Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Please review Light2021's behaviour at AfD

Last year we had this discussion at AN/I. Please review that discussion, and then consider the same user's behaviour towards Cunard at this AfD. Personally, I think Light2021 is in need of further support and direction from our admin corps; your mileage may vary.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only applaud your delicacy of phrasing, S Marshall  ;) — fortunavelut luna 17:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, and this discussion is another example.—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall: This thread appears to be disappearing into irrelevance, so let me revive it. I have seen Light2021 nominate a great deal of CSDs, some of which don't meet the criteria, and a lot of AfDs for not particularly significant companies. While many of the AfDs appear to close as desired, some don't, and a lot of the debates see a three-way Mexican standoff between Light2021, Cunard and SwisterTwister in the discussion. Light2021's standard of English is not great, and he does seem to be a "one trick pony" on a mission to delete all the articles on Wikipedia he doesn't like. I know he's been blocked before, so I'll keep an eye on his CSD logging, and if he makes too many mistakes I think we should revive this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion, S Marshall (talk · contribs).

I know he's been blocked before, so I'll keep an eye on his CSD logging, and if he makes too many mistakes I think we should revive this. – Ritchie333 (talk · contribs), I have posted my observations of Light2021's actions below.

The close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 says, "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here".

Cunard (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Previous blocks

1. In April 2016, Light2021 was blocked multiple times by Randykitty (talk · contribs) and Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing, personal attacks, vandalism, and abusing multiple accounts.
2. Light2021 was blocked for one month in November 2016 by Kudpung (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021.
3. Light2021 was most recently blocked for two months by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) on 31 January 2017 for "disruptive behavior" and "WP:CIR issues".

Personal attacks and uncollegial hostility

1. Against Timtempleton (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote on 3 July 2017 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi: "Was just going through your profile. Several times you have found in the category of Paid editor. complete violation of Wikipedia, and clears your intention on writing about this individual without having any of the coverage proof. As there are none."

   Timtempleton replied: "I did not create this article, nor did I add any promotional information, so I'm not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that I'm somehow a paid editor. It's obviously clear that the deletion discussion is not going to be anything but a no consensus close at worst. Go with consensus and please stop making baseless accusations."

2. Against SL93 (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoneMinder, "You must be joking about such sources". SL93 responded, "Can you do me a favor and stop being so combative?"
3. Against SoWhy (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote:

   Do you seriously ignore Delete vote discussion or its not visible to you at all? you ignored major consensus on Delete. These are only two incident I am citing, You are an Admin I guess. You are only Keeping these articles with baseless notability and no authentic media is present for them except the Online blog people write on daily basis.

   Or you must be Keep admins here. Nothing against it, but just going through your decision and find it little biased. You are an admin and know better than me. Just my observations. Thanks!

4. Regarding Light2021's hostility against my posts, this has happened multiple times in addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination) and casting aspersions against me was a concern raised in November 2016 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021. I generally avoid replying to Light2021's comments to me at AfDs because of the hostility.

Canvassing

Kudpung (talk · contribs) warned Light2021 not to canvass on 20 January 2017:

Hi, you have been warned about not respecting policies and you have also been blocked several times. You will not get your own way by canvassing. Please note that any further abuse of editing privileges may result in an extended block, and without the necessity of a discussion at ANI.

Here are recent instances of canvassing:

1. 37signals was renamed to Basecamp (company). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company) (2nd nomination), Light2021 pinged users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals who had supported deletion (as well as several other editors that I don't know how he found). But Light2021 did not ping users who had supported retention at either Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company). Light2021 did not understand why the canvassing was wrong after this discussion with Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) on his talk page.

   He also canvassed here, pinging editors, many of whom had no involvement in the article or AfD. One of the editors was a user he had given a "No Spam Barnstar" to. Light2021 wrote, "I need your help to know how we can make Wikipedia better. I am asking here as this article is going toward No consensus or Keep by baseless Press coverage."

2. At Talk:Keith Ferrazzi, Light2021 pinged users who largely had supported deletion at Light2021's AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Bradberry. Light2021 wrote, "Need your suggestions on This one. Complete promotional articles getting protected and just going for No-consensus. Not even a single coverage is found on Notable media. Editing is clear Paid." The pinged editors later participated at Light2021's AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi.

Reverting AfD closes

1. Light2021 reverted Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airside (company) as "speedy keep".
2. Light2021 reverted Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans as "speedy keep".

Tag bombing

Light2021 frequently tag bombs articles. Here are several examples:

1. Basecamp (company) (added eight maintenance tags)
2. Forever (website) (added {{BLP sources}} to an article about a website)
3. Sri Krishna Sweets (added {{One source}} to an article that has multiple sources)
4. Leonard Abramson (added {{One source}} to an article that has multiple sources)

Declined speedy deletions

The declined speedy deletions below are all between 28 June 2017 and 15 July 2017.

1. Light2021 added a speedy tag to Crowdspring two minutes after he nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination). The speedy was declined by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs).
2. Light2021 added a {{db-corp}} speedy tag to Show-Score. The speedy was declined by Atlantic306 (talk · contribs) because "has rs coverage Broadway World, ABC".
3. Light2021 added a {{db-corp}} speedy tag to Ask Ziggy. The speedy was declined by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) because there was a clear consensus to keep in 2013 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ask Ziggy Inc..
4. Light2021 added a speedy tag to Airside (company). The speedy was declined by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), who wrote, "BAFTA nominated?!!!!!"
5. Light2021 added a {{db-spam}} tag to 10,000ft. The speedy was declined by GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), who wrote, "Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional".
6. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Thad Ackel was declined here.
7. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Sarkis Acopian was declined here ("decline A7, 'There he designed and manufactured the first ever solar radio' is enough")
8. Light2021's {{db-a7}} tag for Peter Barnes (entrepreneur) was declined here ("decline A7, has sources, try PROD / AfD").
9. Light2021's {{db-corp}} tag for Picaboo was declined here ("decline A7, name dropped in the WSJ").
10. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g1}} tags for Astro Studios were declined here ("decline A7, linked to notable products, trim puffery and unreferenced content").
11. Light2021's {{db-g11}} tag for Core77 was declined here ("speedy deletion declined since the entire article was not outright promotional; removed one peacock word").
12. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g11}} tags for Stanley Foster Reed was declined here ("Decline speedy delete, founder of a magazine and journal with articles is a claim to sginificance and not unambiguous promotion")
13. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Gamil Design was declined here ("Not quite G11, but could use a lot less 'product info'.").
14. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for 23 Envelope was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid")
15. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Vaughan Oliver was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid").
16. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Rick Poynor was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid").
17. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for 75B was declined here ("Decline speedy, don't really see blatant spam here. File at AfD if desired.")
18. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for RKS Design was declined here.
19. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Ravi Sawhney was declined here.
20. Light2021's {{db-repost}} tag for FlipKey was declined here ("you can not request a speedy deletion after you just started an AFD for this. It was also recreated three years ago and things have been added").
21. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for DragonLord Enterprises, Inc. was declined here.
22. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g11}} tags for AlchemyAPI were declined here ("'As of February 2014, it claims to have clients in 36 countries and process over 3 billion documents a month.' seems notable to me.).
23. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Active Collab was declined here ("Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional").
24. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Agnantty was declined here ("Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional").
25. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for JForce was declined here ("Decline CSD. Not purely promotional.").
26. Light2021's {{db-web}} tag for Mental literacy was declined here ("not in the appropriate class of topics for A7").
27. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for MindMapper was declined here ("Decline CSD. Not purely promotional.")

Cunard (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I close a lot of AfDs within WP:DSI and in the process I go through most of the listed AfDs in detail, even if I'm don't close them or consider closing them and I've found Light2021's behavior at AfDs to be perplexing to say the least. On one article with a few independent sources they'll !vote delete and then on another with almost no sourcing they go on to !vote keep and question the credibility of the other participants. This is clearly a case of not showing the level of understanding of our policies, guidelines, and processes or something more fishy. An indefinite topic ban from any deletion process seems to be in order. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have a ton to add other than that the one speedy deletion by Light2021 that I declined in the list above was not the only one. See [1], [2], [3]. I do appreciate that they later took the articles I declined to speedy delete to AfD. There are lots of articles that should probably be deleted but that don't meet the CSD; though Light2021 should have known not to nominate these three for speedy deletion, they were correct to take them to AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence presented, I feel that a temporary topic-ban from deletion-related processes would be in Light2021's best interests. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, can we go with Spaceman Spiff's "indefinite topic ban" rather than Power's "temporary topic ban" and expand "deletion-related processes" to "processes related to content removal"? Would be nice to restrict the tag bombing and inappropriate merge nominations as well.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I support your expanded proposal, S Marshall, which will address the disruptive editing. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• The editor's comments to me at the ZoneMinder AfD were frustrating. First, his response had to do with him thinking that I said that the self-published book showed notability (I didn't). Then, of course, the editor said that the sources that I was referring to do not show notability and asked if we were creating a directory. He is very combative in AfDs and it seems like he wants the last word. Magazines like Infoworld do show notability for tech and such sources definitely do not count as spam as the editor told me. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My Version

I understand all the above concerns, I have nothing but one thing to say. Judge me after April 2017 Events. Above you have mentioned 27

articles, but isn't it little biased where you missed how many were deleted, and many of them from 27 articles are on AfD and they will do their course. I do understand its a human nature to like or dislike someone, here its clearly a case where facts are presented selectively. Cunard is an admin, its good, but the way he makes and Keep argument with lengthy copy-paste job, does not look mature. second his Keep arguments gets less than 50% results, means he might be wrong also, but I am also not perfect 100%, I am getting closed to with my Afd. Whatever community decides, be independent, unbiased, and check the behavior after April 2017. I have not abused anyone, it is very normal to ask questions, some people get offended when they have been asked about their behavior or decision. It is also fine. Thanks. I am just making my part. Its obvious all Past arguments/ blocked will be brought again and again and again. It is irrelevant to judge the present by past! In the above discussion, its more about my past than present, where I am getting better. Admin makes so many mistake, I am also learning.

• As for fair investigation. Cunard comes to every AfD with copy paste job by making a Keep Vote, without even analysing the sources are exatly Press coverage or Corporate Spam. Isn't being Personal from Cunard ends, here also he selectively and cunningly mentioned sources as if I am the one holds all the fault. Now he will say, I am making comment against him. He has all the power being an Admin.

Be fair, and don't bite if you don't like someone. Light2021 (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Deliberate attempt to prove my selection wrong. These are selective and biased admins who just want to keep any kind of Spam just for the sake of being into war field. in his talk page, he commented on me, and made a perception about me. No body questioned such admins.

Here is the such example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlipKey (2nd nomination) . On what ground he kept one paragraph articles? Just to prove my AfD wrong, and many such cases. No doubt by such Corrupt and biased admins we are screwed and compromised as a Wikipedia. Now he will have an option to Ban me. for speaking the blunt truth. That is correct, such articles are protected not by Paid editors but by such admins who are corrupt in doing their work. Speaking strongly will be deleted or banned by such Admins. Good Luck!

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans nominated by me, kept by admin, generally he relist all my article when delete is in majority till he gets many votes. here he kept it for no reason. later got deleted thankfully. my selection are not wrong, Non-consensus does not mean a bad nominations. It was definitely doubtful one. I am making over 95% good AfD (From last 200 only/latest). Not bad for making This wikipedia spam free, right? Light2021 (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment We are getting out of the realms of disruption and into competence is required here.

• User:Cunard is not an admin.
• " Cunard comes to every AfD with copy paste job by making a Keep Vote, without even analysing the sources" Actually, even if I don't agree with him, Cunard is one of the few AfD regulars that does analyse the sources. So this is nonsense as well.
• "These are selective and biased admins who just want to keep any kind of Spam just for the sake of being into war field." and "No doubt by such Corrupt and biased admins we are screwed and compromised as a Wikipedia". Apparently this means "they didn't agree with my opinion".
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans was kept because you didn't provide a valid deletion rationale. Not for any other reason. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ironically, sometimes I agree with Light2021, and there are too many editors willing to spam low-quality keep votes to any old promotional garbage that a paid editor wants to throw up, but there are limits to behaviour, and Light2021 has crossed them. Agree with the topic ban mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• On my behavior to straight forwardness, you are also simply stating what you feel like, as we all are free to say what we have to say. Shall we also judge your behavior on similar ground. Neither I have abused anyone here, but every-time this Ban, Ban and Ban comes in as if I am doing some non-sense here. My analysis are not random, they are Spam filled in Wikipedia. From the previous Ban I have learnt a lot, and I never went ahead to any of the contributors here, Yes, I can ask questions as we all do, as you did, and the language you used its simple and straight. Thats how people express. And I have never said everyone is corrupt here. There are many Senior admins Who agrees to me sometime and sometime do not, it does not mean I am just misbehaving, I accept their point as well. Every time this Ban will not be any good to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia will seriously become a PR Host/ another Blog where Paid editors known very well how to maintain these articles. Proudly I am just one of them who are tirelessly working on making Wikipedia Spam free. Other are just making money keeping just nonsense here.

• Can you state me Only one example after April 2017, where I have misbehaved with any one the contributors or discussed in any harsh manner? Simply Ban is not an option. people learn here. It is simply an attack and nothing else. i have learnt a lot. I don't just nominate articles I do not like. Its the global companies or products. It is baseless accusations and Ban is not right where I can learn things. and my AfD are not wrong, it is over 95% accurate (From last 200 only/latest), if you count No - consensus. As we all know how to make articles as No-consensus. By paid media or some contributors works for this.
• On Cunard detail analysis. What happen to KISS Logic? can't he just give the link so people can read going on the source, unnecessary making an discussion so lengthy that it repels the contributors, as it seems so authentic, whereas it simply copy-paste the Press coverage from the Blog, sometimes its from Good media, but most of the times its just Copy-paste, where in my opinion I doubt he even reads them. He just open the link, Copy whatever he gets and paste on Discussion. How come its a good analysis? His Keep votes gets No-Consensus where he gets the majority of success. Its not substantial ground for analysis. Eventually articles are kept even by means of No-Consensus. Light2021 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Request your advise and guidance on repeated Ban on me. How it is justify on my time and contribution here? How I can contribute fighting this Biased opinion on me? They drag me personally, makes a case like I am guilty, ignoring all my works, every one express here, when they express blunt, its acceptable when I do, they makes an Ban issue? I have never abused anyone after April 2017. Please analyse my behaviour after this time, as above discussion is misleading by quoting Past examples. Need Opinions and Pinging senior contributor here. Just for note they agree and disagree with me several times, but they teach me good things, and do not just become attacking me. DGG, David Gerard, K.e.coffman, SwisterTwister, Lemongirl942, Grayfell, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,Bejnar, Jimfbleak, Lankiveil , RHaworth, Brianhe, GorillaWarfare Light2021 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• One Suggestion from all of you. As I understand this discussion and Ban thing, these people have problem with my Language, but My selections are not bad for Wikipedia. I can just nominate AfD/ Speedy, participate in Votes. And I will not counter present my points, I will be as details on AfD as it should be. That way I can avoid the feeling for these people who got hurt by words. and that way we can make it work. Just my suggestions. you can track my activities, I will never make or ask any question of a any kind, I am doing simple task to contribute to Wikipedia. If that allows and accepted by everyone. I am happy to do that. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Light2021's recent and long term AfD stats are running better than 75% for exact match and even better for effective match. He votes Delete a lot and nominates a lot of pages. An analysis of his own noms shows a very good success rate as well. [4]. User:Cunard votes Keep an awful lot, nominates few pages, and is running around 72% match to the exact result. [[5]. The two editors evidently have very different approches to AfD and deletion. It looks like Cunard is trying to disable a pro deletion editor that does not fit their inclusionist viewpoint. I don't find Light2021's highlighted comments especially uncivil and have had far worse things said to me with no action taken against the editors who said it. Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Light2021, let me make a blunt but polite observation. There are two problems that I see. 1. You get blinded by what you think is "right", and get sloppy with your rationales when voting and nominating deletions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans is a perfect example. It is insufficient to be right, you have to provide a policy based rationale to prove it. and 2. You don't know when to shut up. I don't say this to be mean, and in in my youth I also did not know when to shut up. Sometimes I still don't. But you really get off track and stick your foot in your mouth too much. As far as Cunard's habit of posting long, detailed "keep" votes, it is unusual, but when Cunard posts something, you know it is honest to the sources and is the best available material. He gives you something to either change your mind or it gives you something to refute, so he's kind of doing you a favor, even if you find it annoying. In a nutshell, sometimes you act like a jerk. You should stop doing that. I could easily call for a tban, but my singular opinion is that you need to voluntarily step away from deletions for a month and do some soul searching about how you communicate with others. If you don't modify this behavior soon, I would be forced to support sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Another last chance to change? Last time I checked, this user had exhausted several of his last chances, and got into escalating block territory. And now he's quite some way up the escalator. Do Wikipedians ever run out of last chances?—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just one voice. Unless he says something below my comment to convince me he has had an epiphany, I wouldn't be that difficult to persuade. In the end, however, it is always my hope to rehabilitate rather than swing the ban hammer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

* Just as you stated clearly the concern with my behavior. It is not with my AfD selections but how I write to them/ contributors. I Understand. I can change it, as I am quite good with your blunt observations. Yes! I might need to shut up, and that is what I should do for next 30-45 days (or probably more). 1. I will only nominated with giving Detail rationale to it for AfD. 2. I will not counter any of the contributors, no matter what they write, or how they write (To avoid any of the language or behavior problem). 3. I will only vote with my opinion, will not get on anyone's opinions. 4. That way I can be respectful to the community, as I am unknown to all, as they are to me. Nothing is personal here. I am happy to contribute with my rationale, right or wrong, its community work, and not individuals choice. I hope my points are clear. and you all are observing me, if by mistake I deviate from my promise, you have the rights. thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't stop another admin from taking action here, understand that. And understand that you are probably going to be under a microscope for a while. I think you have a lot to offer, it just gets drowned out with rushed replies that are more centered on emotion than fact. If you can do all that you say, everyone is better off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nearly echo Dennis Brown.While there are enough negatives about his/her contribs.--(specifically blatant canvassing along with ridiculous two-word nom statements--both of which seemed to flow unabated.), the sole reason I am opposing a Tban is that his/her work has not entirely shifted to a net-negative zone.I am inclined to offer a last-chance.And Light2021 will probably do well to abide by the self-imposed restrictions.And above all, please improve your communication skills, know how to bluntly accept a mistake(For one, I didn't even slightly buy your arguments rel. to ignorance of canvassing policies at your talk!) and cease to act like a jerk.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• "Last chances"
  
  I agree with S Marshall (talk · contribs) that "this user had exhausted several of his last chances":
  1. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 31 hours for disruptive editing.
  2. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts. A number of sockpuppets were also blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light2021/Archive.
  3. April 2016: Boing! said Zebedee blocked Light2021 indefinitely for persistent vandalism.
  4. June 2016: Ohnoitsjamie unblocked Light2021 and wrote, "Given the exchange below, it's reasonable to give you another chance, though I would like to note some concerns."
  5. November 2016: At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, Kudpung wrote in the close, "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here".
  6. January 2017: Ohnoitsjamie blocked Light2021 for disruptive editing.
  At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, when there was strong support for a block, Light2021 wrote in November 2016, "I understand that the problem is that I have not respected the community and other members of the community" and "I will respect consensus decisions". These are broken promises. Light2021 also wrote:

  I will follow as advised by people here with pure heart. Even after that if I fail to my commitment and assurance made here. I will never ask for forgiveness. and I must leave my contribution on WP without wasting community time on discussions about me. Community time is more important than me.

  
  Continued canvassing
  
  In the November 2016 topic ban discussion, Light2021 canvassed seven editors.

  In this very ANI discussion about a topic ban, Light2021 canvassed 13 editors. This is despite Kudpung's 20 January 2017 warning to Light2021 to stop canvassing. This is also despite my post in this ANI discussion about Light2021's canvassing.
  
  Continued misunderstanding of speedy deletion
  
  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamil Design, Light2021 wrote, "Speedy Delete Blatant Promotions" even though Light2021's earlier {{db-spam}} tag was declined by Seraphimblade. Light2021 still does not understand the criteria for speedy deletion. An article is not eligible for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} once an admin has declined the speedy.

  Cunard (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Note It has been deleted by AfD Process. It was not a bad nominations again. I do understand what I am doing, just for clarifications. Light2021 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cunard:--Well, I personally felt the ban-hammer to be a little heavy.Anyway, the speedy delete option is viable and I fail to see any policy violation in the quoted !vote.Many of the frequenters at AfD replicate the same behaviour at AfDs(incl. me) of subjects having a declined CSD.And I am unable to contribute on his relative knowledge/application of CSD without the log.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Light2021's support in the AfD for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} even after Seraphimblade declined the speedy deletion reflects a continued misunderstanding of the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. As Seraphimblade has said in the November 2016 discussion, "And I'm not exactly well known for being lenient on spam, promotion, and CVs, so if I think your G11 requests are out of order, there's probably a problem."

Cunard (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

G11 is an area where there is a wider range of interpretation. Voting to Speedy per G11 after a decline only means that someone disagrees with the Admin's decline. I just had an MfD where an Admin declined a G11 and all three people that voted expressed surprise it was declined as G11. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC). Note the decline said "Not quite G11, but could use a lot less product info" so it is very unfair to say that Light2021 misunderstands CSD's based on that decline. You should know better Cunard - your examples are undermining your case here. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• The problem is not Light2021's !votes. I think he's erratic but he's entitled to his opinion and his !votes. This thread is about aggressiveness, his highly personalised targeting of Cunard, his tag-bombing and his canvassing.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that the key problem is not the votes--G11 especially is tricky to interpret, and the interpretation is often disputed. The standard for whether we delete or fix spam is similarly controversial. In practice I don't think Light is any more extreme on his side than some editors are on the other (but it must be admitted that I have a position myself which is fairly to similar Light's view of things) But I would consider it a COI to try to block someone who often opposed me at AfD. The key problem at this point is the canvassing. If that were to stop completely, I think that would be enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not particularly active at AfD, though I agree with DGG that the most concerning behaviour is the canvassing there. The other issues raised about the way he contributes in deletion discussions I think can be overlooked - I'm not convinced of how much trouble he's really causing but I'll leave that to people who are more involved at AfD. What I can comment on is my experience with him at CSD, and a lot of what he does there seems similarly erratic and unpredictable. He nominates a lot of articles for CSD, particularly for G11, which is a difficult criterion to interpret and everyone's view will differ, but his nominations are very hit-and-miss. In addition to the list compiled by Cunard above I have declined G11 nominations of his on these three occasions. He has a particular habit of nominating articles which have been in existence for several years have been edited by many contributors. He digs up a lot of promotional articles which probably should be deleted, but floods the queue with a large proportion of poor nominations too. I'm not sure any of this really rises to disruption, but altogether it does give me the impression that he doesn't really know what he's doing and his edits probably need watching closely, but I'm really not sure the good parts of his editing justify this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• "altogether it does give me the impression that he doesn't really know what he's doing and his edits probably need watching closely, but I'm really not sure the good parts of his editing justify this." – well said. Many of the same concerns here were mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 and the same disruptive editing continues to happen eight months later.

  Cunard (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Cunard you seem to be throwing up every allegation you can think of in hopes something sticks. You evidently don't like Light2021's views on deleteion. Suck it up and try policy at AfD instead of trying to railroad an editor you don't agree wity. User:Light2021 make sure you turn on your CSD log under twinkle preferences. That will help you refute the alleged CSD mistakes. We all get CSD declines, the question is are they a big percentage or not. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I support topic-banning Light2021 from deletion processes because of their pattern of inadequate application of policies and guidelines related to deletions. They create a lot of unnecessary work for other editors in reviewing deletion nominations, as well as risking unnecessary deletion of many articles, which is not good for Wikipedia. In their contributions to AfD in the past few days during this ANI discussion, I see inadequate application of WP:BEFORE combined with rapidly nominating many articles for deletion. I went through several of their recent AfD nominations where the nomination reason was based on lack of notability and sources, and I saw sufficient sources to support a keep vote for six: Qwikcilver, Wrike, Mavenlink, Rightware, Eckovation, Paymentwall. I couldn't find sufficient sources for three, but I did find additional sources that weren't noted in the nomination: Olympusat, PurpleTrail, FusionForge. I didn't review all their recent AfD nominations, but out of those ones, it's not a good ratio. (For the record, XfD Stats for Dreamyshade says 80.8%.) Dreamyshade (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from deletion process, per WP:CIR. Despite numerous cautions and blocks, Light2021's deletion rationales rarely make much sense. Sure there is a problem with business promotion on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of other Wikipedians working on the issue that have a much better grasp of deletion policies and who are capable of constructing cogent (and coherent) arguments. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• I have just had to decline another G11 nomination, again for an article that has been edited by several contributors since 2011. I think that, if he is not sensible enough to keep a low profile and reign in his nominations whilst an ANI discussion is ongoing, it is highly unlikely that Light2021 is going to be able to edit in this area in a constructive way. At this point I would strongly support a topic ban from the deletion process. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose he is doing a good service with no one presenting evidence his nominations are regularly outside policy. NO we don't have enough users working on removing SPAM and we should not be removing a deducted SPAM fighter. That G11 decline was borderline and the page is in fact SPAM. Had the page been newer with fewer editors it would be an easy G11. Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The editor has had numerous chances to adjust and fix their mistakes but instead they continue with the wrong CSDs, AFDs etc etc so an indef topic ban is the only answer, Temporary won't work because they'll just go back to how they were and we'll all be here again. –Davey2010^Talk 16:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, support block the next time they canvass. As has been pointed out above, their G11 tagging is not that far off the mark especially since the standard is so variable and neither is their AfD !votes. We should not be clubbing the opposition, even if I disagree sometimes with them. I am equally supportive of the position that the editor should be summarily blocked again if he continues to make personal attacks. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban- this editor's value doing useful spam fighting work significantly outweighs their semi-regular misfires. Reyk _YO! 17:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban - despite being warned and making promises to the contrary, he continues to attack and tag bomb articles. Strike 1 was changing my discussion title in the talk page to accuse me of being a paid editor. Strike two was tag bombing the article. Strike three was canvassing, which resulted in two delete votes. Srike four was just adding new tags [[6]] despite being warned here. There are other critical editors like DGG, SwisterTwister and K.e. Coffman, but they are all civil and non-disruptive. Here's where he badgers DGG for doing an afd delete closure - a rare one where Light actually wanted to keep the article. [[7]] He's making it unpleasant for the rest of us and needs to stop. He can't help himself and will need to be banned to stop. 18:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}
  • Just for note: You (others to check his claims) can go through the discussion made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi. I am sure my AfD was justified as still not convincing with No-consensus was a bad nomination. Reason for his disappointment with me. He has been questioned for being a paid editor for the way he made his contributions (Undisclosed paid editing revisited). On his talk page. or like this article NJFX, questioned for being promotional. and many such cases. I don not want to add into this ANI. Nothing to say more.Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC) thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • And this continues to make my point. Those of you saying that his toxic behavior is worth it because he rapidly identifies and deletes so much bad content, ask yourselves if the site is better because of him. How many editors will he drive away? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      • These attacks are continuing here. Here is an excerpt from Light2021's longer post:

        I think eventually this pathetic Paid Keep army will win the race, and Wikipedia will become another PR host and eventually a threat to biggest notable source of knowledge. These contributors make the reputation participating on random discussions so it will look neutral, and get paid for their work with all corporate spams. No doubt some of the admins are also involved. This dirt can not just come from users alone. Do not want to name any admins here. This is corruption of high level.

        AfDs participants like TimTempleton and me are not part of a "pathetic Paid Keep army". We are volunteer editors.

        Cunard (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow you read and twist everything he says in the worst possible light. There is no personal attack there. He is commenting on the state of paid editing that is introducing unrelenting spam here. Many editors share these concerns. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • Sorry, If I am too blunt and direct. This is humiliations of my work and contributions. I Must speak clearly here. I have to write this. I have to defend my dignity as a contributor also whether he likes me or not. Here is the the complete thought, which has been selectively presented with Quote. Seems like a disturbance to someone. I have never used Cunard or anyone's name. Why they are so much bothered if they are just contributors here? and why making Personal attack? As far as I can see this ANI is dedicated to Cunard where from my past contributions to present he has given so much work. He covered 70-80% of this ANI. I do not understand his problems with me personally, there are several people who disagree to me, but I also accept my part, No one is doing or making such ridiculous attacks as he is doing. I also disagree or agree with people. I am not making such attacks as I have been accused of. Deliberately going on every AfD I have done, making irrelevant lengthy commentary just for the sake of it. Evidently clear by other contributors also, he does not know what he is copying or pasting or from which source? where I can be wrong, but this is way beyond anything and personal attack. One Good Question to ask, has he ever ever made a Delete comment on any of my AfD, he claims to my AfD are so bad, the results and works shows otherwise though. if they are so neutral and great contributors, isn't they be neutral on participation? others agree to me and disagree to me. but these are the one, no matter how bad is article, they will go Keep, or No-consensus to every contribution I made. isn't that personal attack?

          I am shutting myself down completely. But just for note on updates on my contributions. I am not paranoid but something is definitely going on making a personal attack on Every AfD I have done (not in terms of language, but deliberate keep votes/ discussions to justify anything by any means just because I am involved, they definitely not like me much), No-consensus is also a Keep, these people can do anything. I do not want to tag anyone here as it would be wrong. But It is evidently clear, sometime with 2 votes they close the discussion with Keep, they do not care to relist them. many times they relist the delete driven AfD, till they get their army and lengthy piece of Copy-Paste into AfD to mislead it, and they close by no-consensus. They know good how to keep an articles with using Wikipedia Policies only. Its just I am helpless as their army is bigger than my thoughts and they drag me and attack me and I can not do anything to justify. and letting this Wikipedia doomed with such people. I think eventually this pathetic Paid Keep army will win the race, and Wikipedia will become another PR host and eventually a threat to biggest notable source of knowledge. These contributors make the reputation participating on random discussions so it will look neutral, and get paid for their work with all corporate spams. No doubt some of the admins are also involved. This dirt can not just come from users alone. Do not want to name any admins here. This is corruption of high level. But what we can do ? We have limited platform to justify or make an appeal, these people knows well and how to use them. and they will blame on my language or counting numbers of something. They are afraid that their shop is going to shut down by contributors like me. It is just a wake up call, where we really want to go with Wikipedia? As such people are definitely in abundance to exploit this platform by any means. i am glad they got a real hit with my work.

          Light2021 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support T-ban, rapidly moving into Indef territory with the PA immediately above. John from Idegon (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no PA - there is selective quoting and a false allegation of a personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• As the person who started this thread, in a change from my previous position I think I would now oppose a blanket indefinite topic ban from AfD. That's too strong, I feel, and we do need people who'll nominate spam articles at AfD. The problems here are about excessive zeal and needlessly personalising disputes, but I do feel this is someone who's basically here to improve the encyclopaedia. A sensible and proportionate remedy would consist of a parcel of less drastic measures. I've reflected some more and I would suggest (1) no pinging people or posting directly on their talk page to attract their attention to deletion discussions; (2) no G11s; (3) no speedy deletion nominations on articles about corporations (but PROD and AfD are permitted); (4) a positive requirement to provide intelligible rationales when nominating for deletion; and (5) a one-way interaction ban with Cunard, appeal at AN/I permitted after six months of good behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Site ban as per implied expectation of Light  Light has reported an intent to disrupt Wikipedia until banned, by writing (grammar and capitalization errors in original), "As such people are definitely in abundance to exploit this platform by any means. i am glad they got a real hit with my work."  Note that I am an involved party here as I have recently identified and reverted Light's personal attack, by the use of tag bombing, on multiple content contributors at diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Indef. block At this point, I don't see the editor's behavior improving. If the load of blocks didn't work, I don't see how this editor can restrain from violating a T-ban. This is just a simple case of WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. There's a current discussion at WP:NCORP#How to raise NCORP standards? which discusses similar concerns as expressed by Light21 and many others at company AfD. The more I learn about paid editing, the more prevalent the problem seems to be. Some editors subsequently banned for undisclosed paid editing and / or misuse of multiple accounts have been known to participate at WP:AFC -- ouch. WP:ARTSPAM is an on-going problem, unfortunately, and banning a contributor in this area seems counterproductive. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• K.e.coffman is part of Light's tag bombing team.  See this diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with that edit? Rentier (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• i have read this long thread and looked at many of the diffs. About the deletion nominations, Legacypac's comment above, here, is dead on point. That data are very relevant and they are not bad.

That said, Light2021 is way too passionate - the excited comments, the canvassing, the accusations against people who take different perspectives (and I do see a lot of personal attacks). This is a case where the passion that drives people to contribute (wherever there passion leads them) comes back to bite them, and everybody else. Mostly them. Their block log is as long as my arm -- 12 blocks since April 2016!

Folks here are torn because Light2021's passion is very much about Wikipedia being a high quality source of knowledge (I disagree very strongly with comments that claim that Light2021 is NOTHERE). Light2021 is very much on-mission, in this regard. very much.

But an essential part of being a WP editor is learning how to work in a community, and we all do that primarily by focusing on the content issues - on sources, policies, and guidelines. Light2021 is too personalized and plays wikipolitics too much, which is what all the canvassing is about. They apologize and say they will change, and they don't.

Their last block was 2 months. I am going to recommend a repeat two month block, the same as the last one (they have stayed unblocked since January, which is great for them), and the reason pretty much comes down to WP:FOC and WP:CIVIL.

Light2021 the meat of this case is that you are too passionate and focus too much on attacking other people and trying to "win" by socking and canvassing. Calling people's attention to issues with deletion nominations of various kinds is fine, and once you get people's attention, you need to just make the best arguments you can based on sources and the policies and guidelines; good arguments are what persuade people. The rest is noise, and it hurts you and the community. If you don't learn during this block, you can expect me to !vote for indef if we have to revisit these issues. I say that unhappily, because your eye for finding and nominating promotional pages is great, in my view. But people who cannot adapt to working in a community, cannot stay.

And about your long note above - the conspiracy theorizing is very unhelpful. You are in trouble because of your own behavior. Focus on that. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• • A appreciate your views and opinion about my work. I want to work on community as every good contributors. I will go ahead and implement what you suggested. But there are few things I beg to differ, First, I learnt a lot after the blocking by few people, that I should be humble presenting my views. But the case here is very different, the major part of this AN/I dedicated to my past block behavior and twisted facts, this should not be done, focus should be made on my present behavior after April, the people who Supported this have no substantial claims that I misbehaved in a way I must have done in past. People are misbehaving and more uncivil and attacking than I am. I have to defend myself, Can't just be shut because I am part of AN/I. They humiliated me like anything. I have been Accused of Canvassing and Socking, I am nowhere using socking. Please give single example of Socking after April. This is wrong accusation. Canvasing means tagging people in my Talk page to learn more, or in AFD. I understood and It will not be repeated anywhere in future, I accepted this part and suggestions. there are few handful group of people, not all, I can go further and name them also. Who will come to my AfD deliberately, Canvassing the discussion, go ahead and ask their Group to come to my AFd, make a lengthy unnecessary commenting and distract the whole Discussion. They will attack me personally, or in group, these people and their behavior has been avoided, just because I have history of Block and I am here on AN/I. This whole discussion made a ridicule of my work and nothing else, people above made 70% commentary to do what? neutral contribution or highest degree of personal attack with baseless accusations, and ridiculously protecting and commenting on CSD where it is a matter of 100% Spam. I know What I am doing, and they also know how to protect themselves by getting rid of people like me. I am defensive as I can not allow such people to degrade my work. You also have views but you are explaining me something that I can learn about, and there are many others who make me learn and disagree to me. But these group of People, NOT EVEN A SINGLE AFD WITH DELETE vote has been found? Why? If they are so great and know how to behave ? Why not go with Delete vote on my work sometimes? Just because it is my work? Their shop is on fire? Check the Cunard Talk Page. How one admin commented and asking him to participate on my AFD, as I have been accused of Canvassing, so what we call that if not canvassing going to Talk page and ask to comment on my AFD? Why such Bias? When they do it, its policy, I do its misbehavior and canvassing? These people are making mockery of my work and twisting policies of Wikipedia for their personal gain and nothing else. They do canvassing, participate on each and every AfD I do with Keep vote without checking anything. Ignored all rules, just citing GNC selective policies. Nothing notable media, no global coverage. I am surprised how come they just Relist sometime till they get some Keep votes and just make No-consensus, eventually they win and trying to prove my work random or bad nominations, where No-Consensus is also a good work. These are the people, paid editors, they have been accused many times for writing bad articles, promotional, non-notable contributions. Check their talk page. It is evidently clear what they are doing, and why they are so much afraid of me. They are very strategic, where they make CASE STUDY of how they saved one article from deletion by making it NO_CONSENSUS. My concerns are Genuine. But I learnt that I should not be Canvassing, I should make detail remark on AfD. I am not participating on AfD after I said on my Talk page. I will work on what you said and in community with better behavior. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Propose Close

No one has proven Light2012 is off policy on CSD or AfD - in fact he is pretty accurate. He's turned on his CSD log so in the future there will be no debate on that. A whole lot of inaccurate attacks against him have been made here. He does have some behavioral issues but his post just above goes a long way to show he understands that. The humiliation here is enough for now. A Tban lacks sufficent support. This should be closed with no action against Light2021 but he needs to take the advice given here to heart. I'd strongly suggest he nominates pages and lets the discussion run. No arguing with others, no pinging others, no commenting on others. Just make the case at nomination time and forget about that AfD. Go on to identify the next deletable junk because that is what Light2021 is good at.

User:Cunard on the other hand is leveling unfair attacks on Light2021 and I see no remorse just additional unfair accusations. It streaches my good faith in his fairness or reliability. If we see any more of this behavior sanctions should be imposed. Cunard should stay away from commenting on Light2021 in any way which will really reduce the drama. Legacypac (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Note  Two edits have modified the previous sentence, with the 2nd a quiet edit that appears to be a disregard of WP:TPO.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Saying that Cunard is levelling unfair attacks on Light is exactly the wrong way around. This thread contains links to numerous examples of Light badgering and making direct, personal attacks on Cunard in AfDs, starting with the very first post by me. To the best of my knowledge, this thread is the only place where Cunard has responded. I would object to any close that doesn't contain a behavioural remedy defending Cunard from Light2021's inappropriate personalisation of content disputes.

Light2021 has promised to change his behaviour before, of course. I can only admire your exceptional ability to assume good faith in the face of all the evidence. At minimum I also expect other behavioural remedies that prevent him from canvassing, using G11, using any CSDs on corporations or products, or making incoherent or unintelligible AfD noms. Where we agree is that it's not needful to block him.—S Marshall T/C 14:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not convinced, but I can support your willingness to try.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't contest many of the examples show poor behavior, but my point is some Cunard accusations are really really inappopriate ones unsupported by diffs. He should really learn to focus on actual proven problems not throw up random accusations with diffs that don't support them. Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• The actual proven problems are:- Light2021 initially became involved with Wikipedia when he was attempting to promote Exioms, a business based in New Delhi with which he rather obviously has a COI. During that very first AfD of his, a number of new accounts did show up to agree with Light2021, and I'm going to go ahead and say that he was socking. Transparently. That article was deleted despite his impassioned attempts to prevent that. Since then Light2021 has remained active on Wikipedia, concentrating on a very focused way on deleting articles about corporations and products. He often takes a strongly deletionist stance (which he is legitimately entitled to do), but is inconsistent about this, sometimes actively trying to retain articles which other editors would like to be removed. He canvasses and inappropriately personalises content disputes, for which he has been blocked, on several occasions and of escalating duration. He is sometimes so incoherent that some of the editors participating above have bluelinked CIR ---- personally I would say this has more to do with English not being his first language, but it's a significant concern in this thread backed up by evidence. He jumps on bandwagons (which is one of your behaviours as well, by the way, Legacypac). And he's outspokenly targeting Cunard with repeated instances of hostile commentary, in a whole succession of AfDs. This last behaviour urgently needs reining in. Cunard is meticulous and detailed, and sometimes he has a lot to say at AfD, but everything he says is focused on the sources and on the subject. There is absolutely no evidence at all of Cunard ever doing anything that falls below Wikipedian behavioural standards.

  Basically Light2021 is angry because Cunard disagrees with him and produces lots of evidence. Although I've suggested we use a complicated package of measures to avoid a block or topic ban in this case, Light2021's behaviour is well over the threshold of hostility that leads to blocks on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

* Again I must say, Past has been quoted, nothing here to present my history with Present after the blocks. This is unfair statement. Even the criminal can become a better person, but here it seems like you want to haunt me with past examples, I have got my punishment for that already, how many times you want to hang me? If I would have been any ill intention here as stated above, I would have created another account to do my work without showing and bad past history. But I am continuing with my history and same account, not doing any socking. I have learnt a lot from back then. Secondly I have been accused as if I am the one who disagree with him, He humiliated me, made false accusations, every AfD I did, which is far good from the contributors point of view, where he wanted to Keep with Lengthy Press coverage or Copy paste job. I merely stated my view, and here cunard made every attempt possible to make a personal remark or quoting from past. Are we still discussing my past behavior or is it something new? I agree that I should be more careful, not making any counter discussion, just nominate and let it take the course whatever it may take, and Cunard and I should never participate on each other work to avoid the waste of community times and this whole drama. there are thousands other places he and I can contribute independently. i have zero interest debating him, he is good or bad, I do not want to judge him or waste my time on his behavior. I am here for Wikipedia for sure not on debating whether he is wrong or right and on My AfD there are good amount of people who can present the views and take the decisions without making any personal attacks as he did. I am not angry with him. here it may seems from this ANI that he is deliberately coming to every AfD I have done, where it can be avoided if he does not like me. I learnt my version. I am not here to fight or waste community times, I am here to contribute under my limit and with good behavior. As I understand it is community who decides how I should do without any biased and I completely agree to your suggestions and others as well, and I will do my best. Lets avoid this drama and fight of Light and Cunard. Enough of explaining my self and justifying the Past. As again and again quoting the past matter, irrelevant to present, as this present case and discussion has no substance to carry on except personalized attack on me over the past. I have taken your and other suggestions very seriously, and ready to work that way. In good faith you have to believe me that part. nothing else to add here. Thank you. Even after this ANI and suggestions by several editors and Admins, Cunard just could not get away from my AfD, he just could not find another work on wikipedia, where It has been suggested, He should be away from any of my participation. Here is the recent case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mavenlink. There is nothing wrong about his views, but I think some of the suggestions must be taken seriously. As this whole ANI from last 20 days been taken because of his past accusations on me and personal attack by any means. If I have kept myself away, he must do the same to respect the community collective decisions. Right or wrong, let the several thousands of others decide who can be better unbiased judge. Light2021 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

DNAU'ed to prevent archiving without closure.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Light2021's latest contribution above states, "He humiliated me, made false accusations...Cunard...Here is the recent case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mavenlink."  I decided to check out the reference, and I quote Cunard's entire contribution without quoted material:

This article is not routine coverage. The article contains detailed analysis and questioning of Mavenlink's decisions:

 

This article from Computerworld is also skeptical of Mavenlink's decisions:

 

Critical analysis of a company's actions is neither routine coverage nor an advertisement.

