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

Disruptive editing on pages under DS:Eastern Europe

The concerned pages being Collaboration in German-occupied Poland and Jan Grabowski (historian)

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

Repeatedly removing the protected template ([1][2]), despite warnings by multiple users on talk page ([3]), and despite the fact there is no valid reason one could want to remove it.

Refusal to participate in talk page discussion (despite multiple reverts on the article in the last two days, last interventions on the talk page date to the 8th and 7th April and are either mostly unrelated to the edit warring, ([4]), or simple WP:PAs which do not seek to build consensus ([5])).

Reinstating ([6]) material which has been superseeded by talk page consensus.

Generally unfriendly/non-collaborative behaviour on talk page/in edit summaries, ex. (Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)/Archive_3#Another_false_edit_summary, Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)/Archive_2#You_can't_be_serious)

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

Reinstating disputed material and going against talk page consensus, ([7])

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, repeating the same (inaccurate) statement multiple times (also, at multiple places), once, twice, thrice, even four times.

• François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• All of the above

Long-term edit warring on the first of the above mentioned pages, and the ensuing discussions on the talk page seem to be of a rather toxic kind.

I am unsure if all three are aware of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions, but this is clearly a case where there is an extended dispute and users do not seem inclined to participate in a calmer talk page discussion. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors given ANI notice on talk page (as far as possible). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing the protected template was an accident which I meant to remedy but then got busy. I've put it back. As for the rest of this complaint, it's of the ye ol' "why won't they let me push my POV in peace" . The claims by the IP are false or spurious (false claims of consensus, false description of edits, etc.). And anyway, how does a brand new IP know about DS in this topic area or have all this knowledge about Wikipedia policies. WP:DUCK and WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, despite the above claim, the IP did not notify me and I just noticed this myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It also appears that this posting is mostly motivated by the IP being annoyed by the fact they can't jump in to edit war because the page has been semi'd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't have notified you because your talk page is protected. Stop the WP:PA. If you think I'm a sock, WP:SPI is the place to go (and then you'd need a stronger agreement than just "he agrees with somebody else") 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the IP contributor does have a significant edit history under that address. If they are a long-term editor, they should know that no editor is subject to more frivolous ANI/ANEW reports than Volunteer Marek. As Collaboration in German-occupied Poland is semi-protected and the editors cited in this report don't agree with each other, I think that allowing normal editing to proceed and/or referring this to WP:DRN is all that is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

My error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, the editing of the IP 198.xxx -- which geolocates to Montreal -- goes back to 12:04 1 January 2018, exactly 4 seconds into the new year in that time zone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 17:04 - 5 hours = 12:04, which is noon, midnight would be 00:04. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC) You are correct, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment a long-term edit warring[8] by François Robere and consistent reinstalling opposed material[9] against talk page consensus[10] by François Robere is the only case that I find feasible on this record.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:F819:1151:10F3:7BC6 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: — 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:F819:1151:10F3:7BC6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - first edit, directly here, appears to be linked to other IPs which edited target pages. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Note: — mistaken ----> I have been editing various articles before for a quite time, my IP keeps changing daily at the place where I dwell, that's why.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D01E:3C0D:91FA:2E5F (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • The IP editor has identified as User:GizzyCatBella [11], and should be added to the list of warring users.
  • I support now, as I have before, placing some sort of restriction on the entire page. Personal sanctions may also be due in some cases.
  • I did not reinstate disputed material despite talk page consensus, and I've only restored material after exhaustive discussion [12][13][14][15][16]. I never deleted objectionable material that was well sourced [17][18], nor did I push my POV against the consensus [19][20]. I've assumed good faith and tried to stay civil for as long as possible despite frequent hostile behaviors by others [21][22][23][24]. Two users in particular - Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella have developed a penchant for reverting my edits; sometimes en masse, usually without discussion, and often regardless of what the sources actually say [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] (and they've done the same with others [36][37][38]). Their continuous disregard for sources and discussion meant that at some point I started adding quotes to every single source I thought they'll challenge (this section, for example, is extremely well sourced, but was quickly reverted along with several other changes [39]); and instead of asking them for clarifications on the talk page - which they'll ignore - I started asking directly in the article using tags [40][41][42][43] (which they then removed [44][45][46]). Finally, seeing as many of their changes were going unnoticed by the other editors - lost in the general "flux" of edits (~30/day) - I started reviewing their changes on the talk page, highlighting where they were pushing a POV or not following RS [47][48][49][50].

I've done my best to discuss, persuade, source, consult other users and involve the general Wiki community, but seeing as there's no way to force a "warring" editor to concede or even discuss an issue, it's just as well this was referred here. Good luck to all of us! François Robere (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Important note to the evaluating administrator - Please consider examining also Icewhiz who is consistently edit warring on both articles. As an example, I'm showing just few of the recent cases completed by the user in question ( the latest revert is as current as today)[51][52][53][54] There are plenty more examples straightforward to spot, please take a peak at edit history on both articles. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D01E:3C0D:91FA:2E5F (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  Besides the article talk page (where this is discussed in a number of sections), please see - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba where this addition sourced to wpolityce (a Polish internet portal) coverage of the Polish ambassador's to Switzerland's remarks (in Wikipedia's voice for WWII/Holocaust history!) is discussed. Besides the RS issue, there are also BLP issues to say a notable historian is mistaken or erroneous in Wikipedia's voice (based on an ambassador's Facebook post), OR issues, and NPOV issues. The content added about Grabowski is a shocking BLP and NPOV violation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  Also relevant - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella.Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The IP has self identified GizzyCatBella ‎(after someone bothered to ask on one of the IP's talk pages).Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A bit difficult to ask when it changes so often (as might be seen in the SPI) - François I believe did ask however (not via the changing IP TP - edit summaries or on article talk). Filing ANI [55] or AN/EW[56] shouldn't be done without identifying one's self. Nor should one reply at ANI - [57] " Response to Note: — mistaken ----> I have been editing various articles before for a quite time, my IP keeps changing daily at the place where I dwell, that's why." in response to a query on one's identity, without disclosing said identity.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I was able to ask them (and get a response), now in all the tooing and throwing I might have missed where any other users asked them if they were GizzyCatBella. Perhaps you could provide the diff?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

François asked them to identify and got to talk - here. In any event - filing at AN/EW and AN/I, and then replying this way to a SPA tag - is not cool as a logged out IP (without at least saying who you are). Nor is making massive reversions to an article you were previously editing, or commenting on the talk page (without identifying one's self) on topic areas you previously discussed logged in.Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Really, an edit summery? Is that really good enough? Also I am having trouble finding where not logging in forbids you from participating in certain activities.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The onus is not on other editors to ask about sockpuppets - and connecting the dots on this edit warring IP was not so simple. As for policy posting to ANI and ANEW as a sock is a clear WP:BADSOCK "Editing project space" violation (and note that they were asked here - and did not disclose, rather responding how this is a dynamic IP). Editing the talk page of a page you have been engaged in would be a "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" violation as would be the 2 major revert a day (on 6 days of editing) on the mainspace page (previously edited via the account) in terms of "Circumventing policies" (all the more so given the edit warring report against Francois by the IP on the same page!), And of course WP:SCRUTINY. Note that the SPI report was not a secret - I place it here after the IP reported me as an IP to ANI. Francois placed it at the edit warring report by the IP - AN/EW diff with sockpuppet report - the IP chose to respond only after you told them it was in their best interests to do so and after stronger behavioral evidence was produced at the SPI.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Really, an edit summery? Is that really good enough? It isn't, but as IP editors don't have talk pages it had to suffice. François Robere (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: Unrelated to the whole dispute thing, but actually, what IPs don't have is user pages, they do have talk pages (otherwise, tell me what this page is). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It's magic, and I'll deny ever being there. It wasn't me.

(but also, if you've a dynamic IP that changes 1-2 times a day, then that's useless too) François Robere (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

How to answer this without being sarcastic?Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, feel free. François Robere (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It is an article that has provoked strong reactions and edit warring form a number of editors. I am not sure that sanctions against all the involved edds (and it should be all or none, as I am not sure any of them are any ore innocent of POV edit warring). Rather some form of editing restriction on the page (such as no edits to article space, unless agreement is reached on talk pages) applied to all editors.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Fully protected Collaboration in German-occupied Poland for a week, and removed the disputed section. (I personally have no opinion regarding whether that section should remain in the article.) Use this time to come to a consensus on the scope of the article, and whether or not the disputed content should be included in it. In the future, when there is a dispute about newly-added content, discuss it and come to a consensus rather than edit warring. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note to the evaluating administrator from Poeticbent. The article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland as it stands, with one-week page protection, is an absolute horror of intentionally misrepresented facts, deleted references found inconvenient by the POV pushers, and preposterous accusations in a campaign of Holocaust-related hate mongering, lies, and slander. — François Robere (who made 139 edits to this page) and Icewhiz are a WP:TAG TEAM coordinating their actions in several pages in the area of WP:ARBEE case final binding. Their edits are made usually minutes apart from each other especially in relation to World War II collaboration recently. The problem with WP:ARBEE is that it has not been updated for years, and nobody gives a flying finger for what it says. Considering the sheer volume of edit warring, POV pushing, and bad faith, it would probably take several days to prepare a new case, with a new list of participants, going well beyond the limited scope of this one report. Nothing is going to get resolved otherwise. Poeticbent talk 17:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• We are an awfully ineffective tag team seeing that my interaction with Francois has been limited to 10 edits in one article (on different content), and 1 (3 consecutive) edits on another. I have supported his efforts to introduce solid academic sourcing to the topic area on the talk page. Some other editors might want to examine their POV editing in Holocaust related victim blaming - which has been commented on externally to Wikipedia Wikipedia Continues the Crime and the Silence of Polish Participation in the Murder of Jews, Jewish Press referring to this version of the page. Interestingly - the Polish Wikipedia is more balanced than the English Wikipedia on much of this content - and the problem on enwiki is quite wide.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz edits are so toxic and so full of thinly-veiled lies that no discussion is ever going to resolve anything. – Revelations about erroneous research at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are being replaced by him with accolades for the researcher. Why? Because there's a campaign going on elsewhere. Do you see what I mean? Poeticbent talk 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba - using an internet portal's coverage of a diplomat's facebook is quite a shocking source for ww2 history and BLP content.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, Poetic, your comments aren't exactly savoury either [58]. Second, your suggestion of "tag teaming" is idiotic. Third, GizzyCatBella made 160 edits and Nihil novi 152, and you don't seem to hold a grudge them. Fourth, if you want to argue "NPOV" you'd better have the sources to show it. Fifth, if you want to argue about "Jan Grabowski's accolades", I'd start not with some Polish ambassador or another, but with this list of "who's who" in WWII, Holocaust and Jewish studies. François Robere (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Poeticbent Of course it's the WP:WRONGVERSION. I personally also think there is content which should be removed too. The only way to get to it is to get on the talk page and let cool heads (and reliable sources) prevail. However, so far this has been frustrated because of a revert cycle on the article and because of everybody being rather uncompromising (if not outright hostile) on the talk page.

Strongly support proposal by Slatersteven, I would also (either alternatively or additionally) propose 1RR 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest setting the article back to its Creation, and forbid any editing there without consensus. Only when (and if) consensus is achieved can an edit be made.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would strongly support the proposal by Slatersteven. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm, protecting the article is one thing, but then making edits through protection User:Scottywong? Even if you're correct in your edit summary (and I don't think you are), that's a straight up abuse of administrative tools.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

wp:brd.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Poeticbent talk 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

What does that have to do with an administrator putting a page under full protection then reverting to their own preferred version (and this isn't a "vandalism" issue, but rather a content dispute)? User:Scottywong please explain your actions here. Or self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Process Edit, Get Reverted, Discus. What happened Edit, Get Reverted, Revert back Get Reverted, Discus, Revert back. What the admin did was to set the page back to where it would have been if proper procedure had been followed.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a question of BRD. This is a question of an administrator - @Scottywong:, I'm pinging you for the THIRD TIME, please respond - abusing his administrative tools by fully protecting the page then making edits to restore his preferred version through protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(and no, he didn't "set page back to where it would have been". In case, that wasn't his call to make, once he protected the page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Before you scream "admin abuse" too loudly, I suggest you go and read the protection policy, in particular the part starting at WP:PREFER. Admins have discretion to protect a version other than the current one, because the current version contains policy-violating content or because protecting the most recent version "rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision." GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Before you go lecturing others about policy and instructing them to read it, you might want to actually read it yourself. Here's what it says:

"administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people." - this wasn't vandalism, defamation, or poor quality coverage of BLP. It was a straight up content dispute.

Then it says "Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". User:Scottwong, who still hasn't bothered to reply, made edits which were controversial AFTER he used his admin tools to protect the page. That's a pretty clear cut abuse of admin tools. Admins have no right to get WP:INVOLVED in content disputes AND to simultaneously use their admin tools to enforce their own preferred version. This has been standard practice on Wikipedia for years, if not decades. Seeing as how you've consistently displayed a staggeringly profound ignorance of Wikipedia policy in the past (as evidenced by the fact that every time you make a comment at WP:AE, no other admins agree with you), your position here is unsurprising.

Finally, the way you phrase your comment - "Before you scream "admin abuse" too loudly" - is obnoxious and disingenuous. I'm not screaming anything and it's shitty of you to try to portray my comment in that way. I am simply pointing out, as is my right, and correctly, that the admin in question abused his tools. Which he did. So unless you think that ANY criticism of admins is always "screaming" then you need to quiet down and keep your mouth closed. Last thing we need is one incompetent admin protecting another incompetent admin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Care to tone down the personal attacks? I quoted the piece of the policy between those two quotes that you conveniently skipped over - how about interacting with it instead of just ignoring the policy that doesn't suit you? GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

How about you don't describe my comments as "screaming"? And you're the one who actually "skipped over" the relevant parts of the policy and cherry picked the part which maybe, kind of, sort of, with a big ol' stretch and some help from creative interpretation can be used to justify an admin making controversial content edits through full page protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems you missed the word "before" in my comment. But you know, cheery pick the part which maybe, kind of, sort of, with a big ol' stretch and some help from creative interpretation can be used to justify... what exactly? Are comments on content personal attacks now? Not last I checked. GoldenRing (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"It seems you missed the word "before" in my comment." - oh yes, that makes all the difference and makes your incivility ok. Riiggght.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the pot calls the kettle black. If you want to be able to cry incivility, you need to tone down your response to disagreement. At any rate, since it's now been explained to you repeatedly that policy allows what Scotty did, perhaps you might withdraw some of the above personal attacks? Both on him and me. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Already mentioned above, WP:WRONGVERSION is clearly what has happened here... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No, "wrong version" would've been if Scottywong had protected a... well, wrong version. This is different. He protected the page then went back and made controversial edits himself. It would've been one thing if he had protected a particular version which I don't happen to agree with. But here he is taking sides in a content dispute which means he's not WP:UNINVOLVED and as such has no business using his admin tools (which includes protecting the page).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, would you have been happier if I reverted your edit warring before protecting the page? By the way, I specifically noted in my brief comments above that I had no opinion on whether or not the disputed section remains in the article. I haven't even read that section completely. All I saw was that a section was added, its existence was disputed by multiple editors, and then an edit war ensued instead of a discussion. In these cases, the long-standing version of the article should remain in place while the discussion is happening. So, I reverted to the long-standing version of the article and fully protected the page to prevent editors like you from continuing the edit war. You really have a terrible attitude, and it's no wonder you get into so many conflicts. You should make an attempt to be more calm, polite, and collaborative. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 23:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that topic bans may be the only solution to some of the battleground mentality here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break no. 1

In regards to whether this diff by Scottwong to remove a contentious section is valid, consider that the section has, for sourcing: 1) a CN tag , 2) a Tripod.com user-generated content site as a reference, and 3) a site that is tagged as having failed verification this month. Add that it is clearly is controversial, and its removal by Scottwong as the protecting admin, as outlined in WP:PREFER, seems fully appropriate. --Masem (t) 15:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact is, whether the protecting admin acted correctly or not in regards to policy, arguing over it doesn't really solve the underlying issue about the dispute on those pages (which are a problem of WP:BATTLEGROUND and won't go away even if all currently involved editors were blocked and never came back - they'd simply be replaced by new people arguing over it). I doubt the issue can be decisively resolved, but if people stop arguing about each other that would help. That of course is a lot to ask of some people so we should go ahead with the WP:1RR (which would help enforce the usual "if somebody disagrees and reverts your removal/addition, discuss immediately") and stricter consensus requirements. The solution could be the same as on other "heavily politicized" topics, for example the American Politics AE:

Extended content

What do you think of this proposal? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

1RR would do the article good. The "consensus required" bit, would take it no where - just allow stonewalling.Icewhiz (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And now in real time (from this). François Robere (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Identical twins? Or a bad joke at everyone's expense?

• How is is possible that two accounts editing only minutes apart from each other, for weeks already (!): François Robere and Icewhiz – wikihounding others in the same process discussions, participating in the same prolonged edit wars with extreme bias ... deleting the same references, inserting into articles the same anonymous attack webpages, harassing a woman to a breaking point hand in hand, and (most importantly), making an absolute mockery of WP:BATTLE policy in tandem, can go on like this, and nobody could (or would) do anything about it? Any ideas? Poeticbent talk 20:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  It would seem that using respected academic sources, e.g. Grabowski on the Blue Police is biased or even "frightened by the scale of histeria" per Poeticbent, who on the otherhand in a shocking feat BLP/NPOV/OR uses fringey coverage (a right wing internet portal) of a Polish diplomat's Faebook post to assert a historian math was "wrong". "harassing a woman to a breaking point" seems to be related to a SPI case with quite a bit of merit, while Poeticbent chose to open at least 2 meritless SPI cases recently SPI from March 2018 (opened in conjunction with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination) of an article Poeticbent heavily contributed to, which contained shocking misuse of sources and outright blood libel in Wikipedia's voice - see Sandstein's comments here), and another SPI from 28 Jan 2018. And what we had in mainspace in Massacre_of_Brzostowica_Mała is not a unique example of the contributions here. The other accusations above have little merit - a cursory examination of Francois's edits and mine show that we actually interact very little. If at all, there is tag teaming from the other side of the aisle here. We should do WWII and Holocaust history justice by relying on mainstream academic sources - and revisionst screeds should never be presented in Wikipedia's voice (if at all, but if presented - attributed and balanced with other views).Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz, I'm trying to wrap my head around the grammar of "in a shocking feat BLP/NPOV/OR uses fringey coverage (a right wing internet portal) of a Polish diplomat's Faebook post to assert a historian math was "wrong"" and its incorporation into that sentence. Nor am I sure about what you seem to describe as fringey coverage by a portal of a Facebook post there--is it this? What you can fault is the lack of proper ascription: "The problem with Grabowski's arithmetic is that Polonsky was misquoted to begin with..." should be properly ascribed and contextualized, of course: we can't have this stuff in Wikipedia's voice. But this thing, it seems to me, is symptomatic of the discussion--not enough specifics, plenty of accusations. Surely this matter can be discussed on the talk page, and the status of wpolityce.pl assessed at WP:RSN, instead of becoming ammo here at ANI. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Sorry for the bad grammar. I want to note I did not bring this to ANI (and I was actually reported here for objecting to this content - by the IP in the thread above). I did take this to the talk page and RSN (in both ONUS was not met for inclusion of this), though in retrospect it should have gone to NPOVn or BLPn. I should have said that using an internet portal's coverage of a facebook post by a diplomat is not appropriate per RS/BLP policy to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that a historian's math is wrong. It is also probably UNDUE even if it were attributed, and there are OR issues as well in some bits not sourced to the diplomat's Facebook post. I find it shocking this content would be used for a WWII history article (in which sources of better quality are not lacking).Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Editor interaction from Jan 2018, with actual smoke - [59], or (3 editor limit) [60].Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Technically, we do not discriminate against intelectual deficiencies here in Wikipedia, but Icewhiz now adding User:Poeticbent as suspect to that miserable WP:GANG attack on a woman in a screwy duologue with François Robere (a classic WP:MEAT double-act) reverting and lying in tandem for weeks if not months already, is a sign of serious emotional instability somewhere. I have already said, WP:ARBEE is practically dead; however, WP:Requests for arbitration is absolutely necessary here; the question is only when. Poeticbent talk 14:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The non-piped version of "WP:GANG attack on a woman" is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella. Poeticbent was added to the report on the basis of quite a bit of evidence, most notably a 46.7% (128 of 274) intersection rate (on mostly very low traffic articles) between articles GizzyCatBella edited and articles previously edited by Poeticbent. GCB first edited on 9/2015 (in a non-newbie fashion), stopped at 12/2015 and then went dormant until 2/2018, coming back with the following user page gender correction. There is additional evidence - however the correct forum is the SPI case.Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

So, wait, do I have this straight? One side is saying that Icewhiz and François Robere are a tag team/meatpuppets/sockpuppets, and the other side is saying the Volunteer Marek, MyMoloboaccount, Poeticbent and GizzyCatBella are a tag team/meatpuppets/sockpuppets? Is it not possible that there are simply two main opposing stances, and that all of these editors simply share those stances with the others in their supposed team? If these editors cannot come to some agreements, and aoluntarily stop their BATTLEGROUND behavior, perhaps they should all be topic banned from the problematic articles, for, say, six months, allowing other editors, with perhaps less vested positions, to work on them? And perhaps impose 1RR as well, so that the new editors don't fall into the same patterns. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Usually in these situations it actually comes down to one editor who's going around causing most of the trouble and pulling others in with them. Such a person has the unfortunate effect of radicalizing those who normally would be amenable to compromise and reasoned discourse. On both sides. Such an editor usually takes a radical, uncompromising stance and does so in the way which really antagonizes the opposite side, in what is essentially a form of ethnic trolling ("let me come into an article about your country and shit all over it, oh, you don't like it, why, you are obviously A NATTIONALISSSSTTTT!!!!"). And they're also usually good at making those on their site less reasonable - particularly those who are quite impressionable.

In this case that editor is Icewhiz. And this isn't the only topic area where they've been up to this kind of stuff (the other area is Israeli-Palestinian topic, where it's my understanding they've been a similar pain in the ass, and where they have also managed to poison the atmosphere and reopen past arguments, just as the topic area was quieting down). The editor who could be reasonable but got pulled in and radicalized by Icewhiz is Francois Robere. They've made some comments which indicate that they may be capable of compromise but their actual edits to the article itself are simply provocative and tendentious and it appears that this is because they've started following Icewhiz's lead (I'm not saying they're in touch off-wiki, this kind of thing could happen organically). And the editor on the other side who's stance became hardened in response to the action of these two is GrizzlyBella or whatever her name is. You remove Icewhiz from this topic area, I promise it will quiet down and rest of the editors will find a way to work together.

One example of how Icewhiz has managed to spread bad faith all around, is his repeated calls to out right ban sources on the basis of their ethnicity (no Polish sources allowed on articles that have to do with Polish history!!!!!) Or they're broad comments about Poland and Poles which employ stereotypes or sweeping generalizations. This is a guy who should've been topic banned form this topic months ago - and I said it back then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

VM has been reverting well sourced information, avoiding TP discussion (and edit warring against consensus), and introduced/supported some really poorly sourced information both about BLPs and contentious subjects - for instance calling out an admin User:Scottywong above (after edit warring about this in the article) who removed information on responsibility for a mass massacre after protecting the article that was sourcedto a Tripod blog post (edit warred in by VM a few times, including the latest - here). Insisting in high quality academic sources without bias issues (e.g. opposing Facebook posts, blog posts, sources with documented censorship issues, supporting balanced use of multiple viewpoints (not attempting to exclude Polish sources - but to balance them with non-Polish sources when other viewpoints are present in them on a contentious subject), or objection to the use of sources that were called out by the SPLC/HopeNotHate/others (and covered in RS) for their various activities and that have been involved in far right politics) is not trolling. VM's stmt above of "let me come into an article about your country and shit all over it" demonstrates a clear ownership (is Poland "his"?) and bias problem (how is reflecting mainline Holocaust scholarship, sourced to high quality sources, in relevant articles - "shit"?) - that in this case has manifested itself in edit warring (much more than any I might be said to be involved in), OR, NPOV, and BLP issues e.g. here (against TP and RSN discussions - which were participated more widely than he states). VM's stance in general has been to object to material well accepted by mainstream Holocaust historians, relying on rather fringe sources while severely attacking well respected BLP historiansIcewhiz (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a nice fantasy land you live in there Icewhiz. Seriously, can you point to one topic area where you've been active that you have not immediately caused a ton of trouble? How many articles have had to be fully protected because of edit wars you started? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Very few actually - I do not edit-war as frequently (or at all) as some WP:KETTLE editor making this assertion (who seem to engage in blanket reverts across multiple topic areas - flipping the article back to their preferred state 1-2 times a day - even on BLP questionable edits - or on sanctioned 1RR topics - e.g. White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) - [61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] (some of which are justified - and probably are OK on 1RR with the IP exemption - but still rather edgy)) - I typically will open a RfC (or bow out) when in dispute. Frankly - in ARBPIA things are much more collaborative - revert cycles are limited to a day or two (and that under 1RR) - prior to things getting hammered out on the talk page or via constructive (e.g. editing the addition or adding coutner-balancing information). 1RR would do this particular topic area good.Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This is another one of your typical disingenuous and bad faithed tactics where you attempt to falsely smear another editor just to "win" a content dispute. This kind of behavior is despicable. You're wrong - whatever reverts I made on that article were fully justified and with consensus, and yeah, most of them were reverts of disruptive IP editors. The fact that you try to bring this completely irrelevant bullshit up in this discussion sort of exemplifies your WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE approach to editing (whatever you claim about how great your behavior over at ARBPIA is).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I beg to differ. In this case, both sides seem to be rather uncompromising, and trying to shift the blame on others is simply an attention to shift it away from oneself. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz and François Robere are not sockpuppets of each other. Regarding meatpuppetry, I'll note that Icewhiz and François actually only intersect on this one very narrow topic area, and both have otherwise long and non-intersecting histories on the site, so that also seems unlikely. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Even on that very narrow topic area - our intersection is narrow. Francois hasn't been involved in other articles (he's been doing quite a bit of in-depth editing to the collaboration article (starting with the Poland section in Collaboration with the Axis Powers and then the created Collaboration in German-occupied Poland) - but hasn't edited all that much outside of that article (he did comment on the talk on Blue Police). I conversely - haven't edited the collaboration article all that much (IIRC I got into it in a RfC on the Axis article (on the British section) - and then participated a bit on the talk, as well as adding specific tidbits that I had knowledge of from other articles - but my editing on the article itself has actually been limited to approx. 2 paragraphs)). Francois wasn't involved at all in Jan Grabowski (historian) (which I edited/expanded very heavily) or in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination) (a rather ugly article and ugly AfD - which was close in terms of headcount, though far from close in terms of policy (notability, as well as serious RS/NPOV issues)) - calling two editors who intersect on essentially one article (parent and off-shoot) and even there a not so large intersection.... a tag team / meatpuppets ?! This seems to be solely based on WP:IDONTLIKE of well-sourced content.Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually if we look at how all this came about, then we just need to follow your edits temporally - you start at one article, cause trouble, edit war, it ends up being fully protected. You then move on to another article on a related topic and do exactly the same thing, until that article gets fully protected. You then move on to a third article and do the same. By the time that one gets fully protected, the full protection on the first one has expired, so you go back and restart your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on the first one. Rinse, repeat, etc. etc. etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

VM if Icewhiz truly does show a pattern of tendentious editing, diffs are required to verify that. I don't see much of a point for both sides to fling accusations at each other without at least backing them up with evidence. Icewhiz has kinda done so, but I do not believe his three diffs paint the whole picture just yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Grace, you're right, and the diffs can certainly be provided, but assembling the diffs requires some time since it means digging through several different article's histories and finding the right ones. This is especially time consuming when someone reverts and comments as much as Icewhiz. So give me a bit of time and I'll be happy to provide them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The "whole picture" would show that Icewhiz is an editor with the patience, fortitude and knowledge to wade into contentious topics. He regularly clashes with TheGracefulSlick on terrorism- crime- and Palestine- related subjects, notably at AfD. Slick and he see the world differently (full disclosure: I generally agree with Icewhiz on the notability these topics, and in our attitude towards revisionist history.) This particular clash has to do with a a strong wave of publication of ultra-nationalist and Holocaust minimizing literature in Poland, featuring POV journalism, Historical revisionism and pseudo-scholarship making assertions that Western historian overstate the Holocaust. And attempting to replace a complex period in the 1930s and 1940s (including bloody post-war strife) during which Poles were at once victimized by Nazis and Soviets and were themselves were mass murderers and oppressors of Jews, with a monochrome picture of heroic, honourable, but badly oppressed and murdered Poles. History is messy, but Icewhiz's work in this area (I have dipped my toe in once or twice, but lack Icewhiz's courage and tenacity, and tend to shy away from these revisionist Poland articles,) has been a visible effort to keep articles accurate and balanced. It does not appear to be an area in which Slick (who primarily edits on pop music) has has much interest or expertise.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory if you took the time to read my comment, you would realize I was defending Icewhiz; he shouldn't be accused of things without diffs. If you took the time to read this thread overall, you would realize I am not involved in this "clash". If you took even a little more time, you would also realize I have contributed to other things besides music, especially in the past year. Perhaps you should think things through before trying to get in a cheap shot? You just look foolish when you fail to evaluate your surroundings.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if Francois and Icewhiz is the same individual, but I have to admit that this thought came to my mind a few times in the past. Both are operating in a very similar manner. Both tend to leave lengthy, often misleading commentaries followed by a list of references, green color quotation text, etc. Among other things, there are similarities in the methods of arguing, clear anti-Polish bias and always uncompromised position.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4DDB:5808:7286:8AA5 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"Qui s'excuse s'accuse" - would you oppose sockpuppetry investigation Icewhiz?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4DDB:5808:7286:8AA5 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI IP, I am an SPI clerk. If you open that investigation I will close it immediately, absent some amazing evidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say I will open the case Someguy1221; I just asked if they would oppose it. If I was mistrusted, I would ask for investigation myself to prove everyone wrong instead of writing lengthy essays. Simple as that. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B5B2:3206:743D:B94A (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That reads dangerously like "I am not sure, so can we have one just to prove they are not", and that is fishing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by fishing? That I'm suggesting it? No, I'm just telling what I would have done in such situation.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B5B2:3206:743D:B94A (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is this looks like you are saying that "if you are innocent you would ask for an investigation to clear your name, nudge nudge, wink wink". Thus it really does read like you do not have enough evidence to start an SPI, but want to imply it is needed in the hope someone else turns up evidence. No one has to (or should have to) prove their innocence, either you straight up accuse someone or accept there is no case and drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately it doesn't really matter what the IP would have done. Per Wikipedia:CheckUser, checkusers are not allowed to perform 'innocence checks' on the English wikipedia. So such a request would be denied. (This also incidentally means that whatever the IP would have done, an experience user would not make such a request since regardless of their personal experience and beliefs, they should know they are asking for something which is not allowed.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the point about VM's (et all) socking is to show just how ridiculous the Accusation is against Icewhiz and Frank is. The issue of tendentious editing is different, and I seem to recall having been here before over Icewhiz, but I am pretty sure VM has been brought up before the beak as well.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what this comment is trying to say. If you're claiming that I'm sock puppeting, well, that's silly. If you're claiming that I accused anyone of socking that is also false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Look!! Protection on article removed and Icewhiz goes for it right away ---> boom! [71] This is what VM was talking about in his comment (quote VM under). And this is happening as we speak! 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B5B2:3206:743D:B94A (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually if we look at how all this came about, then we just need to follow your edits temporally - you start at one article, cause trouble, edit war, it ends up being fully protected. You then move on to another article on a related topic and do exactly the same thing, until that article gets fully protected. You then move on to a third article and do the same. By the time that one gets fully protected, the full protection on the first one has expired, so you go back and restart your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on the first one. Rinse, repeat, etc. etc. etc

Protection was actually removed on 9 April (the protection template lingered). The edits were done per consensus, pre-edit, at a 12 day discussion - Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)#Dariusz Stola's review - restoring content that was removed by mistake in this diff by @198.84.253.202: - TP - "But yes, sorry for the removal and of course it should go back in". The TP discussion was open for 12 days - and showed overall support for restoration of the content (all 4 reviews were removed by mistake by 198.84.253.202, and all of them by noted historians and/or in a respected journal) - if this demonstrates anything - it is VM coming in and blanket-reverting (with a mildly incivil edit summary) an edit done congruent with talk-page consensus - without bothering with participating in the talk page discussion during the protection (and commenting today on the TP only after he blanket reverted an edit done in accordance with the discussion).Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the editor interaction utility is of limited usefulness (e.g. comparison of me and Icewhiz [72]). 3+ editors is harder to shake off, but the fact is that in a BATTLEGROUND situation, when two editors are online simultaneously, you often get rapid back/forth debate. Throw in another few editors and suddenly you've got two (or more!) different camps that look like they're tag teaming, but actually haven't even met and live in different countries. Given the number of users, it's inevitable that some will interact in this manner across multiple pages - especially within the topics of interest to those editors. I'd ask that any accusations of sock/meating cease, or an SPI is opened in the case of convinving evidence. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Caution, I got into a SPI twice based on this level of evidence: 17 March, 28 Jan. ;-).Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A late entry to this discussion:

