on the left. If you do not want to read what I write here is no factual processing this case of you. Sorry. So then I am official have to say:I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. This is important- Thank you &byeFFA P-16 (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To follow my edits and then delete the article created by me is wikihounding. Nope. If he sincerely thinks you don't understand our inclusion criteria (and, again, he does sincerely think that until proven otherwise), then checking your contribs and nominating certain pages written by you for deletions is perfectly acceptable.
    Again, it is not about quality. Then how come, on seven of the ten AFDs you linked above, there was clear consensus to delete the pages?
    Otherwise he would have to nominate other articles on the same topics that were not written by me. Again, NO. No one is under any obligation to do more or less than they wish on Wikipedia. We are all volunteers here. And there are no articles on the same topics written by other editors -- do you mean "on similar topics"? If so, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you believe that those other topics don't meet GNG, you should nominate them for deletion. Don't attack The Banner for not nominating them.
    It is also not so that all articles of me, which he nominated has been deleted. I have listed this above. Good for you. Unfortunately, no one said that. I said most. Specifically, 7 out of 10 of the AFDs you linked ended in deletion. And actually, of the other three, two should maybe be reconsidered with MBurch's !vote being discounted as HOUNDing.
    The article about divisional general Bernhard Müller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)shows very well that he acts AfD abuse. If you think that demonstrated abuse of the AFD process, then maybe you think the other four users who !voted to delete (and maybe even the one said "weak keep") are hounding you as well? On top of that, your own conduct in that AFD (repeatedly refusing to focus on content and making constant off-topic remarks about how you don't like The Banner) was atrocious. Linking to it was not a good idea.
    Only because he does 's 0.61 AFDs per day is no sing that this is right..it shows only exesive use of AfD.. No. Lots of editors open a lot of AFDs. I don't know The Banner's particular circumstances, but some monitor new pages, which include a disproportionate number of autobiographies by non-notable individuals, blatant advertising, etc.
    and if you look at the topic of this AfD's articles.. you see that my articels are quid "exotic" to the other topics.. he is usualy not active in this topics.. a clear sign that he his wikihounding me. Wait, what? No one who opens that many AFDs is focused on one topic, so the fact that he doesn't have a particular focus on airports or the armed forces (?) is irrelevant.
    Again you do not want to read my text and look at the links on the left You clearly are not comfortable with me addressing all the numerous problems in those portions of your comments I have read -- do you really want me to go through your first massive wall-of-text and detail all the ways it is wrong and lends itself to my BOOMERANG idea? For example, you say that he is watching your talk page (again, something he is allowed do) and "provocating", but your "diff" of said is a blank link to the Tupolev Voron article, which The Banner has never edited. I thought for a few minutes you were (falsely) accusing him of tagging the article as needing a copyedit and went through it to see if it was accurate, then I looked around a bit and noticed this. You do still need to provide proper attribution when you translate from German Wikipedia, and if you translated the version that was originally written by you a year earlier, you need to note that, because, if you translated the version as it appeared when you put the translation on English Wikipedia and had been edited by about a dozen other editors, there is a copyright issue. You then go on about not “open” pages on Wikipedia, which makes no sense to me. A bit above you Non stoping provocations with a malformed link to four comments by multiple users, in which The Banner said nothing even approaching incivility. Then you say Verh unfriendly acting and threaten to persons who speak up against his wikihounding on me with a similarly malformed link, in which The Banner responds to MBurch's hounding attacks on him in a fairly reasonable manner. Seriously, what are you asking me to look at with all this?
    If you do not want to read what I write here is no factual processing this case of you. Sorry. So then I am official have to say:I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Please familiarize yourself with how ANI works. Like the rest of Wikipedia, ANI is voluntary. No one will touch this case, because you made it too long and unintelligible. The thread will likely get archived with no further involvement from any outside parties, unless I open a separate subthread with a coherent argument for some solution to whatever problem I perceive as going on here. And your absolute refusal to provide evidence for your claims (in case it isn't clear, I did read the small portion of your wall of text that appeared to include diffs) is making me inclined to do so in a direction you apparently don't want.
    Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. No one is going to read your massive, incoherent walls of text. If you have concrete examples, you should link them. I read through everything you provided that had a link attached to it, and didn't see anything of substance.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri. But you obviously do not want to see it. He nominates me very clearly articles in areas where he is never active. And there only items of mine no others. Even if he makes a lot of AfD's strikes this conspicuousness. I also find it wrong the people who have voted for the receipt of some articles from me and who have approached the unfriendly approach of The banner now condemned for their substantive contribution. There will be no factual reasoning on the examples which I have brought forth. Only weill The banner many edits and AfD's makes it is not trustworthy. The only thing I want is that he leaves me alone. Clearly all work here voluntarily. But this is not an obstacle for someone else to take care of this case. I am very disappointed that you do not take me seriously.
    If you are not willing to take care of my concerns and no one else wants to take care of this case, I see no further meaning in this discussion. Then you can close it because it brings nothing and will only encourage The Banner in the fight against me.FFA P-16 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, you clearly can't be reasoned with. I have read everything you have written on this page, and there is nothing to it. But you are clearly not interested in acknowledging that fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I did not want to reply at all at this thread. It is the another instance of the ongoing harassment and bullying campaign of mr. FFA P-16 and his assistant MBurch. It is loud and clear that MBurch is called in to protect FFA P-16. Although his bullying/harassing is annoying, it only confirmed to me that the advice given to mr. FFA P-16 is completely ignored. And he stepped up his campaign after I nominated an attack page for deletion. He seems to think that sandbox pages are sacrosanct and untouchable to others. And that the rules of Wikipedia do not apply to him. See User talk:The Banner#Stop Wikihounding me!. He also seems to think that I have a personal grudge against him because he is Swiss. As a matter of fact, I do not care at all about that. But I have told/advised/urged FFA P-16 to do three things:
    1. Get a clear idea of what the community regards notable
    2. Get a clear idea of what the community regards as proper sourcing according to WP:RS
    3. Get a clear idea that it is worthwhile to make an effort to improve your English
    I have seen no effort whatsoever to address these issues.
    Mr. FFA P-16 also took offence out of my sockpuppet investigation relating to MBurch. He seems to have forgotten the fact that he is earlier blocked for sockpuppetry, [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16/Archive|here] and and on the Dutch Wikipedia.
    To finish this off: I do not seek any blocks. What I want are two things: a) that the present campaign stops, and b) that FFA P-16 makes a visible effort to address the three issues listed a few lines above. The Banner talk 09:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Circle at Zurich Airport

    • (Moved from the bottom of the page, as this is clearly subordinate to the main thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    When I edited the page of Zurich Airport (the circle section) the user The Banner delated my New adding without a giustification. The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs please. I can't see anything in the recent history that supports your claim... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zurich00swiss: Please provide diffs, and if you posted the above in an attempt to "pile on" because you just don't like the user in question, note that you may well be met with a boomerang for hounding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Indefinite one-way interaction ban

    Okay, I was annoyed enough by FFA's disruption clearly on display in this thread, but now that it's been pointed out to me that he created a WP:POLEMIC about The Banner here and denied the SPEEDY request with the counter-policy statement that Its MY workpage[158] it's clear that something needs to be done. I'm therefore requesting that FFA P-16 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with The Banner (talk · contribs). If The Banner nominates a page written by FFA for deletion, it should be the community's decision, and the project will not benefit from FFA showing up and posting more off-topic personal attacks against The Banner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to make it clear, user X requests a majority of user Y's articles for deletions and you suggests now that Y is now allowed to even argue with X on those deletion requests of his very own articles (since there is no other interaction from Y besides that workpage19 which should be simply deleted)? --MBurch (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MBurch: So you agree that User Y created an attack page about User X that should be deleted, and when it was requested that the page be deleted User Y reverted the request and placed a statement on the page that he owns it and so presumably can post whatever he wants on it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you're aware of actio et reactio. --MBurch (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that you are implying that since The Banner was the original aggressor, FFA was justified in creating that attack page and preventing it from being deleted? But you still have not presented any evidence that The Banner was the original aggressor. Both of you are claiming that he nominated a bunch of articles created by FFA for deletion based not on the merits of the article but out of a desire to hound FFA. But I presented you with pretty incontrovertible evidence that this is not the case. The Banner nominates hundreds of pages by countless users for deletion, and in all but a few of the cases you listed a plurality of other editors agreed the pages should be deleted. All I am seeing is The Banner posting Good Faith AFDs (and constructive criticism of honestly pretty atrocious articles that don't necessarily merit deletion), FFA refusing to listen, and assuming bad faith by accusing The Banner of HOUNDing. You can try asking JoshuSasori (talk · contribs) what happens when you constantly make bad faith accusations of HOUNDing while engaging in HOUNDing yourself. That guy actually got SBANned for his efforts, then engaged in block-evasion via several IPs and actually did revenge-AFD a bunch of articles I had written (well, actually there was only one AFD opened via proxy, two article blankings, and one successful PROD of a sub-stub). You clearly do not know what you are talking about when you talk of HOUNDing; I do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Banner nominates hundreds of pages by countless users for deletion and he suspects always sockpuppets when they don't agree? Of course not just in our case and just in the case of FFA P-16 he nominates several pages together. --MBurch (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MBurch: That is a personal attack and you should strike it unless you can provide evidence. If you are referring exclusively to the FFA SPI where you were blocked, you should say as much. On top of that: You were confirmed by CU to be a sock of FFA P-16, and CUs need a lot of DUCK evidence before they agree to perform that procedure, and the check was pre-endorsed by an SPI clerk. It's an established fact that FFA P-16 has abused multiple accounts in the past and in the case of you and M1712, it was really frickin' obvious that something fishy was going on, be it sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Just drop it already and go edit articles, or you will be reblocked as WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether you were later vindicated with regards to your not actually being the same person as FFA P-16. It's been three months -- let it go, as the wickedly talented Adele Dazeem would say... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No this was not an attack, this was collecting cases of actions against me, so that I can bring this here on Ani. You broght it by your self to the light.. here you can see that he is following me [159] yes hi is doing a lot of deletions 0,6 per day in one year is a lot (and in some kind it smells as to trigger happy for AfD's). But if you have a look ate the list you have presented [160] It is not on random themes (Tv Stations, beauty contest persons) the pattern definitive fit not to the topics of my articels (military aviation, swiss). It is understandable that many new articels come to AfD, but also this dosent fit here because he nominated just in the past few weeks articels from me who existed since 3-4 years. This is no coincidence.FFA P-16 (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FFA, it's been several days, so I'm going to start being frank. Your English is terrible, and at best difficult to decipher, and you clearly are not reading and fully understanding my comments. So please refrain from responding in other users' stead, because it makes discussion extremely difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already forgotten my talkpage? And take a look at the talkpage of mr. FFA P-16. Not the current version, as he wipes out everything he does not like, but the older versions. Like this one. The Banner talk 13:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the Talkpage is there for to communicate wit an other user, or inform ihm about something.. I informed you that i wish that you stop follw me. How should I communicate with you without using the talk page. everyone can clean its talkpage like he want.. it is nothing wrong with deleting old stuff and its also not wrong keeping some of it. Also veryon can keep positiv replays on the talk page if he wish. that you are monitoring my talkpage and their history shows again suspicious direction stalking FFA P-16 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have informed you about issues with notability, issues with sourcing and issues with your language and all this was ignored. Not even the spell checker you took aboard... The Banner talk 21:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything probably a reason for an improvement tag but not for AfD, also the one with Bernhard Müller is a good example that your interpretation of notability is also not always correct. And if you posted this on my talk page.There is no need to let it stand there, so I can empty the talk page whenever I want. That is nothing bad.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    quod erat demonstrandum --MBurch (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, non-exclusively. This would clearly solve the main behavioral matter. Someone below said they'd considered proposing a simple site ban for FFA P-16, on WP:COMPETENCE grounds, and this was also my instinct after reading this ranty, barely comprehensible mess. However, I'm a firm believer in letting the tiger show its stripes, so try Hijiiri88's softer proposal here first. Some of the additional details in the proposal below have merit, as well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Yup, most of the disruption seems to be coming from one side of the line. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative proposal

    There are several problems, here.

    • FFA P-16 has a poor command of the English language, resulting in poorly written articles.
    • FFA P-16's love of the Swiss air force leads him to loose sight of notability issues.
    • The Banner has been hounding FFA P-16, nominating nearly every article FFA P-16 started. been communicating extremely ineffectively.
    • The Banner has a tendency to skip due diligence before nominating FFA P-16's articles. Case in point Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer).

    The drama has been going on at least two years. This has to end.

    A proposed solution:

    1. FFA P-16 is only allowed to create new articles via the AfC-process. This will address the language and notability problems.
    2. An interaction ban between The Banner and FFA P-16 (both ways). This includes a ban for The Banner to nominate any article created by FFA P-16, thus eliminating 90% of the drama. If The Banner feels one of FFA P-16's articles is so bad it must be nominated, he can alert another editor to the problem, who can then nominate it.

    Kleuske (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I volunteer my time to a) check any of FFA P-16's articles and b) look at any problem The Banner sees with any of FFA P-16's articles and nominate if necessary. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kleuske: You should strike bullet point 3. No evidence of hounding has been presented. ArbCom actually explicitly stated that checking a user's contribs for legit reasons (like the good-faith belief that the user doesn't understand notability guidelines, a belief you admit you share). See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Hounding. You can read through the entire case if you want, or you can take my word for it: his was pretty much the same situation, with users make the same faulty assumption (in violation of AGF) that what was happening constituted "hounding". You admit in bullet point 2 that The Banner had a good-faih reason for examining FFA's contribs, so what you are doing is arguably worse than what the Committee described there: you are declaring bad faith against your own declared understanding to the contrary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support this proposal in place of my own, assuming User:The Banner (who still appears to be the victim here, per all the evidence I've seen) is game for a mutual IBAN, which would protect him from further harassment. In my experience, mutual IBANs are very easy for harassers to game, so I would add that the IBAN be slightly modified to allow requests to observers like Kleuske and me (but not obvious meatpuppets or the like) to look into it and decide whether there has been a violation to be covered under BANEX. Put in other words, messages about the other user on the user talk pages of no more than one or two other users at a time should be allowed in lieu of reporting violations directly to an admin or on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to unconditional supportThe Banner's extremely immature response to Kleuske's good-faith attempt to resolve this (immediately below) has convinced me to change my mind. I still think he is the victim of hounding, and I still think the proposed IBAN will quickly be gamed by FFA and MBurch, but I just don't care anymore if The Banner is going to show more interested in fighting over it than actually resolving it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Conditional support The proposed solution would solve the problem, and I think The Banner should voluntarily accept it for the time being. IBANs are super-easy to appeal once the other party gets site-banned or stops editing once their articles continue to get deleted. I'm changing back to conditional support, not based on the condition that The Banner voluntarily accepts, but based on the condition that Kleuske's flawed premise is stricken. I had actually forgotten until just now that ArbCom had explicitly ruled in my case (a case quite similar to this in several ways) that (1) actions amounting to what The Banner has done do not constitute hounding, (2) actions amounting to what MBurch has done (though over a longer period of time) do constitute hounding (if not off-site and/or stealth canvassing or meatpuppetry), and (3) what MBurch, FFA, and even (to a lesser extent) Kleuske have done is contrary to AGF. Kleuske should strike out bullet point 3, or my support for this proposal (based on a flawed and problematic premise that's personally offensive to me as a former victim of hounding) should be taken as null and void. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes some effort from both sides to keep the drama going for this amount of time and The Banner does not show an attitude that's particularly conciliatory or helpful. Instead he shows all signs of holding grudges. I have trouble seeing The Banner as a victim. Kleuske (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: If either of them try to game the AfC process or the IBAN, I will personally report them here and request a block. Promise. Kleuske (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It took you a long time to show up here, Kleuske. And your attempt to put the blame on my shoulders is just as predictable as you showing up here. But your statement (...) nominating nearly every article FFA P-16 started. is evidently false. The Banner talk 15:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner: You're not helping... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    True. But Kleuske and me have a long record of personal discord. Beside that, in my experience the AfC-process only looks at the notability of a subject, not to quality, sourcing or spelling. So it will address only one part of the signalled problems. The Banner talk 09:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't matter from who the proposal is, but only if it's able to solve the problems.--MBurch (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But I am willing to step aside for a while and see if Kleuske, MBurch and the AfC-process really can help fix the issues. I promise to stay away (for starters) to 1 July 2017. The Banner talk 11:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be more than just a temporary stop especially since you're in general not writing in Swiss Air Force aviation as FFA P-16 does.--MBurch (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Kleuske. I will agree 100% to your solution. And all rouls who this solution contains for me.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't thank me yet, i'll require significant coverage in reliable sources. I was this close to proposing a site-ban for competence issues and this does not help. Hör mal... Dein Englisch is wirklich grottenschlecht. Fast Kauderwelsch. Du must dich wirklich mal überlegen ob du sinnvoll beitragen kannst wenn fast jeder satz praktisch übersetzt werden muss. Kleuske (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree and I volunteer my time to improve FFA P-16's articles. --MBurch (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Will end the drama and help the editors and Wikipedia. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I find it extremely suspicious how readily FFA and his obvious meatpuppet MBurch accepted this proposal, and am a little concerned that they might immediately try to game it as I outlined above. Both users have email enabled, and even if they didn't they are both more active on de.wiki than here, where they would technically not be restricted from discussing The Banner. I'm not going to withdraw my support or anything, but I think it would be a good idea to sanction MBurch as well to prevent him from proxy-hounding in FFA's stead. Note also how the indentation on MBurch's !vote implies he was supporting in direct response to FFA giving his approval.
    I also find it concerning that, while FFA's English is terrible and MBurch does seem qualified to improve that one aspect of his articles, the main reason for all the AFDs was notability, and MBurch still has not acknowledged that the topics did not meet our notability criteria (insisting instead that The Banner was motivated solely by a desire to hound FFA), which may indicate a poor understanding of said notability criteria, and I therefore think it would be a good idea if he limited his time to improve FFA P-16's articles to copy-editing, and refrained from mainspacing any drafts himself and !voting in any future AFDs.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken per above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Clearly The Banner is just the front man in a wikipedia process, I certainly would have nominated the same articles for deletion if Banner had not got there first. FFA P-16 has been a bit of a time sink for the aircraft/aviation project, his failure to understand English and the requirements to understand for example that not every aspect of the Swiss Air Force is actually notable enough for an article. Most articles are machine translations from German wikipedia and FFP P-16 has clear competence issues with English language and despite efforts over the years I believe the only remedy is a site ban on English wikipedia. But just to note I would not support any sanction for The Banner and see no reason why they should stand aside, in fact he probably needs some sort of award for enduring endless harrasement from FFA P-16 and others brought over from de wiki. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I still morally support the sentiment in the above comment. I disagree with the third bullet point in Kleuske's opening remark (which I think constitutes a personal attack, as it is made without evidence), and I strongly suspect the fourth bullet point is bull as well (one bad AFD, if it even was that, is not evidence that he has a consistent pattern of not performing due diligence). I just want this mess to be over, and I think The Banner has been rather uncooperative in this process as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cooperation stops (has to) at the edge of Wikipedia rules. It is a fact that FFA P-16 is hardly able to cope with Wikipedias rules even in german. But I got here for MBurch which is another fanatic non learner himself (and the best excuse to hound seems to claim hounding). His engagement is strictly for personal reasons, not for good of Wikipedia. On the contrary: Mburchs unreflected and even agressive absolute support undermines every effort to improve FFA P-16’s capabilities. Mburch is rather part of the problem, not of a solution . --2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:7104:7303:6966:8F30 (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm... thanks for agreeing with me on just about everything, but... do you have an account? I know it's conceivably possible that someone who only edits from dynamic IPs could !vote in an ANI discussion in good faith, but I haven't seen it happen before, and there's been a whole lot of socktrolling over the last few days. If you are just a dynamic IP could you link to some of your other edits? Sorry, but I'm not a hypocrite -- if a sock agrees with me I'll call them out the same as a sock who's specifically targeting me. (Although honestly, MBurch doesn't seem to have enough of an edit history to have someone logging out to troll them. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a joe-job.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Go for Air14&action=history to decide, whether I’m able to contribute to an article. Another example though for “ungratefulness”. I could actually contribute to some of those articles but won’t, if both of the “twinned” users (sorry, not meant as an offence but to describe a fact) are there.--2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:DEA:4B2E:4D1F:111E (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay. I see you disputed with FFA back shortly after that page survived AFD. It's still theoretically possible that you could be The Banner, but that wouldn't make any sense as he edited that page logged-in, and would have had no reason to manufacture a false consensus in that situation. Yeah, you've demonstrated adequately enough for me that you're not someone's sock or in any way related to the trolls that have been plaguing this page for the last week or so. Sorry to ask you to explain yourself. I fixed the link for you, anyway. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for fixing the link (I was in a hurry). This more exact link, [161], reveals another point: FFA P-16 obviously wrote an essay based on his personal knowledge which is (unhappy to say) restricted - a lot to actuality. This takes us back to notabilty. MBurch couldn't be a help there as he hardly sees these problems but fules discussions if there is any critics among: His second contribution to a discussion in 2017 (or his 6th contribution within 4 years at all) was regarded as a personal attack [162]. --2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:4519:903E:F3BF:2463 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw a similar case to this recently and there expressed a similar concern to yours above. There was one user consistently trying to enable another user's disruptive behaviour and repeatedly refusing to admit disruption was taking place. The solution was that mentoring was needed, and the user who was denying that disruption was taking place wound up being named as the mentor, which was honestly a pretty disastrous solution there. This is why I think expanding the solution to this problem to tell MBurch that if he engages in any more behaviour that seems disruptive, he will be blocked.
    Although, given the NOTHERE nature of his activities, I wouldn't be opposed to a straight-off indef. Foreign-language Wikipedians who only edit English Wikipedia to hound people and get in fights are NOTHERE -- this is how I was once, mistakenly, treated on Japanese Wikipedia, and I was threatened with a block by a good-faith admin who mistakenly thought I was forum-shopping an English Wikipedia dispute there. Similarly to MBurch here, now, basically my entire edit history at that time made me look like I was hounding Juzumaru. The difference is that where in my case it was all a misunderstanding and it was Juzumaru who was at fault, there is no evidence that The Banner has been harassing MBurch on de.wiki and goading him to come over here. In fact the two don't seem to have ever interacted on de.wiki (the EditorInteract tool seems to be failing me here, though, as it claims The Banner has only six edits despite some other evidence to the contrary).
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, I didn't mean to make you write such a long answer. I can now tell you why I edited once again this morning: I did it just because I was sure that MBurch would add my IP (again) to a sockpuppet-investigation on the german wikipedia. And YES - here he goes: [163]. It' so easy to predict a man on a mission...
    Of course it doesn't make sense, to add an IP to a sockpuppet-investigation, if that IP has never even edited in the german wikipedia. But who cares about rules or sense, if one is on a mission... Happy fishing! (In german it is called "fishing for sockpuppets" if you cannot prove a misuse but want to see who it was - of course the rules don't allow that). --2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:1462:F8AD:1249:C1BC (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As Hijiri 88 mentioned above is my edit history in the English wikipedia too small to have someone logging out to troll me, but that's of course not true for the German wikipedia. Already those IPs that showed up during the sockpuppet-investigation there where quite suspicious. So maybe you tell us about your long sockpuppet history in the german wikipedia (de:WP:LSWU#Fernrohr) and I guess accidentally you forgot to mention that one account in the newest sockpuppet investigation got already blocked and confirmed by an administrator of the German wikipedia [164]. --MBurch (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MBurch, this is not the forum to talk about German Wikipedia trolling. If you think the above IP is the same person as that LTA case, that's your business. Everything the IP has said here is fair and accurate. Your behaviour on English Wikipedia has been nothing but disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hate to complicate this process, but confirmed, the IP 2A02... is definitely used by our long-term de.sockpuppeteer Fernrohr, proved by his last CU [165], I've blocked his range in de.wp today. - @MBurch, @FFA_P-16: probably it would be a good idea to settle this case friendly. No hounding seems to be involved, the en.guys are well-recognized wikipedians, as you are in de.wp, and any block/ban/probation measure against any of you will only hamper our collaborative work. Just 2cts. --MBq (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @MBq: I'm sorry if I'm the one misunderstanding something, but on English Wikipedia (I don't know anything about German Wikipedia's rules on this matter, so I don't know if they are different) CUs don't generally identify an IP with a named account except in extremely exceptional circumstances. If the IP is a de.wiki troll targeting MBurch (alhough, at least on en.wiki, he has been targeting FFA more than MBurch, and only started coming after MBurch after I proposed a BOOMERANG against MBurch for their (pretty atrocious) behaviour in this matter. If the IP's opinion can be disregarded as that of a sock-troll, that's fine, but MBurch's supposedly stellar record on another Wikimedia project (his his block log isn't clean, though, and Google Translate is telling me it can't easily be explained by technicalities or an admin having misread his having been hounded) does not justify his coming to en.wiki specifically to houng one of our editors, or his engaging in pretty gross personal attacks against outside commenters who point this out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support part 1 of this; prefer the original proposal above in place of part 2. The problem with this proposal as written is that The Banner hasn't actually done anything to deserve an I-ban; imposing one on him will just be punitive for nothing but the sake of pretending to be even-handed. If the problems identified with The Banner (needs to communicate better, needs to do more WP:BEFORE) are legit and well-evidenced, then the solution is to admonish him to adjust his behavior on those scores. They are not sanctionable problems at this stage. However, it's becoming increasingly dubious that FFA P-16's activity on en.wp is a net gain. I would even support a site-ban, but I think Hijiiri88's one-way i-ban above will deal with the behavioral problem, and "we'll see" whether before forced out of his grudge match has FFA P-16 actually produce content the encyclopedia can use. If end up back here in a few months or a year and that situation hasn't improved, then it's time for an indef so the project can just get back to work without having to AfD unsuitable kinda-articles from the same user again and again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support part 1 only This has actually been my view the whole time, but I didn't think it had a chance until SMcCandlish agreed with me above. The Banner didn't engage in hounding or anything of the sort, and treating him to an IBAN when he doesn't want it is inappropriate. Additionally, I'm now 99% certain FFA and MBurch will coordinate off-wiki to allow FFA to get around the ban. MBurch, who almost never edits en.wiki, didn't just happen across this dispute (FFA almost certainly mentioned it to him at some point -- I don't speak German), nor did the de.wiki admin MBurch clearly invited here within the last few days, who showed up and commented on this dispute clearly without having read anything that didn't involve some unrelated LTA incident on de.wiki. My solution to this problem hasn't received much traction, and without a preventative measure in place I don't see why we should just assume that the same thing that has already been happening will magically stop happening despite us giving them a new motive to do so. I am also a bit concerned that some of FFA's bad articles may still need to be AFDed, and while part 1 would prevent future disruption, part 2 would make fixing the past disruption more difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: The checkuser said nothing at all about the IP's. Blocking of two EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE IP ranges was clearly a mistake by MBq. Anyone can see that the three 2A02:1206:45AE used here on the English page have nothing to do with those 2a02:1206:45b4 used by Fernrohr in the german wikipedia. I don't blame MBq but want to show what effect false claims have in the wikipedia that we all know.--185.145.111.250 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support part 1 of the proposal. There are also clearly WP:CIR issues at hand, both re: topic notability, sourcing & English proficiency. I've participated in a couple of AfDs on articles created by FFA, and I would agree that the contributor's articles (plus the associated drama) are generally not a net positive for the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a very detailed submission to add, that I worked on for several hours but then lost due to my laptop crashing, but the essence is that FFA should be banned from the English WP altogether because of lack of competence. I would call for his banning from all WPs except for the German because of his habit of shovelling his atrocious English-language text into foreign-language articles (for example Malay; Spanish; Haitian Creole, Hungarian - with a long history of edit-warring when others remove his English-language edits; Polish - also with a history of edit-warring; Norwegian [166] [167] - again with a history of edit-warring; and even Chinese and Russian, but that is outside our jurisdiction - I merely bring it up to demonstrate just how bad he is. Other Users have been complaining about his bad English for years (although you can't see it because he sanitises his Talk page, only keeping material that he believes casts him in a positive light - you have to look through the history); he acknowledges it's bad and continues blithely on his way without a care for how much cleanup work he leaves in his wake because his work to redress the lack of articles on "Swisstopic" is Important (e.g. Swiss Military Tarpaulins). His contributions are not a net improvement to the English WP. YSSYguy (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence

    2014

    Hijiri88 is correct that evidence should be presented if you accuse someone of hounding. At the very least I would claim that the communication between these two is anything but exemplary. It strts with two nominations

    Then comes a spat about the merging of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Puma Display Team in which the banner accuses FFA P-16 of promo, editwarring and a "distinguished career of blowing things way out of proportion".

    2015

    • The Banner removes "irrelavant parts", an edit-war0like interaction between FFA and TB ensues, TB issues a 3RR warning (despite being the other party)
    • A day later KZD-85 is nominated by TB (result: keep)
    • There is an interaction with another user over overuse of images. TB chimes in with the remark "Come on, FFA! This is not the first time that you are adding irrelevant details or plain fancruft to articles"
    • TB accuses FFA of disruptive editing and tells him "Stop with adding fancruft!" Restores his comments on FFA's TP after FFA deleted them. Accuses FFA of WP:NOTHERE and promo.
    • TB nominates FFA's userpage for deletion (result Delete). Threatens FFA with AN/I in the process.

    2016

    • A spat in Draft:RUAG Aviation over bad English. The article has since been draftified
      • An (unambiguous) PA by FFA against TB results in TB issuing a level 2 warning against FFA.

    etc.

    2017

    ... (no time) The above may not add up to WP:HOUNDING as defined by the ArbCom, but I get how FFA gets the idea TB is relentlessly on his case. I also acknowledge FFA's English is very poor (grottenschlecht), and TB was right to point that out. That does not absolve TB from WP:CIVIL. These two editors got off on the wrong foot and the situation has deteriorated since. Some solution is urgently called for. Kleuske (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kleuske: You're right that a bunch of that is below the belt, and I would advise User:The Banner to be a lot more careful about rhetoric. Sorry to invoke ArbCom again, but, yeah, WP:Civility is our most important policy, outweighing all the others combined. The highest court in the land doesn't care about GNG, good encyclopedic writing style, verifiability or anything else, so you have to respect C above everything else.
    That said: ANI is a bit more free to deal with things in their proper context, and honestly I think Wikipedia would be a better place if we treated civil POV-pushers the same way we treat good editors with short tempers.
    Plus, some of the above evidence seems to have been cherry-picked to make The Banner's behaviour look worse than it was. For example, why are only three of the AFDs that are supposedly the whole cause of the problem listed, and those three all keeps? FFA gave what looked like a more random (comprehensive?) sample further up, and 70% of those ended with delete results.
    Anyway, whether or not The Banner's behaviour has been sub-par and should perhaps be sanctioned, Kleuske has now formally retracted the "hounding" accusation, but MBurch and FFA still have not. MBurch in particular has provided no evidence, and making accusations about hounding without evidence, particularly after it has been requested, constitutes a personal attack. This, on top of his continued grossly uncivil attacks on me near the top of the thread, leads me to wonder why we are continuing to tolerate his presence here. He has contributed nothing to English Wikipedia (his entire edit history consists of following FFA and TB around, uniformly propping up the former and undermining with the latter). I'm therefore increasingly skeptical that a remedy focused solely on TB and FFA would solve the problem.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very pleased with Kleuske's proposal~(to check my work.. se his statement above). I will anyway kep down with writing in The English wikipedia. And if I would like to bring something in, I then use the offer of MBurch to rework the English. I think that if Kleuske has checked it before, there is no direct contact between me and The Banner, no conflict potential. It is only my concern that the articles I written so far get not nominadet for deletion by The Banner. That Kleuske, has an eye on it. Improved, yes, but not to triggerhappy deleteion. What the banner does otherwise .. working on articels about TV channels, restaurants, Beauticontests. No matter what .. I am not interested and is therefore not a conflict potential. I felt pushed by the banner and MBurch shared this feeling and tryed me to help.. it looks like in the english wikipedia are things not the same like in the german wikipedia..so his intervention was done in good faith,because it looked to him like The Banner is buging me. If the proposal of Kleuske wins, there is no reason why I or MBurch would not agree with this. No reason for us to criticize in future.The banner. I hope this will find a peaceful end for all.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @FFA P-16: Nobody wins, here. We all lose. Your behavior towards The Banner is at least as bad as vice versa. I'm not on your side, I'm trying to control the damage. Kleuske (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Kleuske, I just beeing thankful that you brought in something what loocks to me as a good solution. For me its not about to "win".. like I said:I hope this will find a peaceful end for all (also for The Banner).FFA P-16 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: The Banner is a very productive editor and a boon to the project. The last thing on my mind is making him look bad. At least 50% of the blame rests firmly on FFA's shoulders, who has CIR-issues to boot, but I wanted to point out where all the bad blood on FFA's side comes from. Having walked my dog, I do have second thoughts and regret posting it.
    TB does have a tendency to go overboard and tends to turn matters into a personal affair (see his reaction to me, above), which has landed him on this notice-board more than once (and please don't make me cite examples). I proposed the IBAN not to spite The Banner, but to get him off FFA's case and let someone else handle it, since this is getting counter productive. Wikipedia can handle a poorly written article about an obscure, possibly non-notable subject in piss poor English much better than a three year drama. Any action, however justified, TB takes involving FFA only adds fuel to the fire. Hence my proposal. Kleuske (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ubi pus, ibi evacua Kleuske (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That being said. I'm getting more and more convinced a site-ban per WP:CIR for FFA P-16 due to a lack of language skills would be justifiable, too. Kleuske (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If he is just translatign German into English, isn't there a tag for that so it can be copyedited? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    • This is definitely not evidence of hounding. A diff-pile twice this large, of genuinely problematic behavior, all from the last month or so might be. What I see here is:

      2014, too long ago for consideration, TB wasn't fully up to speed on AfD procedures yet, like many noobs (and even old hands who don't do AfD much).