The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What I see here is that Light2021 is identifying the force of reason as personal attacks.  It is often said that Wikipedia is not therapy, but realists must accept that when Wikipedia can be therapy, everyone involved is better off.  I think Marshall's willingness to try has low probability of success, but I think that Light2021 is sincere in having given up socking, which is key to my support for S Marshall's plan.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• We are not discussing about AfD or notability of any article here, unnecessary commentary made. the point is cunard should not participate in my AfD, no matter what. to avoid any drama that has been made here, wasted 22 days of community time, still he ignored the suggestions made by others including admins, and went ahead and made a comment made by me. There are thousands other articles to work upon. There are so many members who can decide on my AfD and close it. It is Article for Deletion discussion not my verdict. Its judgment by community. If he has so much problem with my selections, let it be, I am not interested debating him. I have trust on others, and their unbiased choice. As far as your (Cunard) biased are concerned. He has never ever made a delete comment no matter how bad is the article. why? He dislike me so much that he just could not stop and went ahead with copy paste job again? Avoid discussions with me please. I have accepted admins and others suggestions to stay away from cunard, and he should do the same and stop wasting time on me. I am learning and improve myself as per suggestions. I am not the only contributor here. He dislikes me. good for him. Just FYI as you mentioned Notability guidelines read this also WP:GNG, there are Wikipedia:NOBLECAUSE, Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY, Wikipedia:SUSTAINED, Wikipedia:SPIP, Wikipedia:FAILN. One important thing and interesting observations (all are free to their opinions, I am not saying they should not. Just an observations), I am surprised a little. There are 4 including you and Cunard and Tim Templeton and Dreamyshade. These 4 Are so consistent in my AfD and going with Keep votes or supporting the discussion on same manner. or somehow diverting it not by fact but by votes to support each others not the article itself. in Over 99% cases. and including one Admin who can make Copy Paste comment citing Corporate depth as well. though as an admin he finds my article worthy of deletion sometimes for neutrality. (Not naming him). Apology if it does not connect the dots or relevance here. So does your comment above. Light2021 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, the point is that Cunard did not do anything in the AfD you referenced that needs attention at ANI.  Likewise, when I quoted Cunard, I was not saying anything about notability.  In each case, you are responding as if quoting material is the same as stating the material.

  You have written that you are "shutting <yourself> down" and claimed that this ANI thread is a waste of time.  I think that if you believed that this process is a waste of time, and respected your own statement that you were shutting yourself down, you wouldn't continue to post here.  Your attack on me is new, but is consistent with the premise that you read the force of reason as personal attacks.  What do you think a new personal attack at ANI shows others reading this thread of your future behavior on Wikipedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• you are merely twisting my words here again, I did not attack anyone, presented the fact and observations. Cunard participation on my AfD is itself wrong, he need to find another work than deliberately coming to my AfD with Copy paste job. It has been advised and suggested, and i accepted that. Complete waste of time debating cunard and his ways. Lets work independently. I have my life to do work. Let him get his life on wikipedia than following me like anything. It does not matter whether he is right or wrong. there are others to judge me. As far as I know for sure These 4 will always make a Keep comment no matter what (100% case). No problem in that, as everyone has right of their opinions, and nothing is wrong here. Just an observations I mentioned. Please do comment and participate as you feel like, you do not need my permission or views. But Cunard should stay away. He should not participate. Cunard has been doing whatever he can, making past comments, and participating on my AfD. Its clear few people dislike me and want me blocked so badly. Wasting of time means making this ANI with personal attacks and commenting on past errors. and please in my ANI I have been accused, and you want me to shut here, I am not doing any AfD and or participation as stated and written on my Talk page. Show me One participation or AfD or counter arguments on my AfD. Do not accuse me without any fact. This is for explanations, and I have every right to present my views here than accepting wild accusations and humiliations by others. I will defend myself with every rights! Just because I have been blocked earlier does not make me a criminal of a Lifetime and it does not give rights to people insult me with any kind of accusations. Here they say one thing and on the other hand just trying to make my work Zero, either by making deliberately Keep comments without any existence of real discussion or points or Closing all my Merge template nominations as No Consensus. These are the ones who makes comments like personal attack. They do not speak but they are as aggressive and highly biased as they should be. It is personal and going on every of my work to prove it wrong somehow. Light2021 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• You stated to me above (grammar and typography errors in original), "These 4 Are so consistent in my AfD and going with Keep votes or supporting the discussion on same manner. or somehow diverting it not by fact but by votes to support each others not the article itself."  Now you want me and the other readers here to believe that that is not a personal attack?  Given your belief that editors here conspire against you, why do you want to continue at Wikipedia?  You can review WP:NOTTHERAPY for your response.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• The problem here is not the deletionist stance of Light2021 but the absurd behavior, this is an example of one of ther keep !votes, it's obvious that there's some serious competence issues here and they are wasting the time of multiple editors, the above posts are also an example of that, sadly that doesn't seem to count for much on here where we apparently reward disruptive behavior. —SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

* I have stated a mere fact, not personal attack here. What I meant is give me substantial proof where any of the 4 made a delete comment on any of my AfD. Personal attack is not just language, it can be deliberate attempt to do so by all means. Disruptions how? Just because I am defending myself with their blatant lies and accusations of Past behaviour? This is disruptions. These people want me out by nay means possible. When I accepted the fact and advises: 1. I will not nominate without giving a detail rationale. 2. I will not make any counter arguments to anyone, no matter what. 3. Cunard should be away from my Afd. 4. I will wait others to respond and I will not reply back as that is what I do best. But no matter what you call me, can anyone present a fact how these 4 are neutral editors here? Show me one example of proof that they are here with good intentions and go work on Good Faith with neutrality. this is ridiculous to say my work is waste, how they can only find keep votes and nothing else on my AfD. Show me one proof, and I will believe that I made any personal commentary not presented a fact. I am not against them, and I am not saying they should not make their views, I presented an interesting observation, how come these 4 only find the Keep votes on my AfD? nothing to attack or disrupt here. The way they have mislead my profile, my work, and accusations made to corrupt by past history is way more disrupting and attacking someone personally. From last 12-13 days nothing is done from my ends. I am just fighting here with those people who dislike me and just want to block me indefinitely. This is how Wikipedia should work and treat the people who are genuine in contribution? This Full ANI is dedicated quoting past events, making accusations like anything. Quoting AfD that been deleted or was the good one. When nothing is done, just started to build Past event quote?? Even When I accepted my part and suggestions. Why it is so hard for cunard to accept that? still participated and made a comment! Get a life! Light2021 (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for diff(s)

Arthur Rubin, an admin, has accused me of "lying" (and/or "misstatements" etc) on half a dozen or more occasions, along with stating that I'm incapable of understanding basic English a couple of times. This relates to the curious case of the legitimacy of the official Wikipedia guideline status of WP:RY. [8] [9], [10], [11], [12]. He has then accused me of redacting the claim I made which he found so outrageous. In all cases, I have asked at least eleven times for diffs of the "lies" and the subsequent "redaction". [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Rubin has stated that he will only present diffs in a formal setting, so this is it, simply a request for him to provide the diff(s) of my "outright lies" and the diff(s) of my "redaction" of said outright lies. I had hoped it wouldn't need a trip to the drama board to sort this out but apparently not. Other editors appear to have made direct and overt statements calling the status of this guideline into question, yet they have not been subject to similar accusations from Rubin. Now I know this is going to spiral out of all control, because this is Wikipedia, this is ANI and I'm TRM, but I'd like, just for once, to focus on the matter at hand please. Other corollary issues which I'm sure will be brought up to divert from this should be placed in their own section. This thread needs to focus on whether this is appropriate behaviour from an admin since such unfounded accusations easily constitute personal attacks and since so many unresolved requests for evidence easily constitute a failure of WP:ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• As a reminder for anyone who wants to look into this. WP:NPA is policy and defines as personal attacks (amongst other things) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Indeed. I'd like to see this complaint addressed on its merits alone, without the usual "spiral[ling] out of all control" - if at all possible. -- Begoon 12:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Going even further, I'd suggest that other commenters hold back until Arthur Rubin has had a chance to present his response. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some of these go back to the beginning of July and might be considered stale at this time, the most recent diff were from July 19th, Arthur Rubin;s been editing as of yesterday. I would still like to hear his side, however, considering all of the diffs are fairly old, unless there's some pretty damning evidence, I'd move to close this as punative.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC) KV, it's a continual mystery to me why you make this kind of post when you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. You used to have a sanction against doing so, I think. Has it expired? If so, please point me to where you were permitted to behave like this again so that I can properly object. Begoon 15:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Did you actually read the complaint? The diffs are showing repeated requests from TRM for Arthur Rubin to provide the evidence required, they're not "stale". Honestly, I agree with Begoon - don't comment here if you don't understand what the issue is. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @KoshVorlon: The fact that they "go back to the beginning of July" is perhaps suggestive of establishing a pattern, rather than being stale! — fortunavelut luna 10:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Too many edit conflicts. I'll reply when I have some time at home, in about 21 hours. Diffs will also show that I told him I could only generate the diff links when I'm on my desktop, that I considered his talk page and ANI the only appropriate place to put them, and that I offered to give him the diffs on his talk page, but he had previously "banned" me from his tall page, and refused to "allow" me to post the list on his talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I will also provide diffs which show that he considers any editor who disagrees with him WP:BULLYing, and that his demand for my not using his talk page was caused by my giving him credit for pointing out problems, and posting requests to fix them in the proper venues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I had a longer reply, but I had edit conflicts, and I cannot easily recover it on my desktop. I also attempted to redact TRM's identity from the complaint, but I further alleged that the misstatements require an admin close for an RfC in Talk:2017; further redaction would make my request for an admin close meaningless. I shouldn't have named TRM as the liar in that venue, but having done so, further redaction is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the point is that you refused to supply links for the past week or two yet continued to promote this "outright lying" campaign at most venues you could. You didn't need a "formal location" for such diffs, any location you chose to repeat the personal attacks would have been fine. You have certainly been able to respond quicker, and per ADMINACCT, you have failed in that duty. Per NPA, you have also repeatedly attacked me at various venues across Wikipedia with your accusations of (a) me "lying" and (b) me "redacting the lie" while (c) allowing a number of other editors to apparently say the things you accused me of without any recourse. How odd. And yes, as I noted, you'll be attempting to divert scrutiny over your failure of admin duties by providing other spin, do that in another thread because this is simply about your refusal to supply evidence to support the many personal attacks you have made despite multiple requests, per NPA and ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. You have had weeks to get this information together, yet you abjectly refuse. That's not good enough. With your selected attacks on me across multiple venues without evidence, you should resign your mop immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

More nonsense. Your personal attacks against me are quite relevant as to why I didn't redact complaints about your editing, which I posted in the wrong venue. I am willing to apologize for posting them to the wrong venue; however, absurd statements being made about the content and status of WP:RY at Talk:2017 require an admin close of the RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Who said anything about personal attacks on you? The only issue being dealt with here is your refusal to supply diffs for weeks and weeks despite you using every venue across Wikpiedia to personally attack me. I'm not interested in your "redactions", I'm interested in your evidence that I "lied" and your evidence that "I redacted that lie" and your reasoning for not supplying this evidence for at least two weeks and your abuse of your position. Now then, I don't care about RY, I don't care about "venues", I care about NPA and ADMINACCT. Address those issues please, and stop trying to obfuscate the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, a couple of things about the ability (or lack of) to post "diffs". Firstly, I tried it tonight, while walking, with a three-year-old iPhone, and copied a diff to my sandbox in around thirty seconds. Secondly, I recommended to you that you seek technical help with accumulating and posting diffs, from someone with the capability to do it in a timely fashion. Thirdly, it would have been so simple to just say "your lie is found at page X with date/timestamp Y". Yet, despite your position as an admin, your requirements per ADMINACCT, your obligation per NPA, you refused to do any of these for more than two weeks, so here we are, wondering why you should be an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• OK, it's time to stop this thread, before it does indeed "spiral out of control". I strongly suggest that comments stop until Arthur Rubin posts his response, as he has above said he will do sometime tomorrow. At that point, either his response will show that he has or has not any evidence for his comments about TRM. At that point, we can continue forwards. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Sure, so Rubin has had two weeks to post a response and refused to do so. I just wanted others to know that I had given him many, many options on how to proceed before we ended up at the drama boards. Yet again, it needs to be assessed in the context of his position as an admin. And now we wait while he gets to pick when and how he wants to continue. Bravo. 20:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs)

• That's fine - if he doesn't post a response tomorrow, then the situation can also continue forwards. But there is nothing to be gained from a continual back-and-forth between the two of you with no useful outcome, frustrating as it might be for you. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think the point has been missed. It's clear from Rubin's edit history that he has been online here every single day since my first request to provide evidence to substantiate his personal attack. He didn't, he hasn't, he's repeated the same attacks across Wikpiedia. It's now actually too late to apologise, redact etc, what we're examining here is his abuse of position, NPA violations and ADMINACCT fail. That needs nothing more from him. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this incident involves an admin refusing to even acknowledge their behaviour - there's a clear case to be made for removal of the admin tools. Possibly via arbcom if need be, but nobody here wants that. As such, I would like to make the following proposal... Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, then! I'll start putting together a case - I'll wait 48 hours before filing to allow for response - They've already had weeks so I feel that I'm being generous here... Twitbookspacetube 04:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to comment on my close, Twitbookspacetube, I strongly believe community-based desysopping should exist in order to ensure adminship isn't such a big deal. It's been repeatedly proposed and shot down, though, so meh. As it stands, a discussion on desysopping wouldn't be actioned by the beauracrats or stewards, so it's not possible. (This is not a comment on the specifics of this case; I haven't read anything about them.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Also by way of observation -- if you do put together a case to bring to ArbCom, they're very unlikely to take it up unless you show a history of misconduct or abuse of the admin tools. I think that a single instance would have to be particularly egregious before it qualifies as the basis for a desysopping case. (In fact, I'm not sure if I've ever seen them take a case brought to them based on a single instance -- as opposed to when they themselves react to a instance of misbehavior, and desysop on their own initiative.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

30+ hours since this was filed and no sign of any appropriate response from Arthur Rubin. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, he said he will respond in about 21 hours, 25 hours ago. I've been also waiting for the input though. Alex Shih^Talk 19:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been waiting three weeks for the input. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

But Alex why did it require multiple requests by TRM and an ANI report to compel Arthur Rubin to provide diffs? He is not a few hours tardy; he's missed the mark for two or three weeks now. As a person who edits almost exclusively on a mobile device, I find his smartphone excuse unconvincing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I seem to be running a fever. My next edits anywhere on Wikipedia under any of my accounts will be a personal status update or the diffs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

(As of 21:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC), Arthur Rubin has held true to this) pbp 21:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything different. Thanks for the note. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Nudging this thread to prevent premature archiving. Of course, the discussion over why it would take three weeks for an admin to provide evidence to substantiate the various personal attacks can continue regardless, the diffs themselves are, by now, almost irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Nudging again, to ensure thread stays on notice board. Once again, regardless of any diffs that Rubin might supply, the case of him not supplying them to support his various personal attacks despite nearly a dozen requests to do so can surely be discussed without his presence. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well sure, it can, and it should. Sadly, all you can really get here is "Arthur has done wrong, and is reminded not to do wrong again", and a record that you tried to resolve the dispute, so that arbitration requests don't get rejected as premature. That truly sucks, and I sympathise. For the record, though, I do think the failure to provide the requested diffs, after repeated requests, is a breach of WP:ADMINACCT. -- Begoon 11:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the community's acknowledgement that the admin offered unfounded personal attacks over a span of weeks and yet refused to supply any evidence, contrary to ADMINACCT and NPA, can be established right away. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with this being regretful, and sets a dangerous precedent for ADMINACCT. Hopefully the case will have a proper closure soon. Alex Shih^Talk 18:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Nudging the thread once again to ensure it is addressed properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

TRM, I started to place a DNAU on this thread yesterday but found someone else already has. It will not be archived and no one should manually archive this either. You won't have to nudge it and we will expect the response from AR per WP:ADMINACCT.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the note about the archiving. However, what is important is to allow the community to decide as to whether this behaviour is commensurate with an admin, regardless of whether or not Arbcom wish to do anything (which, because it's about TRM, is highly doubtful). A resounding community endorsement of the infractions would go a long way to giving Arbcom the wakeup call they need as they continue to defend and coddle admins who routinely abuse their position with impunity. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed removal of admin tools from Arthur Rubin

This is not permissible under current policy. If you want administrator access to be reviewed, file a case request with the Arbitration Committee. ~ Rob13Talk 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Due to conduct unbecoming of an Administrator including, but not limited to, violations of WP:NPA and WP:ADMINACCT, Arthur Rubin is to have their tools removed. If they resign due to this proposal, it will be considered to be 'Under a cloud' and they will have to go through another successful RfA to regain the tools. Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Support As proposer Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose Neutral comment In principle, I totally agree that this should be a thing that's available to the community at all times - the ability to reach consensus and desysopp a user. Unfortunately, this is not going to go anywhere; there are no community policies or guidelines that make this allowed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

ARBCOM case

As instructed above, I have waited 48 hours after my last comment here, then filed a case at arbcom which can be found here. Twitbookspacetube 05:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Same Admin has made many serious accusations against me and refused to provide any evidence. He even pulled a user right without evidence. Worst Admin here. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not that you'd reflexively dive on a bandwagon, of course... -- Begoon 19:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well Rubin did instigate an involved block a few weeks ago and accused a good faith editor of being a vandal, so it's pretty clear that my experience is not unique. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, perhaps my comment was a bit harsh, but, without any additional diffs provided, the coveted award of Worst Admin here seemed pretty strong. -- Begoon 02:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I guess Legacypac could offer some of those diffs here or at the Arbcom case to substantiate such a claim. Although Legacypac isn't an admin, we still expect to see diffs for such statements. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

See the next section (I moved to User:Legacypac/AR) TRM's treatment by AR sounds very familiar. Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and provision of diffs Legacypac, perhaps you should consider RFA! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the quick response, Legacypac, and my apologies, again, for my brusqueness. -- Begoon 10:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

AR has established by his behavior we can say anything nasty we like about him without any proof of misconduct. Heck we could even remove his bit without any evidence like he did to me. I operate on a different standard. Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This topic cannot be handled at ANI and the whole section should be closed. Please keep evidence for the Arbcom case that will not proceed until the subject returns to editing. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this ANI thread should be closed yet. The Arbcom case may not be accepted. And in any case there would seem to be aspects of this situation—separate from any Arbcom case—which might be addressed here. And in particular, Arthur Rubin has promised to respond here to the request for diffs—as soon as he is able– and I for one would like to see his response (or lack thereof) before this section incident is closed. Paul August ☎ 11:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It would seem a bit "Catch-22", when a requirement for an ARBCOM case is that all previous dispute resolution steps have been exhausted, to close this attempt now. I'd like to see Arthur's response too, and I hope he will soon recover and return, but, equally, I don't think we need to wait indefinitely for that before deciding if there was already an ADMINACCT issue here, prior to his illness. -- Begoon 12:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said above However, what is important is to allow the community to decide as to whether this behaviour is commensurate with an admin, regardless of whether or not Arbcom wish to do anything (which, because it's about TRM, is highly doubtful). A resounding community endorsement of the infractions would go a long way to giving Arbcom the wakeup call they need as they continue to defend and coddle admins who routinely abuse their position with impunity. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom have now hatted the case because although Rubin is editing elsewhere online, he's too ill to edit Wikipedia. Coddling the protected admins, the admins who use personal attacks and fail to abide by ADMINACCT, day on, day out. Disgraceful. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Presumably the "hatting" will only be temporary. @The Rambling Man: How do you know Arthur Rubin is editing elsewhere online? Paul August ☎ 23:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Paul August: this question may be somewhat difficult for The Rambling Man (or any other editor) to respond to, because of the implications regarding WP:OUTING. —Sladen (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little confused here. TRM's complaint seems to be that AR has made accusations against him and then failed to provide any evidence. If that is so, it strikes me as odd that TRM would choose to make an accusation against AR that he cannot substantiate without running afoul of the policies on outing. Lepricavark (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No need to be confused. Like here, Rubin edits under his own name across the Internet, it's not hard to establish that he is only too ill to edit Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the users involved here, but am I correct in assuming that the only way an abusive administrator can be desysopped is through Arbcom action, which they they can defeat by taking a wikibreak? If so, that might explain why abusive admins say "go ahead, try to get me desysopped" as they know the process. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• At the Arbcom case, I commented that the filing was premature but that was only because I had faith Arthur was telling the truth about his timely illness. However, if what TRM says is true and Arthur really is active on other websites, just not Wikipedia, then Arbcom should proceed. There simply is too many excuses by this admin that I can poke holes in and if this gets swept under the rug, I can not even begin to describe my level of disgust.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

After what the arbitration committee did to kww on your behalf, I think you're the last person who should be whining about them. That said, it is true that the ArbCom has in the past been too indulgent of people feigning illness to avoid an arbcom motion; remember A Nobody, anyone? Reyk _YO! 00:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious... are you saying that ArbCom is too lenient in recent years compared to the A Nobody request or that they were too lenient then? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Too lenient back then. IIRC that editor feigned a very obviously fictional kidney complaint just as his arbcom case was starting, which did not prevent him socking here or editing heavily at Wikia including blocking people there who'd annoyed him here. And the arbitration committee rather meekly seemed to accept this "illness" and stick the case on the shelf. I was annoyed at the time that arbcom did not even attempt to question the extremely obvious deception. In the end A Nobody was permabanned at ANI, which got arbcom off the hook a bit. Now we see another case where someone may be dodging an arbcom motion allegedly on health grounds while still being heavily active elsewhere. Now, I haven't looked deeply into the Arthur Rubin situation so it might be unfair of me to compare him to A Nobody; in that situation I was being personally maligned so I took more notice of it. My only point is that arbcom has previously taken blatant malingering at face value and I'd like them not to do so again. Reyk _YO! 00:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of the A Nobody request, since I wasn't particularly active then and probably didn't even know what ArbCom was. It looks like ArbCom indef banned him until such point where he would agree to return and participate in a case... Is this what you find too lenient? Did I miss something? (Genuine question. ArbCom case requests that don't turn into cases are difficult to look through these days, and they weren't better seven years ago. Let me know if you want me to take this to your talk page, btw, I'm not sure it's particularly germane to this discussion.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying here, had to commute. We hatted the case until Arthur Rubin returns, as we've done in the past with other cases focused on a single party where that party is not editing Wikipedia. We'll unhat it when he returns. I have no idea where Arthur Rubin has been elsewhere online, though I don't think it's reasonable to assume that because he is not so ill he can't operate a computer, he is well enough to have the energy to come back to Wikipedia while he's the focus of an ArbCom case request.

@Coretheapple: No. If an abusive administrator were the subject of an ArbCom case and took a temporary wikibreak, we'd just resume it when they returned. We had a case a while ago (Toddst1, I think), where an admin stopped editing. The case was never resumed because Toddst1 didn't return until after he was desysoped for inactivity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Is that same courtesy extended to ordinary users who are hauled before arbcom? Coretheapple (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. At least, I can't recall any cases we've held against someone who was completely absent – I hope I'm not wrong. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple - Speaking as a disinterested party with zero ties to Arbcom: it is indeed a common practice to recess from activity when a participant, regular user or administrator, is unable to effectively participate in an Arbcom process. This reality has been gamed from time to time, I strongly suspect, but it remains a fact. Carrite (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And personally, I think that's the way it has to stay. WP:NOTMANDATORY is just too important a principle for a volunteer community to not be weakened, even if the rare problem editor takes shelter under it. Life happens and I don't think it's reasonable or smart to give an incentive to editors in disputes to go digging into evidence of what is going on in eachother's lives. None of that should matter. Whatever the nature and authenticity of Arthur's illness (or anyone stated need for needing to disengage with Wikipedia) it shouldn't be a topic of discussion here. The AE report isn't going anywhere and Arthur either has to stay away or face the music once he comes back. No harm results to the person alleging misconduct directed against them in either of those scenario's and we keep this community out of a sticky area it wisely chose to avoid early on and consistently ever since. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Without implying anything either way on the particular users and behavior being discussed here (I have not examined the evidence myself and thus have no opinion on that) is it actually true that, if Arbcom declines to accept a request for desysopping, that ANI can do nothing, no matter how good or bad the evidence is? Surely that was not the intent of the policy. If the admin's behavior is bad enough (again, I have no opinion as to whether this is true in this case) ANI could decide on a community block or a community recommendation for desysoping, right?

Now in this case, Arbcom (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT) has put the case on hold for reasons (hasn't edited for five days) which would customarily not be accepted as a reason to put an ANI case on hold. Should we put this on hold as well, close it with a request to refile if Arbcom doesn't act in X days, or continue on with it?

BTW, this may be an example of the Super Mario Effect.

Background: In Mario Brothers, When Small Mario takes a hit, he dies. When Super Mario takes the same hit he turns into Small Mario. The obvious analogy would be a case where when a regular user misbehaves badly enough he is site banned, but when an administrator misbehaves in the exact same way he is desysopped and becomes a regular user.

There is also an even larger and far rarer Giant Mario, who can walk over and destroy everything in his path, including the largest and most powerful enemies. Eventually Giant Mario reverts to being Super Mario. The analogy here is left as an exercise for the reader. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

In addition to your very apt analog: given that the entire process is dominated by administrators, it strikes me as a case of regulatory capture in an almost comically exaggerated sense. Coretheapple (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

the community can't take away admin rights but the community can block or ban. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph is right. The community can't desysop, but they could impose sanctions or block/ban the administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, The community can recommend desysopping, and if there is a strong consensus behind the recommendation (again, not established in this particular case) it is likely that an followup request to Arbcom will result in them doing the desysopping. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

One would hope that would be the case, but, in reality, ARBCOM will do whatever its members decide. Policy says the community may not desysop, and ARBCOM, theoretically, will not "make" policy. So an ARBCOM discussion can easily override, or just plain ignore, your "strong consensus". As I said above, that sucks, and we should seek to change it. -- Begoon 14:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, and when the wronged party is considered persona non grata by Arbcom then it's even more likely that it would be ignored. However, that's precisely why I want this discussion to continue, we don't need permission from anyone to discuss this behaviour, we don't need Rubin to be present to discuss his behaviour, and a consensus is growing that he has not only made multiple, unfounded personal attacks, but that he has summarily failed in his duty as an admin to respond to the dozen or so requests. Where we go when this discussion is done is another matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT says in part "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ...

• Bad faith" adminship...
• Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility...)
• Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (not applicable)

• Failure to communicate– this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought). (For weeks, then this thread and ArbComm)
• Repeated or consistent poor judgment

AR recent conduct meets 4 out of 5 past reasons for sanctioning or stripping Admin powers. He is unquestionably continuing to breach point 4 right now. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed block

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

---

I, for one, find it awfully convenient that AR suddenly fell ill to the point where they can type, but not use CTRL+C and CTRL+V. In addition, the mobile editing excuse does not hold up as edits from a mobile device are tagged. As such, I would like to request that, until AR provides the evidence that has been requested for a month and counting, they are to be blocked from editing due to the blatant disregard for WP:ADMINACCT and the repeated failure to provide diffs constituting a violation of WP:NPA. Twitbookspacetube 00:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

edits from a mobile device are tagged I am not sure of the exact combination of browser, app, etc. that cause edits to be tagged as mobile, but not all mobile edits are tagged as such. I occasionally edit from a mobile device and I don't recall ever having any of my edits tagged. At any rate, I don't see what would be accomplished by your proposed action. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

What I hope to achieve is to enforce the standard of conduct expected of a standard user, never mind an administrator that should be held to an even higher standard to remain as such. If arthur was not an admin, they would have been blocked by now. Hell, I've seen users facing a community ban for less than what this thread was started on! Twitbookspacetube 03:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I would assume that the reason why Arthur Rubin hasn't been blocked where a non-admin editor would be blocked is because we've all been hung up on the fact that he is an admin, rather than it being a result of the administrator cabal protecting their own. (Good faith, ahoy!) Given TRM's clear evidence (supported by diffs) of Arthur Rubin's accusations and blatant refusal to provide diffs, Arthur Rubin is clearly in breach of WP:NPA, as he has made repeated "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." As Legacypac has experienced remarkably similar (and much more egregious) behaviour from Arthur Rubin and Rubin's quite frankly ridiculous and insulting avoidance of this issue, any possible block for breaching WP:NPA should not be the end of the matter, and his adminship should continue to be evaluated. Cjhard (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• I would Oppose any block or ban that makes it impossible (as this proposal does) for Arthur Rubin to supply on Wikipedia the diffs being requested here as well as respond on Wikipedia to the requested ARBCOM case. As I said above, I for one want to see the promised diffs, as well as see Arthur Rubin's response to the ARBCOM case request. Paul August ☎ 10:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A block would not prevent diffs being provided on AR's talk page as long as he is allowed to retain the right to edit it. The block could also be lifted with the condition that the lifting is purely to permit participation in the Arbcom case if that were to go ahead. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, any other (non-admin) editor would be blocked for so many personal attacks without evidence. His talk page was and still is a perfectly legitimate venue for the evidence that has been requested a dozen times over the past month. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

So User:Paul August can we count on your support now? Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well so far the Twitbookspacetube's proposal remains unchanged. My main concern is that nothing prevent Arthur Rubin's suppling the promised diffs here, as well as prevent the ARBCOM case request from moving forward, while the current proposed block does both. In any case, as a purely practical matter, a block or ban would have no effect as long as Arthur Rubin remains away. Paul August ☎ 14:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Paul August: Well. The important thing is that diffs are supplied. And if they are to be supplied here, and they are blocked, then per usual process, they can put them up on their talk, and an editor of good standing places them here for the community's consideration. which is what usiually happens; the alternative is that someone is unblocked on condition that they only edit here or at ARBcom- again, there's a demonstratble process for this situation. As for your second point, their absence is part of the actual behavioural issue under question; arguably, it is the fact that they (so suddenly?) are 'away' that has exacerbated the original issue, and heightened opinion, as far as it seems to have. — fortunavelut luna 14:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support He's not editing anyway so the block is not going to hurt too much. The community can block anyone and Admins block editors all the time based on just one Admin's opinion of wrong doing. This is the only sensable action given the circumstances. Action was already taken to ensure the thread is not archived - so do we carry on discussing until he comes back to post diffs that don't exist? There is lots of proof of misbehavior. His (undeserved and abused) Adminship (See User:Legacypac/AR)is the only reason he has not been blocked yet. When I'm sick in bed I up my editing activity, not decrease it cause I'm bored and can't do much else. Hopefully he gets over his case of ANi Flu soon. If he returns he can appeal the block on hos talkpage with the diffs requested by TRM or a full admission and apology for his misbehaviour and perhaps a resignation of adminship. Admins refuse unblocks all the time when the editor refuses to admit they are wrong so why should AR's case be different? When he appeals, the community can look at his appeal and decide. Also, I'm very confident the needed diffs don't exist. What editor in their right mind would take something to ANi and ArbComm complaining of unfair personal attacks if there were diffs proving otherwise? That would be super risky. Please Support the Block - it's the only fair way to deal with this situation if we really believe Admins are just community members who are trusted with extra tools. As an Admin AR should be held to a higher standard not given a free pass. Legacypac (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Firstly, admins need to be held to a higher standard. Not because they are better, but because they represent Wikipedia and need to abide by the rules. In addition, I find it odd that he has temporarily disappeared from Wikipedia. The cynic in me thinks that is done hoping this will go away. If he's gone, there is no harm in blocking and if he returns, he can still edit his talk page and resolve this and request an unblock. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support in part per my resp @Paul August above, but also in the interests of preventing community processes to be hamstrung in the face of behavioural and accountability issues. — fortunavelut luna 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment As an outsider looking in, I’m not sure what I’m finding more unbelievable; (A) Arthur’s ‘illness’, or (B) people still expecting diffs for an accusation that was so obviously false. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Amply justified. The double standard that elevates admins above the hoi polloi is corrosive to the project and needs to end. Either act against abusive administrators or formally adopt the principle that being an admin is a very, very big deal. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Arthur's objectionable behavior needs to be treated with the same standard as any other editor. I commend TRM for his patience and civility during his simple request for diffs. With all the suspicious cop-outs Arthur has given so far, I would not be surprised if there were no diffs to begin with that support his claims.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose can't believe no one has noted that since he's not editing, the block would be purely punitive. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE certainly #3, uh uh, and tendentially #2. — fortunavelut luna 18:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't know what "uh uh" is supposed to signify, but that's not the spirit of WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. Blocking trolls and vandals can deter them from future trolling and vandalism, but blocks are not meant purely for punishment. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment It's purely preventative not punitive. It will prevent him from editing until he addresses the issues he is systematically avoiding (Admins must be willing to address and justify their actions per WP:ADMINACCT). It is also to prevent his abuse of Admin tools (as he did against me recently) and as he has threatened use the tools against TRM (per the diffs at the top). Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I feel this is all based on prejudice against administrators, I can see no other reason for this vehement overreaction. Also a procedural close with Twitbookspacetube is guilty of WP:FORUMSHOP with the ArbCom case request on hold. Honestly it has the feeling of mob mentality all over it, with rhyme and reason all left behind. As such it should dismissed by any closer as a prejudicial attempt to subvert WP:BLOCK with a punitive rather than preventative rationale. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  Not at all. Did you read the opening post where this admin made half a dozen personal attacks against me and despite me requesting around a dozen times for evidence to substantiate the claims, he refused, so that's an abject failure of WP:NPA and a definite failure of WP:ADMINACCT. There's no "mob mentality", just a community fed up to the eye teeth of admins and Arbcom protecting one another. It's time that stopped, it's time all editors were held accountable, admins more so, per ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support The record is replete with behavior the likes of which has gotten plenty users blocked. I agree that admins ought to be held to a high standard but that's irrelevant here. AR is not breaching any higher standard. He, repeatedly, breaching the basic standard of behavior. A lot. Participation in the ARBCOM case is a red herring. It should stay on hold until AR indicates that he's now healthy and ready to participate. As long as he has talk page access, he's got a way to notify us of his recovery. Then, he can offer evidence on his talk page or the block can be lifted only for the purpose of participating in the ARBCOM case.
  Really, this oughtn't be a hard call. The behavior is pretty egregious, the refusal to provide diffs bespeaks the unliklihood that such diffs exist and the onset of the illness strains credulity. David in DC (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  I've struck through my support for this block because I've been persuaded below that the editing restriction proposed below is sufficient and more likely to achieve consensus. David in DC (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Admin tools are used to protect the encyclopaedia. Since Arthur Rubin is not currently editing, there is no urgent need at this time to use the admin tools. That said, Arthur does have questions to answer and he should do so on his return to editing. I would not be opposed to a restriction (a ban?) on editing until he does provide answers. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Can anyone just use this tactic when they are brought to ANI with conclusive evidence of bad behavior -- claim they can't provide diffs for two/three weeks and have a timely illness (Wikigitis?) to avoid a block? Or is this reserved primarily for admins?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Admin tools are also used as threats against users. Blocking edtors isn't related to whether they have the admin tools or not. Urgency is not the issue. The refusal to provide diffs relating to half a dozen personal attacks over three weeks, despite a dozen requests, is the issue. A normal editor would have been blocked days/weeks ago. This admin is being afforded very special treatment, way beyond what is given to the rest of us. And Arbcom are backing him up too by ignoring the flagrant abuse of his position, somehow claiming he needs to be present to answer for his overt failings. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  You say you would not oppose a restriction on editing until he does provide answers, yet you just did so. This proposal is not to take away admin rights. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment blocks are often used to enforce a site ban (which you do support) so the difference is semantics. Site ban him and use a block to enforce sound better? His refusal to edit is a large part of the reason for the block/ban. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Call me biased, I don't care. I was involved with the admin and TRM at Talk:2017. I don't think my dislike for the admin is hidden. At first, the discussion only involved the same users. I was first appalled by TRM's behaviour. It was rather childish. Then Arthur Rubin appeared and it was just worse. Admins are expected to be held at higher standards, but this admin was way low from that. They were feuding with TRM and I just stopped because it got so ridiculous. They made comments that were not backed up even after being asked to provide diffs. They never did so despite being asked a bunch of times. You expect so much more from an admin, and this behaviour was just so ridiculous. Had this been a regular user, I am sure they would have been blocked by now. Admins are expected to be treated the same as other users. Having administrator tools doesn't give you immunity. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 02:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: There were comments on the RFAR (possibly deleted by now) that AR has been editing other sites while claiming to be too ill to supply diffs here. If that evidence can be supplied in this section, I think that would be sufficient cause to insist that AR begin to supply the requested diffs within 72 hours or face sanctions such as a block. (By the way, if he were blocked, he could still supply the diffs on his talkpage.) It's been six days since he claimed "I seem to be running a fever." Softlavender (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• We don't do humiliation at Wikipedia. Vandals might be blocked for their actions, but we don't give them a deadline enforceable with a block. Blocking anyone requires evidence of past and ongoing problems that require a block to avoid further disruption. Those who don't skim Arbcom pages every now and then apparently do not realise what the current situation is. If AR chooses to be absent for more than 12 months, he will be desysopped as part of the normal cycle that applies to any admin inactive for that period. The result would achieve the same outcome being called for here, and would not involve undue humiliation. If AR returns within the 12-month period the Arbcom case will be resumed. At that time, people can provide all their evidence, and can discuss that evidence, and can make recommendations about desirable outcomes. There is no problem that requires attention at ANI, and there is no problem here that ANI can solve. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

the real humiliation is the gross and brutal unsubstantiated personal attacks and pulling tools without reason. I respect your judgement, but if we apply your argument to other situations blocks of non-vandal editors would be cut by 90%. His failure to account is an ongoing problem. There is zero evidence he will stop the personal attacks which is an ongoing problem. The community can deal with this, at least in part, and another Admin needs to carry out the block. As Dennis Brown told me,[24] a community sanction happens because the community decides, its not the call of the Admin that carries out the block. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't examined the evidence that has been posted so I do not know whether what has been said has a good basis. I have had Arthur Rubin on my watchlist for a long time along with a few other similar BLPs of editors—I do that to help repel misguided attempts to discredit the subject by people who don't like the editor. That's all I know about this case. I hear your frustration but it's rare for an old personal attack (if such a PA has been demonstrated) to result in a block. It's extremely rare that such a block would occur when the editor has gone on a wikibreak. It is true that some people use wikibreaks as a tactic to avoid scrutiny, although none of us know what's going on here. It has been said that AR is posting on some forum or whatever—that is not evidence of anything because it is very easy to make such posts even if ill. On the other hand, facing up to a frenzy of opposition at Wikipedia is not easy and an illness could definitely make an editor want a wikibreak. The difference between this case and others involving wikibreaks is that AR is at Arbcom, and that case will not expire—if AR were absent for 11 months and then did a single edit to fix a typo, the case would be reopened. It's not going away. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully User:Johnuniq since you admit "I haven't examined the evidence that has been posted" you need to strike all your uninformed opinions in this tread. You can't fairly say from a position of ignorance this is a misguided attempt or that there is nothing to do here or that this is about an old personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I did not examine the evidence but a glance at AR's contribs told me there was no ongoing disruption. It can be extremely frustrating, but WP:NOPUNISH is a strongly supported policy (I don't find it frustrating because I think it's quite charming, but it would be frustrating to victims of abuse). I have now examined the first three diffs at the Arbcom case request and the first three diffs presented by some others here. I did the same at User:Legacypac/AR. I understand that being treated like shit by a passer-by who believes he has God-given powers to remove the new page reviewer right based on his judgment would be frustrating. I see that an extremely well-respected admin restored the right per their very thorough comment here. However, IMHO, AR did enough in that discussion to mean that Arbcom will not weigh the rights removal action as warranting a desysop. The discussion shows an explanation of an honest belief, allbeit a naive and unwarranted belief—WP:ADMINACCT is probably satisfied. Other diffs I looked at involved claims that ADMINACCT was violated because AR did not supply a requested diff, but I did not see any related admin tool use, so ADMINACCT is not applicable. The first three diffs at the Arbcom request show nothing other than a difference of opinion. Possibly there are diffs showing a sanctionable problem, but they would have to be winnowed from the others, and that can occur at the Arb case when it resumes. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Although, not due to any recent encounters, but certainly from past encounters and edits of theirs, particularly over political or controversial content. If anyone requests diffs I'll be happy to provide them, but they are admittedly from previous years. I'm not surprised it has come to this, just that it hasn't happened sooner. DN (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• An admin who blocked AR because a WP:VOTE wanted it may themselves face Arbcom action because WP:NOPUNISH is policy. As I noted just above, the Arbcom case is not going away. That will allow evidence to be systematically gathered and considered. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think that it would be unusual for an admin implementing a community consensus to block AR (if there is one - I have no position on this donnybrook) to face any sanctions from ArbCom. ArbCom might overturn the block if it finds that the community acted outside of policy (which I think it would be unlikely to take up), but it's part of an admin's remit to implement community decisions without overly inserting their own opinion into it, so I doubt that the hypothetical admin would find themselves in hot water. After all, it's not like AR has a squeaky clean slate and this is a one-time aberration, so a reasonable argument could be made that such a block would indeed be preventative and not punitive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

see [25] I already see more consensus here for a block then for many sanctions that flow from this board. According to User:Dennis Brown's logic, he is already blocked by the community. Which Admin is going to implement the community decision? Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you might be premature, and without giving context, most wouldn't understand your comment, that "my logic" is that the community decides to block, and the blocking admin is merely enforcing the will of the community. It is leaning that way, but participation is rather light, plus there is an Arb case on hold complicating matters. To be clear, that wouldn't stop me from implementing a block, but there needs to be more time for a larger consensus to form. 9 support votes is insufficient to stop discussion for this kind of case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not saying we are quite ready to close, but responding to the assertions above that an Admin could be sanctioned for implimemting. a block here. Also if he started editing today, in violation of this pending community block and nothing was done about it... there better be consequences. There are 9 more votes than he had for taking my tools away, but you know he is "trusted". Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It is unnecessary and of no use to block AR while he is away. What good would it do? If AR returns, and if no satisfactory response is given, then a block might be considered. Paul August ☎ 13:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  But that's just it, there is no satisfactory response. The multiple personal attacks without a shred of evidence provided, despite multiple requests over a three-week period. That's all there in black and white, and Rubin himself has Admitted as much. Even if he returns and does provide those fateful diffs, it's too late. Regular editors wouldn't be given anywhere near such latitude. The Rambling =Man (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

So what are you proposing exactly? That AR be blocked permanently? (That's not what is being proposed above by Twitbookspacetube.) Paul August ☎ 16:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I find AR's illness to be quite suspicious​, if not totally faked. However, plenty of ANI cases have ended as "Stale" because on inactivity. Laying low till the "mob disperses" is a favored​ tactic of those who are in the wrong, and frequently it works. The only block I will support is a procedural (few days-1 week) smear on the block log for personal attacks. I think this ANI section should be collapsed and DNAUd until things resume. (not using ATOP/bot because it is okay if discussion continues in the interim. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users is a core Wikipedia policy, and has been formal policy been since January 2006. Since Arthur Rubin is not editing Wikipedia then by definition he's not damaging or disrupting. A dozen people on ANI don't have the authority to unilaterally overturn a policy this fundamental. If you want the blocking policy changed to allow punitive blocks in absentia, RFC is thataways although I wouldn't bother since in the unlikely event you managed to get consensus for it, the WMF would almost certainly overturn it as an office action. ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

his failure to WP:ADMINACCT is causinv continuing damage. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose only because I think the proposal below is better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support For choosing between these two proposals, the question I have is whether an ordinary user (non-admin) be allowed to make accusations like this and fail to provide diffs for so long without being blocked. I doubt they would. As to the idea that AR isn't being disruptive because he's not currently editing, I see the disruption as ongoing as long as AR fails to provide diffs or withdraw the claims. kcowolf (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposal below is better. Lepricavark (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose In a word, overkill, given we are working from assumptions about the delay in Arthur's engagement with this thread and the AE report. WP:TIND applies here as surely as it does content matters; the AE report will remain open until Arthur returns, unless ArbCom decides to act on it, which decision is there privilege. In the meantime, nothing preventative is to be gained by this block, making it counter to our WP:CBAN guidelines. Most importantly, I just don't think we should feel comfortable speculating about off-wiki life of our contributors, let alone basing sanctions on that speculation. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

We have the evidence already we don't need anything from him. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Legacypaqc, I realize you hold an animus towards AR, but please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion, it's quite unnecessary, and annoying (as BLUDGEONing alway is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Make your case in your !vote and refrain from making it again and again in response to others. There's discussion, and then there's pointless redundancy. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose not because the community cannot impose a block on an admin -- it can -- or because such a block in this instance would violate WP:NOPUNISH -- I don't think it would -- but because the editing restriction proposed below will suffice to insure that if and when AR returns he will address this and the Arbitration Request, and any additional sanctions can then flow from there. I will also comment that if the suggestion that AR is editing elsewhere on the Internet while holding that he is too sick to respond here is true -- evidence of which should be presented if and when the Arbitration Case is accepted, or even as evidence that it should be accepted -- then that is behavior which should result in being desysopped, since how can the community trust someone who lies to us like that? If, however, it is not true, then those spreading that false information should be sanctioned for that action, regardless of whether the underlying charges against AR are justified or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PUNISH. Is AR vandalising, trolling or otherwise disrupting WP? No. Does their absence damage WP? No. Does his failure to account for his actions damage WP? Nope. Does it do damage to himself? Irreparably so. Blackmane (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I know this cannot happen but I'm adding my name here anyway in the hope it might or could happen, Basically the same as my comment below - Ars behaviour is unbecoming of any admin and they deserve to be blocked for it - No editor or admin would get away with it so why should they?. –Davey2010^Talk 11:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

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

[Consensus to enact, as amended] Proposed editing restriction

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

---

I've been following the above discussion and it seems that we as a community may not be able to block AR from editing. However, It seems to me that he does need to respond to the reasonable requests to provide diffs. Therefore I propose the following sanction for the Wikipeda community to discuss.