• I find the proposition amusing. I've checked the intersection of edits between Icewhiz and myself and it's quite small, and I can't point to any particular linguistic or behavioral trait that would suggest we are are own person. I wouldn't recommend an SPI of (/against) us, but speaking as myself I could hardly care less.
• As for those who suggested "unwillingness to compromise" (@Volunteer Marek, @198.84.253.202:), I just want to point to this, which has a list of diffs demonstrating my "unwillingness" to compromise and discuss; as well as this, which shows the general trajectory these discussions took, as well as other editors' (notably VM and Bella) contentious, poorly-sourced, and "IDONTLIKEIT" edits.
• @Someguy1221: I'll note that Icewhiz and François actually only intersect on this one very narrow topic area, and both have otherwise long and non-intersecting histories on the site I hope you found my long, non-intersecting edit history interesting. I try to appeal to my readers.
• @Icewhiz: he's been doing quite a bit of in-depth editing to the collaboration article Thanks for the comment. However, what struck me here is just how shallow some of the work done by others is. Bella has repeatedly misrepresented or even mis-cited sources, and most of her discourse when faced with sources that clearly contradicting her took the form of short exclamations in "all caps". A lot of the work was just fact checking or source checking - some reading, granted, but nothing that comes close to academic work. I came to the conclusion she was canvassing for sources - skimming to find statements that satisfied her, without actually reading the source. It's a human tendency everyone should all be aware and wary of, but when it's done with such dedication... there's something sad about it. François Robere (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A reminder to admins

These articles are under discretionary sanctions, which are intended to be used to stop just the kind of disruptive behavior we see here. Would an admin kindly do something here under DS:EE? I'd suggest topic bans for all the editors involved, but, whatever it is, please do something, that's why we have discretionary sanctions in the first place. This AN/I discussion is not helping anything, and is, in fact, hardening positions and fraying tempers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

We have WP:AE for that. Proposals to use nuclear option by handling out random topic bans just because "it looks very contentious" are never productive. Anyone is free to file a WP:AE report with specific allegations supported by diffs against specific editors for specific violations of policies or discretionary sanctions. I might do that myself when I get a bit more time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

All (or mostly) very true, but the purpose of DS is to allow admins to be more proactive in those subject areas, and I was suggesting that doing so would be appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish. François Robere (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The admins do not seem to care about this issue, so I guess it should be closed. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've put in place some editing restrictions on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. [73] And Volunteer Marek is right in that proposals for topic bans should be made at WP:AE. Things get too messy here if there are two or more sides with no blatant signs of misbehavior (just like what was happening before we had discretionary sanctions). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding AE: not really. Even a cursory look at AE's archives will show a goodly number of appeals of DS sanctions which have been placed on editors by individual admins, not by action at AE. Those admins were doing what DS was intended for, which is to provide them with the ability to place sanctions in DS-desiganted subject areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion

Many pages about collaborations with Nazi are really contentious because people have developed them along the lines "collaboration of ethnic group X with Nazi". This is very bad idea because blaming ethnic groups (rather than countries or individual citizens of certain countries) of collaboration with Nazi is actually wrong, not supported by academic sources, offends WP contributors, and was the basis for racist Stalinist deportations after WWII. What needs to be done is renaming all such pages along the lines "Collaboration of country X citizens with Nazi occupiers" (I commented about it here - agree with IP who started this thread). That will help to minimize conflicts and improve the content. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Considering that the article at the core of this dispute is titled "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland", which doesn't mention ethnicity at all, only a state or region, how does that suggestion help this particular problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Right. That - as reflected in the title - is what it's *suppose to be* like. About a country not an ethnicity. But that's not how it ends up in practice. This is in fact the central problem here with editors like Icewhiz purposefully trying to make it about ethnicity (and even suggesting that we exclude some sources on the basis of their ethnicity). Hell, after failing to force his way through on the article he even started a suggestion on the talk page [74], to make the article exclusively about "collaboration by ethnic Poles" (and exclude collaboration by any other ethnic group). (This led another editor to - jokingly I think, though sometimes it's hard to tell - to suggest that the article should actually be about "collaboration by ethnically pure Poles". If this doesn't show that Icewhiz is here with a POV WP:AGENDA I don't know what does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Marek, you should stop making unfounded accusations about people. I (strongly) disagreed with Icewhiz's rationale, but he did have a rationale for his proposal, and there was no sign of bias on his part in making it. François Robere (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

My observation from the collaboration articles (Collaboration in German-occupied Poland and Collaboration with the Axis Powers) on scope was actually opposite - one of the major problems was editors feuding over how much content to devote to each ethnicity - e.g. how much space (and claims) to devote to Jewish collaborations vs. Polish collaborations, which also led to introductions of content like this diff with piped links (Koniuchy massacre->Jewish, Skidel revolt->murdered Poles) to two incidents of inter-ethnic strife, or edits aimed to minimize ethnicity X while maximizing ethnicity Y (and in WWII German occupied Poland - there are at least 6 relevant ethnic groups (in different parts)).Icewhiz (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"edits aimed to minimize ethnicity X while maximizing ethnicity Y" - Dude. You fucking proposed that ONLY collaboration by "ethnic Poles" should be included and collaboration by any other ethnic group be excluded. How the hell can you then come here and complain with a straight face that SOME OTHER editors are trying to "maximize ethnicity Y" and "minimize ethnicity X" when you yourself have proposed the most extreme variant on that strategy????????????????????????????????????????? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

To be clear - diff - I suggested the same for other ethnic groups - " I will support such a breakdown for other ethnicities", "Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany, Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany, Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany, Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany,...." - which would keep each one in its own page (instead of, for instance, repeating Judenrat in each country or covering Ukrainian Auxiliary Police in multiple countries, etc.) - the suggestion did not garner support - but it was completely equal for all ethnic groups - it was not an article specific suggestion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Because that is what much of the dispute (even over its name) is about. The issue of "ethnic" poles vs "Germans" or "Ukrainian" Poles. If there was a WIki wide policy (lets call it that) that said that all articles about collaboration with Germany had to be called (and about) collaboration by a nations citizens it would remove much of the dispute by virtue of the fact there would be a policy and a standardization. I can think of no other article on this subject which has so much space devoted to ethnicity, or that includes material about other nations citizens.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out already "collaboration by ethnic group X" is generally problematic as an organization strategy for an article because ethnicities spill over into each other and often overlap. Which isn't to say it can't be roughly done, but the proper way to do it needs a lot of context and that can't be done when you limit it to "only collaboration by ethnic group X". Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me, but it was not people like me who argued that ""ethnic Germans" should not be lumped together with "ethnic Poles". The reason for the forking suggestion was to address that issue, that Pole should mean "ethnic Poles". I did not argue for (and in fact largely opposed) the splitting off into separate paragraphs for each ethnic group. Arguing that what mattered was nationality, not ethnicity.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Nazi did persecute specific ethnic groups, such as Slavs, Jews, etc. Such "ethnic issues" will inevitably appear on such pages, and they should. However, other than that, there is no need to debate any ethnic questions on such pages. Every Nazi collaborator, an individual or an organization, has a name. Just use that name per WP:Common name. For example, naming Russian Liberation Army among the Nazi collaborators is not really an "ethnic issue". This is just a common name of organization. Same with all other collaborators. No one will object. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Large numbers of former Poles served in the German army, we cannot list all of them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course not, and no one suggested it. What should be done is placing sourced info about Nazi collaborators on the page, like here. Overall, I think this ANI thread qualify as block shopping or forum shopping. If anyone had a case, they would go to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Well sourced" and then you go on and link to the most OR content in the article, which has been clearly disputed (and superseeded) on the talk page, a discussion from which you seem to have abstained. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you, but if you want to edit contentious subjects and complain about other contributors, I think you should create named account. This is for the reason of accountability. My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Why should we delay dispute resolution? There is obviously a perceived POV dispute which has evolved into edit warring and/or user misconduct, and WP:ANI is one of the appropriate places to handle such a situation. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you did not seek any WP:Dispute resolution beyond discussing this on article talk page. Dispute resolution would include posting RfC, request for mediation, etc. But instead you reported users you do not like to the ANI. This is not dispute resolution, but forum shopping or block shopping. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There were multiple discussions on the talk page, including some RfCs - and yet, not much progression. The rest is already said above so I won't bother explaining yet again in yet another different way how ANI is the appropriate place for this kind of dispute. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As someone who has peeked at this affair from time to time but opted out of participating, I'd like to say I think the proposal by User:My very best wishes is a good one; with regards to the issue raised by User:Slaterseven, in general phrases like "x-ethnicity individuals" (and etc) can be helpful. In addition, keeping in mind I don't think my opinion is exactly the same as Icewhiz' here, I'd like to say I strongly disagree with the characterization of his editing tendencies. In topic areas like the Middle East, sadly occasionally a cesspool of nationalist edit warring, he has been one of the most civil, conciliatory and especially patient editors (way more patient than I would be given what he sometimes had to put up with). Collaboration in the, erm, 1940s era, is as complicated an issue as it is (understandably and perhaps rightfully) emotional, and it's very easy to end up with misunderstandings. Nobody ever said WP:AGF was always easy. Cheers all,--Calthinus (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

To the IP/Cat, it might be best (daft as it seems) to have a small statement after each post to say (I am cat and this is not a sock), just to avoid the obvious confusion this is causing some peopleSlatersteven (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Spamming wikipedia with deletion requests

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

---

User:Sportsfan 1234 spams wikipedia with deletion requests, sometimes multiple articles per day, without taking a detailed look at the articles. Whereas some of the deletion requests actually have validity, lots of them do not. Many articles that the user nominates pass WP:GNG per multiple independent in-depth sources cited. User:Stephreef repeatedly contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 concerning the issue but never received any response. User:Sportsfan 1234 never engages into any discussions but continues his/her agenda.Stephreef (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Every article I have nominated that you have created fails WP:NBASKETBALL. It has also been pointed out to you that these articles fail GNG, contrary to what you are saying. You calling this spamming is a borderline attack on my editing here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Is a topic ban warranted? We don't need prolific creation of non-notable topics. Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Legacypac - There seems to be uncertainty as to your question about a topic-ban. Are you inquiring about a topic-ban on User:Sportsfan 1234 against "spamming Wikipedia with deletion requests", or against Stephreef creating articles that don't pass basketball notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to @Legacypac. Topic ban for me? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion requests are "prolific creation of non-notable topics", User:Legacypac? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it "articles for deletion" considered a "topic"? And could an editor be "topic-banned" for "prolific creation of non-notable topics" IF listing and article for deletion creates a new "topic" every time that editor seeks "deletion of hundreds of pages" some days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors have been topic-banned from nominations for AFD. Editors have also been topic-banned from creating articles in particular areas, especially when the articles were not suitable for Wikipedia. Which is User:Legacypac suggesting? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I hate to interject, but I wonder if Legacypac might not be referring to the 934 non-redirect pages created by Stephreef, many of them having to do with basketball? [75] Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

We absolutely can ban someone from creating AfD's. We've done it before. Whether we should is another issue. Smartyllama (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

:*Support topic ban from creating sport-related articles for Stephreef. I've reviewed a number of the articles they have created, and the majority fail various section of WP:NSPORTS (for example, many are on non-notable youth tournaments or non-notable players. As the user doesn't seem to grasp the issue, this may unfortunately be the best way forward. Mdann52 (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As mentioned before, I agree that some articles fail notability criteria. Yet, many of them fulfill WP:GNG and other users have pointed this out in the deletion discussions. Stephreef (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• On second thoughts, stuck the above vote - I'm happy there isn't a long term issue here - think I just got a bad batch the first time around.

I don't think there is really an issue here with either party - I think closing as no action required may well be the kindest thing to do here - sportsfan is at times a prolific contributor at AfD, but by itself that isn't an issue IMO. I think the recent nominations are generally ok, so I don't see what good can come from this report if it is left open. Mdann52 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mdann52 Contrary to what @Stephreef is saying, a majority, if not all of their articles lack either notability standards for the relevant project (WP:Basketball), (WP:GNG) or in most cases both. If this is not addressed (ie through a topic ban or a temporary ban from creating articles) the problem will only continue to get worse. Just out of random I opened another five articles created by Stephreef and all would fail both (WP:Basketball) and (WP:GNG). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't argue some basketball players meet GNG even though they fail BASKETBALL. If that is the basis for crewting a bunch of pages a topic ban is in order. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The claim that User:Sportsfan 1234 "spams wikipedia with deletion requests" is unsupported by any evidence presented. For that to be true we would to see a long list of Keep results on their AfDs. Stephreef's frustration at having enough of their basketball bios creations AfD'd suggests they are creating too many pages that fail the inclusion criteria. Please don't misread my comments to suit a preconceived notion. Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there is some substance to the argument that Stephreef is making. Most of the articles that Sportsfan 1234 has recently nominated for deletion have been largely getting "keep" votes and (in my opinion) meet WP:GNG. It does not appear that the nominator is following WP:BEFORE and just opening new AfDs for each article they see that doesn't have a significant number of sources already cited. TempleM (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 certainly has done this before, around the start of this year, with a large number of nominations of Phillipines basketball related subjects. A couple were deleted without a real consensus because no one commented, but the vast majority were closed as keep, and the deleted articles were mostly recreated. I attempted to discuss this with User:Sportsfan 1234, and his response was to just delete my comments from his talk page without reply. It appears their work may result in WP:BIAS against non-English speaking basketball topics, as all of the current round I have reviewed so far are individuals who have played for the Indian national team (including one, Akanksha Singh who is the team captain and has been on the national team since 2004!). I do wish that User:Sportsfan 1234 would attempt to discuss with users instead of just rushing headlong into mass deletions, which can be disruptive. By and large they do a lot of good work, and are an asset to the encyclopedia, but they could work on communication, and understanding of how notability relates to non-English subjects.Jacona (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of the earlier list of deletion discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa. A couple of these guys are amongst the all-time greats in Phillipine basketball history, and the Phillipines is known for loving basketball! The newest round of deletion results seems to be targeting members of the Indian national team. Is the editor failing to do before? Or are they unwilling to go to any effort to find sources for a subject that's unfamiliar to them because it's not on ESPN? They need to listen to criticism, consider language bias, and take the time to do a thorough WP:BEFORE process, before mass deleting basketball players from a country's national team. AfD nominations require a lot of our collective resources to consider, and should not be done lightly.Jacona (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Analyzing this current batch of deletion nominations, I am struck by the extreme disregard for WP:BEFORE in some of them. For example, Ram Kumar is the recipient of the highest sports achievement award in India [76]. One could not possibly perform WP:BEFORE and come to the conclusion that Kumar is not notable. This is a shameful example of WP:BIAS and part of a pattern of repeated disruptive mass AfD nominations. Something needs to be done to get this editors attention. Jacona (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@JaconaFrere: Technically, being a recipient of a certain award does not automatically make a player notable, unless the award is specified by the Wikipedia guidelines. However, I do believe that a number of the articles that have been nominated for deletion pass WP:GNG, some quite easily. Just because it fails WP:NBASKETBALL, it doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Additionally, I agree that Sportsfan 1234 does not seem to be following WP:BEFORE at all, as I stated previously. There are no signs that this user has attempted to find additional sources before nominating it for deletion. TempleM (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved Assessment

In looking this controversy over, I will comment that the filing editor, User:Stephreef, is shrieking, exaggerating an issue to try to "win" a dispute (although no one wins disputes; winning is what happens on the basketball court). It is out of line to call multiple deletion requests "spamming", unless perhaps it was being done by bots, and no one has suggested that. It is certainly out of line to call multiple deletion requests in one day "spamming" without providing metrics. I may have missed a few deletion requests, but it appears that on 15 April 2018, User:Sportsfan 1234 nominated multiple articles on basketball players who have not played at the first-tier level and so do not satisfy basketball notability (and one who appears to meet basketball notability after all). In particular, SF1234 PROD'd one of Sr's articles and nominated 8 for deletion. I didn't count the number of articles by other editors that they AFD'd, but the total number of AFD's is certainly within reason for one editor. There certainly is not a need for any action against User:Sportsfan 1234; just defend the articles on general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The boomerang question is whether User:Stephreef should be topic-banned from creation of basketball articles. I haven't seen the numbers to justify that either. I don't see a need for a topic-ban against either party. I do see a case for a WP:TROUT to the filing party for shrieking. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Good assessment. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Recommend trouting both users at minimum, and asking Sportsfan 1234 to review their AfD history with respect to the various notability guidelines. 43 delete votes on kept articles out of their last 200 votes is not a good ratio. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Authors of wrong nationality

Ktrimi991 frequently removes cited text using wrong nationality of its authors to justify removal. Some of their last activities include:

• diff
• diff

while some older diffs can prove this modus operandi lasts for quite some time:

• diff
• diff
• diff and diff.

They insist on the wrong nationality of authors of historical works to justify their actions although there are sources authored by nonSerbs as explained here (diff). In many cases Ktrimi991 uses this excuse to remove text cited by works authored by authors of right (non-Serb) nationality. The above diffs include some of them like: French consul Hyacinthe Hecquard, Noel Malcolm, Croatian historian Milan Shufflay, Prof. Dr. Ger Duijzings and many other.

I tried many times to explain them that it is wrong to dispute reliablity of works based on the ethnicity of authors, but they either ignore such explanations or give laconic reply which can be interpreted as: its not X ethnicity which is wrong, its historiography authored by people of X ethnicity which is unreliable by default. I am afraid that this behavior will continue as long as it is tolerated.

If it is wrong to make conclusions based on nationality of authors, then I propose that somebody with appropriate tools explain that to Ktrimi991. Otherwise, if I am wrong, I most sincerely apologize.

I notified them with this edit (diff) about this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• From where I sit, looking at this, the matter as given in the examples looks to be best be covered under Wikipedia:General sanctions subsections Eastern Europe and Macedonia, for which the general regions are all covered. Accordingly, then, admins look to be authorized to implement standard discretionary sanctions for the articles in question. As for the behavior, that would need to be addressed by reminding both of you that there are arbcom/community related sanctions in play here, and advise that you both play nice lest you end up topic banned, or blocked, or so forth in that manner. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You report editors after you have content disputes with them, and in no case they get blocked. Search your ANI history. The last case actually was on the talk page of an admin who told you your claims were wrong. You have a long history of topic bans, and you are banned from the Serbian Wiki (your home Wiki) because of your support of solving content disputes with off-Wiki violence. Did you forget your old good times?

On your claims, yes, you have been told by many editors, including Serbs, that you should not use every Serbian or Yugoslav source you find to depict non-Serbs as inferior or as of Serbian origin. If you need me to help your memory, there are plenty of diffs. In the other hand I do not use Albanian sources in delicate topics like experiences of people during the Yugoslav era, Serbian history and Kosovo conflict. The Albanian and Yugoslav/Serbian sources should be used with great care, because not all of them are reliable, in particular when they make strong claims not supported by foreign reliable sources. The worry about use of such sources is widespread among Balkan editors, but you reported only me because you do not like my work, or my work does not let you have your preferred version of sth. "They insist on the wrong nationality of authors of historical works to justify their actions although there are sources authored by nonSerbs as explained here" Fallacies at the best, you wanted that recent stuff stay and I showed good faith and allowed it, although much of it is sourced to Milosevic's propaganda machine or is taken out of context. Poor you Antidiskriminator. I guess it is the time to request a new topic ban imposed on you, and I am starting to prepare the case. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment This report was written in a rather intellectually dishonest way, as some might say. In fact, in the article in question, Marino Becichemi editors advancing the position that Ktrimi991 likely felt the article was biased in favor of not infrequently made the argument that the only sources disputing their view were Albanian and therefore unacceptable (example: [[77]]). Ktrimi991 pointed out their reliance on Yugoslav sources (which was in fact rather hypocritical), before himself adding non-Albanian, Italian sources.--Calthinus (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, it appears that some of the sources provided by Antidiskriminator are misleading, and don't actually support what he was saying. For example, in this one [[78]] Ktrimi's reasons for removal had nothing to do with the nationality of sources, but rather that he felt they were misrepresented. --Calthinus (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 didn't reacted towards repetative editing - at first, the whole editing "conflict" started with this his revert - [79]. As seen, he deleted one part of the text with sources with the claim that partisan sourceS were added. Simple check can showed that these are not partisan sources and because of that I reverted that. What is even more interesting, is that one of the references, a Croatian one which was just before that introduced in the article and deleted and claimed as "Partisan" and later as "Fringe" by him, () is still used in the text and Ktrimi991 in this edit didn't removed it from other places in the article. Why is for him this source problematic when it assures that the person's family from the article was originally from one group of people and representative "Yugoslav" propaganda, while in all of other cases and places in the article the same source is all right, I don't know - and that's the main problem here. Same goes for other deleted sources from Croatia, Montenegro or Serbia. Later I moved the article so it could have the name I have seen in the English-literature. After some users seeked consensus for that I started that on the Talk page and Calthinus continued and we everybody agreed. As for the claims in the sources, Ktrimi991 continued to make reverts without proper explanations. After edits by other users who brought back, he continued to revert with the claims as, for example, "Fringe claims by sources from a single country (Yugoslavia)" and here is the link [80]. The fact is that the sources were contemporary Croatian and Montenegrin, thus not from single country nor Yugoslavia, just written in Croatian/Serbian language which are similar. And at his talk page [81] when he was asked why he insisted on reverts, after being introduced that the sources weren't from Yugoslavia but from Croatia, he insisted that they are, quote, "Still they belong to the school of Serbian/Yugoslav propaganda", a personal opinion without any references or arguments to back it up. Here is link [82]. This assures Antidiskriminator position that there is bias towards Yugoslav/Serbian/Croatian sources by Ktrimi991. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

References

• I find it discomfiting that bias will be inferred from the writer's nationality or ethnicity. WP:RS itself acknowledges that use of "biased sources" even of the acknowledged variety are appropriate in certain contexts, see WP:BIASEDSOURCES, and it's left to the editors of the article to decide whether to label the bias of the source. However, claiming that bias inheres in sources solely because of the writer's nationality or ethnicity seems to me to be WP:EXTRAORDINARY, and would require lots of sources to support that contention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46 Personally this is not an argument I would use myself. However, you may be unaware of the context. The historiographies of most Balkan countries, historically-- both Albania and Yugoslavia-- have had some serious issues. See Serbian historiography, Historiography of Albania, etc I say Serbian historiography because that one has a large page on wiki, but the truth is that all Yugoslav historiography had certain issues that have themselves been the subject of academic study as historiography. So that is where the contention was coming from -- Ktrimi (once) denounced about reliance on Yugoslav sources, and FkpCascais did the same for Albanian sources, and really, in a way, they're both right, it's just that with nationalized edit conflicts in the Balkan area on wiki it's... really not the best thing to say.

My preferred solution here is an "Ethnicity controversy" section where we can discuss hte (rather divergent views) of the Yugoslav and Albanian scholars, in addition to the new sources from Italian authors that were posted. However neither side has directly indicated interest in this solution, which has been somewhat disappointing. --Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This issue of Balkan historiographies is complex, and their usage from certain time periods can be problematic. Ktrimi has felt the sources used by Antidiskriminator were misrepresented in the article. Antidiskriminator in past times has voiced concerns on certain articles about sources by communist era Albanian academics. In the same token Ktrimi991 too has the right to go about things in a similar manner (as per WP:BRD), as these kinds of sources may also not be reliable and on par with multiple Western academics doing the same research. In articles where there is sensitive content, a silent consensus of sorts among Balkan editors has existed to avoid the usage of Balkan sources in the most delicate pages, although some do not apply that formula for a variety of reasons. Its complicated with these things and often take time go through on a case by case basis.

This ANI shifted the talkpage conversation to here. Some conclusion of that at least would be good, otherwise the back and forth will continue with other editors who have edited the article which makes things time wasting bordering on farce. Calthinus's suggestion here that the part about ethnicity ought to be a separate section in the article would go a long way to resolving this.Resnjari (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi could responded in the way described by Resnjari and Calthinus above if he thought that usage of Albanian, Croatian and other sources is problematic. If Ktrimi wanted to point out that there are problems with them, he should have reverted previous edits with an explanations such as described by Resnjari (f.e. "There is a consensus not to use Albanian and Yugoslav sources because of that and that" etc) and that is alright. But Ktrimi didn't done that. Ktrimi removed the sources without reading them and didn't checked that they are not from Yugoslavia, called them "Partisan sources" (which are not), as fringed Yugoslav sources and examples of propaganda. These are hard accusations and bias. Also, Yugoslav historiography is a rather different than modern Croatian and Montenegrin but not to go out of topic. Ktrimi just removed them from the parts of the text and called them fringed but those same sources left in other places even after he called them partisan etc. The topic of Marins family origin wasn't researched pretty much in the Western historiography - in majority, in that topic they deal with Marins national identity, and not too much about his family's origins so Yugoslav and other sources weren't conflicted in that, but gave pretty much the same picture about other things such as Marins life and work etc. Those "conflicts" with "Yugoslav" sources vs. Western one's are hypothetical or weren't pointed out. As for FkpCascais, as it is seen from edits history, he just responded after a long time of repetitive and problematic Ktrimi's actions. Also, the rule of not using a Albanian or Yugoslav sources wasn't followed in the article about Marin from the beginning. Long before all of the editing by Ktrimi and others, Albanian literature was used in the article as seen here [83] or [84]. Some users weren't aware of that rule and people who were are could aware them politely. But is out of topic for a discussion here. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 needs to stop reverting whole articles just because he disagrees with something, and instead use what is known as the talk page. He tends to not start a discussion at all, nor engage in discussing the perceived issues, at least when I contact him. I just want to note a recent issue regarding article Names of Kosovo: again reverting, and in the common Albanian–Serbian rival spirit "Serbia" is out of the question (despite its historicity, official use, and geographical corresponding to the Kosovo Vilayet), despite being far more "real" than a petition by Albanian nationalists which he instead left unremoved... Let's face it, the user is disruptive.--Zoupan 23:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Just out of curiosity, why do you forget to say that I removed the part that said Kosovo was named "Albania" too? That I removed the part that said "Dardania" has Albanian origin? "He tends to not start a discussion at all, nor engage in discussing the perceived issues, at least when I contact him". Uhh, really? I use the talk page or leave a request on my edit summaries for other editors to better explain their edits. The latest reporting of your warring behaviour was by an editor a few weeks ago, and you still continue with it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

JMccoy13 and WP:Synthesis at the Adult, Adolescence and Puberty articles

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

---

JMccoy13 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in WP:Synthesis and WP:Disruptive editing at Adult (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Adolescence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Puberty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Click on the box below for what I mean:

JMccoy13's behavior

At the Adult talk page, JMccoy13 has insisted that puberty ends at age 13 or 14 for both girls and boys, and has argued that "the process of puberty is over after you can have babies!" I told him that there is no reliable source that states that "puberty is over after you can have babies." An 11-year-old pubertal girl might be able to have a child, but she is still going through puberty. I also pointed out that the Tanner scale, which is also something JMccoy13 has used to make his argument, goes up to age 15. As seen here at the Adult article, JMccoy13 engaged in WP:Synthesis. JMccoy13 added the following to the article: "By definition, puberty ends when sexual maturity has been attained, contrary to the popular misconception that puberty ends when vertical growth ceases. The average age of reaching sexual maturity and therefore the end of puberty is 13 in humans." Sources, including the sources he added, do not state that. JMccoy13 kept trying to define puberty as sexual maturity. Rather, puberty is a process of reaching sexual maturity. It doesn't mean that a person is sexually mature as soon as they hit puberty. It's also the case that many boys don't begin puberty until age 11 or 12. With this edit, JMccoy13's text was based on this everydayhealth.com source that is not WP:MEDRS-compliant, this WebMD source that is specifically about earlier puberty, and this 1985 "Spermarche--the age of onset of sperm emission" source. In his edit summary, he stated, "Puberty does not end at the age of 16 in the vast majority of cases - I fixed this error with proper sources." Thing is...I see no reliable sources to support his statement. He also added that "boys typically reach sexual maturity on average at the age of 13" and sourced it to the "Spermarche--the age of onset of sperm emission" source. His text appeared to be implying that boys complete puberty at age 13. But that is not what sources state. MedlinePlus: JMccoy13 referred to a MedlinePlus source, but even the MedlinePlus "Puberty" source that he added states, "It is a process that usually happens between ages 10 and 14 for girls and ages 12 and 16 for boys. It causes physical changes, and affects boys and girls differently." And this MedlinePlus "Puberty and adolescence" source states, "In girls, puberty is usually finished by age 17. Any increases in height after this age are uncommon." I told JMccoy13 that I have seen sources typically giving the ending pubertal age for girls as 14 or 15, but also as 15 to 17. I suppose "15 to 17" is to cover late bloomers and late finishers (those who didn't begin puberty at age 10 or 11). Similar goes for boys, but I haven't seen as many sources stating that boys finish puberty at age 14 or 15. This WebMD source states, "Most guys hit puberty sometime from ages 9-14 -- the average age is 12." And this 2012 "Pediatric Primary Care - E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 534, states, "Boys normally begin puberty from age 9 to 14 years." The sources are speaking on when boys begin puberty, not on when puberty ends for them. In that discussion at the Adult talk page, JMccoy13 insisted that the sources are wrong because most sources are basing puberty on legal age. I told him that I don't think that most sources are basing puberty on legal age. If they were, they would not be stating that girls complete puberty by ages 14 or 15, or by 15 to 17. As you know, the age of majority for the vast majority of the world is age 18. For the completion of puberty, I would be willing change the article so that it states that puberty commonly ends at age 14 or 15 for girls and at age 16 for boys, but that it may last until age 17 for either gender. But only by using sources that support this text. I asked him: "Do you agree to go with that? If you want other editors to weigh in on this matter so that we can resolve this dispute, I suggest that you leave a message at the WP:Med, WP:Biology and/or WP:Anatomy talk page and link to this discussion, or look to some other means of WP:Dispute resolution. Just don't go adding in your disputed text to the article. WP:Edit warring is not tolerated and can lead to a WP:Block." JMccoy13 never responded again after that (obviously since the sources are not with him). Instead, weeks later, he popped over to the Adolescence aricle and started pushing his POV there too and engaging more synthesis, and made this edit that he argues as grammatical. The RfC at the talk page has challenged this: Talk:Adolescence#RfC: Which lead sentence to go with?. JMccoy13's wording is unnecessary and a bit awkward. It essentially begins by calling adolescence "a transitional stage" without clarifying what that transitional stage is. Yes, his wording has "which includes," but "which includes" is simply saying that the transitional stage includes physical and psychological development, as if there is something else not being mentioned, rather than making it clear that physical and psychological development is the transitional stage. He says the current wording is not supported by the sources even though it is, and argues that his wording is more precise. At the Puberty article, he has also recently engaged in synthesis, stating "clarified." Like I noted when reverting him, that is no clarification. He added that girls end puberty by the age of 14 (on average) and that boys end puberty by the age of 15 (on average). He also added, "In some cases, puberty can end as early as 13 or as late as 17 without there being pathology involved." That, and his "average" text, is not what the sources in that paragraph state. And his addition of this source at the end of the text while moving a source that doesn't jive with his point of view doesn't make the text any more supported by the sources. Furthermore, his change has made it so that the lead of the article is inconsistent with what the lower part of the article states. Also notice that the source he moved aligns with other sources stating that boys finish puberty at about age 16 or 17, like this "Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy" source that is used in the Adult article.

Something needs to be done here. I and other editors shouldn't have to put up with WP:Synthesis and inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles and then take it to the talk page or to WP:Dispute resolution when our WP:Synthesis policy, like our other policies and our guidelines, is clear. This needs to stop. I warned JMccoy13 on his talk page and at the Adolescence talk page. I've made my case at the Adult talk page, with reliable sources, showing how sources can differ on the age ranges, and that we should stick with the age ranges most commonly cited in the literature. And yet he's still doing what he wants. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Flyer22 Reborn: "'''When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use [[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> to do so. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.''' Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates {{Pagelinks}} (for pages) and {{Userlinks}} (for editors) may be helpful." Once you've done that, ''then'' we will consider your request. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

TomStar81, I'm aware that the editor must be notified, and I did notify the editor. I've also provided links and diffs here to involved pages in the box above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this kind of comment actually ever a more effective use of time than just notifying them? GMG^talk 21:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful. Now we can move on to more pressing matters, like solving this quagmire. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If you wanted me to ping Rivertorch, IdreamofJeanie and Mathglot (who have been involved in the adolescence matter), I've gone ahead and done that as well, but there was no requirement for me to do so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

A new editor pushing a POV and refusing to try to understand basic concepts like synthesis... I think a time out needs to be taken. --Tarage (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• i have reviewed all this stuff. I understand Flyer's frustration. This is a topic where we get a lot of creepy editors, and editors with strong feelings - so bad editing, bad discussion, and bad behavior.

From what I can see, McCoy showed up with some pretty strong ideas about the age of puberty and what defines it, and has:

• edited aggressively about that, using generally crappy sources.
• on talk, the quality of their contributions are also low quality - their first comment was on March 21 here and their last one is here. They are discussing a complex topic based on the dictionary and britannica, and mostly writing what they think (not focusing on what the best sources are, and what they say).

This is not going slow, and a) respecting that they need to learn how Wikipedia works, and b) trying to bringing the best sources that are available and summarizing them and working toward consensus. Which is what is needed on a topic like this.