      2015: TB, like other productive editors, knows what WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy is, and removes unencyclopedic cruft from articles. He still might not have been clear on what makes a good AfD candidate, but then again this is also cherry-picked evidence, and maybe by this point most of his selections were successfully AfD. When people add cruft, he objects. The tone and personalization weren't a good idea, but are far short of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA violations. Didn't seem clear on WP:USERTALK, but restoring a deleted talk post, one time, is not a big deal. Raising WP:PROMO concerns, if there seems to be a pattern, isn't the wrong thing to do. Raising NOTHERE ones is more difficult to do without being a WP:JERK, but we do have that essay for a reason and people are allowed to cite it. (I've done so twice in the last few days, to editors who are clearly here for the right reasons overall, but have been engaging, in a "temporary but too extended" way, in personal disputation that has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. I find that such minor troutings are often effective. It never actually hurts anyone to remind people that this is an encyclopedia project, not a social networking site or a sport-debate webboard.) The fact that three editors here (at least) are considering a site-ban for FFA_P-16 on WP:COMPETENCE grounds is at least as strong a finger to point as TB mentioning NOTHERE, and it speaks to many of the same concerns.

      2016: Trying to address terrible article quality is normal and desirable. Successfully getting a WP:POLEMIC deleted is also normal and desirable.

      So, I think we're done here, and The Banner is definitely not going to be pilloried in the stocks, just asked to communicate less testily, to jump to fewer conclusions, and to review policies and procedures and follow them a little more closely, both with regard to how AFD is properly done, and what user talk page etiquette is. I think we've probably all committed worse wiki-sins than these, without sanctions, at some point. PS: If you're going to try to diff out an alleged pattern, you need to start with recent, relevant material, not stuff from years go that no one cares about and which is unlikely to represent current behavior or level of wiki-savvy.
       — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Supplementary proposal: 6-month probation for MBurch

    In light of the behaviour displayed in this thread and over the last several months, I propose a final warning for MBurch (talk · contribs). If, during the next six months, he engages in behaviour that could reasonably be interpreted as WP:HOUNDING, appears to be acting as a proxy to allow FFA to violate the above-proposed IBAN, or otherwise behaves in an uncivil manner, he may be blocked from editing English Wikipedia by any admin without further warning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended content
    I didn't mean to attack you at all, I just believe you're comments were not much helpful. In my personal opinion you increased the conflict while others tried to find a solution in short, brief words. Fact is I signed up 21th of November 2010, I have globally over 25'000 contributions mostly in German Wikipedia, but a few on commons, wikidata and others, too [169]. --MBurch (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded to the above duplicated comment above, where it belongs. This proposal has nothing to do with MBurch's global contributions, and is not specifically about his personal attacks against me. I would have made basically the same proposal based on his hounding of The Banner and his wikilawyerish attempts to get me in trouble (blocked?) for "calling him a sockpuppet" (something I never did) by pinging the admin who unblocked him. And then, later, inviting in a German Wikipedia with no connection to this case just because of an off-topic rabbit-hole he had dragged us down, and apparently, somehow, convincing the de.wiki editor in question that the main issue here was a non-issue requiring no action.
    MBurch, if you want to respond to my proposal on its merits, please do so outside of this collapse template. If you continue to post off-topic commentary in this subsection I will take it as a deliberate attempt to filibuster the proposal by preventing discussion.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC) (edited 21:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC) )[reply]
    • Support, along with the above steps. All three parties should be addressed, but as to the actual issues (and severity thereof) they present. MBurch's hands are hardly clean in this matter, even if he's less central to the problems than FFA P-16.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A skim through the ANI leads me to mostly the same conclusion. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- such behaviour is not helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hesselp

    There is a situation with Hesselp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the page Series (mathematics) and the talk page Talk:Series (mathematics). He has been edit-warring to include his rewrite of the article [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175]. Although not at the moment above 3RR, the above is clear indication of edit warring, being reverted by four different editors. He was warned against edit warring, yet persists. Other editors have attempted to engage him at Talk:Series (mathematics), but attempts to resolve the dispute amicably are met with walls of antagonistic rambling text: [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], among others. We have given up on trying to interact with this user, in the spirit of WP:DENY (the above posts strongly suggest trolling). But I believe the time has come for this disruption to be put to an end administratively. (Pinging other involved editors: @Hesselp:, @D.Lazard:, @MrOllie:, @Wcherowi:.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like there was some edit warring involving this user going on at the Dutch version of the article. @The Banner:, could you tell us if those issues were similar to what we're seeing here? - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no involvement in this article and I want to keep it that way. But on the Dutch version is was a long story of editwars, WP:TLDR, dismissing arguments brought in by others, endless edit-suggestions. The Banner talk 17:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the edit history shows a long history of contentious additions, and reverts by other editors there. The talk page is dominated by endless discussions. Without knowing Dutch, I would suggest that this appears to be a similar pattern. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is edit war on the article pages (English and Dutch) and disruptive edits on the talk pages (in both languages). Apparently this user knows the 3RR rule: Generally he waits more than 24 hours before a new revert, and he stops (for a while) edit warring after 3 reverts. As, usually, WP:AN3 actions consists in short blocks (for a few days), this would be not efficient here, as his disrupting edits could restart immediately after the end of the block. D.Lazard (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Today he has done 3 reverts. D.Lazard (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly feel like I'm involved with an edit war that I see no way of stopping. This editor is tenacious and smart enough to play the system. He is so committed to his POV that he won't even consider the possibility that he may be taking an extreme position that others would reject.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Playing the system is a blockable offense. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaction by Hesselp.   I haven't done anything else than concentrate on the best way - at the level of mainstream Wikipedia readers - to describe the meanings (plural) of the technical/mathematical term "series" in mathematical texts. A main point is that the meaning of "convergent series" can be explained easily by interpreting this words as "summable sequence". This is not at all new, see the number of google-hits on "summable sequence" and "summable sequences". The same point is shown in Calculus by M. Spivak (editions 1968-2008).   To which extend it is reasonable to characterize my posts on Talk page as "rambling antagonistic text", I leave to decide by other judges.
    @Slawomir Bialy: my edit is not a "rewrite of the article", it can be seen as a rewrite of 1/6 of the article.
    @MrOllie: Yes, I tried about the same on Dutch Wikipedia, with partial success.
    @Wcherowi: - (on your newest 'edit summary') Using  'no consensus'  without ANY discussion on the merits of the content of a text/edit, is misusing this word.  - 40 000 hits on 'summable sequence(s)' does NOT point to an "extreme position".   - Tell me at least, which aspect(s) in the edit you see as 'extreme', it's certainly by far not the complete text.
    @L3X1.   I don't understand what you mean, please explain. -- Hesselp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesselp (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:GAME: Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view.. Continously reverting and warring with other editors, even if done over a long period of time, still counts as edit warring. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The merits of the were discussed or otherwise incorporated into the article. Here are some diffs (among others): [181], [182], [183]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The disruption continues: he pasted this ANI thread into the talk page of the article, in apparent violation of the talk page guidelines, this addition was reverted by one editor, then Hesselp restored it; it was removed by a different editor who pointed out that talk pages are for discussing article improvements rather than soapboxing, it was restored again by Hesselp. Does it matter whether this is good faith editing or simple trolling/vandalism? The editor in question clearly continues to be disruptive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that, regretfully, Hesselp is a WP:SPA. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA-for-bad or SPA-for-good? I don't understand your comment, as per SPA, thats not even a teeeeerrible thing to be. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we are at ANI about this user's aggressive behavior, are we not? (With disruptive crossover activity on the nl.wikipedia.) SPA is certainly not a good thing in that context. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "...editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus..." — this is the case, and this is why I wrote "regretfully". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Promotional"?   Yes!  I promote improvements in the rather messy [184] [185] present text.
    "Advocating"?   Yes!  By presenting detailed arguments on Talk page.
    "Non-neutral"??   Please comment (on Talk page) in which line(s) in this edit you see a non-neutral statement approach (after glancing through the list of 32 'definitions' in [186]). --Hesselp (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are right mathematically; and your suggestion could be accepted on a professional mathematical encyclopedia (such as Springer EoM). However, you fail to take seriously the very first objection by McKay on that talk page (of 02:42, 20 January 2016): articles like this are supposed to talk to as general an audience as possible and not just to mathematicians. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Mathematically right" - thank you!   From your objection 'non-neutral' you changed over to 'too-high-level'. I cannot see myself why the alternative text can be considered as more difficult than the present one. So please, comment (on Talk page) in which line(s) in this edit you see hard points. Maybe they can be improved / worded in an easier way.   Is the introduction of the label 'summable sequence' too difficult to be understandable by a general audience? -- Hesselp (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried engaging on the article talk page but got nowhere fast. I'm getting strong indications of WP:TE and WP:IDHT. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The facts, in short:   David Eppstein was 'baffled' (Talk page 22:01, 8 May 2017) by my incomprehension regarding the true nature of "expressions" and "infinite expressions" (being the central key-term in the definition of 'series').  After asking for the difference between finite and infinite expressions (09:38, 9 May, again 08:44, 10 May), the answer (14:36 and 15:43) was unclear to me, so I made my question more concrete (points A-E, 18:49, 10 May).  Reaction by David Eppstein: "...no more interaction with you", "I see your edits as tendentious and disruptive"  and some more not very positive remarks. -- Hesselp (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hesselp's version of series (mathematics) begins by "In mathematics (calculus), the word series is primarily used as adjective ...". This is not only WP:OR but also blatantly wrong: It suffices to look at any modern textbook of calculus to know that "series" is primarily used in mathematics as a noun. Note also that, although series are studied in most textbooks of calculus the only source for Hesselp's lead is about 150 years old (and also misunderstood). The remainder of Hesselp's version of the article continues in the same style and consists only of Hesselp's own inventions, beliefs and/or misinterpretation of the rare source that he produces. D.Lazard (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on D.Lazard's post 23:35, 10 May 2017 :
    On "..any modern textbook.." :   For a survey of attempts to define 'series', see the list '32 attempts' in this post. The 32 different wordings can be combined to a handful of really different content. Most of the about 80 authors say that a series IS an expression, but leave it to the reader to find out what's the character of the mathematical object, denoted (described, referred to) by this expression.  The same is the case with the 'definition' in the present version of the article; implying the self-referring sentence:  A series is an expression of the form  ..+..+..+  ···  denoting a series.
    And left to the reader as well is the question of how to interprete the label "convergent series". A convergent expression seems to be nonsense, but without any idea about the content of the expression, it's not easy to understand what's really denoted by this label.

    In some sources (Spivak, Buck, Dijksterhuis, Van Rooij, Cauchy, Gauss) can be found more explicitely how to interprete the usual wordings. Making it possible to see the connection between the traditional - self-referring - wordings in most books on calculus, and the way how the label 'series' is used by mathematicians in practice.
    Only a minimal change in interpretation is needed.  That is: don't say: 'series'  IS the expression  ..+..+..+  ···   itself,  but say: 'series' is used to label a certain TYPE OF expression.  The type, constituted by a summation symbol (the sigma-sign, or the repeated pluses and end-dots) combined with the name of a sequence.
    This is what should be an improvement of the article, with its consequences in the wording of the remaining standard content. Helping the reader to grab the meaning of the on-first-site strange combination 'convergent series' (= convergent expression).

    Original Research ?:   The explanation of the meaning of 'convergent series' - as being nothing else as summable sequence - is the very first statement in chapter 'Series' in Michael Spivak's well known "Calculus".  Already for half a century: 1st ed. 1967, 4th ed. 2008.  See More precise terminology 21:37, 9 May 2017

    "The only source...."?   No, all 80 rather modern calculus books in the list in this post, 20:28, 8 May 2017 served as sources. And of the 19th century sources are mentioned earlier: Cauchy, Susler, Itzigsohn, Gauss, Von Mangoldt.   Why doesn’t D.Lazard mentions which one of this five he has studied, and which point in it I should have misunderstood?

    The remainder of Hesselp's version....  Without concrete examples, I can't comment on D.Lazard's last sentence.  Is it the conclusion of everyone who have read this edit? -- Hesselp (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    "Mathematically right", yes... but be careful. Yes, a series is a sequence. But also a (finite) word is a (finite) sequence. And a (formal) polynomial is a (finite) sequence. And a formal power series is a (infinite) sequence. And a stack is a (finite) sequence. And a queue is. And a file is a (finite) sequence (be it a movie in mp4 format, a graphics in jpeg format, or whatever). All this is mathematically right in the same sense. But this truth should be used with due care. A developer knows the implementation details; a user often does not (and need not). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed a copy of this ANI thread from the article talk page, which Hesselp had restored [187] after another user removed them today [188]. It would be helpful for an uninvolved admin to look into the editing patterns. The ANI thread had previously been copied on 5-8 [189] and removed then. mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that the content has now been restored again [190]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with CBM that an action by an uninvolved administrator is needed, I suggest a permanent ban. In fact, Hesselp has shown many times that he is unable or unwilling to have a constructive discussion. The new edit war quoted by CBM is a new example. It should be noted that the object of this edit war (in which I am not involved) is presented as an answer to my above post of 10 May 2017. In this alleged answer, the main point of my post (the fact that "series" is not an adjective) is not discussed. Instead, he pretends discussing the present content of the article, but, in fact he discusses formulations that never appeared in the article and are invented by him. For example "The same is the case with the 'definition' in the present version of the article; implying the self-referring sentence:  A series is an expression of the form  ..+..+..+  ···  denoting a series. This seems a quote, but the word "denoting" does not appear in the article. This method of changing the wording of the content that he pretends discussing is systematic. This strongly suggests a bad faith; in any case it is definitively impossible to have a constructive discussion with this editor. Therefore, a permanent ban seems the only acceptable solution. D.Lazard (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented my comment on two copied sentences (D.Lazard, 21:18, 12 May 2017); his two examples are strong enough for a 'permanent ban' ?
    D.Lazard: In this alleged answer, the main point of my post (the fact that "series" is not an adjective) is not discussed.
          Hesselp: By "main point"  is referred to:
          "Hesselp's version of series (mathematics) begins by "In mathematics (calculus), the word series is primarily used
            as adjective ...    ". This is not only WP:OR but also blatantly wrong:"
          There is some distance between   "series" is (not) an adjective   and   the word series is primarily used as adjective.
          This "primarily used as" is what I try to illustrate in all my posts.
    D.Lazard: For example "The same is the case with the 'definition' in the present version of the article; implying the self-referring sentence:  A series is an expression of the form  ..+..+..+  ···  denoting a series. This seems a quote, but the word "denoting" does not appear in the article.
          Hesselp: Current article, sentence 8:  "Such a series is represented (or denoted) by an expression... ".
          Reading backwards: "The expression ... denotes (or: is denoting) a series." -- Hesselp (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Hesselp is now up to six attempts to copy and paste this whole discussion from ANI into Talk:Series (mathematics). He has already long since been warned about edit warring, and specifically not to do this. A block might be warranted, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have copied parts of this ANI thread to Talk:Series (mathematics), because I thought (and think) that this parts contain relevant information for users involved in improving the Series article.   Which rule I have broken by doing this? -- Hesselp (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MULTI, for a start. For that matter, your attempt to argue the content issue here is problematic for the same reason. Issues of how to properly define series should be discussed only on Talk:Series (mathematics), not here. Issues of your problematic behavior should be discussed here, not moved to the article talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit warring needs to stop. Hesselp, just because others have stopped responding to your WP:IDHT posts on the talk page does not mean that there is not solid consensus against the changes you want to make to the talk page. No one is under any obligation to respond to you further. Since you have now successfully closed down any further discussion on the edits you want to make, the next stop would be an RfC. But if you choose to go that route, you should not abuse the RfC process the way you have abused the discussion page, because that would be further evidence of disruptive editing. Given that you are an WP:SPA, I strongly believe that the community consensus for further disruption will be an indefinite block. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Balfour Declaration

    (non-admin closure) Clear Content dispute; see WP:DRN. —JJBers 19:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was recently involved in a conversation at Talk:Balfour Declaration about the citations and explanatory notes present in the article Balfour Declaration. The problem is that there's more than 6,000 words of quotations, mostly from copyright works. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text says that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." The editors of the article have reverted removal of the material twice, and we are at an impasse. Hence I am posting here to get opinions from others as to whether this amount of copying from copyright material should be permitted to remain in the article. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As the editor who removed 37k of quoted material from the notes alone, I too would welcome comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to get Diannaa to examine one-by-one her massive deletion of multiple quotes from different sources but she declined for lack of time. She seems not to have read the article carefully and does not ask why quotes from scholars are needed in validating one of the most controversial topics in 20th century history. Diannaa asserted: our non-free content policy does not permit this amount of non-free content without a very good reason for each quote. In my opinion she has misread and mis-paraphrased the rule. It actually says Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used . Yes indeed. The rule also says Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. -- the word 'text' is singular and refers to one text. We do not have extensive quotation from one source--the longest quote is 365 words long. The article is 140,000 bytes long or about 20,000 words. My counting shows there are 33 brief quotations under copyright from 28 different scholars. The average length is 109 words. I have read them all and in my judgment each quote is appropriate and helps validate a highly controversial issue. That is, I judge there is "a very good reason for each quote." Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another point. Arab-Israeli issues, such as the Balfour Declaration, are highly controversial in a historical sense of the word and in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. See Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict for the strong warnings. The WP:QUOTE rule is: When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia". In other words, Wiki rules strongly recommend quotations for high-octane disputes, and I think many of the 33 quotes under discussion here fall under that policy. (Here are two examples of this controversial POV rhetoric: 1) quoting Renton: "The myth of British 'proto-Zionism’, which has had such a longstanding influence on the historiography of the Balfour Declaration, was thus produced, so as to serve the needs of Zionist propagandists working for the British Government."; 2) another example: quoting Gelvin: "Zionism itself was also defined by its opposition to the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the region. Both the 'conquest of land' and the 'conquest of labor' slogans that became central to the dominant strain of Zionism in the Yishuv originated as a result of the Zionist confrontation with the Palestinian 'other'. ") Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to text, the question should be asked as to how much of the individual works are used in our article, and should not be how many total quotes are used (But I do note that WP:QUOTEFARM is something to avoid when possible. Without a detailed read, it does seem like most of the quotes are coming from a variety of sources on the matter, so this would be acceptable. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The length of these quotations is appropriate as a means to provide critical documentation in a controversial article. This is a model of what we should be doing across articles in Wikipedia as a best practice. There is no justification under policy to remove these quotations. Alansohn (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that quotation in Wikipedia is acceptable only within narrow limits, as we know. Our policy says "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts …". The guideline says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. […] Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". The notes alone (not the references, which are separate) in that article constitute more than a quarter of the whole page; much, though not all, of that is from copyright sources. The article itself makes heavy use of quotation too. The quotations in the notes are not treated transformatively – they are not the subject of discussion in the text, and their only real purpose appears to be to save readers the trouble of checking the actual sources if they want to. That isn't how we write an encyclopaedia article, and nor should it be. Far from being best practice, it is one we should strenuously avoid. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all brief quotations that specify the specific portions of text from often-lengthy sources that is being used as a reference, without any hand waving or misdirection; their function here is to "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea" and they fulfill that objective properly. This is a best practice in scholarly works and a model to be followed by Wikipedia. I agree that no editor should be forced to add quotations, nor should they be arbitrarily removed. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other reasons we don't use excessive quotes - often heavy use of quotation is a sign of WP:OR, which there are examples of in this particular article. If an editor writes something like: "These quotes summarize the main idea from this primary source" or "This collection of quotes supports an implicit argument" it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - yes, quotes can be used legitimately, but when the page is half quotes those quotes are probably being pieced together to support a thesis - not ok. Anyway, what I am getting at is there is are very good reasons to NOT write articles this way. Seraphim System (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must strongly agree with Rjensen and Alansohn that multiple short quotations not be deleted under the auspices of non-free content policy. It is quite obvious that the policy is meant to warn against excessive quotation from a single text, which could jeopardize its copyright. Quotations of the length exhibited here are absolutely the norm in serious scholarship and can greatly enhance the quality of an article. Whether the quotations in Balfour Declaration are appropriate must be considered on their merits as part of the article, not on a priori grounds. Emphatically, groupuscule (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree. It is excessive quotation from a single source that is prohibited. It is true that multiple quotes of this sort are usually inappropriate when used to document reviews or a book or similar purposes, where a link will suffice. Nor is WP a scholarly journal, where every individual item is referenced and quoted n full detail with the notes often taking more space than the text. In this particular case. for the reasons given above, we have the ideal situation for using them appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, you (unlike me) probably have a pretty good knowledge of US copyright law. Can you explain how you think this usage conforms with our requirement for transformative use? And how it satisfies De minimis, when about half the page is quotation? This search leads to a number of cases where these principles have been discussed; I suggest that they reflect our long-standing best practice here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there not two issues here? - within the article proper, quotes from multiple sources would not be a problem as they are brief quotes (of their respective works) used to illustrate the points concerned - this is in line with our policies. The notes section should be nuked however, its copying all the relevant work from the texts used as references, its not necessary for an understanding the topic or the sections they cover. I cant see how that falls in line with our policies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the secondary sources: de minimis refers to each individual source; we never use more than a paragraph. Transformative use: we are producing an encyclopedia, they were producing scholarly books/articles. The quotations here do not detract from the market for the originals, and we're an educational use: 4/4. I think recent decisions emphasise the commercial impact part,and we have none on the original market--if anything, we stimulate it. For the historical sources, our work is totally transformative, as they were producing documents or advocacy, not discussion. I don't think there;'s any qy of copyright law . The copyvio question is only our NFCC policies for text, which are deliberately stricter than the US law. And the other question is style, about we can make whatever exceptions seem suitable.But I am a librarian, not a lawyer. (Personally, I'd prefer a style using few secondary quotes and trying to reduce them to about half the length each--it's more effective that way) DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that multiple short quotations, especially from different sources, should not be removed as a rule. There's clear indication that length is the chief concern in the WP:NFC passage which says: Unacceptable use - Text - Excessively long copyrighted excerpts. From a Stanford libraries guideline on US copyright law, I note the following: "Because the dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, you have more leeway to copy from factual works such as biographies than you do from fictional works such as plays or novels" (emphasis mine). Considering benefit to the public, I think it is important to note a special role that short quotes placed in footnotes have on WP. In cases of contentious points, they provide reference material for future disputes and benefit the public by helping to ensure that our content is consistent with NPOV and other WP policies. Eperoton (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What I see in the article are several spots, such as the long quoteboxes, where quotes are overlong and overdone. There are some places where a direct quote is the safest way to avoid OR or close paraphrasing, but keeping these to a sentence or so is best. Too much direct quotation becomes just lazy writing. Montanabw(talk) 09:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commont What I see is a content dispute. Close, please. EEng 11:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:JamesBolivar

    JamesBolivar (talk · contribs), who has already been blocked recently for BLP violations, is continuing to create BLPs without any sources [191] [192] as well as a range of other unhelpful & disruptive editing - e.g. adding unnecessary TBA lines to articles [193] , continuing to violate WP:NOTUSA[194]. (these just a couple of examples but the pattern of editing is troubling). Requesting a second temporary block. Past attempts to engage with the user & encourage improved editing have been fruitless --- PageantUpdater (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Support block: Of what PageantUpdater said before, things have been pointless as far as what JamesBolivar has been doing so far. You try to give 'em enough WP:ROPE, but people can break their promises. It could be recommended to give JamesBolivar a block longer than before, maybe indefinite. Slasher405 (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Is someone able to take a look at this? It's been two days and the behaviour is continuing. I'd really like to see some preventative action. [195] [196] --- PageantUpdater (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin attention required: For five days straight, this discussion has been posted without any sign of activity from any admins. Wonder what happened? Slasher405 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Support block per report, in an attempt to get admin attention- not really sure why none of the admins want to handle this? jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given them a week block for repeated BLP violations and unsourced edits. This is pretty much their last chance I would say. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behavior of User:Smallbones

    Smallbones (talk · contribs) is biased towards FXCM which causes users edits on this topic to be disruptive bordering on vandalism. This is compounded by users disregard for other editors. Instead of discussing concerns on the talk page, user brings up paid editing to scare away editors that disagree with contentious edits. As I understand being an inactive editor and Smallbones (talk · contribs) being an established one, such serious accusations require strong proof. I took time to gather and cataloged edits that show alleged misconduct. While my renewed interest in editing Wikipedia started with the bias visible on the FXCM article, I did not branch out to others yet. I have, however, noticed similar behavior in users recent edits. I believe user should be investigated for bias towards forex industry as a whole. It is important to note that user was previously warned [197], topic banned [198] and blocked [199] for similar editing conduct.


    The user already admitted to being biased against FXCM: "I sympathize with your viewpoint at FXCM" [200] when addressing this contribution [201]. The bias can be seen in a weird move of description of what the company does behind recent controversy [202].

    User does not communicate with other editors. There are many threads on the talk page waiting for this users reply [203] and attempts to get users attention with their user-talk page were ignored: [204]. Looking at other entries on users talk page, one can see this disregard for other editors is not limited to FXCM page [205][206][207].

    Instead of answering concerns, user opened a WP:COIN case for me including two easy to disprove lies. [208] User is trying to scare another editor away from the same page [209]

    User repeatedly uses judgmental language in the lede [210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217]. The wording changes, but it could be considered edit warring.

    User removed maintenance templates without any discussion or giving a reason [218]

    User removes relevant information with no explanation. Some of these removals are sneakily hidden when adding other information.

    "Business model" section [219][220],
    homepage URL from info-box [221],
    removal from "Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange" category [222],
    company logo from the info-box [223][224][225][226][227] this happened enough times to be considered edit warring.
    removal from "List of foreign exchange companies" [228],
    industry from info-box [229][230]
    "Operations" section [231][232]
    overseas expansion and initial offering of CFDs from history section [233]
    "Business model" section [234][235]

    Instead, user adds irrelevant information.

    overly detailed information about a different company Refco [236][237]
    entry on overall forex market criticism [238] this edit also doubled information that was already in the article.

    User adds questionable information with no support of the sources.

    claim that company closed down [239][240],
    claim that company moved out of their NY office [241][242][243][244][245]

    User misrepresents sources by changing wording to mean something else:

    claim that clients lost $225 million while sources say the company was at a loss. [246],
    add "in" between "FXCM Australia" makes it sound like FXCM ceased servicing Australian clients[247][248][249][250].
    User alluded that is the case on the talk page [251]

    User is engaging in similar behavior on pages not related to FXCM

    removal of homepage from the info-box because it "looks like advertising" [252],
    user removed sourced information with a weird reason "toaster ovens also?" [253],
    user misrepresented source "closed down their UK operations, perhaps temporarily" [254] - the source article does not suggest permanent closing "had to temporarily suspend trading in the UK until all of the changes are complete"WP [255]
    user is trying to scare away another editor with accusations of paid editing [256]