Arthur Rubin is community banned from editing any pages on the English language Wikipedia, with the exception of his own talk page, this page and any pages connected with The ARBCOM case.

The restriction to be lifted after he has provided diffs and the ARBCOM case is either rejected or concluded. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'd have no issue with that, although I'd make it clear any pages connected with the arbcom case is to be very broadly construed—I wouldn't have any issue were he to want to talk to an individual about the case on their own talkpage (for instance, to ask someone he knows IRL to confirm that he's been ill). It shouldn't need to be said, but I'd also explicitly say that he's not to use admin tools (which don't technically count as "edits") until the case is either rejected or concluded. ‑ Iridescent 18:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment no comment on the actual proposal, but why do you think the community can't block AR? This is the place for a community sanction and we as a community have every right to block based on Wiki policies, even if he's a mighty admin. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a policy - WP:NOPUNISH. Besides which, I wouldn't want an admin to be sanctioned for blocking AR. This proposal has the effect of a block, and one can be imposed if AR should breach its terms. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    • P.S. Sir Joseph, How does one become a mighty admin? I'm just a mere admin. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent, and with those provisos. This seems appropriate, under the circumstances. -- Begoon 18:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent's "very broadly construed" addendum. I was pinged here (and opined above) but see blocking as very problematic. Yes, the system can be gamed, no, I can't say with certainty whether it is being gamed or not, but this is the best temporary solution and achieves the same end goal without the political baggage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support There has to be some kind of action, and this is probably the most rational option. Alex Shih^Talk 19:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support I also want to clarify that I based my above oppose on the fact the block would be "cold in the pot, 5 days old." If AR becomes "healed" and tries to ignore this issue (doing so would be forbidden by the ban) then I support hammer action. Also, re: Iridescent's comment, I agree, action on other users' talk pages is ok, provided it is regarding this case in some manner. I think we as a community and any admins who wish to enforce this ban will be able to figure out any attempts to out-lawyer or squeeeeeeze around this ban, and would act accordingly. Personally, I think higher of AR than for him to try any tricks, he should know we're done with him if he does.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Although I disagree that the community can't block AR (I think this was settled in an ArbCom case, but I'm not going to expend the energy to find it), this appears to be a reasonable solution -- not that I think it's likely that when AR returns he would try to just start editing as if nothing happened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - But what is going to happen when AR doesn't have any diffs to support his claims? I hope we can trust Arbcom to act accordingly to weeks of attacks on TRM.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What happens is that the WP:CBAN stays in force, permanently if need be. A total site ban can be discussed at a future date. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't guarantee there are no diffs supporting TRM attcks but I know there are non to support his attacks on me. This editing restriction is likely the end of his editing career. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Second choice - Prefer a block for the reasons stated above. kcowolf (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support I'm persuaded that this is a better option. I'll go strike my support under the block proposal. David in DC (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I've supported the block above. The community seems to find this sanction more acceptable, I don't think it's too much weaker than the block proposal, and there is value in its specificity. Cjhard (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Seems a reasonably elegant solution, with the added advantage that there is a clearly defined path for WP:CBAN lifting—and so the added incentive to proactively participate in any Arbcom processes. —Sladen (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support superior to the draconian proposal above. Many of you keep saying that a non-admin would be blocked for what AR has done. That may be true, but would these theoretical non-admins have been blocked indefinitely, or would they have instead been given escalating blocks, perhaps starting at a length of one week? In the urge to bend over backward to avoid giving an admin special treatment, let's not go too far. Lepricavark (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested he be banned indefinitely. Cjhard (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

A regular editor would have received escallating blocks by now. He's got Admin armor. Seems impossible to block him. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because admins are never blocked. Ever. Lepricavark (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no call for an indefinite ban. Admins are not exempt from being blocked either. In this case, as noted above, there are good reasons why a block at the moment may be problematic for the blocking admin, hence this proposal. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

See Legacypac's above comment about this likely being the end of AR's editing career. I find such a comment troubling, as I believe such an outcome would be excessive and vindictive. Hence my comment above and my support only being weak. I am relieved to hear from you and Cjhard that an indef doesn't appear to be on the table. Lepricavark (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• CommentIs this second proposal supposed to replace or supplement the first one? If replace, perhaps the first should hatted? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Both option should run concurrently, so no need to do anything. Hatting it would imply you are closing it, something that shouldn't be done right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Second choice. I would oppose hatting the section above. As for this proposal, either admins are treated equally with other editors or they are not. There should be some kind of block, but if that fails then there can be this. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support I agree with a majority of the above opinions and statements. DN (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. This proposal has a somewhat more reasonable scope, but I still don't see the point. As soon as Arthur returns he will have to report to AE to explain this mess (he can hardly evade doing so, since someone will just take the matter there themselves if he does not). ArbCom is the only appropriate space to discuss the desysop issue. Meanwhile, the community here is still free to discuss a community block or ban (immediately or at some point down the road) based on Arthur's conduct, and in such a discussion, each community member is completely free to draw their own conclusions about whether or not his silence indicates that he cannot justify his actions, same as we would under any circumstances. So it we are going to block him, let's have a straight up and down discussion/!vote about how likely it looks that there was misconduct here that rises to the level of a block (putting his admin status to the side). But these present proposals, which appear to be predicated on the assumption that we need to force him to break his silence or else box him in when he returns (so that he cannot evade AE) are flawed, imo, because we don't need a ban to achieve that result; he'll be channeled into ArbCom regardless. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Second choice - while a standard editor would be blocked, this is effectively the same thing without the block log reflecting their breach of expected standards of behaviour. All because they're an admin. Twitbookspacetube 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that may not be 100% accurate; contributors very, very regularly get away with casting aspersions regarding misconduct while failing to provide sufficient (or any) evidence. It happens 40 times a day on this exact page and rarely is that violation met with a sanction. (Very frequently, it will hurt their standing in the behavioural discussion, of course, which arguably you could say led indirectly to a block on the topic they were nominally here for). But being blocked explicitly under the WP:PA provision that accusations of misconduct have to be presented alongside evidence? Exceedingly rare. I can't even think of a single community ban ever where a user was blocked just for that. The reason this issue is (justifiably) getting more scrutiny here is because Arthur is an admin, not in spite of it. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Paul August ☎ 10:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a throwaway line that Rubin used in a single debate, this is multiple violations of NPA over a period of weeks and at a variety of locations, combined with an abject refusal to provide any evidence to support the NPAs with any diffs on a dozen occasions. And this is from an admin. The comparison is false. The damage has already been done, regardless of any diffs Rubin may re-appear and supply at some point in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying these issues are not worth looking into, especially insofar as they involve an admin. I'm just questioning the stated assumption that Arthur received special protection with regard to the allegations, by virtue of being an admin. Insofar as I've seen in this discussion, his admin status actually became the fulcrum by which it was viewed important to address the matter, and thus, far from being something that insulated him from community attention, actually became the focal point for that interest. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well said. TRM complained preemptively about how admins get special treatment and Legacypac jumped aboard with a personal vendetta. I suspect the cleanstarted Twitbookspacecube has a prior history with AR as well, as evidenced by their dedicated efforts to see some sort of sanction. All of these factors combined to ensure that AR has not at all received favorable treatment, and the "admin armor" gripes are misleading and tiresome. Lepricavark (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, did you miss the bit where I'd spent three weeks trying to resolve the situation, with this admin, and yet not one admin came to support that. Perhaps you missed the point where an admin told me "fuck you" and maybe you missed the point where an admin called me an "asshole" and maybe you missed the point where Arbcom leapt to the defence of an admin and IBANed me (while emailing me links to oversighted material).... There's not one jot of pre-emptiveness about my statement. I live in the real world, and have occupied the Wikipedia world for more than 12 years, my experience shows that I'm right and you are wrong. "AR has not at all received favorable treatment" - why would he? He's the one running around calling me a liar with no evidence. What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Second choice with protest. Had this softer gentler no permanent record sanction not preempted the block discussion, it would have passed today. Admin armor again. No such consideration given to regular editors who are insta blocked on the decision of one Admin only. Anyway it's SNOWing and this needs to be implemented. Enough drama. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Just a note on the punitive nature of the first proposal—a community ban enforced with a block—versus the second proposal—a community ban that is not enforced with a block: I think too much focus is being given to the idea that blocks should not be punitive, rather than the more general principle that sanctions should not be punitive. Other than the existence of an entry in the block log, there's very little difference between the two proposals, as in both cases the editor is being directed to limit their edits to a specific topic. If one proposal is punitive, so is the other, or contrariwise, if one is not, neither is the other. (There can be of course other grounds for preferring one proposal to another, such as allowing for greater flexibility in responding on multiple pages rather than solely on the user's talk page.) isaacl (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This proposal is actually for a community ban that can be enforced with a block. It is not punitive; the intent is to get AR to respond to the allegation that he has made personal attacks on a number of editors or to refute the allegation by providing the diffs that have been asked for on many occasions. That AR is an admin is not the reason that he is not blocked at this point in time. If AR was not an admin and in this very position, an admin blocking him could potentially face sanctions for breaching the NOPUNISH policy. If AR cannot provide diffs because there are no diffs to provide, then he should have the guts to say so, and face the music both here and at ARBCOM. This does not mean that he needs to be removed from the project permanently. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Note Arthur Rubin has made a statement at the ArbCom case page. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That he has provided the diffs should not prevent this sanction coming into effect. It looks like consensus will pass, and the sanction can be imposed once the proposal has been up for 24 hours. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Oh I would love to see them blocked however unfortunately that cannot happen so this is the next best thing I suppose, The behaviour of AR is unbecoming of any admin and does need discussing - No editor or even admin for that matter would get away with that so why should AR?. –Davey2010^Talk 11:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support with the addition of using admin tools. Arthur should be restricted from editing until we have an acceptable response. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Comment @GoldenRing: The ban should include the conditions for its lifting, conforming with the Mjroots' proposal that: "The restriction to be lifted after he has provided diffs and the ARBCOM case is either rejected or concluded" Paul August ☎ 10:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for that. I didn't consider that provision part of the proposed restriction, more an explanation of how Mjroots saw things progressing in the future. I think it's better left like this; when AR thinks this is all resolved satisfactorily, he can come back to the community to have the restriction lifted. Any provision for automatic removal is, in my view, too prone to wikilawyering, from both sides. So I'm leaving it as it is — indefinite, which as we all know does not mean infinite. If you seriously disagree with that, then please request closure review at AN; I won't vociferously oppose changing it if the community disagrees, but IMO it's better like this and we don't need more drama coming out of this. GoldenRing (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I did indeed mean that the community ban would expire either at the rejection of the request by ARBCOM, or at the conclusion of the case at ARBCOM. It is "indefinite", but defined in precise terms. At the conclusion of the case (if heard) AR would be free to resume editing, subject to any sanctions imposed by ARBCOM, without the need for further drama here getting the CBAN lifted. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's how I understood the proposal, and that's how I would presume most other editors who opined presumed. I really think that language be added to the restriction.Paul August ☎ 20:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's certainly the wording that was placed in the proposal itself and thus we must assume it here (we can't implement a ban where there is even a shadow of a doubt that it is (much) more restrictive than those voting for it may have intended). I believe most the support !votes above were voting to restrict Arthur's actions until he provided the promised diffs and had his behaviour examined by ArbCom and the community (as the proposal directly stated); I do not believe most of !votes are likely to reflect (or in any event, can be proven to have been based on) the opinion of the commenting editors that Arthur had definitely violated policy, that this fact had absolutely been established to their satisfaction, and that extent of his actions meant he should be community banned indefinitely. I'm glad you brought this to attention, Paul, because it's been bothering me ever since the close, and I was contemplating the best way to broach it with GoldenRing. Notwithstanding GoldenRing's good-faith objections, I don't think their close accurately reflects the consensus and, with all due respect to their initial response here, I'd argue that the best way to avoid the further "drama" they are concerned about is for them to implement the narrower interpretation of consensus that seems to be to be pretty explicit in the wording of the proposal. If not, I think this just has to (as a matter of procedural integrity) go to closure review, with every editor who voted on the proposal pinged, and that hardly seems like the "quieter" option here. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Btw, and just for the record, I was RfC'd to the underlying content dispute that set this dispute between Arthur and TRM off. And I became very concerned about how Arthur was presenting the facts/policies in that discussion and how he seemed to be leveraging his position as an admin in a way that did not seem to me to be entirely appropriate. So I'm all for an inquiry into his conduct (now best left to ArbCom, in my opinion, TRM's lack of faith in them not withstanding). But I think a close that declares sanctions needs to err on the side of caution (and if necesary, in favour of the party being sanctioned) when there is any doubt as to just what the respondents !voted for. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Based on the above would you please reconsider your close?. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 12:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Paul August: and Snow Rise this is how GoldenRing reacted to being asked to reconsider his close so I doubt any of you will get much headway here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:AN#CBAN Clarification request for clarifiation that the CBAN has a defined set of circumstance under which it will end, without the need to return here for another drama-fest. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Almost moot

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

---

So Rubin has recovered and added some diffs to the Arbcom case (and then edited two dozen articles) so I guess all this is almost moot now. I'm grateful to the community for their input and analysis of the ongoing issues. As we all know, there ain't no party like an Arbcom party, so "come on over" to my place, bring more popcorn. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason why the community restriction above cannot be enacted by an uninvolved admin. Per WP:CBAN, more than 24 hours has elapsed, and there is overwhelming support for the restriction, with the relaxation proposed by Iridescent. As I've commented in the Arbcom case request I consider myself involved now. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we both know that's not going to happen now, because what if Rubin edits outside that? Who's going to block him? No-one has the balls to go against a potential Arbcom shitstorm, so this is all somewhat academic. Of course, Arbcom could simply dismiss the case (after all, that way the admin walks free and it just looks like it was sour grapes on the mere editor who had a month of personal attacks levelled against him, poor minion). This discussion was nice, illuminating, and who knows, maybe Arbcom will actually take into account the strength of feeling of the community on this one, but most likely, they'll just take the opportunity to craft a method to rid Wikipedia of someone else. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've marked the proposal as "consensus to enact". Let's see if that has any effect. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• "So Rubin has recovered and added some diffs to the Arbcom case (and then edited two dozen articles)". Yes, including STILL casting aspersions at TRM [26]. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, upon his return, one of his first edits was to tell me that I hadn't lied, on that particular occasion. This is getting too much, it seems clear Rubin has learnt nothing from the discussions both here and at Arbcom, and perhaps needs further guidance from others on how conduct himself given the current situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The community ban was decided before it was closed. The closing Admin only formally enacted the ban. By editing outside ArbComm or here while there was such a strong support for the BAN, he basically broke the BAN. His posting at ArbComm is a doubling down on on calling TRM a liar and the timing appears very convenient to undermine a BLOCK. Was really sick? Hard to tell when he has been posting so many false (ie unsupported by diffs) statements about other editors. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The CBAN has been enacted, AR has been notified and the restriction has been [logged. Mjroots (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Infringement of editing restrictions

Rubin has made this edit in direct infringement of his restrictions. Even at a good faith stretch, this edit doesn't comply with what Rubin is currently allowed to do. Please, someone action this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say "meh" unless he keeps it up—I imagine he's assumed that my I wouldn't have any issue were he to want to talk to an individual about the case on their own talkpage comment above forms an implicit part of his community ban, and this edit does fall within that—any edits connected with the current request for arbitration and any case that develops out of it, broadly construed is in the wording of the ban. (His claim is nonsense unless he's using some truly weird phone or a pre-2009 iPhone that hasn't had its software updated since—any iOS device running iOS3.0 or later and any Android device will let you do a point-a-to-point-b text selection, as I'm sure he knows perfectly well.) Unless he either goes back to editing material unrelated to the case, or carries on throwing unsubstantiated allegations around, I wouldn't want to block for that. ‑ Iridescent 19:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Fucking marvellous. This really is "protect an admin" day. Please note, Rubin's edit relates to the ANI thread, which is not included in the legitimate areas of discussion Rubin can participate. Either this CBAN exists or it doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

TRM, unless I am misunderstanding you, the ban specifically allows the editing of ANI. And admins do get blocked for high jerkiness often enough. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

He didn't edit ANI, he asked someone else to do it for him, even though he is fully capable of doing so himself. This is way beyond stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Since ANI is included in the list of pages he can edit, if he's merely asking someone else to copy something across to here, I don't think it's a problem (though as Iridescent says, why on earth he can't do it himself I have no idea, and why he wants to do it at all is a mystery, since we're pretty much done here). If he starts editing completely outside his restriction, it will be a different matter. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

ARGH, that's the whole point. He's editing a talk page of another user, not any of the pages he's entitled to edit. The CBAN wording should therefore be updated to included "Any user talk page Rubin chooses to edit to make requests to copy and paste details to ANI or the Arbcom case, despite the fact he can simply type that information in at those permitted locations himself." What a joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

He's avoiding scrutiny at every single cost - He's an admin for fucksake so why can't he just copy it himself" - Needless to say he was temporarily restricted from editing any page on this entire website except Arbcom and so therefore this should be enforced .... Not be a case of "Oh it's a talkpage nevermind" - We should enforce this regardless of what page he edits period. –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I give up. This is now becoming de facto standard, the admin has it their way, the rest of us just get blocked without discussion. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm about to leave him a note making it really obvious what the restriction means. If he edits in any way outside it again, I'll block him myself, regardless of whether I've commented at the ArbCom case. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter any more. This is just how it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

He's not allowed to edit articles right now. Indefinitely. And the admin who imposed that sanction, contrary to the proposal that attained consensus, imposed it such that even the closure of the Arb case won't remove the ban. He has effectively been indeffed and he has several editors graciously watching his every move, ready to pounce on anything that appears amiss in the hope that he will land in even more trouble. If he wasn't an admin, he probably would have been blocked by now. In fact, the block might have already expired. Instead, because he's an admin, he's indefinitely prohibited from contributing to the encyclopedia and he's been subjected to a large-scale public humiliation. Under his real name, no less. I'm not asking or expecting you to have any sympathy for AR, but I do implore to consider that he simply is not getting off easy. Lepricavark (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

He subjected himself to public humiliation. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

And you've generously given of your time and energy to make that humiliation as painful as you can. I believe we might consider that being "part of the problem". Lepricavark (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

To be technical he made 3 edits outside his restriction [27] ignoring the earler ones he made to the RY pages where this whole thing started and other pages while the community had already BANNED him but no admin had closed and enacted the ban. The decision was also to BLOCK him but that was not implemented (I can respect the close there), but given there was a storng possibility of a block too, his editing of various pages is pretty gutsy. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's one way of putting it. He's just laughing at all of us. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: The CBAN did not come into force until AR had been notified that it had been agreed upon. Therefore any editing before notification was not in breach of the ban.

Re his editing on a mobile phone, it may be the case that he finds it difficult/impossible to cut and paste part of a page. I've got a smartphone, but there's no way I could edit Wikipedia on it, although it has the capability. I can just about manage simple editing on a Kindle Fire, but need a "proper" computer for serious editing. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Remove CBAN

It's not being enforced, so what's the point of it? That Rubin could edit ANI himself yet chose to canvass another sympathetic editor to do it for him seems like an obvious way of gaming the CBAN, but it's been sanctioned by a couple of admins here, so there seems little point in continuing with the charade. Allow Rubin to edit as he likes, allow him to continue to attack me and allow him to continue to deny any wrongdoing and facilitate his escape from any kind of sanction. Either enforce the CBAN or dissolve it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how getting someone to proxy edit ANI does AR any good, or how it games the Ban. If he is trying to make us look stupid that won't workL3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It already has. The ban is effectual, QED. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

At least one admin has said that they will enforce the ban if there are any additional breaches, so let's see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

On reflection, and now Arbcom are moving into acceptance of this, we should definitely allow Rubin the usual latitude. Innocent unil proven guilty etc. See my section below. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Request to allow Rubin to continue to contribute until Arbcom case is concluded

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

---

I'm here in good faith to request we allow Rubin to continue to be a regular admin until such a time that may change as a result of the Arbcom case. Since Rubin has recovered from his serious illness and since the Arbcom case is now at the threshold of acceptance, it's abundantly clear that any and every edit he makes hereafter will be subject to more scrutiny, and the man's no idiot, so there's nothing for Wikipedia to gain by preventing him from editing as usual. Indeed, a couple of editors have made a case for the helpful edits Rubin has made in specific and specialist areas which are usually under-represented. I humbly submit to the same community who asked for Rubin to be prevented from returning as if nothing had happened to allow him back to normal editing, obviously subject to the result of any Arbcom findings. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support rescinding the restriction enacted above, since it is no longer serving a useful purpose. This is the least bureaucratic solution, and like others with mathematical interests I appreciate the benefit AR brings to these articles. If someone is hesitant to go that far, I also support modifying the restriction so as to automatically expire when Arbcom either opens the case (at which point they can place any temporary injunctions or longer-term editing restrictions should they be necessary) or would decide to reject it (i.e., remove it from RFAr). Martinp (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support The editing restriction has served its purpose, lifting the terms now will speed up the process toward resolution. Alex Shih^Talk 02:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support this very congenial & highly commendable proposal by TRM. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per everything that has been said above. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - The arbcom case will, indeed, be accepted. As such, I am willing to assume more good faith than any admin would assume if the situation was reversed as such blatant and continued personal attacks have led to indef blocks of regular users. I await arbcom's remedy in a few months time if the case is accepted. If not, yet another admin has their actions endorsed by the community with no real punishment whatsoever. Twitbookspacetube 03:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support the unban to leave final action to ArbCom although I had nothing to do with the prior action that amounted to a de facto partial site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. My understanding was that the purpose of the sanction was to guarantee that when AR returned to editing, he dealt with this issue, which he has done. This being the case, it no longer serves a purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support: ArbCom is going to accept. If there is ongoing disruption, they may enact a temporary injunction. In the event AR walks away mid-case, ArbCom will hold it in abeyance until his return, resulting in a de facto siteban. And in the unlikely event ArbCom does not accept, then we're just back here anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'm sure ARBCOM will deal with this situation appropriately. This circus should end. Paul August ☎ 09:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Now that Arthur has responded, the restriction has served its purpose and is no longer needed. Arbcom seem to be on the way to accepting a case and that is the way forward now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support to undo the community's lunacy in the first place. Banning an editor from editing entirely due to allegations of violating admin-specific policy is nuts. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support I'm pretty sure ArbCom will take the case as well. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support It is very rare for a user to be subject to an injunction during an Arbcom case, and this c-ban is more a general injunction, not a focused t-ban. Arbcom is best situated to impose such an injunction, or any injunction, if needed. Regardless, if the c-ban is over-broad or more than needed to begin with, for several reasons, including that we already had a commitment to respond, it seems it was meant to 'force' him to respond - those merits, whatever their value, have been served. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - The restriction was to force AR to go to Arbcom and to fully explain himself however instead he's completely ignored it all and seemingly thought if he left for a few days "it would all disappear" ... no chance!, Anyway Arbcom are going to accept it and hopefully alot more will happen than just admonishment so I agree with most of the above it may aswell be removed as per the Arbcom case, –Davey2010^Talk 15:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support but he'd be a fool to use his Admin tools under the cloud. I was less than impressed to see him make additional personal attacks on his return. If he continues that behavor the block he just dodged should be reconsidered. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment time to action this, it has unanimous support and is a no-brainer. Please, some good admin, cancel the CBAN and inform Rubin he's back up and running. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's also only been a little over 24 hours since you proposed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• 36 now, and I don't really see the point of the comment. Unanimous support of more than a dozen editors should be enough to enact the cancellation. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - have been thinking this over agree that the CBAN should now be lifted. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support and a giant WHALE to those who ramrodded the initial proposal through thinking that ArbCom did not have appropriate tools of user behavior modification. Hasteur (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support: I understand why the ban was imposed, there have been too many situations where an admin avoids scrutiny by disappearing, and ensuring that AR responded to concerns was a reasonable goal. He has now done so, is engaging at ArbCom, and it appears a case is a near-certainty. Preventing ArbCom case parties from all regular editing is not standard practice, and requiring it of AR is neither justified by any evidence I have seen nor reasonable as a general proposition. TRM is to be commended for initiating the removal of this ban while the case proceeds. Hopefully, in future, such bans will be better tailored to prevent avoiding scrutiny by disappearing, while not also becoming punitive when the admin does engage with the issue and dispute resolution proceeds, as AR has done. This ban has become punitive and should be lifted as soon as possible. EdChem (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It probably does not matter to this, but for the record, I just have to say "What?" or perhaps, 'multiple citations needed' to this claim about "too many situations" - just, for the future, it just does not sound accurate. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Nurseline247 repeatedly reinstates content on multiple character lists, deletes warnings

Since they began editing last year, Nurseline247 has made a habit of adding unencyclopedic, frivolous and out-of-scope content to character lists and after it's reverted, they put it back in with misleading edit summaries. I typically veer away from bringing verified users to the noticeboard, but this is not an isolated incident and Nurseline247 has not heeded advice whatsoever-- they have only removed the warnings from their talk page and continued onward.

There are a number of pages in which this has played out. For example...

1. Spider-Man in film: Nurseline247 has repeatedly added content about the animated films to a page strictly reserved for live action productions. They've re-added the content with misleading edit summaries... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (I may have missed some).
2. Beauty and the Beast: On this page, they keep on re-adding the Direct-to-Video specials that Disney produced that the other editors have reached a consensus not to include, but Nurseline247 apparently doesn't realize that... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
3. Alien (franchise)/List of Alien characters: Before the release of Alien: Covenant, Nurseline247 began adding the advertisements for the film to the franchise page and referred to them as "short films", which was way out of scope. After a number of editors, including myself, removed the content from the page, Nurseline247 simply re-added it to the characters page list, which put it at risk of losing its Featured List status.
4. Frozen (franchise): They keep adding out-of-scope content about Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2, despite that not being a part of the franchise. 1, 2
5. List of fictional shared universes in film and television: Nurseline247 apparently disagrees with the parameters of what a shared universe is, with other editors arguing it needs to have inter-connected concepts and characters... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
6. Arrowverse: Other editors argue that only characters that cross over between the series should be included, but alas... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and there are more, but I believe everyone can get the idea by this point...

Those are a few of the examples just right off the top, from the last month. Over the last two weeks alone, they have been warned many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times- with several of those being final warnings- but it appears as if that doesn't warrant adjustment on their behalf. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I was notified by the filer regarding the thread. I am dropping here my two cents since I am quite involved with the reported user. Nurseline247 has/had (I am unaware of their previous edits) of adding unsourced edits at Spider-Man: Homecoming. I got involved when I saw this edit summary on my watchlist. I have used Twinkle for three now and this statement was false right off the bat. I went out to correct the user per one of the diffs above. Going back, Nurseline247 made a bold edit but was reverted. They then readded the content, which was reverted by me. This was a slow mo edit war per this and this. The content isn't exactly the same with every edit, but it was similar regarding the timeline. My issue with their edits there was that timelines should be discussed at the talk page. It involves original research and it's unsourced. Plus, a user can easily make a mistake with the timeline. I warned them and told them to take it to the talk page. They didn't feel like it. And it appears they were involved in other disruptive editing on other articles. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There had been problems with the addition of the name of a minor-level crewmember for the film Alien: Covenant being inserted into the cast section of the Alien franchise page. The name had been previously removed, but the editor Nurseline247 made → this edit re-emplacing the name onto that page. I informed Nurseline247 that this was a crewmember's name which appears approximately three minutes and 40 seconds into the screencredits for that film, and how that position within Covenant's screencredit hierarchy did not warrant the position Nurseline247 was attempting to place onto it by including it in the list. I went on to state on Nurseline247's talk page in this edit herethat the person's role as movement artist in the production of Alien: Covenant was no more important than the hundreds of other artists, assistants, technicians, compositors, etc. found within the screencredits, and that including it in the article's cast list served only to inflate this person's contributions to the film. I ended by stating that it ought to be considered vandalism should that name reappear again on the list in the future. I never received a response on either Nurseline247's or my talk page. Recently, I noticed that what I had added to Nurseline247's talk page and several other editors had been removed (which is that user's right to do), although I placed the WP:OW template on Nurseline247's talk page to let future editors know that not only were my concerns and others deleted, but that they were left unaddressed by that editor. — Spintendo^Talk 15:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like since this was posted to the noticeboard, Nurseline247 has continued their behavior at the Aladdin (franchise) and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) pages. The I.P. editor 86.46.205.88 added out-of-scope content, including short films, which was reverted at the Diary of a Wimpy Kid page. After Zucat reverted them, Nurseline247 incrementally added the content back. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

While I have had my issues with Nurseline247 (mostly concerning shared universes), I think they can learn if they receive some appropriate punishment like a longer block.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If the editor is not willing to communicate, I think a block would be the appropriate action to take. This just might be another simple case of WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, how long has this been here? In my defense, my edits to Alien (franchise) restoring minor level crew member Badego was simply because the absence of a name meant the Character column did not line up with the Cast. (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_(franchise)&oldid=785944130), an dbecause I believed that Badego did indeed play a neomorph in the film. Now, in regards to Spider-Man: Homecoming, my edits there simply stated what year the film was set in, something I saw as necessary to clarify due to various online disputes I read about the topic. As I said in those edits, the criminal record of character Aaron Davis shows the film takes place in 2017, at least at that point in time, which ret. I'm not sure what the Arrowverse problem is exactly; from the links I viewed, I never added a non-Recurring character to that list. Are you talking about Constantine? Or maybe Harrison Wells?

In regards to "Nurseline247 has repeatedly added content about the animated films to a page strictly reserved for live action productions", I'm afraid that I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. What animated films? Since when have there ever been animated Spider-Man films outside of the Miles Morales one that was added to the page by someone else? Were you referring to the "Sony's Marvel Universe" films? True, it has yet to be confirmed whether Spider-Man will be in Venom or Silver and Black, but to my knowledge, it has yet to be denied either, hence why I put TBA. If it has been denied since I edited that page, my bad! Sorry about that.

Back to Alien (franchise), I changed "Short films" to "Promotional Short films", because that IS, in fact, what they were. The Prologues to Alien: Covenant had beginnings, middles and ends; none of the footage in them was intended to be in the final film.

And I know exactly what makes a shared universe, The Earth Day Special and A Million Ways to Die in the West perfectly fit the definitions, as does Hercules and the Arabian Night. I'm sorry I don't atypically read my talk page by the way. But I did take note of what was written there before I cleared it up. Will clarify at Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) that Class Clown is a short film. Thank you very much for your feedback.Nurseline247 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You've misremembered exactly what changes were made to that cast list. There has never been a dispute over the addition of Bolaji Badejo, rather, the revision that you made shown here is of a person whose name had been removed nine days prior to you adding it again. And while we have this rare opportunity to speak with you regarding your edits, could you possibly elaborate on your page moves shown here and here, one of which has already been reverted and the other which was done w/o consensus? I ask because the reasoning behind your various article redirects performed over the past year (close to 80 of them) are rarely — if ever — expounded upon elsewhere. I believe it's these explanatory moves by you (or a lack thereof) which is bothersome, and that increasing the level of dialogue from you with your fellow co-editors on the changes you make would benefit us all.Spintendo^Talk 17:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the poster for Sinister II, you will notice that it does NOT, say Sinister 2 but rather Sinister II. Back to the Future Part II isn't called Back to the Future Part 2 after all. I was just following what the poster said.

On Killer BOB, I wasn't aware of any consensus, it's just that any time I've seen BOB written in text on Twin Peaks, Fire Walk With Me or The Return, it's been in all caps rather than small. Even in that Diary of Laura Palmer book from a while back, BOB is never spelled with anything other than all caps. Are these explanations satisfactory?? Nurseline247 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

While you're justifying yourself here, you manage to continue to edit war with Zucat at Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series), doing the exact same thing that prompted scores of warnings. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• I can comment mainly on the recent edits by Nurseline at Spider-Man in film (and also Spider-Man: Homecoming). At DarthBotto listed and linked, many of the edits to that article added or changed more than they described in the edit summary. While I am not as concerned by this, I am with what these extra edits include. Much of the time it was very excessive and unnecessary table coding, as well as WP:OR material regarding actors and characters they are playing. Also, regarding behavior of material at Spider-Man: Homecoming (see this edit). Not only was this largely WP:OR, Nurseline attempted to source such claims with statements, not reliable sources. Nurseline was warned countless times regarding this behavior, and encourage to engage on talk pages (users or articles') but did not. These edits also alerted me to the user's behavior on other article that was very similar. I've sadly come to the conclusion that the edits by Nurseline are generally more disruptive than helpful and they ultimately may not be here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that consistency sets the agenda with regards to a film's nomenclature. In the case of Back to the Future, the sequels have been consistently set in Roman numerals in everything from posters to DVD clamshell packaging. This has not been the case with Sinister 2, as seen in packaging used on Amazon or in their promotional materials in other languages. In the case of Killer Bob, it would appear that a consensus should have been sought for the change you made simply due to the longstanding nature of it being disputatious. That being said, when one looks at the pendulum of editor preference for either style over the last 12 years of the article's existence (as shown below) it could be argued that the time had come for the pendulum to swing to the other, all-capitalized style. — Spintendo^Talk 04:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Killer BOB.....2005-2008
2. Killer Bob......2008-2012
3. Killer BOB.....2012-2016
4. Killer Bob......2016-2017
5. Killer BOB.....2017-????

User:Supermann

Supermann (talk · contribs) has been a productive editor, with good intentions on improving our coverage of films in China. Some of the recent discussions however may require intervention from this community.

There is an ongoing dispute here in Film censorship in China since June 2017 in intervals. To paraphrase from the original poster, the dispute is focused on whether or not runtime columns should be included in this article. The discussion was initially a content dispute, in which TenTonParasol and several other editors from WikiProject Film pointed out the problem with several films inserted in the article as being censored, without the support of secondary sources (see revision history). The consensus was that any claims of censorship has to be supported by a reliable source that documents what has been censored.

The original poster however, argues that by documenting the difference between original runtime and the runtime in China, it serves as the direct evidence of censorship due to the political nature in China ([28] [29] [30]). This soon turned into battleground mentality ([31]). I was previously contacted, and decided to respond in the same thread ([32]).

In response to the inability to substantiate claims of censorship, Supermann frequently invokes "June 2017 notice from SAPPRFT" to support the idea that any runtime differential is the result of censorship. For those unfamiliar with the notice, here is the context. The Chinese government issued a public notice in June 2017, which basically reiterates "television, radio and Internet distributors are forbidden from broadcasting "uncut" programs that have not been first reviewed by authorities" (Source: [33]). The following are direct quotes from the original poster in various places where this discussion has been appealed.

• But movies that got minutes lopped off is a form of censorship that needs to be well documented. (from the request for mediation)
• This is not to mention Wikipedia itself has been and still is a censorship victim in China. I shouldn't even have to invoke the late Dr. Liu Xiaobo here to beg for the consideration that censorship should be properly documented. (from the request for dispute resolution)
• It's illegal now to watch any movie whose runtime is longer than the one approved by censor. Basically by supporting me, you support making this page the last sanctuary and historian of censored films. (from the request for comment)
• This is like attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. I can't explain it well. But I beg IAR to come in place. (from second request for mediation)

For those of you interested, I'd like to ask you to visit the current discussion: Talk:Film censorship in China#RfC about the runtime columns if you have time, as it is a fair representation of the conversation that has been going on repetitively for the past month and half. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 03:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

My reading of the discussion can be boiled down a few things.

1. A blatant violation of the fundament of WP:POV. Supermann's main thrust is that the difference in run time is evidence of censorship and that it should be given a place in WP. This is politicisation of content.
2. In this diff, dating back to June, their very statement that he doesn't don't want to get into "Right Great Wrongs" is truly ironic since all his subsequent edits smacks of WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY.