I think McCoy should agree to stop working on this topic and go edit about other stuff, and focus on learning how we work here - namely finding the best sources, reading them, and summarizing them in edits, and when there is disagreement, working toward agreeing on what the best sources are, and then how to best summarize them -- not just writing mini-essays about one thinks about the topic. McCoy has been doing the latter, and there is no end to that - it is just an endless time drain.

If McCoy won't agree to do that, then I suppose a topic ban will be needed. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban as well, but there is a more fundamental problem if McCoy refuses to grasp how collaborative editing works. The problem will just spill over to the next topic area and his topic ban will quickly become a site ban. Either way, I'll support any sanctions as long as McCoy continues this behavior. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support a 3 month TBAN while they learn more about Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support three month topic ban per Guy. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on pages related to human life stages, but the behavioral issues are worrisome. I'd like to see the 3-month TBAN followed up by 1RR on the same topic. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 09:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to say that it seems to me that the culture here on Wikipedia, at least among some, is pretty toxic and unenjoyable which makes editing here an uphill battle. It seems I have upset maybe a few user and at least Flyer, I don't know who all is upset because I haven't read through the entire mass of comments above yet. I apologize to whoever feels I am harming the platform or who feels that I am difficult, I am only trying to make Wikipedia the most accurate platform possible. Some may be unclear with what my goals are with these articles - on Adolescence, I want it to be clear that adolescence is a changeable, socially constructed stage of life and in Puberty, I want to make sure the ages it is completed at are accurate. On puberty I have many sources - literally every study ever done supports what I say (and no, I am not trying to say in the article that puberty ends when you can reproduce. I am using the widely accepted pediatric standard called the Tanner Scale.) There seems to be some hard feelings in regards to this because it may not support the common view of life. I am aware that the Palo Alto source claims puberty usually ends at around 17. Sadly, it's pretty clear cut that this source is wrong as the abundance of research and medical consensus does not support what that source says, meaning it does not belong on Wikipedia. In regards to Adolescence, every source actually supports what I say - that when adolescence ends is socially/culturally/legally decided by society, meaning that nearly all sources at least strongly imply this fact that should be made more clear. Many sources come right out and say it. I don't and have never meant to be difficult and quite frankly I think this strange business of me being "on trial" is extreme. I feel someone got mad at me and is trying to punish me for not doing what they say, but that's beside the point. To finish, I want to say in response to some claims that I have broken editing standards of Wikipedia that I am not here to break those standards or challenge them in any way even though some users may feel that way. If I have found that I have broken a standard I will withdraw my improper edit and redo it following the standards. --JMccoy13 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Per my arguments and sources I listed at Talk:Adult, you are wrong about the literature on puberty. The "age 16 or 17" aspect mainly applies to boys in sources. I've already noted that a number of sources cite girls completing puberty by age 14 or 15, but I also noted that some sources state "15 to 17," or just "16" or just "17." I've made it very clear that not as many sources state that boys complete puberty by ages 14 or 15, and certainly not by 13. If they did, you would be able to provide sources showing this instead of claiming it. I've looked, and I'm not seeing any online sources stating that boys typically complete puberty by ages 14 or 15. And your reliance on the Tanner scale is faulty for reasons I've already gone over. Furthermore, as noted in the collapse box, I offered to "change the article [and related articles] so that it states that puberty commonly ends at age 14 or 15 for girls and at age 16 for boys, but that it may last until age 17 for either gender." You never got back to me on that. As for adolescence, I've made my case with sources at Talk:Adolescence, and that includes commentary on adolescence being socially constructed. When looking at the Adult article, you'll notice that adulthood is noted as a social matter in part, has also been argued as socially constructed, and that a scholar recently added a "Social construction of adulthood" section to that article after discussing things with me on the article's talk page. I don't have much more, if anything else, to state to you on these matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Reading through some comments I see concern over my brash editing behavior. I have learned something about this platform because of this - that consensus and agreement is VERY important despite what might seem clear to an editor. I pledge that I will launch discussion topics on the talk pages of articles I think should be edited from this point forward before editing them so we can all reach a better understanding of the topics at hand. --JMccoy13 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to quickly address some of the complaints about me made by Flyer22 Reborn in the "behavior" box. The vast majority of those are from like a month ago, and I withdrew those edits for a reason - I learned more about the platform and figured out why I shouldn't make them. Therefore those complaints are non-issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMccoy13 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The edits and arguments regarding the Adult article in the collapse box are to show a pattern of behavior -- your behavior. You stopped editing the Adult article, but you were still making arguments on the talk page that go against what sources state or what the literature generally shows. You were still arguing in a way that is at conflict with the way Wikipedia works. And then you continued that behavior, editing included, elsewhere. So that recent past behavior of yours is relevant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to respond to Jytdog 's comment : "i have reviewed all this stuff. I understand Flyer's frustration. This is a topic where we get a lot of creepy editors, and editors with strong feelings - so bad editing, bad discussion, and bad behavior. From what I can see, McCoy showed up with some pretty strong ideas about the age of puberty and what defines it, and has: edited aggressively about that, using generally crappy sources. on talk, the quality of their contributions are also low quality - their first comment was on March 21 here and their last one is here. They are discussing a complex topic based on the dictionary and britannica, and mostly writing what they think (not focusing on what the best sources are, and what they say). This is not going slow, and a) respecting that they need to learn how Wikipedia works, and b) trying to bringing the best sources that are available and summarizing them and working toward consensus. Which is what is needed on a topic like this. I think McCoy should agree to stop working on this topic and go edit about other stuff, and focus on learning how we work here - namely finding the best sources, reading them, and summarizing them in edits, and when there is disagreement, working toward agreeing on what the best sources are, and then how to best summarize them -- not just writing mini-essays about one thinks about the topic. McCoy has been doing the latter, and there is no end to that - it is just an endless time drain. If McCoy won't agree to do that, then I suppose a topic ban will be needed." You're right that I was too aggressive in my editing. I do want to continue to edit on this topic as well as other topics. I was too quick to edit war without other users understanding what is going on. I want to open discussion on pages in the human development area where there are issues and help everyone reach an understanding before I edit so that there is not war. I won't make anymore edits without agreement but I believe that barring me from contributing to this topic is unnecessary at this point. JMccoy13 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You are not showing any sign that you understand that the way you are using talk pages is not productive. Above and elsewhere (eg here) you have hand-waved about "other sources" but generally you have actually cited crappy blogs, the dictionary, britannica, etc. Your talk discussion is mostly what you think (not "specific source X says Y, specific source A says B" where X and A are high quality sources.) It is not clear that you understand what high quality sources are, or that you care about that... but high quality sources are fundamental to everything we do here.

Also what you write just above -- I was too quick to edit war without other users understanding what is going on. and help everyone reach an understanding sounds too much like "I will slow down and help everyone else understand the truth that I know".

I really think you should go edit about other stuff for a while and learn how WP actually works. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that I sound too sure about my position, I'm not too sure and I'm certainly open to having my views changed. I agree that I should go edit other things and that's what I'll do, however I do want to open discussion on talk pages in human development topic. I won't edit those pages for a long time though so you don't need to worry about me continuing with bad edits. I think that through editing other topic areas and through patient discussion on talk pages that I'll become more familiar with the standards here and you guys won't feel like there's a problem anymore. I apologize for edit warring and for not instead discussing possible problems with articles first so that there could be consensus (and that of course means that through discussion I could realize why there isn't a problem with an article where I might have believed there was). I also apologize for any violations in regards to sources like WP:Synthesis. I have been reading up on source standards and feel much more competent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMccoy13 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban and whatever else Flyer 22 suggests. I have watched Flyer spend hours and hours of her valuable editing time on talk pages with editors who appear to be unable to understand how this place is supposed to work. Watching her efforts over the years I'm surprised that she continues to try to create good Wikipedia articles at all. Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@JMccoy13: there are some indications that you still don't quite grasp what's going on. You wrote: I don't and have never meant to be difficult and quite frankly I think this strange business of me being "on trial" is extreme and I was too quick to edit war without other users understanding what is going on and I pledge that I will launch discussion topics on the talk pages of articles I think should be edited from this point forward before editing them so we can all reach a better understanding of the topics at hand.

Wikipedia doesn't have to be adversarial. Our policies and guidelines, and the mechanism for enforcing them, exist to ensure that our objective of building a worthwhile encyclopedia is not compromised. When users make the effort to learn the rules and then try to follow them, our work here goes smoothly and, for the most part, no one gets upset. This noticeboard isn't about putting people "on trial"; by and large, it's for responding effectively to users who aren't listening to the advice we've been offering them in various other places. For instance, after being advised that edit warring is against policy, you denied that you'd been edit warring and then you edit warred some more.

There is no such thing as being "too quick to edit war". Edit warring is always disruptive, regardless of when one does it, and that's why the policy allows for such limited exceptions. "Launching discussion" is a very good idea, but on articles where there's a topic dispute, it's not enough; consensus must actually be reached before you make further edits to the disputed content (and, obviously, those edits must reflect that consensus).

Finally, I want to say something about the way you opened your contribution to this discussion—by calling Wikipedia culture "toxic and unenjoyable". You're right, it frequently is, and you're far from the first user to notice it. I can't tell what you'd find enjoyable or unenjoyable, since that's subjective and personal, but if you want to minimize the toxicity, I'd suggest that regardless of the outcome of this discussion, you (1) make it a point to avoid editing articles on the topics that have seen you involved in content disputes and (2) listen to the advice that more experienced users have to offer. Some users are officious boors, but most of us are actually trying to be helpful and have no desire to contribute to any toxicity. Wikipedia has a learning curve, and no one expects perfection from anyone, least of all the newbies. What we do expect is that you be willing to learn what the rules are and then try to abide by them. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that edit warring is fine if you wait a little while. I engaged in what I now know to be edit warring because it seemed to me that I was getting rolled back on anything I did by Flyer22 Reborn. It felt like it was borderline harassment and so I rolled back the roll backs. I now know that instead I should have started a discussion and laid out the facts as clearly as possible, which I failed to do, leading to confusion. JMccoy13 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to allegations

At the Adult talk page, JMccoy13 has insisted that puberty ends at age 13 or 14 for both girls and boys, and has argued that "the process of puberty is over after you can have babies!" I told him that there is no reliable source that states that "puberty is over after you can have babies." An 11-year-old pubertal girl might be able to have a child, but she is still going through puberty. I also pointed out that the Tanner scale, which is also something JMccoy13 has used to make his argument, goes up to age 15. You make me sound like a pedophile - here's what I actually said: "Flyer22 Reborn , Sorry that I used a sketchy source or two. In future edits I will make sure they are reliable. However, many of the sources I used were reliable. I'm confused as to what you think puberty is? My reliable government source (medline.gov) clearly defines puberty as the process of reaching sexual maturity. Sexual maturity is clearly defined as, by valid sources, the capability of an organism to reproduce. Therefore the process of puberty is over after you can have babies! Of course some growth takes place afterward, but that's not a function of puberty. Bones and hair continue to grow until the mid to late twenties!" My discussion on a talk page is also in violation of no rules. And given that this was a month ago, some of my views have changed since then. As seen here at the Adult article, JMccoy13 engaged in WP:Synthesis. JMccoy13 added the following to the article: "By definition, puberty ends when sexual maturity has been attained, contrary to the popular misconception that puberty ends when vertical growth ceases. The average age of reaching sexual maturity and therefore the end of puberty is 13 in humans." Sources, including the sources he added, do not state that. JMccoy13 kept trying to define puberty as sexual maturity. Rather, puberty is a process of reaching sexual maturity. It doesn't mean that a person is sexually mature as soon as they hit puberty. It's also the case that many boys don't begin puberty until age 11 or 12. WP:SYNTHNOT "It's not always obvious whether something is SYNTH. To be able to say that something is SYNTH, you have to be able to understand what it says, what the sources say, and whether the sources suffice to verify the assertion. If you don't understand something, don't say it's SYNTH. Say it's too advanced for the article. Say it's unclear writing. Boldly try to clarify it. Allege on the noticeboard that it's SYNTH. But don't revert it indiscriminately for being SYNTH." But Flyer does that here andhere. And it's clear that Flyer22 Reborn doesn't understand my edit, as I was NOT trying to define puberty as the start of sexual maturity. I think it was clear that I was defining puberty as the process of reaching sexual maturity, and sexual maturity as the ability to reproduce (which is what the article here says on it anyway). So no, I was not saying people are sexually mature as soon as they hit puberty, and Flyer22 Reborn clearly doesn't understand that. "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception." Flyer22 Reborn did not even explain what improper thesis I was making, instead rolling back first and asking questions later. "SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. In 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." [2] It seems clear to me that "synthesis of published work" was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia. Some old versions of NOR even said "Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source ..."[3] (emphasis added). Which is really helpful for those editors with time travel capabilities who can go back and edit Wikipedia before community consensus changed the policy to specifically remove that connotation." It's basic deduction. If a source says that puberty is the process of reaching sexual maturity and that sexual maturity is the ability of an organism to reproduce, and another says that the ability to reproduce is reached at around 13, then I can deduce that puberty ends at about 13. But because what I did may fall under synthesis, I stopped! This was from a month ago, and I have stopped trying to use deduction on Wikipedia because it might be against the rules. So what is the problem? Why is this behavior from a month ago that hasn't continued? I was just learning the ropes. With this edit, JMccoy13's text was based on this everydayhealth.com source that is not WP:MEDRS-compliant, this WebMD source that is specifically about earlier puberty, and this 1985 "Spermarche--the age of onset of sperm emission" source. In his edit summary, he stated, "Puberty does not end at the age of 16 in the vast majority of cases - I fixed this error with proper sources." Thing is...I see no reliable sources to support his statement. He also added that "boys typically reach sexual maturity on average at the age of 13" and sourced it to the "Spermarche--the age of onset of sperm emission" source. His text appeared to be implying that boys complete puberty at age 13. But that is not what sources state. Again, something from a month ago that I have since learned from. I took Flyer's word that my source was bad and stopped using it because she said it wasn't compliant. A month later, why is this a part of her complaints? On the spermarche thing - my source said something along the lines of "13 is the typical age of the onset of sperm emmission in males." She doesn't claim this is Synthesis, so what is the complaint? But again, I was using elemantary deduction. If I know that when the sun sets, it's night, and a source says that "the sun sets typically at 8 o'clock", it's not ridiculous for me to say "night starts typically at 8 o'clock". Again, this was a month ago and I am now much more hesitant when it comes to deduction. MedlinePlus: JMccoy13 referred to a MedlinePlus source, but even the MedlinePlus "Puberty" source that he added states, "It is a process that usually happens between ages 10 and 14 for girls and ages 12 and 16 for boys. It causes physical changes, and affects boys and girls differently." And this MedlinePlus "Puberty and adolescence" source states, "In girls, puberty is usually finished by age 17. Any increases in height after this age are uncommon." Again, a month ago. I told JMccoy13 that I have seen sources typically giving the ending pubertal age for girls as 14 or 15, but also as 15 to 17. I suppose "15 to 17" is to cover late bloomers and late finishers (those who didn't begin puberty at age 10 or 11). Similar goes for boys, but I haven't seen as many sources stating that boys finish puberty at age 14 or 15. This WebMD source states, "Most guys hit puberty sometime from ages 9-14 -- the average age is 12." And this 2012 "Pediatric Primary Care - E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 534, states, "Boys normally begin puberty from age 9 to 14 years." The sources are speaking on when boys begin puberty, not on when puberty ends for them. In that discussion at the Adult talk page, JMccoy13 insisted that the sources are wrong because most sources are basing puberty on legal age. I told him that I don't think that most sources are basing puberty on legal age. If they were, they would not be stating that girls complete puberty by ages 14 or 15, or by 15 to 17. As you know, the age of majority for the vast majority of the world is age 18. For the completion of puberty, I would be willing change the article so that it states that puberty commonly ends at age 14 or 15 for girls and at age 16 for boys, but that it may last until age 17 for either gender. But only by using sources that support this text. I asked him: "Do you agree to go with that? If you want other editors to weigh in on this matter so that we can resolve this dispute, I suggest that you leave a message at the WP:Med, WP:Biology and/or WP:Anatomy talk page and link to this discussion, or look to some other means of WP:Dispute resolution. Just don't go adding in your disputed text to the article. WP:Edit warring is not tolerated and can lead to a WP:Block." Bottom line is that I have many sources that are much more reliable than Medline that disagreed with Flyer's. I should have laid those out but I went away from home for a few days and when I got back I just didn't feel like coming back to Wikipedia immediately. JMccoy13 never responded again after that (obviously since the sources are not with him). Instead, weeks later, he popped over to the Adolescence aricle and started pushing his POV there too and engaging more synthesis, and made this edit that he argues as grammatical. The RfC at the talk page has challenged this: Talk:Adolescence#RfC: Which lead sentence to go with?. JMccoy13's wording is unnecessary and a bit awkward. It essentially begins by calling adolescence "a transitional stage" without clarifying what that transitional stage is. Yes, his wording has "which includes," but "which includes" is simply saying that the transitional stage includes physical and psychological development, as if there is something else not being mentioned, rather than making it clear that physical and psychological development is the transitional stage. He says the current wording is not supported by the sources even though it is, and argues that his wording is more precise. I didn't engage in anything remotely resembling synthesis at Adolescence. We were just debating over a definition there, semantics. When Flyer rolled me back after the edit (here) with what seemed to me barely any reason why, other than opinion that the change was odd and unnecessary, I rolled back the roll back because I felt that she was the only one who had a problem with my edits and that she was overusing the rollback tool. I learned from this - now I'd launch a proper discussion instead of engaging in anything that could be seen as an edit war. I have also seen that she wasn't the only one who had an issue with my edit, and I apologize for not respecting her perspective. At the Puberty article, he has also recently engaged in synthesis, stating "clarified." Like I noted when reverting him, that is no clarification. He added that girls end puberty by the age of 14 (on average) and that boys end puberty by the age of 15 (on average). He also added, "In some cases, puberty can end as early as 13 or as late as 17 without there being pathology involved." That, and his "average" text, is not what the sources in that paragraph state. And his addition of this source at the end of the text while moving a source that doesn't jive with his point of view doesn't make the text any more supported by the sources. Furthermore, his change has made it so that the lead of the article is inconsistent with what the lower part of the article states. Also notice that the source he moved aligns with other sources stating that boys finish puberty at about age 16 or 17, like this "Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy" source that is used in the Adult article. This source is my source. On page 29 I read table 1.11. G5 is the mature genital stage, signaling sexual maturity. This is the consensus definition among pediatricians, not some crackpot zoological definition like I was operating on earlier. Reading a table is not synthesis. The table contains the average age for reaching G5 and the standard deviation of that average time 2. That gives you all you need to know. Note: PH5 is slightly higher but not significantly so, either one could be used by G5 is more accepted. Again, people including Flyer seem confused so I now realize I should have made a discussion area about it and laid out these facts very clearly. JMccoy13 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Your "Flyer seems confused" argument does not fly (no pun intended). I've already responded to you above. And given what you stated in your collapse box, I stand by what I stated and believe that you are not a person who should be editing pubertal topics. Your "[t]his is the consensus definition among pediatricians" argument is something I'm not even going to address, given what I've stated. I will, however, advise you again to stop relying on the Tanner scale for your pubertal age range arguments. Some sourced text for it in its Wikipedia article and reliable sources elsewhere discussing the scale even note that trying to use, or using, it for ages is a poor use of the scale and can easily be inaccurate. And for the record, I was arguing that your "spermarche" source was being used in a WP:Synthesis way. That is clear. And sexual maturity is not defined consistently by researchers when it comes to non-human animals and it's often not defined in the same way with regard to non-human animals as it with regard to humans. There are many sources that don't define sexual maturity plainly as "the capability of an organism to reproduce" or similar. And there are sources that note issues with trying to define sexual maturity. In fact, looking for sources defining sexual maturity is challenging. I don't trust you editing the aforementioned articles or any other Wikipedia topics. And I'm done replying to you in this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I did make mistakes, sorry, I've learned and I won't make those mistakes again. You were CLEARLY confused with what I was saying - what you think I said doesn't line up with what I actually meant. The meaning got lost somehow, it happens. As for you not trusting me, I have two question: 1. So what? Why does it matter if you trust me? You don't know me. 2. What are you implying? You seem to be implying that I am in some way a shady or bad individual. Again, you don't know me or what my circumstances are. I don't like that implication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMccoy13 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"I will, however, advise you again to stop relying on the Tanner scale for your pubertal age range arguments. Some sourced text for it in its Wikipedia article and reliable sources elsewhere discussing the scale even note that trying to use, or using, it for ages is a poor use of the scale and can easily be inaccurate." The article says "Tanner stages do not match with chronological age, but rather maturity stages and thus are not diagnostic for age estimation" You seem unduly sure in your viewpoint. I don't want to discuss this stuff here, though. It's not the place for it. I just felt I had to point the above out. JMccoy13 (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

One last thing I want to say is that I will take a break from editing articles relating to the subjects discussed here because of possible tension between myself and others who edit those. However, I am going to ask the admins to not give me a topic ban for a few reasons. 1. I want a clean record here on Wikipedia, and I don't want to be punished for my newbie mistakes. 2. I will take a break, but I would like to probably lightly edit some articles within the general topic area after maybe a few weeks, not 3 whole months. 3. I have learned much about Wikipedia from this process and I think a ban would just be unnecessary. JMccoy13 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment and Question

I have not had good experiences with regard to editors who edited stubbornly and against consensus who then said that they needed to take a wikibreak of a few weeks or months, and had the case closed due to the editor having taken a break, because usually the editor does come back, and has not changed their approach, and has to be dealt with again. I am not happy that the stated desire of User:JMccoy13 for a clean record will be sufficient to guarantee that we aren't right back here in 3 weeks or 3 months or 6 months?

Would it be possible to close this thread with an agreement that User:Jmmccoy13 will completely avoid the area in question without having a formal topic-ban written? Would such a close be acceptable to the filing party, to the subject party, and to the community? If this sort of informal approach will work, we can try it. If it won't work, then I would say that sanctions are needed, because experience with editors who just take breaks from stubborn editing has not been good. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. - JMccoy13 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not a suspended topic ban? For example, Jmmccoy13 is subject to a X month topic ban, which is suspended for Y months. If within the Y month period, Jmmccoy13 shows recidivist behaviour similar to what has been reported in this original ANI, then the X month topic ban will automatically come into force. Blackmane (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: Robert McClenon, Jmmccoy13 has agreed to your above proposal. Hopefully, that will be enough and he'll stick to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:CITEVAR, [[WP:OVERLINK]] and Commissioners' Plan of 1811

WP:CITEVAR is quite specific in what it says:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article.

When I took on the expansion of Commissioners' Plan of 1811, [85] the article was 13,591 bytes and had 4 references which did not have a consistent reference style. Now, mainly through my efforts, the article is 129,820 bytes long, and has 164 references with a consistent references style, which I established, and which has remained in the article since I established it in 2012. I am listed as the primary author of the article, responsible for 89.5% of the text. [86]. Obviously, I do not, and can not WP:OWN the article, but -- also obviously -- I have a vested interest in it as the major author of it.

Now, two editors, first Imzadi1979 and then PSantora, neither of whom has contributed a single byte to the article, have decided that the article's existing consistent referencing style is not to their liking, so both have attempted -- in blatant violation of WP:CITEVAR, and without seeking consensus on the article talk page -- to change the references, but to two completely different referencing systems. Neither is, to my mind, superior to the current system, but that is neither here nor there. CITEVAR clearly says that if there is an existing consistent reference system in use it should not be changed without a consensus to do so. Both have been told this, and both have declined to try to get a consensus. Imzadi, to their credit, dropped the issue, but Psantora has been edit-warring to enforce the system they prefer.

Psantora is also overlinking, having added links to publishes in a number of cite templates I created and use often. [87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93],[94],[95],[96],[97] (On some of these he also linked the name of the publishing location city, but most of those he later removed.) It is true that I sometimes see publishers linked in references, but only very rarely, and I believe it qualifies as WP:Overlinking. I can't image someone reading Commissioners' Plan of 1811, checking a reference, and saying to themselves, "Hmm, I've just got to know more about this 'Yale University Press' it mentions as the publisher." That's absurd, links should be for stuff the reader is likely to be interested in finding out more about, especially in relation to the subject matter at hand -- and that is why the vast majority of book references do not have the publisher linked. This portion withdrawn, see below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Psantora also appears to be doing a bit of following me around, since I never heard of him before a couple of days ago, and now he's turning up on all sorts of article I have watch listed, such as Untermensch, List of mayors of New York City and Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, not to mention the numerous citation templates I create for references that I use frequently.

I do not want any sanctions -- at this point, I don't think anything remotely sanctionable has occurred -- but I would like Psantora -- in particular -- to be told to stop violating CITEVAR and changing references without a consensus to do so, to stop overlinking by linking publishers, and -- if they are doing so -- to stop following me around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A quick follow-up. I see on Imzadi1979's talk page that the claim is being made that the referencing style on Commissioners' Plan of 1811 is "not consistent" because different methods were used to arrive at the resulting reference. This is a red herring. "Consistency of style" refers to the results the readers see on the page, not the methodology used to generate that result. If a reference says:

Last, First (date) Title of book. Location: Publisher. page(s). ISBN

it is completely irrelevant whether it was generated by a citation template, or if it was "handrolled", as someone called it. The ideal is that the reader (the people we write the encyclopedia for) see a consistent style in the reference section. Like sausages, they should never be made to be concerned about how it was made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Two editors notified. Discussion has taken place at Talk:Commissioners' Plan of 1811, User talk:Imzadi1978 and User talk:Psantora. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting that Imzadi has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a globally-locked LTA. ansh666 20:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No, that was an impersonator account that was blocked long ago. --Rschen7754 00:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  Huh, I thought that something was off. Sorry about that. ansh666 08:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • • Given that, someone should revert these incorrectly founded (based on Ansh666's comment) edits by BMK: [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]. (I'd do it myself, but I don't want to inflame this situation any further than required to resolve it.) - Paul^T+/_C
      • I don't see why they should be. Yes, the reason given for the edits is now wrong, so I'll provide a null edit saying what is also the case, that the edits did not improve the templates. It really should be noted that I created these template because I found myself using those sources a lot. As far as I know, no one uses them but me, but because of the volume of my edits, they still get used frequently. (Template:Cite gotham, for instance, has 117 transclusions [104].) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)\
        •  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
          • What, exactly, was done? - Paul^T+/_C 06:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup, agree absolutely that consistency of citations is about what the reader sees on the rendered page, and they should stick to current usage, or make a case on the Talk page why not. I'm less bothered by whether a publisher is linked or not, although I see why it rankles if your template is changed and it forces you to do something you are opposed to. There is some indication in user doc for {{cite book}} that a linked pub is not completely outré; see the examples (search on page for ' [[HMSO]] '). However that's just a doc example, not a community guideline. If the editor is hell bent on linking his pubs, a compromise might be to introduce new param publink (on the model of authorlink) and let them link their pubs if that's what floats their boat. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, I almost always link everything I can in the citations, but I also almost always work with news articles and scholarly journals available online, not books. ansh666 20:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I also link periodicals and websites in references, but I do not link book publishers. I started out linking publishers many years ago, but stopped when I noticed that almost no else did it. I concluded that this was the community norm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have wikilinked book publishers in references hundreds of times, including in Good articles like George Meany, and never once has another editor objected to this. I consider it a good way for a reader to be able to evaluate the reliability of a publisher. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That might be a valid argument for "off-brand" publishers, but no one's going to evaluate the reliability of the Yale University Press or Random House by consulting our articles on those publishers, nor should they have to. If someone has a concern that the reference is not to a reliable source, they should bring it up on the article talk page, or on WP:RSN. The link serves very little purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As have I. I will respond at length to this a little later, but I just wanted to quickly point out I believe this AN/I is a response to a 3RV that I started here, though in retrospect I clearly should have come here instead. I believe my actions have been misrepresented by BMK and I will need some time to outline them properly. - Paul^T+/_C 01:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What 3RV? I received no notification of a report at WP:EWN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This notification? Sent directly after I created the report and well before this one. Don't be coy. Regardless, it is stale and superseded by this discussion at this point. If I had been more clever I would have come here instead. - Paul^T+/_C 01:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it look like you did indeed notify me. But if you look at this report on AN, you'll see that the talk page message flag was down for some portion of today, so the orange box never lit up, saying there was a message on my talk page, so this report is not a response to your EWN, because I never knew until just now that there was a EWN report.

Perhaps you could strikeout "Don't be coy", and next time WP:AGF? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I assume you'd also argue you missed the pings from the post as well. I don't[didn't (Psantora 4/21)] buy it, but my opinion doesn't really matter on this small point. (And again, that report has become redundant at this point anyway.) - Paul^T+/_C 02:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think I have pings turned on? In any case, I frequently ignore pings (when I have them on - I turn them on and off frequently depending on what I'm involved in, and what condition my blood pressure is in.)