    Gouyoku (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This WP:WALLOFTEXT appears to be by User:Gouyuku. Have they read the boomerang essay? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty hard to respond to this the way it is formatted. If it looks like he is repeating the same diffs for multiple complaints, it is because he is.
    Gouyoku (talk · contribs) looks like a classic sleeper/SPA editor (just 3 edits before Aug. 2015, with the rest of his edits (26) to FXCM and related pages this month. I did ask him about this - you gotta admit that looks like a paid editor - and I was very straightforward about it, but did not accuse him of being a paid editor - just made a direct question. His answer struck me as being improbable, paraphrasing he "just happened to run into this article and see that I was persecuting the article subject." Per the usual situation, his knowledge of the rules is highly advanced for someone who only made 3 edits before April.
    I'm also hesitant to respond directly to his complaints about me. They are so ill formed, that to answer them might just give them credibility. I will say that he searched my disciplinary record from my 11.5 years on Wikipedia very well, finding 3 incidents. If he searches even harder he should be able to find another incident where I was banned from a talk page for 24 hours.
    It's probably best just to outline the situation with FXCM and let editors judge how to best handle such a situation. FXCM was a retail foreign exchange broker in the US officially since 1999, but the business really only got off the ground about 2005 when speculative online trading came into vogue. It was a very controversial industry then and is now. About 2005 the regulator, the CFTC issued warnings about the industry and tried to get the most legit firms to register, closing down the rest. FXCM's owner CEO made a hilarious statement to a Wall Street Journal reporter at that time that only about 15% of its customers made money (i.e. 85% of the punters lose money)
    Long story short, FXCM ran into regulatory/legal problems at every turn, but became the #1 firm in the industry. Until February 6, 2017 when they admitted in a consent decree that they had been lying to their customers for 8 years about how the trading was actually handled. They were kicked out of the US, aren't allowed to even apply to come back ever, and a 3rd level - they have to be reregistered with an industry self-regulatory group before they can even think about doing anything with the CFTC. They haven't issued any statements since except a couple of required SEC forms. There's no way to officially say what's going on with them other than they are being sued by their shareholders, by their customers, and the debtholders are more-or-less running the overseas business. But it was impossible to leave the article alone which said approx. "FXCM is a leading forex broker in the US." It was basically an ad for them.
    It's too late. More tomorrow. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Smallbones, I realize you are a big advocate against paid editing, but I wish you wouldn't yourself bring it up in your own editing disputes, which you did by asking on their talk page and posting at COI/N. You open yourself up to accusations that you are using such tactics to chill opposition to your editing position. Be in an editing dispute, that's cool, we all do that, accuse others of being a paid editor, well, swell, but when you do both in the same discussion, I don't like it as much. The difference between questioning and accusation, when you have been as active as you have been against paid editing, is a bit theoretical. Leave it for matters in which you are not involved, so you cannot be accused of self-interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) I have indeed forgotten to sign my entry, oops. I have read many "meta" pages of Wikipedia over the last month but not the ones you have pointed out, thank you. Regarding WP:WALLOFTEXT: I understand the entry is long, but it is divided into two parts. First paragraph explains my reasoning and I believe is short enough. The rest of the entry is a list of supporting diffs - as I have mentioned, serious accusations require serious evidence. I admit it may not be easy on the eyes. Can you give me some pointers on how should such a list be included? Regarding WP:BOOMERANG: With the exception of three revents, all my contributions were fixing specific inaccuracy in the article, were small to make sure each can be reviewed independently, were explained in the edit summary and were not contested. I do not believe administrators will find my conduct unacceptable, but if they do I am willing to change.
    @Smallbones (talk · contribs) To make it easier for you, please respond only to the first paragraph. In the second paragraph I am repeating the same diffs multiple times, because you include many changes in the same diffs, often mixing additions and deletions. I believe you have misrepresented my answer here. At first I have seen the article itself to be biased but did not attribute it to you. I have tried to WP:AGF towards you until you have opened the WP:COIN case. If my knowledge of the rules seem advanced it is because I spent time to familiarize myself with them. Reading is easy and I had almost a month to do so. As for your outline of the situation with FXCM - it is, once again, one sided and contains inaccuracies. I believe this discussion would fit better in a WP:DRN, but if administrators wish I will present my view of the issue. Let me just ask this: if it was "impossible to leave the article alone", was it also impossible not to make the article claim the company shut down and impossible not to remove almost all descriptions on how the company operates ? People come to Wikipedia to learn about a topic as a whole, not to follow latest controversy. Gouyoku (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gouyoku:, I wouldn't tell users to only read a certain section of something. That can sometimes lead to disputes. —JJBers 13:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JJBers:, I am sorry if it looks this way, but I am not asking anyone not to read the whole report. I am asking for an answer to the first paragraph, as the rest of the report is only a list of contentious edits that supports the first paragraph. User Smallbones is of course free to address my assertions on the edits if they disagree with them.Gouyoku (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll answer Gouyoku's questions in the first paragraph briefly: My record of discipline on Wikipedia.
    First I'll mention that I've made 42,295 edits over 11.5 years on Wikipedia and been disciplined just 4 times AFAIK. I've also uploaded almost 8,000 photos to Commons, about 3,000 being my own photos. I do not shrink away from controversy, but stand my ground when I know I'm right. I know the rules here and if somebody comes after me, I give as good as I get. The 3 incidents mentioned by Goukoku:
    • Arbcom decision 2015 - a now long gone disruptive editor reverted me and several other editors about 37 times at User talk:Jimbo Wales over the course of a few days. I reverted him about 20 times. He was inserting a message from a long banned editor. The question before arbcom was whether our policy that says any banned editor can be reverted by any other editor without regard to WP:3RR. Jimbo pretty much backed me up on this. Arbcom did not rule on the 3RR exemption. I got a warning, and I can see why arbcom would do that if they didn't want to address the key issue. The other guy eventually got banned if I remember correctly, but it took awhile.
    • Back in 2007 (10 years ago) I was banned from editing 2 articles related to RP. (I think I'm still banned from mentioning him on talk pages) Perhaps I didn't know the rules well enough, but the way I look at it is that the case would never be decided that way now. I've followed that ban religiously, except I was once warned for fixing a circular redirect on the article. An arb just asked a few weeks ago if I'd like to get that ban off the books, essentially automatically. No I don't want that.
    • Last summer during the election I made very few edits to political articles, but in one case I reverted an edit that deleted a perfectly fine, documented paragraph. I thought this was fixing a violation of of an arbcom order, but it turned out we each had to get consensus for each of our edits. We were both blocked for 12 hours, but I didn't know this until 15 hours later (it was a long weekend). I figured I'd let it slide.
    • The case that Gokuyou didn't ask about is that I got banned from a talk page for 24 hours for excessive capitalization. Admins will know what this means. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I to understand you are not disputing being biased against FXCM, making disruptive edits and disregarding other editors? I commend you on your great record, but please consider a possibility that your standards slipped in this case. Gouyoku (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked about paragraph 1 and essentially said that you wouldn't ask more questions. The point of paragraph one seems to be an accusation that I am a long-term abuser of paid editors. The record does not bear that out. Am I biased against FXCM? No - thats all I'm going to answer from you. If an admin wants to put together a couple of questions, I'll gladly answer those, but please check their factual basis first. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not employ straw man arguments. The point of the first paragraph was your bias, disruptive edits, disregard towards other editors and using paid editing accusations as a weapon in disputes. Your refusal to acknowledge issues I brought up here is a great example of this disregard. Gouyoku (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Gouyuku - I haven't read the details of this case, but this appears to involve reserve or sleeper paid editing for a company that has had recent legal problems in the United States, and I hardly care about the nits on the long-time editing record of User:Smallbones, who is a reputable editor who is usually right. I would advise User:Gouyuku not to press the community's patience by posting walls of text and by claiming ignorance of some policies and guidelines. I am every bit as hostile to paid editing as User:Smallbones, and many other long-time editors also are. Do not expect a friendly welcome when you complain about unfriendliness to paid editors on behalf of questionable companies. It isn't a matter of whether Smallbones' standards slipped in this case, but whether you have standards. You may come to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I will recuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a paid editor. Gouyoku (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, FXCM again. The FXCM article is rather negative, and that's justified. See the CFTC press release "CFTC Orders Forex Capital Markets, LLC (FXCM), Its Parent Company, FXCM Holdings, LLC and FXCM’s Founding Partners, Dror Niv and William Ahdout, to Pay a $7 Million Penalty for FXCM’s Defrauding of Retail Forex Customers. FXCM, Niv, and Ahdout are Prohibited from Registering with the CFTC, Acting in Exempt Capacities or Acting as Principals, Agents, Officers or Employees of Registrants. [257] This is a company barred from operating in the United States because of illegal activity. The negative info is quite well cited - Bloomberg, Forbes, Reuters, the New York Times, and various regulatory agencies. As for being removed from the listing of NYSE stocks, that's because FXCM was delisted from the NYSE and moved to the NASDAQ. They're about to be delisted from NASDAQ.[258] This isn't a Wikipedia problem; the company is in very serious trouble and the article reflects that reality. John Nagle (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input, but I do not dispute here that the article is negative. The point here is that changes introduced by the user in question are disruptive to Wikipedia. There is representing facts accurately in an encyclopedic fashion, and there's judgmental language, removal of relevant sourced information, addition of questionable unsourced information and misrepresenting sources. User does the latter due to their admitted bias. Additionally, they disregard other users and use paid editing accusations to scare them away. Gouyoku ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest, if you can develop a pattern of conduct of using paid editing accusations (including the asking of "Are you a paid editor?", filings at noticeboards, and the like) to chill discussion, not simply a single occurrence, that you request arbitration. Because I don't see much happening here. That being said, there is at least some movement taking place on the article talk page, so it may be better to settle for that for now. Your call.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who works WP:COIN issues, a bit of background. Edits in the forex area tend to be viewed skeptically at WP:COIN. The binary option industry, shut down in many countries for being a scam, is moving into the forex area. Wikipedia has a long history of severe COI editing problems in the binary option area. See [259], from 2014. There's been intermittent trouble on Wikipedia from that business sector since. There are some similarities between FXCM's activities and those of certain binary option companies. Hence the pushback against anything that resembles a whitewashing attempt. Gouyoku has, perhaps inadvertently, started their Wikipedia editing career in a difficult area. At the moment, the parties are arguing on Talk but not changing the article, so there's not much need for admin action. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that the user have started responding on the talk page. In this regard I consider this whole ordeal a success. If I understand correctly, as an administrator you looked over the diffs I have provided and found nothing wrong with them - is that correct? Also, how many paid editing accusations against editors that disagree with the user would be enough to establish a pattern? Thank you. Gouyoku (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Major issues at X-Men (film series) talk page

    Initial report

    It has been a long-term situation, but there are a select few of very specific editors on the aforementioned talk page that repeatedly engage in edit warring, owning behavior, and belittle the rest of the editors who have anything to say that is in different opinion than their own. It can be seen very easily by the comments there, as well as the edit history on the X-Men (film series) page. My question here was what can be done to prevent these editors from continuing this behavior? I don't know whether certain editors can be blocked or not, but it sure would save a lot of trouble that those specific pages have undergone. The behavior there has lead several editors to also express their reasoning for not editing as much as they would like to - which in my mind detracts from Wikipedia's community nature. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As an update to the above, I have asked the offending editor in question if they intend to continue edit-warring after the protection expires or not, or if they have actually taken into accounts the accusations against them. If they do plan to continue, I second Disney's question: What can be done to prevent this? If the editor continues their WP:OWN behaviour (not just noted by involved editors, but also by an uninvolved editor from WP:3O), then what can we do to stop this? -- AlexTW 09:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) All parties are showing pretty gross incivility, and on the substance AlexTheWhovian in particular is showing a misunderstanding of the nature of CONSENSUS, by assuming that the status quo is automatically supported by consensus merely by virtue of its being the status quo. That is not how consensus works. All articles are presumed to have room for improvement, and if anyone makes an edit, while it can be reverted and discussed per BRD, there should not be an assumption that a "new consensus" is required to overrule an earlier "consensus" except in cases where the change actually did affect something that was specifically put in place by consensus. If one editor (in this case User:Hotwiki, who I notice was not notified despite there being an ANI thread opened about them) makes an edit and one other editor (or even two editors) reverts it, that is only one editor (or two editors) supporting one version of the article and one supporting a different version, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) Threads like this, for example, should not appear on article talk pages. Regardless of the edit-warring that has taken place and who may be right or wrong on the article content, as far as I can tell just by looking at the talk page and the cloak-and-dagger style evident in this thread, DMH and ATW are actually the worse offenders. And, no, admins do not have the authority to impose topic-bans or page bans on editors, unless discretionary sanctions are in play and the editors in question have been made aware of this, and this does not appear to be the case. You need community consensus to force such a sanction on an editor or editors (or somehow convince ArbCom to take the case); engaging in this kind of behaviour (e.g., carefully avoiding naming any specific editor under the false assumption that this justifies not notifying the editor who is clearly being referred to) is not going to convince the community to impose the sanctions that seem to be requested. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit being discussed is the removal of the line in question by the offending editor; there is no current consensus to remove it, nor was there ever, and hence, the version with the line (i.e. in this particular case, this just so happens to be the version of the status quo), this is the supported version. Hence, your gross accusation of WP:TAGTEAM is unfounded. If you decide to read the full conversation sometime soon, and I recommend that you do, you would find a minimum of four editors (further invalidating your above claim of tag-teaming) supporting the accusations against the offending editor, meaning that their edits and behaviour at the discussion page are clearly in dispute here. -- AlexTW 10:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth are you talking about? I didn't accuse anyone of TAGTEAM -- I was making a general comment about the nature of CONSENSUS and how you seem to be taking the status quo as automatically being supported by consensus simply by being the status quo. The simple fact is that even if one editor or a small group of editors support the status quo version of an article, that doesn't constitute a consensus. Your claim that there are four editors (presumably against one) who support your version actually supports my assertion that you and DMH are engaged in cloak-and-dagger behaviour referring to unnamed "editors" or "the offending editor" in order to evade your requirement to notify the user you are reporting. Note that I am not saying your 4-1 claim is accurate. I don't care if it is or not. Even if it is, four users is still a pretty weak consensus, and you can ask these two what happens when a small clique of users try to say that their opinion makes the status quo "consensus" just because there are more than one them. ANI is not the place for hashing out content disputes and establishing consensus on what an article should say. ANI is about user behaviour, and your own (repeated!) refusal to name the user you are reporting in a transparent attempt to avoid having to notify themis about the worst I have seen in this case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In reply to the second comment added... If you have an accusation against me, then I suggest you file a report against me. By all mean. And while that it is possible that that thread might not have had to exist, I highly doubt that we are the "worse" offenders; the offending editor has displayed copious amounts incivility, edit-warring, owning the page, not taking on the suggestions of other editor, not being prepared to actually discuss disputed content or leave the status quo while you do, and talking down to editors, and this has all been pointed out to them from multiple editors, not just us, including a completely uninvolved editor. Again, I recommend that you read the entire discussion, not just the parts that you wish to take things from. -- AlexTW 10:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if you file a report, or encourage another user to file a report in your stead (as you did in your first comment in the thread I linked above), you are susceptible to a WP:BOOMERANG based on your own behaviour in this ANI thread. And yes, it is inappropriate to use an article talk page to discuss "Certain editors". The OP, who has been here for eight months, can maybe be forgiven for not knowing this, but your own repeated use of the phrase "the offending editor" to avoid having to notify User:Hotwiki that they are beinf discussed on ANI cannot be blamed on your inexperience. And no, I have no intention of reading the entire discussion, and I highly doubt anyone else will. If you don't post specific diffs, all the rest of us have to go on is what you did provide and what is self-evident in the ANI discussion itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to reply to both of your concurrent discussions in the same post. (Why was that a thing?)
    I was making a general comment about the nature of CONSENSUS and how you seem to be taking the status quo as automatically being supported by consensus simply by being the status quo. I'm taking it that you didn't read my reply to that, so I'll go back to it. The edit being discussed is the removal of the line in question by the offending editor. That being the edit discussed, and given the basis of your replies on essays, then the editor is deliberately deciding not to follow BRD; their removal of the line was reverted, and they should have let the discussion unfold before reinstating any such edit.
    Your claim that there are four editors (presumably against one) who support your version actually supports my assertion that you and DMH are engaged in cloak-and-dagger behaviour referring to unnamed "editors" or "the offending editor" in order to evade your requirement to notify the user you are reporting. ; ANI is about user behaviour, and your own (repeated!) refusal to name the user you are reporting in a transparent attempt to avoid having to notify themis about the worst I have seen in this case. Did I file this report? No? Therefore, I am not required to make any such action. I did indeed make a comment stating that a report had already been filed, meaning that they were indeed aware of it. I am also not required to name other editors - if you wish to partake in this discussion against the offending editor, it is therefore up to you to be educated on what you are actually discussing. The editor being named is clear to you, given that you posted on their talk page, so I believe that you are simply coming up with the most random of accusations against me that you can. This is not a surprise, given the trouble that I have seen you cause on the talk pages of other articles.
    ANI is not the place for hashing out content disputes and establishing consensus on what an article should say. Neither is WP:RPP, but the editor in question decided that that particular forum was the best place for such a discussion, and yet, no comment on them either. Again: do your research before you decide to take part in a discussion such as this, so you can actually know what you're on about.
    No, if you file a report, or encourage another user to file a report in your stead (as you did in your first comment in the thread I linked above), you are susceptible to a WP:BOOMERANG based on your own behaviour in this ANI thread. Funnily enough, I didn't start that thread either, I simply gave a suggestion to the editor that did. Do try to keep up. I am completely aware of BOOMERANG, so if you do indeed feel the need to file an actual report against me based on my actions that have required this particular thread to be created, then I recommend you do so, instead of just throwing out stray observations.
    but your own repeated use of the phrase "the offending editor" to avoid having to notify User:Hotwiki that they are beinf discussed on ANI cannot be blamed on your inexperience. Did not create the report, not obligated to notify the editor. Already had notified the editor that such a thread existed in the first place. Is it just me, or is anyone else getting a serious case of déjà vu?
    And no, I have no intention of reading the entire discussion, and I highly doubt anyone else will. If you don't post specific diffs, all the rest of us have to go on is what you did provide and what is self-evident in the ANI discussion itself. Then that is entirely your fault if you list inaccurate observations; if you have not actually read the discussion, and you have no idea what is actually going on, then this is evidence enough that you are only replying to this discussion out of your own personal feelings for and against the editors involved, and your arguments really have no basis here. If you wanted diffs, then those should have been provided in the initial report. If you have an issue with myself or any other editors involved, then you should be providing diffs yourself, by your own demands and advice. Finally, if you don't want to educate yourself, then your word against the word of editors that have actually been involved in this really can't be taken seriously, can it? -- AlexTW 11:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I did read the above wall of text. It contains a lot of completely off-topic commentary, uniformly misses the point of my comments from which it quotes, and reflects the level of civility I have come to expect from the crowd who edit articles on comic book movies, have an OWN mentality that they project onto users they disagree with, and think that the status quo of articles that passed one GA review is by that fact alone "consensus". I'm not going to break down all the specific ways the above demonstrates this, as I have better thigs to do with my life. I don't know or care whether "the editor"'s edit removed information that I myself would support including in the article. All I know is nothing is going to come of this thread at this point, so it might as well be closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am obviously so glad that you decided to read my response; I didn't type it out for fun and giggles, nor do I think that you're here for that same reason either, but because I believe that the behaviour of the offending editor who was reported needs to be dealt with. As I stated, it is clear that you are not here for the discussion that results in this report, or against the editor that this report concerns, but for your personal opinions of the editors who have found it necessary to report and the areas that they decide to edit, given that you have decided that you do not want to educate yourself on why this report is actually necessary. Therefore, I find your claim that it contains a lot of completely off-topic commentary, uniformly misses the point of my comments from which it quotes, and reflects the level of civility I have come to expect from the crowd who edit articles on comic book movies completely invalid, and not related to the discussion at hand at any level whatsoever.
    All I know is nothing is going to come of this thread at this point, so it might as well be closed. Your personal views have against been noted, but I do most definitely disagree with you; I am sure that other editors might find this discussion most enlightening, and that the administrators patrolling this article take action from it.
    Now, none of my previous reply actually addresses the actual topic that was initially addressed in this report, so I thought I'd do that myself. Per the accusations against the offending editor that I have previously listed off:
    • Incivility - Though multiple personal attacks against the editors on the discussion page, the editor has displayed extreme incivility to anyone that opposes any of their edits, or to editors whose editors they personally oppose. Each of the following accusations also showcases their incivility in the time that their edits have been disputed.
    • Edit-warring - One only needs to see the edit history of the article. The editor removed the line in question, and their somewhat bold edit was reverted, given that it was unnecessary to do so, given the usage of that particular line in pre-existing cast tables. From there, a discussion should have started, a (new, if necessary) consensus gained, the discussion closed, and then any edits resulting from that discussion should have been implemented. Instead, they decided to edit-war over the issue, displaying constant WP:OWN behaviour in the discussion as it was going, and then after the page protection had expired, they returned to the same issue through edit-warring, in a different format (rather than remove the content, they decided to add a "citation needed" tag to it), and continued edit-warring after that.
    • Owning the page - This particular one has been mentioned by multiple editors on the talk page, nor just the two editors who oppose the offending editor's actions that have been involved in this discussion, and even an uninvolved editor who came to the discussion through a post of my own at WP:3O. They show constant OWN behaviour by deciding which edits are necessary or not, throughout the whole discussion that resulted from their initial editors. This even continued into an unrelated protected edit request, where they stated that the edit was not at all necessary, when they were unaware that it actually was, given the false information that resided in the article. It seems that your claim of editors who have an OWN mentality that they project onto users they disagree with seems to fall directly into the ballpit of what the offending editor is actually being accused of, so I am glad that you can see that point of view.
    • Not taking on the suggestions of other editor - The editor has proposed a number of changes to the layouts of the tables that are displayed in the article, and demand that these suggestions should most definitely be implemented. Other editors may provide suggestions as to how to modify these tables, removing any policy or guideline violations such as Crystal or Original Research; many of these suggestions are vehemently rejected.
    • Not being prepared to actually discuss disputed content or leave the status quo while you do - This is clear in itself, through the section I made in regards to the offending editor's edit-warring. They have ceased discussing in any attempt to continue a discussion, stating that they don't need to reply, while at the same time continuing their edit-warring against the content in dispute.
    • Talking down to editors - Comments such as "now be a good editor and not do it again" are self-explanatory. That is wildly acceptable, and the discussion should have been posted on the other editor's talk page, instead of the article's talk page. Perhaps you decided to miss that one in your own tirade against me.
    Perhaps the above will enlighten the editors who have decided to take a part in this report, who have decided not to actually read through the discussions that have produced the issues at hand. -- AlexTW 12:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting as such to indicate my return to the initial report. So, while the below discussion may have been closed between the agreement of myself and Hijiri88 (and regardless of the beginning issues of this report by the reporting editor(s), issues which did exist, which I have personally noted and will take into account), the primary report and list of issues against the editor initially reported (that is, Hotwiki) still stand and require addressing. -- AlexTW 11:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex, could you stop hijacking this discussion as though you were the one who initially opened it, on one editor whom you know who it is, and then denying that you were the one responsible for opening it? The OP specifically referred to users in the plural, and did not name any of said editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it common-knowledge that users who are a part of the argument in discussion, can and should voice their opinions/issues/experiences? The users we are talking about here, (am I supposed to call them out by name? Oh, I'm sorry I was trying to be CIVIL by not calling them out. I will notify them again so they know -- btw I told them in the talkpage by which they edit-war on) have dragged other editors' names through the mud repeatedly, talk down to users with 'less experience' than them -- even though there's no telling whether or not certain editors have simply made new profiles over the years, exhibit OWNing behaviors -- just freaking look at the edit history and/or the talkpage, and have (I repeat again) an elitist attitude in general when it comes to anything regarding Wikipedia. AlexTW was and is one of those users that has had to deal with the ridiculous behavior on said talkpages; am I wrong in believing that any editor that has a second acknowledgement to the issue at hand SHOULD come here and give examples...(?). Otherwise by what other avenue is the problem going to be resolved? Just take a look at Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 4 for starters. There is a long history of conflictive responses. There is a demeaning rhetoric and tone with the previously stated users towards anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their opinions. Next - look at the edit history. That's why I came on here to bring up the discussion. Edits are reversed left and right with demeaning comments and without citing resources. Wikipedia is supposed to be community collaboration of information. Not simply reverts from editors that think they know it all, when they clearly negate regulations and rules against doing so. The fact that ATW is defending himself to you, and to any admin or editor is justifiable. Without reading the discussions, you clearly won't see the issue by any means. P.S. the editors in question are User:Hotwiki and User:Tenebrae clearly.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88 here. There was nothing whatsoever "clear" from your original comment about which editors you were reporting, and in fact you and ATW seem to actually be in disagreement regarding who you were originally intending to report, since you above clarify that it was Tenebrae and Hotwiki, but ATW has, in virtually every comment he has made in this thread, referred to Hotwiki alone as "the editor". You were clearly told when you opened this discussion that you were obliged to notify users being discussed, but you didn't do so. It's therefore very difficult to take it as a good-faith coincidence that you were one of the relatively few users who "forgot" to notify the two users in question and you also happened to be one of the (absolutely) few users who didn't name any particular party to begin with. It looks very much like you deliberately avoided naming them in order to get around your obligation to notify them. Whether you are acting in good faith or not, though, you should at least talk with ATW to get your story straight on exactly whom you are reporting on here: for whatever reason, ATW seems to be very reluctant to name Tenebrae as one of the users being reported, and given that you opened this discussion on ATW's recommendation it's extremely difficult to work through when not even you and ATW are on the same page as to who is causing disruption. 182.251.141.102 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you consider common knowledge, but your last sentence clearly (to use your emphasis) shows you once again, as with your RfC canvassing, either disregarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not understanding them or deliberately circumventing them. You have been, in my opinion, less of a constructive editor in your short time here than you have been simply disruptive and constantly argumentative. And please: You're not helping anyone with your Trump-supporter-like repetition of "elitist" and "elitism" over and over again. Because guess what? Most of the admins are experienced, veteran editors who know and respect the rules. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm calling common-knowledge what can be read right in your response to my issue. I am not disregarding policies, as you just did by stating your political views (which is irrelevant and noone really cares about - as President Donald J. Trump has nothing to do with this), and as you stated below in Arbitrary break: No. Your opinion is not fact. - I am anything but disruptive and argumentative. All of my edits have been constructive and deliberate in trying to be civil. As evidenced in the edits by User:Hotwiki who remains silent on this topic for some reason, said user exibits WP:TAGTEAM with YOU when stating "Tenebrae and me" over and over in the talkpage, and you completely ignore that as well. Elitist is an adjective. You continuously bringing up political individuals in your retorts is completely juvenile.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this report at all. I certainly didn't try to own any article here. Why just can't editors assume good faith when I was just trying to make the article the best version it could be, with the help of reliable sources,and not applying crystal ball wording like "to be announced". I am innocent. I guess some editors aren't just happy that their edits were reverted before and I was against about an article move.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hotwiki: Please see the above list that I complied, concerning your behaviour. Editors do typically assume good faith, but when you decided to edit-war over the topic, instead of letting the discussion run its course, and you had no less than four separate editors (if not more) state your behaviour came under WP:OWN, that is when you should have realized that something was wrong with how you were executing your edits, even if you believed that you were "just trying to make the article the best version it could be". You may have thought that, but the majority did not. -- AlexTW 06:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:AlexTheWhovian Hijiri88 here (do I still need to keep saying that with every comment?). Similar to your previous refusal to name the editor(s) you were reporting, you should name the "no less than four separate editors" stating Hotwiki's behaviour came under OWN. I "Ctrl+F"ed the X-Men talk page for "OWN" (again -- I wouldn't have had to do your work for you if you had named names and/or provided diffs) and unsurprisingly about 90% of instances of it being used to describe a user's behaviour vis-a-vis the article (as opposed to, say, "Deadpool got his own film") came from you, with most of the rest from DMH. I see Brocicle (talk · contribs) saying An uninvolved editor commented that your behaviour is very WP:OWNing the article; if that "uninvolved editor" was either you ot DMH, Brocicle's comment is nonsense and can be dismissed outright, but more likely he was referring to ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs)'s Although HotWiki may be [emphasis added] WP:OWNing the article, consensus can be established for the change. The actual situation appears on slightly closer examination to be not at all as you have been describing it, and Brocicle's summary of PG's comment as "your behaviour is very WP:OWNing the article" is also less than optimal. (Note that I'm not saying Brocicle should face sanctions, or anything like that, simply for having a somewhat strange reading of someone's comment on a talk page; I pinged him merely as a courtesy. He can comment here if he wants, or just ignore this.) 182.251.141.102 (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your ping failed. Anyways. I was replying directly to the editor instead of making a neutral post about them, and they are clearly aware of who participated and what was said in the discussion, meaning that I am under no obligation to do so, as the report was not towards at you. I do not need to fill out your every whim and fantasy. The comment of an "uninvolved editor" is most definitely in regards to the editor (that you pinged, so I don't have to, in case you wanted to accuse me of that to) that came to the discussion as a result of my post at 3O. If Hotwiki's behaviour wasn't OWN in the slightest, at all, then that comment would not have been required, meaning that whatever level it was, OWN was present. I await your reply to the rest of the discussion. (Congratulations, by the way, for finally making your way to the initial discussion page!) -- AlexTW 07:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. Sorry about that. I was about to reping you but by the time I noticed you'd already replied. I was replying directly to the editor instead of making a neutral post about them No, you made the same claim several times in this discussion. Further up this thread, you said If you decide to read the full conversation sometime soon, and I recommend that you do, you would find a minimum of four editors, i.e., you specifically told me to do your work for you, and when I didn't I didn't get the results you claimed I would you tried to claim that you never told me to go looking. And yes, you are under an obligation to provide evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, to back up your claims. Otherwise, you create more work for good-faith volunteers like myself. And when we do your work for you, and find out that in fact you had been bending the truth on top of failing to provide the diffs, we are more inclined to believe you deliberately hid the diffs because they didn't support you. If Hotwiki's behaviour wasn't OWN in the slightest, at all, then that comment would not have been required, meaning that whatever level it was, OWN was present. You have to understand that, if someone behaves in a manner that resembles OWN (to use PG's words "may be OWN"), but all of their edits have been in accordance with our content policies, and the editor(s) they have not been allowing to edit the article are in violation of said policies, the "OWNing" user hasn't actually done anything wrong. I await your reply to the rest of the discussion. No, I will only respond to claims you make without diffs or other evidence at my own leisure (read: probably not at all). The same is true for the admins you are no doubt hoping will come along and block Hotwiki just because you want them to. Congratulations, by the way, for finally making your way to the initial discussion page! Your continued haughty sarcasm is noted. My very first comment in this discussion related to my reading of the talk page in question. I will admit I have not read all of it (put simply, both you and DMH strike me as generally unpleasant editors whose talk page commentary makes me somewhat depressed when I read it), but what I have seen is abysmal, and seems to contradict you almost every step of the way. (By the way -- I think the "initial report" section header is convenient for those of us editing on mobile devices, but would I be wrong in assuming you were the one who added it? I've noticed you trying to "frame" this discussion in a particular way, and you in particular seem to have missed the point that discussion is meant to proceed downwards, after the "arbitrary break", rather than upwards and sideways.) 182.251.141.102 (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait -- I remember where I have interacted with you in the past. It was at Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.#What's a "pod"?. It's pretty rich seeing someone who has on at least one occasion taken the side of the sectarian cabal of editors who rule over the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles with an iron fist to accuse another user of OWN behaviour. Also, you need to stop saying this discussion is about Hotwiki alone; the OP has now explicitly stated that he was thinking of two editors (Hotwiki and Tenebrae) when he wrote his initial comment. 182.251.141.102 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just responding to the ping from the Hijiri88 to clear things up. When I said that I stated it that it was possible and quite clear that, unless confirmed by the editor who made the comments, was open to interpretation, specifically the word "may". I took it as Hotwiki may be WP:OWNing but consensus was available to decide a change, whereas I'm sure Hotwiki took it as he may be owning but the editor was not 100% sure and went on to say the bit about consensus. I just want to add that I personally do feel like Hotwiki has displayed WP:OWN behaviour in some instances but I don't believe he should be sanctioned. Clearly the main issue lies between Alex and Hotwiki, that must be resolved through their own discussions. Brocicle (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brocicle: That's cool. You're entitled to your opinion, and I actually think your reading of PG's comment is likely the better one, but it's still just one editor's opinion, and per above I think if someone other than Alex and his amazing friends is engaged in OWN behaviour on an article but have a good grasp of our content policies ... well, that's better than the serious OWN issues I've noticed on a bunch of other articles in this general topic area over the last two years or so (my earliest memory was this). That said, if you are not seeking sanctions for anyone I apologize for bringing you into an ANI discussion -- can I take you as supporting my proposal that this thread be closed with some heavy trouts and nothing more? 182.251.141.102 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad-faith sockpuppetry accusations by AlexTheWhovian

    AlexTheWhovian does not acknowledge that what he did was wrong, or even that it was a sockpuppetry accusation. But there's no point continuing to discuss this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So apart from the above-indicated referring to the subject of the thread as "the offending user" apparently to get around the obligation to notify them, on said user's talk page AlexTheWhovian has been repeatedly accusing me of sockpuppetry because my iPad keeps logging me out, and on one occasion when it was obvious who I was I decided to take the (much) easier route and just post logged out.

    This appears to be part of a pattern of disruptive, gaming behaviour by this editor (see also the repeated refusal to notify the subject of this thread or tell DisneyMetalhead that they should notify them), and perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG should be considered.