It is obvious that Supermann has a passion for film and the freedom of film as an artform, but that very passion is blinding them to the fact that they are trying to use WP as a platform for those beliefs. Blackmane (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that this behavior extends beyond the Film censorship in China article and has extended to individual film articles, notably those films he believes were subject to censorship like The Mummy (2017 film) (see Talk:The Mummy (2017 film)#Release), Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (see: Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Plot Summary and BvS: Dawn of Justice at DRN), and a couple of film soundtrack articles (see: WP:FILM#Music not included on the soundtrack) Supermann's battleground mentality, unwillingness to accept secondary sourcing, tendency to engage in original research, politicization of editing (yes, also in the BvS and soundtracks disputes), and advocacy editing are apparent there as well. I also draw attention to his most initial comments at Template talk:Infobox film#Runtime, where the earliest indications of tendentious editing and warnings against it were made. It's probably worth noting that Supermann filed two DRNs in a single week and probably nearly took a third unique dispute there, which is indicative of his battleground mentality, difficulty accepting consensus, and rejection of core Wikipedia policies. Also very important to note is that Supermann believes that IAR is the highest tenet, above all other policies, and so IAR has been invoked repeatedly, inappropriately: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] Mostly, as someone who has gone back and forth with Supermann near constantly over the past six weeks in two unique disputes (my userpage, WikiProject Film for soundtrack dispute, DRN for same soundtrack dispute, the entirety of the film censorship talk page, the film censorship DRN), in both of which Supermann displayed the same patterns of behavior, my concern is beyond the scope of the censorship article. It's something endemic to Supermann's entire approach with editing, even when the content has nothing to do with censorship. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 11:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I believe TenTonParasol is not reflecting the best Wikipedia that has yet to offer to the underpresented Chinese readers.1 She is making it an authoritarian place that I don't think the founder Jimmy Wales would approve. Filing two DRNs in a single week only means I am willing to follow procedures and policies to compromise. Filing RFC is per moderator suggestion. Filing mediation is only after experienced editors don't represent chinese readership. The BvS content disputes in terms of the additional soundtrack and Arlington cited above have all come to great compromise after spirited discussions that TenTonParasol refused to acknowledge would improve Wikipedia. Same for The Mummy runtime of 107 vs 110 min. All are now thoroughly cited to great secondary sources. Even a discussion on whether we call Anthony Scaramucci a lawyer has come to a great finale last night.2 As for the accusation of soapboxing and advocacy, they are simply false and persecution, since I have never advocated overthrowing the communist party. If I could take US as an example, this means I got to respect the other half of the Chinese population who wants to see communists to stay in power. Therefore, all i have been asking is proper documentation of censorship which are fully backed up by facts and has been done throughout wikipedia for a variety of authoritarian countries.Supermann (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The BvS DRN ended up getting resolved in the way that the two other parties were suggesting in the first place. The small dispute at Scaramucci appears to me to be a small back and forth as you interpreted a primary source as "practices law" without support of a secondary source and insisted on it for a little, though, it is as you said, you compromised in the end. However, please note much of this ANI discussion focused on your tendency to prefer personal interpretation of primary sources over secondary sources, and that you don't seem to understand that personal interpretation of primary sources is never appropriate. I bring up The Mummy dispute, and the others, as an example of how you argue and defend your positions—because that's what's really up for discussion here. Your comments attempting to refute soapboxing and advocacy here just lead me to believe that you do not understand what either of those mean, despite multiple editors linking you to the policies on them multiple times. In general, I always find it interesting that I am not the only editor who has firmly disagreed with you and your editing practices at the censorship article, though I do admit that I'm among the most vocal and have been editing at the film censorship article since near its creation, but you constantly single me out as if I'm the only oppositional party. It just feels even more battleground to me, and it feels like it's you ignoring that you're editing against a larger consensus, not against me and my personal opinion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"You ever think about the fact that wikipedia built the modern library of alexandria using nothing but nerds' need to correct each other?"1 The BvS Arlington DRN dispute comes down to whether we should mention Arlington in the plot summary with presence of secondary sources substantiating. The editors involved are similar as you are in terms of not accepting IAR as an equal policy to override MOS to improve. Arlington has every right to be in the filming section regardless of their suggestions, once my labeled "battleground mentality" found the special effects company which confirmed it. In the face of mounting evidence from vfx company, the editors had no recourse other than compromise. It is a four way compromise, though it is still weird not to mention Arlington in the plot summary, leaving curious readers scratching their heads. As for Scaramucci as a lawyer, had i not insisted, it would not have been npov.2 Whether nys unified court system is a primary source, i leave it for further discussion. i don't think i interpreted it to the extent of inappropriateness as you had insinuated. The larger consensus you have found so far does not represent half of the 700mm chinese internet users that wikipedia has yet to penetrate. You wonder why i singled you out? I have to wonder why you had to pick on me when you said I don't really have the means, for lack of a better word, to research and add new content at this time (lots on my plate in that area) I am of course grateful for your copy-editing, but the censorship page needs a leader. Otherwise it would be dilapidated as i go back into fulltime gainful employment next week. If you are actually asking for a block, you should reveal it. Maybe it's best this way so that I could focus on real gainful employment. I will maintain the film censorship list privately and never share it with narrow-minded editors.Supermann (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at Film censorship in China, the very first thing I saw in the history was Supermann citing Deviantart as a source. I'm not even going to look any further into this; Supermann, if you're not willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules on reliable sourcing, particularly on a politically sensitive topic, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. (You've been here eleven years; you don't get the benefit of the doubt we extend to good-faith newcomers who haven't yet had time to read the policies.) Regarding I will maintain the film censorship list privately and never share it with narrow-minded editors, you're spectacularly missing the point—if the list isn't sourced to reliable, independent, non-trivial, secondary sources we do not want it. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: How did you jump to Deviantart so fast? Do we have a policy against it as a secondary source? I was citing a Texan book author who put his opinion there. Had I known he had put that down somewhere more reputable, I would have used it. I found out his identity here.1 Since he said he is a book author, which i verified, I felt comfortable of citing his insight. It is all for the contextualization that TenTonParasol demands from day 2. If Ben-Hur 1925 and 1959 had been banned, of course I wonder if 2016 is censored too, due to Christianity. Back to your question of being here for 11 years, i literally only got educated on all the other policies/guidelines/essays earlier this year when i started to contribute more. Imagine half of the 700mm Chinese internet users have yet to be here, editing. The contextualization on the list is sourced to great secondary sources to the best extent of my ability. Pls let me know which one you don't like and I could try to find an alternative. Again, i think the runtime columns, sourced to state censor approved figures, is the best quantitative tool to document censorship. Textual analysis from the secondary sources would have been more available, had journalists not have a tough economic environment.Supermann (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Through the cunning ploy of looking at the recent history of the article? If you really need to ask Do we have a policy against [DeviantArt] as a secondary source?, I've nothing further to say to you—per my comments above, from a good-faith newcomer I'd think they didn't understand the nature of Wikipedia but given that you've been active for over a decade we're squarely in WP:CIR territory if you think there are any circumstances in which DeviantArt could ever be considered a reliable source for anything. ‑ Iridescent 19:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Could I use Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves as a one-time exception for the book author? He had published 23 books. But if you insist on removing Ben-Hur 2016 from the list, pls go ahead. The current list is not comprehensive to begin with, thanks to the absence of runtime columns which would have shown Ben-Hur 2016 is shortened by 10 minutes.1 I can't tell you why, because no English news media have written about it. And this is how it is lost in history permanently. Yes, I have been here more than 10 years. But pls take a look of the number of edits over the years:lackluster.2 I appreciate the patience people have extended to me.Supermann (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions for this Chinese column at the Christian Times1, which was, according to translation for your perusal, "founded in 2008 by Beijing Gospel Times Information Technology Co., Ltd., which is not affiliated with any church or church organization. It is a Christian comprehensive information website based on Chinese local church and Christian, cross-denomination. Since the founding of the present, the Christ Times attaches great importance to content construction, based on the truth of the Bible, uphold the principles of "taking the church and using it to the church", and publish daily Christianity and gospel, such as church, international, social, cultural, Sexual information, services, the majority of the needs of the audience. The Christian Times wants to be a platform for church and church, church and society, church and government, church and believers, believers and believers to understand each other." At the bottom of the columnist's article, there is a translated caveat "(This article is the exclusive manuscript of the Christ the Times, the text of the views of the speaker on behalf of the stand, the Christ Times remain neutral. Welcome to personal browsing reproduced, other public platform without authorization, not reproduced!)" Supermann (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

References

• Comment - I tried to mediate this dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I had to caution User:Supermann about soapboxing about censorship of movies by the PRC. (The fact that the PRC censors movies is not in dispute, and is the whole subject of the article in question.) I thought that the dispute had been resolved with agreement that it wasn't necessary or appropriate to include runtime columns in the article, and I closed the DRN case as resolved. However, it wasn't resolved; Supermann just didn't reply in 48 hours. It really does appear that Supermann is forum shopping, with both an RFC that is going against, and a second RFM. I will ask Supermann to please re-read talk page guidelines against soapboxing and to re-read the guideline against forum shopping and to read the dead horse essay. Your horse won't carry your banner about Chinese movie censorship any further. Your horse needs burial. Stop bludgeoning the horse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Before I impose a self-exile and swear not to touch the film censorship article in my lifetime, i want to reiterate what i had said on your talk page already:I monitored the DRN daily, but I wasn't pinged about another third stmt request from you. Therefore, I thought the opposition was still modifying her second statement, but I was already expecting a moderation result. Never mind. I have followed your suggestion to initiate RfC. I don't know what can of worms I am getting myself into though. The DRN is not resolved in my eyes. Still, I am grateful for your time. Others had said the same thing and we lost in technicality. Furthermore, I am not forum shopping. I only used RfM after stall on rfc. I simply wanted to see if someone could really live up to the fifth pillar: Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. and give me one specific example where IAR did work.Finally, i was simply not soapboxing. Just to give you an example. When you guys thought I was anti-Communist by bringing up Liu Xiaobo, you had no idea that i put in his comments which alienated half of China to achieve NPOV. These comments include his past saying Chinese are impotent and his support for Bush's iraq war. it's all in the page history. I wasn't lying. Since no one is willing to come forward against the current establishment, I'll shut up. Supermann (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal time?

• Comment - I have no idea what User:Supermann is trying to say there. I know that they are passionate against Chinese movie censorship. I am not aware of any other editor who either is in favor of Chinese movie censorship or denies that there is Chinese movie censorship. They say that no one is willing to come forward against the current establishment, but I don't even know what establishment they are talking about. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally, in my understanding, Supermann believes that by keeping films that are ostensibly censored off the film censorship in China article, through the denial of the runtime columns, users are refusing to stand up to the communist Chinese government. There's several comments on the talk page there about it, though I'm mobile and cannot readily grab them all. But Supermann has made comments like that in the past: [40] [41] [42]. Seeing as Supermann has seemed to make good on his self-exile promise, what now? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: I think a proposal of one year topic ban of Supermann on pages relating to film would be preventative of disruptive editing if the user was to return from his self-exile. Alex Shih^Talk 03:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree on the topic ban idea. They certainly like to WP:BLUDGEON their point, and from what I've seen doesn't listen. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support it. When Supermann asked me(? the community?) if a block was being requested, I thought to suggest a topic ban at the time. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Grudgingly support. "Grudgingly" because given the attitude towards sourcing demonstrated above, this will just be transferring the problem to a different area, but I don't feel comfortable blocking/banning altogether so this seems the least worst option. (Incidentally, Supermann, unless there's a huge discrepancy in the runtime you can't consider it as evidence of censorship—movies regularly have different runtimes in different countries both because the credit reel is a different length depending on its language, because edits for different markets sometimes have expository lines (aka "idiot lectures") to explain things that are obvious to viewers in one country but won't necessarily be to people elsewhere, and above all because movies are often shown on film in their original market but in digital projection in translation (digital is easier to overdub) and Hollywood movies are traditionally shot at 24 frames per second but for historic reasons based on the evolution of videotape digital projection is often at 25 FPS which knocks 3–4% off the runtime right away.) ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – This is unfortunately a situation that I have seen many times before. An editor is somehow tendentious, and there is discussion here, and the editor then says that they will be taking a long wiki-break for some reason, either because no one is listening, or because they need to heal their wounds after the many personal attacks that never happened, or for whatever reason. Simply allowing the WP:ANI thread to be archived would be a mistake, because the issue will resume sometime when the editor returns, so the thread must be acted on. Unfortunately, I still don’t have a clue what User:Supermann is saying, but maybe User:TenTonParasol is right and a topic-ban is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support a topic-ban from all topics related to film. (If they won’t clarify, we can’t narrow.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I have done what I could to explain why the runtimes cannot be used for the purposes of this article, but I was taken as somehow favoring censorship in China. None of my explanations had any effect. Meanwhile the article on the censorship in China has evolved and shows now a lot more important information on the topic that wasn't there before, but this doesn't seem to be of any value to the editor unless the runtime is included. I do not think User:Supermann is inclined to understand the five pillars and the other policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and to work accordingly. Instead this editor seems to keep campaining for an ideal, even in ways that go contrary to the rules. I don't think that a topic ban will change this, but at least it will let other editors free from having to respond to endless and irrelevant arguments. I am against blocking Supermann from Wikipedia, unless this editor continues such behavior in other areas as well. Hoverfish Talk 22:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support This editor has taken to WP:FORUMSHOPping WP:WIKILAWYERing and treats discussions like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is but one example of their commenting on the contributor rather than content. This needs to stop. Again and again other editors have tried to explain the policies and guidelines that we all try to abide by and their response is WP:IAR. MarnetteD|Talk 01:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, though I fear that the battleground/bludgeoning behaviour will be carried over to other areas (which, to some extent it has done, for instance at Talk:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia). One thing that would help might be if Supermann could be less focused on WP:IAR, and less inclined to treat it as a rule that should ideally trump all policies and guidelines, like here and here, not to mention here (including the edit summary). If the topic ban is enacted, that also affects Supermann's existing topic ban on articles related to a specific movie production company - that ban is indefinite but can be appealed in December [43], but that will obviously not be the case with this topic ban on top. --bonadea contributions talk 09:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from all articles related to Chinese media. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Requiem (Duruflé)

Could a grown up look at the talk page of Talk:Requiem (Duruflé), and at the edit summaries surrounding the edit warring over the inclusion of an infobox. I will admit my actions have not been great, but when faced with lies, bullying, baiting and name-calling by a pack of registered editors, it would take the patience of a saint not to bite back. 213.205.198.246 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

An editor posted a question about my involvement on the talk page, then removed it as I had editing as part of a range. He removed his own post, but I thought I would let my explanation below stand in case others also have the same query. 213.205.198.246 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I am the only IP editor on that page over the last few days. For some reason my phone providers have been using dynamic IP addresses which has switched me around (to the confusion of a couple of people who think I have been responsible for long-term vandalism. I have not, but that's a problem with dynamic IPs. It's been an excuse for various people to accuse me of vandalism, cowardice and several other spiteful names. I always thought wikipedia had a civility policy that stopped such direct abuse. Is that still in place or has the encyclopedia become a nursery?) 213.205.198.246 (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As the other half of that argument, I suppose I ought to register my distaste for this IP-hopping anon who clearly is a registered editor avoiding scrutiny. This is the same IP who has made the same reversion four times at Requiem (Duruflé) against three different editors other than me, then has the nerve to call my sole edit to the article "edit-warring". Unlike the other contributors, he has failed to make a single constructive edit to the article talk page, and now complains here that his trolling on that page has attracted a kick-back. --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I have already stated do not have an account. I have edited on and off for a while with small edits as an IP. I am sorry you think it a crime to be an IP editor, but as you have had this explained to you several times, I do not know why you repeat the lie that I have an account. As to others being constructive on the talk page, you have to look carefully to find anyone being "constructive" there (perhaps only two people,can't claim that). Too many lies and too many insults have come from the keyboards of you and your cronies, all of whom have miraculously "appeared" there where there has been so little activity for so long. 213.205.198.246 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If that "miracously appeared" is supposed to mean anything, it shouldn't. I have seen plenty of page lie dormant and then a glut of editors show up at a time. Also, some of the edit summaries would attract attention from any recent change patroller. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It isn't miraculous at all. The IP is opposing an infobox on this article, you could not find a more contentious issue to jump into on this whole site. Certainly there are at least two editors opposing the IP there who I see on every discussion about infoboxes on classical music but never edit classical music articles otherwise, they appear to care nothing about classical music,they just try to force those boxes into every article. Unquestionably they follow each other around whenever (which is almost always) there is an infobox issue.Smeat75 (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Plus, this page was recently mentioned on User:Cullen328's talk page—as someone who just passed RFA this week, he'll be having a lot more visitors to his talk page than usual, and at least some of them will have taken a look to see what the fuss is about. ‑ Iridescent 22:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

In answer to your edit summary, no, I make no accusations of socking on the page, just that one of the editors has been going round several talk pages posting a link to the thread. 213.205.198.246 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You do know that on a wiki, claims like that are checkable? That thread has been linked on a grand total of four talk pages; one of those was by you, and of the other three one was to Ceoil who is agreeing with you and one was to Martinevans123 who's not once commented in the thread? ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I should have made it clearer: the thread or the article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Opabinia_regalis/Archive_15#Forget_cat, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Claudio_Monteverdi/archive1#Comments_from_Gerda. And that is not taking into account the email system (it seems odd that the Montana chap had been absent for a couple of days, but their very first action was to revert me on an article they had never visited before. The additional lies in his edit summary are also disgraceful) 213.205.198.246 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You know there's nothing "miraculous" about how editors find pages. If you had the courage to log in with your registered account, you could enable navigation popups and see – as I did on a hover over his name – that Ceoil has just passed 100,000 edits. We've had our arguments in the past, but I have a lot of respect and affection for him, so I went to his talk page to leave him User talk:Ceoil #Céad míle some congratulations. Follow the link and look for yourself: the thread immediately above it refers to Gerda having issues with an IP. So I watch-listed the article and saw your disgusting behaviour there. It should not be surprising then that I eventually decided to revert your fourth revert, and to take you to task for your unconstructive and offensive attitude on the talk page. If you had a stable user talk page available, I would have posted there, but you choose not to reveal your logged-in account name, so I could not. The only thing that's surprising about this whole incident is that you're still allowed to edit Wikipedia after your blatant edit-warring on the article and trolling on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course, everyone could just have stayed out of it and let Gerda deal with it constructively, instead of jumping and escalating the situation. She did make the change to the stable article, and she's a big girl and could have made her case for the change. I just don't get the mentally of wiki-heros that swoop into conflicts like Underdog (TV series) and start reverting away. If you want to help, mediate, don't escalate. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So, just let me get this right. After bringing a "complaint" against an editor which was summarily dismissed and is still on this page, the bogus basis of which "complaint" was that said editor got involved in "unrelated" disputes and "escalated" them, you're coming to another dispute, where the guy you just accused is involved, and in which you were not involved, and "escalating" it? Or trying to make some sort of point? I'm lost. Begoon 15:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ummm excuse me, but I believe ANI is a forum that people don't have to be involved to legitimately voice their thoughts on a matter, right? That's why you commented on the previous ANI, right? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You're excused. Sure, but people are also not stupid, and treating them as such is generally inadvisable. They will see your motives. -- Begoon 15:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to your question, I didn't find it so much "stupid" as hostile. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. You should work on that tendency. It's doing you no good. -- Begoon 16:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll bring up with my shrink at my next appt. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment Do the accusations re: socking and the name calling-"troll", "disgusting", "coward" etc., ever stop or is this a continuation of the hatted segment of the article's talk page? Someone was upset about the IP editor using the term "nasty individual"-judging from what's on the talk page and here, small wonder it was said. We hope (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you still don't understand how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a collaborative work so more feedback from other editors is generally something to be welcomed, rather than something that's harmful. If someone notices a change they support, then they should be encouraged, not discouraged, from voicing support for the change. In fact, in some cases it may not even be necessary for the person who made the change to comment if it's already became clear there is WP:Consensus for it. It doesn't matter whether the person who initially made the change is a "big girl and could have made her case for the change". Big girls and boys can also rely on others to help them in a collaborative work, hopefully not because of personal feelings these other editors have to the big girl or boy, but because these other editors saw something they feel makes wikipedia better, and is here to make wikipedia better and feels willing to dedicate their time in this case to making wikipedia better. Of course care needs to be taken to avoid piling on to a discussion, but that's mostly a problem when it's editor behaviour that's being discussed. Editors need to remember that massive support for a change they oppose is not generally something that should be taken personally. Perhaps more importantly, piling on is only a concern when there is already a lot of support. If consensus is desired but remains unclear, then it's not piling on to offer feedback. In particular, it's not piling on to offer feedback when none has yet been left, in other words, repeating what I said earlier, there's zero reason to wait for the editor who made a change to express their view before you offer your own view. If you want to work at a project where only a person who makes a change gets to express a view on the change or gets to express the first view, you need to look for something else rather than trying to work on a collaborative project like wikipedia and then getting annoyed because other people are offering feedback on a change. And as I said below, if feel I've misinterpreted your comment, you're welcome to explain what you meant, but please note I'm only going by what you've said, not what anyone else has said. Nil Einne (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• It looks to me, from a perusal of Talk:Requiem_(Duruflé), as if this 213 IP (who I do not believe for a second does not already have an account) is in dire need of a WP:BOOMERANG block for rampant incivility, and Rexxs should try harder not to lose his cool in the face of such obviously deliberate provocation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's possible that the 213 IP is the banned LTA editor User:HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It's also possible that it's President Trump, not wanting to reveal his identity. Whoever it is, making that accusation here should be cause for a block. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'll take this as yet another retaliatory comment from you (there's another one just up above) in return for my expressed opinion in the thread where you were roundly lambasted by numerous editors for adamantly refusing to drop the stick. I would suggest that you give up this particular tactic of yours while you're still (barely) ahead, as it won't stand you in good stead, and will eventually get you sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's how you should take it. After being the victim of framing and gaslighting, I feel like I should speak up for other editors in the same situation. If I get blocked, so be it. I would rather be blocked for doing the right thing than to cower from the toxic atmosphere here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, but I wasn't asking (or concerned) about how I should take it: I knew what to think. Here's what you should consider: in your effort to "speak up for other editors", you are not helping to end the "toxic atmosphere" here, you are assisting in creating it. When you insert yourself into a situation you know nothing about, and "do the right thing" on behalf of an IP who is likely to be an LTA, a massive serial socker, and who is permanently banned from Wikipedia (but has no compunctions about coming back again and again to bother people and disrupt the project), you are not helping anything, just providing cover for a vandal. Please stop doing that, and take more care about who you support -- Wikipedia doesn't need a self-appointed gadfly and ombudsman who doesn't know what they're doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep bring up framing. AFAICT it was your own comments that you made in the thread that caused the reaction from the community in the thread. At least in my case, and I strongly suspect for many other commentators there, it had little to do with what others had said about you or the dispute. Unless you're saying you've been a victim of your own failure to frame you responses correctly. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems clear from your comments here, and the little I looked at in the article talk page, including the fact that you involve yourself in such a high profile dispute with clear knowledge of the history, that you have extensive experience with wikipedia. So even if your statement that you've never had an account is true, you should know based on your experience that given all this, people are naturally going to be very suspicious when you show up in a dispute like that. You should also know that, for better or worse, even if there's no conclusive evidence that you have used an account or are otherwise WP:Socking no one is likely to be sanctioned for voicing suspicion that you have had one, even if it's repeated once you've denied it. As for the rest, well I see a lot of not ideal behaviour from both sides, as unfortunately is the norm with these heated infobox disputes. Since you provided no diffs other than the article talk page link and the links to the alleged canvassing, it's difficult to call this anything other than another messy infobox dispute which we can only hope does not boil over into another one where sanctions are called for. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to address all the dis-jointed comments above. I am going to summarize my thoughts here, and call it good.

Jumping into content disputes by making your first edit to an article a reversion of an edit by someone who is in dispute with your friend, can do nothing but escalate the situation into a behavior issues (edit: particularly in an article that you've never edited before, on a subject matter in which you have expertise and have never showed any interest in editing before. That is what RexxS did in both circumstances). Even Gerda seemed to think the conflict was unnecessarily escalated. RexxS's comment "At the end of the day, one has to make a decision about where to draw the line in tolerating bad behaviour such as the IP demonstrates. I draw mine pretty close to zero-tolerance for the attacks he made on two of our most respected and well-intentioned women editors on that page." pretty much just sums it up that he was playing "wiki-hero", protecting the little wimm'n folk, rather than thoughtfully entering into a debate. He had done the same to me, then came to the ANI complaint framing me by leaving out most of the relevant information in the dispute, and implying that I had changed status quo verbiage without discussion. He had jumped in and just started to revert me, without knowing the background of the dispute, which is summarized here. Then, in his second go round for the same complaint about him by the IP, he came onto this thread, and double-downed with accusations and name-calling, as per the comment by We hope.

As for the possibility that the IP is a sock, it is gaslighting to make that accusation in this context. The IP came to this forum with a legitimate complaint which should be evaluated on its own merit. If someone believes that he/she is a sock, the proper way to handle it is to file an SPI. To make that accusation while calling for a boomerang against the OP is so inflammatory and destructive that I think it is behavior that is cause for a block of the accuser. The fact that such behavior is tolerated here at this notice board is one of the many reasons I say it has a toxic atmosphere. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is it "gaslighting"? I googled that term and got "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity." Please explain that specific objection in terms of this discussion. Honestly, your tendency to make knee-jerk reactions here is becoming very tedious. -- Begoon 12:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Gaslighting, in a broader form, is to destabilize the truth. In this case, to divert from the ip's complaint by bringing up suspicions that they are a sock. (edit: Or, like what you are doing, accusing me of having knee-jerk reactions making it plain your question requesting clarification of a term is only a lead in to the destabilization of the discussion.) Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hounding by Trekphiler

Enough's enough. I've had a week of this, I've ignored abuse from three different editors, but there are limits.

I've known of Trekphiler (talk · contribs) for some years. Apparently here and here (as he reminded me today), where he was deleting Donald Campbell from the Land Speed Record article. Nothing I've seen from Trekphiler since has changed my view that he is a half-knowledgeable editor with no understanding of how little he knows. Unfortunately our interests overlap, so I've seen too much of this.

Things kicked off here: User_talk:Parsecboy#Edit_war.3F, where a trivial issue of linking/overlinking at Stirling engine became a 4RR edit-war [44][45][46][47] because he was insistent on mis-spelling Stirling's name, even after this was pointed out. I have no interest in the original linking question and wouldn't have pushed it, but (as is characteristic of Trekphiler's edits and reversions) his "red mist" clouds out the fact that he's pushing in a obvious howler of an error. Trivial stuff, but why (even for someone busy with another edit-war [48][49] against Deniss, as he notes at Parsecboy's page) how does he then find time to canvass up a few friends, both on-wiki and off-wiki.

I then did some tidying to Ernest Eldridge and his racing car, the Fiat Mephistopheles, moving it from the obvious mis-spelling at "Mephistofeles (car)". Now the naming of this is awkward, as an "Italian" car built by a British driver swaps around from Mephistopheles to Mefistofeles, depending on the source. But never Mephistofeles, with a mix of both 'ph' and 'f' . Unless you're Trekphiler, who then gets angry about someone changing his spelling of a few years back, and proceeds to start renaming it himself. See User_talk:Parsecboy#Edit_war.3F again.

There's a reversion against a new editor over at T-34 as "uncited, masquerading behind another source, & (AFAIK) incorrect" (of course, it isn't incorrect) which I don't even bother to restore (although the other editor hasn't been seen since) but that's still enough for Parsecboy to accuse me of being "snide".

Now we get to Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow and [50] where he makes an unclear sentence even worse. Around this time, 1957, "missiles" were replacing "manned aircraft" and defence planning like the Sandys Report was rather infamously cutting back aircraft heavily. However this was still pre-Sputnik: anti-aircraft missiles were replacing fighter aircraft (like the Arrow), but the shift from bombers to ballistic missiles wouldn't happen for a few more years yet. But to reword this to keep the confusion, then to editorialise by adding some OR and excusing that by putting it inside a HTML comment (??) is not a useful change. He then reverts me as " fact tag, resto hidden (just can't stand anything I put in anywhere, can you? & you're wrong)" and "you'd notice, if you didn't hate every single edit I make, the only people who can see it are other editors, not readers". Another 3RR edit war. Trekphiler seems to be confused by now as to whether Bomarc is a ballistic missile or a cruise missile. So he goes off on another canvassing run to try and... well, I have no idea what he's trying to do here:

• Talk:Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow#Replacement_with_missilies.3F
• User_talk:Parsecboy#Edit_war.3F
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Bomarc.27d
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Bomarc.27d

He gets an answer anyway; and replies, "So I goofed. I have felt stupider, but I can't think when. ", " I've gotten away with some stupid stuff I should never have done. My karma must be in amazing shape today. :) " I get the answer from Parseboy that I'm "hounding" him, because Avro Arrow can't be on my watchlist. I have no idea how Parsecboy knows this: I have >50k articles on my watchlist, this has been one of them since I edited it. But, according to Parsecboy, I shouldn't be watching articles if I haven't edited them within 6 months. According to Bilcat, I'm just a drunk.

Yesterday I see an interesting question at Talk:Lotus 12, so I reply to it. Then start doing some work on the article. Maybe a section in that article, maybe a whole new article. Queerbox is a well-known, but obscure and poorly-understood topic in 1960s motorsport. It belongs somewhere, but it will be hard to produce and I'm the schmuck who has the opportunity to do it. Trekphiler takes exception to this and again starts reverting. Brings out that whole " says somebody who's edited this page exactly once, more than a year ago, since it was created" I shouldn't be editing "his" articles thing again. Turns out that he created this article originally, so WP:OWN. And just yesterday I'd added a talk: page reply that was bigger than the whole article was, so what do I know?

I've ignored as much of this as I'm willing to. My opinion of Trekphiler is where it has always been. But the overt canvassing as a response to a minor disagreement, scaling the reichstag by ballistic missile when he's challenged again, and implying that editors are drunks - it's not on. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

♠"Hounding"? I'm not the one warned off by a neutral observer...

♠The Campbell delete was entirely legitimate, & remains so; adding a superseded record, when no other superseded efforts were included for any given year, is absurd--& yet that was what Andy wanted, & what he appeared ready to edit war to get. He offered no reason.

♠The spelling error on the Stirling page was a direct product of Andy's irrational restoration of a redundant link & redundant name, an induced error that would never have happened had he not rv'd me to start with. "I have no interest in the original linking question" Then why, pray tell, did you keep rv'g me on it? To provoke an edit war?

♠I'd have been happiest with Mefistofeles, but Andy's preference was for something else, & he stubbornly insisted on it...

♠The T-34 edit? "of course, it isn't incorrect"? Of course it is, & Andy's own edit demonstrating the math (which was intended to show I didn't understand the issue, but didn't) proves it. And the original edit was making out the cited source was saying something it was not, in fact, saying.

♠The CF-105 dispute, I'll acknowledge, was a product of misinformation on my part. It's hardly "hounding" to disagree--& at no time did Andy bother to take it to the talk page. Besides which, at this point, he'd rv'd me on the Stirling engine page, the SdKfz234 page, & the CF-105 page...

♠And on the Lotus 12 page, I rv'd a claim that, like the T-34 edit, was masquerading behind an existing cite; the cited source does not say what Andy's edit would have had it claiming, & he offered no independent sourcing. I later asked for a citation for Andy's (unrelated) substantive add, nothing more; he deleted the tag, & I rv'd that.

♠"Own"? Really? I watchlist all the pages I create. When did that become a crime? Except to you? Take a look at another of Andy's recent "projects", SdKfz 234, which has improved rather a lot since I created it. Or were you looking for one of mine, Andy, one where you think you can add unchallenged? Because in the history of the Lotus 12 page, between its creation in August 2007 & now, Andy edited the page...twice (once 2011, once 2012) before 2016, & twice (Sept & Oct 2016) that year, before he "stumbled" on the question yesterday--within a day of getting warned off about me.

♠You'll also notice this latest "dispute" was initiated on a page I created, presumably because Andy knows I won't take it of my watchlist (since he's evidently reading my every post on BilCat's talk page).

♠Now take a look at where he's getting his information from: BilCat's talk page? How much attention is he paying to my activities, exactly? And isn't that the very definition of hounding? You'll also notice, I never implied he's a drunk. I'd consider him many things, none of them complementary, but I have no way of knowing which one is the appropriate one.

♠Bottom line: this accusation is ridiculous, & a clear effort to extract revenge for his own misbehavior. I shouldn't even waste my time answering it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have seen Andy around for years; he may be a bit of a grump, but I've never seen him cross the line into personal attacks, he contributes enormously to the project and he's usually right about stuff. On Lotus 12 I see him doing all the heavy lifting on the article while TREKphiler edit wars over a {{fact}} tag. At User_talk:BilCat#Gone fishin' I see two editors slagging off someone they don't like with a number of personal attacks - just because somebody isn't in the room with you, doesn't give you a license to bad-mouth them in public. I haven't looked any further but I think Andy's complaint has merit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Ritchie. Yes, I'm a grump - although not the AndyTheGrump. There is stuff here where I could be said to be edit-warring, or not defusing the situation better. But if I have one virtue in this, it's that I don't keep digging the holes deeper. If I've goofed over some fact, I won't keep pushing it back in, or canvassing talk: pages to have the world changed around my opinion.

I'm not going to go through these point by point, no-one wants to read that and most are already answered in the thread on Parsecboy's talk: A few:

• The SdKfz234 has been a long running vandalism issue (although not at that article, or by Trekphiler), by an IP editor making just the same change on related articles, and also dealt with by Denniss and me. I've no animosity to Trekphiler over this, but that really isn't a good change to be making.
• Avro Arrow: "at no time did Andy bother to take it to the talk page.": Talk:Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow#Replacement with missilies? To which Trekphiler replied with " Why don't you stop trying to provoke me into an edit war by being self-righteous & ignorant?", whilst at the same time loudly confusing Bomarc (an anti-aircraft missile) with ICBMs and cruise missiles. Trekphiler went off on a four page campaign to get support for his "Bomarc was a ballistic missile" claim, and was roundly rebuffed because it's nonsense. This is Trekphiler and his red mist problem all over: he's right, the opposition are wrong, he has to hoot his trap off about it as loudly as possible and then afterwards he slinks away quietly when everyone else tells him that he's completely wrong over the facts. Donald Campbell not holding a Land Speed Record. Mephistofeles. Sterling engines.
• Lotus 12. I've not made large edits to this article before now because I consider motor racing to be mostly boring (less boring back then) and I'm only interested in the engineering of it. This was not a good article: one source, from that most fly-away of lightweight coffee table books [51]. The Twelve has three important innovations in it though, and so far I've written the rather more substantial articles on two of them, wobbly-web wheel and Chapman strut, now working on Queerbox. Even though Trekphiler created this article, I utterly reject his claim here that I'm in any way not a fit person to be working on his article, even when it comes to clarifying the link on Chapman struts. And reverting my changes or tagging for unsourced in a paragraph that already has more sourcing than the rest of his article did - really?

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

♠You've done all the heavy lifting at Lotus 12? Then your rv, in what appears to be a snit, is, what, exactly?

♠You're factually wrong on Campbell. The pass was superseded by Breedlove's earlier record before Campbell ever ran, as this clearly shows. Every other record on the page is the latest & fastest; you wanted an exception, for reasons never made clear (or, at least, they were never clear to me).

♠You complain about lack of sourcing on the Lotus 12 page, & your solution is to add a whack more unsourced material? That makes sense how?

♠"I utterly reject his claim here that I'm in any way not a fit person to be working on his article" I don't suggest "unfitness", just absence; it's your timing that troubles me.

♠So what we have, here, is Andy making a claim of hounding based on an edit war he started, a mistake (already admitted), & a request for citation on a page (by Andy's own statement) lacking in them. If that's hounding... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Hounding is when, after a minor disagreement over linking, you run off to friendly admin's pages and start hollering for them to help you out. It's when you shoot your factual foot off, then canvass every related project board you can find for support, only to then have to admit you'd goofed. It's when you have a massive and long-standing OWN problem on "your" articles, to the point that you reject any change to them, even positive ones. Even after all this, you keep doing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

♠"you run off to friendly admin's pages and start hollering for them to help you out" That was after several rv, by you, & I wanted a neutral observer. I picked Parsecboy, with whom I've had virtually no contact to date, on that basis.

♠"to the point that you reject any change to them, even positive ones." Did you even bother to look at the SdKfz 234 page at all? Or the Mark 6 exploder page? Or LBD Gargoyle? Or Hirohata Merc? They're all better now than when I started them. I do want to maintain a standard, but seriously, if somebody wants to add to Ferd Napfel, or "Cloak of Mystery", or Yellow Fang, & they've got the sources to back it up, I'd welcome the adds. I might be less welcoming if they came from you, since that seems to bring its own WP:OWN issues, as witness Cambpell.

♠As for my conversation with BilCat, who is paying so much attention to my edits he'd immediately notice that...? And that was an FYI to BilCat, if you'd actually bothered to read it; then again, you've mischaracterized a lot of what I've done, so no surprise you did with that one, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• On SdKfz 234 You changed the link so that instead of pointing to the page for Nazi-period Germany, where it belongs, it then pointed to the page for the Federal Republic of Germany, and Germany across history. I can see your point that dumping "NAZI" over everything is a bit much, so I even used the piped link for it, but kept it at the right target. And on the PzKpfw I, II and other Nazi armour articles, there's a long running sock problem with just that edit, which Denniss and I have both been dealing with.

Now I see that as a good edit on my part. I can't see what your problem is with it. But there's not even any discussion from you over it, just hysteria on an admin's page. Why? Why didn't you try to start some rational discussion as to what was best? I'm listening, I've always been listening - but from you, it's just squealing and abuse.

"Cloak of Mystery"? What does that have to do with anything? Do you want some sort of pat on the head? Recognition that you might have done something good? Congratulations. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Some of Trekphilers edits aren't friendly, they are rather the opposite of friendly. They are sometimes way beyond WP:NPA. Unfortunately, "sometimes" seems like it has become "often": ♦fuck you, too ♦go fuck yourself ♦Go fuck yourself ♦go to hell ♦fuck you ♦fuck you too ♦fuck you too ♦go to hell ♦go to hell ♦so go screw yourself ♦someone needs to get screwed ♦or is it just because you want to screw with me in particular?

Even though this is enough for an indefinite block already, I also want to explain Trekphilers misbehaviour and comment further on this.

♦I believe that Andy Dingley just wanted to reply to an interesting question on the Lotus 12 talk page since I encountered him replying to "interesting questions" on talk pages in the past. So I don't think he would want to hound another user.

♦Accusing other authors of being snide is inappropriate.

♦Regarding the Sonderkraftfahrzeug 234: The term Nazi Germany is what refers to the German term Drittes Reich which would translate to Third Empire. In German speaking countries, the words Nazideutschland and Hitlerdeutschland are widely accepted, however, the most "neutral" word would be Drittes Reich. Since this term does not really exist in English, the proper English term for Drittes Reich is in fact Nazi Germany. This term is not wrong. However, changing Nazi Germany to just Germany in the SdKfz article implies that this vehicle was used in the Federal Republic. Such edits must be reverted.

♦[Trekphiler] is a half-knowledgeable editor with no understanding of how little he knows – Andy Dingley.
I think Andy's complaint has merit. –Ritchie333
I would not disagree.

Proposal: Indefinite block for User:Trekphiler since insulting is not acceptable at all. At this point, it is no longer important how much this user contributed to this project and which quality his contributions have. Insultive behaviour has a tremendously negative effect on Wikipedia and we must protect this project and other authors. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• One last chance for Trek to apologise to the communty for those edit summaries? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeking any specific sanction against Trekphiler here. I just want him to back off. Down with this sort of thing. I see the "red mist" as the main problem: when opposed, at any level, his judgement flies out the window. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Language is an issue on WP. There was a time when such language wasn't accepted, under CIVIL. Nowadays it seems that it is. I see this as a bad change, but it's not a change due to this one editor, so lets not blame him for it. I would like to see "unparliamentary language" recognised as an issue though, and policy set more clearly against it. We can work either with it or without it, and I'd rather be without it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

How did I know it was going to come out this way? Somebody starts out with what I'd call disruptive behavior (starting an edit war or deleting a page I created without a word of discussion on it) & when I take exception to that, & get warned with blocks for something I never started, I am, perforce, in the wrong. How did I know I had no prayer of an actually fair hearing? And when somebody who, by all appearances, has gone out of his way to provoke me brings a complaint, I am the one in the wrong. Do what you want. Since it's obvious you're willing to tolerate other editors harassing me, I'm clearly not welcome here anyway., TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"deleting a page I created without a word of discussion on it"

Which is? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

An edit war requires at least two parties. Always. It does not matter who started, it does matter who is involved. Maybe you should start a discussion if the other party does not. That other editors might be harassing you is not the topic of this discussion. Feel free to start another discussion about the editors harassing you. But something really bothers me, you think that we are tolerating other editors harassing you while there is enough evidence that you ignore WP:NPA. Andy Dingley supposed that you are a half-knowledgeable editor with no understanding of how little you know. Since your reply does not contain any form of apology, I really doubt he is wrong. Do you even understand that it is not allowed to insult other users? Do you know what harassment is? If not, read your own edit comment. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

♠An apology? After provoking an edit war, suggesting i'm too stupid to be editing at all, & charging me with hounding him? I should apologize to him? Seriously? Your comment suggests you're perfectly willing to accept Andy's continued misbehavior because you have an excuse, thanks to him, to be rid of me. So be it.

♠I'm also wondering why it is, if I'm hounding him, there haven't been more of my edits on pages on his watchlist. Then again, if he really has watchlistd 50K pages, you'll probably use every edit of mine that turns up on any of them as evidence of stalking, won't you?

♠And given Andy's careful study of my editing history, his claim not to know which deleted page I was talking about is disingenuous; his remarks about the "Cloak of Mystery" page are just another effort to pretend he doesn't understand, or that I've got some ulterior motive. (Should I have used "C-16", instead? Or would he just treat that as some kind of threat? How about Brutus? Or is that another personal attack?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:26 & 22:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• If you are accusing me of deleting your pages, then post diffs. Because I have no idea what you're on about, and my mere editor powers don't let me delete pages anyway. So just what are you on about?

Nor have I called you "stupid". That was your own description. I have called you half-knowledgeable and hysterical, and I think I've given enough examples to demonstrate what I mean. If anyone still needs convincing, look at Torpedo, where you go off on another 4RR edit-war because you don't understand what a shock wave is, why the speed of sound would be relevant to such, and so you want to redefine reality to match your limited understanding. As you point out above, I have a lot more of your inane and inaccurate edits show up on my watchlist, I just don't list all of them here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I shall pretend being a broken record: You insulted other users with disgusting edit comments, I gave sufficient evidence for that above. Such behaviour is not acceptable and due to your unwillingness to understand this and apologize, I seriously doubt that you would change your behaviour and refrain from insulting other users. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned in the original complaint, I'll weigh in here. First of all, I find it odd that Andy is complaining about Trek WP:HOUNDING him, when it seems clear to me that, if anything, the reverse is true. There are several mischaracterizations here, beginning with the fact that Trek hasn't violated 3RR in any of the instances Andy alleges he has. Second, these altercations have all taken place where Trek has a long history of editing (and in fact, creating the articles in question), where Andy has little to no history of activity. Lastly, anyone can look at the histories and see that these disputes have arisen when Trek makes an edit, and Andy reverts him. Time stamps don't lie, Andy.

As for my description of Andy as having made "snide" comments, and the appropriateness of said description, if someone can read this comment and come away from it with a more favorable label for it, I'd be surprised. @Jojhnjoy: - I find it odd that you think my comment is inappropriate but repeatedly insulting the intelligence of another editor is perfectly fine. Care to explain that?

On "But, according to Parsecboy, I shouldn't be watching articles if I haven't edited them within 6 months." - there's no way for anyone to know what another editor has on their watchlist - you made one edit there before the altercation there with Trek, and it was to revert a vandal you had started reverting elsewhere first. Explain why you think it's reasonable that I'd assume that you watchlist every article you revert a vandal on, once, a year ago. And on a semi-related note, why you think a watchlist with 50k pages on it makes any sense at all - that'd be completely unusable, and if you just want to watch for vandals, there's an app for that. Put another way, assuming you hadn't watchlisted the page and were simply following Trek's edits is an eminently reasonable conclusion given your lack of history on the article.