So, are you saying directly to me that I am lying to you and the community? That doesn't seem like a particularly good stance for you to take when starting to engage in what is supposed to be a collegial discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally -- not addressing this to you, Psantora, since you apparently aren't interested in believing anything I say -- but Cullen made a pretty good point to me on my talk page about linking publishers, so I'm going to re-evaluate my position on that. But, of course, the important part of this complaint concerns Psantora's serial non-compliance with WP:CITEVAR, even after its provisions have been pointed out to them -- that's the issue that needs to be dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and Psantora: I am open to you retracting your clear implication that I was lying any time you wish to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, I agree that this is the right venue for this discussion and I shouldn’t have posted to 3RV in the first place. Even if you did see that notice it is no longer relevant. Why do you care/should it matter what I think? If I had more experience with this kind of thing I would have come here much sooner. I’m glad to hear you agree that I haven’t violated OVERLINK now that you actually gave it some thought and I regret that I was not able to help you get there in our previous discussions. I’m confident/hopeful we’ll get to a similar agreement with some of these other issues with a little bit of productive discussion, which I think you’ll agree we haven’t really been having (and I’d very much like to have). I’m about halfway done or so with my “at length” response (spoiler alert, I try to be objective and admit *some* culpability for this situation) but unfortunately I will not be able to finish until tomorrow. - Paul^T+/_C 06:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, considering that all I said above was that I was going to think about my stance on the overlink question, and I didn't actually report the result of my thinking until about 17 1/2 hours after you posted this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. I read this quickly last night and slightly mischaracterized your view at the time, however I believe I did correctly at the time state it in a few of my edits in the large section below. You've somehow managed to get me to laugh (at myself) twice in this thread. Bravo. I do find it slightly disappointing that other than the apology below (which I do appreciate, thank you) I didn't get any credit for your change in view on this. If it weren't for me you'd still be incorrectly citing inaccurate "general consensus" on this issue! Seriously though, I appreciate your self-reflection on this point. From my perspective, this contention was the primary cause of the dispute in the first place. - Paul^T+/_C 00:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not give you any credit for the change in my thinking, because I did not take anything you said into account when I re-evaluated my stance. If I had, I would have said so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Per my own analysis here, I'd support any kind of one-way sanction against Psantora for his pretty blatant tendentious editing, hounding, gaming of the system, uncivil mudslinging, IDHT, etc., up to and including an indefinite block if the IDHT regarding the inappropriateness of his own behaviour continues. I would also not be averse to at least a final warning for Imzadi1979 regarding citation styles, when to change them and when not -- it might be a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but if editors can't understand the rules they shouldn't be playing the game. BMK can also be trouted for technically-kinda-sorta pushing the limits of 3RR, maybe. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You're entitled to your opinion. I'd urge you to read my post below. I do admit that my behavior hasn't been stellar, but the behaviors you are accusing me of are extreme. I think I spell out my motivations very explicitly and clearly if you care to read it. I'm engaged in this conversation and willing to discuss my own behavior in an effort to improve. I don't think it is really appropriate to suggest the kinds of sanctions you are talking about, for anyone involved. - Paul^T+/_C 19:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Psantora: You still do not appear to have stricken your off-topic, uncivil mudslinging on ANEW, despite me calling you out on it twice. This implies you not only stand by it but see no reason why you shouldn't continue to treat BMK and whoever else in this manner. This is sinply unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The statement was based on facts, though did represent poor judgement on my part as I have explained below. That said, I struck the comment in question. - Paul^T+/_C 18:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any action because I have strong views on the participants involved. I think BMK talks a lot of common sense (even if said common sense upsets people) and Imzadi1979 seems to follow too much style over substance (the typical reader doesn't give a flying toss what the citation format is as long as the article is well written and is factually correct). That said, I think this is a storm in a teacup, and Psantora needs to stop taking it personally and realise that some debates you just don't win, before somebody sanctions him. Imzadi1979 appears to have scrubbed the conversation off his talk page, which I take as meaning he's dropped the stick and walked away, so I would not advocate any action there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not here to win a debate. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. Take a look at the article and look at the 150+ references. It is a mix of full citations (about 25%) and short citations (about 75%). See WP:CITETYPE. It is not consistent. - Paul^T+/_C 19:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (BMK) has had a history of edit warring and other problematic and disruptive editing activity, as is evident in their long block history does not strike me as the reasoning of someone who simply wants to improve the encyclopedia. This, combined with the talk page IDHT, pushing BMK to 3RR oneself and then immediately reporting him for "edit warring"...? If you ignore attempts at communication, then it doesn't matter who has more "reverts": you are the one edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already stated that the edit warring report was a mistake and that the proper venue was both the relevant talk page(s) and (eventually) here, (if the talk page discussion(s) didn't work). (Full disclosure, those 2½ parentheticals are new nuances of my opinion.) The history of edit warring bit was mainly in reference to BMK's most recent entry in their block log, which was for edit warring on April 11 (in fairness, it was lifted early), though there are others as well. The "problematic and disruptive editing activity" was opinion again based on the block log (and a quick review of relevant previous discussions at AN*). I agree it was unfair for me to characterize BMK's behavior in that way and I regret doing so. With that said, my intent (improving the encyclopedia) was always there. I see now it was based on a flawed view of the situation, but the intent was there. The communication that occurred with BMK and me was definitely sub par, especially on my side of the CITEVAR dispute, but it did occur and was not ignored. I can account for my side of the communication and I admit it is my fault it escalated beyond talk pages, but I don't think I'm solely culpable. - Paul^T+/_C 17:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the current state of the references on Commissioners' Plan of 1811:

References (notes, citations, and bibliography)

Informational notes An example of the grid laid down according to the 1785 law can be found in Ballon, p.52 A street map of Savannah in 1818 can be found in Ballon, p.50 A 19th-century reproduction of Goerck's 1796 map can be seen in Ballon, p.22. The 1785 map is not extant. A graphic indication of the overlap between Goerck's surveys and the Commissioners' Plan can be found in Ballon, pp.44–45 The text of the April act can be read at Ballon, pp.30–32 A fairly large-scale fold-out version of the map can be found at Ballon, pp.34–36, and a zoomable version is available online at "Map of the city of New York and island of Manhattan as laid out by the commissioners appointed by the Legislature, April 3, 1807" New York Public Library Digital Collections It is not possible to tell from the map whether the "Garden" listed between 47th and 51st Streets and Fifth and Sixth Avenues was an existing feature or a planned one; possibly the former as there is no break indicated in the planned streets. See "Map of the city of New York and island of Manhattan as laid out by the commissioners appointed by the Legislature, April 3, 1807" New York Public Library Digital Collections (zoomable map) Haerlem Marsh, from 106th to 109th Streets between the East River and Fifth Avenue is shown in the map, but is not gridded, as the technology of the time would not allow it to be filled-in until 1837. See Koeppel (2015), p.124 An illustration of Gaynor's proposed avenue, published in The New York Times on May 29, 1910, can be seen in Ballon, p.125 Citations Augustyn & Cohen, pp.100–106 Burrows and Wallace, pp.419–22 Gray, Christopher (October 23, 2005). "Streetscapes: The Commissioners' Plan of 1811: Are Manhattan's Right Angles Wrong?". The New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2010. Spann, Edward K. "grid plan" in Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010), The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2, p.558 "Map of the city of New York and island of Manhattan as laid out by the Commissioners appointed by the Legislature, April 3, 1807" New York Public Library Digital Collections (zoomable map) Glaeser, Edward (2011) Triumph of the City: How Our Best Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier New York: Penguin. p.19. ISBN 978-1-59420-277-3 Higgins, pp.50–67 Koeppel (2015), pp.1–16 Higgins, p. 76 Higgins pp.67–68 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.110 Grava, Sigurd "streets and highways" in Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010), The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2, pp.1252–54 Holloway, p.151 Ballon, p.17 Burrows & Wallace (1999), p.187 Koeppel (2015), p.47 Koeppel (2015), pp.17–28 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.112 Brazee, Christopher D. and Most, Jennifer L. (March 23, 2010) Upper East Side Historic District Extension Designation Report New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, p.6 n.12 Koeppel (2015), p.27 Koeppel (2015), pp.37–41;51–56;60 Koeppel (2015), p.48 Koeppel, Gerard (August 1, 2007) "Talking Point: Manhattan traffic congestion is a historic mistake", The Villager. Accessed: 19 May 2011 Szabla, Christopher (April 7, 2011) "An Alternate Map of Manhattan" Urbanphoto Koeppel (2015), p.60 Koeppel (2015), p.56 Koeppel (2015), pp.70–71 Holloway, p.50 Kimmelman, Michael (January 2, 2012) "The Grid at 200: Lines That Shaped Manhattan", The New York Times Eldredge & Horemstein (2014), p.111 Ballon, p.25 Malouin, Paul-Jacques (2004) "Miasma" in The Encyclopedia of Diderot and d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Assarian, Jaclyn (trans.). Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing Morris, Gouverneur, De Witt, Simeon, and Rutherford, John [sic] (March 1811) Remarks Of The Commissioners For Laying Out Streets And Roads In The City Of New York, Under The Act Of April 3, 1807 Archived June 10, 2007, at the Wayback Machine., accessed May 7, 2008. Koeppel (2015), p.77–78 Koeppel (2015), pp.83–84 Koeppel (2015), pp.82–83 Koeppel (2015), p.86 Koeppel (2105), p.83 Koeppel (2015), p.80 Koeppel (2015), p.84 Koeppel (2015), pp.90–94 Koeppel (2015), caption; images between pp.136 & 137 Holloway, pp.96–97 Koeppel (2015), p.98 Holloway, pp.19;36;44 Koeppel (2015), pp.100–102 Koeppel (2015), pp.102–06 Steinberg, pp.60–61 Holloway, pp.60–61 Holloway, pp.61–62 Koeppel (2015), pp.106–08 Koeppel (2015), pp.108–110 Holloway, p.63 Koeppel (2015), pp.112–14 Holloway, pp.63–64 Koeppel (2015), p.114 Holloway, p.152; quoting Hartog, Hendrick (1983) Public Property and Private Power: The Corporation of the City of New York in American Law, 1730–1870 Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. pp.163, 165-66 Koeppel (2015), p.101 Steinberg, p.58 Peretz Square, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Accessed July 12, 2007. "A sliver of Manhattan bounded by Houston Street, First Street and First Avenue, Peretz Square marks the spot where the tangled jumble of lower Manhattan meets the regularity of the Commissioners' Plan street grid." Koeppel, p.122 Glaeser, Edward (2011), Triumph of the City: How Our Best Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier, New York: Penguin Press, pp. 169–170, ISBN 978-1-59420-277-3 Koeppel (2015), p.7 Roberts, Sam (May 20, 2011) "200th Birthday for the Map That Made New York" The New York Times Ballon, p.39 citing Rose-Redwood, Reuben Koeppel (2015), pp.84–85 Ballon, p.87 Kane, Michael (February 24, 2013). "The making of Manhattan". New York Post. Retrieved November 6, 2016. Mendelsohn, Joyce (1998). Touring the Flatiron. New York: New York Landmarks Conservancy. p.13. ISBN 0-9647061-2-1 Koeppel (2015) pp.124–25 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.116 Koeppel (2015), pp.123–24 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.67 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.77 Theodore Roosevelt Park: Margaret Mead Green, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Accessed July 31, 2016. "In 1979, the City Council enacted a law naming the northwest portion of Theodore Roosevelt Park 'Margaret Mead Green' in honor of the distinguished anthropologist." Koeppel (2015), p.124 Holloway, p.104 Eldredge & Horenstein (2014), p.117 Holloway, pp.104–109 Augustyn & Cohen, pp.106–109 Holloway, pp.51–51 Koeppel (2015), p. 126 Holloway, pp. 64–65 Manaugh, Geoff & Twilley, Nicola (July 30, 2013). "The 25 Best Nerd Road Trips: Central Park Bolt". Popular Science. Retrieved 22 June 2014. Holloway, pp. 77–85 Koeppel (2015), p. 136 Holloway, pp. 9;14 Koeppel (2015), p. 134 Holloway, pp. 87–88 Holloway, p. 102 Holloway, pp. 120–125 Augustyn & Cohen, pp. 110–111 Koeppel (2015) pp. 132–134 Holloway, p.125; quoting Stokes, I. N. Phelps (1915–1928) The Iconography of Manhattan Island, 1498–1909 v.1 New York: R. H. Dodd. p. 564 Holloway, p. 145 Koeppel (2015), p. 97 Renner, Andrea "The System of Street Openings" in Bonner, p.76 Koeppel (2015), pp.138–143 Koeppel (2015), p.182 Yerkes, Carolyn. "Rocks on 81st Street" in Ballon, p.83; quoting Cozzens, Isacher (1843) A Geological History of Manhattan or New York Island... New York: W. E. Dean Henry, Sarah. "Tweed's Grid" in Ballon, p.135 Ballon, p.73 Rose-Redwood, Reuben "How Manhattan's Topography Changed and Stayed the Same" in Ballon, p.80 Holloway pp.158–59; quoting Rose-Redwood, Reuben & Li, Li (2011) "From Island of Hills to Cartesian Flatland? Using GPS to Assess Topographical Change in New York City, 1819–1999" The Professional Geographer v.63 n.3 p.403 Koeppel (2015), p.177 Blackman, Elizabeth and Rozenweig, Roy "Central Park" in Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010), The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2, pp.222–224 Koeppel (2015), pp.188–90 Renner, Andrea. "Improving the West Side" in Ballon, p.141 Garber, Steven D. "earthquakes and faults" in Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010), The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2, p.389 Koeppel (2015), pp.192–194 "Geography of Disaster" (map) New York Koeppel (2015), pp.185–187 Ballon, p.169 Koeppel (2015), pp.150–51 Koeppel (2015), p.222–24 Rose-Redwood, Reuben "Numbering and Naming Mnahattan's Streets" in Ballon, p.95 Koeppel (2015), pp.146–148 Koeppel (2015), pp.219–20 Malbin, Peter (November 16, 1997) "If You're Thinking of Living In/Sutton Place; Secluded, but With a Neighborly Feel", The New York Times. Accessed April 8, 2016. "In less glamorous times, Sutton Place was part of Avenue A. It was renamed by Effingham B. Sutton, an entrepreneur who saw potential in the area and formed a syndicate in 1875 to develop rowhouses between Avenue A and the river." Staff (October 29, 1928) "York Avenue Gets Lights Tomorrow; Walker to Switch On Traffic System From 54th to 93d St. on Renamed Avenue A. School Children to MarchL Bishop Manning, Rabbi Silverman and Mgr. Carroll Will Offer Prayers -- Luncheon to Follow", The New York Times. Accessed April 8, 2016 Hughes, C. J. (June 25, 2013) "East End Avenue: A Gated State of Mind", The New York Times. Accessed: April 8, 2016. "Into the early 20th century, East End was called Avenue B and York was called Avenue A, according to news reports of the time. They aligned with their downtown counterparts." Ballon, p.155 Viñoly, Rafael "Reflection" in Ballon, p.101 Koeppel (2015), pp.xix-xxi Steinberg, p.41 Koeppel (2015), p.175 Koeppel (2015), pp.179–180 Burrows and Wallace, p.447 Koeppel (2015), p.209; quoting James, Henry (May 1906) "New York Revisited" Harper's Monthly Koeppel (2015), p.117; quoting Harder, Julius (March 1898) "The City's Plan" Municipal Affairs Koeppel (2015), p.131, quoting Stokes, I. N. Phelps (1915-28) The Iconography of Manhattan Island, 1498–1909 v.1, New York: R. H. Dodd. pp.407–08 Koeppel (2015), p.117 Koeppel (2015), p.145; quoting Mumford, Lewis (June 22, 1932) "The Plan of New York: II" The New Republic Koeppel (2015), p.73; quoting Schopfer, Jean (1902) "The Plan of a City" The Architectural Record Koeppel (2015), p.128; quoting Janvier, Thomas (1894) In Old New York New York: Harper and Brothers. pp.57–61 Steinberg, p.154 Koeppel (2015), p.236 Holloway, p.150; quoting Marcuse, Peter (1987) "The Grid as City Plan: New York City and Laissez-Faire Planning in the Nineteenth Century:" Planning Perspectives p,287 Ballon, Hilary "Introduction" in Ballon, p.13; quoting Reps, John W. (1965) The Making of Urban America:A History of City Planning in the United States Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04525-9 Holloway, p.150; quoting Reps, John W. (1965) The Making of Urban America: A History of City Planning in the United States Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, p.299. ISBN 0-691-04525-9 Koeppel (2015), p.128, quoting Shanor, Rebecca (1981) New York's Paper Streets: Proposals to Relieve the 1811 Gridiron Plan (master's thesis, Columbia University) p.51 Holloway, p.145; quoting Schuyler, David (1986) In the New Urban Landscape Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p.23 Koeppel (2015), p.129 Holloway, p.145; quoting Hartog, Kendrik (1983) Public Property and Private Power:The Corporation of the City of New York in American Law, 1730–1870 Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p.159 Holloway, p.146; quoting Hartog, Kendrik (1983) Public Property and Private Power:The Corporation of the City of New York in American Law, 1730–1870 Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p.162 Strong, George Templeton (October 27, 1850) Diary entry in Lopate, Philip (2000) Writing New York: A Literary Anthology New York: Simon & Schuster. p.191. ISBN 978-0671-04235-6 Ballon, Hilary "Introduction" in Ballon, p.14 quoting Koolhaas, Rem (1978) Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. Oxford University Press Joseph, Wendy Evans. "Reflection" in Ballon, p.177 Koeppel (2015), pp.215–16; quoting Staff (April 29, 1900) "How Can New York Be Made the City Beautiful" New York Herald Traub, James "Reflection" in Ballon, p.85 Ballon, Hilary "Introduction" in Ballon, p.14 Owen, David (2009) Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability. New York: Riverhead. p.177 ISBN 978-1-59448-882-5 Glaeser, Edward. "Reflection" in Ballon, p.209 Lance Hosey, The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design (Island Press, 2012), 150-151. Bibliography Cohen, Paul E. and Augustyn, Robert T. (1997). Manhattan in Maps: 1527-1995. New York: Rizzoli International Press. ISBN 0847820521. Ballon, Hilary, ed. (2013). The Greatest Grid: The Master Plan of Manhattan 1811-2011. New York: Museum of the City of New York and Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15990-6. Burrows, Edwin G. and Wallace, Mike (1999). Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-195-11634-8. Eldredge, Niles and Horenstein, Sidney (2014). Concrete Jungle: New York City and Our Last Best Hope for a Sustainable Future. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-27015-2. Higgins, Hannah B. (2009) The Grid Book, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, ISBN 978-0-262-51240-4 Holloway, Marguerite (2013). The Measure of Manhattan: The Tumultuous Career and Surprising Legacy of John Randel Jr., Cartographer, Surveyor, Inventor. New York: W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-07125-2. Koeppel, Gerard (2015). City on a Grid: How New York Became New York. Boston: Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-82284-1. Steinberg, Ted (2010). Gotham Unbound: The Ecological History of Greater New York. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-476-74124-6.

Note that most of the formatting is lost in this list, so you will still have to go to the actual article to see the full context, but it illustrates the point. The citations are not consistent. It is a mix of full and short citations. My edits were an attempt to reduce the short citations (and eventually replace them all with full citations). This also has the added side benefit of reducing the total number of citations since almost every short citation can be directly referenced by one full citation for each source. See the change to the article to illustrate this example for one reference by Koeppel, which reduced the number of distinct citations by around 1/3 from ~150 to ~100 without any loss in verifiability and an increase in clarity both for editing and reading the page. Am I missing something here?[Yes, I was.] - Paul^T+/_C 19:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The "mix of long and short citations" you complain about is a standard format, and it is absolutely consistent. Here's how it works:

• (1) When a source is used for multiple references in the article, it is placed in the "Bibliography" list, and all references to that source use the form "Lastname (date), page", or something quite similar. This is help keep the "Notes" section from being clogged up with repetitive text. The full information for the reference is in the Bibliographic listing.
• (2) When a source is used only once it is handled just like a normal source; this is the reference says something on the order of "Lastname, Firstname (date) Title Location: Publisher. page ISBN". Whether this is generated my hand or via a citation template is immaterial.
• {3) When an editor notes that a specific reference is used multiple times, but is listed in long form each time (for whatever reason - usually each instance has been added by a different editor who never checked to see if the source had been used elsewhere), the editor who has noticed converts the references into the form of #1 above.

That's it, it's absolutely standard, used in hundreds -- if not thousands -- of articles, is entirely consistent, and is closely related to the structure of Harvard formatting, except that it doesn't use the "sfn|name|date|page" form.

There is no possible way that the format used in Commissioners' Plan of 1811 can be consider not to be "consistent" in the context of WP:CITEVAR, which is why you need to get a consensus to change it. My problems with the format you prefer are not a matter for AN/I, which does not deal with content disputes, but are a matter for talk page discussion, if you should ever decide to follow CITEVAR and start a consensus discussion there, instead of changing the already consistent referencing unilaterally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I concede you have a point there. I still have some quibbles so I'll have to think on this a bit. I was mostly annoyed at the context in which it was occurring. - Paul^T+/_C 02:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss this with you on the talk page of the relevant article. Your point is valid and I see now that I was not making useful changes to the article without first getting agreement on the talk page there. I was wrong in my assessment of the inconsistent reference style in that article. Please accept my apology for this. I will work to ensure that I do not misinterpret your actions in the future, especially as it relates to citations. (I will not forget this exchange, believe me!) - Paul^T+/_C 17:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Linking publishers in references and WP:OVERLINK

As I mentioned above [105] and on my talk page [106], I was going to re-evaluate my stance on linking publishers in references as an example of OVERLINKing. Here's what I came up with:

• (1) Linking publishers was my original impulse, years ago. I stopped when I didn't see others doing it, and thought that not linking them was the community norm.
• (2) Established editors such as Cullen328 and Ash666 report that they link publishers in references.
• (3) Cullen wrote on my talk page: "I write with the interests of English language readers worldwide, which includes young readers in South Africa, India, Jamaica, Japan and China. And so on. I concede that only a tiny percentage of readers will click those links, but anyone who does will learn a little bit about a major publishing house, which I consider a good thing." [107]. I think that's a very valid point, one that I had failed to consider.
• (4) Mathglot wrote above: "There is some indication in user doc for {{cite book}} that a linked pub is not completely outré" [108]
• {5} No one had stepped forward to agree with my contention that linking publishers was OVERLINKING.

Given these factors, I am withdrawing the portion of this report which complains about Psantora "overlinking" -- which I will indicate by striking it through -- and I will restore the links to publishers in the cite templates referred to above (and add them to my other cite templates), both with my apologies to Psantora. I will probably take up this practice again, since it seems to have a least some small benefit, and since there is no indication that the community thinks it is overlinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. What about the similar reverts in article space? Example: List of mayors of New York City There are others, but I don't want to confuse those diffs the other topics still under discussion. - Paul^T+/_C 03:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Opposing view and full context

Introduction

I doubt that anyone is actually going to read through these diffs, as most of this dispute comes down to formatting in generally well-referenced articles. Having said that, please indulge me as I go through what happened from my perspective. Think of this kind of like a director's commentary for my contributions over the day or so previous to this incident. Also, in an effort to actually come to some kind of compromise here (as well as set the record straight), I am doing my best to be objective in this account and accordingly will include points about my edits that a less scrupulous editor probably would suppress if they were they in my position. Ultimately, my goal here is to improve these articles and templates and in my view my actions have been in support of that. In the spirit of WP:DGF I'm trying to explain my actions and my honest motivations, warts and all. I'm tempted to cite WP:AOBF, but generally arguments of this nature aren't a good idea and defeat the purpose of WP:AGF in the first place. It should be noted that since this incident has started I have not made any edits to any of the related articles. I'd like to resolve this here first. In my opinion, this whole process would have been a whole lot less contentious if all related editors had done the same.

Edit commentary - initial interactions

This started with some edits I made to Alfred Tredway White, which led me to make similar changes in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. Both edits were entirely appropriate and what I thought to be positive additions to these articles. (Some of) the edits to the latter were immediately reverted by Beyond My Ken with the edit summary restore unnecessary changes. As far as I can recall, this was my first encounter with BMK. That reversion was entirely about formatting and restored what seemed to me (ironically) to be nonsensical and unnecessary changes to the article. These include the comment "<!-- spacing -->" at the bottom of the page before the navbox (I understand this to be against the MOS and I later learned is something that BMK is fond of in "their" articles) and using "{{fakeheader}}" in article space (my understanding is this template should never be used in articles in consideration of people using screen readers). In retrospect, at this point I should have started a dialog with BMK on the talk page of Cobble Hill. Obviously, I did not do this. Instead, I continued to edit. I was in the middle of doing a full update to Cobble Hill since my first edits were mainly confined to one section that related to Mr. White. As part of this, I made changes to some of the templates and other articles that were being transcluded or linked to from Cobble Hill. These included:

• Cobble Hill Historic District, where I again saw the "<!-- spacing -->" comment, which I thought was unusual and I'll admit made me suspicious of whoever added it in the first place.
• {{Cite nycland}}, {{Cite enc-nyc2}}, {{Cite fednyc}}, {{Cite gotham}}, {{Cite brookneighb}}, {{Cite brooklyn}}, {{NYCS const}}, {{Cite NYC bus map}}, where I mainly added links (not just to publishers and locations) and in some cases I also made some other improvements and corrections.

I then made 2 culminating edits to Cobble Hill incorporating all those related changes so that the article was internally consistent in terms of formatting, links, and display. BMK then reached out to me on my talk page. I think it is worth quoting that discussion in full as it relates directly to the heart of the WP:OVERLINK part of this situation:

Please stop adding links to the names of publishers and locations in cite temppates. We generally do not do this. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Beyond My Ken, I do not think you are right about that. See MOS:DUPLINK where it states: if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in ... footnotes. I'm happy to have a larger discussion about this with others in a more appropriate place, but I do not agree that "we generally do not do this" is accurate. Can you cite a policy somewhere disputing this? - Paul^T+/_C 14:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's say in my almost 13 years and 220,000 edits of experience, 70+% to articles, I have not come across it often, very rarely, actually. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, ok? Doesn't change the fact that "We generally do not do this." is not accurate just because you do not generally do this. Please cite some policy supporting your assertion. - Paul^T+/_C 15:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the linking of locations since those are generally redundant per the language here: Template:Citation#Publisher. I think the links to publishers are relevant and so I left them in.

Note that you also removed other improvements to those templates when you wholesale reverted my changes, including the addition of |page= and |pages= in one case. Please be more careful when making changes in the future. - Paul^T+/_C 15:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

[conversation continued below]

Edit commentary - poorly-conceived escalation

This exchange paused after my reply at 15:20 UTC on the 17th. Afterwards I was very surprised and, frankly, wary of BMK. I cited very specific policies and instead of a reasoned discussion BMK cited his experience as the only reason why I should listen to him. Curiosity got the better of me and, regrettably, I took a look at his recent contributions and logs (including Untermensch, which as I recall is the only article I edited directly as a result of this action). I mainly did this to get a better understanding of this aggressive editor. This was a mistake and escalated things unnecessarily. For that I apologize. I don't know if edits to that one page (or anything else I just mentioned) is against policy, but if it is please point it out to me so I can better understand how to deal with a similar situation in the future. Regardless, this led to my having done a poor job of seeing BMK's edits completely objectively after this point. With that in mind I would welcome it if an uninvolved, neutral 3rd party did a review of both of our edits in light of this initial exchange, which as far as I can tell BMK almost completely left out of and/or misrepresented in this discussion. (To be fair, that is not necessarily something BMK needed to do, but it is still an omission and would have balanced things out a little - as previously mentioned, WP:DGF. BMK could also make a similar, honest review of his related edits as I have here. I think it would be enlightening to us both.)

I then continued editing and made a 'final' edit to Cobble Hill to consolidate some references. At this point I started looking a little closer at the citation templates there. I did this because I found them interesting since I had not previously interacted with Category:Specific-source templates. I looked at some of the other articles where {{cite gotham}} was used, which led me to List of mayors of New York City and I then made similar edits to those that I made on Cobble Hill. I was curious if there were similar citation templates used on The Power Broker (there weren't) and I made similar edits there. It was around this time I took a break and BMK responded again on my talk page regarding the edits to the citation templates:

No one looks at a reference and says to themselves "Oh, I've just got to learn more about Yale University Press", so your links are definitely violations of WP:OVERLINK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

[My response to this is below.]

Edit commentary - Commissioners' Plan of 1811 take 1

It is important to note that up until this point I had not made any changes to Commissioners' Plan of 1811.
A few hours later I started editing again and found myself on the talk page of Talk:Commissioners' Plan of 1811 with this edit in support of Imzadi1979. I don't recall how I found my way to that page, but if I had to guess it is probably the same way I found myself on the list of mayors of NYC page, by following the transclusions of one of templates I edited earlier, likely {{cite gotham}}. My comment there was mainly to agree that the citations on that page should be standardized because right now it is (and at the time it was) a mix of Harvard and non-Harvard references - the references there are not consistent as displayed on the page look for yourself. I was suggesting a compromise and a possible example of what the page could look like with a slightly different reference style that limits extraneous Harvard references so that there are fewer total references and more citations of the work directly by using the {{rp}} template to indicate page numbers. I made the change to the article to illustrate this example for one reference by Koeppel, which reduced the number of separate citations by ~50. I explained all of this in a subsequent post to the talk page. I also noted in my comment there that BMK was nearing 3RR as I was made aware of his previous edit warring behavior when I saw his logs. I then responded to BMK on my talk page regarding our previous edits to the citation templates:

In the context of a reference, the publisher is absolutely relevant and WP:OVERLINK encourages that kind of link. For example, someone may want to get a better understanding of the quality of the reference and something published by Yale University Press would carry more weight than something published by Phoenix University, but unless you are already familiar with both entities you wouldn't know that without the aid of the link. Your opinion isn't the only thing under consideration for these disputed links. This is an encyclopedia, not BMK's playground. - Paul^T+/_C 04:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

My comment echos the comments above by Ansh666 and Cullen328 about OVERLINK (albeit with some childish snark of my own that was unnecessary) and was the last time BMK edited my talk page until he notified me about this incident. It should also be noted that since the start of this incident BMK has agreed that he may be misreading OVERLINK and might be more inclined to link publishers in the future. Given BMK's many accusations and reversions of my edits with OVERLINK in mind, perhaps this is something BMK should look at again? he has

Edit commentary - further escalation, this time both of us

This is where things started to get a little heated. At this point, I did a bunch of reversions back to previous edits I'd made in response to a bunch of reversions removing those edits by BMK: (an incomplete list, but you can see them plainly by looking at both BMK and my contribution history) [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130] This included:

• {{Cite enc-nyc2}}, {{Cite gotham}}, {{Cite brookneighb}}, {{Cite brooklyn}}, {{Cite fednyc}}, {{Cite nycland}} restoring edits from the above list with these templates
• Untermensch, which I maintain was a valid edit that was reflexively reverted, though I probably should never have been on this page in the first place
• Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, which I maintain was a valid edit whose reversion violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Floating elements
• List of mayors of New York City, which I maintain were valid edits. Also, I think this article in particular is a good example of the kinds of changes I'm trying to make to these articles that are being removed indiscriminately just because BMK doesn't agree.

In retrospect, these edits, while valid, were not productive and just inflamed the situation even further. I would argue the same of BMK's edits for the same reasons.

Edit commentary - Commissioners' Plan of 1811 take 2 - CITEVAR

The next relevant edit from my contributions is on the talk page of Commissioners' Plan of 1811. My comment here gets to the heart of the disagreement BMK and I have regarding the reference style on that page. An excerpt, citing the WP:CITEVAR guideline:

...The relevant parts:

::::The following are standard practice:

[...]

• imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit;
• fixing errors in citation coding, including incorrectly used template parameters, and <ref> markup problems: an improvement because it helps the citations to be parsed correctly;
• combining duplicate citations (see § Duplicate citations, above).

All three of those bullets apply to the change I[psantora] made and parts of them apply to the change Imzadi1979 made. You cannot just wholesale revert a change to a page just because you don't like it. Furthermore you do not WP:OWN this or any other page in Wikipedia, regardless of how much you edit it. I'm reverting back my change. Please attempt to understand the benefits of the changes we are proposing. It will make it easier for readers to follow the references if they are in a consistent format across *all* references and citations in the article.

Again, in retrospect this was a little harsh and I probably shouldn't have reverted this article at this point. That said, the discussion was not progressing and BMK and I were talking past each other. However, I maintain that my argument is valid since there is no consistent reference style in use on this article. There are a bunch of Harvard references, but there is a mix of other styles present also. The point of my edits was to try to get to a consistent style on this (and other) pages.

Edit commentary - Ignoring accessibility concerns

My next edit was a reversion on Cobble Hill, again citing violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Floating elements. BMK completely ignores this guideline. Quote: "WIkicode, smickicode - what's relevant is why the reader sees. Go get a consensus on the talk page for your edits, and stop edit warring." Editors that can't see have the page read to them and these images will appear unexpectedly and out-of-order, which is why the guideline exists in the first place.

Edit commentary - Commissioners' Plan of 1811 take 3

I then made some quasi-unrelated talk page edits regarding the content supported by some references on the Commissioners' Plan page. This was prompted by one last group of edits I was in the process of doing along the same lines of the initial example that I had done that was summarily reverted without any substantive discussion by BMK. None of the points that I brought up were addressed and we were talking past each other. These edits were to the following templates in addition to the Commissioners' Plan page: {{Cite greatest}}, {{Cite concrete}}, {{Cite unbound}}, and {{Cite measure}} mostly adding links to publishers. I also created and began to populate a new template category for these New York-specific-source templates, but those categories have since been inexplicably removed from the relevant templates by BMK. Regarding those templates, BMK posted above as far as I know, no one uses them but me, that may be because BMK doesn't let anyone else make improvements to these templates, simply because he disagrees they are improvements: the edits did not improve the templates. I should also point out that I'm not the only editor that BMK has been reverting when making changes to these cite templates.

Edit commentary - accessibility concerns

I made two posts to Template talk:Fake heading and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility because of an edit by BMK that added the template in article space. I have not done so yet (and won't until this situation is taken care of), but I think there is a valid argument to be made to limit the use of this template in articles due to accessibility concerns. At least one other person agrees with me. (Hooray!)

Edit commentary - ANEW & AN/I

At this point, as I stated above, I started an ANEW report about BMK because of his reverts to Commissioners' Plan of 1811, while technically accurate regarding the number of reverts on the page, the correct venue for this conversation is here and I regret posting that report there. Having said that, while I would change the tone of that post to be less combative, I still think the substance of what I wrote regarding BMK's conduct towards me throughout this is valid. I have tried to articulate that in this lengthy response here.

That about catches us up to the edits on this page, at least as far as my contributions go.

Opposing view conclusion and summary

On the whole, I concede that don't look great when I look closely back at my actions. But I contend that neither does BMK. Almost every interaction I had with him was dismissive, combative, and generally not conducive to a collegial conversation in support of any kind of collaboration. I am also guilty of similar behavior in response. I realize this is not a fair defense for my reactionary actions, merely an explanation.

Regarding specific policies/guidelines:

• WP:OVERLINK generally supports linking publishers (and others) in citations, regardless of BMK's personal thoughts on this (he has since expressed potential support of this idea no longer potential).
• WP:CITEVAR makes sense if the article has a consistent citation style, but the article in question does not have this. Otherwise, per the same policy, attempts to make the references consistent should be supported and encouraged. I will admit that I did not go about this in the best way, but I think it is fair to say that neither has BMK. Yes, BMK has made a large contribution to the article in question, but that doesn't mean his opinion is all that matters with regard to consensus.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is important to keep in mind while editing, even if that means a slightly larger table of contents or images being moved slightly from your preference.
• Category:New York-specific-source templates is an appropriate category that BMK removed from a number of "their" templates without any valid explanation.
• Things went a little far, but I maintain these points still stand. Furthermore, I think this ANI has been productive. Both BMK and I have made some steps in each others' direction and I'm hopeful we are on a road to some kind of reasonable compromise to this situation.