    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of facing the topic at hand they would rather distract the conversation by creating this false and irrelevant accusation, clearly based on their personal feelings against me in past discussions.
    The above editor replied to another discussion on the accused editor's talk page while logged out, giving zero indication that they were the above editor (while somehow expecting me to know that they were them; unfortunately, I am no mind-reader, so I indeed had no idea that they were one and the same), when they could have added "I am Hijiri88", but they decided not to. Why was that? And why does the above editor not decide to log back in? It's really not that hard to go to the Log-In page; however, they would prefer to take an action that they knew that I would comment on - was this a pre-meditated plan to be able to create some form of report against me? By the way, I've never accused you of sock-puppetry, as an IP account is not an account within itself, so I believe that the editor is trying to "blow up" the situation, if you will, to make myself look like some evil grandmaster, mostly to try to distract from the above discussion.
    I would be more than happy to be taken into account for these terrible edits that I seem to be accused of, but I'd recommend that the above editor also takes into account WP:BOOMERANG for themselves, given that their accusations against me are clearly based only on their own feelings and previous experiences of editors such as myself, and those that also edit in the same field as I, given that they hadn't participated in any current discussion with myself before this report was created. -- AlexTW 07:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above editor replied to another discussion on the accused editor's talk page while logged out, giving zero indication that they were the above editor When an IP posts a response to your response to someone, and that someone stated in a comment directed at you a few hours earlier that they are having trouble editing logged in, and you and that user are the only editors involved in the conversation in question, you are allowed assume that the IP is that user, unless they directly claim not to be. when they could have added "I am Hijiri88", but they decided not to I have specified that logged-out edits were mine in other instances, but in that case I felt it was obvious. I think virtually every other Wikipedian will agree with me that it was obvious. Per AGF, I don't make my edits under the assumption that other editors are vindictive, gaming jerks who are going to go out of their way to accuse me of sockpuppetry the first chance they get. Sometimes I do, just to be extremely careful. But Safari's being a bitch has made editing Wikipedia extremely tiring for the last few days.
    And why does the above editor not decide to log back in? It's really not that hard to go to the Log-In page; Yes, it is. It involves waiting for the page to fully load, scrolling down to the bottom of the page, clicking "Desktop" (sometimes also refreshing because the page didn't load properly in mobile view and so the desktop view link doesn't show up), waiting for the desktop view to load, clicking "Log in", waiting for that page to load, entering my details (which, again, is something I used to have to only once every months or so, and so feels a lot more tedious than one might think, having to do it for every single edit), clicking on the link to go back to the page, waiting for the page to load a third time, clicking "Edit"... in this one instance I chose to just skip that whole process and just click "Edit". I am entitled to be tired -- consider the fact that I've gone through this entire process for every single edit I have made over the last 48 hours, with the exceptions of that one logged-out edit and one edit I made on Chrome before leaving the house today. however, they would prefer to take an action that they knew that I would comment on - was this a pre-meditated plan to be able to create some form of report against me? Paranoid much? I was already considering proposing a boomerang based on your atrocious behaviour on the article talk page, in this thread, and on Hotwiki's talk page before you started making repeated bad-faith sockpuppetry accusations. The latter (specifically, the third instance of the latter) just pushed me over the edge.
    By the way, I've never accused you of sock-puppetry, as an IP account is not an account within itself, so I believe that the editor is trying to "blow up" the situation Logging out with the intention of evading scrutiny is sockpuppetry, your ignorance of the policy notwithstanding. Even after I readily and explicitly told you it was me, you continued to (twice!) accuse me of deliberately logging out in order to deceive you. their accusations against me are clearly based only on their own feelings and previous experiences of editors such as myself Yes, editors in the "Comics" and "TV/film adaptations of comics" do seem to have an almost uniformly poor understanding of proper sourcing and, especially when this poor sourcing is pointed out to them, get extremely defensive and don't seem to put a lot of stock in WP:CIVIL to begin with, but the fact that this has happened before doesn't detract from the fact that you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner now.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    someone stated in a comment directed at you a few hours earlier that they are having trouble editing logged in Did you? I actually missed that. And that is why you cannot assume that I will automatically know your every move. I felt it was obvious. You did. I did not. You cannot assume that I will also automatically detect what may be the obvious to you, but not to someone else. However, I feel that this is the most trivial of cases that we are feeling the need to argue here. You did not specify it was you, I did not happen to make the connection. Nobody is perfect. I don't make my edits under the assumption that other editors are vindictive, gaming jerks who are going to go out of their way to accuse me of sockpuppetry the first chance they get. I would be carefult here, it seems that you are bordering the line of uncivil, per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, which I believe is what you have been accusing me of recently. I am sure you are aware, though.
    I am entitled to be tired I am sure that you are. However, if you had wanted to be certain that no issues would arise out of a situation that would have been out of the normal, then there was no rush to reply. You could have waited until you had a more reliable form of internet or communication to be able to make your reply. I am not exactly going anywhere; if you ever plan to reply after a prolonged time, then simply let me know, and I will be sure to give you my own reply when you return.
    Paranoid much? Perhaps. One can never be too safe or certain on the internet, can they? I am simply listing out my observations of this discussion as I see them, and taking away from it what I can, and what I will. I was already considering proposing a boomerang based on your atrocious behaviour on the article talk page Consider me confused. I was under the impression that you had not read the article talk page, and that you did not plan to? The specific quote that supported this went as follows, I believe: And no, I have no intention of reading the entire discussion, and I highly doubt anyone else will. Your story does not seem to be lining up here; I would recommend that the plot lines of this story be straightened out. The latter (specifically, the third instance of the latter) just pushed me over the edge. Well, I am glad that you decided to go with your gut here. But, be careful: your uncivility in this very thread may cause a return of WP:BOOMERANG back at yourself.
    Per the "Editing while logged out" section, there is no policy against editing while logged out per se. Meaning that editing while logged out is not exactly sock-puppetry, which is something that I never accused you off. As I had stated earlier in this reply, I did not make the connection that you and the IP editor were one and the same. That is not exactly my fault, we cannot all be expected to know this. Even after I readily and explicitly told you it was me, you continued to (twice!) accuse me of deliberately logging out in order to deceive you. Well, when you replied while logged out, you still did not mention who you were, did you? If you had understood the fact that I, an editor far from perfect, might nt have made the connection, it would have been a simple line from you, stating that you were editing from a logged-out situation. Why you did not do this is unexplainable by me.
    Yes, editors in the "Comics" and "TV/film adaptations of comics" do seem to have an almost uniformly poor understanding of proper sourcing and, especially when this poor sourcing is pointed out to them, get extremely defensive and do not seem to put a lot of stock in WP:CIVIL to begin with, but the fact that this has happened before doesn't detract from the fact that you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner now. And again, you have filed this particular report, and replied to the previous report (which you now seem to have ceased after having no further contributions to add to it), based upon your personal experiences with editors who contribute towards the same areas as myself, meaning that this is a personal endeavour, not a professional one. Concerning the latter part of your statement there, it seems that you are not putting a lot of stock in the same guideline either, so I am not exactly sure where your issues are stemming from here.
    Now, while all of this has gone by, both the initial report at the article's talk page, and now your own personal sub-report to add to it, it does not seem as if any administrators have found it necessary to respond to either of these reports or conversations, while reports that have been filed after this one have gained attention, and even closure for some of them. Is this going to be a never-ending list of accusations between multiple editors, going round and round in circles, or do we actually need a senior editor to step in and resolve the issues that we apparently have with each other for us? Else, we may just be sitting here for days, if not weeks, simply having a go at each other with no end in sight.
    -- AlexTW 14:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Hijiri88. You accused me (repeatedly, even after being corrected) of deliberately logging out to mislead you. That is a violation of our sockpuppetry policy, which states Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by [...] using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy including to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. It also says Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy. Don't try to wikilawyer your way out of this by equating what I actually did (which isn't a violation of our sockpuppet policy) with what you accused me of doing: Doing this on purpose and editing while logged out, an attempt to deceive me. [...] Deliberate attempt to confuse by posting as an IP, without any indication of who you were (emphasis added). 106.133.137.181 (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Hijiri88. Now, how hard was that? It wasn't at all. Given that you decided not do add those three words the first time around, and given that your assumption that I could connect the dots was clearly incorrect, how am I meant to know why you decided to edit while logged out without a notification? There could be a multitude of reasons. Again, I'm not a mind reader on this here site, so I can't possibly take a guess as to why you didn't make a small notification of who you were, or your reasons behind it.
    Interesting how you're only taking in account some of my post, and not all of it; are you becoming aware of the faults in your accusations in both this discussion, and the previous one that you still have not replied to? Apparently it's still not for administrator intervention. -- AlexTW 02:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again "you decided not to add those three words" is an AGF-violation. I thought it was really obvious that it was me. I am confident most of the community would agree with me. Even if it wasn't, I didn't "decide not to". I just didn't bother. Again, tired. I had jumped through all the hoops listed above about two-dozen times, and I was really sick of it. I'll stop by the Apple Store tomorrow and see if they can tell me what's wrong.
    The reason I am ignoring most of what you write is that, in those comments of yours I carefully read and responded to, you repeated yourself quite a bit, even repeating mistaken claims that I had already corrected ("deliberately logged out", "deliberately logging out in order to mislead isn't a form of sockpuppetry", "it's totally cool not to notify someone while talking about them on ANI as long as I was not the one who opened the thread"). I also have been finding that reading the things you write is very stressful and disturbing. I would really rather keep it to a minimum. Why I suggested even before you accused me of sockpuppetry that this thread should be closed, so not only I but others don't have to read that.
    The simple fact is that you came to ANI to report a user, whom you went out of your way to avoid notifying (repeatedly refusing to use their username), and you have not provided a single diff or any other evidence in support of your claims. I am thusfar the only outside party to comment, and since I commented in a manner you did not like you have spent the last two days attacking me almost nonstop. I highly doubt anyone else will comment here, so this really should just be allowed to end.
    182.251.150.98 (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was really obvious that it was me. You did, but you were wrong, but you don't appear to be realizing the error of your ways. Perhaps it may be an AGF violation, but I'm here to edit and contribute to better articles, not to make friends; that's not my fault. Good luck at the Apple store.
    I also have been finding that reading the things you write is very stressful and disturbing. I do find the claims of me violating AGF and CIVIL from you amusing when you post things like this, and revert to name-calling, per your previous post.
    The simple fact is that you came to ANI to report a user And I will continue to maintain the fact that I did not report them, I only added to the report that existed. Regardless of my suggestions, I am not responsible for other editors on this site and what they do. I am thusfar the only outside party to comment, and since I commented in a manner you did not like you have spent the last two days attacking me almost nonstop. Perhaps that came out of the fact that you were commenting not in regards or concern to the editor or the discussion that resulted it, or even about the topic at hand, but simply based upon your personal feelings of myself and editors related to me through the areas we choose to contribute to.
    I highly doubt anyone else will comment here, so this really should just be allowed to end. I have a feeling that this is the first thing we've agreed on! This discussion is simply a back and forth between two editors now, with neither the reportee or the reported contributing to the discussion, and if any administrators haven't contributed by now, I doubt that they ever will, given that this whole thread has become very WP:TLDR. If you have any further accusations against me, I will face them. However, I do agree that this should end. -- AlexTW 09:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Got home to a computer. But this will likely be my last edit tonight.)
    I'm here to edit and contribute to better articles, not to make friends; that's not my fault. You may not think it's a fault, and I did not either until sometime in late 2015. But you can ask ArbCom about this. The most important policy on Wikipedia is WP:C, followed by WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If you are uncivil, rude, arrogant, snobby, unfriendly, overbearing, belligerent, haughty, snide, or any of a cadre of other adjectives, and are unable to keep those things under control while editing Wikipedia, you will be unable to contribute very long as long as anyone disagrees with any portion of your edits. And someone is always going to disagree. You could be 100% right and them 100% wrong, but if you behave in an uncivil manner and the dispute comes to ANI or (god forbid) ArbCom, it won't matter who's right or wrong. You don't need to "[be] here [...] to make friends" (I'm not either); but you can't go around treating other editors like dirt.
    And I will continue to maintain the fact that I did not report them, I only added to the report that existed. It was your idea to bring the dispute to ANI.[260] The OP thanked you for your suggestion.[261] The OP didn't mention any specific editors, and didn't notify anyone (itself a violation, albeit minor). You came along and replaced the a select few of very specific editors with "the offending editor", which when I came across this thread was the only specific detail that allowed any editor to be identified. If you hadn't commented, and specifically made it about Hotwiki (talk · contribs), someone likely would have come along and told the OP off for not naming any editors, providing any diffs, or notifying anyone of the ANI discussion. If the OP had named anyone, he would have been told off for not notifying that user, and likely the same commenter would have gone ahead and notified them for him. You did name them (as "the offending editor", with a diff that made it pretty clear to whom you were referring), but did not notify them. Put simply, you made a nonsense thread that likely would have been ignored into a discussion of a particular user, and you didn't notify them. You even went out of your way to insult me for notifying them and saying that you should have notified them.
    Perhaps that came out of the fact that you were commenting not in regards or concern to the editor or the discussion that resulted it, or even about the topic at hand, but simply based upon your personal feelings of myself and editors related to me through the areas we choose to contribute to. Nope. I commented based on what I saw (mostly in you and DMH's early comments in this thread, and your apparently trying to get around the obligation to notify the user[s] being reported). Then you started making a string of snide, belligerent, unfair attacks on me personally, and I responded to those. I don't remember interacting with you specifically before. I know for a fact that you edit articles related to superhero films (X-Men, for example), and I also know from experience that there are no editors working in that area who aren't either (a) belligerent, tag-teaming edit-warriors with poor sourcing standards and a weak understanding of proper encyclopedic writing, (b) people who never touch articles directly and have a very high tolerance (fondness?) for endless reams of talk-page back-and-forth that goes nowhere, regardless of whether they have a good sense of sourcing and writing style, (c) people like me who dip in occasionally, quickly remember why they shouldn't have done that, and get out immediately, and (d) users who don't fit into any of the previous three categories and somehow have managed to edit articles in this area productively and happily without ever getting into trouble (and without ever having come into contact with me, as I could not name a user in this last group if you put a gun to my head). But this doesn't matter -- it's really clear from what I've seen that you and DMH are behaving disruptively. For all I know, the same could be said of Hotwiki and Tenebrae. You need to provide evidence to convince me of that, though.
    I have a feeling that this is the first thing we've agreed on! Meh. For all you know you and I agree 99% of the time on article content. We might even agree on the content dispute that gave rise to this out-of-place ANI thread. But I don't care -- ANI is not about article content disputes, and I have better things to do with my life than get in fights over X-Men films. (It would be really nice if I were able to edit those articles without getting in fights, since I generally enjoy superhero movies in real life, but the toxic environment of those pages makes that damn-near impossible.) neither the reportee or the reported Umm ... grammatically speaking, those would be the same person. I assume you mean either "neither the reporter [n]or the reported" or "neither the reportee [n]or the reporter". But more importantly, neither you nor User:DisneyMetalhead have yet elaborated, after more than two days, on exactly who is being reported here. The OP specifically stated that there was more than one user (Tenebrae (talk · contribs)?) but you seem to believe it is just about Hotwiki. Again, if either one of you had provided any specific details up-front as to what the dispute was or what admin action you wanted, or if you had provided even a single diff or other piece of evidence, maybe this wouldn't have happened.
    However, I do agree that this should end. Then don't reply to this. If you hadn't told DMH to come to ANI, this thread would have never been opened, and if you hadn't commented here at all it would have likely gone very differently (see my second paragraph, not counting the parenthetical disclaimer). I'm going to keep posting on random noticeboard discussions until work calms down (actually that's what I would have said last week; now I just need to be able to post logged in from a device with a working X-key). You can go back to doing whatever it is you do. And we can all just forget this whole thing ever happened.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    I'm not sure if I'm one of the anonymous "offending editors" whom User:DisneyMetalhead avoided naming in an apparent attempt to do an end-run around notification procedures. I can state, however, that the issue at the X-Men page is about inserting "yet to be announced" language, which seems a textbook WP:CRYSTAL violation. I can also note, having been involved in at least one RfC with DisneyMetalhead, who was caught canvassing and does not have a completely firm grasp of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and protocols, that he often rails against experienced editors who do know policy, repeatedly name-calling them as "elitist." I think perhaps a corollary to "Don't bite the newbie" may be needed: "Newbie, don't act as if people who want to uphold policy are the enemy. Try and learn instead of constantly arguing and name-calling." -- Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seriously? There's no name-calling. It's an adjective to describe your actions. I have said your elitist attitude, and mindset. No name calling there just stating the facts. Love that the admin totally dismissed this complete conspiracy.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Your opinion is not fact. I'm surprised anyone outside Donald Trump would believe one's opinion is a fact. I am not an "elitist." That is your consistent refrain, and while it isn't a vulgarity or an obscenity, it is still name-calling and wholly unnecessary. Also, there is no "conspiracy." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet you violate WP:Politics and WP:SPADE in the process of calling WP:POTKETTLE black. You just backed up my argument. Well done.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, yeah, those are essays, not policies or guidelines. Completely non-binding, and anybody can find essays that say just about anything they want, so I haven't "violated" a single thing. Whereas WP:CIVIL is a policy that we're all expected to follow and which is among the many such guidelines you have violated routinely. So, yes, I do think WP:BOOMERANG is warranted here, and that's something I almost never say. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88 here. "Elitist" is a meaningless epithet, and repeatedly calling someone an elitist is name-calling. Knowing what you are talking about is a good thing, and telling other users that you know what you are talking about (when you do) is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Whether it was appropriate to mention the current POTUS, one need only go back to 2008 when his predecessor was seeking election to find a bunch of RSes specifically referring to what DisneyMetalhead is doing as "childish name-calling". On top of this, I have said your elitist attitude, and mindset. is a sentence fragment. While I have made a bunch of these myself, it is difficult to take in good faith given DisneyMetalhead's actions earlier in this thread (refusing to name any particular editors in order to circumvent his obligation to notify them) makes me very suspicious that he meant to write something else instead of "said", or even that "your" was meant to be read as "you're" and the last three words as a misprint, thus making the above a personal attack about an editor rather than about said editor's "attitude" (itself somewhat out-of-line with WP:CIVIL, mind). Yes, this is pretty out there, but DisneyMetalhead's misleading, cloak-and-dagger behaviour in this thread -- he has already demonstrated that he is not acting in good faith -- makes it really difficult not to read his comments this way.
    I still think this is a content dispute and should be closed so Hotwiki can open an RFC (it should not be left to DisneyMetalhead), but if anyone continues to disagree I think a BOOMERANG should be headed their way. Hotwiki and Tenebrae are not getting blocked today; I have lost all faith that ATW -- or any of the other editors in that firepit of a topic-area who isn't stupid enough to literally self-destruct on the talk page of a member of the Arbitration Committee -- will get blocked (although I think someone whose last block was rescinded because they said I will make myself more familiar with edit-warring policies, and immediately cease any future discussions or editing that may contribute towards me violating further warring and, to give just one example, made no less than seven reverts on the article Knock Knock (Doctor Who) on calendar May 7[262] should probably be issued with at the very least a harsh warning -- good-faith IPs inserting unsourced material and what one believes to be OR is not a standard exception to the three-revert rule); if no one is going to block DisneyMetalhead, then nothing is going to come of this thread, unless someone creates a concrete proposal, so the next person who posts here without making such a proposal should probably just request that the thread be closed.
    182.251.141.102 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The initial thread has not yet been addressed concerning the initial editor reported. And stalking an editor's contributions? I have a feeling that that's against a specific policy, though I forget which one... Practice what you preach, preacher. Hotwiki and Tenebrae are not getting blocked today; I have lost all faith that ATW will get blocked; if no one is going to block DisneyMetalhead: And here we have a biased editor trying to play the role of admin, and dictate what the administrators should or should not be done. or any of the other editors in that firepit of a topic-area who isn't stupid enough to literally self-destruct on the talk page of a member of the Arbitration Committee I was actually warned off-site that you were a frequency visitor to ArbCom. Interesting. I'll reply fully to all of this when I get home. -- AlexTW 00:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And stalking an editor's contributions? I have a feeling that that's against a specific policy, though I forget which one... If you come to ANI and ask for an editor to be blocked, you can expect others to examine your contribs and see if in fact you are the one who should be blocked. Anyone who even glances at your contribs can see that you make a lot of reverts, so noticing this is not a violation of WP:HOUND. It is extremely common for someone who reports on other users for edit-warring to themselves be equally responsible for the edit-warring, and examining your block log (which, again, given your consistently aggressive tone in this conversation, I think should probably be thicker than it is, so even checking your block log was not HOUNDing) revealed that you were unblocked based on your statement that you would not edit-war again. You reverted several editors on the "Knock Knock" article at least seven times in a 24-hour period. 113 of your last 300 article edits (roughly one week) have "revert" in their edit summaries, so it's not difficult to imagine that this has happened more than once. Your first comment in this thread included a link to a comment you made on the X-Men talk page in which you not-so-subtly stated that you intended to edit-war with Hotwiki once the page-protection had expired. You chose to make this about edit-warring, but you are the one edit-warring. Hotwiki appears to make reverts at something like one tenth the rate you do, he has not been EW-blocked since 2015; neither of you have historically used talk pages much, but he is at 7.3%, which is still higher than your 4.6%. You can call it wikistalking if you like to go through the public records like this, but you could make it stop immediately by letting this discussion be closed and archived. Read: Stop saying The initial thread has not yet been addressed concerning the initial editor reported.
    here we have a biased editor trying to play the role of admin How am I "biased"? I don't recall ever interacting with you, Hotwiki or Tenebrae before, and I know I've never interacted with DisneyMetalhead before. And ANI is open to the community; that's why we have the (Non-administrator comment) template (which I used in my first comment to clarify that I am not an admin and should not be confused for one -- I'm actually one of the more careful users of this template, and if you spent as much time on ANI as I did you would find many people posting as though they possessed the mop, and the only way to know that they didn't would be to check the list of admins). Heck, it's why we have Template:Nac. dictate what the administrators should or should not be done Right now, I'm trying to "dictate" that whoever closes this thread does so in the manner that least harms you. You could probably be blocked for the way you are continuing to behave here, but I think it would allow everyone to cool down if this thread was just closed with no action except for both you and DisneyMetalhead being trouted for opening an ANI thread on several unspecified editors who weren't notified. I was actually warned off-site that you were a frequency visitor to ArbCom. Interesting. I'll reply fully to all of this when I get home. Would you mind disclosing who was contacting you off-wiki about me? If you are currently acting as a proxy for someone to violate their site-ban or interaction-ban which was imposed to prevent them from harassing me (I could name ar least three editors off the top of my head who might be possible culprits), then you should know that that is a pretty serious violation of WP:MEAT. You should know that, with the exception of one ArbCom case back in 2015, I have only ever been a casual commenter on one or two AE entries and one ARCA case, mostly related to the Israel-Palestine dispute in which I am not even actively involved.
    182.251.141.102 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hijiri88 you need to sign each of your comments. I haven't called anyone an elitist. I've said 'YOUR elitist behavior' (yes, "your" not you are...do you understand English languate sentences?). To say "you are elitist behvior" makes zero sense in any sentence structure so that part of your argument is defunct. You sir, have zero experience with the discussions at hand here. Also your three comments - all not signed - have zero references from which you are stalking my supposed contributions, and are run-on sentences. They make zero sense. Also you are talking-down to editors by calling them "stupid". You're attempting to drag my name through the mud, and state that I should be 'blocked' - on what basis. You are in direct violation of WP:HOUNDING (AlexTW that's what you are referring to), and WP:BULLYing through WP:POVRAILROAD, WP:PA, and overall straw manning when it comes to your accusations. You don't have any direct references to your claims, nor do you have any evidence that I have not acted in good faith. You don't know me, nor have I had any contact with you prior to this. You are completely contradictory and being a WP:HYPOCRIte while doing so. Unbelievable.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    you need to sign each of your comments. What comment did I not sign? I haven't called anyone an elitist. Don't make claims you can't back up... [263][264][265] To say "you are elitist behvior" makes zero sense in any sentence structure so that part of your argument is defunct. Read my comment in full and try to understand it. I never said that that sentence would make sense. I said that very little of what you are saying makes any sense to begin with, forcing the rest of us to reconstruct what you are trying to say, and it doesn't look good. You sir, have zero experience with the discussions at hand here. First off, drop the haughty tone. It doesn't suit you. Second, I've been editing (or trying to edit) Wikipedia's articles on film and TV adaptations of Marvel and DC comics since long before you registered your account. Also your three comments - all not signed Umm... What!? have zero references from which you are stalking my supposed contributions, and are run-on sentences. Umm... again, what? Could you write in English, please? Also you are talking-down to editors by calling them "stupid". Ctrl+F this thread for the word "stupid". I have not used it. You're attempting to drag my name through the mud, and state that I should be 'blocked' - on what basis. You came here asking for the admin corps to block (actually "ban", but admins aren't allowed place bans on editors without prior community consensus, so I assumed you meant "block") without providing any evidence or even naming the editors you wanted blocked. You also didn't notify anyone of this thread. You have committed about a dozen serious offenses already in this thread, and I would not have been unjustified even if I had asked for you to be blocked (which I haven't). and WP:BULLYing through WP:POVRAILROAD, WP:PA, and overall straw manning when it comes to your accusations. Pot, kettle, black. Seriously, this is the worst case of projection I've seen in months. You don't have any direct references to your claims, nor do you have any evidence that I have not acted in good faith. You didn't notify anyone of this thread. You carefully avoided mentioning anyone by name in order to get away with not notifying anyone. That is not acting in good faith. I don't need specific diffs of something you did in this thread. You don't know me, nor have I had any contact with you prior to this. Thank you for agreeing with what I said further up. I just noticed that actually we had interacted, albeit indirectly, on Talk:Universal Monsters (2017 film series) a day or so before you opened this thread. I opposed a poorly-formatted RM to no title in particular, which you had supported. You are completely contradictory and being a WP:HYPOCRIte while doing so. Unbelievable. So ... umm ... I think we're done here. Someone wanna close is bogus non-discussion now? 182.251.141.102 (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (edited 03:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    This section of my reply starts off in regards to your reply to my comment. If you come to ANI and ask for an editor to be blocked, you can expect others to examine your contribs and see if in fact you are the one who should be blocked. Typically, yes, I would agree with you, but I would have made hundreds of contributions between the time of that article and now, so you would have had to scrutinize every editor between now and then. That is stalking only to serve your own purposes, and most definitely comes under HOUND. You reverted several editors on the "Knock Knock" article at least seven times in a 24-hour period. If you checked those edits, you would have seen that they were valid. You request everyone to assume good faith against you and the editor(s) being reported here, and yet you refuse to do the same thing for everyone else. 113 of your last 300 article edits (roughly one week) have "revert" in their edit summaries Continued stalking. If you must know, my edit behaviour is to wake up in the morning, check the unviewed edits in my watchlist, and revert any vandalism until my watchlist is cleared. I then begin with my regular editing, replying to talk pages, etc., while still keeping my eye on vandalism, disruptive editing, and the like. Not my fault how my contributions appear to you, even if your view is extremely flawed.
    You chose to make this about edit-warring, but you are the one edit-warring. Incorrect. The article included that particular line for years, and it was HotWiki that decided to remove it - me restoring it while the discussion was meant to continue is not the edit-warring that is being looked at and reported here, it is restoring to the STATUSQUO and attempting to regain a CONSENSUS for it first, before any further actions were taken. (Amusingly enough, it seems that editors on the talk page now see to get why the line was being reimplemented, and a consensus is close to being formed to restore it.) neither of you have historically used talk pages much, but he is at 7.3%, which is still higher than your 4.6%. Where one contributs to really has zero relevance here, especially when one editor has about two times as many as the editor since they returned from their hiatus, and that editor does a great more deal of editing in template and module namespaces than the other. but you could make it stop immediately by letting this discussion be closed and archived. Read: Stop saying The initial thread has not yet been addressed concerning the initial editor reported. Your personal desires have been noted. Said personal desires will not be fulfilled. I will continue this discussion until I see fit, or until an administrator intervenes.
    How am I "biased"? I don't recall ever interacting with you You have admitted yourself that you do not enjoy the presence of editors who edit in any articles related to comic-book films, series, adaptation, etc., so I believe that you are extremely biased against editors in these regions when issues come up; this is still supported by the fact that you vehemently disagreed with me in the initial report, even when you had not even read the initial report and discussion, so you had zero idea as to what it was about, regardless of whether you added the "Non-administrator comment" template or not (that really has no relevance here). Right now, I'm trying to "dictate" that whoever closes this thread does so in the manner that least harms you. Really? Let us backtrack a bit here. 1) Hotwiki and Tenebrae are not getting blocked today You are dictating that they will not get blocked, but you are not an administrator, so you have zero say in this. That is up to the administrators, if they ever decided to intervene in this discussion. 2) I have lost all faith that ATW will get blocked Declaring your desire to see me blocked, another violation of any good faith on your end, and declaring that the administrators are not doing their job properly if they have not blocked me yet. 3) if no one is going to block DisneyMetalhead, [...] so the next person who posts here without making such a proposal should probably just request that the thread be closed Trying to control direction of the discussion. You have listed in a clear and solid manner the editors who you believe will and will not be blocked, hence supporting my statement even further.
    Would you mind disclosing who was contacting you off-wiki about me? Yes, I would indeed mind, cheers. then you should know that that is a pretty serious violation of WP:MEAT You do so like your accusations, don't you? I am not acting as a proxy for anyone. Blocked editors can still follow pages, and they can still follow discussions as they unfold. I simply received a warning in relation to their previous dealings with you, and I see that everything that they said to me is completely true.
    I also see that you closed off the "Bad-faith sockpuppetry accusations by AlexTheWhovian" section that you created with the comment of AlexTheWhovian does not acknowledge that what he did was wrong, or even that it was a sockpuppetry accusation. When I returned to the initial discussion, I clearly stated that I was doing so regardless of the beginning issues of this report by the reporting editor(s), issues which did exist, which I have personally noted and will take into account, given that I consider the discussion post on Hotwiki's article as somewhat part of the beginning of this report. When I said "which I have personally noted and will take into account", I was clearly taking into account the accusations that I apparently made against you. It is amusing how you stated that I should have been able to know that you were the IP without you clearly stating it, and now you did not get what I was talking about after I did not clearly state it. Amusing indeed. Now, onto your replies to Disney's comment...
    First off, drop the haughty tone. It doesn't suit you. Ditto, lad. I also believe that when Disney stated You sir, have zero experience with the discussions at hand here., it also meant that you did not particpate or even read the discussion that prompted this report, so you have zero place to decide on what happened there, or who was to blame (even if all of us had certain edits and statements that could be assumed to be in bad faith). You have committed about a dozen serious offenses already in this thread Name the dozen, or stop exaggerating simply to further your own cause. Exactly the same could be said about you, I could list off a number of serious offenses that you have committed during this discussion. Pot, kettle, black. Seriously, this is the worst case of projection I've seen in months. What are you talking about? They filed this report (even with its initial faults), and you came on board and started attacking the contributing editors at will, taking on comments purely of bad faith when you had no such basis to. If you want editors to act in good faith to you, then I recommend that you start doing exactly the same, by pointing out ones faults and misses of policy and guidelines politely, instead of straight-out abusing them. Educate, don't belittle.
    So ... umm ... I think we're done here. Someone wanna close is bogus non-discussion now? Your comment of "is bogus non-discussion" could totally have your comment of Umm... again, what? Could you write in English, please? use directly back at you, but I am not going to do such a thing, just comment on the irony the comment itself. Anyways. Given that I highly doubt the administrators are even following the outrageous comments on this post, then I also highly doubt that anyone is going to close this current discussion that editors are still replying to, so your request is mute. However, if you wish to leave this discussion due to your stance against the editors contributing to it and how you disagree with them, then you are more than welcome to do so, that is entirely up to you. If any other editor wishes to reply to it, then they are more than welcome to continue to do so, ignoring your baseless request to have the discussion closed only because you do not like it. -- AlexTW 06:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No way in hell I'm getting sucked into responding to another wall of text, but "Someone wanna close is bogus non-discussion now?" was clearly a misprint, and no one who graduated primary school would have trouble interpreting it. It's not remotely comparable to "have zero references from which you are stalking my supposed contributions". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, sorry, I couldn't let this one go either: so you would have had to scrutinize every editor between now and then Not rewlly. I clicked on your contribs, limited the search to the "(Article)" namespace, and then "Ctrl+F"ed "revert". This was how I got the figure for your total number of reverts in the last week or so (it's flawed, but with such a large sample it was likely only off by no more than 10-15%). How I came across the "Knock Knock" article was similar: I just scrolled down through said results for a minute or so until I saw the same article title showing up a bunch of times in close succession; I then went to the article's history, went back to the day in question, and clicked through a bunch of your edits to see how many of them were reverts. A more scientific method would have been to examine all of your edits to the page during any of the possible 24-hour periods (not just calendar May 7 on GMT) and check them against other edits to see if they constitute partial or full reverts, but I only checked ones where the edit summary or the byte count clearly indicated that you were reverting the previous editor (hence my saying you reverted "at least" seven times). As for checking your block log -- again, you came here asking for someone to be blocked, and you gave as your reason specifically their intention to edit war with you. It would be irresponsible for someone not to check whether you had a history of being blocked for edit-warring. If you checked those edits, you would have seen that they were valid. What does "valid" mean here? Exceptions to 3RR? No. I checked all seven of the ones that were clearly reverts, and none of them are covered under said exceptions. "I think your edit is not sufficiently sourced" and "You POINTily tagged a bunch of unsourced material that I don't think needs to be sourced" may be valid reasons to revert an edit once or twice, but they are not exceptions to the three-revert rule. You request everyone to assume good faith against you and the editor(s) being reported here, and yet you refuse to do the same thing for everyone else. No, I assumed good faith until I went through the first three reverts and found that none of them were covered under the standard 3RR exceptions. Then when I saw the fourth revert wasn't either, my assumption that you had not violated 3RR was no longer necessary. This is not remotely comparable to "You deliberately logged out in order to deceive me. It was deliberate. DELIBERATE." If you must know, my edit behaviour is to wake up in the morning, check the unviewed edits in my watchlist, and revert any vandalism until my watchlist is cleared. If you consider the edits to the Knock Knock article that you reverted at least seven times to be "vandalism", then I wonder about your ability to determine what is and is not vandalism. Perhaps you should be placed under an editing restriction like 1RR, 0RR, or a ban from referring to any edit as "vandalism"? Clearly a year after you were blocked for edit-warring, and unblocked based on your promise to familiarize yourself with what constitutes edit-warring, you have not learned, but have instead started trying to justify your edit-warring by describing the edits you revert as "vandalism" when they clearly are not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC) (edited 05:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

    So, stalking in detail. Cheers. The discussion can continue with any other editors who want to, but personally, I'm just tired of the back-and-forth when it's clear that nothing is ever going to be done here by the administrators, against any editor involved, no matter what anyone wants or says, no matter what level of authority they believe they have. I might reply. I might not. -- AlexTW 06:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another arbitrary break

    Alex, in your last comment above you criticized me for trying to direct admin action here. If that was really my intention, I could think of a few solutions I could propose, but as I said above I'm not even sure I don't want this thread to just get closed with a trout. So I'm going to ask again -- what specific admin and/or community action are you requesting here? Do you want Hotwiki blocked? Do you want Hotwiki and Tenebrae blocked? Do you want an admin to block either you or DisneyMetalhead? Do you want an editing restriction to be placed on any of the above-named parties? If so, what kind of restriction? 1RR? Page-ban? Topic-ban? Are you just here to argue indefinitely? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands allowing you to edit articles and freely engage ANI fighting, but some of us don't have that leisure, so it would be really nice if you made some kind of a concrete proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, could you provide some diffs in support of whatever solution you wish to propose? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Already replied. I've a life to live. Enjoy yours and your fury against comic-book-related editors. Cheers. -- AlexTW 06:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you don't have any proposed solutions or administrator action you are requesting. That's good to know. If all you want to do is have meandering conversations about how you don't like this or that editor but can't quite put your finger on which PAG they have violated and when/where, please keep it to user talk from now on. This noticeboard is for requesting that editors be blocked, or requesting community discussion thereof, but no one can discuss an issue of which you do not provide evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's that I don't want to deal with "editors", a loose term, like you. I've dealt with your lot; you attack people, then consider these discussions a victory. If anyone else wants to discuss this with me, especially admins, I'd be more than happy to. You are not an admin. You cannot tell me what to do. Ever. Know your place. Seems "they" were right. Cheerio. -- AlexTW 11:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by Swiftsave