As I have said repeatedly since this dispute was brought to my attention, there are better things we could be doing with our time. Andy, here's an idea: if Trek makes an edit on an article in your ungainly watchlist, and you don't think you can fix whatever problem you identify without the undo button, maybe don't look at it. As I told you at the time, the Stirling/Sterling issue could have been fixed without so much fuss if you had simply fixed the misspelling and moved on. The little red box that tells you your edit has been reverted is known to increase blood pressure by 20 points - this is by no means an excuse for Trek's poor behavior (but neither is his poor behavior an excuse for your overuse of the undo button) so maybe don't use it unless you have a good reason. Honestly, I feel like I've been trying to mediate a dispute between my 4-year old and my 2-year old here. Look, I don't care that she bit you, you can't slap her back. And you, stop biting. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"I shall pretend being a broken record:" True. Also not what's at issue in this instance. Neither am I going to be apologetic about something unrelated to this in an effort to curry favor. If you can't judge this instance fairly on its merits (such as they are), without bringing that into it, there's really nothing I can do about it. Neither can I offer you a guarantee it won't happen again; anyone who does is lying. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: If this is not a violation of the 3RR rule, I don't know what it is. You might be right about Andy Dingley's edits in "Trekphiler-articles", however, his edits there weren't bad. For instance, as Andy Dingley explained above, Trekphiler confused Nazi Germany with the Federal Rebulic. Andy Dingley had to fix it. Trekphiler doesn't seem to understand that it is not okay to insult other authors. How would you call that? ″When Trekphiler says "AFAIK", it really doesn't count for much″ is not a snide comment. Also, it doesn't count for much for anyone since this entire Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. See WP:NOR. Parsecboy, do you overlook Trekphilers disruptive edit comments on purpose? Why don't you comment on them? Do you think it's okay to tell other users such things? If there is any problem with Andy Dingley, just start another discussion. This is not the right place for that. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jojhnjoy: - you do know that 3RR requires that you make more than 3 reverts, right?

His edits weren't bad? How about the dispute that started this whole situation, at the Stirling engine article? Reverting to insert a redundant link in violation of WP:OVERLINK is justified if you're fixing a typo? What he should have done was simply fix the typo, which I told him at the time. And again above. Let me spell it out again: reverting a partially incorrect edit is not collaborative. It is needlessly confrontational and, frankly, childish.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why my calling Andy's comment "snide" is inappropriate, but calling Trek an idiot is perfectly acceptable.

I do believe I said I'm not defending Trek's poor behavior, so take your strawmen elsewhere.

There's no reason to have a separate thread. WP:BOOMERANG is a thing for a reason. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, those were only three reverts, I made a mistake there since it looked like four reverts. Anyway, there was an edit war.

Well, reverting might be childish but as I said, the edit in the SdKfz-234-article was necessary.

Andy Dingley did never call anybody an idiot. Please, give evidence.

I did not say that you were defending poor behaviour, I criticized that you overlook it by not commenting on it.

Well, if there is no reason for a seperate thread, please explain precisely what Andy Dingley did wrong and what you would propose to stop this bad thing. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and two people are required for an edit war. So if Trek is to be sanctioned for it, so should Andy.

Sure, so we have one justified edit - what about the others? And since Andy and Trek seem to have problems with each other, is it really wise for Andy to be the one to do the reverting? Surely if Trek's edit is problematic, someone else will see it and fix it.

C'mon now, playing games should be beneath us. What do you think "When Trekphiler says "AFAIK", it really doesn't count for much." means? Or try scrolling up in this very thread - is "half-knowledgeable editor with no understanding of how little he knows" an acceptable way to describe an editor? And if so, how is my calling such remarks "snide" over the line?

You do realize that's a distinction without a difference, correct?

I did explain what he did wrong. And I have repeatedly proposed what he ought to do to defuse the situation. Did you bother to read my initial comment here? Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have never called Trekphiler stupid or an idiot. I have called him ignorant (well, half-knowledgeable) - there is a difference. Ignorance is forgiveable, especially on obscure subjects. What is not acceptable though is to use that ignorance to edit-war in something incorrect, even when others are telling you that it's incorrect. This is what Trekphiler does: shock waves, Bomarc as a ballistic missile, Mephistofeles, the list above. I am not prepared to "walk away" from these, nor is Trekphiler permitted to embed them. Even if you do not take accuracy seriously, I do. If I "think" something is right, then I either demonstrate it with sources, discuss it on talk: or I do walk away (because that's the WP:V requirement upon us all). I do not push my subjective opinion onto stuff if opposed unless I'm not only right, I can demonstrate that I'm right. Trekphiler does not follow that. Reversions are a personal slight upon him and merely for opposing him, someone is now in the wrong. And as a result, yes, "When Trekphiler says "AFAIK", it really doesn't count for much." When I say "AFAIK", it's likely to have footnotes (or at least not be used in article space as if it's RS). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we set the defensiveness aside long enough to agree that calling another editor ignorant is going to go over about as well as Trek's "fuck you"s?

As for reverting when you can't demonstrate you're right, one need look no further than the Stirling engine article - as I pointed out on my talk page, Trek was right to remove the repeated link, per WP:OVERLINK, yet you felt the need to edit-war over it. On the Avro Arrow article, the other editor was more than capable of providing the citations Trek requested, and I don't really see how you can justify the merits of this revert; asking questions like that is the whole purpose of editors' comments (and curiously, the other editor did then add a mention of the Bomarc here). And you weren't even correct in the first place - if you had bothered to pay attention to what he actually changed, Trek watered down the comment about ballistic missiles replacing bombers. He did not insert that material out of nowhere, which your edit summary seems to suggest.

On being prepared to walk away - the point is, you don't seem to be able to solve disputes with Trek without edit-warring. Here's what it ultimately comes down to: if Trek is that bad of an editor, someone else will notice. It's not your responsibility to fix his errors. Parsecboy (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"if Trek is that bad of an editor, someone else will notice." I think they have:

♦fuck you, too ♦go fuck yourself ♦Go fuck yourself ♦go to hell ♦fuck you ♦fuck you too ♦fuck you too ♦go to hell ♦go to hell ♦so go screw yourself ♦someone needs to get screwed ♦or is it just because you want to screw with me in particular?

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware of his foul mouth and seeming inability to control his temper. Where did I say I was defending him? My interest here is preventing you from, as far as I can see, actively provoking him and then running to the drama board to get him sanctioned. You know he has a temper, and yet you repeatedly start edit-wars with him. Why? Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

" Where did I say I was defending him? "

Pretty much from when he ran to your talk page, whining to collect a scalp, and then onwards.

You have accused me of repeatedly edit-warring against him. You have "explained" that he does not edit-war, because these are "not" edit-warring.

Torpedo

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]

Stirling engine (and not "Sterling" engine)

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

We can all count beyond 3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Andy, are you not aware that 3RR requires more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period? And that you are also edit-warring? If you want him sanctioned for edit-warring, prepare for a block yourself.

What I have accused you of doing is starting edit-wars with him. There is a subtle, but important distinction. And edit-warring over the Sterling typo instead of just fixing the misspelling was, frankly, childish and should embarrass you. That's my biggest issue - Trek has admitted his mistakes, but you seem dead-set against the idea that you might be just as much in the wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Go on, use the phrase "Trekphiler's edit at Torpedo and Stirling engine were not edit-warring." We can see you want to. No-one will believe you, but you clearly want to say it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Andy, let me break it down for you again. If Trek was edit-warring on those pages (and he was), so were you. The both of you have been acting like children here, and Trek at least had the sense to acknowledge his poor behavior and stop participating in this stupidity. I guess I ought to stop holding my breath that you'll do the same. Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Did I say that Andy Dingley should not be sanctioned?

Someone else will see it and fix it, yes, but it won't prevent Trekphiler from reverting, as seen here.

Yes it is an acceptable way to describe an editor if there is a serious reason for that. And there is. It is not insultive.

I have read your initial comment and you safely ignore Trekphilers disruprive behaviour. You remain mute about it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

No, but to borrow your logic tactic, you are ignoring his misdeeds...why?

Sure, but that is then someone else's problem. And if it becomes enough "someone else's problems", the community will handle it. There is no need to take on a crusade against an editor oneself (and in fact, if you do, then you're probably HOUNDing them).

No, calling another editor ignorant is not acceptable. We comment on content, not on the contributor - for example, how would you take it if I suggested that perhaps your opinions here aren't relevant, since you're inexperienced (i.e., less than 500 edits in over 4 years' time) and clearly lack of understanding of core policies (i.e., NPA)? Would you find that offensive?

Perhaps you need help: "this is by no means an excuse for Trek's poor behavior". Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Whos misdeeds do you mean? Andy Dingleys or Trekphilers?

Very interesting opinion: I know there is a problem with a user, but I ignore it as long as nobody complains.

Well, what would you propose then? Trekphiler replaced Nazi Germany with Germany. Doing that on purpose is historical revisionism. Assuming that he just didn't know what he was doing (=assuming he is ignorant) is fair.

What I would think is not important here. (It wouldn't bother me since I am a much more experienced user than it might seem.) If this is not an excuse for Trekphilers poor behaviour, how would you like to stop this behaviour? I propose an indefinite block, what do you propose? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Andy's, obviously. C'mon now...

No, that's not what I said. Try again.

As I recall, we were discussing whether personal attacks were fine, and under what circumstances you appear to be fine with them, not what Trek changed with regard to a link to Germany. And no, that's not revisionism.

Experienced on de.wiki, perhaps, but de.wiki is not en.wiki. Frankly, I don't care about what happens to either one of them, apart from the fact that I've been dragged into the mess. If the community believes Trek's behavior warrants a block, so be it. But I would urge against sanctioning only one side in a dispute that obviously requires a second half. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If changing Nazi Germany to Federal Republic of Germany is not historical revisionism, what is it? Ignorance? Let me be clear: I would not disagree on your last point. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support ban for Trekphiler. Admittedly biased as you can see from Parsecboy's talk page here that I asked for admin support against Trekphiler after he was uncivil and attacked me after I put a couple of templates on his talk page. This was following his obvious WP:OWN of a couple of pages he claimed were his and did not want Wikipedia MOS standards applied to. I apologized for my actions, but the admin who responded essentially forgave Trekphiler for his actions while telling me that I deserved to be abused. Since the MILHIST admins are obviously biased for Trekphiler, wider community ban should be imposed. Llammakey (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

♠"did not want Wikipedia MOS standards applied to" There's a difference between thinking the MOS is idiotic on spacing for calibers (which no other source does) & thinking it should never apply. There's also a difference between a default approach (mine, based on years of not adding spaces) & being unwilling to adhere to MOS. As for "my pages", if I've created them, how should I refer to them? "Yours"? And you're right, changing the link pointing from Nazi Germany to (in effect) FRG was ignorance; after seeing discussion of the repeated adds of "Nazi" by another editor, a simple rv (without checking the link) seemed like it was good enough. In retrospect... However, that also seems to demand perfection. Yes, I have a temper, & yes, I over-reacted to a page deletion; I'd have been less exercised, I'm sure, if it hadn't seemed so arbitrary. So am I solely to blame? I'd argue not; when is it ever so simple, in dealing with other people? Do you want a guarantee of no future bad behavior? You won't get one from me. I will not, cannot, make blanket guarantees. (For that matter, neither can anyone else. Not to a certainty.) And, at the risk of being partisan, let me make a suggestion: if you ignore Andy's actions (here & before), when he does it again (& it will be when, not if), you'll have made yourselves effectively complicit. I am firmly of the view that, if you reward him by banning me, you'll actually encourage him to do it again, & worse. Does that make my situation any better? No. Just something to think about. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:42 & 18:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"yes, I over-reacted to a page deletion; "

That is the third time now that have accused me of deleting your pages. Now either name that page and explain how I, a non-admin, "deleted" it, or else shut up going on about it and strike these accusations. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I have encountered Andy before and while we have disagreed on definite articles before ship names, he has never abused me. You, Trekphiler, on the other hand, I believe should be thrown from this project for your behaviour and never welcomed back. There is no difference to your behaviour and verbally abusing me on the street. In this case it is worse, because it will forever be logged here. As it stands I hope for a close, disregarding Parsecboy's and any other MILHIST admin as statements for what they are, an attempt to shield one of their friends from the rules. Llammakey (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Give me a break, Llamma - no-one's trying to shield anyone (and how you can attack Trek for his personal attacks while having made comments like this one is beyond me - it seems Andy's not the only one around here trying to pretend like his shit doesn't stink) - Trek is not my friend, and as I have said several times now, I don't oppose a block. And as I have said earlier in this thread, what I am here to do is prevent Andy from trying to game the system, yet again. Parsecboy (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

So one of your admin friends tells me I should be abused, which is a disgusting belief, while protecting Trekphiler and you think that I was in the wrong? WTF is wrong with the admins here? Parsecboy should recuse himself from this debate as you can see, he believes this kind of behaviour should be acceptable on wikipedia, furthermore, admins should tell people to accept abuse because their friends are involved. Do you have a vendetta against Andy? I thought we were discussing Trekphiler's egregious behaviour here? I think Parsecboy you should disengage as you're obviously blinded towards Trekphiler's poor behaviour, which is multitudes worse than Andy's, behaviour that is repetitive with many editors and for which he refuses to apologize or conform to WP's standards. At least Andy can follow WP policy. Llammakey (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Llamma, one wonders what discussion you're reading here, or the thread on my talk page. Ed never said you deserved to be abused - provide a diff that he did, or drop it. What he told you was you shouldn't have escalated the situation like you did. Which is a fair observation to make. The fact that you didn't like your own mistakes being identified is not Ed's problem, nor is it mine now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Here you go, [60], where I was chastised for putting a template on Trekphiler's talk page, but Trekphiler and I quote "is not exactly blameless". Either you are to blame for the abuse you create, or you are not. The rest of that comment goes on to excuse Trekphiler's actions, asking only that he not let the "red mist" descend next time. (Allowing that this time it was warranted) He even gave Trekphiler a smiley face. At no time, was Trekphiler warned about his actions, criticized for the way he behaved. I apologized for my actions Parsecboy, he did not, and your continued defence of Trekphiler and now ed17, makes me believe you're now as culpable as they are for the continued abuse and permitted actions of Trekphiler. I read the conversation. Which conversation were you reading? I really think you have a vendetta against Andy now, because you're continued defence of Trekphiler's actions is proving that you have a bet on a horse in this race and the horse's name starts with T. I ask once again, that you recuse yourself. Llammakey (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see "you deserve to be abused" anywhere in that diff. I do see, in Ed's first comment in the thread, that he said Trek's attacks were blockable, which sort of seems like a criticism, doesn't it? As does his second comment, where he said Trek losing his cool "doesn't justify the edits [he] made". And his third comment, where he said "there's no time where it's necessary or even useful to leave messages like you did last week" and "Someone not following DTTR doesn't give you a license to tee off on them". Anyone can read the thread and see that you're grossly exaggerating. While we're making requests, Llamma, drop the histrionics already. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@The ed17: - since you've been mentioned (and dragged through the mud) here, I figure you might want to be made aware. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

"Are blockable, but only in isolation", of which the entire first comment was criticizing me. Let us not cherry pick here shall we. I apologized right after that comment too, so let's not mischaracterize my actions either. In his third comment, right after saying I shouldn't have been on the end of the invective sent my way, he then turns around and blames me again for escalating the conflict, as if abuse was the only reasonable end to that conflict. I do not deny that I escalated the conflict, for which I already apologized further up the thread! At no time in that entire exchange or here, have you demanded Trekphiler's apology! He even states in this thread that he will not apologize and will continue to act in the fashion that has landed him here. You are allowing Trekphiler's actions, which have been abusive, against WP:Civility, to go unpunished because I put a couple of TEMPLATES on his talk page. ed17 even argued against punishment! At what point do you understand what you are defending here? Do you wish me to apologize again Parsecboy? To come grovelling at your feet, begging your forgiveness and Trekphiler's for putting a template on somebody's page? At what point does the abuse stop? That is why we are here, to remove an editor who has outlived his usefulness to the project. As seen by Andy's claims, he adds mistakes (which means he is no longer being useful in an information way), claims pages as his own to which no one is allowed to edit without his explicit permission to anything but his own standards and is now abusive. At some point organizations have to part ways with employees or volunteers, no matter how good they were in the past. Llammakey (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Give it a rest already - in a nutshell, Ed told you both that you handled the situation poorly, that you (Llamma) escalated things needlessly, but that did not justify Trek's attacks. If you want to read whatever you want into Ed's comments, that's your right, but you're not going to convince anyone else. Ed did ask you both to apologize - you did, sort of, and Trek did not. But not apologizing when someone asked you to is not a blockable offense. Since it seems you are not aware, blocks are preventative, not punishment. If Trek was actively attacking you, and made no indication that he was going to stop, then yes, Ed should have (and presumably would have) blocked him. But what you're asking for is beyond the responsibility or right of a single admin - community bans require...the community...obviously.

On defending Trek - how many times do I need to say it before it sinks into that thick skull of yours: I am not defending him. My interest in this discussion is twofold. 1: preventing Andy from gaming the system, and 2: the fact that he and others attacked me without the courtesy of informing me. Which I think is something they criticized Trek for doing on Bilcat's talk page. Quelle surprise.

As for Andy, he also adds mistakes. He also tries to game the system. At what point do we block him also? Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC

I care not one whit about gaming the system. It's the system. You live with it. However, Trekphiler is abusive. Therefore he needs to go. You are defending him by attacking a person who put in a request in line with WP policy. Therefore, you are defending him by trying to punish the accuser by using WP:Boomerang against him. Its another form of defense of Trekphiler's actions, attempting to prove Trekphiler's innocence by claiming Andy's culpability. So, yes, in essence, you are defending him by trying to cow Andy in giving up this complaint by threatening to block him too, as you did on your talk page. Llammakey (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. Manipulators like Andy are just as much of a problem as foulmouths like Trek. Probably moreso, since the latter are easier to get rid of.

The funniest thing about this whole idiotic thread is the fact that you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. Ignoring Andy's fuckery because he's on your "side". At what point are you going to stop acting like a child? Parsecboy (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not ignoring Andy's behaviour. I think he acted within WP's policies and never attacked anyone. Do I agree with his interpretation, no. Do I think we should ban him indefinitely, no. You are arguing for the same punishment for both out of some vendetta against Andy because you see him "gaming the system", an interpretation of events that you solely hold to. On the other hand, three editors think Trekphiler is a bad editor, yet you continue to attack those set out to remove him. You side with someone who has abused someone. I came here not to defend Andy but to remove Trekphiler. You seem determined to ban Andy and keep Trekphiler, yet Andy has done nothing beyond some reverts that should maybe get him a 24-hour ban. At some point we're going to need to question your status as an admin here. You seemed absolutely determined to defend an abuser. I do not understand what your problem is, since now you're attacking me with personal insults, like "selectively illiterate" and "childish". I'm starting to see why you accept Trekphiler's behaviour. Hence, I reiterate for the fourth time, recuse yourself from the discussion. Llammakey (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are. All of the disputes between him and Trek were initiated by Andy reverting his edits, seemingly out of spite. That's called WP:HOUNDING (ironically, the very thing Andy accuses Trek of doing - is that not a bad-faith report?) On coming here not to defend Andy but to remove Trek - do you not see that's the same logic you reject, when I say I came here not to defend Trek but to prevent Andy from gaming the system? On being childish - you hold a grudge against Ed based on a misinterpretation that no one else shares, despite the fact that Ed already clarified what he meant (and apologized for the misunderstanding). If that's not childish, I don't know what is. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

♠"That is the third time now that have accused me of deleting your pages." Why don't you quit pretending you haven't been tracking my every edit & don't know exactly what I'm talking about? Why don't you quit trying to make out I've got some kind of vendetta against you?

♠"There is no difference to your behaviour and verbally abusing me on the street." And there's no difference between your accusation of vandalism based on a disputed edit & the false claim made elsewhere. Yet you seem to believe I should have ignored that, while you're entitled to extract punishment for your hurt feelings. And you want to use a completely unrelated matter as your excuse, which also, you'll notice, rewards somebody else's bad behavior. Presumably that's fine with you; it's less clear to me why it would be.

♠I can only speculate why Andy picked me out, but by appearances, it didn't start with the Stirling engine page. Neither do I believe it will stop here, if you reward him. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

As for you, you've obviously shown repetitive behaviour issues with multitudes of editors. An accusation of vandalism does not allow you to abuse me. In any workplace in the world, including volunteer workplaces, your behaviour would have had your employment terminated on the spot, and you would have been escorted out by security. The fact that we have to discuss it here is beyond me. Llammakey (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Trekphiler - I have no idea which page you are talking about, when you refer to "the page which I deleted". Certainly those other editors reading ANI won't know what it is. Now this is the fourth time you've made this allegation, yet you keep refusing to identify it. That's now to a disruptive level at ANI: making an allegation that cannot be reasonably discussed or refuted, just because you refuse to say what it is. So either say that, or strike your allegations. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Request

Before we continue, I request a deletion of these edit summaries: ♦Special:Diff/790019118 ♦Special:Diff/790409750 ♦Special:Diff/790409518 ♦Special:Diff/790395964 ♦Special:Diff/777697157 ♦Special:Diff/777695432 ♦Special:Diff/777695254 ♦Special:Diff/790395032 ♦Special:Diff/790394847 ♦Special:Diff/691864936 ♦Special:Diff/679541270 ♦Special:Diff/792454896

Also, I still support an indefinite block. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Best to turn this into a sub-thread. As to the question at hand, "'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations" is specifically ruled out at WP:REVDEL. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion. Why? Just so that Trekphiler and Parsecboy can then claim they never happened? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter if you oppose or not, personal attacks are not within the scope of REVDEL. And seriously, I already pointed that out before you peddled your paranoid nonsense. Grow. Up. Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose deletion, as Parsecboy would be able to continue to defend Trekphiler and ed17's actions. Thank you Jojhnjoy though for the kindness. Reiterated support for indefinite block. Llammakey (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Llamma, I'm having hard time assuming good faith at this point. Are you ignoring everything I say, or are you selectively illiterate? Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Funny, I assumed bad faith on your part the moment you started supporting an abuser and the admin who backed his actions. Now you are insulting me as well with "childish" and "selectively illiterate" remarks. I did not come here to defend Andy, I came here to remove a bad editor. No wonder you support Trekphiler, since you seem to have the same problem. Maybe you should step down as admin, since you're now resorting to personal attacks. Llammakey (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. You either ignored my comments in this subthread or read them but did not parse them (i.e., selectively literate - you know, kind of like selective-deafness, like when my 2-year old pretends she didn't hear me tell her to clear up her toys). There isn't a third option. Well, I guess there is. You might have read my comments, internalized them, but decided to smear me anyways. Your choice. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

All I'm hearing from you, since you are now equating me with a two-year old, is continued justification for abuse and support for Trekphiler, since you have yet to unequivocally call for his removal from the project. You seem to call people names when people don't agree with your interpretation. Like I have said, consider stepping down as an admin, because I no longer see you fit for holding the position. The difference between Andy and Trekphiler's actions is that one is an abuser and the other is not. One just uses the system to his advantage, which I find nothing wrong with. Abusers, and those who victim blame, such as yourself and Ed, should be the ones removed. Your continued insistence on insulting people should allow those judging the outcome of the bans and your boomerang request for what it is, support for your "friend" Trekphiler.Llammakey (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's have a little wager. Explain how you A, read my comments about REVDEL, B, internalized them, and C, had a valid reason for pretending like I didn't make them, and I'll recuse myself. Hell, I'll hand in my bit. If you can't, I expect you to recuse yourself. I'll be waiting on bated breath.

For the record, before this whole dispute was brought to my talk page (after you brought your dispute with Trek to my talk page, incidentally), I have had zero interaction with Trek, as far as I can recall. He's not my "friend". Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You still refuse to call for the unequivocal removal of Trekphiler, now changing the goalposts to explanation of my interpretation of your REVDEL arguments. You continue to attack me, blaming me for all these problems you have with this entire page. I did come to you for support and help after being attack, which ended in Ed suggesting that I shut my mouth and take it. You then supported Ed's comments here, reiterating them and continuing to attack me, and on top of that, continue to act like Trekphiler has done nothing wrong because "Andy started it". This is the second time Trekphiler has entered into a revert fight on pages he thinks he owns in less than a month. You continue to support his actions, by undermining my complaints by calling me childish and illiterate and others, calling them paranoid. You no longer discuss Trekphiler's actions, only those of Andy's. If someone defends someone consistently and attacks the other parties in a discussion and continues to change the subject from Trekphiler's actions, then yes, I would call you his friend because if friend and ally is not an accurate term, then I do not know what is. No one has taken up your standard that Andy is at wrong. I asked you to recuse yourself for your personal attacks, and yet now you want me to stand before you to be judged. Not going to happen Parsecboy, I will not be victimized by you and your cohort of Trekphiler and Ed again. Llammakey (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This is about Trekphiler. Misunderstand each other somewhere else, please.
As far as I can tell, we got: For Trekphiler: 2 × indef block, 1 × support for sanctions and 1 × not against sanctions // For Andy Dingley: 2 × support for sanctions. I hope this is correct. (Objection?) --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin at Charlie Gard case

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

---

Well here we are

I have a long and negative history with SlimVirgin which I will not get into here. I have been tolerating a ton of abuse at the Charlie Gard case article. (The subject matter is a dispute between a hospital and the parents of a very sick baby.)

But I have had it. Tonight:

• SlimVirgin added a long quote, cited to the Daily Mail, highlighting probably the most awkward aspect of this whole affair for the hospital staff. This was the latest in a string of gossipy tabloid-driven advocacy' things she had done, taking something awkward and painful for everybody (including the parents) and amping it up.
• When I challenged that, she asked me twice if I have a COI here to do "reputation management". First here and even after I answered no , she repeated it.

For an admin to sink to the gutter of the COI-as-a-bludgeon thing, on an article like this, is just too much.

Since her first edits at the page, SlimVirgin has trying to create a frame and try to force things into it. She is quite good at the rhetorical arts. Her Talk page edits so far:

• Misrepresentation 1. 05:02, 29 July 2017 diff I've restored the infobox, minus the image (which is now in another section), and minus the cause and place of death. As the box has been in the article for some times, please gain consensus here to remove it.

As the talk page section there states, the infobox had been added a few hours earlier. 'She had restored it twice before finally coming to talk, and writing that.

• Misrepresentation 2: diff If you object to the box, please open an RfC. As things stand, more people seem to want it than not.

Completely invented "more people want it than not"

• Misrepresentation 3, and start of framing: diff Because the article is being stymied by repeated reverting (including as I was in the middle of making a change recently), it is missing a lot of information, and contains misunderstandings and a lot of poor writing. Wikipedians are actually quite good at fashioning decent articles out of current events if the usual process is allowed to take place.

She has repeated these claims several times, as you will see. I asked her not to personalize. I also later asked her to describe exactly where there were actual errors, which she never answered. But the framing stake is in the ground.

• Misrepresentation 4 and continuation of framing: diff No, not see above. This is about your reverting and repeated removal of information, which follows an attempt to have the article deleted. If it continues, I'm going to ask for admin assistance. Let other people work on it.

It is true that I had nominated the article for deletion when it looked like this. After the article was more or less rescued and it was clear that consensus was to keep it, I withdrew it, as you can see at its record. If you look at the statistics tool for this article, you will see that i have added a ton of content. The claim that I was seeking to gut it, was not true.

• Stepping out for a minute here. It is true that I have tried, very hard, perhaps too hard, to keep the article out of the controversy - to summarize the public furore rather than participate in it. The problem of WP becoming a proxy for current events controversies is actually subject of a proposal at NOT now, brought by someone else. It is here. But the "framing" SV is doing here is purely rhetorical wikipolitcking and really inappropriate Talk page behavior.

One thing I argued for, was keeping the article tightly focused on three sections: 1) what happened medically; 2) what happened in court; 3) a characterization, not a rehearsal, of the controversy. Especially while events were still unfolding. And keeping commentary and UNDUE emphasis on details out, until time had passed and we could see what was important, looking back at all this in time. And I will acknowledge that I was fairly aggressive in pursuing that vision for the article.

That will help you make sense of the following.

So somebody added some content about the parent's out-of-court comments about the attorney representing their son's guardian (who spoke for the child in court) I reverted that as it is out-of-court commentary that they took no action on, and opened a talk section in this diff to discuss. And SlimVirgin joined in:

• Misrepresentation 5 and further framing: diff Jytog, you've been asked to stop reverting. A revert is any undoing of another editor's work. I haven't been counting, but it wouldn't surprise me if you had violated 3RR more than once. As for the issue, one of the problems with the article is the forcing of issues into these separate sections, then when you dislike something removing it as inappropriate for that section. If the sections are hindering narrative development, they should be removed or changed

Two things about that.

• Pro-parent tabloid advocacy - This is the first place where SV started advocating explicitly to add gossipy, conspiracy-theory content supporting the parent's POV to the article (pro-life groups in the US went ape over one of the lawyers, who leads a right-to-assisted-death organization). The out-of-court comments were gossip in my view, not essential to the narrative of what actually happened.

The second is that this a continuation of the personalization and framing. At that point I had kind of had it with the framing, so I replied there and went to her talk page and asked her to stop personalizing at the article talk page, and not turn it into a battleground of our past disputes.

• Which she reverted and then wrote at the article talk page: diff Please don't post on my talk page. Wikipedians are surprisingly good at fashioning narratives out of current events, but your reverting has stymied the process and driven people away. The usual organic development is therefore not taking place. You tried to have the article deleted, then you removed important details and important parts of the chronology. Now we have these section headings blocking everything, and you're taking advantage by removing things that in your view don't fit inside them. I'm therefore asking you again to stop undoing other people's edits and to allow the article to develop

So the continuation of the framing and personal attacks, and now a new rhetorical layer gets added here, of "organic development". This is just rhetoric. WP articles aren't plants growing in a forest, they are a product of human effort and negotiation. I replied here.

• Misrepresentation 7 and the framing continues: diff The legal aid issue should be explained. It's not that they simply didn't apply. They weren't eligible, even though parents with similar finances are eligible in care cases where the state is seeking an order against them, which is effectively what happened here. The judge commented on it. It's explained here. I would normally create a section on this, but the serial reverting is such that spending time on this feels as though it would be time wasted, so I'm leaving this note instead.

So again with the personal attacks and framing.

But the startling things here were the claim that they were not eligible which is a half-truth (they were not automatically eligible, but they could have applied for an exception); and the rhetoric framing this as the state is seeking an order against them - like social workers were taking their kids out of their house. This is abjectly false, and this is exactly the misguided rhetoric that distorted much of the social media discussion about this case. This is really terrible.

• Misrepresentation 8: diff I agree with Popcornduff. The article needs a more chronological ordering. A lot is missing or is confusing because out of place. This was an important medical-ethics case for lots of reasons, and some of the aspects being removed or minimized were key parts.

Again there is this claim that there are a lot of incorrect things. No detail. I replied noting the ongoing framing and asking for a description of all the things that are so wrong, and why this is actually important (outside all the passion). She did not answer. No answer. This is also part of how she operates.

So later, a new editor came and added COPYVIO/close paraphrased article, which I requested revdel for and which was revdelled. The editor who did that then posted it on the talk page (!) and I requested revdel for that as well. This was not done, with edit note "maybe too extreme", which I acknowledge.

Instead of dealing with that as one expects an admin to, SV turned this into more drama and personal attacks and scared the bejesus out of the editor, which was completely unnecessary and I will not rehearse.

Anyway, with respect to the article, besides adding the stuff about hospital email sourced to the Daily Mail. and the stuff about legal aid, and the supporting the tabloid-y discussion about the lawyer, SlimVirgin also added a link as a "source" to the parent's fund-raising webste, and after I removed that, she went to talk and wrote Jytdog, you must stop removing text and sources! I added the GoFundMe page for the date and the amount, and because readers might be interested. If you object, say so here, but don't keep removing things.. This was just blatant advocacy editing, and trying to distract from that by attacking me, fully with her rhetorical frame in place.

People have different perspectives on what happened, and how articles should be shaped, but SV has been relentless with personal attacks and fuzzy-but-negative criticism of the article, and using those tactics to avoid discussing the POV in her own edits. Which is just.. terrible. But this is how she operates sometimes.

I have been tolerating this, but with the accusations of COI tonight I have had it. I don't know what to request. But I have had it with this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to let the length of the above speak for itself. Pinging Coretheapple. I'd appreciate if it someone would remove my name from the heading. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Also pinging Whizz40. Whizz, Jytdog says I "scared the bejesus" out of you when I said what you'd written wasn't a copyvio. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It was revdelled. and I am utterly unsurprised that you called Coretheapple who has worked with tandem with at WT:COI to shut me down, and then showed up at the article shortly after you did, introducing themselves with a transparently awkward first comment actually trying to justify why they were there. Their second comment was directly supporting your "organic growth" metaphor (a way to avoid actual discussion/negotiation). And it went on from there and included more of the same and calling an effort to discussion structure and scope a waste of time. What they were doing was very clear from their first edit. So yeah, completely unsurprising ping there. As well as going for the places where i went light on diffs, as the diffs of your actual behavior' were careful and extensive. You are a master at the game, SV.

I apologize to the community for this, but I have really had it. Jytdog (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Beam me up. Does Jytdog spend the first couple of paragraphs above making an accusation against someone else of "COI-as-a-bludgeon"! People familiar with Jytdog's great but extremely over-enthusiastic work in that area may like to find diffs—I'll just add this minor example although people would need to spend a few minutes studying the situation to notice what my comment there meant. The main defect in how Jytdog is behaving at Charlie Gard is the insistence that every minor content disagreement be fixed right now, and fixed in a way that Jytdog regards as acceptable. That is a great strategy in a settled article, particularly one involving pseudoscience. However, the article in question concerns a recent and highly emotional topic where forcing every word to be fully acceptable is inappropiate. By all means remove BLP or Copyvio problems, but stuff thought to be undue can be allowed to mature for a while—that's standard procedure. I checked a couple of other links in the OP but the issues appear very minor and boil down to a strong difference of opinion between two editors (see "I have a long and negative history with SlimVirgin" above). The article was created on 30 June 2017 and has had 857 edits. Of those, 232 are by Jytdog and 76 are by SlimVirgin. Can anyone find a link in the above showing a sanctionable problem? My sole contribution to the topic was a single post on the talk page, starting, "@Jytdog: Stop posting pretentious do-it-my-way pronouncements here and on user talk pages." My reading is that Jytdog should work on another topic where there is less emotional involvement. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective Johnuniq. It may end up there. But the diffs I have shown make it clear that from her first talk discussions her focus has been unrelentingly on attacking me and has consistently avoided simply talking through things. Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

However User:Johnuniq I reject your initial claim that I use COI as a bludgeon in content disputes. I try to be rigorous about not doing that; bludgeoning claims of COI against me in the midst of content disputes were exactly what got me interested in how the community actually dealt with these issues. I generally deal with one or the other (COI or content), not both at the same time. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Removed username from heading per SV request. In recent discussion at WT:AN, the prevailing view was that usernames in ANI headings are generally a net negative. That being the case, I personally don't see why a user couldn't remove it themselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Honestly? I gotta say, this looks like a classic case of bringing a content dispute to ANI. I get that Jytdog has a firm vision of how the article should be. It seems, however, that other editors do not share that vision. The situation isn't much fun, I know, I've been there, but the solution isn't to go to ANI, it's to either accept that other editors get to have input too, or to just walk away. As far as the content - I have to say I lean towards SlimVirgin's view here - the case resonated around the world because of all the factors involved, not just the narrow aspects Jytdog is trying to keep the article to. I'm not really seeing that SV personalized things that much - how else is someone supposed to point out that another editor is (in their view) being too rigid in their editing? Both editors have something to add to the article, but that means that editors have to be a bit flexible. At this point in the article life-cycle, it needs to be allowed to grow, which will occasionally mean that it isn't perfectly balanced. Let it grow. By all means, work to make sure there isn't any copyvio or BLP violations, but let the article grow as editors add things. Once it's finished the expansion, then editing for balance/undue/etc can enter the picture. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Johnuniq and Ealdgyth. The problem is Jytdog editing against consensus, and exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior copiously. He greeted me to the article (I had seen it referenced on SV's talk page) with this cheerful missive. His approach to the article has no support from other editors. His approach has been to go to the mat over everything, using rules that he either misapplies, "NOTNEWS" being a favorite one, or ones that he made up himself ("no quotes. please"). I recommend a Boomerang. I could say a lot more but this exhausting and unnecessary drama has already consumed too much of my limited time. One other point:I had thought that things were sort of simmering down, and that finally the article was being built up in a positive way, but obviously not. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Johnuniq and Coretheapple. Jusdafax 15:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• I did not file this happily and I reckoned folks would find this too difficult to work through. I don't know how to show more clearly, that nearly every time SV has posted it has included an acid drip of framing personal attack and claims that the article was full of errors. And of course Core has dutifully shown up here as beckoned.

I've been subject to a lot of ugly of behavior but these two are taking the cake.

The myth of "organic growth" has been cited above. The article has grown. It looked like this on July 12 after I withdrew the AfD to this just before SV's first edits. It now looks like this. And much of that is OK and the main thing I have been after - avoiding the rehearsal of the controversy here in WP - has been kept out. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Look, this is a content dispute, and you have no support in your quest, first to eliminate this article entirely (which I didn't even know about and did not participate in) and subsequently your emphatic efforts to make this article as small and narrowly focused as possible. There has indeed been impugning of motives - by you, some of it right on this page. Coretheapple (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a flat out lie. As I have noted others have supported removing the press furore. I can see that you have stepped up and re-added all the trash from social media. "Because there is a source for it!". Oy veh. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A tweet by the Pope is "trash"? Coretheapple (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not about content. The issue is SlimVirgin's behavior. You have a part in that with your GANG behavior, personal attacks, and refusal to even engage in a discussion about scope per NOT and UNDUE. Arguing "it is in a source" is not a discussion about weight and scope. But this is not about you either. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hold on. Please answer my question. You say that I "re-added all the trash from social media." What trash? Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Pinging you as I wanted to be doubly sure that you saw my question above. I'm very interested in knowing what "trash" I've added to this article. You've made a serious accusation. I think you need to do more than just drop a diff that doesn't show "trash" being added and then change the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes we differ on the encyclopedic value of tweets about current events.. I gave the diff. I tried discussing whether the the raft of quotes was encyclopedic. You found even the question to be baffling. The discussion is here and here for anybody who wants to review. Your only rationales were "it's in sources" and "ITS THE POPE". But this isn't about you. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. But not to worry, I won't ask again, so you don't have to evade again. Instead I'll provide an answer: there was no "trash," there were tweets by the Pope and Trump, an integral part of the controversy, sourced to the The Washington Post and The Telegraph. Whether they were "UNDUE" or "NOTNEWS" or whatever excuse you use to cut them out, they were not "trash." Your use of that term is typical of your behavior in this article and here. Coretheapple (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

As for "press furore," whatever that means, my comment stands. You've received zero support on advancing your objective to limit the article in size, eliminating necessary context, and preventing it from having details necessary to allow the reader to understand what happened. I don't share the view that you have a COI, but behaving as if your life depended on keeping the article brief and uninformative would naturally arouse suspicions along those lines. Coretheapple (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Coretheapple regarding Boomerang. I have not edited the article (too contentious), but it’s been on my watchlist for a long time and I’ve participated on the talk page and deletion discussion. Jytdog appears to be the disruptive force on the Charlie Gard page. Long history of aggressive reverting, and recently, he tagged the article talk page for wp:Copyvio (which was not revdeled [61]) when the issue on the talk page actually appeared to be a simple content dispute [62]. Too much WP:BATTLEGROUND on the page, but it honestly seems to be coming from Jytdog, not SarahSV.--DynaGirl (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not create the battleground and Dynagirl everyone of your comments at Talk has supported SlimVirgin's behavior and content notions. There aren't many so it is easy to show.

• diff and diff on one issue
• here following what you thought was SV's lead about inserting the drastically wrong description of the ethics and your subsequent dead wrong argument for it.
• your one independent comment and a follow on to that.