I hope this post is helpful and illustrative of my honest thoughts regarding these edits. I'm happy to continue discussing this with others here and I hope we can come to an amicable solution to this dispute. - Paul^T+/_C 19:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

By all the gods, talk about your walls-of-text! Most of this is content related..(at least the first bits, which was all I had the energy to read...). If you really want some resolution to this...chop it down to about 1% of what it is now. And deal only with behavior. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

News to me and my mistake. Thanks for the correction. It has been a long, long time since I've been on any AN* (at least at any length) so forgive me for not following and/or remembering the proper convention. That said, a good chunk of what I wrote *is* related to behavior, though mostly my own (as well as the motivation for the behavior, as best as I could). I'll try again and pull out the bits directly related to BMK's behavior, a lot of which *is* in there as well, but I'll leave out the specific content dispute portions. - Paul^T+/_C 02:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Psantora: Given that you've been called out for mudslinging about how much time other users spend contributing to ANI discussions, it would be wise to avoid saying things like It has been a long, long time since I've been on any AN* Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am interpreting this discussion as a continuation/successor of the one you are referring to. Outside of these two (that I consider as one since the original was closed, pointing here Dispute has been drop-kicked to WP:ANI), I can't remember the last time I was here. I admit I went about this very poorly (and I probably am making it worse with this comment) but I don't see how that true statement about my own experience here is unwise. Is inexperience with AN* bad? Is experience good? Or am I completely missing something (again)? - Paul^T+/_C 17:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Talking about how often other editors contribute to ANI discussions as though that were itself some kind policy violation or character flaw is most definitely bad, and you did that on ANEW a few days ago (Beyond My Ken (BMK)has had a history of [...] problematic and disruptive editing activity, as is evident in their [...] other activity at WP:ANI). I know better than 99.9% of long-term Wikipedians how problematic BMK's ANI activity can be, but I don't see it as a problem in-and-of itself (it's a problem when he essentially adjudicates content disputes without attempting to understand the content in question,[131][132] which has nothing to do with your present dispute with him). In light of this, I think you should probably avoid talking about how rarely you use ANI because it has echoes of your other problematic comments about how other editors must be problematic because they frequently contribute to ANI. (Full disclosure: I myself am a frequent ANI contributor, and have been putting up with blatant trolls who almost certainly have Wikipedia accounts logging out of said accounts to attack me for it as though it were in some way problematic for close to a year.[133][134][135][136][137]) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

My contention is not how often other editors contribute to ANI discussions as though that were itself some kind policy violation or character flaw. Let me restate what I meant by and other activity at WP:ANI/WP:AN3, to try to be more clear. By "other activity" I meant threads about a particular editor, not their contributions in those (or other) threads. The contributions at AN* weren't the concern, it was the behavior under discussion to start those threads in the first place. If there is a clear pattern of disruptive behavior by an editor, I was under the impression that is something that gets taken into consideration when reviewing these threads. It would have been better if I had written "and other activity about X at" instead. To be clear, I was wrong to suggest this with regard to BMK's activity in the first place, but I don't think that means it is wrong to do in general. That said, it isn't something I'm likely to do again, either. My comments in this thread about my contributions to AN* were only meant to explain my inexperience with the proper etiquette for what is/isn't supposed to be discussed here or elsewhere (content vs behavior). Again, I could be missing something and I'm probably making this worse, but I don't see anything wrong with the latter view and, when correctly applied, I don't thing there is a problem with the former either. - Paul^T+/_C 17:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's review, shall we? My complaint about your behavior is that on Commissioners' Plan of 1811, an article I wrote 89.5% of and established a consistent reference style for, you attempted to change that consistent referencing style without getting a consensus to do so, in violation of both WP:CITEVAR and normal Wikipedia editing custom, and when it was pointed out to you that you were doing so, you kept on trying.

So, let's hear what specifics you have in regard to my behavior in connection with that complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

On the complaint regarding that article, I have fully conceded. See my direct apology above. That was where this dispute culminated, and I regret letting it get there in the first place. I have redacted (by strikethroughs: "redacted") my arguments above about on CITEVAR in "Commissioners' Plan of 1811".

I was going to list out my other concerns here (as I indicated above), but I think that would be counterproductive at this point. The summary above has most if not all of it, albeit as my opinion in prose without the supporting documentation (I got lazy towards the end of that "[wall]-of-text"). I think it would be more productive to have that conversation (without the snark) on your talk page (and the relevant talk pages of the articles in question) if you don't object. I don't intend (and never intended) to get into a huge back-and-forth "mudslinging". I do have some fear that you will simply ignore my points as you did in the OVERLINK discussions, but that is a risk I am willing to take and, given that I have unfairly misjudged you and your contributions that led to the CITEVAR dispute, probably not an accurate fear for me to have (or at least I hope so). Hell, given my unfair misjudgment of your motivations I can understand if you were wary of my opinion, just as I was wary of yours at the beginning of this. I just hope it isn't dismissed out of hand, which is how it came across to me at the very beginning. If you think it would be more productive to have that conversation here, let me know I will do so. - Paul^T+/_C 17:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I never object to having pertinent discussions on article talk pages -- that's what they're there for -- but only if the discussion is going to be productive, which means that all parties agree that when a policy or a guideline says "Wheezletoff", it actually means Wheezletoff, and not "Whipplestick".

My talk page is not the proper venue to carry on a discussion related to this stuff, so I would object to anything taking place there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A productive discussion as you just described would be great. Appeals to defer to your experience while ignoring the cited policy wouldn't be and nor would my previous, incorrect views on CITEVAR. I don't particularly care if it is on your talk page or article/template talk pages, so long as we both avoid "Whipplestick". One reason I suggested your talk page is because it could serve as a centralized location for the discussion I'd like to have regarding the source-specific cite templates (for example, I think a NY category for them makes sense, which I think you disagree with), but that can easily be done on one template's talk page and then propagated to the others if we agree to make changes. How about {{cite gotham}}? Also, you went directly to my talk page instead of the relevant article/template talk pages in our initial conversation, so I thought suggesting your talk page to continue this conversation would have been preferable. No big deal either way. - Paul^T+/_C 17:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

About the NYC category for specific-source templates - looking at Category:Specific-source templates, I see no sub-category for any other location, so I see no reason why one would be needed for NYC. But it's not really a matter for you and I to decide. Why not start a discussion on whatever the proper category talk page is (maybe Category talk:Citation templates?). If you get a consensus there, then you're set. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits / edit warring by user יניב הורון

Regarding continues disruptive edits by user:יניב הורון. Based on my recent observations, user repeatedly engages in WP:Edit warring on multiple pages in the past couple of months. Case in point: previously, the article Antisemitism in Ukraine got edit protection in end of March '18 (with me getting a warning from a neutral admin [diff]), however back then we didn't establish a clear WP:Consensus on the talk page regarding the issue at hand (renaming section titles, so they are not misleading/confusing). Now we do have such consensus (every editor that had enough interest, has participated in on the talk page, while user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all), which we have found through dialogue and discussion on the talk page diff. As mentioned above user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all and have begun unilaterally reverting the updates to article's section titles (which were agreed through consensus on the talk page). Given user יניב הורון history of initiating numerous edit:wars over the last two months, his latest edit diff seems like a case of malicious edit warring, where an editor reverts against general consensus and I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future, against general consensus. Piznajko (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I know you've been told this already, but that's not vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me, I removed mentioning of vandalizing and changed it to continuous edit warring.--Piznajko (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not see talk page consensus for Piznajko's suggestions - I do not see anyone else agreeing to the proposal. As for this report, it seems Minority Report (film)ish, being based on I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future. A prediction which seem to apply to Piznajko as well, as he is the one reverting/edit warring against Yaniv. While Piznajko's predictions on other users seem non-actionable, his self predictions should be. In short, unless Piznajko can present where on the talk page there is consensus for his suggestion, then a boomerang may be in order to prevent self predicted edit warring.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The following edit warring report on Mikhail Bulgakov might be illustrative of the self prediction's veracity. this talk page section (and a few above) might be illustrative regarding perception of consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not bad Icewhiz, I see you're applying the old-as-the-world-itself-playbook rule #1 of discredit the editor-of-interest by referencing an unrelated-discussion-that-did-not-involve-the-user-being-discussed-here, so that the discussion would be about disliked-editor rather than the actual the-subject-of-discussion-editor. Well, if you're playing it that way - that's fine too - it's obvious you're trying to steer the conversation away from user יניב הורון and do a switcheroo, where instead of יניב הורון it would be me would be me who'd neeed to defend his edits. Fine, I'll follow your bait: regarding, you referencing this talk page section the discussion on Mikhail Bulgakov as an illustration of "my perception of consensus" - I never claimed there was consensus on the talk page of that article; we had plently of discussion there, which led to no consensus and all additions proposed by me were removed. Regarding an an edit warring report against me on this same article on Mikhail Bulgakov - it was civilly settled since unlike the editor of interest (e.g., יניב הורון) I actually engage in discussion and try to explain my edits on a talk page to try and find consensus on edits/new content among editors. Lastly, garding your request to show proof of consensus found on the talk page - please read the discussion that I have referenced - it clearly shows consensus that the section titles should be renamed to avoid confusion - see last relevant-to-discussion-about-updating-titles comment by one of the editors engaged in the discusson on the TP - beyond that point discussion went into direction of content, which is beyong the scope of that disucssion (and yes, there was no consensus on the content of the article, but I never claimed there was any consensus on the content of the article, precisely because my proposed changes were specifically about updating section titles to avoid the confusion of the old section titles) ps. it's commendable that you're trying to help your countryman, but there's no need to resort to ill-hidden personal attacks on me in order to achieve that.--Piznajko (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in the page - I do not see support for your position. As for Bulgakov (a page I only got involved with due to the RfC) - I would not say the resolution was as amicable as you present - you were clearly acting against consensus (IIRC a 5 vs. 1 situation), repeatedly inserting content that other editors rejected. To your credit, you did drop the stick after the EW report. As for this report - you basically complaining based on your prediction of Yaniv's future editing (on a page where it seems there is no consensus either way.Icewhiz (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you're pretending unintentionally that you don't see that the consensus was reached on the talk page of Antisemitism in Ukraine on the specific issue of titles headers (which is unlikely given the sheer number of years you've been on Wikipedia and your experience) or you just doing it intentionally for obvious reason.--Piznajko (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User account only a few months old seems extremely familiar with how things work here.. No way newbies are familiar with obscure policies as seen in the wditsummaries.--Moxy (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, to be fair, they made some pretty new mistakes with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and as editing that and Jewish topics is one of their main areas of interest, it was likely quite the introduction to obscure Wikipedia behavioral policy. I had to block them for 500/30 violations, and NeilN's recent block of them is also for something in the AE area that lends more to inexperience than anything else. Having their TP on my watchlist because of the initial block, I've never really suspected socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

look at the early edit summaries not what we see from new people.--Moxy (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

With their first edit[138] they perfectly used a template. On their second day of editing they were aware of policies such as WP:ERA and WP:Sandwich. These while suspicious looking to some are not indications of socking unless they are similar to another user. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be suspicious, but do we have any solid evidence to assert with confidence that this user is a sock puppet as what's being implied in these responses here? We should either be filing an SPI if we have this evidence or we should remain focused on the issue at hand. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

To be frank, his edits at the very first days of his registration was odd to me, too. However, I'm not saying he's certainly a "sock puppet", since that needs "solid evidence" as Oshwah said. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like the underlying issue here is if יניב הורון is/was edit warring and if action should be taken against the user, or not. The last warning I've seen on the user's talk page for 3RR violations or edit warring was back on the 26th of March. I understand that the edits recently made were misinterpreted as vandalism and the incorrectly stated warnings left on the user's talk page have been modified since this was pointed out, but that's not fair on יניב הורון. To have such such warnings left incorrectly and then changed to state that these are now edit warring notices, and then given the expectation that this should suffice as a fair warning and action taken upon the user isn't the right way to properly address the problem. As far as I'm concerned, this user hasn't been given a proper and fair warning for edit warring or violation of 3RR recently (which should be provided first, and with a report or escalation to follow if the user continues the behavior despite being given the warning) and taking action upon יניב הורון is not justifiable at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the statement I made above was not meant to call Piznajko out, scold him in any way, or to make him feel bad over what happened at all. I want to state openly that mistakes are a normal part of learning, gaining experience, and becoming a better editor - they happen. Hell, I still make mistakes, and I've made more than my fair share of them over the years that I've been here. I don't hold the mistakes against him and I know that he'll walk away from this ANI with more experience and understanding because the mistakes happened. Just don't repeat them... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

comments by blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is this editor, who is so blatantly edit-warring, gaming the system, and being down right disruptive being allowed to get away with this???? This is a case of WP:POINTY if I have ever saw one. This editor is clearly a WP:NOTHERE and engaging in blatant editwarring, with a battleground mindset. Examine these 'following' outrageous edits [139][140][141][142]the first four in rapid succession on random articles with no other common denominator other than to be disruptive toward the editor named Agustin6. And before you try to pass of this as some wild coincidence (yeah right), look at these ADDITIONAL edits (again directed at this same editor he is clearly stalking) where he is threatening him withOUT evidence:[143]. In fact, between March 23rd and 24th of 2018, he makes 10+ such random disruptive edits and reverts aimed solely at this editor for no good reason. Add to this that this editor has already been blocked TWICE and warned multiple times for edit-warring in his short time here. Then it doesn't seem SO odd to include the circumstantial evidence that this editor jumped right into the mix with a clear understanding of how wikipedia works. Then ADD to that edit summaries like these two [144][145] which are battleground in tone and certainly WP:FORUM. Sorry...but that is one too many coincidences. Maybe someone could do a checkuser on him (as it has been suggested) if the socking allegation enough makes sense. But it really isn't necessary because this is clearly WP:DUCK of an edit-warring troll and that's bad enough. I think what offends ME more is the behavior of admins lately looking the other way very selectively with certain editors like this who clearly came to wikipedia with an agenda. It almost gives credibility to this myth that wikipedia enables paid-political operatives. If admins are going to assign more of a priority to far less offensive behavior of new people when disruptive editors like this are being giving a pass, then why should we take any of these rules seriously?!? Do with this what you will, but this disruption will continue by this editor and has no sign of stopping because of a failure to take this ANI seriously by some. I'm on break at work, so sorry I have to rush this, but I think the allegations are plenty clear and action should be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8300:B761:5083:E4E0:19DB:7AFF (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC) The IP was blocked by checkuser--Shrike (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Please use or create your named permanent account (whatever it might be) and complain on appropriate noticeboards, such as WP:3RRNB or WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC) WP:POINTY You are not an admin, and this type of tactic distracts from the merits. Sometimes people forget to login. Take such feedback to the user’s talk page if you must. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8300:B761:4C82:327:BEEB:E8F8 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC) The IP was blocked by checkuser--Shrike (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) It is not obvious why diffs above are "outrageous". One should know context. Besides, you accuse another contributor of sockpuppetry without evidence, but your own edit history can not be checked. Do not you think this is a little unfair? If there was a 3RR violation on their part, this should be reported to WP:3RRNB. If you think his editing in ARBPIA area was problematic, report it to WP:AE. But to do that you need a named account with editing history, so that anyone can check what you are doing in the project besides complaining about others. Does not is sound reasonable? My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest to topic ban Piznajko from subjects related to Jewish history.

1. Piznajko continued edit war on page Antisemitism in Ukraine even after receiving a warning about it from admin [146]. He was so upset that he even brought a complaint about another user from Israel (with whom he edit war) to this noticeboard. Why? This is hard to say, but one of the changes he edit war about was removal of anti-Jewish "pogroms" from two titles on the page ("Pogroms during the Russian Revolution of 1905" and "Other pogroms during the Russian Revolution") and from a legend to a picture ("Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire").
2. He now edit war on page Antisemitism in the Russian Empire: [147] [148], [149]. Why? Notice that he again edit war to remove information about pogroms from the lead of the page. Why? He could not explain [150].
3. He also contentiously argued with several contributors on talk page page of article Joseph Brodsky. Why? He makes this comment. So, according to him, "Based on [user G] talk page he is of both Ukrainian and Jewish ancestry, so given that we are talking about Brodsky who was of Russian and Jewish ancestry, I believe [user G] can be viewed as a neutral editor." What? Why it matters to Piznajko so much that the subject of the page was Jewish (Piznajko tried to include negative and undue information about him on the page [151]) and that the WP contributor was Jewish?

I do not think Piznajko should edit such subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

1. I don't see edit warring in either of those articles by Piznajko. I see WP:BRD and attempts to follow WP:RS.
2. Disagreement is not automatically "contentious." If I understand the comment, Piznajko's suggesting you solicit the opinion of an editor most likely to disagree with him. That's ideal behavior.

I can't tell whether your misinterpretation is unintentional or an attempt at WP:GAMING but either way it's concerning. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can be wrong. Maybe Piznajko is simply the case of WP:Not here. Here is their recent edit history. During a couple of months he follows a pretty bad pattern: coming to page X (there are five such pages already), edit warring and disputing against consensus with multiple contributors, and wasting time of other contributors without being able to actually improve these pages. But OK, let's wait and see. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

After seeing this [152], its clear that in fact it is User:Piznajko who is edit warring on that page, against multiple editors.Tritomex (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly does, but why? He simply stalks my edits because we had content disagreements on other pages. No one edited this page for a half of a year [153]. This page was in a poor condition. I looked at it and decided to improve [154]. In a matter of hours Piznajko reverted all my edits here. He never edited this page before. How do I know this is actually a wikistalking, rather than a good faith effort to improve the page? Because

1. Unlike all other contributors, he made absolutely no effort to improve anything on the page. He was only making blind reverts of edits by 4 contributors [155].
2. He was reverting to an obviously terrible version of the page (it had no lead and a section was based on a single source where each paragraph stared from "Yuri Tabak describes the history of antisemitism in Russia as having ...", "Tabak asserts, however...", "Tabak concedes that the ...", "However, Tabak also notes that ..." "Tabak asserts that...")
3. During discussion on article talk page he failed to explain why he wants to revert to such poor version. He only cried "BRD" or posted something that is not understandable.
4. He also followed my edits elsewhere to post a vote opposite to mine. He never edited this subject too. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Piznajko is admittedly a relatively inexperienced user. But his POV pushing and edit warring such as in Mikhail Bulgakov [156] are as unsettling as the revert warring to a clearly substandard version in Antisemitism in Russia. A short temporary ban from all Eastern European topics seems to be in order here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Youssef1450

Youssef1450 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps removing[157][158][159][160][161] content from the Maghreb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article without so much as an edit summary, despite having been asked[162] to provide an explanation and finally warned[163] of the possible consequences. M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the user edited once on April 19th and was last given a warning on April 14th. Is there a reason why this user wasn't warned for this edit made on the 19th of April? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: It seemed futile since the user has ignored the other two warnings and is not communicating. I can certainly warn them again if that's what you meant, or let someone else (ideally an admin) do it. Please let me know how you would like me to proceed. M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: They have done the same thing again[164], less than 24 hours after their block[165] expired. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked again. Indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mannerheimo

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

I knew I had contacted this editor many times and hadn't really got anywhere, but I checked, and I have sent them 48 messages [166] and they have received many other messages on the same topic over their 12 years of editing. I have been contacting them about creating articles with no references, or with inadequate references, but they won't respond. I have directed them to WP:Communication is required and that communication is required as part of the policies WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT but I'm just getting nowhere, and they are continuing to create articles with serious sourcing issues and ignore messages (please see User talk:Mannerheimo, although the less recent ones have been deleted). Boleyn (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on this information and a review of their talk page, I have blocked this editor. I left a message letting them know that any administrator can unblock if they commit to providing good references and communicating with fellow editors who have concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, this editor also has at least some history of translation without attribution from Finnish, going back at least to 20 February 2017‎. May I suggest/request that a commitment to provide all necessary attribution for his/her existing translated articles be added to the conditions for unblocking? Mannerheimo, I'm prepared to help you with this if necessary – just say the word! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Conversation is ongoing at their talk page, Justlettersandnumbers. I encourage you to comment there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Refusal to drop the stick

• BrightR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 12 Monkeys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BrightR (talk · contribs) has been arguing extensively on Talk:12 Monkeys about one specific issue – whether to include citations to a primary source in the article's plot section. It has gone on for a very long time now, and BrightR refuses to drop the stick. As far as I can tell, this drama began in July 2017 with Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs". It restarted in Talk:12 Monkeys#Ambiguous ending in February 2018, and the arguing led to this RFC in March 2018. The RFC was closed in April 2018. As far as I can tell, the close was not challenged, and it endorsed the addition and removal of citations to primary sources in plot sections. Following that, BrightR has once again revived the argument. He has repeatedly accused people of "WP:OWNBEHAVIOR" if they disagree with him (diffs: April 2, April 3, April 5, April 10, etc). Tired of this never-ending argument and the accusations, I made an irritable request to BrightR that he drop it. He decided not to, and, in fact, chose to double-down on this with an accusation that Doniago is "willingly ignorant" of policy simply because Doniago disagrees with BrightR. The argument has continued well past the point at which anything new could be said, and I think sanctions are required to make BrightR drop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're accusing me here of—calling DonIago "willingly ignorant"? He said I make requests (bordering on demands) that editors provide reasoning they are not required, which is willingly ignorant of WP:CONSENSUS—editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever; If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article (emphasis mine)—and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR—An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. Repeatedly claiming that the reason for the revert is because the edit is "not needed" is the problem here; and after the above has been brought to the attention of everybody in the discussion and DonIago in particular, he still [sees] no requirement that editors stipulate why they feel the references are inappropriate. That's willing ignorance of WP:CONSENSUS. Bright☀ 07:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Aargh I actually agree with some of what BrightR has been saying on the substance, to a point: our plot summaries in general should include citations,[167] film plot summaries should not be based directly on the films themselves since deciding what to put in and what to leave out often amounts to OR, and local consensus on this or that film article doesn't overrule the NOR policy.

But adding a bunch of inline citations of the film itself doesn't actually address this problem, clutters things, and makes it look at first glance that the summary is cited to reliable secondary sources (and so is counterproductive). On top of this, I may not agree with WP:FILM (and WP:TV) on this, but I recognize that I'm in the minority, and have not tried to enforce my standards on articles despite facing opposition, which BrightR has unfortunately been doing.

This needs to stop.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to enforce anything; I'm requesting a reason for the revert in accordance to Wikipedia policy. If you think primary sources are inappropriate for plot sections, I encourage you to read through the discussion, or just the policy and guideline on the matter: WP:PRIMARY—A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. (emphasis mine)—and MOS:PLOT: using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. If editors revert an edit that makes such changes—which are supported by policy, guideline, and an explanation in the talk page—their revert cannot be supported with "not needed". Bright☀ 08:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can. See also the three reasons I gave above. Not to mention WP:BRD, a process with such broad acceptance in virtually all cases where the policy doesn't 100% support one version over another that it might as well be a policy in its own right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can [be supported with the reason "not needed"] No, policy says it can't. See also the three reasons I gave above Presumably you mean this: doesn't actually address this problem, clutters things, and makes it look at first glance that the summary is cited to reliable secondary sources: (1) the "problem" you raise (plot summaries based directly on the films themselves) is not a problem per Wikipedia policies and guidelines; (2) two references in two paragraphs are not "clutter", it is almost the minimal level of referencing; (3) references don't have "this is a primary source" or "this is a secondary/tertiary source" tags on them so unless you're proposing marking each reference as to what kind it is, this is far outside the scope of this issue. Not to mention WP:BRD BRD is being followed, and very unfortunately the majority are ignoring the most important part of BRD: WP:CONSENSUS, particularly the parts I quoted above (and that WP:BRD-NOT is quoting in bullet points 2 and 3), for your perusal. And since you're already hinting it with the comment about "100%", may I refer you to the original discussion. I never said plot summaries must contain references; I said that policy and guideline support putting primary references in plot summaries, so reverting this edit requires a reason other than "not needed" or "no consensus" per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:CONSENSUS. Bright☀ 11:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• So, is there any reason we cannot prune the plot down to what is verifiable from reliable independent secondary sources, as is the standard for all content on Wikipedia? Or is this one of those situations where we absolutely must reference the primary source because secondary sources don't consider the thing we want to say to be significant enough to mention? Guy (Help!) 10:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not the issue here. This was never the issue here. WP:UNDUE was never the issue. WP:RS was never the issue. The issue was having a helpful, good-faith edit reverted with the reason "not needed", and when I pointed out that reason is against policy (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) and that a valid reason needs to be provided, I was met repetitively with "not needed", "not necessary", "not a must", and so on. Now and again other issues were raised but they were immediately dropped, and the only reason that remained is "not needed". Bright☀ 11:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, much of editing is driven by commonsense opinion of editors; and in my opinion, "not needed" is quite a well-accepted commonsense reason, as well as "needed", especially when the article topic relates to plots and the likes. Having a policy/guideline base to include a statement does not mean the statement has to be included, and that someone cannot remove the statement boldly. Having said that, I feel that this issue (or broadly whatever I've understood here) is not something egregious for ANI. This seems to be a good-faith editorial banter that's gone a bit awry. I don't know how is ANI supposed to sort this out. L0URDES 11:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Having a policy/guideline base to include a statement does not mean the statement has to be included, and that someone cannot remove the statement boldly. Perfectly agree, and I never said it must be included. However if an edit has been disputed and a discussion has started, WP:CONSENSUS has to form using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense, not with reasons that are against policy and sources, even if the majority favors them. in my opinion, "not needed" is quite a well-accepted commonsense reason Then fix the policies that say it is not an acceptable reason. Or I can explain why "not needed" is a non-reason equivalent to "I don't like it". Bright☀ 11:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef TBAN from "film" OK, BrightR has officially worn me down after only two comments, and I agree with him. Hats off to those who don't but have somehow been able to put up with him for longer than that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Imagine having to "put up" with editors and administrators who imply you should be with banned or blocked because you're discussing a revert that's blatantly against Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 12:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Weird how often people have recently responded to comments I have made in a manner that explicitly claimed to be familiar with my editing history but also managed to get said history completely wrong. I was, in 2015, TBANned for my response to a couple of editors very explicitly violating several of our core content policies, despite virtually everyone who looked at the substance agreeing with me on said substance. You can be TBANned for uncivil, bludgeoning behaviour regardless of whether you are right on the content: WP:CIVIL is the most important policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment That should probably be TV & Film if they are disruptive across the entire subject area but from what I have seen a TBAN relating specifically to Plots may be more appropriate. This would be based on TE evidenced by refusing to drop the stick after months. Bludgeoning the RfC, including multiple attempts to close their own RfC. That same bludgeoning behavior is in evidence in this very thread.
  I would support either TBAN if someone can come up with either evidence of disruption/TE outside of plots or more narrow wording focusing on plots. Jbh ^Talk 13:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be cool with a "plots" TBAN instead. Honestly, it's not the content I have a problem with one way or the other (even if I disagreed with him 100%, which I don't, he would be only as bad as a dozen other long-term contributors against whom I've never proposed sanctions): it's the incivility in his responses to me and other users here. Any form of sanction, even just a short block, would hopefully force him to reconsider how he interacts with other editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Since this is AN/I you are obligated to provide diffs for instances I have been uncivil to you. Bright☀ 16:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Now you are just making up rules. And when everything you say is shouted at me in boldface it hardly seems necessary to provide "diffs" of your incivility, let alone the fact that you and I have never interacted anywhere beyond this ANI thread so it's here for everyone to see: I even said above that I was specifically referring to only [your first] two comments [directed at me] (your subsequent comments have been no better, of course, nor have your replies to other editors in this thread or in the linked talk page). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So I should be TBANed because I replied in bold? Should you be TBANed as well for replying to me in bold? Now you are just making up rules. WP:PERSONAL: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Any evidence would do, but diffs and links are standard. Bright☀ 16:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: including multiple attempts to close their own RfC You do realize you have to provide diffs for these multiple attempts? My closure was 100% in line with WP:RFCEND (5). DonIago then undid my closure citing article deletion closure procedure... Bright☀ 16:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@BrightR: My apologies I have struck "multiple". I misremembered a close although I recall a discussion where you wanted to close it early and were told to let it run and not to close your own RfC. As I recall there were several editors involved. I thought it was at AN but I can not find the diffs. Do you recall that or am I mistakingly conflating some other incident with another editor?

Regardless, you closed your own RfC with a simple No consensus your close and were reverted [168]. The close by a neutral editor did find consensus, just not the consensus you wanted. Jbh ^Talk 17:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

not the consensus you wanted I don't see how you can make that assertion. I did not contest the close and I support the close summary. I suggest you be more careful with your accusations and any intentions you ascribe to others. Seems people keep attributing to me intentions I do not have and actions I have not performed. I agree 100% with the close, the only problem was DonIago undoing my close citing irrelevant reasons. Bright☀ 17:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Were you or were you not told closing your own RfC is improper? You have cited RFCEND, above, as defense of your involved close yet it reads "a formal closing summary of the discussion can be posted by any uninvolved editor."^{(emp mine)} The general guideline for NAC closes says "Closing editors must abide by the standard of being uninvolved as described at Involved admins" which says "editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved". So, regardless of the particulars of your motivations — which, admittedly, I can only speculate on based upon your actions — you have let your passion for your particular viewpoint not only blind you to the disruption you are causing for other editors but you have shown willingness to ignore a basic tenet of dispute resolution and consensus building. It is past time to let this go. Since you can not seem to do so on your own this thread was opened by NinjaRobotPirate to make you drop it. I proposed the narrowest restrictions I could think to to accomplish this. If you would prefer I justify them more generally per BLUDGEON/IDHT/DROPTHESTICK as illustrated by behavior at Talk:12 Monkeys#Ambiguous ending, Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs" and this RfC. Including an INVOLVED closing their own RfC [169] compounded by an inability to recognize such a close is improper. (See this thread and comments here.) You may consider the reasoning for the below proposed sanctions to be so amended. Jbh ^Talk 18:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You are citing RFCEND (4) and you're leaving out the first part: The rfc tag can be removed and a formal closing summary of the discussion can be posted by any uninvolved editor. I did not remove the RfC tag and (4) does not apply. I cited RFCEND (5). A bot removed the RfC tag and there was no discussion for two weeks. At this point anyone can close the RfC. As you cite RFCEND partially in a misleading way, you also cite WP:NACINV as if it were a guideline; please see the top of the page where it says This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The correct policy is WP:INVOLVED (that's the actual policy; not an essay about the policy). Any editor could have closed the discussion as such after the bot has removed the RfC tag and discussion has stopped. The close summary was not disputed; the reason given for undoing the closure was for deletion discussions, not RfCs. the disruption you are causing for other editors but you have shown willingness to ignore a basic tenet of dispute resolution and consensus building I do like the basic tenets of dispute resolution and consensus building! In particular, this one: When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. I have opened a section, I have asked for reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. You know what reason I got? "Not needed", a reason explicitly stated to be invalid in Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 18:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Your reasoning that somehow it is OK to make an INVOLVED close of your own RfC simply because the bot removed the RfC tag and not you is, at best, motivated reasoning. I do not believe that anyone involved in the discussion re your close thought your interpretation was correct.

I have stated my position and proposed what I believe to be a narrow and equitable solution to the problem. I will now step back from this back and forth with you to avoid clogging up the thread and allow other editors to comment. They will agree, disagree or propose some other solution(s) — They may even think you are correct in your reading of RFCEND and that the 'persistent' strategy you have used to press your view is just fine. I, obviously, do not think that will happen, but I recognize it might. — In any event I firmly believe it is time we let others express their views. Jbh ^Talk 19:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe that anyone involved in the discussion re your close thought your interpretation was correct. My "interpretation" is "no consensus" which is largely in line with the close that followed. As for closing an RfC, you cite an essay and call it a guideline, I say "policy" and cite an actual policy. WP:INVOLVED is the only relevant policy, and there is nothing wrong with non-admin closure or an involved editor's closure as long as the closure is not controversial. The reason given for undoing the closure was about deletion discussions, so it's entirely irrelevant. If you actually have a reason why this closure was "bludgeoning" I'd like to hear it, because according to WP:RFC, after discussion has naturally ended, the RfC can be closed by anyone. Bright☀ 20:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: stop the current disruption you mean my editing of the article 12 Monkeys that was last done one month ago? Or the discussion about Wikipedia's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR policy and the bad revert, which has not strayed from the edit itself and the lack of adherence to policy? If you don't want to be part of the discussion you can simply not be part of it. On the other hand, I think that pointing out that two admins and many editors are attempting revert and consensus by WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is important enough to continue, even months after the initial dispute has been settled. There is no time limit on discussions. Wikipedia is suffering dearly from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR which is driving away positive contributions (literally reverting them) and driving away contributors. When admins advocate no-reason reverts and no-reason consensus, there's a problem, and it's worth discussing, for the improvement of one article individually and for the prevention of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR on Wikipedia in general. Trying to stop the discussion vicariously, by cutting off the user complaining about WP:OWNBEHAVIOR from the discussion page, might be a form of WP:GAMING. Bright☀ 02:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I was involved with the 12 Monkeys issue, and I think others have done well to explain the problem here with BrightR. But I think this extends further, they want to wikilawyer and red tape everything. Just today, they got involved in a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility, using similar wikilawyer logic to demand a change of spelling between US/British spelling. This is not helpful at all, and while some of their other mainspace edits may be okay, this is becoming far too disruptive for the project. --Masem (t) 05:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is much broader than either or both of the proposed topic bans, it's a general behavior problem, which is both harder and easier to address. Harder, because if BrightR is a net positive, crafting a sanction that will allow them to continue to edit is difficult considering their behavioral issues, but easier because a simple site ban would accomplish it if they're a net negative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

this is becoming far too disruptive for the project No articles are being disrupted, no user talk pages are being disrupted, nobody is making personal attacks. It is unclear, other than "BrightR is using talk pages to talk about WP:OWNBEHAVIOR reverts", how anything is being disrupted, other than editors disrupting themselves by participating in discussions by choice. Bright☀ 05:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruption is not limited to mainspace pages, disruptive talk page behavior, by engaging in WP:IDHT behavior over and over again, can be a reason to block/ban too. And the comment that led this section about calling an editor "willfully ignorant" is borderline personal attack. WP is collaborative, you're not acting in a collaborative manner. --Masem (t) 13:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

by engaging in WP:IDHT behavior WP:IDHT is phrased in such a way that more closely follows what you're doing: Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. For example TheOldJacobite sticking to his ersatz references claim after being shown that citations to primary sources are not ersatz. The fact that I repeat myself is not because I'm not hearing you; it's because editors join the discussion and raise the same arguments that have already been discussed. For example in the RfC barely anyone bothered to even read the question; the uninvolved closing summary acknowledged this. I try to steer the discussion to policy and the actual content not because I don't hear you, but because people veer off into all directions. I believe every single argument you've presented to me was answered: "the average viewer", secondary sources, synthetis, and (over and over) "not needed". I do hear you and I discuss with you. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". Bright☀ 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, do not confuse "hearing" with understanding. You may literally have read the words on the page, but you also have -- extremely obviously -- not understood almost any of the things you're being told. Your reaction to criticism of your behavior is not "Hmmm, could I possibly be doing something wrong?" but, instead, "Let's see, how do I read the policies to show that I am right?". Then you repeat it ad nauseum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban on discussions of proper citation for TV and Film plots.