    Swiftsave was blocked for copyright violations on 23 April following a discussion here, but continues to edit as an IP. I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swiftsave (well, Twinkle opened it for me, I thought it would just be reported as vandalism, live and learn). Since it's only IP block evasion (that I'm aware of), I don't expect much of a result there, so brought it here. Rangeblock? Nuke edits? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Justlettersandnumbers: it's awkward to deal with a report that's been opened in two places at once. It's fine to report this at SPI, and it leaves a better record of admin actions related to the case. Anyway, I blocked all the IPs and closed the SPI case. You can revert all the edits made by the IPs if you want. Range blocks are tricky. You can read about them in User:NinjaRobotPirate/IP editors, but the short version is that I can range block some of the IP addresses but not others. You'll have to keep an eye out for more 86.xxx IP editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, point taken, NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for dealing with that for now. As for undoing the edits, I'm certainly not going to do that manually. Don't admins have a "nuke edits" button or mass rollback script or something? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    106 vandal edits in the dust bin. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it looks like that resolves the issue. But, no, I don't think there's any built-in functionality for mass-rollback. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as such, NinjaRobotPirate, but I recommend admins and experienced users to import User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js. As Writ Keeper says, use with caution, but it's very useful in a situation like this. Note that you don't need to be an admin for it — just cautious, you know. I'm not familiar with the other mass rollback script, that Justlettersandnumbers linked to above. Bishonen | talk 14:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    I had the original still installed but have made the switch. Justlettersandnumbers, Special:Nuke is a mass deletion tool but it is deletes whole pages and not individual edits. I've closed the SPI case related to this thread.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor claiming control over articles

    I'm having a problem trying to edit List of alumni of The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. User:Bob80q has left some very accusatory messages on my talk page where he claims that he has "managed" the article for 7 years and is "more qualified" to determine what belongs in the list because of that. He also says that "Its (sic) not up to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the world to decide who qualifies as a notable graduate of the school". The person I am trying to add (Steven Munoz) is an alumnus of the school who has recently been appointed to the White House, which seems pretty notable. Bob80q's issue with this person seems to be that the headline of the reference I am using is "ProPublica: Former Citadel cadet accused of sexual assaults gets Trump administration job". I could choose a different reference, but I don't think that Bob80q should be allowed to singlehandedly decide what gets included in the article and what doesn't. He also seems to control the main article The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Content dispute. Honestly, can people please just get a third opinion before going nuclear with ANI? EEng 22:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You think this is about content, and I think it's about conduct. Read User:Bob80q's talk page. This isn't the first time someone's had an issue with him. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)To whatever extent that there are conduct issues, I think that adding a source that raises BLP issues if others are readily available might also be seen as a conduct problem. It comes across as a roundabout way of sneaking pejorative info along with a simple confirmation of other fact. Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Given the fact that someone is mentioned and the only reference we have to go on is a media-report about an alleged rape, I'd say there's a WP:BLP-issue involved. That alone merits deletion on sight. Other than that, If a person does not have an article, notability is an issue. You'd need good reason (and sources) to include him. On that User:Bob80q is right. Kleuske (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)I get a feeling that this one is snowballing, and the fellow shortly will be notable, and maybe not in the best kind of way. World's_Lamest_Critic, just wait a week, and all of this might not be an issue. But crystal balls aren't admissible here, so don't add it now. Anmccaff (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ==1) I have not accused him of anything, he seems to have a problem with the fact that someone dared to challenge a clearly questionable edit. 2) This person is an employee of the State Department not the White House so editor does not have his facts straight. 3) An alumnus is clearly in a better position to determine who merits being notable, editor has no connection to the school and has never edited the article before so the timing and motivation are suspicious. 4) Editor does not understand this article isn't about notorious alumni its about distinguished ones who have accomplished exceptional feats. 5) In the context of others who were Generals, Governors, Corporate CEOs, College Presidents and professional athletes a 26 year old mid level government employee who has been on the job for a few weeks is hardly notable. 6) The fact that the reference listed involved allegations of sexual abuse also raises issues of motive, objectivity and relevance; and BTW he was never charged because of lack of evidence,. Thank you Klueske for having the common sense and critical thinking skills some others apparently don't.Bob80q (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)No, unless the school in question is the London School of Notability or the Notable Academy, an alumnus is not "clearly in a better position to determine who merits being notable", as you claim. And your statement that it is "not about notorious alumni" suggests something that a look at the article also supports - that this article is being managed to avoid a neutral point of view, but rather a cherry-picked list intended to make the institution look good. None of this is to say that this particular individual should qualify. (I have deleted some accusations from your response due to BLP concerns; "it is well known among alumni" is not adequate source.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "I have not accused him of anything". Yeah, Bob80q, you did accuse me of something. On my talk page you said my edit "bears the handiwork of a VMI grad who has been vandalizing The Citadel articles for some time". Right here you say I have "never edited the article before so the timing and motivation are suspicious". But that's not the reason I started this discussion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)Obviously, this thread is not greatly filled with fans of John Mortimer and Leo McKern, nor of Teddy Roosevelt and Elihu Root. Anmccaff (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absurd. That list should follow the same rules as every other such list. If the person 1) is notable (defined for this purpose as "having an article in Wikipedia about them" which meets our notability criteria; and 2) attended [not graduated, just attended] the school, then they go on the list; else, not. Bob, we don't care a rat's ass about whether the alumnus is "distinguished" or "accomplished exceptional feats"; notability for Wikipedia's purposes may be accomplished by being a pioneering mass marketer, neo-Nazi leader, or international bocce ball champion. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When the person has an article, they're de facto notable until that article ceases to exist. No article = no mention. There is some sort of guideline about this somewhere but the link escapes me, PEOPLELIST or something like that. Basically, WP:WTAF and then no-one can object, regardless of notoriety. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline is WP:LISTPEOPLE. It permits a bit more flexibility. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yupper, and there are several good examples in the Citadel list. Someone who has done something maybe just shy of broad, general notability, but was the first to do so at the school, or the first at the school to do so? Yeah, that's OK for the list, even if it's otherwise WP:BLP1E.
    * If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. Sensible, that. Anmccaff (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one for the policy/guideline pages, I think. That exceptions apply in lists such as this, ie: permitting redlinks, is exactly the issue that gives rise to situations such as this. Perhaps there is an ownership issue in this specific case but, unless people agree with that allegation, this is just a content dispute. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see where he said "An alumnus is clearly in a better position to determine who merits being notable"? I rest my case. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to try applying the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline to the article. We'll see what happens. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Good faith editor fails to communicate (again)

    BT101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps creating Canada-road articles of dubious notability, in spite of them being prodded/AfDed every time. Last time, they got a block for failing to communicate, but they do not seem to have understood the memo. If someone manages to make them discuss the issue, that would be great, but otherwise, WP:CIR. TigraanClick here to contact me 23:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC) (Not watchlisting, please ping if further info is needed.)[reply]

    @Tigraan: BT101 hasn't edited since 11 May. I took N216 to AfD but withdrew it as does have a strong claim to notability after all. Other than just letting various articles that are in the deletion procedures run their course, I wouldn't do anything else just yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment from XIIIfromTokyo

    Hello,

    I was trying to contribute to Wikipedia about more and more French universities, but XIIIfromTokyo is harassing me so that now I cannot help for something else than 2 articles, and his harrassement is becoming threats now.

    For a very long time, he has been watching all my writings, changing what I obviously said, accusing me of things and being agressive. Few examples:

    Now, he is threatening me, in two languages, to call the journalists against me and go on Twitter, reminding "my actions" on the pages I must focus on, even though I would like to help on other articles:

    I am not focused on PA, Sciences Po and Eduniversal, it is just that this user is saying again and again the same things on all the talk page I am to harass me, so now I don’t have to do something else than answering again and again to the same attacks from him in all talk pages.

    --Launebee (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just check the first references. Launebee has made up this "racist and antisemitic statements" months ago, failed to convince anyone since then, and is just trying to buy some time with this trick. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expressed last week my intention to start the Arbcom process[270]
    An other contributor has backed my project. Let me quote @SalimJah: : ""Launebee has exhausted my time an emotional resources with this kind of behavior (...) good faith collaboration is extremely costly to maintain and largely failing in this case. The history of Launebee's contributions speaks for itself. I support the Arbcom process. "" [271]. At his point, using the incident board is a GAME case. Launebee is trying to postpone the launch of the procedure. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The editing at Sciences Po was discussed at ANI twice last fall:
    Is there some uninvolved editor who could look over the dispute and say what it's about? And figure out if others should be notified? Now leaving a ping for User:CambridgeBayWeather since he just full-protected Sciences Po. At first glance the matter does not look ready for Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just back. The protection would have probably been in response to a request at WP:RFPP. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Input from Jytdog

    • This is kind of long, sorry. I looked at what is going on a while back, in one of the former ANIs. In my view there is a bunch of advocacy (for and against) as well as undeclared COI going on here. To be honest I just barfed a little and walked away. Universities are by far some of the worst abusers of Wikipedia with regard to turning Wikipedia pages into promotional webhosts (which is what WP:BOOSTER is about), and in my view the disputes over just how promotional they should be, are what have been disrupting these articles continuously since last year.
      • With regard to Launebee:
    Launebee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    edit count tool results
    In my view this analysis of Launebee's behavior was accurate (inappropriate for an article talk page, but accurate) - their edits have promoted Panthéon-Assas University and denigrated Sciences Po.
    Now, the Sciences Po article was full of promotional garbage and stuff that abuses WP:NOTWEBHOST before Launebee's first edit - see this version. This is again, sadly typical of articles about universities in Wikipedia. I am grateful to the work cleaning that article up, but trying to load up the other article with promotional stuff pretty much negates that work.
      • On the other "side"....
    There was an account here called User:Harvard SciencesPo that was created and soft-blocked per USERNAME back in 2011, and folks from Sciences Po apparently intended to do some kind of research study here back then, which was the subject of a long AN thread in March 2011 here, when they asked permission to use a bot to run it. The message was signed by "The Harvard / Sciences Po research team." which was wikisigned by User:SalimJah. They apparently ended up using some kind of banner ad in Wikipedia in December 2011 and this became the subject of an ANI thread, here.
    • SalimJah has been in the thick of the content dispute that is the subject of this thread per Special:Contributions/SalimJah, and pretty much of all their edits have been about SciencesPo, Beckman, or people connected to it. Nothing terribly promotional, but there are obviously present in WP only to edit about schools/people to which they are connected. There is no obvious disclosure of his/her connection to the school, anywhere that I can find; and I find the last sentence of their post at one of the previous ANIs here to be clearly an intent to deceive or mislead.
    • User:AttwinS (mostly inactive but came back briefly in July 2016 per Special:Contributions/AttwinS). Perhaps is successor account to Harvard SciencesPo account per this?
    • User:Lilaroja last active in December 2016. Was connected to the study per a disclosure on their userpage. Not active in the study but perhaps can shed some light on presence of people from Po. Special:Contributions/Lilaroja
    In addition there are a number of SPA accounts, including IPs:
    • somebody in Canada, apparently
      • Then there is XIIIfromTOKYO.
    I have reviewed all that, and I find their behavior to be ugly and inappropriate for article Talk pages, but their editing seems OK.
    When I review all that, here is what I recommend, in response to the many, many threads that have been generated from these disputes:
    • For Launebee: a TBAN from editing any content about anything related to French academic institutions or people. This is a disruptive SPA account.
    • For MePhisto: a TBAN from editing any content about anything related to French academic institutions or people. This is a disruptive SPA account.
    • For SalimJah, : a TBAN from editing any content about anything related to French academic institutions or people. This is a disruptive SPA account and the user hid his/her connection with Sciences Po.
    • For XIIIfromTOKYO, a warning to discuss content, not contributors, on article Talk pages, and to handle issues with possible COI or promotional editing in a more civil manner, and to bring things to boards with diffs when there are issues instead of turning article Talk pages into slugfests.
    I don't know what to do with regard to the Canadian IP. I do wonder about socking with pro-Sciences Po editors who have been active at the page.
    Content-wise both the main articles being argued over are still full of unsourced, SPS-sourced promotional BOOSTERism.

    -- Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a little different from most boosterism. SciPo is certainly one of the greatest universities in its field, and also on the 2 or 3 greatest French universities in any field. This has two implications: first, that van attempt at promotionalism is totally unnecessary, but also that even the plainest of descriptions will sound to some degree like promotionalism , because it simply is that important. We've been sensitized by promotionalism for things that are not of any great intrinsic significance except for the hype, and we know by now how to deal with that. But how do we deal with things that are truly superlative? Not. I hope, by trying to downgrade their significance until they seem ordinary. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. But if you look at the actual Sciences Po article you will see that well over half of it is the extremely typical and extremely boring listing of its various research centers etc sourced entirely from their website. It is typical hijacking of a WP page into a proxy for their website, and fails to use independent sources to describe, neutrally, how exceptional the school is. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog: I thank you for the time you've taken to go through this material. I see that you're interpreting this post of mine as an attempt at deceiving people. This is something that I take very seriously, so I'd like to explain myself and bring clarity to this issue. The first thing you need to realize is that Launebee has tried to put my legitimacy and good faith into question numerous times over the past year, using arguments such as "he is a SPA" or "he is paid by Sciences Po". My contribution history speaks for itself: I've always refused to start playing this game, and never accused Launebee of anything of that sort. I stick to discussing his edits, not his person. Period. The above post needs to be put in this context. It is the mere reflection of the fact that I refuse to get drawn into personal arguments. Why is that? Simply because I ask to be judged by the substance of my edits and the reasons I provide for them, not my credentials. If you can point me to any edit I've made which was blatantly promotional and/or not appropriately supported by sources, I'd be glad to recognize my mistake and recant. But if this is not the case, why should I accept being drawn into an argument about my legitimacy as a contributor, effectively diverting the conversation from the substantive questions of interest? If details about my personal background are indeed relevant and needed, I am glad to share those in an appropriate and controlled way -- not as a reaction to a heated post that's questioning my motives without providing any substantive reason to do so. Thanks. SalimJah (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation is messy with poor behavior all around, as I noted. It is not a matter of "credentials" of anyone. Two of the problems with undisclosed COI are that on the one hand, people who have a COI don't behave or edit with appropriate mindfulness of their own potential bias, and on the other, the suspicion caused by the unmanaged WP:APPARENTCOI can lead others to behave badly. With regard to yourself, please do review the WP:COI guideline and please state your relationship with Sciences Po. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am grateful for your anwser. Very well then. I am a graduate from Sciences Po. I was affiliated with this University as a PhD student until August 2014. To be sure, I have never been paid, either directly or indirectly, to contribute. This account is my own, together with the edits I make with it. I am also a Wikipedia researcher (notably involved with this project which you mentioned), but this is probably irrelevant, as it's unrelated to my editing activity. As a behavioral scientist, I am well aware of the biases that you point out, and I don't see that my editing activity features the kind of unbalanced / unsourced statements which typically lead to COI suspicion and SPA hand waving. If you do think that I've made problematic edits or that my behavior has been "poor", please let me know and I'll be glad to confront and acknowledge it. If not, could you explain why you describe my activity as "disruptive", and recommend a TBAN against me? SalimJah (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that everything you have written in WP is in the record, right? Above you claimed that you didn't participate in any of personalized "gotcha" stuff, but there is this. Right? Your first substantial edit to the article added to the pile of promotional garbage in article (diff). And like many people who are too closely connected to the subjects they edit, your talk page contributions speak over and over based on your personal knowledge (and indignation) alone (diff, diff, diff), when what is needed in any difficult talk page discussion are a) dispassion and b) citing of reliable and ideally independent sources that actually support the position you are arguing for - which is one reason why myself and others looked in, and then walked away rather than get dragged into a morass of unsourced advocacy. You did a pretty OK job editing as an undisclosed advocate, but your presence at the article did not improve things, but only provided the counter-pole to Launebee's (arguably more) disruptive advocacy. If you had shown that you were more here to build an encyclopedia and had contributed to other articles I probably would not have recommended a TBAN but you are pretty much a WP:SPA and here only to defend/promote Sciences Po. I still find your ANI comment to be... deceptive and your "explanation" of it to be... infelicitous as best. You actively mislead everyone. "Period", as it were. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge that a careful reading of the full talk page discussion is involved and difficult. But you are making very strong claims based on my edit history, which I think are unfounded. First, my first Wikipedia edit was certainly not perfect, but hey, that was my first edit, which I made 6 years ago! This is unrelated to the subject matter. Second, following some rather serious elements brought to the Sciences Po talk page by XIIIfromTOKYO, I did reiterate SashiRolls’s request that Launebee clarifies his relationship to the account which had recently been blocked on French wp for a similar pattern of editing across the Sciences Po / Panthéon Assas pages. Launebee ignored both requests, and I never came back to it. Third, you point to those three posts of mine (here, here and here) as evidence that I’m mostly speaking out of personal experience as opposed to citing reliable/independent sources that support my claims. This is incorrect. The first 2 posts are responses to specific questions I had been asked. A lot of the info I provide there is peripheral to the main issues being discussed with respect to the article lead, which were relatively trivial in comparison (e.g., should we call Sciences Po a “university”). So I did not feel like those peripheral points deserved hours of additional investment in careful referencing at this stage. The beginning of my first post makes this distinction very clear. For all of the substantive issues in the lead, I provided carefully articulated arguments and references. The 3rd post is actually an instance of me trying to compromise so that progress could be made, while discussing the meaning of the sources put forward but Launebee.
    Please note that my initial involvement in this dispute has nothing to do with me trying to push a personal agenda. I had none. Launebee’s editing practices simply struck me as violent, especially to new users who were investing in the page without necessarily understanding all the rules (yet), and had their material reverted repeatedly without an explanation. A collaborative atmosphere had to be restored so that we could collectively make progress. This was my initial concern (diff, diff, diff, diff). It will not surprise you that I did not succeed. After a while it was only me and Launebee left, so I defended some of the arguments initially brought by others that I thought made a lot of sense (e.g., Sciences Po is a university). Did I achieve much? No. Especially given the costs involved in maintaining the discussion focused, which would not have been possible without Kautilya3 's involvement. Was it useful? I think that providing a sourced and informed "counter-pole" to Launebee's extreme positions definitely was. Am I an "undisclosed advocate", who's "actively misleading everyone" (please note that my connection to Sciences Po has always been public information) and "not here to build an encyclopedia"? Those are very strong and hurtful personal attacks, and I don't think that my editing history supports any of that. I'll let others arrive at their own conclusion on this issue. SalimJah (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    @Jytdog:Thanks for you work. However, I sincerely don’t understand your conclusion. I am not at all a SPA, I worked on a lot of universities webpages, as you can see in my edit history. I just came across one account wanting to denigrate PA at any cost, and other wanting to do academic boosterism on SP at any cost, so I ended up editing a lot these pages, but not on purpose.

    • Please see if there is one edit in SP where I put promotional content on purpose on PA article, ie when after discussion I did persist on putting academic boosterism? You will see all my edits are with sources, and, Mr rnddude, who is neutral here, agrees with most of my edits, he agrees with the last ones and is inquiring about some. (There was a previous version with the right sources, but badly written, he explained why, I immediately changed. Now we have a fair and open discussion, whereas XIII keeps nearly insulting me like "you are lying", etc.) Indeed, I had to edit it a lot but because I faced a contributor who constantly removed sources, facts with no discussion but that he felt was "in favor" in PA, etc.
    • On SP webpage, you can see the article before I came: a promotional catalogue. I shortened it and put more neutral statements, but then it led to an edit warring in the lede. It is why I had to create a section about all the judicial condemmnations of SP. And then they still wanted to edit war to put promotional content: it is why I ended up putting the information about the very strong criticism, with some serious sources (like Le Monde, an academic paper from the former SP director himself, etc.). Now you can see that a lot of editors want to put "Sciences Po is widely considered to be one of Europe's most prestigious academic institutions" in the lead, even if no source in the whole article is talking about some prestige in Europe. I do not feel I am "denigrating" SP by working on removing such a promotional statement (because there is absolutely no source for that).

    Thank you for recognizing my work on the SP article, but you can see I did not put any promotional content in the PA page. Everything is sourced. For example, I put the good Eduniversal ranking of SP in its webpage, nobody told me it was promotional, I do the same with the PA article, and XIII is writing everywhere that it is academic boosterism. It is not, for any of them. There is currently an ad template on the PA page, because Mr rnddude asked me to keep it for now, the time he finishes his inquiries, but there is no promotional content in the article at all. And most importantly, I has always discussed things respectfully, and changed my mind when if it suited, eg when Mr rnddude explained why some things had to be changed.

    Actually, my request is somehow different. Even if you find one promotional content in PA page (it means a statement without a strong source that I insisted on keeping in), which you won’t, it is forbidden on Wikipedia to insult people or to threat them anyway. And XIII is constantly doing so. You can see he is talking about Twitter and newspapers, etc.

    --Launebee (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't agree with your interpretation of your work in WP. This is a community board and others will arrive at their own judgements. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some minor cleanup on the Science Po page, particularly the lists (I don't find the excessive--I think it could almost be worth moving into a breakout article, as has been dons for some other major universities-- but it can be stated more compactly to avoid looking disproportionate--and to avoid repeating the university's name dozens of times.) I will now do some adjustment of the puffery in the lede. I know its protected but I think what I did is uncontroversial cleanup, but jytdog, you can revert if you think I made things worse.
    The list of criticism seems outdated--it needs updating, and possibly a better choice of which are major enough to include, but I do not intend to work on that part myself.
    I've looked at a lot of university pages here. Almost all of them have some promotional wording, typically copied or paraphrased from the university web site or press releases. About half of them are much worse than this. Usually the problem is clearly due to the university PR office, but sometimes is zealous students or alumni. are to some extent unduly promotional. The main difference from promotional articles on companies is that major companies usually have better PR staff than universities can afford. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    @Jytdog:I don’t understand. You say you don’t agree but in the same time you are not providing any example of me putting promotional content in PA page. You cannot accuse me of things without proving it, can you? You can see in talk page with Mr rnddude that what I put has sources. For example, on PA article, the lead contains the fact that it is ranked first by Eduniversal with source, XIII says it is promotional. But, for SP, I supported the inclusion of the best ranking of a SP field (not even the best ranking of SP in total), but there, nobody sees ad, even if it is very particular, and I am still accused of denigrating. --Launebee (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Input from Kautilya3

    I got pulled into the debates at Talk:Sciences Po by the RfC bot. Seeing that things were in pretty bad shape, I stayed there, trying to moderate the discussions. It was exhausting; the quality of debate was pretty low. Some of it is probably inevitable because most of the editors are native French speakers and they have a weak understanding of English Wikipedia policies. But there are definitely behind-the-scenes agendas, which probably arise from the unequal treatment of the universities in the French system. The Grandes ecoles play a role similar to private universities in the Anglo-American world, with enormous resources and very few contraints, whereas the traditional universities play a role similar to public universities with a strong regulatory regimen. The tensions between the two are being played out here.

    Jytdog has done an exhaustive analysis of all the editors involved, which I more or less agree with:

    • Launebee is actively involved in denigrating the Grandes ecoles and promoting the traditional universities. See for example this proposed text, where they claim that there is consensus among the sources as well as editors that Sciences Po provides "fake education". A TBAN for all French academic institutions is appropriate and would be helpful in cleaning up the editing culture on these pages.
    • SalimJah, I feel a bit more sympathetic to. Their input in the discussions, even if it was from private knowledge, was helpful, and they gave me the appearance of an WP:NPOV editor. The undisclosed COI is not a deal-breaker to me. We do not prohibit the alumni of a university in contributing to their university pages. I would recommend a short-term TBAN of about 2 months for Sciences Po only.
    • MePhisto should be dealt with for their socking history. I am not sure if a TBAN is necessary in this case.
    • For XIIIfromTOKYO, a warning against personal attacks, stating that any repeat of this behaviour would be strictly dealt with.
    • In addition, I would propose that Sciences Po and Panthéon-Assas University be indefinitely sem-protected to prohibit socking. Any other French university pages that end up in this situation would also need to be promptly semi-protected.

    I would say that urgent action is indeed needed for these two pages if they are ever to improve. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • fwiw I am fine with the recommendations here. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kautilya3:
    • I don’t understand why you are disagreeing with the "fake" education criticism. You asked yourself to check on Google Scholar, with a paper by Richard Descoing, saying himself that the nickname "Sciences Pipeau" is old and still well-spread ("a la vie dure"), and Pipeau means "fake" in French. It seems unfair to state that somehow it is my invention, where Le Monde is mentioning an "old debate" about "Sciences Pipeau" (Sciences Fake) and France Inter makes a whole one-hour programme on this criticism. "Sciences Po for Dummies" has a chapter on 10 "Common ideas on Sciences Po" and among them there is "Sciences Pipeau". And there are many other sources. I don’t understand how one can say I am "denigrating" SP, if I am just reporting what sources say.
    • I don’t understand also why you are saying "these two pages". In PA article, everything is sourced, and I am following the fair comments of Mr rnddude, who is absolutely neutral here.
    • I find unfair too, that you are strongly supporting the inclusion of the sentence "Sciences Po is widely considered to be one of Europe's most prestigious academic institutions" in the lead, even if no source in the whole article is talking about some prestige in Europe, but that you are saying I am biased against SP by wanting to remove such a false statement from the lead. --Launebee (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think "nickname" means "criticism", then I think you have a problem of WP:CIR. If you know that it doesn't mean that but make up a criticism claim anyway, then you are WP:POV pushing. What do you want it to be? In this comment, I suggested that you look at sources given by Google Scholar. But you haven't used any of these sources; nor did you explain what they said about the issue. The very first source (by Chemin) said, according to Google translate, "They are often graduates of the Political, Economic and Social (PES) section, the one we call Pipeau and Solo, lucid on the effort...", which suggests that it was a nickname used by Sciences Po people themselves. Without consulting these sources, you continued to use newspaper opinion columns and blog posts to make the claim of "criticism" and, even worse, you said that that is what the consensus of the editors was even though practically nobody agreed with it. I am not getting into any further content discussion here. This is not the place for it. But the "Pipeau" issue highlights your agenda quite clearly, I think. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You write "which suggests that it was a nickname used by Sciences Po people themselves", as if it was contrary to what I say, but I included it in the article already, with sources: students also nickname SP as such. Why do you say it is contrary to what I say? Students nickname it as such, because they don’t see the problem, and it became a cricism outside SP.
    The consensus I was asking about was about the lead. I was answered no, then I never said there is anyway.
    Why do you say I use only columns? Le Monde article is, for example, not at all a column, but clearly states that the criticisms about SP education reminds the "old debate" Sciences Pipeau. And why are you telling me that here, and not on the talk page? I would, as always, have read you and we could have discussed it.
    So you still think making a request for comment and opposing to "Sciences Po is widely considered to be one of Europe's most prestigious academic institutions", with absolutely no source saying so, in the lead is denigrating SP? And you support such a statement? Whereas I also agreed on the inclusion on the lead, among rankings, of the best ranking of SP best degree? With all due respect, I am not sure you are really neutral here.
    --Launebee (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry. You are obfuscating all over again. I gave a specific link to your proposed text for the lead, which you claimed represented the consensus of the editors. The text said that Sciences Pipo was giving fake education, based on one newspaper opinion column and one blog post. Another editor who knows French recently removed this interpretation saying that the sources do not mean it. That is all I wish to say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I use the word consensus, because nobody was saying anything about that for 5 days. I wrote it in the talk page to see what people think about it, and when one editor told me he disagreed with the version, I did not follow up.
    Pipeau means "fake", I am not inventing it, it is the dictionary So, when Le Monde (not column or blog), France Inter, Sciences Po for Dummies, Richard Descoings himself are talking about a this "common idea" about Sciences Po, that it would be "Sciences Pipeau" (pronounced "Pipo"), indeed they say that it is a school giving a "fake education". The columns are only saying more about it.
    You have a point of view the article and are in favour of putting "Sciences Po is widely considered to be one of Europe's most prestigious academic institutions". But you can’t use the discussion here to force your opinions on contents.
    --Launebee (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Input from User:Mr rnddude

    Since for some reason everybody else is doing it, and I've been specifically requested to leave a comment here by the instigating party to this thread, I'll just follow suit with the separate header for my comments. First and foremost, I'll say that I don't know anything that's going at Talk:Sciences Po. I have been avoiding that page like the plague and trying to help out at Pantheon Assas. I'll be discussing XIIIfromTOKYO and Launebee only since these are the only editors I have interacted with.

    On the topic of XIIIfromTOKYO; I don't think XIII is particularly interested in the article in the sense of fixing it. Rather I think that XIII wants to note the issues with the article and leave it to interested editors to fix it. I say this because XIII hasn't been contributing material to the article directly, at least, I have not observed it. For the most part, XIII has stuck to leaving comments on the talk page for myself and Launeebee and reverting Launebee's edits. I agree with the above assessments about personal attacks and think a warning should be given. I don't see the need to take further action against XIII. I translated their French comment with google translate, couldn't make heads or tails of it, the thing started talking about "helping with partials", some random shit about legal capacity and complaints, and finished of with something about a "PDD". It did read threateningly though and Launebee's explanation about bringing in reporters and the such makes sense.

    On the topic of Launebee; Her edits there do not seem all that ... eh, promotional. I detect some promotionalism in regards to describing Pantheon Assas in a positive light, but, nothing worth TBANing over. The worst offender I would say is making sure that the Eduniversal "1st in Law in France" material is placed in the lede. I don't think rankings should be in the lede at all, but, so many University articles do this anyway. It's subjective material and most University Ranking sites don't list PA at all in their top 1000 universities overall with the exception of QS which puts in 801+ overall, 101-150 in law in the world, and 3rd in France in law. I had intended to resolve the dispute by the previous weekend (14th May) and to bring the article to B-class, but, ran into the brick wall of not speaking French and most sources for PA are in French. So instead I decided to try and resolve the content dispute and do a general copy-edit for prose. As of the filing of this AN/I case I have not touched the PA article. I might try to do a couple edits today. I am easily sidetracked by many other things on Wikipedia including this page. Hello to all the other threads I have commented on over the past few days. I think that Launebee's been a bit impatient with their editing at PA. We'd agree on one thing and Launebee would fix that one thing but also re-introduce everything else as well in the same edit. Also removing maintenance templates leading to edit-warring. This needed to be a piece-by-piece engagement. I've said repeatedly I agree with part of the disputed edit and disagree with part of it as well. It's up to the community to decide what to do, but, from my interactions with Launebee, I don't have any reason to want any kind of P/TBAN or block. Really, I just want to clean up PA and move-on to articles that interest me personally. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Input from User:Hijiri88

    • Somewhat off-topic question: Is there a reason this is formatted like an arbitration request? ANI is supposed to be for discussion, and having separate subthreads named for the users posting in them is really awkward. (And yes, I'm aware of the irony of writing this in my own subsection. It's called humour. Anyone who accuses me of WP:POINT because of this clearly doesn't understand what the ... point ... of WP:POINT is.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason other than the fact that the comments were pretty long. I am not sure how this is going to play out here any way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Somajeeste canvassing

    The Isaaq genocide article has been nominated for deletion. The nominator Somajeeste canvassed editor Soupforone [272] to join the discussion. Much of this new deletion nomination has been lifted from a previous attempt at deleting the article, in which Soupforone clearly stated their position in support of its deletion (worthy of noting is that even in that previous discussion, Soupforone has been canvassed as per [273], [274]). Please note that Somajeeste only informed Soupforone about this AfD nomination and no one else, they clearly knew of Soupforone's position as they based this new nomination on the previous nomination, including much of the wording and links. Soupforone clearly stated in the previous discussion their support for deletion. Somajeeste (the nominator) neglected to inform any other editors about this, either those who have made substantial edits to the topic or other editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic, they only informed an editor they knew would vote to delete, this strongly points to this being an attempt to WP:VOTESTACK. They have made a selective notification to an editor who has a predetermined opinion to solicit their support. Furthermore, the AfD nomination has votes to delete from one IP editor [275] and one editor has who registered just today, half an hour before posting in support of deletion [276] which points to possible WP:STEALTH canvassing or even WP:SOCKING.