Yes, I and other editors have disagreed with you on various content issues on the article talk page. I'm confused why you brought what appears to be a content dispute to ANI, especially in light of WP:BOOMERANG and given your history of aggressive reverting.--DynaGirl (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• This is all too ugly and i am heart-sickened that an admin behaves this way. I consider myself driven off this article and am unwatching it. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• While I tend to agree the bulk of this is content disputes - but showing the classic signs of a group of editors starting to circle the wagons to promote a specific viewpoint, which might become behavioral - I do believe that SV was in the wrong to beg if Jytdog had any COI issues, even after Jytdog responded in the negative. We're supposed to assume good faith here, and while reminding editors that those with COIs should avoid editing directly such articles, if an editor has stated they are not engaged in COI, then unless one has evidence to prove otherwise, this should be assumed true. Otherwise, that's just casting aspirations on the editor and thus a personal attack. Actionable no, troutable yes, but this is not a good place to start if the telk page discussions break down further. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• You have that exactly wrong. The only person promoting a viewpoint there is Jytdog, accompanied by extremely disruptive and odd behaviour. Everyone else is trying to gather sources and piece together a first draft. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I showed you made framing misrepresentations from your first edit and masked your advocacy with these tactics, capping it with that COI crap. I have walked away from this article but not from this. Your behavior here has been outrageous and you continue even now with the framing. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Boomerang or at least a Trout to filer: This looks like we are entering yet another round of disruptive editing on the part of Jytdog, who is, once again, exhibiting his typical pattern of attributing nefarious motives to others, poisoning the well, and insisting that his version of any article is the one and only correct version, even though he himself is pushing a POV, albeit one to he seems unable to recognize as a POV. SV is one of Wikipedia's highly respected editors and generally is well-reasoned and respects NPOV. My review of the situation (admittedly brief, I've had my own drama here at ANI the last few days) is that she is trying to provide a broad context to assist the reader in understanding the context of the case and its worldwide news impact. That is completely relevant and establishes the notability of the event for readers in the future. I am quite troubled that Jytdog is using ANI to try and shut down what is a simple content dispute where he appears to be in the minority. I would remind Jytdog that "consensus" isn't "do it my way." Montanabw^(talk) 20:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog's response to comment above. Alex ShihTalk 21:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware of consensus and the article has actually developed. The issue is SlimVirgin's relentless string of personal attacks and wikipolitcking. And your own well-known tendency to engage in such activity is why your RFA failed, and !votes like this are why they will continue to fail. Raw politics. Ugly stuff. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC) I have to wonder if Jytdog really thinks this last comment is going to help their case? All I see is mudslinging against someone outside the dispute at the article ... does that really help the atmosphere? If this is the way Jytdog acts normally, it's not exactly a great way to persuade others that the problems at the article are due to other editors... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC) When I filed I knew that folks like Montanabw who do the politics thing, along with many others who do so, would come out to play. Am just articulating what is going on, as I have done from SV's first comments at the article talk page. This is one big political piece of dog poop. As I said, i apologize to the community for bringing it here, but I have had it. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Yup Ealdgyth, it's the way Jytdog normally acts. Welcome to my world; Jytdog is probably only editor I've ever dealt with in 11 years who actually was so mean-spirited in his attacks (as seen above) that I mostly gave up on editing a particular article. Threats and intimidation tactics are quite typical. He's been blocked three times in the past, usually because he gets like this and doesn't know when to settle down and drop the stick. It actually amazes me that he hasn't been blocked more often. Carrite's advice below is well-taken. Montanabw(talk) 00:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Well there is a fair amount of NPA violation on both sides in this thread. I don't need to tell you that WP:NPA leads off with "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If they do it, that doesn't mean you have to as well. While ANI is inherently about editor behavior, we can and should limit it to the immediate situation rather than casting general aspersions about your opponent. The latter makes it very personal and that doesn't facilitate a resolution to anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Eh, Jytdog's comments above actually here are pretty tame in regards to responding to Montanabw, SlimVirgin, etc re: politicking given the background. It was a problem back when some of my editing topics used to overlap with Jytdog that a number of battleground-prone editors they interacted with before tend to muddy the water, calls for boomerangs, etc. when one of them gets their behavior brought up. While Jytdog was not always the paragon of the wise behavior, the axiom of "wrestle a pig and you'll get dirty" usually rang pretty true where Jytdog would try to hold the line against battleground behavior only to eventually get a snowball of multiple such editors showing up at ANI, etc. when trying to deal with one of them. In the cases when Jytdog had behavior issues (that were usually mundane or easily fixable), those editors tend exacerbate the issue here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - JYT, please don't take this the wrong way because I am completely serious: it might be time to read a book or go for a long hike or go swimming or something. This whole matter seems like you are overwrought and need to rest so you can come back relaxed, refreshed, and ready. Being on the front line too long can cause battle shock, I recommend a couple days of R&R. Carrite (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's very kind of you Carrite. It's hard to communicate the effects of SV's acid drip and all these vile GANG politics that follow behind her and that she fosters. I cannot expect anybody to actually walk through the dog shit of it - to watch her ignore the talk page, then show up there and lie, then ignore questions that are asked of her, then demand answers to her questions. It is vile and she is a master of it. She doesn't always act this way. It is just a set of tactics she deploys in skillful way. I have tried to show it here, in this instance. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Accusing SV of lying looks to me like a personal attack. Roberttherambler (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

These are pretty serious personal attacks. What happened here is that Jytdog tried to have an article about a notable topic deleted. When that failed, he tried to take control of the page and began decimating it. When that failed too, he became disruptive. Why he did this, I don't know. Here are my edits to the article, and here to the talk page. Anyone is welcome to judge them. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That is the vile rhetorical frame you have used from very early on at the talk page. I have argued and very transparently for keeping the article "tight" (to use a term that you often use) while the fur was flying in the real world. Not "decimate". Your tactics are clear and they are ugly. I have asked you to stop doing this several times. Please stop. You did all this, instead of actually trying to talk through the differences. It is not what we do here, unbecoming of an admin, and just ugly. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Idea. Seeing past cases of people being sanctioned for such behavior, it might be time to consider a topic-ban for SlimVirgin in terms of COI or discussing the motivations of other editors. If this continues the be a problem, it might be worth proposing the next time this comes up (I'm just assuming this ANI will likely go nowhere at this point). Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to add on, I didn't expect these usernames when I saw this title. I haven't had time to dig much beyond the first few bullet points or even the content discussion (it looks like quite a bit of mired personalized battleground comments), but I'm seeing serious issues with SlimVirgin's behavior just off the top. Given SV's history with Jytdog (just knowing that they've interacted quite a bit, not the battleground history), the COI comments[63][64] are blatant WP:ASPERSIONS violations. The last iteration in that link was proposed at ArbCom by me because of inappropriate hounding using COI in disputes (content or personal) as a bludgeon. I proposed that in part because of interactions with primarily two editors, one of them being SlimVirgin. It's concerning that such behavior is still ongoing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any reason to sanction any of the editors, but full-protection of the page for a few days may be appropriate. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Unconstructive comment from IP. Alex ShihTalk 21:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Jtydog should get a full boomerang, that means cancelling his account, and he can start again with a new username, and no status. He has long attacked others, and claims they have a coi for having an interest or opinion in a subject. "Do unto others as you would have done to you" they say jtydog. In your case that means time that the adminstrators banned you permanently. Your days of chaos need to come to an end. And it's pathetic and sickening to watch you play the victim, as you did at the start date of this complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.121.88 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC) — 49.195.121.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• to clear about what I am complaining about here, it is framing. as in Death panels and Death tax. That is what the diffs I have presented show - that from her first comments on talk and all the way to what she has said on this board - I am not worth talking to because "I nominated the article for deletion and have tried to decimate it" (apparently because i have some "reputation management COI" going on here).

A recent high-profile instance of the same behavior - which dehumanizes the opponent, putting them in a box that can be kicked away, was:

• Dispute over philoSOPHIA article at AN which was followed by an ARCA case.

This was a dispute involving SlimVirgin over sourcing/style and expansion of an article about a feminist journal, where SV wanted to add content about the board and the mission, and others (men) said the sourcing was not OK. The men acted badly for sure. But SV put the frame on this (diff) it's gender-related in every sense: male editors arriving to tell female editors how they're allowed to write about women, in an article that references the exclusion of women from philosophy. The names they keep removing include women known for their work on gender and sexism... and argued for a lower standard of sourcing for feminist topics (diff).

This entire frame was rejected. One Arb noted the high level of rhetorical excess compared to the very anodyne underlying issue. and another wrote there's certainly no "if men and women are in a gender-related dispute, the women win" rule..

The purpose this of rhetorical framing (as it is with all such framing) was to win the content dispute, and get to list the board members and the mission, rather than actually engage in normal discussion.

Same thing that she did here. Different frame. It is a tactic she uses. It is rhetoric. It is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. And I am sick of being targeted with bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Unconstructive comments from IP. Alex ShihTalk 20:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop complaining. The best suggestion is to go and start your own wiki at jytdogswiki.com and never return to wikipedia. There you can make your own rules up and penalize, ban and insult editors without reproach. Good idea, hey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.121.88 (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC) — 49.195.121.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 49.195.121.88, you're either a regular editor hiding behind an IP, or a IP who doesn't know shit about this situation. I suggest you shut the fuck up before you're blocked for any number of reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC) JYTdog, your 'i am being persecuted because of framing' is just your own 'framing' of the probability that you just don't like women who have more power or privilege than you do. And when you can't put a woman in her place you silk and claim you've been oppressed. 121.216.192.249 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC) 121.216.192.249: I would repeat the suggestion that you shut the fuck up because you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. For one thing, Jytdog is a female. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC) User:Beyond My Ken thanks for dealing with trolling. Your exchange has gotten all into gendery/biological stuff... i am delighted that you have the impression i am female, but i am not. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Hmm, well, apparently in that particular instance I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about!! My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Is there a neutral admin in the house? The rhetoric here is escalating, but most of it is coming from Jytdog, who seems to have forgotten his previous blocks were linked to similar outbursts of incivlity, and now he is doubling down rather than settling down. (That said, attacking him back by suggesting he never return to WP is WP:BAITing and best avoided) Words like "vile", "ugly", "acid drip" or "bullshit" or simply are not helping the situation in the least. Carrite is right, it's time to cool it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh cut the drama (or raising rhetoric if you take your own advice). You don't exactly have clean hands in that regard by stirring the pot at this ANI either, and you've been cautioned about your troubles acknowledging your own battleground behavior in the past (and a lot of folks including myself have tried to help you fix that). Those terms like vile, etc. are all analogous for describing the toxic environment battleground behavior makes for articles/interactions and are still fairly civil for this forum in that context. Going after someone for pointing that out sounds reminiscent of gaslighting. Coming here to try to tamp down a battleground interaction only to be faced with hounding to this degree is obviously going to frustrate people to reasonable degree (and it doesn't look like Jytdog is being entirely unreasonable given what they're dealing with outside the realm of normal content dispute). Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll evaluate some of the diffs Jytdog presented about SlimVirgin and finally I'll make some general comments.

  Diff 1 and Diff 2 are mistakes by SlimVirgin. The infobox was only in the article a few hours, so they were not there for not "some time". Besides, if anyone wants to add an infobox, the WP:ONUS for consensus is on the person adding the content, not the person who wants to remove. Therefore, it would have been up to SlimVirgin to open an RfC.

  Diffs 3-8, in my opinion, are simply irritations. If I understand correctly, what SlimVirgin seems to be saying is that Jytdog's approach of trying to correct things in "real-time", so to speak, is not conducive to building an article over time; rather they should take a more hands-off approach. It is a plausible and reasonable argument; I have no idea if it is right or wrong.

  Overall, SlimVirgin's comments are a bit too much focused on the editor, rather than the content. Sometimes it is indeed useful to talk about conduct (even outside the drama pages), but sometimes it is too much. I generally agree with Masem's comment above: I don't see this as actionable. I suggest more use of WP:DR, with more RfCs, with WP:ONUS as the backbone (if it doesn't have consensus, it goes out; people can always try for consensus). I often find WP:3O to be useful. Another option is to open a "general" section on the talkpage where people can try to get some specific consensus about how they envision the article to look in the future, and then work towards that goal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The simply irritations comment reminds me of advice that might be good for Jytdog. Aside from the COI bludgeon against them (which is at a sanctionable level at this point), they've basically described a lot of WP:TE mostly focusing around sniping at editors. One of the hallmarks of TE is that it's often "low-level" behavior in that it doesn't seem like a huge deal in an isolated incident, but is a major problem when observed repeatedly over multiple occasions. The single incident usually just lands with a dud here at ANI, but documenting a history of the sniping tends to stick more. I'd encourage Jytdog to focus on documenting the sniping aspect of their interaction history for a more concise post in the future if this continues. That's easier to separate from content disputes than behaviors like advocacy, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I just need to express a few of my concerns. Let's start with SlimVirgin's username being removed from the title of this discussion. This is ANI, I've seen usernames about editors, IPs, and admins in the title of a discussion here. Even now, some of these ANI reports have usernames in the titles of a discussion. But no editor is willing to remove the names accociated with the discussion. Yet, for some reason, there was an exception for this case because of a request. My point is, no one should be getting special treatment at ANI nor hide from an ANI report about them. My other concern is SlimVirgin's first response. She didn't bother to argue with the report, instead, she pings editor Coretheapple. Then she decides to ping editor Whizz40 for what? To me, this is inappropriate WP:CANVASS. And who in the hell are these IPs? They ain't new editors asking for advice. I can understand Jytdogs's frustrations. His/Her behavior is obviously not appropriate, but neither is SlimVirgin's. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

No objection to being reversed on that removal, but it should be clear that it came after this short discussion at WT:AN. It should also be noted that there has always been a mix of usage in this area, as long as I've been around anyway, and I have never seen an objection to that on equal treatment grounds. The removal of one username, then, hardly presents a new issue. (For the record, I am 100% uninvolved in this dispute). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It has always generally been the case that the use of editor's names in section headings on talk pages was discouraged, because of the proscription to discuss edits and not editors, but that the use of editor's name on AN and AN/I was justified because these venues primarily dealt with editor behavior. Frankly, if a "short discussion" on WT:ANI dealt with changing that, I do not recognize it as a valid change: I am a inveterate editor of these pages, and I was not aware of it, so I assume that most of the other less frequent editors were not aware of it either. If someone wants to make a change like that, it needs to be made in a centralized discussion, not in a back alley where even prolific editors are not aware of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's the correct page to raise something like this. It's the talk page for this project page. If I had raised it here, or even at WP:AN, it would stand a very good chance of being nailed as "wrong venue". If you don't care to keep up with such discussions, that's certainly your choice. I respect established structure and put things where they are intended to be put. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There is some remarkable exaggeration going on here. Kingofaces43 says "Aside from the COI bludgeon against them (which is at a sanctionable level at this point)..." All SV did was to ask "Jytdog, do you have a COI here?" [65] Since when has a question been a bludgeon? Roberttherambler (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comment seems to be misplaced as of this reply if you were replying to my previous comment, but I'll leave it to you to move if so. Context matters though as it's pretty apparent the COI remark is out of left field. The two already have quite a history where SV would already know Jytdog doesn't edit on topics they have a COI on (especially since he has been a regular at WP:COIN, etc. Couple that with the "reputation management" comment in relation COI, and it's clear SV is lashing out without actual evidence of an even apparent COI and instead basing it on the content dispute. The first diff also makes it clear the attitude is tied to the content dispute as part of battleground behavior. Comments like that are what ArbCom has tried to rein in in the the past. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about Daily Mail. Alex ShihTalk 20:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to point out that the Daily Mail, regardless of its other issues, cannot be used for this article because the media agent and publicist employed by the Gard family - Alison Smith-Squire - is also by-lined on stories published by the newspaper, although they do not credit the conflict of interest. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC) This. I'm no fan of the consensus on the use of the DM, but nonetheless it's hard to argue that it isn't consensus, no matter how much you disagree with it, that the DM is not to be used as a source anywhere on enwiki. It's therefore rather concerning to see an experienced admin arguing that the DM's court reporting is to be preferred to mere "analysis" from the BBC (ie a proper, reliable, secondary source). GoldenRing (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC) I agree that's rather odd. Particularly in what is effectively a BLP. — fortunavelut luna 11:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Thoroughly disinterested in this case, but you are right that there is a strong consensus against using the Mail anywhere on the project. I would be happy to block anyone who persists in adding this as a source after the consensus has been pointed out to them, whatever their status. --John (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC) I find it odd that Wikipedia censors just one tabloid newspaper and not all tabloid newspapers. Roberttherambler (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC) It doesn't - the Sun, Mirror etc. (as well as some tabloids from other countries) are regarded in the same way - it's merely that there has been a recent discussion about the Mail where consensus found that it should also not be treated as a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC) @Roberttherambler: In any case, the place to raise such an objection was at the RfC, not here  :) — fortunavelut luna 12:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC) I've left a notice at the talk page that I hope makes this crystal clear. GoldenRing (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC) This particular point is, in my opinion, irrelevant here. Yes, the Daily Mail is "generally unreliable" according to the consensus, but it can be used in particular situations. In any case, the silly RfC can be worked around. See my comment on the talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC) I actually agree with Kingsindian here. The RfC didn't "ban" the use of DM, but it made it clear that the presumption is against its use, and any use requires discussion and justification. SV did post on talk 10 minutes after adding it and the use of it in the article was getting worked through on Talk; I have left the page so don't know where that is going on. What was problematic here, was: a) the actually adding of it to the article without prior discussion in light of the RfC; b) doing so in this general context which was already very charged: c) the use of it to expand content, the presence of which was already specifically contested; d) that what it said directly contradicted both the NYT as well as the judge's decision, both of which are generally very reliable. It was bad judgement and inflammatory behavior directly in line with everything else SV had been doing. to add further nuance, the emergence of this contradiction between what the tabloids recorded as being read out in court and what was in the judge's decision (which the NYT followed) shows the danger of going down into these details so close to events. Eventually some secondary source will emerge that deals with the contradiction but as of now people are grasping at fragments and needing to do outre things like actually weighing the reliability of the DM against the NYT in pursuit of providing blow-blow accounting of events in WP. This relates to the discussion I tried to have on Talk about scope, which SV ignored and tried to shut down with her "frame" that I was "decimating" the article and doing "reputation management". Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC) The closers of the RFC didn't just say it's "generally unreliable;" they went on to say that "its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited." You could perhaps read a narrow exception for historical cases. In what way does that not amount to a "ban"? GoldenRing (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC) In my view a "ban" would be "must not use" and "absolutely prohibited" - we are always mindful of IAR and we almost never say such things. One of the few places where we do is OUTING - it is a "must not" and "absolutely prohibited" thing. With the DM RFC outcome there is always the possibility of getting prior consensus (which should be clear and deep) to make an exception to the general prohibition, and use DM. That would be exceptional and rare. It is a bit semantical but the "ban" language bugs me. But this is a side show, really. SV's addition of DM to the article was way out of line, as I said above. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Anyone focusing on the Daily Mail issue has misunderstood what happened at the article. First, the RfC question asked for consensus for: "something just short of blacklisting, whereby its introduction to an article could be accepted only upon there being a demonstrable need to use it instead of other source". If the close really is being interpreted as "never in any circumstance, no matter how accurate the Mail is", then it should be overturned, because there was no consensus for that. But the point here is that I added it tentatively with an invisible note; posted on talk; and would not have minded at all if someone had reverted to the previous version, sourced to ITV News. But Jytdog did not do that. He reverted to an older, shorter and (to the doctor) more damaging version of the quote. That was the problem, and only one of many. The Daily Mail is a red herring that he has leapt on to cause drama. I'm strongly opposed to using tabloids as sources in any but the most unusual of cases. SarahSV (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC) I hate to be positioned as a defender of tabloids here, because I'm exactly the opposite, but GoldenRing's statement troubles me—that the Mail can never be used as a source. I predicted this would happen at the time of the RfC. Primefac, one of the closers, said: "It's not a 100% ban (which we did discuss as a possibility), because that would go against the overall consensus." I replied: "the problem is that it will be interpreted as written." (Discussion). Also, the close didn't distinguish between using the Mail as a primary or secondary source. That distinction matters. The proposed use of it here was as a primary source of court reporting for one sentence, because its reporting (and that of the Sun) appears to be more precise than that of other sources (stress: appears to be). See my post here for why this matters in this case. Anyway, the point is that the RfC close was not meant to ban the use of the Mail in all circumstances. If the close is going to be interpreted that way, it needs to be fixed. SarahSV (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Break

Sorry, Alex, I didn't realize you'd collapsed the Mail discussion. If you want to hat this too, that's fine with me. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

A break is nice too. Alex Shih^Talk 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• What that article is mainly showing me is how bad our coverage of best interests is. I think we need an article on Best interest decisions in the United Kingdom. (Best interests also needs revision. It seems to think best interests are always about children, which is just horribly wrong. Best interests concern anyone who lacks capacity to make decisions for themselves, see for example the Mental Capacity Act 2005). I would suggest that we put a very complete discussion of the legal technicalities and medical ethics into Best interest decisions in the United Kingdom and reference that in Charlie Gard case. This would explain why GOSH were so unassailably correct, in law and ethics, to do as they did, difficult of course though it was for the poor parents.

I'm surprised to find that our article is so critical of GOSH and so uncritical of Dr Hirano, and I think that's unfortunate. The Daily Mail business is a red herring ---- irrespective of whether it's the Daily Mail, I simply do not think it's good judgment to give quite such prominence to an email between consultants that was meant to be private.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• OK, so I have been driven off the article and feel violated in a way that doesn't wash off easily but that is my problem for now. Fans-of-SV/my-haters have made the kind of noise one expects. Uninvolved people who looked at the diffs have said "yeah kinda nasty, but go take a bath or something". I've documented the behavior at this article and connected it to what SV did at the philoSOPHIA matter. I have no desire to waste more time on archeology showing more past instances. This will be here, to be referred to if this behavior continues. This thread has degenerated into discussion of content and has no further purpose at this board. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's not as simple as that. I haven't done what you accused me of doing, and now you say quite explicitly "This will be here, to be referred to if this behavior continues." What behaviour? You've accused me in this thread of lying, of misrepresentation, of "pro-parent tabloid advocacy", of some kind of "framing". None of these things is true. What you are doing here is waging a PR campaign against me. But these are very serious personal attacks and they are false. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I will leave it to admins to judge especially now that you have doubled down and claim innocence of what is very clearly a skillful deployment of rhetoric. I say that you a) shoved me in a frame as seeking to "decimate the article after I tried to have it deleted"; b) did not discuss differences about scope with me in good faith but instead dismissed what I said under your frame; c) capped it with accusing me of "reputation management". One long stream of bad-faith acid. That is what you did - it is as calculated as "death panel". It is the same game you tried to play at the PhiloSOPHia article. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• As already noted, an awful lot of this discussion is really a content dispute, and does not belong here. In looking for the relevant conduct issues, it seems to me that Jytdog's complaint boils down to [66] and [67]. I am painfully reminded of [68] and [69]. All the rest of this wall of text seems to me to be noise. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The framing really started here, with her rhetorical deployment of the natural fallacy and framing me as some kind of awful... "thing": writing Please don't post on my talk page. Wikipedians are surprisingly good at fashioning narratives out of current events, but your reverting has stymied the process and driven people away. The usual organic development is therefore not taking place. You tried to have the article deleted, then you removed important details and important parts of the chronology. Now we have these section headings blocking everything, and you're taking advantage by removing things that in your view don't fit inside them. I'm therefore asking you again to stop undoing other people's edits and to allow the article to develop.

There is nothing "organic" about articles. People write them and people negotiate when they have differences. SlimVirgin's version of "negotiation" was to brutally shove me in a box and kick me away. No - and I mean no - good faith discussion about scope and level of detail. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Could we just stop all further comments now? If there is any reason to block, ban, boomerang, trout, or just reprimand somebody involved here, surely it's been said already. If an admin can't find reason to do any of the above, I'll just ask them to close it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is unlikely to be anything for an administrator to do, so that's a good idea. I would just add that it would also be a good idea for each of the involved parties to think over what has been said to/about them here. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think I might disagree. I'm thinking that bringing a content dispute here to try and "win" feels a bit disruptive. That's just my opinion, of course.-- Begoon 12:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Begoon and I think sanctions are warranted for his behavior here. He has even devoted a vocabulary of his own to besmirch and attack ("framing") and his block record should be taken into consideration. I don't see any comprehension his own conduct, how one doesn't come here with content disputes, and when so doing one doesn't "unload" on whomever crosses his path. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to call this bringing in a content dispute. Outlining behavior problems sometimes requires knowing the context of the content dispute (WP:ADVOCACY comes to mind). This ANI just became too much information to digest for those of us not involved in the content dispute, which often makes discussion of behavior easily derailable. That's a recurring problem when addressing long-term disruptive editors who tend to do a lot of under the radar sniping or bury the behavior in the content dispute.

This isn't just a random "unloading" though. Slimvirgin has been reprimanded multiple times by ArbCom in the past for battlground behavior, hounding, etc. and even desysopped once as part of that it.[70] While those sanctions were awhile ago now, this is just another case of multiple editors since then being fed up with Slimvirgin creating a toxic atmosphere yet again. I haven't seen anything here that would qualify as an offense on Jytdog's part that rises above simply being frustrated with toxic behavior from SV or others. There's a balance between WP:LASTWORD and trying to keep an ANI on the rails with multiple editors with past disputes and battleground behavior commenting that Jytdog might have trouble with, but last I checked I'm pretty sure that's a human trait. Also, using synonyms to toxic isn't exactly something sanctionable when it's supported. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If you think it's relevant that SV was desysopped nine years ago for a period of time, perhaps you'd find relevancy in the fact that Jytdog was blocked three times within the past two years, twice indefinitely. More to the point, I am not seeing "multiple editors" bringing this complaint, but one, a weak case that concerns content and not behavior other than his own. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Since this is dragging out, fine. Here is a third example of this ugly tactic.

So looking at the Female genital mutilation, in October 2016 SV and User:Doc James (courtesy ping, not expecting comment) had a dispute about whether, in the lead, to use "diaspora" (SV's preference) or something more simple for people who might not speak English as a first language (Doc James). Doc James had made the change in this diff back in April 2016, SV had tweaked that, and that was pretty much it. No associated talk discussion.

In October, SV changed it back in this diff, which led to some edit warring (with some apparently accident major edit conflicts/reversions on both sides) and then talk page discussion.

Discussion is here.

In the course of working that out:

SV wrote: ...It was several hours of work, the kind of work that FAs need. You have undone the whole thing because you don't like one word. That is childish. (that is framing as you will see, plus the PA "childish")

DJ diff) Restored some of it You removed the ref I added to the first sentence and restored explaining the origin of uncontroversial data to the lead which was not their when pass as an FA. No need for personal attacks

SV (diff]: ...I hadn't finished the edit, so I don't know what to do now. The one thing this is teaching me is the importance of not editing anymore, and definitely the importance of not investing a lot of time in anything.

DJ: (diff) Yup I am left with the same feelings :-( Fixed the refs. Gah complicated. I am simple left with the feeling that our supposedly "best" articles fail the audience we are supposedly writing for. And that we are doing it on purpose. And yes you did revert all my edits. while we have now kept nearly all of yours

SV diff: ...When you first removed diaspora a few months ago, I tried to write around your change (which introduced a mistake). Yesterday, I decided that I don't want to do that anymore because it's time-consuming and it means the writing can't be as good as it needs to be. I would like to be allowed to go through the whole thing, tighten it and fix the flow. I can't do that if this is going to be the consequence...

DJ (diff): Will start a RfC on this point as we obviously disagree.... and launches RfC

(a friend of SV's shows up who scolds DJ and explains SV's idiosyncratic way of working on this article - preparing big updates offline and dropping them in, which was messed up in the edit conflicts - diff)

SV talking to the friend, confirms her way and the work that goes into it, then says: ...It isn't rational for me to do it if James will revert the work because he doesn't like one word—and where he will decide on the vocabulary based on his personal familiarity with it, and open unnecessary RfCs to hold things up.

There is the framing, PAs, and playing the local politics, and trying to thwart community processes to "win". Same stuff that went on at the Charlie Gard article. It is a pattern of behavior that is harmful.

This is classic SV tactics. btw the RfC ran and the issue got resolved that way. (I shoulda...) Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, the issue didn't get resolved via the Rfc. It was resolved because I rewrote the sentence, long before the RfC closed, and that was the end of it. Raising it here is scraping the barrel. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

There was an exchange between two editors, one not participating in this discussion as far as I can see. It got a little heated. She got scold-ish. This all happened ten months ago, and you were not involved, but apparently you've been watching SV and keeping a record of diffs. What's going on here? Do you understand how this makes you look, how it does not help you? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Figureofnine here - SV's not behaved perfectly at the talk page but ... at this point, Jytdog's behavior is starting to look much much worse than anything I'm seeing from SV. At the least, it's not making you look very good, Jytdog, and if you really do mean your disengagement from the Charlie Gard page, it'd look a whole lot better if you just stopped digging the whole deeper. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

SV's use of the framing technique in an effort to invalidate and dismiss the person with whom she disagrees, is very easy to see, if you have eyes to look. She did that to Doc James for pete's sake. I've given three crystal clear examples and there are plenty more. Its a tactic she uses. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming obsessive. You need to stop. You also need a period of time away from the project, since apparently you can't. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I was happy to let this be closed as I noted above, but the more that she as well as people like you deny the reality that she does this, the more evidence I will keep bringing. There is no lack of it. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If you do choose to pursue this course, I recommend that you describe what a "framing technique" is, and also that you delineate precisely how a "framing technique" does not belong on Wikipedia, how we don't do that, and how it brings dishonor on Wikipedia. Otherwise it seems as if you have created an offense and are pursuing a vendetta. I participated in the civility noticeboard when it was still in existence and I don't recall the topic ever arising. I then undertook a Wikipedia search and nothing came up except this discussion and Charlie Gard. I have a vague idea of what a framing technique is, but I have no idea how it is applied here, or if it was, how it would be even the slightest bit troublesome. It is almost as if you are bothered by the fact that this editor is articulate and knows how to present her case. I see also an editor obsessed with another editor and throwing mud until something sticks. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog I read the talk page discussion here. It is very long and sometimes got heated, but was eventually solved. I don't see anything particularly bad there. There were some "tactics" used which I didn't particularly like (for instance the comments about the RfC comes across as WP:OWN) but such things happen in every long discussion, in my experience. Overall, the discussion was focused on content.

In general, I suggest keeping the focus on the content, and not worry too much about tactics. People have their own way of working and arguing; what matters is what happens to the content. At some point, you can stop talking to the person because you are not going to agree with them; then just open an RfC and get outside input. Avoids much needless irritation and largely avoids "framing" problems if you keep the RfC header brief and neutral. As I said above, other methods of WP:DR are possible as well.

Finally, perhaps you are too close to the matter, and some perspective may be helpful. According to the pageviews tool, the views per day have declined almost ten-fold from their peak a week or so ago. Leaving aside egregious BLP issues, there is no need to hurry about how the article looks in the near term. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I still think that a close of this discussion would have been more beneficial to getting editors back to productive editing, than has been the subsequent discussion restarted by editors who cannot let go of the desire that there be a boomerang on the basis of bringing a content dispute to ANI. And frankly, Jytdog has been his own worst enemy throughout this complaint. As I said before, the conduct issues here boil down to [71] and [72], and then Jytdog getting overly upset and overly WP:LASTWORD in reaction. Guess what: this amounts to suboptimal behavior all around, but no matter how long editors continue to pick at one another here, there hasn't been anything that really requires administrator intervention. So everyone really ought to go back to the page with the recognition that there is no emergency here, as Kingsindian explained very well just above me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kingsindian. I said above three times that I have walked away from the article. ( bottom-most remark here, again here, and again here) Ongoing conflict there is not an issue, at least not with regard to me.

I have also said here that I am willing to let this thread go.

I am upset about how SV treated me here, and how she treats others when she uses this framing tactic. I don't know what to do about that. I am grateful that I rarely interact with her. We intersect at the the COI guideline (which is occasionally fruitful but more often not) but that is generally about it. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not the first editor to get upset about that, but just let it go. It's only a website. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've mostly tried to stay out of this, and not even look at it much, so I'm distressed to see this obsessive interest in me. Jytdog began commenting about me and to me in or around 2013 (very roughly; I haven't looked it up), when he was being accused of advocacy editing by several editors who wondered whether he had a COI. For reasons I didn't understand, Jytdog expected me to defend him—if I recall correctly because one of the allegations was made on my talk page—and when I didn't, or didn't do it forcefully enough (I forget which), he turned on me, and began berating me with comments like: "where is the SV who used to stand up for victims of harassment?," etc.

He began emailing me with similar comments and with unpleasant comments about other editors. I didn't respond to the emails, and they stopped. Since then, I have mostly stayed away from him, except sometimes to try to defend people he has taken to AN or AN/I, which is a fairly regular occurrence. Obviously now I wish I had done the same at Charlie Gard. But standing up to Jytdog should not lead to this. This is over the top by any standard, and it seems designed only to blacken me. I would very much appreciate it if it would stop. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Sarah, I thank you for this statement. It is a highly disturbing comment overall, but the part about the repeated emails from Jytdog troubles me greatly. Can you tell us any more about these emails, and which editors he was interested in? I include myself, and if I am one, please feel free to quote him. Jusdafax 04:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang for Jytdog

I am very concerned regarding Sarah's statement, including emails from Jytdog, etc. I agree that "standing up to Jytdog should not lead to this."

Given calls for a WP:BOOMERANG for filing party Jytdog from Coretheapple, DynaGirl, Montanabw and indirectly by myself in my brief endorsement of Core's comment, and various statements regarding Jytdog's filing from the subject SarahSV ("disruptive") - Carrite (Jytdog needs "a rest" and is "overwrought") - Roberttherambler (Jytdog's accusations of SarahSV lying are "a personal attack") - Begoon (Jytdog is "a bit disruptive") and Ealdgyth, Johnuniq and Figureofnine (Jytdog is "throwing mud") the question of a boomerang for Jytdog becomes relevant. Is Jytdog's filing here in fact disruptive? Are the filing and his subsequent statements here in this filing regarding editors sanctionable? Is his self-admitted ongoing "upset" and protracted inability to let go at the heart of the matter?

Jytdog and his longtime friends won't like this, of course. But I see sufficient editor concern to raise the issue in a separate section. I especially welcome comment from those who have no previous connection to the parties here. Jusdafax 02:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just reading this and seeing this for the first time and yes, it looks like a personal attack against SarahSV that is clearly unwarranted and way, way over the line...Modernist (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I was quite moved by Sarah's statement regarding emails from Jytdog. I wonder if others have similar stories? Jusdafax 02:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose boomerang - Jytdog's complaint is that SlimVirgin makes repeated accusations, in the form of questions, without basis, and despite repeated denials. It appears that there's agreement that while in this instance it's not actionable, it's not good practice. I'd suggest it's a low level breach of WP:CIVIL, and beneath the standard of an administrator. So while this report isn't actionable, and has become increasingly long-winded and messy, I don't see why Jytdog should be punished for filing it. Cjhard (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, and as I say at the start of this section it is not just the filing but Jytdog's subsequent statements, including: It's hard to communicate the effects of SV's acid drip and all these vile GANG politics that follow behind her and that she fosters. I cannot expect anybody to actually walk through the dog shit of it - to watch her ignore the talk page, then show up there and lie, then ignore questions that are asked of her, then demand answers to her questions. It is vile and she is a master of it." - this statement is, as I see it a clear personal attack, and it is not the only arguable example of Jytdog's sanctionable behavior in this thread. Jusdafax 03:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Jusdafax, please remember that mispresenting editors is a violation of WP:NPA. Describing toxic substantiated toxic behavior from another editor is not a personal attack, even if those defending such an editor will often call it such. You were explicitly warned at AE in GMO topics for unsubstantiated accusations as part of battleground/vendetta behavior,[73] which you did direct quite a bit towards Jytdog back when they edited GMO topics. That kind of pot stirring (as well as other many other editors here who've exhibited battleground behavior in relation to Jytdog in the past) does to go against the very nature of what you warned not to do.

The Jytdog "fan club" is in part a large reason why we needed ArbCom to intervene in GMOs and tamp down on battleground editors that tended follow him around to drama boards to the point we couldn't resolve legitimate behavior issues anymore. While removing both Jytdog and the editors who were found to be pursuing battleground behavior with him has quieted the topic down a lot, it looks like that all is just being proxied elsewhere with some of the same editors again. Others here generally seem to agree that SV's behavior was problematic, but that a snapshot example like this of uncivil behavior isn't easily actionable. It's concerning that some editors would try whip that into a boomerangable offense on Jytdog's part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't like Jytdog's behavior here, but don't feel it's actionable. Perhaps WP:RfM can resolve the content issues on Charlie Gard case? Power~enwiki (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any active content dispute at this time over there. There was a discussion over the Daily Mail, which was notable for the degree to which SV did not insist upon its use. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Without having determined what the severity of the issue is, or whether SlimVirgin is in some way at fault, Jytdog raises a valid concern, and therefore a BOOMERANG is not justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to support this, although I don't think the boomerang should probably amount to much more than an admin telling Jytdog not to waste everyone's time like this again to try to "win" a content dispute, so that there is a record, and further action can be taken if he does this kind of thing again. Just as an aside, the email stuff Sarah mentions above, though seemingly a while ago, sounds horrible. Jytdog should hopefully know better by now. -- Begoon 12:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This was a good faith lodgement, and as the amount of discussion indicates, not entirely without merit. So this would- unintentionally I'm sure- smack of the retributive. — fortunavelut luna 12:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The "amount of discussion" is an interesting metric. I'm not sure I'm in favour of "lots of opinions" automatically equalling "thing was/was not ill-advised/worthy of sanctions." I think Jytdog probably has said far too much here, but I don't deny him that right in a discussion he started. -- Begoon 12:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support SlimVirgin's comment above is deeply disturbing. She has been dragged here by Jytdog over absolutely nothing, a lot of diffs and green typeface pointing to a talk page in which he is one against many in most of the conversations. This is no doubt frustrating to Jytdog, but he is intent on "winning" and getting the last word. There are no personal attacks against Jytdog on the Charlie Gard page or here but much mud-slinging and innuendo by that editor. To fulfill what appears to be a longstanding vendetta against SlimVirgin going back some years, judging from how he has patiently gathered diffs of the Doc James discussion with SV, he descends on this page with a lot of invective and very little if any substance. Since he has nothing of substance to bring here, he has concocted an "offense" that he calls "framing" and which adds up to "she is winning the argument and I am in the minority and that feels bad." Enough. I favor a block commensurate with his serious block record. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose but I hope that Jytdog gets the idea that his behavior isn't good here. It does your argument no good to descend to the behavior he's displayed here after the initial complaint. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I confess to pessimism, here. He's never got that yet. -- Begoon 13:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I got slammed in a recent ANI event for saying I had frustrations with BRD because of the tendency of some editors to filibuster rather than engage in constructive discussion. This is exactly the kind of behavior I've encountered that's brought about that frustration. If there's no consequence to editors for making, either explicitly or implicitly, accusations of COI, POV pushing, not editing correctly, etc., there should no expectation of constructive article talk page discussion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you personally attack editors? Obsess over them? Manufacture "offenses" against them because you failed to get your way? Because that is what is happening here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand his concern with "framing". It's when the other editor in a conflict, frames, or describes the conflict in a way to make his/her opponent look like they are in the wrong. This is done by not including essential information, and crafting their language to make the conflict look much different than it is. Having just been the victim of an appalling example of that myself, I'm not in much of a mind to punish another victim of it, regardless of his less than stellar reaction to it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If so, then the victim of this "framimg" would be all the editors on Jytdog's side of the dispute. However, my reading of the talk page was that you could remove SV from the equation and it would not have made much difference, he would still not have gotten his way. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Figureofnine. 'he is intent on "winning" and getting the last word' really sums it up. Not that any of this will be a surprise to those who've encountered his style before. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest WP:TROUT at a minimum for editors violating WP:NPA misrepresenting Jytdog by claiming this attempt to deal with toxic behavior by SV was an attempt to "win" a content dispute. It's one thing to get lost in all the content associated with the behavior issues in question, but it's another for editors to lash out at an editor for reporting toxic behavior even though it was part of a content dispute. Cjhard above described where this is likely going to go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Much heat, little light, but these are two old WP hands that aren't gonna wilt from the acrimony. JYT needs to leave it the hell alone now, there will be no action forthcoming at this venue, clearly. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The !votes here seem to line up pretty well along the "have had confrontational run-ins with Jytdog before" lines. My advice is to shut this thread down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, and, given that Jytdog had already said that he was now convinced to drop this complaint and back off: [74], this is exactly what MjolnirPants said just above: editors with prior disagreements with Jytdog, many of their own creation and not his, refusing to let this discussion close. And let's be very clear: [75] and [76] are not OK, so, although Jytdog's complaint was certainly presented in an ineffective and even annoying way, it was not a frivolous complaint. (And if there really were any harassing emails, they can be forwarded to ArbCom.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - What strikes me about this ANI report and the conduct on the Charlie Gard page is whatever behavior Jytdog was engaging in, he seemed to flip it and attribute it to Sarah. For example, when Whizz40 tried to get feedback on the article talk page for help to reword close paraphrasing/copyvio, Jytdog reverted Whizz's edit to the talk page and he tagged the talk page for revdel, (which was not revdelled, the admin described this request as too extreme). Sarah posted on talk page telling Whizz it was not a problem to post the content on the talk page to get feedback and fix the wording so it would no longer be copyvio concern. Jytdog then declared Sarah was scaring Whizz40, when it seemed reasonable to assume it was Jytdog’s overzealous reverting and tagging of the talk page that might scare Whizz40. Seems Jytdog took what he was doing and accused Sarah of doing it. Above it seems Jytdog has engaged in personal attacks, throwing around terms like “vile”, “ugly” “trash”, “acid drip”, but he says Sarah is personally attacking him, which the diffs don’t show as far as I can see. He accuses Sarah of “framing” him, but she says above this ANI report seems to be some sort of negative PR campaign against her, which would seem to be an example of “framing”, if I understand Jytdog's use of that term correctly. At a minimum, I hope admins note Jytdog’s pattern here of accusing the other person of his own conduct, and look out for this sort of thing in the future. --DynaGirl (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Trypto identifying the usual suspects and the non-frivolous nature of the complaint. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Who do you mean by "the usual suspects" and what are they suspected of? Roberttherambler (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Horizonlove