• Support as proposer BrightR's disruption looks to be limited to this specific topic. I do not see, on brief inspection, any reason to ban them from TV and film in general. Since this seems to stem from discussion at a single article, 12 Monkeys, I am proposing a topic ban from that article as well.
  Indefinite term. Minimum 6 months. Jbh ^Talk 15:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 15:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support either this or the one below or both, whichever one everyone else backs. Per my own comment above, I think any sanction would likely make him reconsider his behaviour. WP:AGF, WP:ROPE, and all that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The wikilawyering on display here leads me to believe BrightR is just going to find something else to tendentiously argue about, but maybe this will stop the current argument. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Your feeling about this is quite correct, since every discussion I've ever gotten involved in with this editor has been an orgy of tendentious behavior, wikilawyering, IDHT and not dropping the stick. He basically drove me away from editing Swastika, after I had put considerable effort into cleaning up an impossibly visually messy article (before: [170], after[171], and that wasn't our first encounter -- there have been a number of them, including one on Wikipedia talk:Consensus ("Levels of consensus" and the attached RfC), which illustrates well his modus operandi. It's demoralizing to know that pertty much any time you run into this guy, you have the choice of diving headfirst into a massive timesink, or making your point and then running away to avoid being sucked in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

[putting] considerable effort into cleaning up an impossibly visually messy article doesn't exempt you from policies, guidelines, and consensus. After the discussion, you reverted many helpful edits, including replacing properly-formatted URLs with bare URLs, removing a protection template while page protection was still in effect, undoing small grammar and spelling fixes, and placing images above their related section instead of inside their related section. Thank you for cleaning up the article, but that does not make you the sole arbiter of which edits to keep and which policies and guidelines to follow or ignore. Bright☀ 04:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you, apparently, are the sole arbiter, as you have taken up WP:OWNership of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk)

You mean by restoring other editors' references' proper formatting after you changed them to bare URLs (WP:CITEVAR), restoring a protection template on a protected page (WP:PROTECT), restoring images to their placement below their appropriate heading and not above it (MOS:IM), and explaining these reasons in the talk page? That's not "sole arbiter", that's using Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, discussion consensus, and the dispute resolution process. Bright☀ 05:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's an outright... I mean, that's not accurate, but I am not going to be sucked into your vortex this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for how any of that is inaccurate. I have provided diffs, if you wish to make an accusation you need to provide evidence. Merely implying there's evidence doesn't cut it. Bright☀ 05:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

[Whistles "Put On a Happy Face"] Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You appear to have made an accusation and refused to back it up with diffs. Bright☀ 06:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

[Hums "On the Street Where You Live"] Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support with additional condition that any repeat of this behaviour elsewhere on the English Wikipedia will result in the editor being indeffed. This is simply not acceptable behaviour. The editor's posts in this thread alone are sufficient to demonstrate that the editor is unable or unwilling to participate in a collaborative environment. Other editors have better things to do than waste endless amounts of time in trying to engage with this sort of nonsense. Enough already. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

the editor is unable or unwilling to participate in a collaborative environment Should I provide instances of successfully collaborating to improve articles? You are making a vast, vast accusation. The failure to collaborate here is by editors who, for example, argue that "not needed" is a valid reason to revert an edit, and when shown a policy that indicates it's not a valid reason, propose a TBAN. Bright☀ 04:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I would almost certainly support a broader TBAN/indef block as well. To my knowledge I have never interacted with the editor, but reading this discussion as well as the ones linked makes it very clear that many editors have spent a lot of time dealing with the tendentious editing, Wikilawyering, and refusal/inability to grasp the concept of collaborative editing as well as the fact that guidelines can sometimes be interpreted differently (which is when dropping the stick is an excellent skill to have.) That doesn't bode that well for future work in other areas, but hopefully I will be proven wrong. --bonadea contributions talk 16:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

guidelines can sometimes be interpreted differently Please interpret If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article and An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. That's all this is about. Editors reverting edits with reasons such as "not needed", "agnostic", and whatnot. Instead of providing a valid reason for their revert, they use a reason specifically mentioned in policy to be a bad reason. Bright☀ 18:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. To the best of my knowledge I've never interacted with anyone involved in this and have no particular opinion regarding the underlying dispute, but having wasted a chunk of my life I'm never going to get back reading through this it's very clear that this is someone who refuses to accept that the nature of Wikipedia means that one doesn't always get one's own way regardless of how much one feels that everybody else is wrong, and who's engaging in classic time-wasting tactics to try to bully and wear down anyone who's not in agreement. I strongly suspect that this will just displace the tendentious editing elsewhere and we'll be back here in a few weeks to discuss the terms of the siteban, but there's always a possibility that the shock of "hey, the admins were serious when they said they'd enforce Wikipedia policy!" will make BrightR reconsider their approach to editing. ‑ Iridescent 17:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

one doesn't always get one's own way I haven't edited 12 Monkeys in a month and, to the best of my memory and browsing my edit history, have not edited any other movie plot section in far longer. Claiming that I try to "always get one's own way" is unsubstantiated, and issuing a TBAN or broader sanctions over one prolonged and repetitive discussion is counterproductive. What I do want is for editors to address the Wikipedia policies I discuss, and not use WP:OWNBEHAVIOR reverts, per policy. Bright☀ 18:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm. You are literally doing nothing in this thread and the linked discussions but try to bully and bluster into getting your own way. Do you see that unanimous list of supports for sanctions against you from every single person to comment? Since you appear so fond of the {{tq}} template, let's give you a quotation: There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!". ‑ Iridescent 18:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I see people supporting a TBAN (of 12 Monkeys or all TV and film plots) for disrupting 12 Monkeys. I have not edited 12 Monkeys in a month, which suggests these people are being punitive. If they don't want to discuss things with me on the talk page—they can simply not discuss them. Bright☀ 18:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

So, do you want to be blocked from editing, period? Your behaviour in this thread is disruptive, and the TBAN proposals are meant to make you reflect on how your behaviour has been disruptive, while giving enough room to continue editing, which is the opposite of being punitive. If we wanted to be punitive, we could propose that you be removed from the project altogether, and with how you have been behaving such a proposal would almost certainly pass. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't believe that specific topic bans have a icicle's chance in Hell of causing BrightR to be self-reflective -- at least, I've never seen any indication that he's capable of doing so. There's certainly nothing in this discussion that even hints at that capability, or any interest in trying to develop it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Your behaviour in this thread is disruptive This is an AN/I about my conduct and by requiring accusations to be backed up with evidence (per policy) I am "being disruptive"... Bright☀ 08:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - This editor has been problematic for quite some time and as such it'll only be time before they're indeffed!, Anyway enough's enough if this editor cannot edit on a collaborative manner on a certain subject then they can be topic banned from it. –Davey2010^Talk 17:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support This editor needs to understand that their tendentious and pedantic behavior is disruptive and must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - First choice is indef block. This could be effective for this specific issue, but the general behavior pattern will just displace elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Indef block is not appropriate and will be equivalent to a lynch mob decision as of right now – however, I accept that if the editor in question doesn't change his style of consensus seeking soon enough, there's no reason that the current topic ban will get extended into a wider topic ban. I wasn't supportive of a topic ban when this thread started as this had the appearance of only being a strong editorial dispute. Unfortunately, the more Bright has opposed any and every suggestion given here, the more it seems that this is going to be a lost cause and waste of discussion time. If Bright had, for example, written words like, "I'm sorry my discussion style caused this; I'm ready to mend this per suggestions", or something similar, I don't think there would have been that strong a support for a topic ban. Unfortunately, I've been through this style of discussions myself (I being the perpetrator) and know very well the agony and irritation such a style can cause. Thankfully, I wasn't topic banned as I realized the issue after being flogged at my first RfA. I hope Bright realizes this and backs off from this style of editing asap. L0URDES 04:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Lourdes: You do realize that calling the supporters of an indef block a "lynch mob" is deeply, deeply offensive, don't you? You are equating stopping someone from editing a site on the Internet to illegally taking a human being's life by brutal means. I know we all get carried away with our rhetoric at times, but the comparison you have made is really beyond the pale. I would appreciate it if you would strike that from your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with BMK here, Lourdes. You picked a very bad analogy. The National Memorial for Peace and Justice is now being dedicated, which commemorates the 4300 victims of lynching in the United States. The common pattern was that a black man was siezed by a mob, and then beaten, shot, castrated, hung and burned. Crowds often including young children gathered for a picnic lunch and to cheer the mob violence, and commemorative postcards were often issued. Do you really think that something like that is going on here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies.​ Struck.​ L0URDES 15:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with Lourdes' opinion but Jesus Christ, lynch mob is a perfectly acceptable phrase. Plenty of people were cruelly murdered in witch hunts but there's nothing wrong with using that phrase either. EEng 17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

EEng: It's been centuries since the witch hunts; the most recent classic lynching took place within the last 80 years, and the last racially-motivated group killing of a black man in 1998. Using this metaphor is socially debilitating, and degrades our discourse. It also takes away some of the horror of actual lynchings by using it in a petty way, something like calling every ultra-liberal a "Commie", or every hard-line conservative a "Fascist" -- when a real Fascist shows up, the description has no sting left in it. Godwin's Law is one result of such misuse of language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I grew up in Berkeley in the 60s and 70s, and after endless lectures from guys in dashikis my exquisitely honed racial sensitivities make any of you look like Simon Legree, I assure you. This is ridiculous. You may as well object to someone being called a slave to fashion or saying that the boss cracked the whip or was niggardly with the bonuses. EEng 20:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I understand where you're coming from, and I don't want to prolong this sidebar discussion, but slavery has a long, long history predating the enslavement of Africans for transport to the New World, so it's really not the same thing - lynching is so much more recent than that. It's more as if a commenter had said "You guys are perpetrating a Nazi Holocaust on BrightR." Can we agree to disagree on this particular point at this particular moment, and perhaps revisit this discussion at some future time where it's more a propos? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll just offer that the proper parallel example to lynching would be simply holocaust not Nazi Holocaust. EEng 02:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: If Bright had, for example, written words like, "I'm sorry my discussion style caused this; I'm ready to mend this per suggestions", or something similar, I don't think there would have been that strong a support for a topic ban. That's very good advice! Bright☀ 17:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support (involved editor) I fear this is too narrow in scope (see my concerns noted under the Topic Ban just for 12 Monkeys proposal), but this would at least be a somewhatcomprehensive measure. I do fear that BrightR's tendentious editing behavior would simply manifest elsewhere on WP. DonIago (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban on 12 Monkeys

• Support as proposer The genesis of this issue seems to be discussions related to the GA review of 12 Monkeys where he have been pressing this issue for more than nine months. See Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs" and following sections. From a brief read through I firmly believe, absent BrightR's refusal to drop the stick, the other editors could have reached some sort of consensus.
  Indefinite term. Minimum 6 months. Jbh ^Talk 15:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 15:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support either this or the one above or both, whichever one everyone else backs. Per my own comment above, I think any sanction would likely make him reconsider his behaviour. WP:AGF, WP:ROPE, and all that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Again, this will probably just push the tendentious wikilawyering to another article, but at least it will stop the current disruption. I think we need to state that further disruption of the same kind elsewhere will result in blocks, not more topic bans. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This editor has been problematic for quite some time and as such it'll only be time before they're indeffed!, Anyway enough's enough if this editor cannot edit on a collaborative manner on a certain subject then they can be topic banned from it. –Davey2010^Talk 17:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of the other proposal. As far as I can see, BrightR's disruption at 12 Monkeys revolves around his obsession with citations, so that proposal with de facto imply this one as well, with the added bonus that it prevents him just heading over to another article, goofing with the citations there, and claiming that he's now set a precedent. (Yes, AGF and all that, but given the level of wikilawyering going on here I'm willing to bet that's exactly what would happen.) ‑ Iridescent 18:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

his obsession with citations What? Bright☀ 18:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support This editor needs to understand that their tendentious and pedantic behavior is disruptive and must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. Have any NPOV issues been raised? Or did you not mean tendentious editing, and just wanted something to go with "pedantic"? Bright☀ 18:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll guess he means behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions, which is in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. If you're going to quote things, read them first. While you're at it, you might want to cast your eyes over Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who repeats the same argument without convincing people and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who never accepts independent input. ‑ Iridescent 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I accept your independent input. I have read the essay, and the vast majority is about NPOV. Taken in isolation the part you quote makes "tendentious editing" seem synonymous with "disruptive editing", so a rose by any other name... Could you perhaps clarify what you mean by "obsession with citations" above, or where I claimed to have set a precedent? These seem to be baseless accusations. Bright☀ 19:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah! A perfect response, showing precisely the tendentious editing of BrightR. Couldn't have written it better myself! Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Making accusations without backing them up ("obsession with citations", "claimed to have set a precedent"). Bright☀ 07:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - First choice is indef block. This could be effective for this specific issue, but the general behavior pattern will just displace elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We will be back at the ANI sooner than a month if this were chosen. L0URDES 04:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support without taking away from my support of other options. More than one sanction is fine Legacypac (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (involved editor) as too narrow in scope, given the obvious tendentious editing patterns BrightR has evidenced even on this page. Banning them solely from 12 Monkeys won't do anything to address the larger problem. DonIago (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Data point

[172]. EEng 05:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If I said anything incorrect, please correct it. Bright☀ 06:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No reply yet. Well, okay. Let's look at the diffs:

• BrightR makes a minor spelling edit for consistency of spelling between policies
• EEng reverts with reason "project space is agnostic WRT Engvar"
• Talk page discussion is started. BrightR points that reverting a neutral change because it's neutral is not a valid reason. Johnuniq immediately replies about "battling over which spelling to use". EEng replies that "the choices of a page's early editors are left in place absent some good reason to change". BrightR points out that the current spelling is not "the choices of a page's early editors" nor was it "left in place absent some good reason to change" and that either way that revert reason is not valid.
• From the beginning of the discussion up to that point, BrightR made three comments and in total there were five comments. At this point, EEng brings up "wikilawyering" and "drop the stick". Other editors start discussing blocks, long-term prospects on Wikipedia, passive-aggressive behavior, autism. After five replies they completely abandoned the content and policy discussion.

Perhaps people are levying accusations against me in order to avoid discussing the content and policy that's supposed to be under discussion? As soon as EEng was shown to be factually mistaken, he started talking about AN/I and blocks... As soon as Beyond My Ken was confronted with diffs, he started replying nonsensically. When Hijiri88 was told that policy states that "not needed" is not a valid revert reason two comments into the discussion, he proposed a TBAN... If you don't want to discuss, don't discuss, but don't try to silence the other side through imposing administrative sanctions. Bright☀ 09:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, you are the only sensible person here. Unfortunately, collaboration is required. That means you have to get on with us, even though we are dumb. Is it really worth battling over a "u"? Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I never called you dumb and I never battled over a "u", I started a discussion. You don't want to participate in the discussion—okay. But don't drag it down to "battling", "long term career on Wikipedia", and (not you, but others) insinuations of blocks, mental issues, and what have you. Don't want to discuss? Don't discuss. Bright☀ 11:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The IDHT is goddam strong with this one. What I said (in the discussion linked at the top of this subthread) is that the Engvar choices of a page's early editors are left in place absent some good reason to change, citing WP:MOS#Retaining_the_existing_variety (while pointing out that MOS does not, in general, otherwise apply outside article space). BrightR is making the common newbie mistake of reading individual policies and guidelines in isolation, not realizing that Wikipedia, like the grownup world in general, is a complicated place in which newcomers do well to listen to those who can help them understand how things work.

He's been singing this you-have-to-prove-my-edit-is-wrong song for some time now [173], and there's no little irony in one of his favorite hangouts being Talk:List of films featuring time loops. EEng 12:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion, the one at MOS, and the one at WP:CIVIL, in particular the inability to leave any comment un-replied to and the continuous "I'm just discussing" is making me reconsider the effectiveness of narrowly tailored sanctions. WP:IDHT + WP:DROPTHESTICK == WP:CIR. I believe it is very likely that a supportable case could be made for stronger, more general, sanctions.
  I now fear the narrow topic bans I proposed will just shift the problems elsewhere. Perhaps they would provide a badly needed clue. I don't know if BrightR's behavior rises to the level of indef/site ban, but if evidence is presented in a sanction proposal that it has been going on over time and in other areas I could be convinced.
  In my experience BrightR bludgeons, dominates and tries to force discussions to only address what he wants them to address (See the RfC). The whole discussion at WP:CIVIL is simply WP:LAME and, in my mind, is indicative of an inability to participate in a collaborative editing environment. Jbh ^Talk 13:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

He's been singing this you-have-to-prove-my-edit-is-wrong song for some time now No, that's not what I said, I said that no-reason reverts are against policy, specifically WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.

citing MOS (while pointing out that MOS does not, in general, otherwise apply outside article space Then why cite MOS instead of actually addressing the issue discussed? You gave a no-reason reason for your revert.

The whole discussion at WP:CIVIL is simply WP:LAME and, in my mind, is indicative of an inability to participate in a collaborative editing environment. Jbhunley immediately raised the issue of "battling", and EEng, after one reply that tried to address the issue, veered off into insinuations of wikilawyering and blocks. The lack of desire to work collaboratively is on the other side. Bright☀ 17:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Q E D. EEng 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm hearing you. You keep linking to WP:IDHT but I am hearing you and I am discussing things with you. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". Bright☀ 18:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Do not confuse not agreeing with hopelessly clueless. Have you not noticed that everyone is telling you to smarten up? EEng 19:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You keep implying I'm not aware of the situation ("hopelessly clueless", "smarten up", "you didn't understand", "I hate to pull this on you", "trying to teach you") but I'm aware, and you're just being needlessly hostile and presumptuous. I'm aware, and I disagree. Everyone telling me to "smarten up" are being punitive: they do not want to discuss the topic, but they want to shut me up instead of simply walking away. I do want to discuss the topic, but nobody is forcing them to discuss it. Instead of going off-topic and being punitive, they can simply move on. Bright☀ 19:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger. Does anyone think we should save time and trouble and go straight to the block? EEng 20:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL. Bright☀ 07:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That's what ANI is for. Here we comment not on content, but on contributors. EEng 21:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor's contributions should be commented on, not editors themselves (e.g. User:X's actions are foolhardy, not User:X is a fool; the former may be a reasonable criticism, while the latter is a personal attack). Sometimes it is a slight distinction, but it is important. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose indef block BrightR

BrightR is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. He may appeal this sanction after three months.

• Support as proposer I initially thought this was a limited issue which could be handled with limited sanctions. Several other editors whose judgment I respect have said they think the disruption will simply move to other places, just as has occurred at WP:CIVIL. There is no indication in this thread that BrightR understands the disruption they are causing and therefore no hope that he will change his behavior. His statements in the section above [174] (" I do want to discuss the topic, but nobody is forcing them to discuss it. Instead of going off-topic and being punitive, they can simply move on."^{(emp mine)}) and ("If they don't want to discuss things with me on the talk page—they can simply not discuss them.")[175] In conjunction with the behavior demonstrated here and elsewhere (as noted in this thread) says this editor will keep 'discussing' until every one simply gives up. Whether this is a conscious strategy or a simple inability to understand when to let things go does not really matter. The end result is wasting the time of the editors who must continuously engage with him. Jbh ^Talk 20:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 20:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

disruption will simply move to other places, just as has occurred at WP:CIVIL I made one on-topic comment before Johnuniq immediately jumped to "battling". Then two more comments before the other editors implied sanctions and WP:PERSONAL. Take a look at WT:CIVIL. Who exactly moved the conversation off-topic and deteriorated attempts to form consensus? Who was being disruptive? Bright☀ 08:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Gods forgive me for this, but oppose blocking. Heaven knows that to be the most obnoxiously tendentious and self-important editor at ANI when we have an active thread about KoshVorlon is an impressive achievement, but I'm not really happy going straight to a block of any kind let alone an indef. I'd far rather set explicit and ungameable conditions and see if BrightR is actually capable of following consensus regardless of how stupid he feels the people responsible for the consensus are. Either he sticks to whatever topic ban is agreed (I'd urge whoever writes the final wording to throw a "broadly construed" in there, to discourage "technically it doesn't explicitly forbid that" boundary-testing) in which case Wikipedia and BrightR can all live happily ever after; or he doesn't in which case he'll be unceremoniously ejected but in the knowledge that it was a undisputed consequence of his own actions, so we won't be creating a martyr. ‑ Iridescent 22:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  Iridescent: I promise I won't do an "I told you so" when it turns out that we're back here again after BrightR simply turns his attention to some other subject, beyond whatever topic ban is laid on him. Unless someone's interested in crafting a talk-page sanction, perhaps one that bans him from Wikipedia-space talk pages, and allows him to start discussions on article or user talk pages, but then limits him to a small number of responses, I don't think any specific topic ban, even broadly construed, has the remotest chance of getting at the crux of the problem, which is BrightR's approach to discussion in general, not his behavior on any particular topic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  Don't worry, BMK, I'll deliver Arid Desiccant the "I told you so". EEng 23:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - It's rather traditional to say with these things "with reluctance", but I have no reluctance in supporting an indef block for BrightR. He has proven, over and over again, in discussions I have been involved with, and those I have not, that he really has absolutely no idea of how to behave on a collegial and collaborative project. The evidence for this is clearly laid out above by various editors, including myself, but anyone wanting more can simply go to BrightR's contributions page, and look at any talk page -- article, user or Wikipedia-space -- in which he has made multiple edits to see him in action. He's the Wikilawyer par excellance, the poster boy for IDHT, the master of interpreting policy so as to please his own purposes or, if that's not possible, of simply making up policies that don't exist. He has never, at least in my experience, conceded a point, admitted to a mistake, or apologized for a misunderstanding. He is the epitome of the grit that gets between the gears and stops the machine from working, without a doubt a net negative to the project, and it's well past the time that this was acknowledged and the editor given the heave-ho. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

BMK, and the choir of per BMK down below by extension, are making accusations without evidence. simply making up policies that don't exist - provide diff. He has never, at least in my experience, conceded a point, admitted to a mistake, or apologized for a misunderstanding - You were part of several discussions where I conceded a point and compromised; conveniently you left this out of your experience, despite experiencing these discussions you participated in. BMK likes to accuse me of wikilawyering because I hold him up to Wikipedia standards like consensus, verifiablity, not making edits to make a point, and not removing other editors' on-topic talk-page comments. Such wikilawyering. Bright☀ 08:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

provide diff [of me simply making up policies that don't exist] [176] You were part of several discussions where I conceded a point and compromised Ironically, the burden here is on you to provide evidence. In the talk page discussion that led to this ANI thread, you have refused to drop the stick for more than a month, and here you have been aggressively, and uncivilly, arguing with everyone and everything over the tiniest, peripherally related issues (see your responses to me above for a good example). BMK likes to accuse me of wikilawyering because I hold him up to Wikipedia standards "You need to provide diffs because we are now on ANI, even though the comment you are addressing is the one immediately above your own"? How is that not wikilawyering? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, the burden here is on you to provide evidence I did, did you not click the diffs? simply making up policies that don't exist providing evidence when making personal accusations is a policy, I did not make it up. I said "diffs" and later corrected myself to "evidence", and quoted the exact section of the policy. over the tiniest, peripherally related issues making accusations without evidence is not a tiny issue, you are literally asking to block me. How is that not wikilawyering? Because providing diffs (or, more generally, evidence) to back up accusations is extremely important and a Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 09:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I did, did you not click the diffs? Where? I haven't read all of your many, many comments in this thread, and I don't intend to. If you are going to defend yourself with vague references to other unrelated disputes (which I strongly suspect were not disputes to begin with -- getting on with some people who already agree with you says nothing about how you conduct yourself when interacting with those who don't) ... well, you can't do that. Show specifics. providing evidence when making personal accusations is a policy, I did not make it up. Insinuating that I made a personal attack against you by directly addressing the comments you made in this thread and not providing redundant links to the diffs of said comments is ... unfortunate. And you did not link to NPA: you specifically said that diffs are required because this is ANI. Yes, I have seen other editors cite this non-existent "rule", and it's possible you picked it up from them, but it is generally considered acceptable to describing the citation of made-up rules as "making up rules". Because providing diffs (or, more generally, evidence) to back up accusations is extremely important and a Wikipedia policy. Again, that's not a policy. Evidence in the form of diffs is preferable in some circumstances, but when literally every comment you have made in this thread is uncivil wikilawyering, saying "look at any edit he has made in this discussion" is just as good; gathering diffs of every comment you made in a particular thread is a waste of time, and demanding that other editors do something, with the intent of wasting their time, is wikilawyering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Where? In the comment you replied to, immediately before you asked for diffs... getting on with some people who already agree with you says nothing about how you conduct read the diffs, please Insinuating that I made a personal attack against you I did not say personal attacks, you were making personal accusations and they require evidence, usually in the form of diffs. you specifically said that diffs are required because this is ANI and immediately corrected myself that diffs are required whenever a personal accusation is made. gathering diffs of every comment you made in a particular thread is a waste of time Again, I immediately corrected myself and required evidence in general, and said diffs were standard. Bright☀ 09:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support been thinking about this. BMK nicely summarized why we would be better off without this user. Full discloser - he's been a pest to me on the past. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support BMK said it all very well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Maybe when he's older he'll be able to contribute usefully. EEng 23:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per BMK who's said it better than anyone ever could! - In short this editor is a timesink to this place and I think it's fair to say they've had enough time to adjust their ways. –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support If we were just talking about the external points at 12 Monkeys, this would be overkill, but the replies on this page, as BMK points out, are much more troubling, trying to deflect any blame on themselves onto others and using a lawyering approach to say why others are wrong. An indef w/ 3mo appeal seems perfectly reasonable for this. --Masem (t) 00:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

trying to deflect any blame on themselves onto others On WT:CIVILITY, the discussion immediately deteriorated to "battling" and insinuations of WP:PERSONAL and sanctions by the other participants. On 12 Monkeys the discussion, despite dragging on for months, did not deteriorate to those levels at all. Bright☀ 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Yeah, if I knew above how deep it went I would have proposed this myself. I said "topic ban from film" after having only looked briefly at the 12 Monkeys talk page and his frankly ridiculous responses to my first two comments here, but having seen what's gone down here I can't imagine a limited TBAN actually having any effect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the reasonings provided by Jbhunley and BMK. This user has had enough time to reform. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Like I mentioned above, our intentions are to effect corrections, not to lynch mob. A widely worded topic ban right now will give us the so-called longitudinal data point to administer an index-block later if required. L0URDES 04:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  After three months, if he can articulate an understanding of why his behavior has been problematic and he's unblocked, then we can get a longitudinal data point. For every editor like this, in whom we might invest 10,000 units of editor time trying to reform him before he's able to be a net positive, we have 10 others who take up maybe 100 units of others' time each, and are already a net positive. It's a bad investment. EEng 04:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

He drives good casual editors away in frustration and consumes the time of hard core editors who could be doing other more productive things. Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

He drives good casual editors away in frustration actually I have protected casual editors from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, see BMK diffs above. When "hard core editors" act against Wikipedia policy and revert a casual editor's edit because they asked for sources or asked to correct a factual mistake, that drives away good casual editors. Bright☀ 08:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind naming the "hard core editors" you are making that accusation against, and providing diffs? I don't believe you, but it's impossible to disprove a claim as vague as that one. Which articles were the casual editors driven off of despite your trying to protect them? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes they are in the BMK diffs above as I have stated. You are replying on that very thread, saying you don't know where the diffs are, but they are in the very comment you replied to. You ask for diffs but then you don't read the diffs I provide... Bright☀ 10:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. In addition to what others have stated, arguing with this editor can be a huge time stink because he often misinterprets and/or misrepresents what one states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - 11 years editing with a clean block log. Any history of sanctions?, I am on mobile so my capacity to check is limited. If no, then change my oppose to a fuck off try something else as a first step. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Not really 11 years; more like two.[177] Accounts with very low edit counts (like BrightR until 2016) can easily escape notice, so the lack of a prior block log doesn't really work as a defense. Even with respected veterans, if they jump off the reservation and behave ... well, like this, blocking until they come to their senses is reasonable. Anyway, if you think a limited sanction would solve the problem, those have also been proposed: the block was presented because a lot of editors think a TBAN wouldn't work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

blocking until they come to their senses What do you mean by this? I could "come to my senses" immediately if you said what that entails. Bright☀ 09:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about a hypothetical 10+ year well-established veteran who suddenly started behaving in an outrageous manner. I don't think that is you; I think you always behaved in this manner but edited so infrequently that no one had bothered to block or sanction you until this point. My point was that it doesn't really matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

escape notice; no one had bothered to block or sanction you until this point I've been on AN/I before (Beyond My Ken dragged me here under similar circumstances and everybody told him he should have let that editor tag uncited material with "citation needed") so it's wrong to say I "escaped notice". Perhaps instead of basing your block request on what I didn't do, you should specify what you think I need to do to meet your "come to their senses" stipulation. Bright☀ 09:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88: Thanks for the note and link, but the principle issue here is not the length of tenure, rather it's the clean block log -> indef block proposition. I am always reserved about drastic measures, and particularly those that seem disproportionate to the crime committed. It is, as Lourdes identified it, a lynch mob decision – without the execution. AN/I is Wikipedia's mob justice purveyor (or democracy as some of the founding fathers of the U.S. would describe it). Hijiri, your comments under BMK's !vote are both mistaken and unhelpful. (1) You must provide diffs for accusations (WP:ASPERSIONS part of WP:NPA). That is policy. Mind you, once those diffs are provided not everyone needs to repeatedly provide them again. (2) The burden of proof is never on the person making a negative claim. For the obvious reason that I can't provide evidence of me not having done something. E.g. you accuse of murder and then demand I prove that I haven't done it. How?

BrightR, you have worn down the patience of everyone here. I am not defending you because I agree with you. I don't. I've only just got home and can write a better fuller explanation without the nagging concern of a 3 hour discussion close that shafts someone. Let's get a few things straight: you are wikilawyering. This is best demonstrated by your argumentation with JBH above about RFCEND. RFCEND 5 simply states that an RfC has ended when nobody gives a damn about it anymore. That is not an invitation to conduct an involved close. BMK does hit on a relevant point when commenting about your reading of policies and suiting them towards yourself. Hijiri also makes the salient point of if everyone else says it's you, then it probably is (the drunk driver comment). EEng's data point is also damning. I wouldn't oppose some block, even a month long. I am only opposing a first step indef. That is the totality of my oppose here. I'll close with this, if you don't quit lawyering and defending indefensible actions there is zero chance you'll still be editing in three months time. That ENGVAR "discussion" on Wikipedia_Talk:Civility is ... uh... in the colloquial sense: autistic. You actually demanded a policy reason for undoing your pointless WP:ENGVAR change. The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other between the lines: so just leave whichever form is already present. Yet you weren't satisfied with three editors opposing your change. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not an invitation to conduct an involved close. I never said it was, I said anyone could close the RfC at that point. You actually demanded a policy reason for undoing your pointless WP:ENGVAR change. Again, no. I said that an "agnostic" revert is against policy. To elaborate, you say that "between the lines" so just leave whichever form is already present. That's fine, but what if I make a good-faith edit to improve the consistency of the spelling? In that case, the good faith edit should not be reverted for the same reason: "just leave whichever form is already present". To revert without a reason is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. As I had a good-faith reason for the change (improve consistency), a reason is needed for the revert. That is what I said, not "please cite the policy for undoing the edit" but, as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR say, provide a reason for the revert. defending indefensible actions Both the examples of "indefensible actions" you've given were not what I was doing. I am defending myself because it's easy to twist one thing into something it's not, like a non-controversial involved close into a violation of policy, or requesting a reason that doesn't fall under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR for a revert. The reason later given, by the way, was wrong, and despite acknowledging this ("Fine, and maybe that change should not have been made (perhaps there was some discussion about it) but given that it was made -- five years ago -- it should have been let lie") the editor went on to insinuate sanctions and later other editors, and now you, went on to use slurs like in the colloquial sense: autistic. Bright☀ 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

With regard to slurs, I honestly could not come up with a different term to close that sentence. If I had one, I would have used it. If you can give me one I will change it. The rest I'll potentially address tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't reply sooner, not because I couldn't, but because I balked at the first three quarters of your comment. In short: That is not an invitation to conduct an involved close <- I am accusing you of making an involved close. I am not saying that you personally thought that you were allowed to make an involved close. You are absolutely wrong to believe that RFCEND5 allows you to close a discussion you started. It does not. It means that a discussion has ended when no participant cares about it anymore. That does not mean you can formally close it. Per WP:CLOSE (Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins.) You, being involved, do not fit that description.