    Additional information: This AfD nomination is the most recent in a series of disruptive editing by Somajeeste. They are rehashing the exact same rational (and sources, the language is identical) of a failed past AfD nomination link. Some examples of disruptive editing, removal of content and vandalism include [277], [278], [279] and [280]. Also retaliatory SPI filing link, edit-warring reports that end up with them getting WP:BOOMERANG blocked [281], their constant edit warring despite clear warning link, the list is long. Kzl55 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    False,Please note this is an editor with clear history of disruptive editing. This is the last in a series of unsubstantiated accusations of harassment against me, he was reported yesterday by [282] by sucketpubeting and still i believe he is one behind these please look these fake suspiciously keep arguing accounts [283] and [284] Dervish state [285]

    [286] , Warsangali Sultanate [287] [288] and Somali language:[289] [290] and Somali Democratic Republic [291] and Adal [292] Compared to Kzl55: [293] [294] [295] [296] [297] They are following the same pattern of being constant edit waring ,on five different articles all pages related to an old sockpuppet farm seems highly suspicious. They are also engaging in similar forms of disruptive editing to Somali related pages.[298]Somajeeste (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already noted in the AfD discussion that some of the contributions on both the delete and keep sides seem rather suspicious. I am also reminded of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Middayexpress's external canvassing, so am pinging TomStar81, who did some work to try to identify possible socks in response to that incident. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If Somajeeste erred, it's in forgetting to notify the other parties in the previous deletion discussion as WP:APPNOTE recommends. It's certainly not in notifying me since I was also a party there per that policy. Soupforone (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You were canvassed in the previous discussion also [299], [300], and voted to delete. Somajeeste clearly violated WP:CANVASS when he singled you out to notify of this AfD nomination, and you voted exactly how you voted last time.Kzl55 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Kzl55 you are the one who is being inexplicably picked on by edit warring long-term admin editors.[301] [302] Sure, is shows how you keep pushing your Somaliland POV,bu it also shows about your comments above that you know nothing about Wikipedia's processes, i did notify other parties involved by WP:APPNOTE recommends.Somajeeste (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide links to the edits where you notified other parties, Somajeeste? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cordless Larry to clarify things as other party i am talking about this guy kz55 was notified right after the nomination, so i go through the talk page and i found Only Soupforone wasn't notified ( as he was involved in the first place) and i did so.Somajeeste (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look back through Talk:Isaaq genocide#AfD discussion (it's an unnecessarily long discussion), you'll see that there were other contributors, Somajeeste, yet you only notified Soupforone. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    James J. Lambden

    Hi. James J. Lambden has been removing my comments from the talk page of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The first edit could, in some sort of world, be construed as a mistake (despite being made 15 hours later, it's conceivably an edit conflict of some kind) but they explain on their talk page that they intended to remove my comment, as well as removing it a second time here. I've already mentioned the relevant policies to them, and it's such an egregious breach of civility that I see no other place to turn with an editor who would act in such a manner than here.

    Removing other peoples comments from article talk pages because you don't like them: Sort of a no-no, right? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The 2nd diff is a reversion of an edit which removed my comment, ironically with the edit summary: Please do not remove other editor's comments. If the editor had simply restored his own comment I would not have reverted. Note that this editor's last participation on the talk page was over a year ago. They apparently followed me there from an unrelated discussion. I have to step out but I've provided the relevant information and I'm fine with admins judging this complaint on its merits. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Last thought: the situation as I see it:
    • Should PeterTheFourth have followed me to the article's talk page to make a comment wholly unrelated to article improvement? No
    • Should I have removed that comment? No
    • Should he have removed my comment with his reversion? No
    • Should I have removed his in reverting that reversion? Again, no.
    Bad behavior all around and I acknowledge my own. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @James J. Lambden: It's good that you claim reticence now, but why not the first time you were informed of talk page policies? You removed that notification. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is silly. I was unaware striking others comments (even on your own talk page) was discouraged. The editor informed me, I read the guideline and if you click "next edit" in the diff you linked you'll see I removed the strikeout with the edit summary "noted", indicating to the editor I had read and resolved her complaint. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The defense/argument, if I understand correctly, is that "after I inappropriately removed your comment, you didn't do enough work after reverting me to restore the appropriate portion of that diff, so I just removed your comment again in order to re-add my other comments". That's pretty poor justification. No comment on the context aside from to say that it's typically pretty hard to argue hounding (following) when someone has edited the page before, since it's likely on their watchlist. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Contextual Note: James J. Lambden has been warned about stalking by Volunteer Marek on May 2 and again on May 11. JJL maintains a sandbox cataloguing AE sanctions made by pro- / anti-Clinton and pro- / anti-Trump editors (these are his descriptors) that he admits doesn't record successful appeals. He has suggested that a first edit to the article Illegal immigration to the United States was a WP:TAGTEAM issue when reverting, in what was his first edit to the article. He has been involved in an edit war [303] [304] [305] with VM at the Southern Poverty Law Center article, where the talk page discussion is not exactly a model of mutually respectful collaboration, and where a request for full protection was recently declined. I think that JJL's recent editing suggests problematic behaviours beyond removing edits from article talk pages, including edit warring with VM (whose actions may also need scrutiny). EdChem (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure what your complaint is other than I've been harassed and caught in edit wars with a known edit warrior. I believe I've handled the harassment appropriately, requesting diffs and suggesting the editor confine his complaints to noticeboards rather than article talk pages.
    To take one of your issues: I'm trying to collect sanction data to analyze. Since the records are punitive (sanction) appeals don't easily fit into the model. Would I record an appeal as separate entry, or amend the sanction entry as time between sanction and successful appeal? I don't record time formally so the latter is not an option. That's certainly a deficiency of the data model but you present here as a sort of behavioral problem. I don't see it.
    Or to take another, the SPLC page. Srich32977 has made steady and objective improvements, some of which I disagree with but several I've thanked him for. Then you have another editor who swoops in, makes big changes without discussion and if you revert them he reverts you right back! I don't know how best to handle that but allowing any editor to dictate an article without bothering to establish consensus seems at odds with policy.
    If you outline specific concerns I can address them. Thus far we have the complaint presented, that I removed another editor's comment. I think I've outlined the timeline in that case clearly and objectively above.
    I believe the customary warning is that when you report another editor your own behavior may be scrutinized. The editor who reported me for removing his comment also removed my comment in that same series of diffs. Especially because of that I wouldn't think to report him but he's reported me. And though I mentioned it in my initial reply no one's addressed it except Rhododendrites, to dismiss it as irrelevant.
    It is odd that a complaint for behavior which the complainer himself exhibited, which has been resolved (the comment was restored), and which I've agreed was inappropriate, would generate so much drama. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two matters involved here. One is the editing of other editor's comments. This is a no-no unless WP:PA is involved. (And given the history of the SPLC article I can see how editors get rankled about different comments.) I've posted to JJL's talk page with a reminder about WP:TPNO, and since JJL has reviewed the guideline there should be no further concern. The second matter is the "stalking" issue. I'll commend the interested editors to look at WP:WIKIHOUNDING. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the comment. Your description is straightforward and offers a simple resolution but here appears to be an effort to turn this into something wholly unrelated to removing a single editor's talk page comment, my first violation of policy in 2 years of editing (excluding an unintentional 3RR violation.) James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, User:James J. Lambden does maintains essentially a "blacklist" of users he feels should be sanctioned and whom he follows around. His standard MO is to wait for me (I'm guessing that when he refers to somebody as "known edit warrior" - a personal attack - he's talking about me, since I'm the one he stalks) to get into a disagreement with someone else. He then jumps in, supporting whoever the editor on the other side of the argument is, and on many occasions, starts reverting in what looks like (to me) an attempt to get me to violate 3RR so he can report it (no luck there so far) or bring it up in some WP:AE thread (where he always pops up). He is also convinced that User:My Very Best Wishes is "tag teaming" with me (he's not - I have no communication with that person) so his stalking spills over onto MVBW as well. Here are several articles which he had never shown much interest in until I got involved:

    Those are just the ones I can find quickly, if I had more time I could find others

    Now, I'm not the only one that Lambden stalks. He also stalks User:My Very Best Wishes, User:Snooganssnoogans (for example [308] and [309] and also the Peter Navarro article) and to some extent, I think, User:NorthBySouthBaranof

    Basically James J. Lambden appears to think that Wikipedia isn't sufficiently "pro-Trump" (take a look at his user page [310]). So he stalks editors he blames for this state of affairs. But he doesn't just keep to Trump-related articles (which would be sort of ok, though it still would be WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) but spills over into only tangentially related stuff like, Syria.

    And I am NOT even bringing up James J. Lambden's participation in drama board discussions such as WP:AE or WP:AN, where he always reliably shows up to cast WP:ASPERSIONS and agitate for sanctions (unsuccessfully) against those he seems to have designated as his targets (hence that WP:AE blacklist he keeps).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I half-expected VM to appear. To recap:
    1. The initial complaint was filed by an editor who jumped into an edit-war on the side of VM (which ended against them because consensus was against them)
    2. Another editor highlights problems with my behavior, in all instances except one citing interactions with VM
    3. Then VM himself
    The problem with VM's examples of stalking, as I explained on my talk page, is that he has edited almost every controversial political article. It would be more surprising, given the relative age of our accounts and disparity in number of edit, if I didn't edit articles he had already edited. But in fact this interaction analysis shows just that. I count 21 articles (some relatively obscure) which he only edited after I had edited them.
    As far as a "blacklist of editors", I don't think anyone has suggested that and I am certain no such thing exists. It is another false aspersion he's cast against me. (I can compile a list if that would be helpful.)
    I believe this is only the 2nd complaint against me in my two years here. The first was an unintentional 3RR violation closed with no action after I self-reverted (or after another editor had reverted, I can't recall.) Given the dozens and dozens of complaints filed against VM: here, at AE, at the edit-warring noticeboard, and significant disciplinary sanctions it seems unlikely I am the cause of our interaction difficulties. I stand by my edits to articles and talk pages. They are neutral and abide by policy as best I understand it.
    If this will a complaint about my interactions with VM I'd appreciate if that were filed separately or split off so I could respond appropriately and in detail, and others who have faced the similar difficulties with VM in the same articles could respond. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    " It would be more surprising, given the relative age of our accounts and disparity in number of edit, if I didn't edit articles he had already edited" - it's not just that we somehow end up editing the same articles. It's 1) The timing of when you show up, which is immediately after I get into a disagreement with someone and 2) the spill over of your "showing up" to articles, such as Syrian Observatory one, which are really outside the scope of your usual interests. And the Illegal Immigration one - come on, that's pretty obvious, there's no way you can say with a straight face that you weren't checking up my history looking for something to revert.
    There's also a bunch of falsehoods in rest of your statements, which has been rehashed before, but here we go again: "Given the dozens and dozens of complaints filed against VM" - yeah, none of which led to any sanctions, and many of which led to WP:BOOMERANGs (sometimes to your buddies). Look, just cuz somebody files a report against you doesn't mean you're guilty - it's just a likely that some crazy person has taken some issue with you trying to make Wikipedia neutral. Unfortunately that's not the case with this particular complaint. " it seems unlikely I am the cause of our interaction difficulties" - you essentially show in middle of disputes and try to pour gasoline on the fire. So maybe you're not the initiator of "interaction difficulties" but you sure as hell don't make them easier. "others who have faced the similar difficulties with VM in the same articles could respond" - really? Getting the ol' gang together and getting ready to canvass'em here? You really want to go through that same old song and dance already? It's been, like, what, a week? Maybe ten days? Before the last time you joined your friends in your "Volunteer Marek won't let me push my POV in peace" ritual over at WP:AN, where it almost boomeranged on a couple of you (more precisely, it boomeranged on a couple fellas, but a few folks managed to duck it just in time).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The reply above I think highlights the root of the problem. When you make a controversial and usually significant edit without consensus many editors including myself will notice that and either revert or engage in opposing discussion. Rather than assuming your edit was inappropriate precisely because a number of editors revert you or disagree, you assume a conspiracy. There is none. Can you highlight non-controversial edit of yours which I've reverted? And further, since editing after someone else is sufficient evidence of stalking, how do you explain the 21 articles and talk pages you discovered only after I had edited them? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Can you highlight non-controversial edit of yours which I've reverted? " - hey, that's pretty clever. Since you stalk me by always jumping into middle of a dispute to revert on behalf of the other party, I can't do that can I? Which you know of course, which is why you're trying to set this up as the standard of proof for your stalking, rather than just the, you know, usual evidence of you having followed me to articles and reverted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again: the reasonable assumption when several editors revert a controversial edit or disagree, is that there was likely a problem with the edit. Failure to assume that suggests a significant problem. I can count on one hand the number of editors I've had difficult with – and I don't mean editors with whom I disagree on content: there are many, but we manage to edit collaboratively despite that, which has proven almost impossible in our interactions. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when by "several editors" you mean "James J. Lambden, who jumped in to acerbate the edit war and one other guy" like at the Illegal Immigration article. Or not when by "several editors" you mean "James J. Lambden, who jumped in to acerbate the edit war, and some sock puppets" like at the SPLC article. Or not when by "several editors" you mean "James J. Lambden, who jumped in to acerbate the edit war, and a particular and well established tag-team who goes and edits everywhere together" like at the Syria related articles (no, that last one is not a "conspiracy", it's just [[WP:DUCK] and I know you know what I'm talking about). And hey, I manage to edit collaboratively with lots and lots of people I disagree with. But those are the ones that don't do WP:STALK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But anyway, this has gone off topic. Back to you messing around with PeterTheFourth (another one of your long time targets, no?) comments on talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Acerbate? So: when it is multiple editors they're all sockpuppets except me. Is Srich32977 who commented above one of them because he was involved in the recent edit-war? Maybe JFG is another in my sockpuppet army. How about this: can you point to a single political article where you haven't had difficulty with editors other than myself? And please stop suggesting that if you can't it is only because there's a conspiracy against you. That is not a rational assumption. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, User:Motsebboh was a sockpuppet, which is who you jumped in to support. And sure I can name an article, recent one too, and in a contentious area too - Dismissal of James Comey. Though honestly, given the nature of the topic area I doubt that it will stay this way. Come on! If you edit in US Politics, or similar areas, you're gonna get into disagreements. These are topic areas where the sock puppets have sock puppets. And just to correct another one of your falsehoods - I've never said there was a "conspiracy" against me. This is what you think I think, apparently. Now, there are a few editors, who I'm sure coordinate off wiki to tag team in some of the articles I'm involved in, as well as to support each other on drama boards. I don't think that rises to the level of conspiracy though. That's more like business as usual on Wikipedia in contentious topic areas *cough*Armenia-Turkey-Greece-Syria*cough*. (Ok that was more like a coughing fit).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Summoned by ping) Uh? This drama escalation over a minor misunderstanding of the TPO policy looks way overblown with coatrack attacks on J. Lambden's alleged misdeeds. For the record, I haven't edited the articles cited by VM above: Illegal immigration, SPLC or Syria stuff. For the record too, I have never "coordinated" with anyone off-wiki, despite being occasionally suspected of such atrocities by well-meaning editors. (Perhaps when several editors happen to make the same argument against a particular edit, the problem may be with that edit and not with the editors questioning it. Or perhaps I have too much faith in Occam's razor… ) Regarding Lambden's general behaviour, I see him as an opinionated, articulate and polite editor. No more opinionated or combative than VM or a myriad others who donate their free time with the goal to improve Wikipedia articles about controversial topics. Have a great day, y'all! — JFG talk 07:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as we disagree I don't think I've ever had any "behavior issues" with your edits or if I did, I've already forgotten about them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JFG: "Articulated and polite". Sometimes, I think people take 'good faith' a little too far into immediately assuming everybody is just the dandiest. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    VM: I have to admit, my review of the Comey article history and talk page shows that's true. I see no edit-warring, no aggressive or profane talk page comments and constructive editor interaction in general. If you repeat that behavior in articles we both edit I can assure you we will have no issues. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're basically saying "I will quit stalking you if you fulfill conditions X, Y, and Z, which I will be the arbiter off"? Sorry, not how this works. Just stop stalking my edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Avoiding edit-wars and aggressive and profane comments is policy, not arbitrary conditions I've imposed.
    Again: reverting significant changes made without discussion or consensus to articles I have watchlisted is not stalking. If it is you'll have to explain the 21 articles and talk pages you edited only after I had edited them, especially those unrelated to politics. For example: Serial rapist, where:
    James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I see that both editors should take a IBAN for the above statements. That's if they don't have one already. — JJBers 16:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with JJBers. This discussion about talk page edits has gone off the rails. Before Peter had opened this thread I was seeing personal comments on the talk pages and even edit summaries with personal complaints. At times I've thought about masking the comments with {{rpa}} or hats, but there's been so many of them my other frying fish would suffer. Perhaps the interacting editors might accept self-imposed 1RR restrictions along with the IBAN. – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have experience with IBANs in practice so estimating the effect is difficult. I don't necessarily object but I'd prefer it were hashed out in a complaint involving our interactions if possible. This complaint is about my removal of a talk page comment by someone other than VM. It's hard to know whether to respond to that or the unrelated, scattershot accusations.
    That ambiguity does not make for productive discussion. For example: no one has responded to my claim that PTF (who submitted this complaint ) committed the same violation he brought me here for when he removed my comment from the talk page. Is that not relevant? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    James J. Lambden acknowledges he shouldn't have done that, and now seems to understand the issue now per the latest comment on his talk page. I believe this should be closed so everyone can get back to editing. The last thing this topic area needs is more sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would not comment on anything above (tl;dr - sorry), but James J. Lambden also recently stalked my edits with personal accusations like here (edit summary). James J. Lambden, why did you do it? Can you stop it, please? This is not for the first time when you do it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes: How is this in any way related to the removal of talk page comments? It seems irrelevant but I feel compelled to respond: VM's claim is that I stalked him to get to this article because I hadn't edited the article prior but I have edited a number of articles on immigration. Your first edit to the same article was to revert Natureium after VM hit 4RR. Here is the sequence:
    Did you stalk him to the article and if not how did you find it? I only see one other article you've edited related to immigration and in it your first edit was to revert my edit. Did you stalk me to that article?
    I don't know how far "off the rails" this thread should get but I have found a disturbing pattern going back several years where your first (and sometimes only) edit to many articles is effectively a 4th revert for VM after he's reached 3RR. For example:
    When I mentioned "TAGTEAM" to you I was referring to this pattern. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:My very best wishes this is unrelated to the issue at hand. However JJL's comments appear to have some standing - there have been accusations of tag teaming regarding you and VM in the past. I'm strongly suggesting once again that we close this issue before everyone reaches for the shovels, raincoats, and pitchforks, and move on to more productive things. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If James J. Lambden really believes I am acting inappropriately, he must start a thread about me on appropriate noticeboard. But he already commented about this on WP:AE and end up to be wrong. So now he apparently decided to change his approach: just to follow my edits and revert them with personal accusations in edit summaries (see the diff). This should stop. However, based on his response above, James J. Lambden is going to continue. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He seems entitled to edit that article and he's participating on the talk page. Do you have a response to his diffs? Aspersions seem to be flowing from many parties so again I suggest we drop this and do more productive things. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am only telling that citing controversial essay WP:Tag team should not be a reason for revert. Would not you and James J. Lambden agree? My very best wishes (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it wasn't the best edit summary. We all could do better to collaborate and AGF. If you're looking for sanctions against him I would suggest AE.

    Possible legal threat resolved?

    I noticed the IP user 60.243.170.61 post a message to their user talk page [311] in which they claim to be the grandchild of Tripuraneni Maharadhi and state that they have some sort of grievance with edits to the page(though I'm not sure what they are) and go on to threaten "I dont mind lodging a cyber crime case on you for trying to vandalise my Grandfather's page.". When I pointed out that it could be considered a legal threat and they should retract it, they then edited their prior comment to state "I dont mind making it an issue for trying to vandalise my Grandfather's page."(emphasis mine) I posted again to state that probably wasn't enough, and they then removed that line altogether in the next edit.

    My question is does the removal of the line resolve the legal threat issue, or do they expressly need to retract it, making a statement doing so? Thank you 331dot (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would add that they also are demanding to know the identity of those editing the page(comment is still on their user talk) 331dot (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything on their talk page now which could be considered a legal threat. I've left them a note about various other things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your knowledge. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved trouts required

    I stupidly started Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 11#Template:Infobox person/Wikidata in the vain hope that uninvolved, neutral editors would give their input. Instead, the same actors of the previous attempt (including myself) again are making the same show of much noise and little substance. Discussing things in this way is very frustrating and not really likely to lead to any actual result, so...

    Can some uninvolved editors (admins, non-admins, doesn't matter) please come over and simply look at two things:

    • the personal comments leveled at each other, and decide which stray (too far) into personal attack territory
    • the factual claims made, and who is simply wrong on facts (not on opinions)

    and then apply some trouting and common sense where needed.

    Everyone who wants to is also invited to look at the actual TfD and give their opinion of course, but perhaps wait until the dust has settled a bit :-) Fram (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @Fram: After reading the entire discussion, I am temped to provide buckets of ice, instead of trouts, to stick assorted heads in, since tempers seem to be flaring and that does not help the discussion. Several of the issues you raised transcend the scope of TfD, but address a far more fundamental issues concerning Wikidata (No BLP/Verification policies, poor anti-vandalism track record, bugs in the code, incomprehensible edit summaries). It may be wise to start an RfC concerning those, rather than a deletion discussion. Kleuske (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Largely pointless, for the same reasons. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It may very well be pointless, but AFAIK, it's the best we've got. The trouble is that compared to Commons (nice pics to look at) and Wikipedia (articles to read) Wikidata, being a database, is as sexy as a sack of potatoes and about as intuitive as Quantum Mechanics to a Sunday school teacher, hence the lack of contributors (both in this discussion and on Wikidata). Wikidata is a good idea in principle, but the praxis is a tad more complicated, especially if it's supposed to function as a central repository of data (which must be agreed upon, globally). Even if restricted to a replacement of oldschool interwiki's, things are not simple as you might think, since various wiki's may not agree on whether a given page describes one subject or more, a problem I've encountered on several occasions. Kleuske (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) As might be guessed, I'm the other editor involved. My perspective is that Fram made a 19-paragraph, 800-word statement to re-litigate a TfD discussion that was closed as 'keep' just three months ago. I made a 3-paragraph keep statement rebutting what I see as obvious inaccuracies in the nomination. Fram, however, has felt the need to argue with each of the other commentators in 12 further posts at that discussion. I have stupidly felt obliged to reply on 7 occasions. Trout me.
    I strongly resent being told my replies to concerns raised Fram raised at Template talk:Infobox person/Wikidata "were definitely not constructive" and I'd be happy for someone else to check whether Fram's assessment of my replies there are accurate, particularly in light of Template talk:Infobox person/Wikidata #Please remove citizenship. If I'm being unconstructive, then please sanction me.
    If someone uninvolved is willing to arbitrate on exactly who started the personal attacks and who was responding in kind, I'd be grateful as well.
    If somebody uninvolved can explain to me clearly just what the problem is concerning data from Russian Wikipedia that Fram is so worked up about, I'd be very grateful. There may well be problems with the code that I can fix, but I can't find an article here that is importing data sourced only to the Russian Wikipedia to get a handle on what might be wrong.
    Any help appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I skimmed this up and down in strips to get a feel for the issues as a whole without pinning anything to anyone in particular; it seems like there's a disconnect between those concerned about output - "look at the crap that can result from vandalism" and those concerned about input "Bob and Mary have done a lot of work on this..." and "It'll take a lot of work to change that...". That almost always gets nasty, look at the recent business with Fabartus. I'm not looking anything past that, since I have a potential for bias. Anmccaff (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeez, not still that Russian business surely? Let's see.

    • On 13 May, 14.17 "an IP" changed the Willem Kloos item on Wikidata[312], and at 15.15 the same day RexxS uploads a file[313] showing that there is no Qnumber in the Willem Kloos infobox (one of the examples in the TfD).
    • On 13 May, 14.26 "the same IP" changed the Elisabeth Schiemann item on Wikidata[314], and on 15.09 RexxS uploads a file[315] showing that the Elisabeth Schiemann article no longer has dusplicate data on enwiki.
    • On 15 May, 12.15 "the very same IP" changed the Stefan Andres item on Wikidata[316], and on 12.34 RexxS claims at the TfD[317] " I can't duplicate the problem you report" and here and now he claims "I can't find an article here that is importing data sourced only to the Russian Wikipedia to get a handle on what might be wrong."

    Now, either RexxS is not that IP and he just happened to follow his edits very closely every time, or he is that IP and then he knows perfectcly well what the problem was, but he changed the Wikidata item to make it look as if the problem was only in my imagination and lied about it repeatedly. This is not siply a difference of opinion, but very, very dubious behaviour which makes collaborating impossible. Correcting Wikidata to make a problem reported here go away at that example article, but claiming before and after the fact that no such problem exists (or at least that he can't find it, which is clearly false) makes it impossible to have any trust in RexxS actions and words. Fram (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • RexxS's userpage says he lives in the West Midlands of England, which is exactly where the IP geolocates to (Wolverhampton). That is far too big a coincidence, in my opinion, and places RexxS's behaviour in a very poor light. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, where no one knows your a dog, it could be false location [of where the user lives]. Then again, it does look like it is to close to be a simple IP flyby. — JJBers 17:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That's unlikely to be RexxS, as I've never known him to do anything logged out without making it immediately obvious that the edits are his. (What incentive would he have to be anonymous in this particular case, anyway?) AGF and all that means I can't point fingers, but I can certainly think of at least one resident of the West Midlands who's generally near the top of the list when there's Wikidata-related disruption going on; I'm fairly certain you can, too. ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on, look at those timestamps. AGF only goes so far. Thats 3 separate articles, linked by both the IP and Rexx. And even if you were to assume it was someone else behind the IP on wikidata, they would have to be psychic to know in advance what Rexx *might* respond to, in order to fix the raised problem in advance on wikidata so Rexx can subsequently deny there is a problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I assure you, Fram is well aware of who I'm referring to and why the timestamps are likely to be in sync. ‑ Iridescent 17:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No, that IP is me, without any doubt. I do seem to be logged out quite often on Wikidata, but don't worry too much about it. I certainly wasn't trying to avoid scrutiny. For avoidance of doubt, my IP is currently 86.24.232.177 and has been for some time. I'm perfectly prepared to own my edits.
    • On 13 May, 14.17, I changed Willem Kloos (Q2574395) to make the 'D.A. Thiemeprijs' preferred, but that was a test to ensure all values are returned, nothing to do with Q-numbers showing up in an infobox. That problem was fixed by Andy in this edit on 12 May. I've reverted my test edit and anybody can check that it makes no difference to Q-numbers.
    • On 13 May, 14.26, I removed the duplicate award received (P166) because that's how the problem of duplicate values is best fixed. I've never said anything different. That's how you fix it. I haven't concealed anything.
    • Today I tried setting one value for Stefan Andres to preferred and the other to deprecated to see whether it made any difference to the article. It doesn't, but I then remembered that Fram had actually changed the infobox on that article from {{infobox person/Wikidata}} to {{infobox person}} a week ago. No wonder I can't track down problems.
    I very much resent the insinuations by Fram that I've tried to be anything other than straight. I wasted half-an-hour earlier today trying to track down a problem he reported on Stratis Myrivilis, only to find that it didn't exist. His response to that was "That you used the wrong example to test this is too bad." Nevertheless I have identified a problem with the way that the API returns values when multiple values exist where only one is expected. I'm happy to do my best to fix it in the hope that it's there that Fram's problem is located, but not one article that Fram has drawn my attention to has displayed the problem that he saw. I believe that he saw it, but it's no help at all when I can't see the same problem. I'm not a mind-reader. Oh - and Black Kite: ABF much? --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I very much resent the insinuation that being anything other than straight is a bad thing. EEng 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Old, incorrect version of Stefan Andres, using onlysourced=yes but returning wrong info from Russian Wikipedia instead
    Current, correct version of infobox, using the standard template, summarizing the data in the artcle instead of taking information from elsewhere
    • RexxS, you can very, very easily check whether it makes any difference at the article, by using the last version before my edits, this one. Until your Wikidata edits, you could reprouce the problem there every time you wanted to, that's how I made the screenshot showing the problem after you claimed that you couldn't reproduce the problem. After that screenshot, you still claimed that you couldn't reproduce the problem, then you went to Wikidata to change the problematic data in a way that it no longer shows up at the Andres article in the old version, and then you came here to claim here that you still can't reproduce the problem... Do we really have to believe that you didn't know, through all this, that you could look at the old version of the article, the one from the time I reported the problem, and see it there? Anyway, you can revert your changes at Wikidata and then you finally can reproduce this, just like everybody else could do for all this time. But please stop with the claim that "not one article that Fram has drawn my attention to has displayed the problem that he saw." as it was there all along. I even gave you two screenshots with an explanatory caption (reproduced here), so I don't get why you had any problem with this or why you still make claims as if I imagined the problem and faked the screenshot.
    I don't think you imagined a problem or faked a screenshot. I just didn't see any point in pursuing a problem that you had already fixed, because the article was consistent when I looked at it. I stand by my claim that "not one article that Fram has drawn my attention to has displayed the problem that he saw." Although I should add "when my attention was drawn to it". You do realise that is the first time you've done me the courtesy of supplying a link to the version of the article you were complaining about? If you'd like me to revert my edits on Wikidata (which actually fix any problem of multiple dates of death for everybody) and restore {{infobox person/Wikidata}} to Stefan Andres, then please say so. In the meantime, I'll carry on testing with Paul Morand (Q272) / Paul Morand where I think I can check any code modifications without re-introducing errors in the Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think an editor with your experience needed a link to find a pervious version of an article when the screenshots clearly say "Old, incorrect version" and "Current version". What did you think "old version" meant? I also said at the TfD " I "fixed" the issue by replacing the /Wikidata infobox with the standard one, which is what I propose to do with all articles which use this version of the infobox. I'm glad you approve of my fix. Fram (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC) " Yet you still needed a link to the last version before my edits, or else you were unable to find the problem? If you really need that much help in finding such a problem, you indeed ned to stay away from templates, and you need to learn to ask for a link instead of continuously stating that you can't reproduce the problem as if that is in any way relevant and meaningful.
    You knew the article was changed to eliminate the problem in the current version, you knew how it was changed, you knew what to change on Wikidata to eliminate the problem on that side, but still you couldn't find the problem because I never provided a link to the last version of the article before my changes (i.e. the version of the article at the time of my first post about it at the template talk page, the then-current version). Right... Fram (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You see Fram, this is what happened: On 8 May, you complained about Q-numbers showing up in Julien Benda. I replied that "It's a signal to an editor that the entry has no English site label. That means that anyone who is interested in maintaining our projects as a whole can choose to add labels to entries such as The Treason of the Intellectuals (Q3213238) and Morgue and other poems (Q22281590). Why would we want to discourage editors from doing that?" and you argued about that. The fix was to simply supply an English label (The Treason of the Intellectuals) on Wikidata. I did that.
    On the same day, You wanted 'citizenship' not to be fetched from Wikidata. I agreed and made the change.
    A day later, you wanted me to write code to ensure that duplicate values could not be returned. I saw that and realised that the way to fix those sort of problems is by removing the duplicates from Wikidata - it's obviously an error and essy to fix. Mike Peel had already replied and I was busy so didn't comment.
    On the same day, you complained that "Stefan Andres has 'onlysourced=yes' and gives 'Died 29 July 1970'" I followed the link to Stefan Andres that you provided and saw that it actually had the same dates as in the body of the article. My reaction was "fuck this for a game of soldiers" and I left it. That's when the actual link was needed. Do you have no concept of courtesy?
    Two days later, you hadn't got your own way, so in a fit of pique, you re-nominated the template for deletion. What a ludicrous waste of everybody's time.
    If you'd bothered to show a link in the first place, I would have taken your complaint more seriously. As it was, in your epic deletion-nomination statement, you caused further confusion by pointing to yet another problem that didn't exist. Now frankly, I'm not at your beck-and-call here and I do have other things I need to spend my time on, so it's no use losing your rag when everything isn't fixed within 48 hours of you making a badly worded complaint.
    Nevertheless, this afternoon I've overhauled all of the getValue code in Module:WikidataIB. I reverted my changes to Stefan Andres (Q68036) and checked the version of Stefan Andres that you supplied earlier today. As far as I can see in that version, the problem that you saw is resolved. I've now restored the proper ranks in Wikidata and checked by previewing {{infobox person/Wikidata}} in a few articles that have multiple dates that the code doesn't return any unsourced values by default. No doubt there will be further issues to resolve, but it won't be by trying to do an end-run around the long-standing consensus that permits us to include Wikidata in infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Yet another problem that didn't exist". You know that there is quite a huge gap between "a problem I can't find unless someone holds my hand at every step" and "a problem that doesn't exist"? I'm done with you. Fram (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, another problem that didn't exist. Here's what I told you at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 11: I've just spent a wasted half-hour ... looking through the code of Module:WikidataIB to fix the problem you reported in your nomination statement: "Articles showing the wrong date, again taken from Russian Wikipedia[318]" I was puzzled about why my code was returning the date of birth of Stratis Myrivilis from Wikidata when it was only sourced to the Russian Wikipedia. Then I spotted that the IP editor had set |onlysourced=no, so naturally it returned an unsourced value. Nikkimaria fixed that soon after by changing it to |onlysourced=yes" There was no problem with Wikidata that needed to be fixed; there was no problem with the Lua code that needed to be fixed; there was no problem with Template:Infobox person/Wikidata that needed to be fixed. Nikki spotted what the IP had done and quickly put it right in the article. If you're so fucking clever, why couldn't you have simply done the same? --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that you see no problem with using Russian (or whatever) Wikipedia as a source and don't feel that this should be changed at Wikidata or removed as a possibility from the infobox. That's a problem with Wikidata, with the infobox, and with you vs. our policies. And that still doesn't explain why you insist on labeling "the problem you couldn't find because you don't understand how to use a page history and because you can't see the difference between a good infobox and the Wikidata one, even though it is quite clear visually and because you can't be bothered to actually read anything I write apparently" as "a problem that didn't exist" but for which you changed the Wikidata item (to fix the individual example at Wikidata, I had it fixed and improved here already) and the lua code (to fix the underlying problem). Your excuses and attacks are becoming more and more transparent the longer you keep peddling them. Fram (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All of that would be meaningful if there was any truth in I know that you see no problem with using Russian (or whatever) Wikipedia as a source and don't feel that this should be changed at Wikidata or removed as a possibility from the infobox. But there isn't. I've spent a lot of time writing and improving code that filters out values that are only sourced to Russian or any other Wikipedia. And the sad thing is, you know that. You must be getting very desperate to try to peddle such a transparent untruth. For the record: I don't want to see any data displayed that can only be sourced to Wikipedia of any language; I do think that it would be very helpful if the Wikidata community ditched such worthless "references"; I don't want infoboxes to display unsourced information; I do maintain that it may be useful for checking, debugging and development if there exists an option that allows an editor to see all of the Wikidata, including the unsourced stuff. Perhaps I should modify the code to only allow that in preview mode? The rest of the problems you claim to see exist only in your imagination. That's the real problem here. You're so invested in your campaign to stop any information being imported from Wikidata – even sourced information – that you have to create battles to fight with anyone who disagrees with you. I'm quite happy to put in the time to fix real problems that exist in the code that I write, but I'll be damned if I'm going to chase down your half-baked reports just because you want to pick a fight. If you want me to fix a problem in future, you give me chapter and verse on the problem, or you can fix it yourself. Oh, wait, you can't, can you? --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I don't intend to interact with you if I can avoid it. "The rest of the problems you claim to see exist only in your imagination." despite the fact that I provided the articles and screenshots, and that you "fixed" the examples and claimed that that fixed the underlying problem. I have better things to do with my time than reply to the same ramblings over and over again while you wallow in your dreams of superiority. Fram (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Fram by attacking RexxS this way, you are shooting yourself (and others like me who are concerned about Wikidata in en-WP) in the foot. RexxS understands WikiData very well and understands the policy-basis of en-WP very well - is one of the few people I know who are clueful in both contexts, and helped me resolve an issue with content about Wikidata coming into infoboxes about health. Please do take the advice about cooling down. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • He has shown very little clue in this discussion though, and continues to show the same problems. Fram (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • You aren't really suggesting RexxS is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, are you? If not, and I assume you're not, getting fed up, frustrated or angry does not help solve the problem. Using TfD as a venue to discuss what is basically a systemic problem, may not have been a good idea. There are better platforms to raise this issue and it's well worth raising, IMHO. There are problems to be solved, but TfD is not the place to do that. Kleuske (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I'm really suggesting that. Apparently I should have provided RexxS with a link to an old revision of a page because he didn't give a reply at the template talk page. That's the last in a long list of excuses for why he didn't find the problem for a week, even though it was obvious for all but him to see and was explained at length afterwards. I'm indeed utterly fed up with his actions in this episode (and in the pervious round, where he tried the same kind of tricks). I can not work with RexxS as I don't trust him one bit. His neverending insistence that he has fixed a problem when he has fixed the example given instead of the root cause behind it is just another example of the uselessness of discussing these things with him. His last reply here mentions me "pointing to yet another problem that didn't exist." Since the other problem clearly existed (but RexxS was unable to use a page history without anyoçne holding his hand), the "yet another" is obviously false. And the problem he supposedly means when he says "yet another" wasn't false either. RexxS is very good at being seemingly cooperative and patient, but in reality he is obfuscating by making one false claim after another. You are right that instead of a TfD, I should just go for an RfC. But you (in plural) are quite wrong in your positive assessment of RexxS. He is good at manipulating people in this way apparently, but I've seen the discrepancy between his words and reality too often now. Fram (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat by AbeNaz