Horizonlove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor posted a notice on their talk page here that "This user prefers that Magnolia677 stay off this page, as per WP:NOBAN". I asked Horizonlove here to remove it, but they won't. The editor responded with their reasons for posting their notice, and changed the notice here to "This user STRONGLY PREFERS that Magnolia677 stay off this talk page, as per WP:NOBAN." I don't feel any editor should be singled out like this. This editor was brought to ANI by User:Karst last February here. If someone could help me get the notice removed from Horizonlove's talk page I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"I don't feel any editor should be singled out like this.", but yet you keep following me on certain pages. I have asked you over and over to leave me alone. We can go through countless history archives that absolutely supports that and yet, you continue to bully and antagonize me. So I have put this notice up on my talk page to display that I do not want any interaction with you. When you came back to my talk page a few days ago, I decided to address you for the last time. And as WP:NOBAN states, "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request." Furthermore, I've had this notice on my page since June of this year. It's be almost two months since then. The only reason why Magnolia677 has a problem with it is because he followed me to this page and undid a reasonable edit that made whereas he later checked my talk page and probably edit history to see what else he could bully me with. Regardless of whether or not other users see him as bully me or not, it definitely comes across like that. So I put a notice that says I prefer not to have any interaction with him. Stop bothering me and I won't have to put a notification like that up. Also to note, I've been semi-retired for several weeks. I wouldn't have edited at all this month if Magnolia677 hadn't reversed my edit and then started new trouble with me. The only reason why I haven't fully retired is because I'm making sure I didn't leave any grammar or spelling errors on any pages I have edited. By the way, the previous discussion on here about me mention by Magnolia677 has absolutely nothing to do with this matter. Horizonlove (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the box on your page, I'm going to say that most editors would probably agree with Magnolia677's reversion of your edit. We generally don't include a parent category when the article is included in a subcategory of the parent category. Lepricavark (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That's fine if that's standard for Wikipedia. But I was using it as an example to this case that has been opened. The point of I was trying to make is that Magnolia677 had no way of knowing that I had edited on that specific page unless he followed me there (which he did). And I have asked him several times to stop following me. I have had re-ins with him in the past, so I know how his rude behavior towards me. So I chose to add a notice on my page that stated I prefer not have him on my talk page because of past history with him because I can't say I don't want him editing any page that I edit as that would be unfair and ridiculous. Again, the revision edit he did was one of many examples where he comes behind to undo a lot of my edits. Horizonlove (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Could it be that sometimes your edits are problematic and Magnolia677 is following you to clean up any mistakes or errors you might make? Lepricavark (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: If that's the case, it does not come off that way. Cleaning up someone's mistakes shouldn't come as bullying someone every time they make an edit on a page and then it gets undone. You simply give them a gentle nudge in the right direction. Not a complete revision as though what they added to a page is absolutely worthless. Horizonlove (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In the case of the article in question, Magnolia677 actually didn't wholesale revert your edit, but only removed some of the categories. At any rate, I think this issue can be resolved amicably and easily if both you and Magnolia can agree to the following suggestion: Magnolia will acknowledge and honor your request for him to stay off your talk page and you will remove the unpleasant–looking box. Does that sound reasonable? Lepricavark (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: It absolutely sounds reasonable and I would agree, but I am positive it will not happen. As I said earlier, I have asked Magnolia677 many times to leave me alone and he continues his behavior whether it is on my talk page, his talk page, or an edit that I've made. Also in regards to the edit you mentioned, it was a wholesale revert. I only added those categories to the page, which were undone by him. Horizonlove (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps his second revert was a wholesale revert, but that was his wholesale revert of your own wholesale revert. You originally made this edit, and he allowed many of those categories to remain. Lepricavark (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Each message and warning tag I have left on Horizonlove's talk page has followed WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE protocol. Horizonlove and I edit many of the same articles, so from time-to-time I have reverted or modified one of their edits, though typically I have removed unsourced content they have added. Horizonlove is clearly uncomfortable with that process, and after just 1144 edits, Horizonlove's talk page is filled with cautions from other editors. Horizonlove's response to advice from more experienced editors seems to be one of anger and accusations of stalking. Here they took User:Binksternet to ANI because "he has followed my contribution history". Here they told User:Jennica "Please stop following me!" Here they told User:Jax 0677 to leave their edits alone. I'm not sure why I have been publicly targeted from the list of editors who have cautioned or had less-than-positive encounters with Horizonlove, but I am uncomfortable with the message on Horizonlove's talk page and would ask that it be removed. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about my interactions with User:Jax 0677 or User:Jennica, so please stop trying to involve them. This is about you, since you are constantly rude to me. Every interaction with you has resulted in something negative with you and unlike the other users, at least they were resolved in their own time. However with you, you're constantly bullying me and then will make it seem like I'm the bad guy in the situation. You know from many of our past conversations, I don't want to have anything to do with you. I don't want to edit anything you have edited, I don't watch your edit history, and I try not to leave messages on talk page because I know where it leads. And like the notice banner on my talk page, you could have easily left me alone and kept on moving without starting this ridiculous discussion. As I've said, it's been there since June and because you keep following every now and then, I'm positive you saw it when it was added to my talk page. Anyway, my page is not filled with cautions from other editors. It was only filled with debate notifications and possible file deletions, which I removed my talk page because I was fully retired at that time and didn't care about that stuff. Furthermore, I have every right to remove what I don't want on my talk page if I want to, especially if it's important enough to me. In a nutshell, this whole discussion could have been avoided if Magnolia677 would leave me alone. I'm not saying he is hounding me, but he has appeared on a significant amount of pages that I edited first and then he came soon after. Also please note, that Magnolia677 is addressing everything but the main reason of how he ended up on the same pages as me. Horizonlove (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If you've had similar issues with other editors in the past, that's actually quite germane to this discussion. It would be great if you could provide evidence in the form of diffs of Magnolia's rudeness and bullying. Lepricavark (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I can provide that but still, no one wants to address how he lands on the same pages as me. Can he explain this? Because the only reason I can think of is that he would have to keep looking at my edit history. And if he didn't keep doing that, we wouldn't be here today. But anyway, there are several examples of his rudeness. On the Joi Cardwell page, I started editing and improving the article. I proceeded to add the awards she earned but they were undone by Magnolia677 whereas he said "Non-notable awards". But yet they were notable enough to be mentioned by several secondary sources including Billboard Magazine via Google Books. So how did he presume to say this? Then he wanted to edit war with me saying "This section is unsourced, and the awards are not notable." and then tell me "Do not edit war" as if he owned the page. But the information I provided was already sourced throughout the entire page. He just never bothered to read it, he just immediately started making revisions. Mind you, he had no history of being on that page prior to me being there. Another example is the Kym Mazelle page whereas he started doing more revisions which in turn lead to undoing some grammar fixes.[77], [78]. Most recently, he appeared here, right after I started editing the page and again he had no prior history of being there. Here's another example.Robert Owens page And although he did not edit on the Lady Marmalade page, he was watching me again as evident here. I have left a message on his talk page in the past, which remains unresolved to this day. One user have also felt hounded by Magnolia677[79], another user felt as though Magnolia677 "hate" them [80] because of their past interactions. While most users would say he was "removing unsourced content", no user has bothered to address how he landed on those pages in the first place. And mind you, sources were given in many of those cases. Yeah I may have had some re-ins with other users where he had disagreements (sometimes we just had to agree to disagree), but it is nothing like Magnolia677's behavior. Horizonlove (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I also forgot to add how he inappropriately thank me for retiring Wikipedia. I uploaded a screenshot image of it. I felt it was very rude of him to do that. That was the breaking point that lead to me not wanting to have anything to do with him. Horizonlove (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

So a user asked you to not post on their talk page, and your response was to post on their talk page? Why couldn't you ping them on YOUR talk page? --Tarage (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage, I know you are directing that question/comment to Magnolia677. But very very respectfully, I have to say the result would have been the same. I really do not want to have any interaction with Magnolia677. Personally, I feel like he has been very rude to me and every conversation with him leads to him trying to make look bad as he is trying to do here. As I've stated when I addressed him, I don't mind talking other users who may have a problem with any edit errors I may have made, but I do not want to have anything to do with Magnolia677. Horizonlove (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Expressing that you prefer that another user stays off your talk page is allowed. Users can do whatever they want in their own user namespace as long as they don't insult other users or post other severe disruptive things there. That doesn't mean that the decision to ban other users from your talk page is smart, however, I recommend that you withdraw your request, Magnolia677 and stay off this user's talk page unless it is really necessary that you post a note or message there. If there are other problems with this user, discuss them instead; criticizing that they indirectly asked you to stay off their talk page won't help.

Proposal: Voluntary two-way interaction ban. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Jojhnjoy This user hasn't "indirectly" asked me anything. Horizonlove posted a huge banner on their talk page that says "This user STRONGLY PREFERS that Magnolia677 stay off this talk page, as per WP:NOBAN", because I kept adding warnings there every time Horizonlove added unsourced content. Horizonlove's talk page message is offensive and specifically targets another user, and I'd like it removed. Your proposal misses the point. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you need a ban to understand what it means to stay off another user's talk page? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A ban wouldn't appropriate for me because I haven't done anything wrong and have already retired from Wikipedia. The only reason why I am editing now is just to respond to this discussion. Furthermore, Magnolia677 still hasn't addressed how he conveniently tends to land on the pages that I edit, which leads me to "prefer" that he stay off my talk page. While some of my edit were unsourced (because the edits were very common knowledge) and may have been smart to source, he wouldn't know to undo my edits in the first place if it didn't follow me to certain pages. Again, how did he conveniently get there if not constantly watching what I'm doing. Also, no one has noted his blatant rudeness when he thanked me for retiring on Wikipedia. A ban would be more appropriate for him because he continues to do whatever he wants without showing any regard for other people's contributions or feelings. Horizonlove (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

One more thing has come to my attention. Very respectfully, I don't know if it would be appropriate for User:Jojhnjoy to make proposals considering his recent actions with other users and a previous case opened on him on this very noticeboard. I'm just concerned about that. Horizonlove (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

As long as such behaviour is only limited to one user, an interaction ban is the best option, however, if such behaviour becomes a habit affecting multiple users, an indefinite block would be appropriate. Due to the heavy impact of an indefinite block and the lack of evidence for hounding multiple users, I would propose an interaction ban as I mentioned above. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to be concerned. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jojhnjoy: I will agree to that because I do not want any kind of interaction with Magnolia677. If this is agreeable, I will remove the notice from my talk page as it would be automatically understood that he can not interact with me and would stop following me. Because again, he hasn't addressed how he conveniently appears on certain pages only after I have edited them; pages that he has never edited before. Horizonlove (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

So, do I get this right? You would agree to an interaction ban with this user and remove the message from your talk page since it then wouldn't be required anymore. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. But first, I want an explanation from Magnolia677 on why he conveniently appears on certain pages only after I have edited them; pages that he has never edited before. Because that's why I added the notice banner on my talk page in the first place. He said "I don't feel any editor should be singled out like this", but yet it was appear he did that with me. So I would like an explanation from him. Horizonlove (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why every time I come to ANI with an issue it becomes like Alice in Wonderland, but if there is an administrator who would be kind enough to help with this I would appreciate it. I could care less about leaving additional cautions on Horizonlove's talk page, I'd just like the offensive warning Horizonlove left there removed. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You seem to skip over a lot of questions and comments that are directed towards you as if you only see what you want to see. As the previous comments stated by another user, "Expressing that you prefer that another user stays off your talk page is allowed. Users can do whatever they want in their own user namespace as long as they don't insult other users or post other severe disruptive things there." Another user (User:Tarage) asked you "So a user asked you to not post on their talk page, and your response was to post on their talk page? Why couldn't you ping them on YOUR talk page?" and you have not answered them. And finally my question was, "How do you conveniently appear on certain pages that I've edited on; pages that you has never edited before, but show up behind me to revert my edits. Because that's why I added the notice banner on my talk page in the first place?". Also, you say that my notice banner is offensive; which it is not, but you have not apologized for your offensive action towards me. If you answer the questions, maybe we can forward with this discussion that you opened up. Horizonlove (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: Your talk page message centers me out in a negative way. This is not the purpose of a user talk page, and your refusal to remove the message is a form of "taunting or baiting", which is an uncivil behavior per WP:IUC. Please remove the offensive message directed at me from your talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Again, you haven't answered my question. If you did that, it would help move this discussion along. But as I suspected, the reason why you won't answer my question is because you would have to admit that you follow my edits, which would explain how you land on the same pages as me. And that would give cause to why I added the message on my talk page in the first place. If you hasn't become clear to you, then let me elaborate again. The reason why I posted that notice on my talk page is because of my past interactions with you. You seem to only appear after many of the pages that I've edited, which are pages you've never edited before; probably never heard of. Prime example: How did you know who Nathan Lee Graham is? The answer is that you didn't, you followed me there as you have with other pages. Much to my annoyance, I am tired of having to deal with you which [again] is why I added that notice of my banner which is not offensive. Offensive was this edit you did to me. Do you not see that as offensive? Horizonlove (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: I would agree with @Jojhnjoy: that an interaction ban would solve this as it will prevent User:Magnolia677 from following me any further and I may even come out of retirement if this is achieved. I wouldn't have to endure his rudeness anymore. But before I agree to this, I would like @Magnolia677: to answer the question that I have been asking him to answer. Horizonlove (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Magnolia677 is evading the questions. I would like to have an answer as well, I don't believe in coincidence. As I explained initially, there is nothing wrong with expressing that you would prefer that another user stays off your talk page. @Magnolia677:, since you desire the removal of a public expression of a preference, you need strong reasons for that but as far as I can tell, your "reasons" have a weak foundation and to be honest, the foundation is pure sand. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's note that @Magnolia677: still refuses to answer the questions that lead this discussion. Also note that when I tried to get him to respond this discussion that he opened up, he replied back using bold text and capitalized font, which can be viewed as inappropriate shouting. He still won't address how he ended up on several of the pages that I've edited, which are pages that he never edited before or heard of. The only reason I can think of is that he indeed followed me from page to page. If that is indeed the reason, another case should probably be opened up involving hounding whereas a block may be appropriate for him. He also continues to say the notice banner on my talk page is offensive; despite many editors saying that it wasn't, but once again will not justify his offensive edit. Anyway, I think if he doesn't respond very soon, we should just proceed with the interaction ban as proposed earlier by @Jojhnjoy: and close this out. Horizonlove (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Chickymomo28

I have a question pertaining to User:Chickymomo28: apart from a bit of early vandalism and a few isolated minor (and not always valid) copy edits to a random selection of topics, the substantive bulk of their edit history has otherwise entirely involved persistent attempts to recreate the same poorly sourced article about Canadian comedy musician Joe Bird. If it gets redirected they'll just revert it; if the redirect gets salted so that they can't do that anymore, they try again at some alternate title (e.g. a different disambiguator or a non-standard alternate capitalization of the title) to evade the page protection.

Prior discussion at Talk:Joe Bird (singer) has identified that their rationale for why the article should be allowed boils down to "he exists and I worked hard on it", but they seem unwilling to listen to any feedback about it — each new reiteration of the article is always a straight cut and paste of their sandbox page at User:Chickymomo28/sandbox, with no new edits to actually address what they've been told about needing to base it on reliable source coverage rather than YouTube videos and primary sources and circular references to other Wikipedia articles. And their other pattern is to simply try to erase anybody else's comments from talk pages, sometimes with an edit summary that consists of insults against the commenter. I don't know if this is a direct conflict of interest (i.e. the editor is Joe Bird) or just obsessive stanning, but they seem profoundly uninterested in actually collaborating in a constructive or productive manner or listening to anything short of "you can do whatever the hell you want". Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Stanning? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stanning — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a term for a fan whose behaviour is so obsessive that it verges on stalking: stalker + fan. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and slapped an A7 on the sandbox. Twitbookspacetube 03:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely to be Joe Bird considering the article states that he died in 2009. Maybe an edit filter to stop this sort of disruption. Blackmane (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't notice that. But they could conceivably still be someone who had a direct personal relationship with him, such as a son, daughter, brother, sister, friend or colleague. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban from Joe Bird-related articles. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• A topic ban for a user who has only had 3 edits in 4 months - 2 of which are in their own talk space - does seem kind of overkill - particularly when there's no signs of any warnings on their talk page. How about a boomerang for User:Bearcat who is well aware of the mandatory requirement of notifying the user on their talk page? No new edits? Doesn't look like it from the sizes of the various versions. I'm not sure why this is being dealt with in this manner, than simply going to AFD - which doesn't appear to have ever happened. There's no question that Bird is notable - the only question really is he notable other than as part of the Trolls. This looks more like an administrator misusing the tools in an edit war against a user in the administrator's field of editing. Nfitz (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, AFD is not required to weigh in before an article is allowed to be redirected to a related topic. Nobody has at any point even suggested that the articles should be deleted outright, merely redirected to Three Dead Trolls. Secondly, notability on Wikipedia is a factor of the degree to which the person can or cannot be shown as the subject of reliable sourcing, but the editor has never made any attempt to show any at all — their attempts have been based entirely on YouTube videos and primary sources and circular sourcing to other Wikipedia articles and entertainment listings in a local WordPress blog, and not one of their attempts at recreating the article has ever contained even one reliable or GNG-assisting source at all. Thirdly, all I did here was raise a question for other fellow admins to look at and weigh in on; I did not presuppose that any particular remedy was required beyond the attention of other administrators, and the long-term consequence was proposed by somebody else other than me. And fourthly, the matter has been discussed directly with the editor in question, it just happened on the talk page of one of the article creation attempts (which I did provide a link to above) — so to suggest that they were unaware of why there's a problem here at all is not accurate: they were made aware of why there's a problem, and just chose to ignore it. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no question there is an issue with this editor, but with the current main-space edit rate of about 4 a year, I don't think any sanctions are necessary, as they pose no danger to the topic. Nothing wrong with a re-direct. But if the re-direct is challenged, take it to AFD - don't lock the redirect so only admins can edit. That's desysop territory as far as I'm concerned, and a far bigger issue than anything this occasional user has ever done. This is nothing more than a content dispute, and using your tools to win the argument, rather than going through an AFD process (that I suspect you'd win), is utterly disgraceful. No, their sources aren't great, but it's pretty easy to find mainstream media to support much of the content - but as you point out, really it probably just supports the TDT article, and not the standalone article; though a merge is not unreasonable. Nfitz (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

There were sufficient warnings, they decided to delete all of them by blanking the talk page. Since they ignore warnings and really stick to this "Joe Bird", banning them from "Joe Bird" related articles is a good option. This is only one person, not an entire topic field. This user can show that they are capable of contributing since there are so many other things to work on here, even other musicans. This account appears like a single purpose account to me. If they continue working on "Joe Bird" with other accounts, an administrator should protect the article instead. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks more like a user, who have written a perfectly reasonable article, has red-taped to death, is losing interest, and is now up against an abusive administrator who should be desysopped. Nfitz (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User: Kk2010123

Long story. Possible ducking using 101.68.82.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (based on the talk message and article talk page.) and keep reverting to unsourced version of his on List of most expensive association football transfers, received well enough warning. What should we do, admin?

The source of Oscar and David Luiz clearly stated 60m pound and 50m pound respectively , but he insist his own version. Despite adding blank column of 51 to 100 top transfer was stopped, rest of the behavior still did not changed. Matthew_hk tc 07:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

More specific:

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd

on the same day and way many before 3 August

Matthew_hk tc 07:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

State sanctioned violence articles

I don't know whether this is a new school effort debacle with a professor on a mission, or some other misguided project, but we have a whole series of new POV articles on aspects of "state-sanctioned violence", all by different new editors:

• Child Marriages in Africa by User:Child Marriages in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Prostitution and State Sanctioned Violence by User:SheaDrue (previous effort Prostitution and state sanctioned violence deleted a few days ago)
• African American Girls and School Discipline by User:SPPSSV

Perhaps there are more, but it may be best to keep an eye for these and at the same time to do some outreach. I'll drop a note about this discussion, anyone more versed in educational projects, outreach, ... is welcome to approach these editors of course. Fram (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Yeah, just FYI, there was this SPI which concluded / presumed much the same thing- a couple of those articles (I think ) are now at AfD. — fortunavelut luna 14:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: who caught em — fortunavelut luna 14:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've sent the first two to AfD, they're fairly obvious POV forks. The third one has already been PRODded. Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Third article (African American Girls and School Discipline) PROD removed, sent to AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all. It would be good if we could find the responsible educator to nip this in the bud (or to steer it in a much better direction). Fram (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Left a note at WP:ENB. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Looking more and more like a school assignment that was set up wrong. See Black women and the United States prison system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Black Women and The Prison System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In this case, they put the initial article at their user page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

And another: Students Coping with CSU Tuition Costs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Criss.sanchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC) False positive: looks like that's from Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University, Stanislaus/English 1006 section 104 (Summer 2017) and not connected to the other sequence of articles. —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I moved that out of mainspace and back into userspace as it never should have been moved into article space the first place. I had to remove your PROD because it's only for use on articles, but you can MfD it if you think it has no future as an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Concerning where these articles originated, Prostitution and State Sanctioned Violence was heavily edited by the static IP User:130.85.58.229 which is registered to "University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC)", and Black women and the United States prison system was edited by User:130.85.58.236, another UMBC static IP. Further, another of the articles was edited by a mobile IP from Maryland, so I think that UMBC is probably the institution involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The whole Education Program is foreign territory for me, but a cursory look didn't reveal any course pages for UMBC -- but I might have missed them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Could this be Black Women: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (GWST 370/AFST 370)? If I understand [81] and [82] correctly, that course was a 4 week session 2 summer school course which meant it probably ended on 4th August. Alternatively maybe Sociology of Gender (GWST/SOCY 355) [83] which I think is a 6 week session 2 summer school course, meaning it's probably ending on August 18. Both courses had online components. Edit: Actually I got confused by an earlier page and didn't look correctly. The pages I linked directly confirm the dates for the courses. Unfortunately I can't find anything else to confirm or deny it's from one of these courses so short of one of the students or the instructor commenting, maybe the only option is to email the instructions to ask. Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm strongly leaning towards GWST/AFST 370. The one article which didn't definitely match from the title was Prostitution and State Sanctioned Violence but the article content strongly suggests a content match to the course. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh just noticed Sex Trafficking and State Sanctioned Violence but the content is very similar to the other article so still matches that course. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Who needs to be pinged from the education program to be made aware of this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. Thanks for doing all of this research. I've left messages on the userpages of the [likely] students and we will reach out to the instructor of the most likely class linked above (GWST 370) to try to get them some help. I'll update if we hear back (possibly at WP:ENB if this section is archived by then). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: class confirmed to be the first one Nil Einne linked above. Samantha (Wiki Ed) is getting in touch with the prof. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to give credit where it's due, it was Nil Einne who sussed out the likely classes, I just uncovered the likely institution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. Fixed now. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Request removal of uncivil comments made by Wee Curry Monster

I have opened this thread to request an administrator to compel user Wee Curry Monster to remove an uncivil comment accusing and defaming users and editors of Spanish Wikipedia of violating NPOV and false statements.

What I ask for is that the user deletes their comments and make an apology to the offended users.

• Talk:Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)#English and Spanish Titles Don't Match - where the uncivil comments were made.
• User talk:Zerabat#Silly threats - a message the user left me after my request in article's talk page.

Thank you. --Zerabat (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I don't see anything uncivil, unless his claims are inaccurate. This looks, at this stage, like a content question, not misconduct. Anmccaff (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• It has long been known that the Spanish Wikipedia version of anything to do with the Falklands/Malvinas suffer from serious POV issues. I don't know whether WCM's claims of Photoshopped documents are accurate, but it wouldn't surprise me. Regardless, this is an issue at es.wiki, not here, and so I don't see that this is a matter for WP:ANI, at least at this Wiki. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec) This isn't an issue for ANI. These comments are not uncivil, and there isn't anything that really needs the attention of the admins here. This is more of an issue with es.wiki, not the English one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What you say, Black Kite, isn't true. Regarding Falkland Islands' articles, recently (the last year) there were a lot of work from wikipedians there to complete with a lot of sources, independent, british and argentinian, the articles related to the islands and its people. Therefore, "It has long been known that the Spanish Wikipedia version of anything to do with the Falklands/Malvinas suffer from serious POV issues." its blatantly false. What could be an POV issue is that in English Wikipedia all the articles about Falklands overdepelops British POV while the Argentinian POV is mostly ignored, and about independent sources, you can see where are them; but this is another issue not related to this thread. Accusing a whole wikipedia and its editors as non POV is not civil and should not occur. --Zerabat (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide a WP:DIFF, please, of where the user makes any comment about the editors of the Spanish Wikipedia? The two links above only seem to show him commenting about Spanish Wikipedia and about its coverage of the topic -- not about editors. MPS1992 (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot see any misbehaviour by Wee Curry Monster. Accusing someone else of insulting users of the Spanish Wikipedia in such a weird way seriously doesn't make any sense. It just seems like an attempt to censor the Wikipedia. I don't want to accuse you of censorship, but this has a strange taste. Therefore, I recommend that you withdraw your request. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, please ping me and I'll happily show you photoshopped documents and misleading POV comments on es.wikipedia. I invite Zerabat to do the same for en.wikipedia. This is of course no relevance to ANI, it's a content discussion and you know where the talk page is. I am concerned that this very much appears to be an attempt to censor my comments, I would suggest he withdraws the accusation. WCM_email 23:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Lemaroto

Lemaroto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been flying under the radar with a long history of disruptive editing. The user has a practice of blanking their userpage, which I think has allowed them to avoid scrutiny on a number of occasions. Looking at Lemaroto's user talk page history, I see:

• many copyright violation and non-free image warnings ([84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], and many, many more)
• Numerous notices and warnings about disruptive editing such as page blanking ([91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108])
• A long history of edit warring that has resulted in a block ([109], [110], [111], [112], [113] )
• Notices about adding unsourced material ([114], [115], [116], [117])

The above list is by no means exhaustive. In addition, Lemaroto has been discussed at AN/I previously regarding disruptive editing ([118]), though it appears that there was no action taken at that point. He or she has also been blocked twice for disruptive editing and edit warring. Somehow, in almost 10,000 edits over four years Lemaroto has only edited a user talk page three times other than to blank a received message with no response.

Though Lemaroto has made some positive contributions through editing (nearly 10,000 edits altogether), this long-term disruption is unacceptable. Lemaroto's behavior shows no sign of improving and the editor has shown absolutely no interest in communicating. I am posting here to seek consensus for long-term editing sanctions for User:Lemaroto, who I am notifying about this posting immediately. Malinaccier (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this user does not know English very well: Take a look at their contributions, seriously, there is almost no text, just minor fixes here and there. This could explain why this user does neither reply nor react to what other users tell them and deletes their talk page over and over again. This edit is interesting. But it does not matter whether this user speaks English well or not. As Malinaccier has shown, this user does not react at all. Communication is not possible. Telling them to stop has no effect. The only way to stop this user is banning them.

Proposal: Indefinite topic ban from all movie, film, actor and theatre related articles. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Given the copytright violations, I favor a full-site ban. As for the language theory, they do have about 250 edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia, though these are mostly minor as well. Not that this changes the disruptive behavior. Malinaccier (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I, too, have come across this editor's annoying and disruptive edits. Comments and warnings on their talk page are, as noted, simply deleted without any indication that they've been absorbed. I agree with Malinaccier that a full-site ban is warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this stuff, too. I don't really enjoy editing these topics, but I've been doing a lot of work in production companies, children's animated films, TV cartoons, and a few other related topics that draw a lot of disruption. Lemaroto isn't even the worst of the editors who edit these topics, so I wasn't really planning on doing anything about this. But since we're here, I think it would be a good idea if someone got Lemaroto to start adding citations. If that's not possible, a block would seem to be in order. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Indef. block I've seen editors with fewer copyright violations get an indef block. There shouldn't really be any exceptions for this case, especially from a editor who ignores warnings. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I just gave Lemaroto a final warning for adding sourced content. I'm sure it will be blanked and ignored, just as this discussion is being ignored. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This user keeps ignoring warnings, still refuses communication entirely and continues with the problematic behaviour. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, in the few edits since this posting, Lemaroto has not done anything disruptive and even provided a reference with an edit summary attached to an edit. I think we got his or her attention for now. My sense is that there is community support for an indefinite block if any disruptive behavior occurs in the future—if anybody catches wind of something, just let me know and I will perform the block as a not involved but informed administrator. Malinaccier (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

BLPVIO at Talk:Hillary Clinton

Range block needed. 172.58.217.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 172.58.232.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 172.58.184.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Warning issued at User talk:172.58.232.94 before last vio edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

172.56.37.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ―Mandruss ☎ 11:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Range appears too large for a block. I've redacted the revisions as I believe they meet criteria for it. I've blocked the current IP's and if worst come to worst the talkpage may need a brief stay under semi-protection. Amortias (T)(C) 11:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Amortias: Now at my talk page. 172.58.185.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) So much for the effectiveness of blocking IP addresses they are no longer using. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the same homophobic troll who has been attacking Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi (see the history) and then my talkpage too when I protected it. The range is far too wide and busy for a rangeblock - I would suggest to admins when they see vandalism coming from the 172.5x.x.x just to semi-protect the relevant page for a short time and then watchlist it for when our rather tiresome friend wants to be childish again. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Owney_Madden - Claiomh22

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

---

I fear that I have been drawn into an edit war with Claiomh22 regarding the Owney Madden article and would welcome the interjection of others Unibond (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI is not for content disputes. Besides, I don't see any attempt to try and resolve the issue from either you or Claiomh22. And both of you have exceeded the WP:3RR rule in the article. Unibond, I highly recommend you try and resolve the matter by starting a discussion in the articles talk page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

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

New user who appears to be a troll posted filthy message on the talk page of established user

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

---

A New user jananansksk posted a filthy message on the talk page of established user Check this for reverting their edits of vandalism. I initially welcomed them, didn't knew they were a troll, and noticed this filthy message by observing their contribution history Anoptimistix Let's Talk 06:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The editor has been indef blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Using admin power to protect stupid jokes against good-intended users

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

---

Admin keeps trying to re-add unfunny jokes to an article[119], threatens to ban anyone who removes them. Article is completely unfunny, huge double standard where other humor is usually reverted immediately, but this can somehow stay because it's a joke of the admin? Sure if some of you like this kind of 'humor', but isn't that where uncyclopedia is for? This is not just a small one-off joke, but a whole excruciatingly unfunny bullshit article. --85.148.123.77 (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This page is not for content disputes. Stop edit warring and use the article's talk page to discuss your removal. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more information. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, I'm an Admin. Somebody get me a broom. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal attack for fixing article

Today I found The Arbitrator (Vietnamese drama series) in Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. It contained so many errors that I haven't been able to list them all yet so I set to fixing the article.[120] For some reason, Bảo Ngậu reinstated every error while making only minor changes,[121] which placed the article in the error category again. I reverted and started providing a detailed explanation on the editor's talk page, only to discover that he had reverted to the errored version again,[122] and had left the highly offensive personal attack "your mother was raped" on my talk page.[123] I've reverted that and warned the editor but would appreciate a revdel and some words to the editor in question. I'm still trying to explain to this editor the numerous problems with his edits to The Arbitrator (Vietnamese drama series), which include but are not limited to addition of infobox fields that do not exist in {{infobox television}}, improper use of infobox fields, incorrectly formatting the infobox, improper use of flags in the infobox, violation of WP:REDNOT, MOS:BOLD etc, overuse of italics, improper headings etc (the list goes on and on). --AussieLegend (✉) 11:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Frankly I'd go further than words. I'd suggest that personal attack is bad enough to warrant an indef. If they make it clear they'll never say anything like that again then I guess maybe they could be let back in but I think they should stay out until we have some reassurance. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I revdeleted the edit and blocked Bảo Ngậu for a week. I also left a warning that any further harassment or personal attacks like that will result in an indefinite block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of canvassing

[124]

Softlavender (talk · contribs) seems to think that posting a notice to WP:FTN about a deletion discussion is "non-neutral canvassing". This same accusation was made previously in a successful attempt to derail the last discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination). I ask that an administrator evaluate whether this accusation is warranted or whether this claim can be removed from the page. Thanks.

jps (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This is neutral canvassing: [125]. This is non-neutral canvassing: [126]. You've done the latter regarding the same article three four times now. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note: This ANI thread was non-neutrally canvassed by the OP in the same thread: [127]. [128]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hard to see how this is canvasing, beyond the idea that asking people to have a look at any given forum means you are canvasing that forum (an implication the forum is biased it would seem to me).Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The basic idea is that a neutral notification means saying "Here's a discussion you might be interested in" (or words to that effect), while non-neutral notification lays out your position in the discussion, so that it might attract editors who agree with you, or biases the editors who go there by having seen your side before they even arrive. JPS has been here long enough that he should know that. WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification and WP:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification are very clear on the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not seeing him laying out any position in his latest notification.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

So, you think that this is neutral?

Notable enough for a WP:FRINGEBLP? WP:AUTHOR? WP:GNG? Do we yet know who in the vast WP:Walled Garden of A Course in Miracles community is notable and who isn't? How do we decide? (At least Wayne Dyer did a huge number of PBS specials).

Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

When did he say that, as this was his notification of the latest AFD [[129]]. Do not get me wrong, I think the user is a problem (and have said so many times, and said it would get worse over time, including over the related issue of the last AFD close on this subject). But I also do not see this as being as bad (or even an infringement) of what he did on the third AFD, or here his complaint about the close of that AFD (such as not dropping the stick).Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That is the second link in Softlavender's comment above, after "This is non-neutral canvassing." Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The second links is to a thread that started before this latest AFD (the 29th of June, over a month ago). How is that canvasing in the latest AFD?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The notice was IN SOLID CAPS AND BOLDFACE, in a thread which was nothing but non-neutral canvassing and personal attacks from the very beginning. Any notice on that thread already was and is by definition non-neutral canvassing (no matter how cleverly it was worded); the fact that it was IN SOLID CAPS AND BOLDFACE made it even moreso. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"I am not seeing him laying out any position in his latest notification." The "latest notification" was IN SOLID CAPS AND BOLDFACE, in a thread which was nothing but non-neutral canvassing and personal attacks from the very beginning. Any subsequent notice on that thread was and is by definition non-neutral canvassing. The well was already poisoned. If jps had stopped while he was ahead and accepted the "no-consensus" administrator's close of his AfD, instead of DRVing (and non-neutrally canvassing for that) and then non-neutrally canvassing for the new AfD started less than 10 hours after the DRV was closed as a near-unanimous endorse, and then non-neutrally canvassing yet again for this ANI, he wouldn't be in the position he is in now -- that is, open to being boomerang sanctioned for his egregiously and repeated non-neutral canvassing and failure to drop the stick. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Why then did it take you over a month to report it, and only after a new AFD? This smells of forum shopping and gaming the system. I agree (and said so) that he should have dropped the stick (and yes I am also going to say I think he forum shopped and has tried to game the system) but it does not alter the fact that his latest post was (as far as I can see) not canvasing (except to the degree I have said before about problems on the FTN).Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not open this ANI; please notice who did. I reported the first instance at the appropriate venue (jps's AfD) the day after it occurred, and I reported the subsequent occurrences the same way, as soon as they occurred. The "latest notification" was IN SOLID CAPS AND BOLDFACE, in a thread which was nothing but non-neutral canvassing and personal attacks from the very beginning. Any subsequent notice on that thread was and is by definition non-neutral canvassing. The well was already poisoned. Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, you did not even report it, just made a noise about it on the AFD page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not "make a noise about it". I posted a standard notice to the closing admin. Softlavender (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: As I already told you on the AfD (and now for some reason you are feigning ignorance even though you read and responded to my reply there): "It is clearly non-neutral canvassing. This is neutral canvassing: [130]. This is non-neutral canvassing: [131]. See WP:APPNOTE: Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief." Also read the rest of WP:APPNOTE, including the chart. Also, you yourself came here to ANI from the non-neutral canvassing his fourth instance of it for the same article) of this ANI thread that jps made on the same FTN thread. Jps's FTN thread is classic non-neutral canvassing, mixed in with assorted absurd false accusations about me, poisoning the well, and so on. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

No I am not feigning ignorance of what you told me, I do not agree with your interpretation. Frankly (as I have also said before) you both have issues over this topic, and frankly I think the pair of you are gaming the system. Him by posting a notification that boarder on (but does not cross over into) canvasing and you by trying to provoke him into getting a procedural close on the latest AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not provoke anyone; I made a very standard notice to the closing admin. You responded to it and I answered you and you read and acknowledged and responded to my reply to you, but then came here posting as if you knew nothing about WP:APPNOTE. Softlavender (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• This appears to be a frivolous complaint. It was canvassing. Lepricavark (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, care to explain how the message was canvassing? jps (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You're earlier comments in the thread in question made it very clear what your desired outcome was and thus your purported neutral notification took on a perhaps unintended sarcastic tone. Regardless, this report is frivolous. Do you really think Softlavender has done anything actionable? Lepricavark (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to remove the comment as it is a lie and, WP:Pinnochio is a good standard. But having an admin do it is preferable to edit warring, isn't it? jps (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• There doesn't look to be any improper canvassing in this instance. At FTN, questions at play related to fringe topics are normal for introducing what's going relevant to the noticeboard, and those all look like pretty standard intro questions. Sometimes fringe topics are called walled gardens too. Of course FRINGEBLP, etc. are going to be relevant metrics for that noticeboard to weigh in on. Had there been argument for a particular viewpoint on any of those things, that notice wouldn't be neutral anymore. I don't see anything remotely indicating that happened though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

DOC NOTE Just so we're clear. The message that Softlavender is claiming is "canvassing is the following:

“ THIS IS A TOTALLY NEUTRAL NOTICE ABOUT A 4TH AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (4th nomination). Please share this with anyone and everyone who may be able to shed light on the subject. Do not construe this message in any way as a canvassing. Much Love. ”

Followed by this notice which is also claimed to be "canvassing":

“ Now also appearing at WP:ANI#Accusations of canvassing. Isn't Wikipedia fun, y'all? ”

Are false accusations of OMFG CANVASSING!!!11!!111! the new WP:CRYBLP? jps (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• RANT - I don't care whether he's notable or not. I do want all of these authors to refrain from discussing "non-neutral canvassing" on the AfD page, regardless of whether canvassing does or does not occur. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Frankly this whole thing bores me but I don't think we can ignore the fact that this neutral notice appeared in the same thread for the previous AFD where canvassing allegations were raised, frankly IMO justifiably.

The silly thing is I have no idea why we even need this mess. In reality although non neutral since it was the FTN it probably wouldn't have actually influenced the !vote much. So why on earth not just leave a neutral notice in the first place? Jps has been here long enough that they should know of the need to leave a neutral notice in the first place, and placing the notification at FTN was justifiable.

And why start a new AFD so soon after the previous AfD when I as I said in the AfD, the outcome was obvious. (Yes I know it wasn't Jps who did so.) Why not just wait at least 2 months so we have hope of having a different outcome and then posting a neutral message (e.g. the example cited above) rather than just wasting time both here and in the AfD? Yes I can understand why people concerned about FT may be concerned about an article on a possibly non notable on the person who promotes nonsense but there's surely a lot of other things relating to FT that could be done which would actually have a hope of achieving something.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Aww jeez, are we still banging on about this? Jps, everyone except you said I closed AfD #3 properly (or at least within the bounds of admin discretion for those who would have preferred a "delete" outcome), you were warned that going to AfD #4 immediately (I appreciate you didn't start the latest AfD, but I think you would have if nobody else had got there first) would result in a bunch of procedural keeps, and I predicted somebody would be telling you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I just didn't realise that last one would be me as well. Meanwhile, Softlavender, stop rising to the bait. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• It is ironic that I was chided for making things personal when you haven't the decency to assume good faith and instead speculate as to what I would or would not have done. jps (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well you certainly haven't walked away from the issue and done something else have you? If I was going to assume bad faith, I would have ignored your views completely and closed AfD #3 as "keep". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you trying to make a run for the worst admin award or something? I work on what I think is best for the encyclopedia. Maybe I should work on having you leave? jps (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• In about a year, both sides of this issue are going to end up being used as textbook examples of when to trout. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Drop the stick" typically means, "accept you're incorrect". I am not really willing to do that in this instance, though I'm happy to listen to arguments as to why anything that I've said is wrong. jps (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What is so sad about this is that the WP:Walled Garden around A Course in Miracles is so very real, written from an "in-universe" pov, an almost impenetrable festering mass of crap that jps rightly brings to our attention. What a shame this thread is picking on jps, rather than having a damn good look at the issue. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I find that picking on me seems to be the thing that this place likes to do when a problem with actual content shows up. The content, it seems, is not as important as people who want to preserve some idol called "procedure". WTF is a "procedural keep" anyway? It's basically saying, "I think the party that is correct should go fuck themselves". And people wonder why I'm so cynical. Anyway, I do think it important that these issues be documented, for posterity, I guess. If anyone wants to go ahead and work on cleaning up the mess, be my guest. jps (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Roxy the dog is spot on - if you'd spent more time arguing about the merits of the article and less time slagging off people who disagree with you, there probably would have been a consensus to delete at the previous AfD; I certainly didn't find anything myself that could have rescued the article, so had to rely on the arguments presented. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You had the power to close the discussion appropriately, but cravenly decided to refuse to do so. The presentations about content were made perfectly plainly and there is nothing more to add. I argued the merits of the article in spades as did others and the majority was in favor of deletion. Think about what is best for the encyclopedia instead of what you think the proper "procedure" should be. jps (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Cravenly? Come now. I think the AFD has enough eyes on it that this should be de-escalated rather than ramping up the rhetoric. Everyone back away from the keyboard and make a cup of tea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

But as I said above, if there really is a problem, why on earth can't we deal with it properly? Why do people have to behave so poorly by posting a clearly non neutral notificating, and nomming again after such a contentious AFD which went through deletion review, ensuring that rather than us actually dealing with the issues, we're wasting time dealing with this shit. Don't blame the other side, because it was entirely within the power of either side alone to prevent this, but both sides utterly failed to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. In case it's still unclear, if there really is a walled garden A Course in Miracles related articles, then this is something we really need to sort out. It's possible the contentious article is one of those that needs to be dealt with, perhaps by deletion but that's not going to happen now. I'm assuming there are more though. If people would start dealing with these, including AFDing them properly, we would actually be working on the problem. Frankly we probably wouldn't need to be here, if the first (third) AFD was handled properly, e.g. by only leaving a neutral notification on the FTN or after it happened, not letting the discussion over canvassing take over the AFD. Either way, we can either start fixing the problem, or waste more time on these pointless discussions. The annoying thing is I personally hate pseudoscience with a passion, so it really irks me that those who feel the same and want to help keep it out of wikipedia are making such a mess of things when there are simple and obvious things they could do which would completely avoid such a mess and it should also be obvious that what they're doing is in no way needed. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been working on clearing out that mess. This is the inevitable part of such processes where the wall guardians complain about people trying to tear down the wall. We need to put to bed the ludicrous idea that it is not "neutral" to point out that this is a shitty, shitty article and the people who are arguing to keep it are doing so on the basis of some of the least reliable sources I've seen. If you want to nominate someone else to do this work to clean out problems, please go right ahead. But so far, I don't see many others helping. In some ways, I'm glad we're here because there does seem to be some more notice than the last time. [132]. jps (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletions of material by a Timothy Laurie by 2 new editors

Exposurenofuture (talk · contribs) and Down-by-law (talk · contribs) are new accounts editing for the first time in the last hour or so removing material sourced to Timothy Laurie, who seems to be this person. Can anyone figure out what's going on here? Doug Weller talk 12:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) A massive case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:SOAPBOX/WP:DUCK would be my guess. See also
• Keepingmeningenderstudieshonest (talk · contribs), who gives a reason "Quote removed because Laurie added the citation himself, and he is not a key authority on Butler." (neither of which I can verify). The name may be a program. Kleuske (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• And an even better explanation: "Quote removed because Laurie added the citation himself, and he is not a key authority on heteronormativity. He is also a heterosexual white man colonising queer and feminist spaces." Kleuske (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked both accounts indefinitely as WP:DUCK sockpuppets of each other. If there is another master, I'm unaware of it. The reason the blocks are both indefinite is due to the disruption-only nature of the accounts' contributions and the lack of any willingness to communicate with fellow editors regarding the changes. Mz7 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've also blocked Keepingmeningenderstudieshonest (talk · contribs) for the same reason. Thanks, Kleuske, for pointing that account out. As far as Timothy Laurie goes, at first glance he seems like a credible academic – I would take the statements from these accounts with a grain of salt. Mz7 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The edit summary used by one of the accounts here contains a gross BLP violation and needs to be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I checked again, and while an effort seems to have been made to deal with the issue, the offending edit summary is unfortunately still visible. Someone please expunge it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done – should be fixed now. Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Harassing IP

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

---

• 2605:a000:ffc0:d8:e91e:8e:830c:7d8e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Woodland Hills High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Jd22292 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Doc James (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

After I reverted this user's edits, they start harassing my Talk page not acknowledging that I refuse to answer them on something that doesn't require simple explanation: that they have been removing properly sourced information. The IP just won't leave me alone. They are clearly not here to cooperate with other editors and understand other editors' decisions, even if they were simple mistakes. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, just because particular content is "properly sourced" does not necessarily mean it is encylopedic. Only noteworthy and relevant content should be included in an encylopedia. Junk content, even if it has 100 reliable sources, is still junk content and therefore should be removed. The Woodland Hills High School article is loaded with information that should be removed, both sourced and unsourced. See Fortuna's comment below regarding WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E91E:8E:830C:7D8E (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I made four edits to Woodland Hills High School to improve it and jd22292 then came in, reverted all of them with no edit summaries, and posted warnings on my talk page, describing my editing as vandalism. I went to his talk page, asked him to explain himself since he obviously has no idea what vandalism is, then wrote to the most recent editor who had posted on his talk page (Doc James) to seek assistance with jd22292, who refused to explain himself and again called me a vandal in an edit summary on his talk page. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E91E:8E:830C:7D8E (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you don't understand what Doc James is trying to explain to you. What he's saying is that if you don't agree with an editors' decisions, then the best way to resolve the issue is to go to the Talk page of the article and suggest the removals without acknowledging my mistake. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I had not seen Doc James' reply. I just read it now and certainly don't need you explaining it as if I'm a child who can't understand basic English. Nevetheless, it does not address your complete lack of understanding of what vandalism is, nor your failure to include an edit summary for any of your reverts of my contributions. My edits had clear edit summaries, except for one which was self-explanatory. We can let other editors address it here. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E91E:8E:830C:7D8E (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, like I had explained to you, I made a mistake. Please respect that. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

What mistake? Calling me a vandal twice or reverting all of my edits with no edit summary on any of them? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E91E:8E:830C:7D8E (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay let me make this clearer. You should both take it to the talk page. There is nothing on the talk by either of you. Much of what was restored was unreffed [133]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I have self-reverted my edits. IP, please disregard my notices of vandalism, and feel free to remove them from your Talk page. My message about me removing your messages from my Talk page still stands, though, as I have answered your questions here. Problem solved. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Most of that article needs to be binned per WP:PROMO, WP:NOTDIRECTORY etc, as the epitome of WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. — fortunavelut luna 15:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Fortuna. Finally, someone who understands precisely what I was in the process of doing... cleaning up the junk content. But I'm so frustrated right now, I have no interest in continuing. Thanks also for pointing out the Schoolcruft essay. Perfect. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E91E:8E:830C:7D8E (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I was invited to comment here by Jd22292 on my talk page. It appears what happened here is that Jd22292 misidentified 2605:A000:FFC0:D8's good faith edits to Woodland Hills High School as vandalism. Misidentifying good-faith edits as vandalism is definitely frustrating for the user whose edits were misidentified, and on behalf of everyone involved, I would like to extend personal apologies to 2605:A000:FFC0:D8. However, I would also suggest to 2605:A000:FFC0:D8 that they try to disengage and move on from this issue. Jd22292 has acknowledged that he made a mistake here, and the edits he reverted he has now restored. Moving forward, I suggest he should be more careful when reverting removals of content – especially ones which either remove unsourced content or which contain explanations in the edit summary, as occurred in this instance. Beyond these reminders, I don't think any administrative action will be necessary at this point. Mz7 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Mz7. I appreciate it. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E91E:8E:830C:7D8E (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Mz7 said it perfectly. I'd like to also add that the IP should read WP:BLANKING and WP:DRC. Also, messages like this should be avoided. Also note that no one is required to answer your questions should they choose not to. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Uh uh; in a collegiate environment, I think we'd all appreciate and expect such an obligation. In any case, I think a few editors here need to read and remember WP:IPHUMAN. — fortunavelut luna 16:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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

User creating unreferenced BLP after block expiry

DrRemish has been been blocked twice in as many weeks for adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Barely a day after the end of the second block he/she created this unreferenced BLP. It seems that the message is not getting through.