You actually demanded a policy reason for undoing your pointless WP:ENGVAR change. vs Again, no. I said that an "agnostic" revert is against policy. You are making a distinction without a difference. By nullifying the reason given, you are demanding an alternate one. Moreover, MOS:ENGVAR can be paraphrased to mean "agnostic". I added the "in between the lines" comment for your own benefit. You should not have made the edit in the first place, and "consistency" is an argument that doesn't hold a drop of water. There is no consistency in ENGVAR across project space and pointing to one example doesn't form a pattern: WP:EW is written in American English, so your edit made it less consistent with that. Sinking of the Titanic right there.

To revert without a reason is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR - No it isn't. That's not even close to what ownership behaviour is. Ownership is taking absolute authority of a page and preventing others from making changes to the page. Your change was not helpful. It wasn't destructive, but it wasn't helpful. Reverting it does not amount to ownership.

Both the examples of "indefensible actions" you've given were not what I was doing - Except one was what you were doing (making an involved close and citing an irrelevant policy), and the other was what you were doing by proxy (nullifying the provided reason, thereby demanding a different one to be procured). Anything else I need to rebuke. Honestly I hope not, it takes far more words than I'm willing to expend. The only reason I'm still on oppose is because it's a principled position I took: Do not throw out editors without having at least tried other measures. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:CLOSE I addressed policy regarding closing discussions in a previous comment so I would appreciate if you look over it again; I would appreciate it if you would make sure WP:CLOSE is in fact a policy, and check yourself for the policy about involved closes, and whether WP:CLOSE is consistent with it. WP:EW is written in American English, so your edit made it less consistent with that but isn't "behavior" American English too? Reverting [a neutral edit] does not amount to ownership It's indicative of such, and when such reverts over time bar other editors from contributing then it eventually amounts to ownership, I hope you'll agree. The only reason I'm still on oppose I hope you remain opposed when you read this reply, since it complies with my revised discussion style: it avoids repeating points raised in the previous replies, it very gently encourages you to re-check policy without citing it to you verbatim, and it appeals to you personally. I hope you find this less disruptive and more cooperative. Bright☀ 17:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You are correct BrightR, I had thought you'd made the change from American to British. Was looking at the wrong diff. In which case WP:TE uses "behaviour" so your spelling is inconsistent with that. Now the Titanic is sinking. Mea Culpa. CLOSE is an information page based on the INVOLVED policy. Though if I had cited that, I suspect that, you would have told me it only applies to admins because it is targeted at admins. For that matter WP:RFCEND isn't a policy either, it's a process. There is no policy tag on WP:RFC. You might want to check that. On the the second point, it can be an indication of ownership, but that depends on everything surrounding it. In this case, your accusation of ownership is off base. On the upside, this took fewer words than I imagined was going to be possible. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to raise this again but WP:TE is not a policy either, I tried making WP:CIVIL consistent with other policies; at any rate your point is understood. WP:INVOLVED is indeed the policy that addresses involved closes and it says it applies to non-admins too so I hope we're all on the same page now. I am glad you find this discussion style non-disruptive and, hopefully, cooperative. Bright☀ 18:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

BrightR: your example of WP:DE isn't a policy either, either, it's a guideline and guess what, TE is a supplement to DE. That's why I chose it. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

your example of WP:DE Oh, sorry. I use "policy" as an umbrella term for community-vetted policies and guidelines, as in WP:POLICY. Of course policies and guidelines are very different and using "policy" to mean a guideline is wrong, but I thought that from the context it was clear that I was posing policy against essay, not policy against guideline. Sorry for using the term "policy" inaccurately. Bright☀ 18:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I ... am just going to give up on this line of argumentation because whatever value it had disappeared about three comments ago. The point I was trying to make is that Wikipedia is already inconsistent in terms of ENGVAR. That's why it's not normally changed without good reason to do so. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Mr rnddude: I understand your desire to not toss editors out without trying to change their behavior for the better. I am not too keen on it either. However, do you really want to subject some unknown number of good faith editors who share neither your strong principles nor your vast patience to the pedantic cluelessness being exhibited here? I feel strongly that we should give editors a chance to grow and reform their bad practices, all or at least most of us have screwed up spectacularly have the understanding of our fellow editors to thank for helping make things better. I also feel strongly that, when considering a sanction that we must think of our colleagues as well as the editor we are trying to 'save'. I firmly believe that the behavior exhibited by BrightR here demonstrates that, by allowing him to continue to edit here, we would be putting an unreasonable, even cruel, burden on the editors who will be forced to deal with his "discussion" in the future.
  Loosing a single editor is not something to do lightly but we also must consider all of the other editors who will be negatively effected by this editor's grinding, clueless and beyond all unceasing style of "discussion". I can understand if you disagree with my view on this but I feel I must ask you to please consider the costs to your colleagues of your principles if, as you say, they, rather than a genuine belief BrightR can behave better, are the only thing backing your Oppose. Jbh ^Talk 21:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd comment on this style of discussion; it looks like you find it non-disruptive and possibly cooperative. I already acknowledged your line of reasoning and I'm not trying to refute it. Bright☀ 18:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I find this wikilawyering arguing with User:Mr rnddude - who is Opposing sanctions - unprecedented. I hope he changes his mind after reading that reply Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the revised discussion style still disruptive? I would appreciate any input. Bright☀ 17:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac: you'd be surprised how much I can tolerate, despite coming off as obviously annoyed. I've been thinking about an appropriate, functional sanction, per JBH's request. Your suggestion was appealing, but, alas, unworkable. I have to take my leave again tonight, will try to get more time for tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Just replying to the numbered points, as the rest seems fine: (1) Please read my comments in context: the "accusation" in question was that BrightR's comments addressed at me at the top of this thread were uncivil and totally missed the point. Providing evidence specifically in the form of diffs of something that is clearly visible immediately above at the time of writing is not a requirement of policy, and citing WIAPA out-of-context to make it look like it is (what BrightR did repeatedly) is wikilawyering. (2) I asked for diffs of BrightR's positive claim to have edited collaboratively with editors he was supposedly in a dispute with. I can see how this wasn't clear to you, though, so I apologize for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88: With regard to (2) Yes I can see that now. Point conceded. With regard to (1) I don't agree with you. Sorry. You gave a diff of them simply making up policies that don't exist] with that diff leading to the comment Since this is AN/I you are obligated to provide diffs for instances I have been uncivil to you. This is almost correct, evidence is usually presented in the form of diffs but not always. They corrected themselves in their next comment to you. I don't really see incivility from them, per se. Maybe misrepresentation, but that implies an intent that I'm not yet willing to concede. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Question to BrightR: Looking over the comments that have been made so far in this overall thread, could you give a brief description any mistakes have you made in your recent editing, and how you plan to change your editing to avoid repeating them? — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, should I make a new section? Bright☀ 11:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If you wanted to, you could. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time, based on the response to the question – thanks for writing such a detailed response. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as, however egregious their behaviour is currently seen as (correctly), I think it is worth at least attempting non-punitive sanctions before wielding the banhammer. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, jumping straight to an indefinite block is excessive. We can address the issues (and provide plenty of rope) through a targeted topic ban and a warning to stop it with the incessant wikilawyering. I really would like BrightR to respond to CBM's question, too. Fish+Karate 11:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Fish and karate, Serial Number 54129, Lourdes, and Mr rnddude: I agree with you all that an indefinite block is a heavy sanction as a first sanction. I first encountered BrightR when I was commented on their MoS RfC. I thought their bludgeoning and IDHT there was problematic but figured it would blow over. When I saw this thread I still thought the issue was narrowly focused and I proposed very narrow sanctions. Bluntly, I was wrong. This thread and the additional evidence presented by others shows that the problems I thought were limited to a single issue (BLUDGEON, DE, TE, IDHT, STICK, pretty much all of the problematic ALLCAPS except VANDAL) were, in fact, fundamental to this editor's style of argument.
  For fundamental behavior problems I do not see the point of definite blocks. The editor can either articulate the behaviors which got them blocked and endeavor not to repeat them and return to editing or not. When I was writing this I shortened the usual 6 months to 3 so if they had a sudden flash of 'clue' they could get back to editing quicker — I'd be willing to remove even that and say they can appeal immediately. I am not sure if it is proper but I, personally, do not even see the need for the appeal to be to AN/ANI. A simple unblock request wherein BrightR acknowledges their problematic behavior and says they will stop would be good enough.
  In short my intention is that "indefinite" be "just long enough to effect positive behavioral change" not "kicked off the project forever". If any of you can suggest another strategy to effect that change and is, for obvious reasons, resistant to wiki-lawyering please suggest it. I do not really care what solution this thread comes up with but, for the sake of the editors who must regularly deal with BrightR's behavior, some sort of broad solution needs to be decided on.
  I understand the principle in play here and I hope you all can come up with some solution short of indef, however, if you are no I ask you to reconsider your !votes in light of what I have said and considering removing the 3 month minimum appeal time. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 12:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Missed @Iridescent: Jbh ^Talk 12:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC))

• Oppose - Come back and revisit the issue if a TBAN is ineffective. If there's a case laid out here for a problem that is not likely to be mostly be taken care of by a TBAN, then I'm not seeing it. As if this thread wasn't good enough, maybe tack on an explicit warning that the patience of the community is not inexhaustible, and just because you think you're right, doesn't mean that doing literally anything else instead isn't a more productive use of our collective time than endlessly arguing over any one thing. If we have to come back here, it's not going to end well for you BrightR. I hope you are well aware of that. GMG^talk 12:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The plot summary given at Twelve Monkeys is totally obscure to anyone who hasn't see the movie, and largely annoying to anyone else. "The dangerous one was the 13th monkey" would be largely shorter... and largely better. 'Killing' out some Wikipedian by drowning into the letter soup will not avenge the inability of both the 'pro' and the 'con' to provide an useful summary. A reference may be ? So simple: 1:58:58. Pldx1 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pldx1: Umm ... what? What does your opinion about how the 12 Monkeys summary is written have to do with anything? Even if you agree with BrightR on the substance of their content edits, that can't be used as an excuse for all the disruption that's come to light as a result. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:. What I am seeing here is a quarrel that started about how to write the plot summary of the Twelve Monkeys. And some bowls of letter soup later, we have people that are entrenched and fighting as if the real world was under a real-life threat of extermination. This is not the case, you know, at least not from this "how to summarize the Twelve Monkeys" problem. Hold your horses, all of you, instead of re-enacting the WWI episode that occurred at 00:43:43 of the movie. Working harder to produce a really better summary would be more efficient to settle this dramah inside the dramah than any ad hominem disciplinary measures. Pldx1 (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have been debating whether or not to add my opposition here for some time; I decided to do so because I think a general trend of overzealous site bans may be emerging here, and my observing that while remaining silent makes me almost feel implicitly culpable. After personally looking into the matter, there might be an overarching case for such an action, but it is certainly not clearly visible. However, such a case has certainly not been compiled here, and the onus is on the proposer and supporters to distinctly demonstrate it. I empathize with Jbhunley and Beyond My Ken because I know what it is like to personally clearly perceive a pattern of ill-behavior that others cannot easily grasp (if anyone can provide diffs that show explicit breaks with policy, such as plain personal attacks, I will withdraw my opposition). Citing policies and guidelines in discussion is a great practice, as long as the policies are not being misconstrued, which again, I have not been convinced of. Every reasonable individual (generally) should believe that. In regard to BrightR's plan for reform, ignoring the top half and partial silliness, I would recommend against "appeal[ing] personally to the editors in the discussion" (as I interpret it). Policies and guidelines should be used to make arguments, however, there is no need to repeat oneself except to state what is minimally necessary for clarification. I would also advise BrightR to limit comments to contributions, not contributors. For example, it is okay to call someone's idea foolish but not the person themself (though neither is advisable, as better words can be chosen). Others may not adhere to such practices, but one can lead by example. Finally, let's give the topic ban a chance to work. The block-hammer should not be dropped neither quickly nor easily in inexplicit cases; that being said, I would not oppose a final warning that reform is needed or the community will very likely not be so kind if such an issue arises again. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - BrightR's comment indeed says all the right things, and I certainly understand why editors who have not had the unfortunate experience of being involved in disputes with him would look at what he has written and !vote "oppose", but I have to say that I really don't believe a word of it. I think you're being sold a bill of goods. I think BrightR looked at the state of the !voting on this proposal and realized that he was on the precipice of being kicked off of Wikipedia, so he came up with the jailhouse confession that he hoped would turn the tide -- and it looks like it has worked.
  The only thing is, BrightR, that now that you've come this close, you are stuck with what you wrote. If you don't live up to your promises, and simply continue to edit as you have been, or "reform" for a while and then slip back into your old ways, I think you can be sure that the next proposal for sanctions is going to skip topic bans and head right to asking for an indef -- and it will probably pass, too. That's not a threat -- how can it be, since I cannot block you or, by myself, cause you to be blocked -- but it is a reminder that the words you write are now and forever the words you must live by.
  Wikipedians are, in general, forgiving, perhaps even to a fault, but they also have long memories, and a system in which everything you've said and done in the past, or will say and do in the future, is preserved forever. I hope you will think about that, and live up to your promises. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to point out that by using the phrase jailhouse confession you're trivializing the injustice done to victims of overzealous police interrogations, and your use of bill of goods is offensive to persons subjected to various forms of consumer fraud or commercial misrepresentation, while at the same time it casts dispersions on the many vendors who render honest invoices. Also, stuck with is highly insensitive to the families of people who died by sinking into tar pits, quicksand, or other adhesive or enveloping hazards such as lava. Finally, as a California native I would appreciate your using to a fault only in the context of earthquakes. EEng 09:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Now don't get my Irish up [178], or it'll be shillelaghs at dawn. <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• So here's what I was talking about. Below are BrightR's edits to this discussion after he posted the section below, which included his promises to change the way he edits. Take a look at them and see if you can see any sign of change in BrightR's approach to argumentation:

• [179]
• [180]
• [181]
• [182]
• [183]
• [184]
• [185]
• [186]
• [187]
• [188]
• [189]
• [190]

So read these, and decide for yourself if BrightR's promises below are really sincere, or, if they are, if he is capable of upholding them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - sorry, I just don't think the post in the section below translates to an attempt to understand what the issues are. To me it reads like "I do the right thing and then other people insinuate stuff and get upset for no reason, but I continue to do the right thing and that makes them even angrier". The bullet points look like a recipe for more wikilawyering. I am still of the opinion that many editors have wasted a lot of time and energy on this editor, and every single post in this discussion show that anything other than an indef block is not likely to fix that. --bonadea contributions talk 09:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support the post in the below section simply does not read as authentic to me. I'm afraid that the editor is merely saying what they think we want to hear in order to get them off the hook. I just don't buy it. The first part of that post demonstrates that the editor simply does not understand the disruption they have been causing. "I was right and all those other editors were wrong" sounds a lot like the school-yard "he made me do it" and has about as much credibility as far as I am concerned. I do not for a second believe that there is the slightest contrition in the editor's part and that sooner or later, probably sooner, this will all blow up again if no appropriate sanctions are applied now, wasting yet more hours of valuable volunteers' time. Cauterise the wound and apply an indef now and save us all a lot of trouble. Then in six months or so if the editor can demonstrate a true understanding of why they are in that predicament and if they can convince an administrator that they have really learned their lesson then the block can be revoked, but I would hope under strict conditions. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. As Nick Thorne points out, leading off with an accusation of other editors becoming angry because they don't wish to follow policy does not indicate a likelihood of productive editing going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Most of the editors supporting this extreme sanction don't seem to have participated at the talk page for 12 Monkeys and, in any case, that's quite a petty matter. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: You may have !voted in the wrong place. This is the place to !vote on an indef ban for BrightR, which is not based on the 12 Monkeys dispute, but on general behavior patterns. The place to !vote on a topic ban covering 12 Monkeys is above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: No, I think he meant to post here, since neither of the other two live proposals could be called "extreme" by any rational individual (they are perhaps extremely weak, but it doesn't look like that is what is meant). That said, I think it is a little weird that he has posted on ANI only four times since February 7, the first two obviously hounding another user he didn't like[191][192] and the two most recent showing up and !voting the opposite way to me.[193][194] Of his eight other comments on ANI threads in the last year, seven have related closely to his pet topics of AFD and RFA, while this is unrelated to both. These facts, in addition to his rationale here (a) not making any sense in this context, and (b) echoing my comment calling him out for canvassing here (Neither one of you has touched the article itself), make me suspect that his !vote will be one of the ones that get discounted by the closer for reasons. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support (involved editor). It's hard to believe that eleven days ago I was willing to agree that BrightR shouldn't be brought here because of concerns that no sanctions would result from doing so, and now we're discussing an Indef Block, but after seeing how discussion has evolved here I have grave concerns that nothing else is going to ultimately prove effective. Even as a reasonably experienced editor I find the prospect of being brought to ANI fairly terrifying, but I know enough to know that if I am brought here I should choose my words carefully and try to make it clear that I not only understand why my behavior was considered problematic, but also that I will endeavor to change said behavior. I watched with dismay as for much of this discussion BrightR continued to engage in precisely the behaviors that had led to them being brought here in the first place, and all I can conclude is that they are unable or unwilling to drop the stick, and that nothing anybody can say will lead them to do so (I should know, having tried to do so more than once myself). While the "action plan" they provided here might address the symptoms of the disease, so to speak, it shows no evidence of contrition for their actions, nor any understanding of why what they've been doing is problematic. Even then, I might have said "Maybe an indef is more than what's needed" (or simply kept my mouth shut here at least) if they hadn't then continued to make posts here perpetuating the same patterns of behavior that their own action plan indicated they would discontinue. My ability to assume good faith with this editor has, regrettably, been exhausted, and I feel anything short of a site ban will simply result in this problem showing up again, because BrightR doesn't seem to understand why their editing patterns are unacceptable. DonIago (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A brief description any mistakes BrightR made and how they plan to change their editing to avoid repeating them

​​​The mistakes should be obvious from the accusations, summarized by Beyond My Ken: He's the Wikilawyer par excellance, the poster boy for IDHT, the master of interpreting policy so as to please his own purposes.

In discussions, I rely on Wikipedia policy to make my point. When I perceive someone acting against policy (see BMK diffs above) I cite policy to them in the hopes that they follow the policy. This antagonizes editors so deeply that, sometimes, they immediately make insinuations of administrative sanctions and what appears to be personal attacks, such that took place on WT:CIVIL, discussed above. I continue my discussion by defending myself and staying on topic despite this, citing Wikipedia policy, which leads to the accusations of wikilawyering, IDHT, and pretty much all of the problematic ALLCAPS except VANDAL as Jbhunley put it. I then request evidence for these accusations, per policy, which lengthens the discussion. I respond to everybody in the discussion who addresses me or my actions, which is perceived as disruptive.

The sum total of this is that discussions veer off to accusations, do not stay on-topic, and take very long.

In order to rectify this:

• I will not carry on months-long discussions.
• I will not initiate RfCs and respond individually to every participant.
• I will not cite WP:CONSENSUS to claim that the majority does not have consensus because they did not provide a reason.
• I will not cite WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and request that editors give a non-owner reason for their reverts.
• In general, I will not immediately cite policy in discussions but appeal personally to the editors in the discussion, not repeat my claims to them, not respond to every single editor individually, only discuss policy if others in the discussion bring it up, and not quote the policy to them but ask them to reconsider it themselves.

This should take care of any and all wikilawyering and IDHT accusations, and prevent any perceived disruption from occurring. Additional suggestions are welcome. Bright☀ 12:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good response. You know, WP:DRN is always available. I personally find it a bit bureaucratic to go through formal dispute resolution, but it does work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ya good response BUT behavior in this vsry thread just above speaks louder than this section. Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed TBAN for BrightR

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

---

"TBAN's from all AN/ANi discussions not directly about them and TBAN from referencing or linking any Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay or similar ALL CAPS anywhere, for 3 months." Since several editors seem to prefer a TBAN over a block. This TBAN will cut out the wikilawyering while allowing BrightR to focus on content.

• Support as proposor. Legacypac (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been avoiding getting involved in this discussion partly out of concern that I would be seen as a biased party (I get name-checked in the first message), and partly because I've had no issue with how this has been proceeding without my involvement. That said, as one of my concerns with BrightR's conduct was their slow-motion edit-warring, would you be amenable to adding a 1RR restriction, broadly construed to avoid slow-motion edit-warring? In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing that applied to any of the TBAN possibilities. I will say in the interest of assuming good faith, and based on Bright's post up above, that I don't feel we need to stipulate that they post at the pertinent talk page before engaging in such a revert (i.e. I'm okay with them fixing obvious problems). DonIago (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is silly. GMG^talk 16:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Legacypac, you could perhaps hat this section altogether. L0URDES 16:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Umm ... the wikilawyering took place on an article talk page: how would this proposal address that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"TBAN from referencing or linking any Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay or similar ALL CAPS anywhere, for 3 months." => would really limit the wikilawyering. He'd be pretty restricted in talkpage arguing. I prefer a block but failing that this is a more targeted TBAN. Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Quick driveby oppose to this specific proposal. Sure, BrightR is overdoing it with the "but policy says so!" routine, but a ban from even mentioning policies and guidelines would be unworkable. It would put BrightR in an impossible position where if someone asked why he'd made any particular edit—no matter how uncontroversial—he'd breach the topic ban by explaining. ‑ Iridescent 2 09:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Mansukhsurin

I have contacted this editor fourteen times since January trying to discuss their creation of unreferenced articles. Unfortunately they wouldn't reply and continued to create unreferenced articles (see User talk:Mansukhsurin#Sources, User talk:Mansukhsurin#Sources and communication and the several messages below User talk:Mansukhsurin#ANI.

The discussion at ANI was auto-archived, although they did receive a 'final warning' on 13th April that 'Any further disruption in any form will result in you losing your editing privileges completely' User_talk:Mansukhsurin#Final warning, ([195]. Barudih is an example of one of their creations, where they have been asked to add their sources or discuss the issue, but won't. They don't even use edit summaries, so there's no indicatino of why they make their edits at all, although they have been editing (though not that much) for 4 years.

The original ANI was for refusing to communicate (and they did not comment at the ANI) and for continually creating articles with serious issues, including no sources. They then left me messages at my talk page User talk:Boleyn#Shall I quit my contribution and User talk:Boleyn#Rules don't necessarily make any one a perfect person. which I found rude and not showing the attitude we want from a Wikipedia editor. I then saw they had left further similar messages at User talk:PamD because of PamD's comments at my talk page. Since then, they have created another unreferenced page, National Coalition of People Living with HIV In India, which another editor swiftly tagged for speedy deletion. I don't know how to communicate to this editor that we collaborate, don't leave messages like this for other editors, and that we do add our sources. Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• The user obviously believes they are editing in good faith but the level of English, the lack of communication and edit summaries, and the large number of deleted contributions give me pause. I'm leaning to a short block, but will wait until the community has made some comments here, or if indeed Mansukhsurin responds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

• Everybody is new at some point but being willing/able to learn is essential. I support a block to get their attention and see if this will change their approach. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• @SpacemanSpiff: Pinging admin who left this editor a final warning on 13 April. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, I haven't followed this editor's work after my warning, but this, that, and the other talk page responses to warnings or suggestions don't give me any confidence that a short term block will be of any help here. Let him contribute to hi.wiki and then apply for an unblock here after six months. While we can be empathetic to such editors, it should not be at the cost of our productive editors. —SpacemanSpiff 02:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Came here from the note Mansukhsurin left on Kudpung's talk page. After glancing over Mansukhsurin's talk, I'm surprised they were not blocked before over WP:CIR and I don't know why the prior post here did not result in some remedy. If they cannot or will not cite sources, and this seems likely, then a block here is in order. Do they cite sources at hi.wiki? I'll have a look. Perhaps it is best the take their own suggestion (e.g. User talk:Boleyn#Shall I quit my contribution) and concentrate their efforts there.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

They've copy pasted the same non response to my talk page. Feel a long term block is in order.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked now and asked to apply for an unblock after six months of editing at hi.wiki (which would be the native language Wikipedia for him), he's just continued to spam talk pages after this started, but nothing meaningful. I see no need to bend over backwards for this anymore. —SpacemanSpiff 14:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on the article

Please see this, he wrote Pakistani americans to Pakistani "Chutiya" Americans, word used "Chutiya" is a Hindi abusive word used. A Remedy would be appreciated against that user who did this. CK (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the word "Chutiya" in that revision, and in this edit where you said "Removing abuse word "Chutiya" ", I don't see any removal of any such word. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

See addition and removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I was misled by the incorrect link and edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

In the future, please warn the user and report after four warnings at WP:AIV as usual. This is fairly standard vandalism. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Legal threats

I just reverted/deleted legal threats here and here, and I've blocked the account. It came shortly after this and this, both apparent attempts to remove the same person's name. The username suggests it is this UK law firm, and the IP geolocates to Edinburgh (though UK IP geolocation is often unreliable). I'm bringing this here just to ask for a few other eyes on these pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I invited them to address any concerns/take down requests to the WMF, where they have people who get paid to wade through legal mumbo-jumbo.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor making massive ammount of non-consensus edits

Windhunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making a controversial edit in an enormous ammount of articles. His edit has to do with the grammatiically wrong change of "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" in the lede of many bios. Another thing is his unsourced addition of ethnic categories. He was warned at his talk-page by another editor (see User talk:Windhunter). He has been reverted by varios editors but has been edit-warring and ignoring others. FkpCascais (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

First User:FkpCascais lying about facts, Bosnia and Herzegovina is full name of the country.

Bosnian-Herzegovinian is properly term in Croatian, Serbian and Bosniak language.

Only "Bosnian" is forced by Bosniaks users, it is regional term for only some part of country. Also in country living 3 nations, and "Bosnian" is insulting term for people in Herzegovina region.

Bosnian-Herzegovinian is grammaticaly correct.

Windhunter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Windhunter, the name in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian here is totally irrelevant, this is an English-language Wikipedia and we write English here. Second thing, before making a massive ammount of changes as you are doing, since you noteced many editors had reverted you, you should stop reverting and edit-warring and start building consensus. If you believe each person from Bosnia and Herzegovina should have in the lede chaged its labeling as "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" you should be aware that it is a widely-scoped edit which if accepted would be changed all around, but if not, it want, so there is no point in changing a hundred articles without consensus for it. PS: "Bosnian" is certainly not insulting in any way to anyone from Bosnia and Herzegovina (maybe only for a hand-full of extreme nationalists which refuse to accept being part of Bosnia and still hope to revive Herzeg-Bosnia?), that just sounds as a bad excuse for your edit. @Iridescent:, I am an over-decade long editor at en.wiki preciselly at this area. I brought the issue here so it could be noteced by the community preciselly so I wouldnt do any unilateral decitions myself. You templating me with warning of discretionary sanctions looks bad and actually disencourages ediors from next time bringing an issue to the attentioon of the community. It was not me who opposed this editor, but other users before me, I just brought it here because it implies numerous articles. I am fully aware obviously of the template you gave me, but I dont think your procedure was correct as I just brought the issue to your attention here and thsi way seems I am participating in some wrongdoing. FkpCascais (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, Windhunter, before this goes any further I'm putting a {{alert}} template on each of your talk pages. This does not imply any wrongdoing by either of you, but is a formal notification to ensure you're aware that this is a topic on which Wikipedia policy varies from the norm; please make sure you both read it before continuing any further with this discussion. The linked page looks complicated, but the part you have to be aware of is Topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should use the full name of the country on English Wikipedia. Some people in colloquial talk often shorten Bosnia and Herzegovina only to Bosnia while others say only Herzegovina. I don't think we should use colloquial talk in the articles or prefer one over another. If there are a lot of articles that need that change, Windhunter I suggest you to open a RfC. I have some experience in opening RfCs so I can help if you are not familiar with the procedure. 89.164.132.71 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Still not making an account? You have "some experience" do you? But you were indef-banned (case Asdinsis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). However, your advice is acceptable (you know WP procedures too well to be an IP), Windhuter should really aim for consensus for such wide-range edit as he has been doing, and certainly not appliying it by force and edit-warring. I personally have no sides here, but the adjective "Bosnian" is clearly the one correct in Engligh language rather then "Bosnian-Herzegovinian". FkpCascais (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Fkp, as always, you would just like to ban people. You could have asked this editor to seek a consensus over talk page, without a report. 89.164.132.71 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As an observer, I'd like to comment that whilst we should apply wp:commonname when writing about foreign language topics, the question of whether "Bosnian" vs "Bosno-herzegovinian" is the common name is murky as both seem to be used commonly. Perhaps a compromise such as the one currently in place for anglo vs american spelling can be applied here. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

All I asked is just for the editor as a newby not to make such an ammount of edits without consensus first, and since I noteced him having been reverted by several editors, not to agressivelly edit-war to reinsert his edit. And, as a personal remark, specially to drop the "I know it all, you guys who have been editing here for over a decade you know shit"...-behavior. That is an absolute no-no in an already sensitive area. FkpCascais (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This editor is nationalistically motivated, as he said at top "Only "Bosnian" is forced by Bosniaks users, it is regional term for only some part of country. Also in country living 3 nations, and "Bosnian" is insulting term for people in Herzegovina region." The background of this lies actually in the inability to drop the expansionistic aspirations of some extremists ammong the Croatian community in Bosnia and Herzegovina (concentrated in Western regions of Herzegovina) and their denial of Bosnia and Herzegovina and revival of Herzeg-Bosnia. The fact is that his statement is untruth. None of the editors reverting him are Bosniak, nore "Bosnian" is imposed by Bosniaks, but rather inn English there is a wide use of the adjective "Bosnian" to refer to people, things or events from Bosnia and Herzegovina. A clear exemple is the Bosnian War (and not "Bosnian-Herzegovinian War" despite having taken place in Herzegovina as much as in Bosnia (region)). We all know sports teams of Bosnia and Herrzegovina are largelly named in English-language press as "Bosnian team"s. The user must leave aside his political motivations and just demonstrate that "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" has more use in English than "Bosnian" when refering to something or someone from Bosnia and Herzegovina. FkpCascais (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The main point here is that the term "Bosnian" has been widely used without problems for almost two decades here on en.wikipedia. This relatively new editor arrives and starts making this change of "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" in hundreds of articles. He was reverted by numerous editors. Per Wikipedia:BRD he should not continue edit-warring, but rather discuss and reach consensus for his edit. But he opted for agressively edit-warring. That is why I am here, his attitude is unecceptable whereas he is wright or wrong. He should demonstrate English-language literature and sources use more "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" than "Bosnian" which by now doesnt seem to be the case, and till then his edit-warring should be sanctioned. FkpCascais (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais First you lied that "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is grammaticaly incorrect. "Bosnian" is sometimes shorten version of Bosnian-Herzegovinian maybe because its a very long demonym when we speak about nationality, but only "Bosnian" has other connotations such as regional because Bosnia is one of the smaller regions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Maybe you are nationalistically motivated? You called a whole constitutive community as a extremists only because I think the whole demonym is more correct. And for your information, Herzegovinians of other nations term Bosnians consider as a offence. Football site transfermarkt for all players put Bosnia-Herzegovina as nationality mark, not only Bosnia or Bosnian. There is more examples like: the Bosnian-Herzegovinian American Academy of Arts and sciences, Bosnian-Herzegovinian Film festival, Bosnian-Herzegovinian American community center in Chicago, Chicago festival of Bosnian-Herzegovinian film, Bosnian-Herzegovinian islamic center of New York, etc. I think nobody is offended with a whole denomination.

Windhunter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is incorrect because the subject here is Bosnia and Herzegovina and not "Bosnia-Herzegovina". FkpCascais (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Transfermarkt.com argument is invalid because they simply use the name of the country, just as we do here always use "Bosnia and Herzegovina" as birthplace, and never Bosnia. The issue is not that one. Also, could you please provide links to all those institutions you claim are called that way? FkpCascais (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais, Transfermarkt argument is not invalid, [196]they referred teams who won the title as Bosnian-Herzegovinian champions and Bosnian-Herzegovinian cup winners, and all players have in their achievmement lists [197] full denomination. And all this institutions [198], [199], [200],[201], [202] proved that your grammer argument is funny. Demonym "Bosnian-Herzegovian" is grammaticaly correct and I don't see a problem. My "edit war" mostly was with banned user HankMoodyTZ and his IP. Your Bosnian war argument is not very strong, we also have a Bosnian-Herzegovinian Infantry. Windhunter (talk)

Thank you for providing the links.

I went to Wiktionary to see and all I found is Bosnian. The article confirms that it refers to Bosnia and Herzegovina. FkpCascais (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Indef request for Comefrombeyond

We are truly beset by cryptocurrency advocacy. We are always beset by organized online groups but the cryptofolks have taken this to a new level, and there is very clear financial COI driving this trend as well.

I now present:

• Comefrombeyond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count

This user has made all of 54 edits, only 15 of which are visible as the rest are to the now-deleted IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology) page.

100% SPA, 100% promotional, does not care a whit about the content or behavioral policies and guidelines. They had edit warred last summer (EWN, were warned to stop, and just vanished instead.

They showed up on the 16th and made this diff adding a huge bolus of unsourced or primary-sources-sourced promotional content and removed COI and advert templates.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 14:57, 18 April 2018, restoring it
2. diff 16:55, 18 April 2018, restoring it
3. diff 10:13, 21 April 2018, restoring it
4. diff 08:49, 22 April 2018, reverting tagging
5. again reverting to their version, what they called "vandalism" 21:36, 22 April 2018
6. again 21:40, 22 April 2018
7. diff 21:45, 22 April 2018

etc.