    AbeNaz made a legal threat on their user talk page ([319]) regarding the incessant recreation of Forward Racism. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Beat me to it, as I just gave them a warning for this. I'm not sure if this is directed to anyone regarding Wikipedia, or that they plan to "file a suit" on this concept of theirs. Regardless of that, I'm under the opinion that they are WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They did revert the threat here: [320]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @RickinBaltimore: Thank you for addressing the issue with the user. I agree that, currently, they appear to be NOTHERE. The page was salted, though, I wonder what they'll do now. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Seraphim System back to edit warring on Judaism and sexuality article

    This user, Seraphim System (talk · contribs) is renewing the edit war on Judaism and sexuality,[321][322] despite a recent discussion here (archived here), his recent block and my warning on his talkpage.[323] The place for the content issue is on the talkpage, but this post is about the fact that this user prefers edit warring to discussion, despite the warnings he received for edit warring on this article in the recent past, the detailed and well-argued explanation for my revert in the edit summary, and my warning to him on his talkpage to discuss first and edit later. This editor simply refuses to take to heart the content of Template:Uw-ew. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Debresser does not own this article. This is a frivolous complaint. Last time he filed two complaints on the same day and he was not blocked even though the admins determined that he had violated 3RR and I had not. I wasn't blocked for edit warring, when it became clear his two complaints at ANI were going nowehere, someone else filed at SPI. I have always wondered if they were related. The block was imposed despite opposition from editors, and even one of our admins voiced concerns that the evidence may not have been strong enough to justify a CheckUser.
    I really think this complaint needs to end in a WP:BOOMERANG for Debresser - he filed a complaint at ANI because I reverted one edit and opened an RfC? This is the third complaint he has wrongly filed against me at ANI, and there seems no other way to prevent this behavior.
    Also, can the admins please ask him to stop posting on my talk page outside required notifications? He has posted twice after I have asked him to stop, insisting that I can not ban him from discussions on my talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no comments on the merits of Debresser's allegations, but I agree with Seraphim System that Debresser should not post messages on SS's Talk page unless absolutely required. I noticed this the last time and almost said something about it then.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) WP:OWN is hardly the issue here, and the accusation is frivolous. His edit is simply inferior. But the real problem is his resorting to edit warring, which is why I reported him. This post can hardly be considered frivolous, since for that same issue of edit warring on this very same article he was reported here just very recently. The WP:BOOMERANG proposal is his regular tune, but apart from the appealing sound of the term it has no basis in the facts of the matter, and he should be warned not to turn this forum into a playing ground for displaying his knowledge of Wikipedia terminology. On his talkpage I posted in the hope that a warning would avoid an edit war, alas unsuccessfully, and I should be praised for doing so. Obviously I acknowledged his request to refrain from posting on his talkpage, and would not have done so for any other reason but the most justified (including the mandatory WP:ANI warning). Debresser (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't ban him from you're talk page, so it WP:BOOMERANG's back at you. Also, It was a "required notification". If not for your longtime presence it would look like a noob throwing accusations around and having a fit. Creeper Ninja (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can absolutely request that someone refrain from leaving non-essential comments on your talk page. This request falls within the purview of user page guidelines specifically WP:NOBAN; if a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request. Debresser, I'd follow Bbb23's advice. Only here mentioning this because Creeper Ninja, who has been here a month, does not appear to be sufficiently familiar with processes and may provide mixed messages on what should be done. This isn't a formal policy, it's just good etiquette. Creeper Ninja, you're obviously not entirely new here (1st edit to an obscure template that hasn't been touched since 2013), however, this noticeboard is for complaints to be handled by admins and experienced editors. At a glance, you're nowhere near any form of "experienced". I can't stop you from posting on this noticeboard, but, please show greater care and awareness of policy, guidelines and essays before posting poorly referenced commentary. You're fitting quite well the "editing beyond one's means" category of CIR. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser: I don't know if you know this, but keep the toys in the crib. Stop going to ANI for no reason. —JJBers 20:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JJBers I am sorry you feel that an edit war by a previously warned edit warrior is "going to ANI for no reason". I am afraid, however, that your take on this issue is not normative, even a bit frivolous. In any case, I'll come back tomorrow morning, to give the opportunity for free discussion, and will see what my betters think on this subject then. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs or it never happened. I can find the diff where Debresser was previous warned. Seraphim System (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Debresser has reverted again while the RfC is still open. Seraphim System (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • A lot of heat but little light tends to get generated by these repeated discussions on this article. Maybe we can shed a little, starting when Seraphim System returned to the article earlier today:
    1. Seraphim System expands text contrasting Jewish and Christian attitudes towards sexuality to "Attitude towards sexuality" section with citations to BBC and three academic texts [324]
    2. Debresser reverts accusing Seraphim System of multiple POV and sourcing errors [325]
    3. Seraphim System reverts and states opening of RfC on talk page [326], which they create with multiple citations [327]
    4. Debresser reverts again and drags this back to here. [328]
    If there is an edit war, it is clearly started by Debresser's reverts in this instance. Seraphim System supplied sources and citations and went to the talkpage as WP:BRD asks editors to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Number 3 proves you wrong, since it answers the definition of an edit war. Please also notice that my revert was explained with a reference to several policy based reasons, which so far are echoed by most editors in the Rfc. By the way, are you familiar with WP:BRD and the rational behind it? Debresser (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, "Stupefying!" I like that one! Let's make this clear: If Seraphim's second revert is your definition of edit-warring, such a definition must apply equally to you. Not to mention the very plain sequence of four reverts on May 8/9 to 112.211.214.39's edits. So, if Seraphim is edit-warring, what are your many reverts? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be "restoring stable version in view of persistent edit warring". Debresser (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, "restoring stable version" is explicitly not part of the exceptions for edit-warring. By stating you are restoring the "stable" version you are effectively admitting to the exact same behavior you accuse Seraphim System of. (I also note the edit history shows that there isn't any "stable" version to revert to.) Your POV on what should be the stable version is not relevant to behavioral inquiry. The behavior -- that is, multiple reverts without substantial discussion -- is what defines edit-warring: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. You are repeatedly overriding Seraphim System's and other editors' contributions based on your POV, and that sword cuts both ways. Create all the justifications you want for this, but unless you can demonstrate your reverts fall into one of the limited safe harbors, you have no justification for calling out others for doing the same thing you are. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No overall comment on this conflict but that's not what BRD says. Seraphim's edit was bold, then reverted at which point they are supposed to take it to the talk page, not revert back to their bold edit and then take it to the talk page. Capeo (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a good point. Reverting and going to the talk page near-simultaneously is obviously not optimal and not in strictest compliance with that essay. Seraphim System may deserve a minnowing for it. It is better than double-reverting and then crying "edit war" and shuffling off to ANI. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at it more closely, it would seem to me Seraphim is clearly in the wrong here. They were reverted, which means their edit didn't have consensus, yet they reverted back and instantly, and pointedly, started an RFC then above claim that Debresser reverted during an RFC. Just because you start an RFC doesn't mean your version, against consensus, gets to stay there. That's silly. Everyone in a content dispute would do that then. This is also a good example where edit warring policy is easily gamed. The person reverting a non-consensus edit will hit three reverts first depending on what's considered the first revert. Capeo (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't touched it since then. Debresser's second revert was reverted by another editor and restored by a fourth editor. It doesnt seem right for me to push my own edit through while the RfC is open. An accusation that I am trying to "game" something is unwarranted here. Seraphim System (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And there is a good chance that the only reason you "haven't touched it since" is because of this report. There can be no doubt that your insistence on your change to the previous version was by all criteria the start of an edit war. Debresser (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies to everyone, but my personal policy with personal attacks is that I will not reply directly to editors who make personal attacks, even when admins refuse to warn or sanction them. It is still possible for us to work on the same articles and participate in the same RfCs but Debresser, I don't see any reason for us to interact directly here, or anywhere else. Regardless of what the admins do or do not do, I am not going to have discussions with an editor who is routinely uncivil, disruptive and who insults me. Seraphim System (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "uncivil"? "disruptive" "insults me"? If you view my reverts of your edit warring as "disruptive", that is simply funny and raises WP:COMPETENCE questions. I don't think I was ever uncivil, all the more so "insulting" to you. I always posted fair warnings, and reverted with explanatory edit summaries. If you don't want to discuss, please leave this project, because Wikipedia is about community editing, and such an approach can not be tolerated per WP:NOTHERE. Debresser (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a free tip: when you argue that you aren't being uncivil and insulting to SS, you probably shouldn't frame your argument in a manner that is uncivil and insulting to SS. Just a thought. Lepricavark (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding Debresser; I count 17 reverts on the article for the past two weeks. 10 of which belong to Debresser. None of which meet 3RRNO. Of these 10 reverts, one series of reverts is an explicit breach of 3RR and one meets the exact boundary of 3RR. Breach; 21:11, May 1, 09:48, May 2, 17:01, May 2 (Here you even had the gaul to give a warning to someone else for edit-warring), 17:32, May 2. 3RR met; 19:15 May 8, 03:50 May 9, 15:58, May 9. Debresser you don't show anywhere above that you're aware that edit-warring goes both ways. This is concerning. Moreso given the 5 separate blocks you've received since 2010 for breaching XRR or edit-warring. I would put a asterisk and say a sixth was earned, but, either unreported or unnoticed. What concerns me more, however, is the obvious ownership issue that you have with this article; Restore my version. Editor warned for edit warring. I think that Debresser should receive a solid warning for ownership and edit-warring for this filing. I also looked at talk page discussion, there is a substantial improvement in composure from you when discussing on a talk page as compared to the inflammatory edit summaries used in the article.
      Regarding Seraphim System; I'll address this first; routinely uncivil, disruptive and who insults me. Yes, edit-warring is disruptive and it's been routine on the article that incited this AN/I filing. SS has received a warning from Debresser for edit-warring across a total of 4 reverts over a period of almost two weeks over two mildly different bits of material; this first and this second. Debresser, you should not be handing out these warnings. With regard to routinely uncivil and insulting ... I'm not seeing it. I'm reading Debresser's comments in a very authoritative tone because that's how they come across, but, I'm not seeing incivility and definitely not insult. The more I read Debresser's comments, the more I find them problematic in terms of tone; Please do not make unilateral edits to that paragraph and any attempt to disrupt this article by editing without obtaining prior consensus. Debresser – I think this is necessary – this is a warning, do not tell other editors where they can and cannot edit. That is not acceptable. Nobody requires your personal permission to edit any article. I do agree that if there is a dispute, BRD it to the talk page. That said, SS you're being slightly too sensitive in regards to Debresser's comments. I can understand the reaction of your blood simmering under your skin. Indeed, reading Debresser's edit summaries and comments on your talk page, I am having the same reaction as you, however, I'm not clouded enough to view that inflammation as insult. In terms of the content of the edits being discussed, I agree with Debresser. Simply put, Debresser is in the right regarding the content (in my opinion), but, needs to tone it down pronto. You're carrying a big stick, should be speaking softly. At this time, SS doesn't need a warning or a block, but, they also need to tone down the accusatory tone that is present in comments like the one I quoted above. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Being blocked 5 times for the exact same problem? I feel there's a WP:CIR issue here. — JJBers 16:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Being blocked 5 times for the same thing over a long-term period, plus at least one 3RR he wasn't blocked for means he should in indeff'ed not warned. If being blocked 5 times hasn't stopped him, a warning won't. I disagree with User:Mr rnddude, derogatory comments directed at editors behavior without evidence, as where he accuses me of lying above, are personal attacks. Further repeatedly posting on my talk page after he has been asked to stop and replying with further insults when I have said I don't want to interact with him directly (basically saying that if I don't talk to him I am NOTHERE), is not only routine incivility, it is also a sign of a serious behavioral problem. This comment If you don't want to discuss, please leave this project, because Wikipedia is about community editing, and such an approach can not be tolerated per WP:NOTHERE. is insulting, and I don't have to discuss anything with an editor who behaves this way. WP:BRD will not be helpful with an editor who has this behavior pattern. I can't force the admins to indeff him, which is what they should be considering doing (or at least a long term block or TBAN), but I'm not going to talk to someone who has insulted me. Period, end of discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can request a two-way IBAN in that case. Though I suspect that will be summarily denied because it almost always causes more problems than it solves and is only ever offered in extreme circumstances. I know editors whose contributions to the project are invaluable and who also have the longest possible block logs imaginable. Indefinites for long-term editors are last resorts once every single person has given up on them. No admin is going to hand down an indefinite here. I'm sorry, but, that's the way it is.
    [D]erogatory comments directed at editors behavior without evidence and accuses me of lying above go well with diffs or it didn't happen. I re-read all of Debresser's comments above (twice), I don't see him accusing you of lying anywhere. The accusations of edit-warring, however, are derogatory.
    If you don't want to discuss, please leave this project, because Wikipedia is about community editing, and such an approach can not be tolerated per WP:NOTHERE. Well... he's right. This is a collaborative project. If you are working on the same article and come into conflict you must try to resolve the dispute. It doesn't matter whether you want to talk to them, you must talk to them. I routinely interact with editors who I disagree with and even back them up when they are right. I don't think I'm on bad terms with anybody, or rather, nobody is on bad terms with me.
    Furthermore, you must both be civil. You may not respond to incivility with incivility. Neither of these things are optional – discussion and civility I mean. If there is a problem with civility, that can be addressed. As it stands, I think NPA has been breached with the repeated assertions of "unilateral" edit-warring while simultaneously edit-warring. At the same time, a third party can be brought in to help a dispute be resolved if dispute resolution between the two parties can't be resolved. In this instance you started an RfC, that's a form of DR that brings in many "third opinions".
    I notice nobody is going to mention that the 5 EW and XRR breaches logged in Debresser's block log are split into three parts. Three blocks pre-2012, one in 2015, and one in 2017. These are sporadic, few and, in the instance of the last three blocks, far between (2011 -> 2015 -> 2017). WP:BRD will not be helpful with an editor who has this behavior pattern. Then you really aren't trying to think of a solution, you're just retaliating. Spite will not earn you any favours. Editors with problems sticking to 3RR can be given 1RR or 0RR restrictions. The first puts you on a forced BRD passage, and the second removes your revert rights completely. It's a common solution for editors who have a long history of edit-warring, but, who otherwise produce valuable content. As for civility and NPA ... that's more difficult. Many solutions are easy to game and it's impossible to enforce a civility standard. Are you aware that telling someone to "fuck off" from your talk page is (generally) considered acceptable? but doing the same on article or wikipedia space pages is not.
    My comments here are only to present or examine evidence, to provide my persepective on events (third opinion) and where necessary advise appropriate courses of action if I feel they are necessary. I have done that above. It is exceptionally rare that I will take unilateral action (such as warnings and closes), on this occassion I have delivered a sternly worded warning to Debresser regarding their giving orders to other editors. Nothing boils my blood quicker than abuse of authority or perceived authority.
    Side note; I fixed your ping template, there's a space between mr and rnddude. Don't worry about it though, I just hate redlinks. Also fixed Debresser's competence link. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think IBANs are necessary most of the time. Debresser and I aren't really active in the same areas. I am more active in Wikiproject Christianity and he is active in Wikiproject Judaism. There is just overlap on this one article because I don't think it is acceptable to negatively compare one religion to another without providing context. In general, one-sentence paragraphs are not an acceptable standard for writing of any kind. If an editor is civil, this should not be a problem, don't post on my talk page. Simple, most editors honor these requests. It shouldn't escalate beyond that. Where he says above that I left the edit alone because of this complaint, yes he is effectively calling me a liar. I have already said that I judged it would be inappropriate to push an edit through while it was in RfC. Replying to that by saying I am lying, which is the meaning of what he said, I consider a baseless personal attack. What happens if I do respond to it? And he trolls me again, and back and forth, on and on. Seraphim System (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, one-sentence paragraphs are not an acceptable standard for writing of any kind. Welcome to Wikipedia the most articles are still shit encyclopaedia. Simple, most editors honor these requests. Most editors also don't need to make these kinds of requests of other editors, but, I've already re-affirmed Bbb23's recommendation regarding that. You may do so, and you have done so. Where he says above that I left the edit alone because of this complaint, yes he is effectively calling me a liar. Mmm ... I can see how you read it like that. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to remember that I suggested the possibility that this report stopped Seraphim System short of turning the issue into a full-fledged edit war. Is there anybody here who can deny that possibility? I don't think a good faith assumption has to be made in this regards, being that Seraphim System had de facto already started an edit war. Saying that y offering this suggestion I am calling somebody a liar, goes way too far. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's impossible to know what he would have done if you had not filed this report. That was a purely hypothetical claim and I suggest you drop it. I am far more interested in finding out why you don't seem to realize you are also edit-warring, and to a far greater extent than SS. Less hypothetical speculation and more real talk, please. Lepricavark (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @Mr rnddude, for your analysis of the situation. I large and by agree with it. I would like to explain, however, that when dealing with an editor who has shown in the past that he is willing to edit war, and already started a new edit war, there is not much one can do to not sound, as you call it, "authoritative". Contrary to what you say, I - and any other editor - can and even should tell other editors what edits they can and can not make. That is what WP:EDIT WAR is all about: that edit wars can not be tolerated, and an editor who knowingly and willingly starts an edit war, should be told in no unclear terms that such behavior will not be tolerated. It would have been nice if another editor than me would have been around to do so, however, that didn't happen. Could I expressed myself kinder? Don't think that is possible. So I agree with you that "toning it down" would have been nice, but Seraphim System's insistence on his edit - in defiance of Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made and Do not edit war even if you believe you are right made that impossible in this specific case. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser you don't show anywhere above that you're aware that edit-warring goes both ways.
    an editor who knowingly and willingly starts an edit war, should be told in no unclear terms that such behavior will not be tolerated.
    Yup... can't make 'em listen though. TimothyJosephWood 19:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser, you too are willing to edit-war. That is half the point. If you yourself were unwilling to edit war, then there couldn't be an edit-war. I have never heard of a war with just one party, usually that party would just be called leader. Regarding the warning, you worded yourself so as to imply that SS requires permission to edit the article. They do not. At the end of the day, somebody has to go to "D" to end the war, that can either be you or them. I myself hate it when somebody introduces an edit that I think reduces the quality of the article and will revert on sight, but, if it becomes a dispute I try to take it straight to the talk page. I have a number of times even said that I'd leave it in if reverted. Remember, there is no deadline. If the article is in bad shape today, it can be fixed tomorrow or the day after or even after a week. If it's not vitally important to immediately fix, then it can wait if necessary. 99% (really 100%) of articles on the encyclopaedia are sub-par, in need of sources, expansion, copy-editing, etc. That one article won't make a difference if it has to wait a few days. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is also true. On the other hand, only all too often aggressive editors rely on the inertia of editors to push their version through. I have seen it so many times, and I have come to detest the insolent and violating approach of such editors, that reverting on sight has become an automatic reaction for me. I am sure it has helped in many cases to keep a consensus version in place. Seraphim System has tried that approach twice now, but it seems the Rfc he opened is proving him to draw the short straw. All I wanted to do is to force him to discuss and to acknowledge that there is actually a consensus version, which is not his version. That is why I reverted him, that is why I came here. And it seems to have worked. He stopped edit warring and he opened an Rfc (in continuation of previous discussions on the talkpage). Sorry for being a bit incoherent at this late hour. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser, engaging in multiple reverts is not an acceptable way to "force him to discuss and to acknowledge that there is actually a consensus version, which is not his version". That is in fact edit warring, and is just as blcockable as anything that Seraphim System did in this matter, if not more so. Please consider this a formal warning, act in this way again and you will be blocked for edit warring. Mr rnddude is absolutely correct above, the urgency of change the WP:WRONGVERSION does not justify prolonging an edit war, which is what continuing to revert does, whoever might be judged to have started the war. You should know better. Please don't do this sort of thing again. DES (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The one starting the edit war, is the one who ignores WP:BRD, which was Seraphim System. It is his belligerent attitude which forced my hand. I know what you are saying, Mr rnddude and DESiegel, since I am a 9-year editor on this project, with close to 100,0000 edits. Doesn't mean I think that is completely fair though. I think the editor starting an edit war knowingly and willingly while ignoring a warning posted on his talkpage, is far more disruptive than the editor trying to stop him. No need to try and convince me of the opposite or to repeat your stated opinions, I am well aware. But I would like to see you both falling over Seraphim System at least as much as you are falling over me now. Debresser (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arredondo ales

    Explanation left about NF content in user areas (and how to suppress it in a work in progress), hopefully that will work.. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Continued re-adding of non-free logos to User:Arredondo ales/sandbox. Logos have been removed three times before per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free files, but have been re-added each time. This is a new user so it's understandable that they are not familiar with relevant policy and attempts at explaining the issue have been made in relevant edit sums and at User talk:Arredondo ales#Non-free image use. However, based upon User talk:Marchjuly#Arredondo ales's Sandbox, the other editor does not seem convinced.

    • Diffs of image removal: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Note: The first two removals were done in two stages each: 1st removal (diffs 1 and 2) and 2nd removal (diffs 3 and 4))
    • Diffs of reverts: 6, 7 and 8
    • Diffs of attempts at explanation: 9, 10 and 11
    • Diff of notification of this ANI discussion: 12

    I am not asking for a WP:BLOCK per se and certainly do not want to WP:BITE a new editor. Perhaps, an administrator can take a look at this and try and explain that non-free content is simply not allowed in the user namespace and also perhaps explain WP:UP#OWN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Soapboxing in garment industry

    (non-admin closure) Withdrawn by filer. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Monxogendermigrationclass is using this article as a WP:SOAPBOX ([329]). I am at 3RR-limits, opened a discussion on the article-TP (no response), addressed the user at their TP (no response). It's 3AM over here, I'm tired and I'd like some extra eyes on the article, just to make sure I'm not being paranoid. Kleuske (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thought I'd just mention that the editor has responded on your talk page. Blackmane (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... I just saw that. Responded there. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Legal threat on User Talk page

    (non-admin closure) User blocked. — JJBers 16:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As seen here User is probably just venting, but rules is rules. Scr★pIronIV 16:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • User warned, user talk watchlisted. I doubt the veracity of this particular threat. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User reinstating PROD tag

    Vedat yenerer, a Proposed deletion tag may be removed by anyone, with or without a stated rationale. It cannot be replaced on an article if it has been removed. Options for nominating for deletion after the Proposed deletion tag is removed include filing an official WP:AFD nomination by following the precise instructions on that page.

    Vedat yenerer's username has been soft-blocked as an apparent violation of WP:REALNAME, but they may either verify their real name via the instructions on their talkpage, or choose a new username using the template provided on their talkpage.

    (non-admin closure)

    Softlavender (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Vedat yenerer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    State-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    This user has placed a Proposed deletion tag on State-sponsored terrorism, even though it was already contested on the talk page. After I contested it by removing the PROD tag, he reinstated it, with an edit summary like "who gave you the right?" Funnily enough, the user thanked me for removing the PROD tag. It is a pretty new user, but a rather pushy one it seems. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the reinstated PROD - we'll see if the messages you left them make a difference. I don't think any further action is going to be required here -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 18:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has started an AfD on the article's talk page. That was probably the right thing to do, although it's in the wrong place and the rationale is still weak. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector It has been pointed out that the user shares a name with the Vedat Yenerer, a Turkish journalist who was tried by the regime, which may be a violation of WP:REALNAME. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 23:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is definitely a violation of REALNAME, and we need to squash it before it gets picked up, especially because it seems likely to get picked up in a non-English language, and missed by most everyone if it does. TimothyJosephWood 23:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Username blocked. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    My apologies for the indecisive statement, I am pretty poor at the whole UAA thing. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. It doesn't come up much, but when it does, it has about a 10% chance of ending up on the evening news, and that's no bueno. TimothyJosephWood 00:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Incorrect page title

    This page here has an incorrect title: St. Petersburg is spelled incorrectly. I'm not sure how one goes about fixing that, maybe it's an administrator job, or maybe it requires a merge with a correctly titled page, so I thought I would post it here for someone to take a look at. Cheers, Mramoeba (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Mramoeba, article moved and redirect deletion requested. You can move pages yourself by clicking on "more" and then "move". Then you just have to type in the new page name of the article click before clicking "move page". Then just request an R3 deletion of the old page. Make sure to move article talk with the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, once you know, it's easy :D Thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cecil B Pimento

    User:Cecil B Pimento, a new user, is starting out their Wikipedia career with a series of abusive edits and edit comments. [330] [331] From the pattern of editing it appears to be the same person that is using the IP 76.79.205.162 [332] - I would request both be blocked. Artw (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not entirely convinced they are the same person. the IP isn't being nearly as nasty as the account. (which has been blocked) From what I'm seeing in the context of these conversations, there may have been some off-wiki canvassing on reddit that drew both uses to the same area. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Cecil B Pimento is hardly a new user, in fact: their very first edit after creating blank userpages for themselves was a warning template.[333] Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. I'm not sure about the IP. All right, I fully expect to get yet another edit conflict. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Yeah, that was obviously a good block. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...aaaaaaaaand talk page access revoked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Diamond Foundry suspicious re-creation, possible compromised account

    I came across the creation of the page Diamond Foundry under two titles - the correct capitalization as well as Diamond foundry. I assumed it was a mistake by a new user and tagged the wrong one for deletion, but then they continued to edit the wrong one, so I tagged the correct one for deletion to make way for a move. User:Kudpung deleted the page, and I moved the wrong title to it and tagged the redirect for deletion. However, I'm finding a log entry regarding this page being recreated by a blocked/banned editor - Jeremy112233 - in violation of their block. Upon further inspection, the user who has now re-created it, Greenfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not edit for nine years, then suddenly came back to re-create this article and leave an interesting message at the article's talk page. Something tells me this account has actually been compromised in order to re-create this article, and I therefore would like opinions from here. Home Lander (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sleeper? See this sock farm. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung, I suppose it could be, though if it is, it's actually older than the "master". I'll open an SPI and see where that leads. Home Lander (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not Jeremy112233. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Greenfan is an WP:SPA around Martin Roscheisen (and the creator of it), presumably undisclosed COI editor. It's trivial to see a connection offwiki. Widefox; talk 15:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dismissal of James Comey

    Supplant hatting. El_C 07:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For the past several days, Google News has included a link to this Wikipedia article near the top of its list of headlines. So, it's a high profile article, and it's a BLP with respect to lots of people including Trump and Comey. I am requesting that admins watch this page and enforce Wikipedia policy. Recent violations of policy (not merely guidelines) include the following.

    User:Casprings has deleted this:

    References

    1. ^ Wilber, Del Quentin (May 16, 2017). "Trump Asked Comey to Drop Flynn Investigation, According to Memo Written by Former FBI Director". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 16, 2017.

    According to WP:BLP, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I also note another Wikipedia policy: WP:UNRESPONSIVE, which says "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary." Caspring's deletion was unaccompanied by any edit summary, much less any discussion at the article talk page.

    Other recent edits violate another policy, WP:Preserve, which says: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia". Content was completely deleted from the BLP by User:Volunteer Marek, with this edit summary: "belongs in response section not lede - lede too long anyway".[334] But Marek made no effort to move the content or preserve it, and instead made it disappear with no further discussion.

    I have cited three separate policy violations here. Please enforce, or at least start watching the article. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anythingyouwant: I'm not seeing where you tried to engage the user in dialogue or start a discussion about the edits other than a copy-paste of this complaint on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey about 18 minutes ago... So why are you posting this here? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The three violations listed above are the tip of the iceberg. I'd like some admin eyes on the page. These are all experienced editors who know better, and I have asked them both at the talk page to stop it, with no reply so far anyway. This is just a slight part of the non-stale stuff going on there, and it's been impossible to edit the article due to all the policy violations. If these two suddenly reverse themselves, then I'd be glad to withdraw this matter from ANI, but the page still needs admin eyes. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, so I guess I should go that route instead of posting here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Just to renew my voice-in-the-wilderness call that breaking events shouldn't even have articles until they're been out of the headlines for at least three months and things have settled down. Our readers should look to us for the long view and get their news from news sources. Controversial topics are hard enough; controversial topics with new stuff coming out every day overtax the community's resources to no long-term benefit -- the long-term article can be written in the fullness of time. EEng 11:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Three months seems reasonable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued disruption by Deciduous Maple

    Taken care of - thanks to El_C. Neutralitytalk 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Deciduous Maple tried to sneak an edit under the radar here. In response to a previous ANI post (archived), this user was previously warned by NeilN on their user talk page about editing on White supremacy and trying to remove "racist" from the lead. See this talk page section for more context. Their disruption apparently is continuing. They were warned a block would result if the behavior continued. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit summary here says a lot and now we've blown straight through 3RR. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy indef block for WP:NOTHERE. I was just writing the same report myself. The disruptive/problematic behavior here, from 2014-2015 and then again in 2017, makes up 100% of the user's edits. A look at the user's talk page shows repeated warnings, all of which have been disregarded, from Loriendrew, Acroterion, Grayfell, Volunteer Marek, EvergreenFir, ChiveFungi (who identified the off-wiki canvassing), and NeilN (who issued a strong final warning last time). All of these entreaties have been disregarded. User has just blown through 3RR just now as well. Detailed evidence is in box below — let's please get this done. Neutralitytalk 07:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Details of Deciduous Maple disruption.