Note: I moved the page to draft space before I realised there had been an AfD. It may perhaps be eligible as G4. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Procedural block extended to 1 week. Ideally should be longer based on edit summaries like this. Alex Shih^Talk 18:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

As a new administrator, I do not yet feel confident in calibrating the length of blocks. However, this editor's behavior seems egregious and I think one week is pretty lenient under these circumstances. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, matter resolved – at least for now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Need a Wiktionary Admin or link to Wiktionary ANI

Just anon blocked dynamic IP 73.183.26.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for WP:NPA.

Now they've taken the harassment over to Wiktionary:[134]. I'm not an admin over there so could use admin eyes there. Thanks! - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: You could try going to Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress if harassment continues. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The diff on EvergreenFir's talk page history may need revdel. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats

At User talk:80.42.112.5 there was a threat posted, Boleyn Your constant unjustified changes and and attitude towards the subject of John Galea is verging legally on discrimination which if not corrected could result in legal action against the publication and the individuals who are accountable for this action. John Galea is a singer-songwriter who has been having his article repeatedly recreated, under about 50 names, since it was deleted at its AfD. See the sockpuppet investigation for more information, this has been going on since 2013. It has been recreated about 50 times under titles such as Jon Galea, John Galeaa, John Galea (musician) etc. The original creator was called User:Johngalea24 and another one of the many accounts re-creating the same material identified herself as Lucy, a member of his PR team. There have also been repeated attempts since 2013 to add his name to any article with a passing connection, e.g. adding him to a list of notable people from Great Yarmouth, to the point where this page has protection because of this. It just isn't stopping. I've repeatedly told the creator that they can re-submit via WP:AFC, but they refuse to do so, I've no idea why. I really wish there was a way to end this after 4 years, but really I just wanted to report the legal threats for someone who knows better than me how to respond appropriately. The threat is against me, other individuals 'accountable for this action [his article being deleted]' and Wikipedia itself. Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your steadfastness in dealing with this very problematic COI editing. Alex Shih has just blocked the above-mentioned IP for one week for making legal threats. Have any or many of the possible article titles been edit-protected yet? If not, that might be the next step. MPS1992 (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex Shih and MPS1992. Yes, MPS1992, the article titles have been protected, it's just that there is no end to the possible article titles they could create, as they use misspellings of the singer's name as well as other variants. I keep the blocked ones on my watchlist and there is a block on John+Galea being used in any titles. I'm not sure what can be done beyond that, but I hope we come up with a way - they seem to be using an IP that's difficult to pin down, socks posting the exact same article soon after often fail a checkuser even if the behaviour is a clear case of WP:DUCK. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If they are posting the exact same article, maybe an edit filter would be useful. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

An edit filter does exist for this, but it was deactivated because of the length of time between creations. Perhaps it should be turned on again. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL TBH I'd never heard of John Galea before this brouhaha, and making legal threats doesn't get around the WP:GNG problem. Nor does playing the "I am being discriminated against because I am bisexual" card.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

BLPVIO and Stephen Miller (political advisor)‎

A number of editors have restored unsourced and poorly-sourced claims to the biography of Stephen Miller.

Most seriously TheValeyard has restored the claim "Miller attacked his American critics for a deficit of nationalism" (sourced only to an opinion piece in Politico which does not mention "nationalism") repeatedly and without consensus on talk or in the ongoing discussion at NOR noticeboard:

1. 23:42, 5 August 2017
2. 16:51, 6 August 2017
3. 19:10, 6 August 2017

Subsequently Nfitz, having not participated in discussion, restored the claim (in addition to other poorly-sourced claims)

1. 18:31, 6 August 2017

justifying his edits by referring to Trump as a "POS" a "bigot" and a "misogynist" on my talk page (where he suggested we ban "Americans" from Wikipedia):

1. 19:12, 6 August 2017

and again in an edit summary

1. 19:19, 6 August 2017

where he suggested I be banned from political articles.

Admin attention to this article and editor behavior is needed. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Some of those ES are BLPvios. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not precisely sure what Lambden's issue is. There's no doubt that Donald Trump is both a bigot and a misogynist - and I'm unaware of any person who meets those criteria who then is not a piece of shit; these are simple facts evident to all (or perhaps anyone not caught up deep in a local political dispute), and I'm not sure why Lambden is bringing such facts to ANI, when the issue at hand is merely a content dispute. Lambden also seems to have concern that I've not edited this article before (or edited in the area of post-1932 politics of this particular country at all really) - though I don't see how that's an issue. It's pretty easy for an outsider to see a blatant history of biased edits; while each individual edit isn't that much of a big deal - and some seem to be fine, the sum total seems to have considerable bias. Looking through this editor's history, there does seem to be a long history of editing bias, and previous interactions at ANI. I'm afraid though I'm not familiar enough with this editor, or the topic in general, to be sure, but I suspect that a boomerang and a ban on editing articles of post-1932 politics of the nation in question, might be appropriate. Also seems to have poor sense of humour - I'd think when I'm using "poor spelling skills" by Americans as part of justification in banning them all, in a user talk space comment, that it should be obvious that this is humorous. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure what a claim of bigotry and misogyny directed at the POTUS is going to accomplish here. Calling people a "piece of shit" is distinctly unwise, especially on ANI. I would suggest anyone with that degree of emotional investment in the issue in the issue is, ipso facto, unsuited to be editing an article on that subject. Kleuske (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

How about anyone who has a provocative trolling big sized poster of sneering Trump on their wall like some teenage girl?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Idem. Kleuske (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how calling a spade a spade is an emotional investment, particularly when everyone knows the spade is a spade. I heard enough comments from the right wing that he was a spade after he came out with his And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy comment. Though frankly, I'm not aware (though haven't checked) of ever editing an article on the Troll-in-Chief; nor would I have edited this one, except that I was simply reading it, having never heard of this, and noticed a broken reference, and when I started trying to fix it, realized that there was something very odd going on with the editing ... actually, I still know nothing about him, as I got distracted by trying to fix the reference - which only on an article about such a screwed up nation, leads to ANI ... Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• The edit that I and several other editors have restored to the article is sourced to this Politico article, which details the rather ugly nationalstic history behind the "cosmopolitan" slur. It is not a BLP violation to cite a person's own words and the analysis of those words by a reputable, reliable source, those I will refrain from further restorations while discussion ensues. Having said that, I do not endorse the strong language choices of Mr. Nfitz above, and am not tied to or associated with that. TheValeyard (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

My strong language choices? I merely repeat what I've heard in the main-stream media. I've not actually heard any positive comments about Donald Trump, or his former KKK father, in any mainstream media - outside of Russia at least; though honestly, I'm starting to have my doubts about the neutrality of RT - but that's not the issue here (and no, I don't believe the whacko conspiracy theories that Trump was colluding with Russia. Putin is quite capable of manipulating foreign politics without the assistance of foreigners who couldn't keep a secret if their lives depended on it!). Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz needs to really chill with the edit summary and with their descriptions of the president. At the same time the behavior by HiddenTempo and Lambden at the article has been atrocious and more than block worthy. Here is more or less what I wrote at the NOR page. Basically, Lambden came here to the drama board, and HiddenTempo went to NOR because consensus is clearly against them and this is just them WP:FORUMSHOPPING.

HiddenTempo is the one who started it with the "adding content without hassle of getting consensus on the talk page". I then added additional content on the same topic and backed it with reliable sources. At that point HiddenTempo realized that the way reliable sources covered the material wasn't in line with your their pov so they switched to trying to remove it. Then Lambden jumped in because... well, because he stalks my edits. Other users tweaked the wording to have a "compromise" version and it looked for a second like the matter was settled. But that wasn't good enough for HiddenTempo so they restarted the edit warring basically saying "it's my way or the highway". Of course Lambden supported them in this, but everyone else (multiple editors) opposed. Along the way, both HT and Lambden have failed to discuss the matter productively and have instead resorted to personal attacks (including making false derogatory accusations about other editors - to be fair, that was mostly Lambden, although HiddenTempo also played his part). Other editors came to the discussion and the page and objected to them two's WP:TENDENTIOUS edits. At that point they realized consensus was against them. So they did what any seasoned WP:BATTLEGROUND warriors would do, came running here and HT went forumshopping at WP:NOR. The whole episode is one sorry example of WHAT NOT TO DO ON WIKIPEDIA. The two of them have done the POV, they did the EDIT WAR, tasted of the PERSONAL ATTACK, indulged the BATTLEGROUND and now they're playing the WP:GAME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• This is unfortunately a standard response from Volunteer Marek to the point that any complaint about his behavior becomes impossible to resolve. He accuses me of "stalking" when just yesterday he followed me to an article he'd never edited before to revert my edit. When I warned him to stop and cease repeating these accusations without evidence he banned me from his talk page.

This pattern of harassment and unsubstantiated accusations has continued for months (below is just a sampling) but I find myself helpless to stop it:

1. 22:22, 19 May 2017
2. 23:41, 19 May 2017
3. 08:18, 29 May 2017
4. 18:34, 2 August 2017 (this is a legitimate 1RR warning violation which I took to his talk rather than report)
5. 18:52, 5 August 2017

It is a problem which I do not expect will be resolved here but that should not cause editors to ignore the text ("attacked his American critics for a deficit of nationalism"), the absence of support for that text in source, which is an opinion piece, and the various BLP violations towards Trump I linked above and Nfitz repeated in his comment above. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This is typical gaslighting by Lambden. This edit was NOT me reverting Lambden as he falsely claims. That was me reverting user AadaamS, whom I interacted with previously on a related article European migrant crisis. In fact, I made the very exact same edit there before Lambden showed up. He's lying. Just like he was lying about me on the talk page of the Stephen Miller article, claiming completely falsely that I had been "indefinetly blocked" from Wikipedia (total nonsense), then when called out on that, lying again, claiming that I had been "banned for a year" (also completely false). This is what Lambden does. He stalks my edits, sometimes preemptively jumping into edit wars to support editors I have disagreements with, makes false accusations then turns around and with a straight face tries to pretend that I'm the one bugging him. And lies about me. So hell yeah I banned him from my talk page. Anyone reasonable would too.

And yes, I have presented evidence of Lambden's stalking behavior and have tried to bring it to admin attention previously. Unfortunately, admins being admins, he's been allowed to get away with it so far.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

VM has now derailed the NOR discussion with personal attacks. This is frankly disgusting behavior. In every case where I've made a claim in error I've admitted it. I have now re-read the Arbcom case which dealt with his ban and see the 1-year editing ban was only a proposed decision and did not pass. That was my mistake and I will retract it. His accusations towards me remain unsubstantiated and unretracted. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

His accusations towards me remain unsubstantiated .. Given that you, literally and personally, just substantiated one of his accusations, that's a pretty strange statement to be making. --Calton | Talk 21:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this situation had to escalate to this noticeboard, but I believe it could all have been avoided with a little civility and collaborative spirit from the two editors trying to skip the consensus-building process to add contentious material (TheValeyard and Volunteer Marek). I've politely asked Valeyard to cease referring to me as "Mr. Tempo"[135] (thus assuming/essentializing my gender), yet Valeyard continues to do so [136].

With this latest outburst from Volunteer, along with his evidence-free accusations of WP:ADVOCACY[137], and persistent incivility, personal attacks, and aspersions, I think it's abundantly clear that this ordeal transcends the characterization of merely a content dispute. I have repeatedly asked these editors to focus their edits on content instead of individual editors[138][139][140][141][142], but have thus far been unsuccessful in my efforts. At this point, some form of administrative sanctions are likely necessary to prevent further BLP violations and wanton disregard of WP:PAG. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

HT, you've been insulting and attacking people (including me, but others like Valeyard as well) left and right, you just always make sure to add in at the end some boiler plate phony crap about "focus on content" and "collaboration" to make yourself sound like you're not. Then you go right back to attacking people. I've tried to explain this to you several times now but you don't seem to have gotten it, so let me try one more time. Just because you say something lofty about "collaboration" in the same comment in which you make personal attacks does not mean you have not made personal attacks. Just because you claim that you are here to "fight agenda driven editing" does not mean that your edits aren't a form of agenda pushing. Etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer - leveling serious accusations (such as claims of "attacks") without any evidence/diffs is only lending credence to the complaints about your behavior. Doing this at AN/I is even worse. Regarding the last sentence where you claim that I am here to fight "agenda driven editing" is completely false, and is again accompanied by no diffs. I am requesting that Volunteer Marek be temporarily blocked by an administrator from AN/I until this report has been resolved to prevent further BLP violations, aspersions, and disrupting AN/I. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"leveling serious accusations (such as claims of "attacks") without any evidence/diffs" - Dude! YOU JUST leveled such accusations against me! By claiming I was "launching attacks on administrators" (see below). Are you completely devoid of any self-awareness???? Or are you just doing empirical field testing to see if gaslighting works in practice or just in theory?

"where you claim that I am here to fight "agenda driven editing" is completely false, and is again accompanied by no diffs" Ahem. Step 1 declare that you're here because, quote, "Activist editing must be fought vigorously in order to rid it from Wikipedia." Step 2: set out your 10 point Activist agenda right below your claim, directly contradicting it. Step 3: Proceed with implementing your activist agenda. ... ... ... Step 4: quickly and embarrassingly remove the agenda from user page when it's pointed out that you're here to push an agenda [143]. Enough? Again, I can't tell if it's a complete lack of self-awareness at work here or are you just taking a piss at others' expense.

And your little calls for a block are frankly ridiculous. And just more evidence that you're an entrenched WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior. I might note, an entrenched WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior who until recently was topic banned from this area, but who immediately resumed their disruptive editing when the topic ban expired.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I also see that Volunteer is now launching attacks on administrators (not sure what "admins being admins" even means), implying that they are somehow derelict in their duties by allowing editors to "get away with" edits with which Volunteer does not agree. This has to stop at some point. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

So you are claiming that me making an offhand comment "admins being admins" constitutes "launching attacks on administrators"??? Thanks for proving my point about the lying and the TENDENTIOUS and the WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Break

All: please. I filed this complaint because I had sincere concerns about recurring BLP violations. I didn't mention Volunteer Marek or cite his diffs (until he inserted himself.) Despite this the majority of this thread is now his comments and responses to them. None of the BLP violations have been addressed and new ones ("piece of shit") have been added to this thread. If there are any admins watching, please address this or steer the conversation towards addressing them. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're gonna plead for editors to "address" the original topic then ... you ... might ... want ... to ... cut out the WP:HARASSMENT right in the middle of the discussion. Once again, you showed up to an article you hardly edit (and iirc, your only previous edits to the article where to swoop in and revert me) and made a revenge-revert [144]. Your claims of "only wanting to address BLP concerns" would have more credibility if you quit pulling little stunts like that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It is disingenuous not to mention you followed my edit to an unrelated article that had nothing to do with you, only to revert offering "restore" as your justification. It is a lie to say I hardly edit the article; I have edited the article approximately a dozen times and the talk page twice that. It is disingenuous to say I reverted your edit; I made a compromise edit (not implemented previously) based on talk page discussion. You don't explain why any of this should affect the removal of BLP-violating content in unrelated articles. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No. I've edited the Seth Rich article from the beginning. The only way you showed up is to do that revenge-reverting crap in the past. Now that you've done it once or twice, I guess you can claim that you have "edited the article previously". You're also changing the subject - you showed up to the Russian interference article and performed a revenge edit. Same story there. Yes, you've "edited the article previously" but pretty much for the same reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You are the one who needlessly brought forward the observation that Donald Trump is a piece of shit, into this thread. It has no relevance to this thread. Nor is it a BLP violation, given how widely it's been documented, particularly after his And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy comment recently. (though I think we were all aware of this 30 years ago, but I don't recall it being documented to the point of being encyclopaedic back then!). Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You have been editing Wikipedia for nearly 12 years, and you don't know that what you just said is a BLP violation? And you were just blocked two weeks ago by Boing! said Zebedee, and this is what you believe to be acceptable behavior? Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What I just said? I can see why there is an arguable case that my since blanked comment on August 6th on Jim's talkpage might be a BLP violation (though as I've noted elsewhere, I don't believe it is, given how well sourced such a comment would be) - but I see nothing in what I just said. What are you seeing that I'm not seeing? And I'm not sure how bringing in the recent block Boing! is relevant - it was nothing related to BLP, but was related to a comment I made about a check-user's attention to detail - which was then withdrawn, as noted in the block log. Nfitz (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor in this particular disagreement; I have to say you appear to be trying to lose your case here. Setting the volume at eleven doesn’t help. Objective3000 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• I will back up without reservation anyone who contends that "Donald Trump is a bigot and a misogynist" is a fact, and not a matter of personal opinion. I think "piece of shit" is certainly crossing over into opinion (and thus BLPVIO) territory, however. I also find it distressing to no end that there's not a single policy requiring honesty from editors. Every single one of the absolute worst editors I've encountered have been inveterate liars (falsely claiming people said things they didn't, falsely claiming people are subject to sanctions they were never subject to, etc). I think this might be a policy proposal we badly need. Seriously; if you cannot be trusted to be honest about what your fellow editors have done and said, then you cannot by definition be trusted to edit collaboratively and in good faith. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeeeeeeeeppppppppppppp.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mpants. Most of what we have on honesty relates to verifiability and sourcing, not standard editor behavior, so I made WP:Pinnochio L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: I meant what I said, and I think your essay ought to be a policy. Thank you for taking the time to write it. The worst editors I've had the misfortune of dealing with were all inveterate liars, and I've never seen a decent editor tell a single (verifiable) lie on this site. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know this existed until a moment ago, but I noticed on another page that Hidden Tempo is engaging in some serious gaslighting behavior as well and they just decided to tag my talk page with an insulting diatribe. Morty C-137 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The edit in question[145] (which Morty just reverted) was a warning to stop violating BLP, casting aspersions against other editors, and disrupting the NOR noticeboard. This AN/I report could really use an administrator before it spirals even further out of control, as it's turning into a bungled mess/airing of grievances. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think "shut up or I'll open an ANI thread with your name in the title" is an entirely WP:UNCIVIL threat and should be treated accordingly. Especially when the user making it has dishonestly misrepresented every single diff they made mention of. Morty C-137 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts by User:MjolnirPants - and normally I'd agree wholeheartedly that referring to someone as a POS does cross the line into opinion. But in this particular case, there is no end of references in main-stream media to Donald Trump as a POS, both in serious and humerous media, over a period of years. Examples are [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153],[154],[155],[156],[157][158],[159]. And it's not like we've not seen similar language and far worse from Trump and his inner circle before [160], [161], [162]- though that's probably not relevant to the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The citations you provided show that others have (in earnestness) called Trump a POS; they do not demonstrate that Trump is a POS. Indeed, the problem is one which is quite fundamental: This^{WARNING: it's gross!} is a piece of shit. A human being cannot factually be a piece of shit. A human can, in every sense, be a bigot and/or a misogynist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid User:MPants at work either you've got a fundamental English-language failure here, or you've deliberately chosen to be obstinate in order to post some vulgar graphic image that has no relation to the discussion. A quick look into a dictionary (in this particular case, a March 2006 update to the OED Third edition) will show that the phrase piece of shit (see phrase 17 under piece) is (orig. and chiefly U.S.) and means a a worthless or despicable person or thing. There is no reference here to human fæces - and absolutely a reference to a human. As such, I do not understand your claim that a human being cannot factually be a piece of shit - as that ignores the meaning of the phrase. If you read the examples given (ranging from 1942 to 2002) you will see that they all refer to either people or things (the things being an essay, machine gun, and reasoning) and not fæces. I'd suggest you reevaluate your comments based on the meaning of the phrase, rather than the individual words - and perhaps remove your (presumably) NSFW imagery. Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

First off, there is and has been a warning next to that image link, which is and always has been a text-only link. For you to complain about its vulgarity is simply groundless and petty. If you couldn't be bothered to read three words before clicking on that link, then it's your own dumb fault that you had to see an image of actual feces.

Second: questioning the English skills of a person who is clearly demonstrating a profound familiarity with English is pointless and uncivil. It reflects more poorly upon you than upon I.

Finally: the multiple idiomatic meanings of various terms in colloquial English means that descending to their use in an epistemological discussion renders almost any statement worthless as a statement of fact. "Misogynist," used by a third wave feminist carries many different connotations than when used by a MRA. "Bigot," in use by an African American about a Caucasian person carries many different connotations than when used by a straight, white person against a gay white person. This is something which even my 8 year old son can understand, even though he might struggle to put it into words. I have no doubt that you can grasp this concept. Therefore, statements about reality are best put forth in neutral language, not language which is by definition, emotionally charged the way idiomatic insults are.

tl;dr when someone backs you up about part of some controversial and charged statement you make, but disowns another part, it would serve you better to focus on the parts that are actually supported by someone other than you, rather than alienate your only source of support with stupid insults. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I never clicked on the link, I merely am commenting on what I guess the content to be from the file name. You claim it is a piece of shit, and yet it isn't - it's human fæces - according to the description at least. Hang on, so if you are fully aware that the phrase piece of shit would never actually refer to literal human fæces, I'm even more perplexed on why you'd link in such an image? That turns this from merely being a question of your ignorance of the English language, to some kind of odd joke, or something else. If you do, as your claim, have profound familiarity with the English language, what was the motive of posting an image of what clearly is not a piece of shit? Sorry, I don't do philosophy - if you want to have a epistemological discussion you are out of luck. I'm not even sure what a third wave feminist is (though perhaps you mean third-wave feminist - though frankly, I don't know what that means either); and I'm not sure that there's even such a thing as a Men's rights movement - I've only seen such a thing (around here at least), linked to a neo-nazi organization like the New Constitution Party or professional pickup artists; but it's not really a topic I've had any interest in pursuing. I'm not sure where you are seeing an insult from me - I was merely clarifying how the phrase in question precludes the imagery you posted; but as I note above, perhaps an explanation of why you posted it, would let me see the discussion in a different light. Nfitz (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Suffice it so say that you've thoroughly convinced me that you're full of the contents of that image and not worth bothering with. Congrats on driving off someone who was almost entirely on your 'side' of this dispute before you opened your big mouth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing obvious about it. I've been perfectly civil and polite. Not sure what's lead to you violating WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:5P4. I was simply looking for some clarification. Not sure how leads to switching 'sides'. Not even sure how one could possibly have 'sides'. It's not like one is either 100% right or 100% wrong; my gosh, is what Americans expect from discussion? Perhaps this is what comes of them playing co-operative games, or always winning a medal, when children. Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This is obviously an editing dispute on a page subject to the post-1932 American Politics Discretionary Sanctions. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

However it has clearly indicated there needs to be some sort of interaction ban between Lambden and VM at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, but given the clearly biased editing, a ban on the topic area for Lambden also appears to be in order - and probably Hidden Tempo as well, if the gaslighting comments above are correct (I really don't care to dig enough into the bizarre foreign politics to find out!). Nfitz (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz, you're not really in a position to be demanding sanctions after your egregious violations of BLP that you are still oddly defending. Or using New Yorker/millennial blogger buzzwords like "gaslighting", but that's a separate issue. I am baffled why an administrator has not yet taken action on this extremely simple case of multiple BLP violations. Last year I was blocked within an hour by Boing! said Zebedee after describing Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness poll numbers as "feeble"[163] (yes, really). This user has called Donald Trump a "bigot," "misogynist," and a "piece of shit" (an attack which Nfitz repeated at AN/I, all with no diffs), and still has retained all editing abilities a day after the AN/I report was filed. Flabbergasting. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No, you weren't blocked for just "Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness poll numbers as "feeble"". This is another falsehood in a list that's really starting to stretch. You were blocked for egregiously violating your topic ban (also sock puppeting but that was a different report). You were topic banned for being a disruptive WP:SPA which in addition to making multiple BLP violations, edited WP:TENDENTIOUSly, insisted on making repeated personal attacks, used talk pages to falsely accuse editors of things which weren't true and also as a WP:SOAPBOX... sound familiar? Basically for all the same things you started doing again immediately upon the expiration of your ban. Which just means that it should be restored.

Also, the term "gaslighting" goes back to the 1940's. There's an objective reason why it's been used a lot lately.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Instead of going off on political rants and whining about the behavior of your fellow editors on AN/I, click the diff. The block was for referring to Clinton's trustworthiness numbers as "feeble," while Nfitz has called Trump a "piece of shit," and these BLP violations have been thus far met with deafening silence from the powers that be. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The straw that broke the camel's back is just a straw. That doesn't mend the camel's back, however. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing is Hidden knows what he's saying isn't true (block logs are a thing, Hidden), and this wasn't a "straw that broke the camel's back situation". I've been reviewing the relevant history out of morbid curiosity... His talk page prior to blanking on 7/2 makes it pretty clear that all of the topic bans/blocks were due to harassing behavior (including prolonged attacks on the admin that had the audacity to ban him), socking, BLP violations, and just a general inability to edit neutrally. How you could take all of that history and say it was for using the word "feeble" is just... mind boggling. Especially in light of all of the chance's he's been given to reform his behavior. Lizzius (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lizzius: I think you misread. HT is referring to his first block [164] on Dec 4 2016. The blocking administrator gives his justification for the block here:

• "continuing to use your own derogatory adjectives to describe living people, when those adjectives are not used by the supplied sources"

and here:

• "I should add that I most definitely do consider the use of derogatory adjectives (which are not used by the provided sources) to describe living people, and the repetition of that same personal editorializing in an AE appeal, to be a breach of BLP policy."

The latter thread is an ANI complaint which RexxS explains as follows:

• "he has taken the opportunity to repeatedly attack Clinton, describing her trustworthiness poll results as "feeble" on the AE appeal page [...] The choice of the word "feeble" is Hidden Tempo's and his alone. He argues that it is "allegedly" contentious and seems to either not understand our policies or thinks he can wikilawyer his way out of any BLP violation."

See the thread for full details. Could the blocking administrator @Boing! said Zebedee: confirm or refute that this is the BLP violation HT was blocked for and settle these accusations of lying or misrepresentation? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, Lizzius, is that you're upset that you didn't get your POV/UNDUE category crammed into Donald Trump, and are now acting out your revenge by disrupting an AN/I report to cast aspersions and attack other editors. Unless you're here to contribute to the subject of the AN/I report, kindly go. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do believe your edits in modern politics have trouble remaining neutral, and I don't really see evidence of you learning from your past blocks. In addition, your edits on talk pages (and this ANI thread) consistently swipe at other editors (you can't even avoid casting aspersions in a comment where you accuse me of doing the same thing). I believe it's important for any administrator passing by to take those things into consideration when weighing evidence provided here, particularly by you. I was actually around during your initial block as I was watching the edits on a number of politics pages, looking out for gross errors and helping with vandalism where I could. I'm not your enemy, and I consider your attribution of my comment to "revenge" rather telling. Lizzius (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps because I have no particular history of BLP violations, editing in the topic area of this particular country, socking, and bias. Nor was I under a topic ban at the time. Also, I didn't call Donald Trump a POS; he IS a POS, and had been widely discussed as such; I supplied 14 supporting references. Recall that the definition of POS is simply a worthless or despicable person or thing - which in this case would be just a despicable person. Gaslighting a millennial buzzword? You have to be kidding me; the word has been in use like this since the Academy Award-winning 1944 Ingrid Bergman film (for which Angela Lansbury got her first Oscar nomination). While we've got the dictionary already open, there are recorded usages, mostly American, back to the 1950s; I question why you are calling it "millennial" - if anything it's "boomer". Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this allowed to continue? James J. Lambden (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when the word was "first used." It's a word current misused repeatedly by like-minded blogs written by disgruntled millennials who are exasperated that not everyone agrees with them politically. Applying it to editors in your AN/I report is disruptive and a personal attack. Yes, calling a living person a "piece of shit" with no RS as diffs is a BLP violation. And you've done it three times now, which is still inexplicably being completely ignored by the administrators of this noticeboard. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not apply the term to editors; I merely noted that IF the reports of gaslighting are correct that sanctions should be carried out; that is neither applying it to editors, or making personal attacks. I also noted that I didn't know if they were correct or not. I'm not sure why you are twisting the very clear words that were said here; my gosh is this how you discuss edits in talk pages? As far as I'm aware, I've only noted that Donald Trump is a piece of shit once - again you seem to be trying to manipulate the --discussion, in some kind of attempt to change my words or something - there must be a word to describe that somewhere ... Nfitz (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What a fucking trainwreck. Arkon (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Better be careful what you say - at this rate, User:Hidden Tempo will be after you for disparaging the Trump (for lack of a better word) Administration, while User:MPants at work is probably already scouring the net looking for porn shoots on board moving trains interrupted by derailments. :) (note: for those foreigners unaware of the notation, that symbol is a smiley, and is meant to indicate that the comment is humorous, is normally used for people who can only identify humour when a laugh-track is present.) Nfitz (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you WP:TNT an ANI section? This has become boorish and boring. Objective3000 (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that would require an administrator, and for some reason, there no longer seems to be any administrators on the administrators' noticeboard. I'm guessing that the walls and walls of text/attacks/tangeants are discouraging to any admin who could step in and start passing out the appropriate sanctions for what is indisputably a series of BLPVIO's. I say just start hatting all the pointless garbage, leaving only the substance of the original complaint and initial "rebuttal" by Nfitz. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Per the comment from Objective 3000. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well, fine, I looked at this edit--not much of a BLP violation that I can see: one could quibble about whether the author's definition of "cosmopolitan" is a matter of opinion, but that's not a very fruitful exercise. I do agree that Nfitz needs to seriously tone it down: calling a spade a spade (which is itself an iffy expression) is quickly a BLP violation, esp. if uttered and explained on a very public forum, and it certainly violates WP:NOTFORUM. Moving right along--Nyttend, will you consider closing this? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• What do you want me to do? Just close the whole thing as "no action taken" or something of the sort? I just scrolled up from lower sections, and the idea of TNT-ing an ANI section was the only thing I saw (I've not read anything and don't know what this section is talking about); I'd been saving {{BeingVandalized}} for several days looking for an opportunity to use it, so I jumped at the chance :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sanity break

While there may be a valid complaint in here somewhere, it's hard to find amidst the bickering. I did some looking through the edit history at Stephen Miller (political advisor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to try to figure out what's going on. Here's what I see, and what I've done or am planning to do about it. I'd invite feedback from any other uninvolved admins as well:

• I see Hidden Tempo (talk · contribs) edit-warring to repeatedly remove properly-sourced material, using a variety of dubious, WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, or outright specious rationales. (For instance, here he removes properly sourced material because, in his view, its author—a respected mainstream journalist—is a "Trump hater". He provides no supporting evidence for this claim). Hidden Tempo continues edit-warring against multiple other editors to remove this material. He has a history of agenda-driven edit-warring, tendentious editing, and disruptive behavior around partisan political topics, as well as sockpuppetry. I've blocked his account; in light of his history, I think an indefinite block is appropriate since the behaviors in question appear refractory, although I think it would also be reasonable to unblock him with a topic ban from American political articles.
• I see Nfitz (talk · contribs) using intemperate language which hampers effective editing and collaboration. It's simply not appropriate to go around referring to an article subject as a "piece of shit". Mitigating factors are that the epithet in question was not used on an article talkpage, but rather on a user talkpage where somewhat more leeway is allowed. (Correct me if I'm wrong - there are like 50,000 words and zero relevant diffs in this section, so I might have missed something). Nonetheless, the language is inappropriate and unhelpful, so please stop using it. If you feel too strongly to forgo such language, then it's better to avoid editing the pages in question.

What else? MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly restoring copyright violations to multiple articles

User:MSMRHurricane has repeatedly restored copyright violations (episode summaries copied word-for-word from promotional material) to the Total Divas season articles. ("Total Divas" is a "reality" TV show dealing with professional wrestling.) In June, after I removed the copyright violations, he restored the copyvio text to Total Divas (season 2), Total Divas (season 3), Total Divas (season 4), Total Divas (season 5), and Total Divas (season 6). I warned him about copyright violations at that time,[165]. He stopped reverting/restoring at that time after another editor commented that the episode summaries should be rewritten in Wikipedia editors' "own words". However, today he restored the copyright violations to most of these articles, making the utterly groundless claim that "wiki policy" prohibits the simple removal of such copyright violations ("Unable to leave summaries empty, it's against wiki policy, therefore reverting")[166]. After I again removed the copyvios and again warned him, he nevertheless restored the copyvios, then abridged the summaries without otherwise significantly modifying them. 90-95% of the surviving text is word-for-word identical to the copyrighted source material (and is still fundamentally promotional). Abridging a text without making more than cosmetic changes to the copied text is still a copyvio; in principle it's no different than cropping a copyvio image.

It's clear that MSMRHurricane doesn't adequately understand copyright policy. To avoid further disruption, I propose that they 1) be warned that any future violations of copyright policy will result in blocking; and 2) be topic-banned from restoring text that has been removed as a copyvio. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO - revert and drop a request at EWN? Might get a quicker response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Block 172.58.136.34

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

---

The user here Special:Contributions/172.58.136.34 has posted several pornographic images to the Disneyland Railroad talk page, whose article is presently Today's Featured Article. The specific edit in question can be found here: [167]. Jackdude101 ^{talk cont} 00:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

To be most clear, it was multiple copies of the same image. Further, there is no indication that the photograph of a couple engaging in "sixty-nine" is of pornographic provenance. 172.58.136.34 (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It's vandalism, regardless. Your current account block confirms this. Jackdude101 ^{talk cont} 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

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

82.38.92.171

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

---

82.38.92.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Needs a nuke of their contribs. All of their page creations are pure vandalism/trolling. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 02:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Samankamal and List of universities in Sri Lanka

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

The said user refuses to engage in the talk page discussion or willing to accept the consensus of the discussion. I am afraid, he has taken a popular political stance on the matter and POV pushing it in this Wikipedia disregarding our editing guidelines. He's been disruptive and uncooperative.--Chanaka L (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chanakal: This is a content dispute that dates back to May 2017, surely some evidence of disruption/descriptions could help uninvolved editors to intervene better. With that being said, this is a case of serious IDHT from the new editor. As there hasn't been any new edits since the final warning was issued, nothing can be done at this moment. Any further reverts done by this editor would result in automatic sanction for disruptive editing. Alex Shih^Talk 04:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thanks for the swift attention. I will post any further development regarding this matter. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chanakal: please read comments on Talk:List of universities in Sri Lanka I never refuse to engage in the talk page discussion as you previously said and discussed more than three months in talk page when a conflict of opinion had been arisen and add improvements to this articles.Also, I don't know what is mean by popular political stance with a universities list.Also if you can explain further it will be beneficial for me and Wikipedia community.However, Thank you Samankamal (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Samankamal's disruptive politicking isn't limited to List of universities in Sri Lanka:

• South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine - - Removal of referenced content and addition of POV material [168]
• Inter University Students' Federation - Removal of referenced content and addition of POV material using unreliable sources [169]
• Category:Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology - Removal of categories [170]
• List of institutions of higher education in Sri Lanka - Creation of WP:POVFORK [171]

--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

A strange system error or malfunction problem on wikipedia

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

---

Hello! I want to bring a system error issue here, sometime back I moved the page Abdul malik Afegbua for capitalziation purpose, The page was created by another editor. But when it was tagged for Proposed deletion I got a notice on my talk page. This system error is faced by many other editors, This error also affects page creation credits. Can anyone solve it ? I am pinging one of the Xtools developer and administrator @Musikanimal: Anoptimistix Let's Talk 06:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This was technically correct, though unexpected due to another editor's noncanonical edit. The page you got the notification for was not the page you moved, but the redirect page that was created during the move, of which you are, technically, the page creator. Somebody then overwrote the redirect with a new copy-pasted version of the article, and somebody else subsequently proposed that for deletion (probably unaware the original page had been moved somewhere else in the meantime). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anoptimistix: For future reference, please note that the place to report suspected problems with wiki software is WP:VPT. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thank you, you are so kind. I knew about village pump, but was only informed that the place is used to discuss userscripts related issues. Once again Thanks

Anoptimistix Let's Talk 07:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks on talk page from MjolnirPants

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

---

@MjolnirPants: posted repeated personal attacks against me (see SRS talk page). He claimed that I was being dishonest multiple times and included multiple false claims in his comments, which he later admitted to some. This is poor etiqutte from a long-term editor. Talk page discourse should remain civil as it was before MjolnirPants joined. I am requesting an apology and please refrain from this in the future, thanks. UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON then take a good long hard look at your own actions on that page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

May I also suggest not holding your breath while you wait for your apology. Roxy the dog. bark 07:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: User:UigeqHfejn1dn was blocked for disruptive editing, then indefinitely blocked[172] for sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asnjjasvonk. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Alleged sockpuppet trying to start edit wars

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960#Halimah Yacob.

I believe that Richard Mile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Reid62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rachel Lucy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and is disruptively editing articles like Halimah Yacob and Yusof Ishak. --YewGotUp (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@YewGotUp: Please inform the editor of this discussion, even if they are being suspected of abusing multiple accounts. And also it would be helpful to provide more context. I've issued a warning to the editor. Alex Shih^Talk 18:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I see that you've posted a notice on their Talk page. Thank you. I may have jumped the gun with this incident because the person I believe is behind the accounts really doesn't get it. --YewGotUp (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@YewGotUp: User has just accused you of socking. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: 5RR. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@My name is not dave: Thanks. I'm following the two pages and despite my best efforts to point the user to the Talk pages over the past weeks (discussion about the proposed changes have been open by other editors: [173] [174]), they refuse to act civilly. --YewGotUp (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a fairly obvious sockpuppet of Reid62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

User:CorenSearchBot/manual is malfunctioning

I've been waiting a few days for the bot to process my request and it hasn't yet. I eventually used the Copyvio site manually. After a quick look at the edit history, it doesn't look like this bot has processed a request for 10 months. Tdts5 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we admins can help you. We can stop a bot if it's doing the wrong thing (Special:Block), but we can't start it if it's not doing anything at all. Please contact the operator, or if that won't work, please go to WP:BOTR and ask someone to write another bot to over this one's job. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)