They have finally started using the talk page ( see this section) but their comments there are awful. It is clear that they want to make the WP page into an FAQ or "how to" page per this comment and this and this (the latter citing Iota's userguide). Their second-to-last one was this personal attack.

This person doesn't care about WP or the policies and guidelines. They are purely here as an advocate. I filed at EWN here but have withdrawn that, and am seeking an indef. This person is NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I note for the benefit of Comefrombeyond that the Bitcoin wiki may be a more appropriate outlet for this type of contribution. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"100% promotional"? Sorry, but it's YOUR version which looks as 100% marketing, MINE contains a lot of technical information. Comefrombeyond (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand Wikipedia nor care about it. Providing users with a how-to guideline like you are trying to do, is aimed at getting people to adopt Iota. WP does not exist to facilitate uptake of anything. And we don't just write what we know, or try to replicate userguides. You are treating WP like it is some shitty blog. You are ignoring what everyone else is telling you. You are not here to build an encyclopedia working in a community, which is what we are here to do. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• This thread drew the attention of two other people, who have reverted Comefrombeyond, and Comefrombeyond has reverted them both -- diff, diff. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is starting to look like a good case for an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Indef Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a block for edit warring? I don't care how long, and we can talk about indef later. Right now he's vandalizing Wikipedia and I'd appreciate if that was stopped. --Tarage (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks for edit warring. I warned and they persisted. Discussion of an indefinite block can continue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm still trying to get used to you dropping the blockhammer, Cullen--for so many years you did everything you did without that sometimes blunt tool. Don't get me wrong--I'm happy you joined the club, but still, it's odd. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I have had the mop for nine months now, and am not yet fully comfortable with the job, Drmies. But the community gave me those tools for a reason and I am trying my best to use them wisely for the benefit of the encyclopedia. If I screw up, please let me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, you're looking good from what I can see, Cullen. Jimbo Wales should put you on payroll, and get you a designated parking spot for that hot rod you're doubtlessly getting. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am still driving my ten year old Honda Fit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see I am not the only one who drives it till it dies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Or till it becomes un-Fit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk socking, because I have a strong suspicion that the TWO new accounts that popped up directly after Comefrombeyond was banned, and immediately went to work making edit requests on the article talk page... Lokesh1699 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ZimtX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't know how much more blatant you can get. --Tarage (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh and while we're at it, User:Lokesh1699 requesting the adition of text DIRECTLY LIFTED from what Comefrombeyond was revert warring about... Look, this is either sock puppetry or meat puppetry and I don't care which. --Tarage (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Aaaaand while we're at it, I need to bring attention to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/800ft2/help_build_iota_wikipedia_page/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7x0ny4/call_for_wikipedia_editors_and_the_wider_community/ Now correct me if I'm wrong but translating Wikipedia articles from one wiki to another requires attribution does it not? Might have a bigger issue on our hands. --Tarage (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, attribution is required. See WP:TFOLWP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I claim no expertise in detecting sockpuppets but those two instant accounts are "suspicious", I think that it is safe to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IOTA_(cryptocurrency)&diff=837808652&oldid=837779383 Can we get a lock on the talk page? This is nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Are cryptocurrencies under DS, and if not, should they be? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Another sock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Simonmalaga --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't IOTA (cryptocurrency) be deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology)? Dorsetonian (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• I've blocked several obvious socks and have imposed a short semi-protection on the talk page. I won't delete the article as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology) as I don't have time to investigate properly to see if it's still essentially the same article - but someone could always nominate it as WP:G4. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tagged it as suggested (incidentally, it has also been moved to IOTA (technology)) Dorsetonian (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted IOTA (technology) as G8, since when I got to it it was a redirect to IOTA (cryptocurrency) which DGG has deleted and salted. If anyone feels G8 is a little too IAR here, feel free to revert. GoldenRing (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, there is another copy of the article in draft space, which I have nominated for deletion. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• So I IARed and blanked the draft page (accidentally removing the MfD notice in the process, which has been restored. My apologies for that.)

I think we should keep the draft page, as a place for the Iota people to try to work constructively in. I left a note at the talk page and one person from that community has responded in the way we want. I would like to see if we can channel their energy - teach any of the Iota folks who are willing to learn what they should do - and perhaps we can resolve this without too much further drama.

I am hearing the problem with attribution from the copy/paste. Perhaps we can handle that via revdel... Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: They are not. Many cryptocurrency related articles are indefinitely semi-protected due to spamming, but it's still not enough. I agree community sanctions should be considered. MER-C 20:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Possibly related? GMG^talk 12:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Comefrombeyond GMG^talk 13:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• another day, another version of this shit dumped into WP, now at Talk:IOTA (cryptocurrency). Please delete and salt that page too.

Please indefinitely block User:Pyrekkk Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Black Kite! Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Zemora95

The following is copied from WP:AN/3RR as the more appropriate location it as it is more about tendentious editing than edit warring

Page: Multiple pages
User being reported: Zemora95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not an edit war. Zemora95 is a new editor, almost all of whose edits are highly politically charged and usually completely unacceptable. But that's not the reason I'm reporting it. The reason is that almost all these edits have dishonest edit summaries like "Fixed typo" or "Fixed grammar". The last type of editor we need around here is a liar. In my opinion, an immediate permanent block is appropriate. Zero^talk 12:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I left a small message and a link to WP:EDITSUMCITE on their talk page. AGF, hopefully, this will generate some kind of comment from the new editor. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason why bad editors use false edit summaries like "Fixed typo" is to reduce the chance of their edit being reviewed by others. It's not a matter of poor judgement or inexperience but a deliberate act of deception. Zero^talk 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Zero on this one(and we don't agree much on anything).I think we don't need editors that start their editing with lies --Shrike (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Israeli settlements => Israel
• Palestinian towns => Arab populated
• It is the fourth largest Jewish settlement in the West Bank => It is the fourth largest diverse city in Judea and Samaria

Personally, looking at this edit[203], I would consider the edit summary Fixed grammar trolling.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We are supposed to WP:AGF, particularly with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I did however place a DS alert on his page for ARBPIA with a comment he is not supposed to edit the topic area until extended confirmed. The appropriate venue, should he continue to edit ARBPIA, would be AE.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• AGF is fine to a point, but changing Palestinian to Arab is not. Imagine if a new editor went to Chuck Schumer's article and changed the lede sentence from "American politician" to "Jewish politician". Just imagine ...if we let this slide, I really hope it does not happen again.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Is this someone we actually want editing a contentious topic area at all, I wonder? Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably not, but we'll find out in a month or so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think between us they've had sufficient warning to stay away from Palestine-Israel topics; if they make any further edits in that topic, they should be blocked as an AE action to enforce the general prohibition. GoldenRing (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy

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

After expiration of a ban on editing his own talk page, I wonder if any of these are in violation of WP:BLANKING: [204] [205] [206] ? I will attempt to notify the user of this discussion but given the churn at his talk page I'm not sure how effective I'll be. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I see now that Jojhnjoy has made an appeal at WP:AN#Topic ban appeal of User:Jojhnjoy. It would make sense to centralize this discussion either here or there. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• To answer your questions, Kendall-K1, no, they are not. Editors have considerable latitude over what they have / do not have on their talk page, per WP:OWNTALK, and none of their removals were among the exceptions, and the page had been fully-protected for the previous six months. In any case, are you seriously suggesting that six-month old warnings should be kept? I suggest you withdraw this before someone notices that your criticisms of their userspace have been a constant, and thus considers your report to be meanspirited at best, and tendentious at worst. They have, after all, just come off a six-month bloxk; did you really feel it a productive use of your—and others'—time bringing this here? With attempt at discussing it? Impossible. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with blanking their talk page, but there is a problem redirecting it to their user page and insisting that anyone who wishes to contact them must use their de.wiki talk page - especially when they're in the process of a topic ban appeal here. It's a requirement that en.wiki editors have a means of on-wiki contact at en.wiki. I don't see any need for any admin action at this point, but I'll watchlist the talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Involved parties editing article for a BLP/politician

Hello,

FYI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lindquist#Wikipedia_article_controversy

The involved person was banned from Wikipedia! Please police this BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.181.160.177 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protect a BLP

Hello, not sure of the best way to ask this, so I figured I would just jump in. There is a WP:BLP which is frequently edited to include private information that the subject of the page has requested not be posted. The cases of this happening that I have seen weren't from signed in accounts, so I was thinking that semi-protected status might do the trick. The page in question is CGP_Grey. Not sure what other information I should include, please let me know. Zchrykng (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a secret. There are references going back at least six years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

CBS News reported this person's full name back in 2011. Several other media outlets have also done so. What is the policy based argument for excluding the full name from the biography? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME, marginally. I'm of the opinion (an unpopular one, I'm aware) that generally these types of things should not be included if the subject requests it; just because it's reported in the media doesn't mean we have to include it. Compare it to an editor's name - if the media reported linking an account to an individual and someone posted this information on-wiki, that person would be sanctioned for WP:OUTING pretty dang fast. Why would we not extend the same courtesy to our public-facing article subjects? ansh666 03:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not someone who is completely anonymous, as is your example Wikipedia editor, Ansh666. This person uses their real initials and their real surname, and their complete name has been mentioned repeatedly in reliable sources for seven years. The Wikipedia biography is not their personal social media page where they control the content. I fail to see any reason to keep their full name out of the article. We routinely report the full names of public figures who are best known by shortened versions of their real names. So, why should we make an exception in this case? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Where has the subject requested not to have his name used? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I am the person in question and I am requesting here that my name not be listed. I have never in any of the work that I have ever produced intentionally revealed my full name. The places that post my name do so against my wishes. Obviously, I cannot control what Wikipedia does, but if you want to know what I request it is to not mention my name. CGPGrey (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

See various comments by User:CGPGrey. I do not know whether the identity has been verified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, though, does reporting the subject's complete name add anything of value to the article? It seems to read perfectly fine as-is, so why not err on the side of caution and leave it out, right? As I said, I am aware that my extremely privacy-oriented take on BLP isn't particularly popular. ansh666 04:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does reporting President John Kennedy's full name add anything of value to his article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ansh666, I an reminded that I recently ran across mention of C. L. R. James, a writer whose work I had first encountered nearly 50 years ago. Curious about his full name, I visited the Wikipedia article about him, and discovered his full name, and lots of other useful information about him. That is how encyclopedias ought to work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. That's not the type of thing that I'd personally ever be curious about. ansh666 05:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Compared to C.L.R James, CGP grey hides his identity online and is a BLP who has requested not to show his name Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We have had a perfectly good arrangement these past few years of keeping those details off wiki, as the subject had been a Wikipedia editor. Fans, of course, insist on writing the narrative and cannot leave well enough alone. I find the details unnecessary and the disclosure to be pure fan service. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel compelled to remind people that assertions are not sufficient to move the needle at Wikipedia. Evidence is. Per WP:BURDEN, it is imperative that the person wishing to include the real name provide scrupulously reliable sources. Removing such information, where it lacks a direct cite, is perfectly allowed. In summation: what do the sources show: if the name is just kinda "out there" in sources of poor reliability, that's one thing. If the name is well-reported in reliable sources which show that the subject has revealed it, that's another. However, if it is clear that the subject has intentionally kept their name from public sources, then we should err on the side of "doing no harm" and respecting the subject's wishes. Plenty of Wikipedia articles are known under pseudonymous titles, like Satoshi Nakamoto, and I see no reason to do differently here. --Jayron32 16:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It would need a solid citation to be included. And if it has that, any claim that the subject wants it excluded would likewise need a solid verification. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Right here and that's not the first time. I think it's reasonable that we suppress some private details when dealing with Wikipedians. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well the second part is too easy. User:CGPGrey just needs to verify their identity to OTRS by emailing info-enwikimedia.org. And anyway, pretty sure WP:REALNAME applies even to pseudonyms in the case where they are the primary means of identification of a real person, so they probably should do so anyway out of an abundance of propriety. If done, ping me and I'll snatch it out of the queue real quick. A message from the cgpgrey.com domain should work just fine for our purposes. GMG^talk 16:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be the point. Someone claiming to be someone is not "solid" evidence. I could claim to actually be Mel Blanc, and the only evidence to disprove it is that he's reportedly deceased. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Verified. GMG^talk 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, then it's just a matter of whether his full name can be verified, and I'm not so sure about that. The sources I've seen for it look a little shaky. Then there's always the issue of a subject's notability, but it looks like this one passes that test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And I do think the page should be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Not enough disruption to outpace normal reversion and normal consensus building. In fact, this can probably be closed. GMG^talk 22:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Ansh666: could I just ask that you please read WP:Oversight#Policy, paying special attention to the first bolded point and how it might apply to this discussion? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

AlexEng, let me start by saying that I am not supporting including this person's full name in the biography at this time, since we now have OTRS verification of the editor's identity, and I think that we should honor his request, based on his wishes and talk page consensus. I am not an oversighter and claim no expertise in the fine points of oversight policy. Feel free to discuss the matter with actual oversighters. But the relevant phrase is "Removal of non-public personal information". (Emphasis added). As I already pointed out, the person's full name was reported by CBS News in 2011. He formerly maintained a website that included the names he now wishes to hide as part of the domain name itself. He uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons in 2006, crediting that old website as the source of the image, and later uploaded a better version of the same image, crediting his current website. He had a Flikr account that included photos tagged with his full name. I understand that an element of his current online persona is to not mention his full name or include photos of his face, since he now prefers stick figure representation. I get that. But I do not think that there is justification for oversighting since he was once happy to reveal his various names online, and specifically on Wikimedia projects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Onel5969, mistakes in automated edits, and problematic attitude

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Onel5969 has been using tools to make mass edits to disambiguate pages. Ok, all well and good, except that one day's worth of activity can result in dozens of serious mistakes.

Here's just the ones I've had to revert relating to just one link, over about an hour: [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235].

Now, would you rather go to a general disambiguation page that includes the right option among others, or would you rather be sent directly to the wrong result? Because among the edits I linked to, he identifies a number of people who died well before Helena Blavatsky was even born as followers of Blavatsky's theosophy, including Jakob Böhme, the founder of the tradition Blavatsky got the word "Theosophy" from. I'll admit that my edit summary when he did that did nothing to hide my frustration at this incredibly stupid error. Before anyone says "content dispute," this is like having the etymology of York go to the New York City article. If a brand new account made nothing but edits like this, they would be blocked as a vandalism only account and claims by them to the contrary would be dismissed as trolling.

But I assumed good faith and all, and figured that asking him to be more careful would not be unreasonable. When this issue was raised with him, he referred to this constructive criticism as "non-constructive", acted like it was my fault for not cleaning up his mess before he made it, and sought to ban me from his talk page.

Later, when Shenme asked Onel5969 to be more careful because he had once again linked to the wrong article, Onel5969 replied by reverting with the summary "changing back to non-specific dab is even less helpful". That's right, the wrong link is somehow better than a general disambig page. Shenme tried once again, quite patiently and politely, to address the problem. Onel5969 once again replied by reverting with a summary banning Shenme and calling anything he said "unhelpful". Granted, he did restore the post to provide a more "thoughtful" reply, accusing Shenme of being WP:NOTHERE and arguing that a general disambig page is somehow far worse than linking to the wrong page.

I admit that I replied despite Onel5969 previously telling me not to post again, to warn him that his behavior has been completely inappropriate and that this thread would be started if he did not change his attitude. His response was that it was "uncivil POV commentary"... Uh, what? Now, if he had just reverted, sure, that's one thing, but where exactly was I uncivil and how does POV apply to this? I understand that users are allowed to ban others from their talk page, but how is this site going to function if a user responds to all legitimate criticism (no matter how constructive or polite) with illogical hostility and blame-shifting?

Unless anyone can get it across to Onel5969 that he needs to try to:

• be way more careful when making mass automated changes
• accept that general disambig pages are actually more useful than the wrong page
• reply to editors who point out mistakes with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in mind

...The easiest solution would be restricting Onel5969 from using tools (such as but not limited to DisamAssist) to perform mass disambiguations. I would hope that manual disambiguation shouldn't be an issue. If someone can just get across two out of three of those bullet points, that'd be a drastic improvement.

But I'm fine with this resolving without restrictions, apologies, or whatever -- my concern is that we have an editor who causing serious messes and responding to those who clean up after those messes with illogical hostility, blame-shifting, and refusal to communicate. The less work it takes to resolve that, the better, but that's really in Onel5969's field. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. First, I admit I screwed up on the Theosophy dab, due to my conflating the two meanings. In fact, I was about to place a message on Ian's page, except when I read his totally uncivil edit summaries on some of the reverts. And I could have slowed down a bit, but when you're slogging through 1200 dabs, work created by a different editor, not sure that some 30 odd errors is that bad, actually (0.25%). Second, I do reply to editors who are civil and constructive. Ian's comments in edit summaries were, at times, uncivil, and I never respond to uncivil editors, instead attempting to avoid conflict. Third, POV, Ian came on to my talk page, after being asked not to (which is in itself an uncivil action), and lectured my on AGF. However, he never once looked at the other editor's post and asked them to assume AGF. I responded to the editor, pointing out that their comment was directly contrary to their actions. That if they truly believed in the comment they left, they would have targeted the dab to the correct article (clubfoot), instead of sending it back to the dab page. In fact, they did not simply revert my edit, but instead manually changed it back to the dab, instead of taking the time to make the accurate correction. Bottom line is that I have no time for incivility. And no time for lecturing. If you have a disagreement with an edit I make, be civil and lets discuss it. Otherwise I will continue to delete such posts from my talk page. I'm human, I make mistakes. Sometimes they are mis-clicks, such as was pointed out by Ynhockey here, while other times it's a case of my making a dab change, and then the dab being reverted, as was the case with MilborneOne's correction here (this is one area where current WP policies can create extra unneeded work for editors, as the thread on my talk page will show). And other times, it is a glitch that I was unaware about, as was the case when Certes pointed this out to me. Other times it's a simple disagreement, as I had with Smtchahal here, Regardless, will abide by the decision reached here. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Onel5969: can you address why you responded equally uncivilly to User:Shenme despite the constructive comment on your talk page? I can understand responding in kind to User:Ian.thomson after reading his edit summaries, but surely you don't have any bones to pick with Shenme after s/he suggested that you take care in what your tools are doing? I believe the comment was meant to address the fact that the change in question made the article worse, and it seems like your response is the equivalent Tu Quoque. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly AlexEng - I take any failure of AGF as an uncivil action. And that other editor certainly did not assume AGF, as is indicated in the tone of his post. If they had asked, "why did you do that?", "what was you're thinking here?" (as evidenced in other threads on my talk page), I would have engaged in a discussion. That's in response to his first edit. My edit summary when I removed their comment, "changing back to non-specific dab is even less helpful", is not fallacious, simply my viewpoint on their actions. Folks can disagree and still have civil discussions. I felt the article was better off not pointing to the dab page, they didn't. His second edit, imho, was clearly hypocritical, since they had a clear choice to improve the article (assuming AGF on their part, and that they knew it should point to clubfoot), and made the conscious decision NOT to improve the article, instead redirecting back to the dab page. While at the same time lecturing me on how edits should improve the article. In order for Tu Quoque argument to be valid, they would have had to actually pointed the target to the correct article. Then my argument would have been fallacious. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

William John Little has severe hamster feet?

Oh dear, I think I'm going to need some disambiguation of the above. I'm at a loss to understand Onel5969's distaste at editor interactions, given their length of service and prolificity here.

An edit was done, using a tool which did not understand the weirdness at talipes, where someone earlier had put elaboration on foot deformities. It is quite obvious that the tool simplemindedly took the first 'real' link at that location and substituted that for the dab. That was the point of my first talk page post, that the tool got it wrong, that it was the wrong result for the reader, and the tool betrayed Onel5969 when not reviewing the results.

That Onel5969 felt I was attacking them is concerning. I would have thought it obvious I was criticizing these simpleminded tools, as they are not automatic, and *require* reviewing each result at length, lest they betray all and sundry.

After the bewildering defense of a bad result (he has a foot), I then went and investigated further, finding the original attempt at elaborating on clubfoot by extending the dab entry at PES#Pes_(anatomy) back in 2016. And wondering whether the user name really seemed familiar, checked whether Onel5969 was perhaps 'new', to see how to respond to the apparent confusion. At 254000 edits in 4+ years, 500+ edits a day, not new at all.

So responding to the lack of discussion I reiterated the wrongness of the results, and suggested a course of action if Onel5969 really hated non-specific dabs that much - make it a specific dab. (In a sense, achieving what user Quercus solaris could have done better back in 2016 - a dab specifically for talipes)

I'm afraid I just don't know how to reply constructively to

Instead you deliberately chose not to improve the article. So don't post on my page again. Your actions make it clear that you are not here to help the encyclopedia.

Is that really saying "if my results are bad, your job is to fix them" ? And further, that discussion of edits is a bad thing? Please tell me what I've gotten wrong here, that has earned such dismay from Onel5969. Shenme (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Onel5969's dabfixes have been something of an issue for some time. Among those of their edits that have washed up on my watchlist, I have felt that an unusually high proportion have been incorrect: these haven't been cases of vague borderline links that different editors could have fixed differently, but "fixes" that have been obviously incorrect given the immediate context of the link: like repointing to an article about the wrong type of entity or about a place in the wrong part of the world. I Of course, there are dablinks that can be fixed almost without looking, like links to New York or English (his work in this area is appreciated), but in many cases a bit more diligence is required. I remember having tried a couple of times to suggest to him this need for occasionally greater care, but I'm not sure this has had much of an effect (though let me add that civility has never been an issue). – Uanfala (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban?

I don't usually like to be the first one to propose sanctions in venues such as this, however I feel there is an ongoing problem here, and Onel5969 doesn't appear to get the issues - and a quick review of the editing history seems to indicate there is a far issue of changing links without due regard for the new topic. I think a topic ban from (semi)automated edits for 3 months may well be the best way forward here for the minute. Mdann52 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'll admit the civility issue is debatable (and it's not like there's anything we can do to adjust his attitude at any rate), but accuracy is a definite problem and also a source of issues where civility may be a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Can you please clarify if you're including the use of tools such as WP:Twinkle, or just User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment2 What is the purpose of the 3 month ban? Do you anticipate that the user will change his/her behavior after this time period? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Lukewarm support The faith in tools as a means to quickly earn zillions of edits is misplaced. The belief that review of tool edits is not needed is mistaken. The idea that a (self-defined) acceptably low error rate over 100's edits per day is a "good thing" is frightening. My part in all this was pointing out a ridiculously bad result using tools and being rebuffed with... I'm still not sure. "The tools are perfect"? "My edits are perfect"? "My edits using tools are unassailably perfect"? My support is based on this - the editor needs to get back to editing. If they don't like editing, they shouldn't. Shenme (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Aside: in my discipline there is an ideal called egoless programming. In my work bug reports are treasures leading to improved results. Is there an essay here about egoless editing? It is sorely needed. Shenme (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

I recently made an edit on Insurgency in Balochistan which was reverted because of an alleged "copyright violation" (without demonstrating how its a copyright violation). A few editors were involved in edit warring there which resulted in the article being protected. When I looked at their contributions I found this happened across other pages as well recently. These editors seem to gang up and censor anything they dont like by reverting contributions made by others. There definitely is a pattern that seems fishy.

On Insurgency in Balochistan

Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023

Previous reverts at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 between 7 April 2018‎ to 18 April 2018‎

MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023, Capitals00, Raymond3023

Also inserting the same point of view at Siachen conflict between 21 April 2018‎ to 22 April 2018

MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00

Regards, --Uncle Sargam (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Given you are an obvious sock who is quacking loud per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital, I am kinda surprised that you are still not bored of your deceptive games. Capitals00 (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

MBlazeLightning listed (one of) the sources it was copied from. I've rev/deleted the edits. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I endorse the pattern mentioned by Uncle Sargam, I noticed such pattern as well but in a different area which I mentioned here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• And the "pattern" was removed by Bbb23 as a personal attack.[236] Since you are repeating same false allegations here, by endorsing a paid editing sock, you are doing nothing but turning this thread into a request where we must seek sanction for your disruption. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 02:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This was just to mention what he noticed, I noticed as well. What is your proof of that user being a "paid editing sock"? You cannot call him that until you prove so and for that your evidence is not going to hold the ground so stop calling him that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is just another of MBL's (and Capitals00s) frustration with users they do not agree with. MBL has been busy filing SPIs, including the one against me a few months ago. He has been trailing me on and off, most recently removing a reliably sourced edit on "Hinduism", but this time aided by his team tag member Capitals00. And as usual they are both desperate to try and frame (mostly by SPIs and baseless AN reports) anyone with an opposing sentiment blocked. I would recommend a restriction against their repeated filings. Perhaps a topic restriction on filing reports to once a week. I would prefer to let the Arbcom decide that. But something should be done. Otherwise anyone who falls in their path will have to face this kind of repeated tormenting.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You probably favor copyright violations given you were recently indefinitely banned from uploading images[237] for your copyright violations and there are no chances if that sanction will ever be removed, but don't expect us to tolerate copyright violation. This complaint was not filed by me or Mblaze, it was filed by an obvious sock belonging to a disruptive sock farm. Talking about your "edit" on Hinduism, it was a POV edit and you have engaged in same POV pushing on Talk:Hindu earlier where your all edits were rejected. You had to use a nonsensical edit summary to back up your edit[238], that alone leaves no doubt. Given your continued WP:CIR issues and you are already under restriction from uploading images, it would be better to have you site banned once again. Capitals00 (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In the middle of a content dispute, page nominated for deletion

In the middle of a content dispute on Zen Chong, in violation of WP:ATD, this page was nominated for deletion. WP:ATD states that "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Requesting an uninvolved editor to do so. Thanks Sethie (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No snow clause can be evoked and the nomination looks to have enough merits to evade a speedy close.Please debate it out at the AfD.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I protected the thing because of the disruption. There are two keeps at the AfD, though not sure I agree with the keeps without looking closer. I'd say let it ride and we will see.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Both the nomination, and the votes, all appear to be in good faith. Given that, I don't see where any admin action is required. There's some bad feelings all around, as happens during conflicts, but I see no reason to presume that the AFD would produce the wrong result if allowed to continue. --Jayron32 16:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring and accusations by User:Certified Gangsta

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

I was originally just going to request full page protection at WP:RPP. However, after reviewing Certified Gangsta's extensive block log and their current accusations on talk pages and edit summaries, I thought this would be a better venue.

Since March 31, Certified Gangsta has been move warring from the longstanding page name of Devin Hester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to their preferred version of Devin Hester Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Open the following diffs (or open Devin Hester's page log) to see their repeated moves from "Devin Hester" to "Devin Hester Sr.":

• March 31
• April 1
• April 23
• April 24

I had started a discussion at Talk:Devin_Hester_Sr.#Sr._suffix, explaining why I thought the established name was WP:COMMONNAME and asking that an WP:RM request be made if anyone wanted to change consensus. EricEnfermero also agreed with my position. In the thread, Certified Gangsta charged: ... you unilaterally changed it without opening a request at WP:RM. Follow your own advise. You're not entitled to your own rules just because you're a sysop.

They also made accusations there of

• Eric Enfermero is hardly a neutral voice and has pretty clearly been Wikipedia:Wikistalking me since this exchange on my talk page
• When someone finally stands up to you, you have unsurprisingly resorted to employing low-quality tactics out of personal vendetta (i.e. a low-rent wikistalking harassment campaign) and deliberately trying to sabotage longstanding consensus/compromise.

The edit summary of their most recent revert from April 24 reads: "quit wikistalking and your harassment campaign due to disagreement on another page. consensus reached last november across multiple pages with no incident. Read Wikipedia:WIKISTALK for your own benefit"

WP:NPA advises against accusations that lack evidence: "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

At List of nicknames used in basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Certified Gangsta keeps changing the content to the contested, non-verifiable nickname of "DAR":

• 05:40, 23 April
• 23:56, 23 April
• 07:15, 24 April

Their most recent edit summary from April 24 is again combative: "your version is also unsourced. either remove every single unsourced ones on this list or stop using it as a cheap excuse to keep your preferred version." Per WP:UNSOURCED: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... I have no opinion on the original text, which I did not add, but Certified Gangsta deflects the onus of their own unverifiable additions. Their response is also WP:POINTY, implying that all unsourced content, even if it is not contested, needs to be automatically removed if their own edit is. (Note: For the record, the existing nickname of DLo, though uncited, is verifiable at https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russeda01.html)

Finally, Certified Gangsta's current behavior appears to be similar to logs from their block history, which includes "Disruptive editing", "Violation of Arbitration case restrictions", 3RR, and "accusing established editors of vandalism".

I am requesting that Certified Gangsta cease the move warring, stop re-adding contested text without a citation, and end their combative behavior.—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think you're requesting too little Bagumba. Save a really convincing apologetic reply from Certified Gangsta, this is going to be an indef block by the time this thread closes. L0URDES 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the move and move protected the article. I'd like to know what Certified Gangsta is referring to with "current fairly longstanding version" in this. If it's the version they renamed on March 31st then we have a case of WP:TE here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Longstanding? Not really. CG has moved an article to his desired name, and was reverted by 3 different users 4 times, since March 2018, based on the logs. I'm holding off judgement until Certified Gangsta comments here.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• When the naming issue was discussed at WT:NFL in November, CG claimed that discussing the naming at the WP instead of at each individual article was a violation of WP:CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Since potential WP:TE was mentioned above and some are also getting into the substance of Certified Gangsta's arguments, their revert edit summaries refer multiple times to an alleged November consensus that supports adding suffixes to bios' article titles, but does anyone see that kind of consensus in the full archive of that Nov discussion?—Bagumba (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

    I see a consensus favoring names commonly used by sources. That doesn't seem to support CG's assertion a consensus exists.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Randomnickname567

@Randomnickname567: said that "Saudis need to be bombed." He continued after being warned.

After that, he denied that WP is neutral and insulted me " Although if you seriously believe Wikipedia isn't POV you should check with a doctor."

Also, he didn't Assume good faith : "I also see now from your talk/contributions page that you feel very strongly for Saudi Arabia, which makes me suspect you are not really neutral on the topic either." and He's probably trying to swarm the page with templates so that it would appear bloated so that he can finally remove the template".

Also, he said " the news get tracking something their propaganda media don't show", so WP is not a media.

--Panam2014 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

He's only been here a week, and at this rate, he won't be here much longer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That first comment alone warranted a block in my opinion. This is someone clearly WP:NOTHERE. And it looks like this was a sock, per their block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Rollback request

Please could someone with rollback review recent edits by User:Cote d'Azur per User talk:Cote d'Azur#caps, and preceding 'Timeline of...' edits per MOS:BOLDTITLE. Thanks. 82.132.226.208 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

IP, these particular cases look somewhat ambiguous, and hence this isn't a suitable venue for rollback. You may, of course, undo their contributions, although Cote d'Azur is an experienced editor. Looking at the most recent no reason was provided reverting you, which isn't courteous, but is hardly an AN/I issue. Looking at [239] the first bit is wrong, since there is a the, however the rest of the edit is correct. MOS:JOBTITLES is fairly subtle, so it's not hard to misinterpret (indeed, I might be myself!). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Next up: Born2cycle will demand that the user is renamed to user:Ivory Coast. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:République de Côte d'Ivoire would be more accurate. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Even more accurately, should be renamed to User:French Riviera. See: Cote D'Azur. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack

Now, I know this could easily be some kid fooling around, but he happened to post [240] edit about me which I quickly reverted. I took it here because, even though I'm going to be a little more blunt than usual, but I have absolutely no tolerance towards users who post personal attacks towards undeserving contributions. I don't want you all to take pity on me, I just came here because I didn't know what else I could do, and I hope you guys can help. UnsungKing123 (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Reviewed its edits, the IP is nothing more then a blatant vandal, which has rightly been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion by Jakob9999

Jakob9999 was blocked October 2017. Since late September 2017, he has been using IPs from Arkansas, in the range Special:Contributions/2600:8804:8440:30B:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get a rangeblock?

As proof of the connection, here is Jakob9999 citing a discussion thread at radiodiscussions.com where a user named Jakob9999 has posted a reply. Here is an Arkansas IP citing another discussion at radiodiscussions.com where Jakob9999 has started a new thread. Same thing here. I think we have to assume block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with a new editor

I need some help with a new editor Felix Montana. I think he is a good faith editor, but unfortunately he has been non-responsive to multiple attempts to communicate and there are a couple of issues that require attention. I am concerned this may have BLP implications and that a copyrighted image appears to have been reuploaded after this note informating the editor of WP:UPIMAGE. This message on talk from MifterBot and others have been ignored.

I'm not sure what I can do if the editor is not willing to communicate. I am hoping that by posting here it will encourage him to communicate with us. I don't want to make anymore unilateral changes to the article because I am already at 3 reverts, but maybe he will be more responsive to another editor. I stubifyed this article and passed it at AfC because I thought the topic was notable, and I tried to improve it in the hopes that the editor would be willing to discuss changes on the talk page, but it has been unsuccessful. I don't think I have any choice but to involve others, and I very much hope sanctions can be avoided.SeraphWiki (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy tag won't transclude

I tagged TimedText:Maniac (Michael Sembello song - sample).ogg.en.srt (whatever this page is) for speedy deletion as an obvious copyvio of song lyrics, but the speedy tag won't transclude onto the page properly. Can someone please delete this page? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)