    User:Deciduous Maple has been at ANI in the not-distant past - Archive 948 for off-wiki recruiting/canvassing (trying to recruit editors to change the lead section on the white supremacy article), edit warring, and tendentiously editing. This user registered in 2014 and appears sporadically. A review of the user's contributions shows that all almost all of his edits are either:

    • The user acknowledges the consensus, but disregards it, basically on the idea that everyone else is wrong.

    This user does not edit outside these topics. His user page proclaims that "I specialize in the removal of subtle (or not so subtle) political and emotional bias from articles" which I think is a safe sign, in conjunction with the continuously bad editing behavior, that he is not here to build an encyclopedia.

    "Speedy indef block..." Perhaps when someone makes a worthwhile argument about why "racist" should be in the lede. Deciduous Maple (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. El_C 07:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Un-salting a title

    Page un-salted and moved accordingly.Winged Blades Godric 08:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can some kind soul take care of Talk:Jordan Levin (media executive)#Requested move 9 May 2017?Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 08:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz:--Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 08:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A disruptive newbie..

    User blocked, nothign more to do here. DES (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can someone look at Human Rights Foundation.First started off by trying to speedy-delete Human Rights Foundation and then opening move requests to move the article to different names(See Talk:Human Rights Foundation.)Also, see the discussions/interactions at User talk:Necrothesp.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 10:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Why haven't they been made to change their name for a start? Promotional much? Share use, much? And this, whilst not yet a legal threat, is certainly intended as a threat and to have a chilling effect. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--Frankly,I feel an indef is the way to go.Going by his edits and an apparent liking for hastily templating other users(has already templated me twice!) , chances are one in a million--he will turn up into a productive contributor.Winged Blades Godric 10:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is borderline trolling!Winged Blades Godric 10:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As, indeed, is this :) WP:BATTLEGROUND, anyone? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaand- many thanks as ever to User:DESiegel. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @DESiegel:--Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 10:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RfC

    (non-admin closure) We don't need announcements about WP:COIN issues. Even so, move to WP:AN. — JJBers 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please review the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Don_Reitz.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a boomerang is required. This user has now reverted the addition of COI templates from articles they've been paid to write multiple today on each of Don Reitz [335] [336] and Bonin Bough [337] [338] [339] and is now edit warring to make it seem as if they are allowed to do this: [340] [341]. SmartSE (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, since that post at WP:COIN is essentially a complaint about me, it might have been courteous to mention that you had posted here, Janweh64. I don't know what the problem is here, but it seems that the editor just will not listen to anything anyone says. There've already been two discussions here – both started by me – about Janweh moving his/her own WP:paid drafts to mainspace. Now we have edit-warring on articles where there's a declared COI, attempting to edit the guidance for COI editors in relation to maintenance templates to make that all right, and at least one more copyright violation (a single sentence, copied verbatim from a book; this was added long after the problems at George Ronald Richards had been sorted out). I'm also having difficulty seeing the sudden new interest in pages that I have created (1, 2) as anything but purely disruptive in intent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Addition of unsoured content by Checco

    We are in an AfD in National liberalism, I'm trying to keep it clean of WP:OR, the article has being tagged since 2012. I removed the unsourced material citing WP:OR and Checco deliberately re added it without citations. And stated that the sources mention national liberalism, which they not. I warned him several times in the summaries, in his/her talk page [342][343][344] and in the AdF and in the article talk page as you can see. With the instigation of other users like E.M.Gregory and User:Autospark, received thanks and comments in the article's talk page, they have been re adding the unsourced material and removing tags without consistent explanation [345][346][347][348][349][350], and accusing me of bad faith as you can see in the talk page and in the AfD. Their will to maintein OR and the syntheis of the article it's really problematic. That's why I decided to report it. Rupert Loup (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am very sorry about this. My edits were based on consensus and, in doing them, I was supported by other users: User:E.M.Gregory (who has been also reverting User:Rupert loup) and User:Autospark. I should have reported User:Rupert loup here, but I preferred not to do it because I always favour discussion. The user in question thinks that he/she can tell right from wrong and that others' opinions count for nothing. A fan of total rollbacks, he/she has even violated the 3R rule today at National liberalism. Very disappointed by all this, I am thus asking the administrators to stop this user from doing what he/she wants. --Checco (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry that the reverts got out of hand. Attempts to discuss issues like the validity of sources and teh need to obtain consensus on the talk page with uere:loup have proven fruitless. I had though of bringing this here, but hoped that we could work things out, or that an editor would close the AfD (this dispute regards political ideal popular in the 1800s that was kept after a previous AfD discussion.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rupert loup: What you were reverting was not vandalism. Is there any reason why you shouldn't be blocked for violating WP:3RR? @E.M.Gregory and Checco: A couple editors cannot overturn our verifiability policy and call it "consensus". --NeilN talk to me 13:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All three of us (there is also User:Autospark) know that, but we are talking about content that has been there for five years with no opposition and/or perfectly sourced material. There is no reason why User:Rupert loup should not be blocked, but I am not asking for that, I am just asking to return to the previous, consensual version of the article and let the discussion continue. --Checco (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Checco, you don't seem very sorry, calling for an "administrators to stop this user from doing what he/she wants", and you E.M.Gregory, I asked for sources and you don't engage in the talk, you accused me of bad faith, didn't talk in the talk page about this incident way before I reverted the vandalism of Checco. And then you join Checco in the re addion of unsourced content, I warning you about this. I want a sincere apology. Neil, the purposely act of trying to maintain unsourced content in Wikipedia, despite the constant warnings, is not vandalism? then what is it? If they did it in good faith ok, but I showed to them the policies several times, there are in my talk page, in the article page, in their talk page and in the AfD, and they keep doing it calling that there was consensus. Where we reach consensus for that? I don't know. That's basically the problem, that I warned them several times and they didn't listened, in fact they ignored me on purpose, for example here, he said "I simply did not want to be dragged into an edit war by a edit-war- and not consensus-oriented guy like you", he didn't care about about the policies that I showed and then keep warring and adding unsourced content. I just wan't that the adding of unsourced material stop, and an apology would be nice but it's not really necessary. Rupert Loup (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very sorry for what you have done, indeed: I am quite offended for having been reported here. --Checco (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rupert loup: The first paragraph of WP:VANDALISM tells you exactly what it is. Repeatedly adding unsourced or poorly sourced content may be disruptive, but it is not vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 14:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, most of what we are talking about was the established version of the article. Three users oppose Rupert loup's deletions and want those parts to be re-instated after Ruper loup's repeted rollbacks. Who is the vandal? --Checco (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Checco: No one is the vandal. It does not matter if the material was longstanding - see WP:BURDEN. @Rupert loup: Are you willing to undo your last reverts to avoid a block for violating 3RR? --NeilN talk to me 14:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that vandalism and disrupting editing are different things, thus I agree with you. The problem is that I and other users have been extensively accused of being vandals by Rupert loup for days. It would be great if you or Rupert loup were to rollback his/her latest rollback and re-instate the other version, which currently gets more support from users, but if he/she accepts to refrain from editing in a disruptive way and impose his/her version, especially during an AfD, a block will not not be necessary. --Checco (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN, WP:VANDALISM says that "intentionally making abusive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block." and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.". There was no good-faith effort. They purposly did the edits knowing that was against a policy. Checco stated that. He said that he was here since 10 years and he know the policies. But then said that I don't have the power to block him/her and that many users gave thanks for his/her edits and continue with the edits. That's the problem, good faith states that "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." They mocked me saying that my edits were "inept" and that I had bad faith. It's not only what they did, it's how they did it. However, I don't think that anyone here should be blocked, with this is just enough. But I would assume good faith and if you said that Checco wasn't vandalic ok. However he apologized and then accuse me of vandal. Is he really sorry about this? I want that this nonsense stop. Rupert Loup (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I never apologized about anything. Please understand that the only disrupting editing is yours! --Checco (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given a chance, now blocked for 24 hours. Asking for a page number [351] does not merit a sixth revert in 24 hours. This is not an invitation for other editors to re-revert. All editors should work out sourcing issues on talk page. Any more comments about vandalism or bad faith editing may result in more blocks. You may sharply disagree with the actions of other editors, but that doesn't mean they're vandals. --NeilN talk to me 14:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure the block was necessary, however I think we can rollack Rupert loup's latest rollbacks. Why not? --Checco (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Checco: Because we don't need yet more edit warring on that article. Let everyone take a deep breath for a day or two and then move forward on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 15:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked per agreement not to edit article for the next 48 hours. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been involved in many hotly contested AfDs, most recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, a nasty I/P related fight in which I confess to having been out of my depth. But even in that vicious (I/P) arena, the discussion was conducted according to recognizable rules, as I think that talk page shows. Here, Rupert loup, an appearingly experienced editor, seems to have been playing some bizarre game. It is, for example, usual for editors to be careful about deleting RS material while arguing for deletion. But here, shortly after the AfD began, Checco reverts a large deletion by loup, edit summary: "ok AfD, but pleas do not remove the article's content" [352]. loup responds by repeating the deletion with the perplexing comment "no, its unsourced" [353]. Checco restores the material [354] with the edit summary "ongoing AfD discussion: please do not edit in the meantime", and [355], edit summary: [yes, it says exactly that — please do not remove sources]; loup deletes it again [356] edit summary: "Reverting vandalism." This sort of deletion went on and on for 2 days. All of this is odd because while you do get intense disputes involving a lot of fields - including ethnic nationalist movement, theory of nationalism is not usually all that heated. So, yes, I lost my cool a little, and apologize for that. But I do think the proper out come here is some sort of WP:BOOMERANG for Rupert loup, perhaps involving a look at his editing history.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN, just I want to point that you stated "this is not an invitation for other editors to re-revert", well it's been reverted and not by me. I was just for doing that when I saw that E.M.Gregory just did it. Edit warring goes both ways but I was the only blocked, just pointing that. I tried to engage in the talk page and in the talk page of the article. I was sure that it was vandalism, now I don't think it any more. I also want to point these edit by me [357], I said "No, its unsourced WP:OR, you can re-add it if you add citations" and then the numerous templates that I added in their talk pages, it's not that I didn't try to engage. I don't accusing anyone of anything. Just pointing what I said and what I did. I'm sorry for the warring. I read WP:DDE and now I know what I should do in this cases. But I always explained what I was doing and why I was doing it. However, I'm really think that someone should explain them the policies about WP:OR and WP:CONSENSUS clearly. Because like Checco point out above when said "Please understand that the only disrupting editing is yours!" and E.M.Gregory edit warring despite that you said that we shouldn't do that, it seems seems that they do not understand what went wrong. If nothing has been learned, what is the point of all these? I'm acknowledged my disruptive edits. Sorry for that again. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Codename Lisa’s WP:TPO violations and edit warring

    Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) has been edit warring, repeatedly changing my signature, also violating WP:TPO. Here is the most recent revision. WP:TPO states that “fixing format errors that render material difficult to read” is permitted, but Codename Lisa changed <br> to <br/>; <br> is not a format error, nor does it render any material difficult to read.

    Codename Lisa has also attempted to provoke me (Finally. He is in my talk page and I have the freedom to suppress this annoying <br> into <br/>. What a relief!), and she has violated the talk page policy yet again, by personally attacking me (Still, in comparison to this User:PapiDimmi, the sock was an angel.). I was not even involved in this discussion, and when I tried to confront her, she removed my comment. Here is the discussion about changing my line break tags.

    Codename Lisa has removed several of my comments, so I cannot discuss this issue with her any further, as she clearly does not want me to. I do not want my signature changed, and it does not need to be changed. WP:TPO only allows one to change a formatting error if it makes the page hard to read, and <br> is neither a formatting error, nor does it make anything difficult to read. There is absolutely no functional difference between <br> and <br/> (or even <br />, for that matter).
    ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    When XHTML was the standard html produced by most up-to-date websites, it was necessary to make single tags like <br> into self-closing tags like this: <br /> for it to be valid XHTML. Now that we have all adopted HTML5, those constraints have disappeared and <br> is now perfectly valid markup. However, old habits die hard and perhaps Codename Lisa has forgotten that the change has occurred. I'd counsel further efforts to explain to her; despite it being very important to you right now, it probably doesn't "amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world". When a user removes comments from their talk page, it is taken as an acknowledgement that they have been read, so you ought not to give up too soon. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Codename Lisa has not forgotten anything. She’s well aware that <br> is a perfectly fine tag; however, she chooses to ignore and remove my comments and keep editing my signature, despite I and others telling her not to. The only thing I want Codename Lisa to do is to stop editing my signature, yet she refuses to.
    ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As there is absolutely no functional difference, would it not be better to just apply WP:DGAF, and worry about something that actually does matter? Yes, I understand the importance of not defacing someone's sig, but I don't see any real defacement here. There is no material change to the meaning of the talk messages. Obviously there's some form of conflict between the two of you, and the simplest resolution seems to me for either of you to just walk away from it, without involving AN/I in a change which is a null change after rendering. If it's limited to Lisa's user talk page and apparently helps with some (arguably broken) tool she uses, walking away seems like a reasonable response. Escalation seems unnecessary and inappropriate to me. Either of you can "be the bigger person" (or equivalent, and for which there is no tangible prize) by just dropping it. I'm not saying you are "wrong", only suggesting a peaceful resolution which is available to you. Murph9000 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What Murph said. Of course come back if she starts fiddling with your signature on any page other than her own user/talk page. Editors have quite wide leeway on their own userpages as long as they are not distorting or altering other editors comments in any manner. A minor pointless tweak to your signature that makes no actual difference would be unlikely to qualify. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, her change of your signature is definitely against TPO, so no, she can't do that, and the personal attack you mentioned is definitely an attack, Codename Lisa definitely needs to cool it with the personal attacks.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on this current matter but only because I was aware this happened, PapiDimmi has recently been blocked over a tussle with Codename Lisa before over TPO-related issues, so this might be a bit BITEY as well. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure what you mean by “bitey,” but I was blocked due to edit warring on the Template talk:Cleanup page. Codename Lisa wasn’t really involved, but rather, FleetCommand (talk · contribs) was the one who violated WP:TPO and continued to edit my signature, just like Codename Lisa. Both I and FleetCommand were blocked for twenty-four hours.
    ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Codename Lisa filed the edit warring report against you, and there was extended discussion from you with them on your talk page after the block, and seemingly over the same issue of formatting and TPO. This exists and could be an influence why this report is being made, so those reviewing this should be aware of that situation. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I posted this is that I want Codename Lisa to stop editing my signature. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Side complaint about unwelcome changes to comments in this thread
    • @PapiDimmi: Would you care to explain why you just needlessly edited my comment in this edit? I deliberately use double spaces between sentences, partly due to my visual impairment. It does not apply outside of articles, but even MOS:PUNCTSPACE specifically caters to those of us who prefer the traditional double space at the end of a sentence. What other changes did you try to sneak into the preceding conversation? Kindly do not edit the text of my comments ever again! Murph9000 (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, I apologize for my mistake. I did not realize that these trifling formatting errors which make it were deliberate. I will kindly not edit the text of your comments ever again!
    ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I uncollapsed the above. It isn't really off topic as it is discussing alteration of editor's comments. This time by the OP. It is ironic that during a discussion about altering a post the complaining editor is altering others posts. ~ GB fan 17:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This post is about Codename Lisa’s vandalism, when she changed <br> to <br/> in my signature, violating Wikipedia’s talk page guidelines. Murph9000 discussed me removing double and triple spaces in his comment, which is not relevant to this incident discussion and thus needs to be collapsed, per WP:TPO.
    ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @PapiDimmi: They are not trifling formatting errors, or any type of error. They are a very deliberate choice to use traditional typography. It makes the source text considerably easier for me to read when composing and reviewing my comments (and while it would give greater WP:ACCESSIBILITY for me, I do not change other people's comments to achieve that). Murph9000 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Murph9000: I understand. I’ve apologized for my mistake, and I won’t edit the spacing in your comments in the future. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 18:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, while <br> is valid HTML5, it's still treated like an unclosed tag when using the syntax highlighter gadget and that affects the highlighting. It's just a minor quibble, though. As far as page rendering goes, nothing's affected. clpo13(talk) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not familiar with the syntax highlighter, but it’s up to whomever maintains this tool to fix issues like this, not me or Codename Lisa. Like you said, <br> is not a formatting error which renders the page difficult to read, thus changing it in somebody else’s signature violates WP:TPO, like I’ve said numerous times before.
    ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ownership behaviour

    Since the discussion a year ago on Talk:Koren Specific Technique #Selective merge showed clear support for merging Koren Specific Technique (a stub since 2015), the creator of the article, Valoem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has edit-warred to revert the redirect on 8 separate occasions against 4 separate editors:

    1. reverts QuackGuru [358]
    2. reverts CFCF [359]
    3. reverts CFCF [360]
    4. reverts CFCF [361]
    5. reverts CFCF [362]
    6. reverts Edward321 [363]
    7. reverts RexxS [364]
    8. reverts RexxS [365]

    The redirect is to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Koren Specific Technique, where the entire content of the Koren Specific Technique article can be found along with similar single-paragraph sections about numerous other techniques. This kind of ownership of articles is unhealthy and is symptomatic of Valoem's obsession with the articles he has created. I first came across Valoem yesterday at Talk:PAX Labs, where he was badgering all the other editors who wanted to merge Juul (electronic cigarette) (a stub that Valoem created) into PAX Labs (a two-paragraph article). I don't intend playing any more revert-games with this editor.

    He has now posted 6 times on my talk page since this morning:

    1. Template:uw-harass1: [366]
    2. "Don't do it again you would stand change against me at ANI." [367]
    3. "Do not participate in articles I am involved in. Also do not proceed further in the current discussion and we well have no issues going forward." [368]
    4. "You ask me to stop posting on your talk page, but then revert my edits I don't think so." [369]
    5. [370]
    6. [371]

    including 2 templated warnings and those little gems instructing me where I can and cannot participate.

    In full disclosure, I edit regularly on medical topics and am an active member of WP:WikiProject Medicine, where I have a long history of trying to defend medical articles from undue fringe content and promotion. Having been told on Talk:PAX Labs "I recommend you review my history", I did that today – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Valoem?offset=201705181600 – and the Chiropractic-related revert at Koren Specific Technique – marked as a minor edit! – lead me to the sorry behaviour of Valoem at that article. I'd like to see some action to stop him edit-warring (even slowly) over chiropractic and to give other editors a chance to discuss e-cigs. I would be nice if he could keep off my talk page as well, but that's less important. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not seeing this in the above, I would like Valoem to explain striking RexxS' !vote. What policy or guideline backs you up on doing that?
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Berean Hunter, I warned Valoem specifically about the striking-out, which also had an egregious edit summary, but their only response was to remove my warning as "improper".[372] They have now posted on my page, complaining that I didn't warn RexxS too, and bafflingly telling me "Bishonen you've dealt with me before".[373] I don't know what that refers to, but I will (of course) not take any admin action wrt any of these events, as RexxS is a good friend who helps me with technical stuff. (I told Valoem that up front and got it thrown back in my face: "So i received a warning because he is your friend?".) Leaving this to uninvolved admins. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    @Berean Hunter:, that was miscommunication. I asked him to stop his attacks ... he said he would not. Then I left him a message to be uninvolved in the topic if he doesn't want to change his behavior. Instead of responding he reverted my edit which I took as a sign he didn't want to be involved. After he made it clear he wanted to make personal attacks and be involved I unstruck his vote and restore my response which he removed.
    • Response I am surprised to see such a bad faith attack from RexxS (talk · contribs). Everything he said is completely unfounded and false. This article Koren Specific Technique survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koren Specific Technique (AfD). This AfD was rampant with WP:IDONTLIKEIT bias and was nominated by ScienceApologist. After the topic survived editor, CFCF, bold merged and showed multiple biases against fringe topics. I argued that this is notable quackery and we document things such as this here. There again was a discussion here and here which both came to no consensus. Again it was bold merged without consensus when I wasn't paying attention. I spoke with DGG (talk · contribs) here regarding Gonstead technique which was also nominated for deletion due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, he came to the same conclusion I did believe in possible bias and prejudice. He also has seen in the past editors with certain biases eventually merging content surreptitiously to a parent article before finally removing the section entirely. Therefore I was fighting a bias with consensus on my side. Those who favored inclusion have moved on to other subjects. Editors then continued to merged the article without discussion showing systematic bias. So I am not reverting due to ownership, I am reverting due to consensus and in an attempt to stop the rampant anti-fringe bias prevalent here on Wikipedia. Here are all the prior discussions for merge all closing with no consensus:
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koren Specific Technique (against merge)
    • Fringe noticeboard first discussion (no consensus to merge)
    • Fringe noticeboard second discussion (no consensus to merge)
    • here is a discussion I had with Jimbo Wales on the subject , He agrees we should cover this and there is a form of bias.

    Now the article was still merged without consensus, does this seem like ownership? Or maintaining consensus? Perhaps RexxS was unaware of the article history.

    When it come to RexxS (talk · contribs) he began by attacking me for no reason here. Every post he highlighted above was in defense. Here is the chronology of events:

    1. (20:25, 16 May 2017) Discussion before RexxS entrance, We had a friendly civil discussion here.
    2. (20:46, 16 May 2017) RexxS enters discussion with unprovoked attack, He wrote "And I'm always saddened to see a shill desperately trying to preserve free advertising for their company in such a naked manner." he wrote in the comments field (let's not beat around the bush)
    3. (21:58, 16 May 2017) My response, I let him know that I am not a "shill" advertising for the company and we are equally qualified, and to please assume good faith.
    4. (22:31, 16 May 2017) His response He said "I've not misjudged what your doing here: you're defending having two articles when it's obvious that there's barely enough encyclopedic material for one. What your reasons for that mistake are, is something for you to ponder. Don't bother trying to threaten me, because you're obviously nowhere near as qualified as I"
    5. (23:56, 16 May 2017) Warning I gave him a warning for his personal attack. Which he reverted.
    6. (00:03, 17 May 2017) Told me to stay off his page Instead of apologizing he told me to not engage.
    7. (00:08, 17 May 2017) I responded here I ask him to not participate in the discussion any further if he refused to act in good faith. He then reverted my request. So I assumed he wanted no further part of the discussion.
    8. (00:47, 17 May 2017) I removed his remark, under the impression that he did not want to participate I removed his remark and left a message explaining his initial attack and requesting an apology. I admit the removal of his remark was miscommunication due to the revert of my comment with no responses from RexxS that he wanted to engage. Regardless this error was corrected.
    9. (00:49, 17 May 2017) His next revert RexxS then restored his comment which he is allowed to, but also removed my comment.
    10. (00:52, 17 May 2017) I then restored his remark and also my comment and noted the error of thinking he did not want to participate.
    11. (00:59, 17 May 2017) RexxS responses with another attack He wrote "And you really want me to apologise for pointing out how your arguments here appear? I don't know which is funnier. Almost as funny as you thinking you decide where I can edit: "Do not participate in articles I am involved in. Also do not proceed further in the current discussion and we well have no issues going forward." Well here I am, participating in the discussion. What are you going to do about it? I promise you, I'll still be defending this project from articles like this long after you've given up and gone. Now stop being rude to your elders and betters – didn't your mom teach you any manners?"
    12. (01:30, 17 May 2017) I politely responsed I showed him that I was providing sources and recommend AfD where more than just fringe eCigs editors can be involved.
    13. (02:28, 17 May 2017) Started as a polite response, but then claimed I was attacking him. He wrote at the end "I don't se any sign of you offering them apologies for your ad hominem attack. How dare you suggest that others are not here to build an encyclopedia, when you've demonstrated that your only debating tactic is to attack other editors?". I've been on the defensive the whole time. RexxS first comment was an accusation that I was a "shill"
    14. (11:19, 17 May 2017) Hours later he reverts Koren Specific Technique, another article I worked on It seemed like a personal attack.
    15. (14:02, 17 May 2017) I ask him to stop looking for articles I've written and merging them.

    I have not revert @Edward321: as I don't believe it to be a personal attack. This is the exact order of what happened. There are also other editors who support merge, but have come in the friendly manner, I have no qualms about editors disagreeing with me, only when they attack me. Valoem talk contrib 16:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bishonen:, Perhaps we've had a misunderstanding, I hope after I've highlighted everything which occurred you can understand some sympathy as to my initial irritation with the warning. Valoem talk contrib 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is common sense to merge a stub-like article. The merge was done about a year ago. Virtually the same content is found at the main article. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_50#General_Discussion_of_Above_Chiropractic_Articles and Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique#Comments_on_selective_merge for previous discussions. Unless it is too big for the main article there is no reason for a stand alone article. There is only a small paragraph at Chiropractic_treatment_techniques#Koren_Specific_Technique. The page was redirected again recently because is it duplication of the same content from the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @QuackGuru: I understand where you are coming from, but I think the ownership accusation from RexxS borderlines bad faith given the prior discussions we've all engaged. Valoem talk contrib 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Southeast Asian religion: disruptive forumshopping

    Ok this is a total mess, and I apologize for this long post. Over about the last week a number of editors have been flinging sockpuppetry accusations at each other over a series of very long disputes over Islam and Hindiusm and other Southeast Asian topics. I think I've done my part over at SPI but I'm putting this over to the community for longer term solutions.

    I became involved in this from a post on Bbb23's talk page, linking to a case in which Terabar accused Capitals00 of socking with several other accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00/Archive#12 May 2017). I judged this to be retaliatory, based on Terabar having just coming off a block for starting a revert war at Criticism of Hinduism and having mostly just repeated an investigation that had been done already twice before by CheckUsers. I advised Terabar that rehashing this case again would likely be considered harassment, and warned them not to do it again. See the collapsed section at the bottom of the archive for Terabar pushing back on this; I fully expected this was not the last of it.

    Some time later, ProudIndian007 appeared on my talk page alleging that Terabar's report is linked to an Indian government deep intel conspiracy or something, which I have not investigated at all because it's complete nonsense. However, that account had not edited at all in three and a half years before making that post, and then went on to accuse a twice-CU-confirmed-but-now-only-suspected OccultZone sock of having a new account. Following that, Marvellous Spider-Man showed up on my page to reply, mentioning having been pinged by Capitals00 (I can't find what this refers to, Capitals00 hadn't posted on my page), wondering who ProudIndian007 is, and asking KrakatoaKatie (another CheckUser) to "have a look". I accidentally rolled back Marvellous Spider-Man but responded later that they were welcome to file an SPI if they had any evidence at all. I have no idea what to make of this sequence of events but it's clearly related.

    Today I woke up to a number of emails from posts on my talk page. Capitals00 had filed an SPI against Drivarum, whose first non-userspace edit was perpetuating another of Terabar's revert wars at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. The evidence provided by Capitals00 also showed that Drivarum was restoring long-since-removed edits of a CU-confirmed Anatha Gulati sock, so I made a judgement call blocking them as a sock instead of blocking them for hitting 8RR(!) but either way they were going to be blocked. (Drivarum has emailed and pinged me just now so I'm using this post to respond).

    In retaliation for today's SPI, Drivarum posted another complaint to Bbb23's talk page once again accusing Capitals00 of sockpuppetry, which Terabar was more than happy to piggy-back on. The timing and nature of this complaint indicates off-wiki collusion to me, if Terabar and Drivarum aren't simply the same person. Terabar went on to repeat the same allegations again at the second SPI, and for that I would have blocked them based on my earlier warning, except I hadn't decided yet whether to post this here or at ArbCom.

    Now back to OccultZone: this is a case I'm not particularly familiar with, but from what I've familiarized myself with over the weekend, OZ is an editor who previously edited in this topic area who was sitebanned in 2015 over an obsession with accusing opponents of sockpuppetry and refusing to listen to a multitude of administrators who told them to stop repeatedly filing spurious SPIs, and reverting well beyond 3RR using (unproven) sockpuppetry as an excuse. I'm mentioning this only because Terabar is also lining up for a siteban over insisting on rehashing old SPI cases, refusing to listen when they've been told repeatedly that their SPI allegation is wrong, because Terabar mentioned OccultZone in one of their reverts as a justification, and because of the weird sequence of events on my talk page. Again I'm not sure what to make of this, I feel that with all the sockpuppet activity in this area (and all the CU investigations) if Terabar was someone's sock this would have been discovered by now.

    Again, sorry for the long post. I'm not sure here whether to go ahead and block Terabar for harassment based on my prior warning, or if something more tailored to the situation might be more appropriate. Perhaps Terabar should be (one-way?) interaction-banned from commenting on Capitals00 and D4iNa4? Maybe Terabar should be subject to a 1RR restriction? Maybe we need discretionary sanctions here? Maybe something else?

    I think I've notified everyone I mentioned here, as a matter of process. Apologies if I missed anyone. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support indefinite topic ban on all South Asian articles - WP:CIR, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:STICK. Terabar has mentality of calling everyone a sock (WP:ALLSOCKS) whoever disagree with him. Example[374]( first discuss on the talk page. Or either you are a sock account), the editor is not a sock. I don't remember seeing Terabar ever making productive edits, rather always finding a way to WP:WIKIHOUND my or edits of others no matter if his edits are going to end up getting rejected.[375][376] He has grossly violated WP:CANVASS,[377][378][379][380] whenever he creates trouble (WP:BATTLE). He believes he is flawless[381][382], arguing admins how he is correct and they are wrong. He don't even see that he is involved in WP:BLP violation when he is edit warring, and he rejects any attempts that any of us have made to discuss content,[383] he is always trying to justify his disruption because "you are sock". Looking at his block log, it is full of edit warring blocks on South Asian articles, he hasn't improved, hence topic ban would be good. Capitals00 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • False allegations by Capitals First of all I am not in the habit of calling everyone a sock who disagrees with me. Capitals is falsely alleging me and distorting the facts. The edit which he is referring to in which I accused someone for sockpuppetry was suspected by me only because there were exactly same edits made previously by Tender Nuke. See the edits [384] [385] [386] [387] Only on this basis I accused him of sockpuppetry. And later Tender Nuke was blocked for Sockpuppetry. Check his blocklog. Secondly, I was reported once by the confirmed sockpuppet of Occultzone, namely Ekvastra. I was blocked due to that sock report. Later it was found that he was abusing multiple accounts. Again Check Blocklog of Ekvastra. [388] Bladesmulti, another sock of Occultzone talked to me aggresively on my talkpage. See Only after that I became suspicious of sockpuppetry in Indian related articles.
    As far as productive edits are concerned, Human3015 gave me a barnstar [389] and Joshua Jonathan thanked me for my contribution. Terabar (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All of your previous blocks have also been for edit warring, not for sockpuppetry. Perhaps you don't know what sockpuppetry is? Not that that would excuse your edit warring. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Terabar, looks like you have not stopped WP:GAMING the system. You claimed that Dr. Sayyad Mohd Arshi to be a possible sock when he wasn't. Ekvastra is not a sockpuppet of OccultZone, and you tried to fit that frivolous tag on Ekvastra[400] which was removed by a CU. But it seems that your obsession with making false allegations and you are still continuing them even after this detailed ANI report. Capitals00 (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User: Ivanvector, yes he was blocked for sockpuppetry as he was evading the block through an IP I reported him on my talkpage and Yamla blocked him. Check his blocklog [401]. Terabar (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Capitals00, don't falsely accuse me with baseless allegations. I only based accused him because previous edits of another user were exactly same. I am repeating this for the second time. And you were blocked for Sockpuppetry, so don't think that you are very pious. Terabar (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're trying to say, but you want to link to the block log of the IP: [402]. However this appears to be inconclusive: other editors variously added or removed this information after this incident, and they are neither your nor TenderNuke's socks. This typifies the "everyone is a sock!" issue Capitals00 has pointed out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User: Capitals00, Ekvastra is a sockpuppet as mentioned by User: Bbb23 in the blocklog and contribution section. 15:20 Bbb23 wrote "15 September 2016 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked Ekvastra (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) checkuserblock-account Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone" Now who is lying and gaming the system? Terabar (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to get involved in this circus, but I never blocked Ekvastra as a sock of OccultZone. The reference I made to the OccultZone SPI is because of comments I made there: "Ekvastra is confirmed to AmritasyaPutra. I've blocked the two confirmed accounts without tags. I have no comment as to any relationship between any of these accounts and OccultZone other than noting AmritasyaPutra's history. I'll leave it to others who are more familiar with OccultZone to address that issue." (see this section of the SPI).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Terabar, its because the SPI was created under that wikipedia space. "confirmed sockpuppet of Occultzone," you claimed. You even attempted to turn it around that way[403] like I said, but you failed,[404] even after that you just can't drop the stick, you find it better to pursue with false allegations. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Capitals00, can you explain how did you come to know that you were sharing IP with Rzvas? Don't think that you are very pious as you and your companion User: D4iNa4 were blocked for sockpuppetry. In my opinion (not allegation) you were using the D4iNa4 in several pages to escape 3RR. Terabar (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • TBAN and possibly Block This is clearly unwarranted, and should possibly lead into regular blocks if this continues. — JJBers 17:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protection backlog.

    (non-admin closure) Just a simple notice. — JJBers 17:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can an admin go through the 50ish requests at wp:rpp. Thanks! Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 17:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=780871963"