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

User:SwisterTwister

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has incorrectly stated to users that an interation ban is in effect when no actual formal interaction ban has occured. An example from today is located here, and another recent example is here (see also, user response here). It is inappropriate to state that interaction bans exist when they have not occurred via formal processes, which amounts to casting WP:ASPERSIONS against other users. I have noticed that SwisterTwister frequently uses the "silent treatment" against users to limit communication. Here are some diff examples in addition to those above: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

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

Inre this diff, it is concerning and inappropriate for the user to make demands to another user to not deprod articles they have prodded. Also, users have repeatedly asked the user to consider slowing down over a significant period of time, to follow proper procedures, etc. at ANI (here, here and here) and other than at ANI (e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment SwisterTwister came to my attention over time as I began to recognize his name because his frequent iVotes at AFD were often literally unintelligible, because his opinions were so clearly contrary to evidence that I or other editors had presented, and because articles he so often brought articles to AFD with an assertion that his searches have found no significant sources, and yet by even doing something so simple as clicking HighBeam in the tool bar in Swister's nomination statement proved the contrary. [[18]] He edits so incredibly fast that I am almost persuaded that he simply takes pages with a smallish number of sources and editors, and throws them up at AFD without searching at all - or even without reading some of them. And that his iVotes at AFD are exactly what they look like: opinions rendered without querying the sources. (Copious examples brought by several uses in discussion on my talk page [19].) The problem with all of this is not only that it wastes a tremendous amount of editorial time, but that it makes WP a frustrating and unpleasant place to work. One editor in that discussion states [20] that Swister's "belligerence" is one reason why he has stopped giving his time to editing Wikipedia. I am in strong sympathy with that sentiment. Swister cannot, in my experience, be swayed from a deletion position once taken. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Webb, the AFD where I lost my ability to WP:AGF when dealing with Swister, I was clearly exasperated by the time of my Aug. 3 edit, the one that starts "A confession and an hypothesis..." Swister's arrogant, stubborn refusal to consider that he might have acted hastily show why I have come to the conclusion that SwisterTwister's editing is a problem that needs to be addressed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Question - I agree ST's "stay away from me" comments, objecting to deprods and comments/questions at AfD, are completely inappropriate. It seems that's what this thread is about, but it seems to also be about other ST-related issues? My question is whether ST saying "ok I won't do that anymore" with regard to self-imposed "interaction bans" would resolve this thread, or if this is more of an RfC/U sort of thing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I am very familiar with SwisterTwister because I do a lot of work at AfD. I will limit my comments at this time to the issue NorthAmerica1000 raises: the supposed "interaction ban" that ST likes to invoke. As far as I can tell there are no formal interaction bans involving ST. It is not possible for a user to create one simply by telling the other editor to "leave me alone". It IS possible to say to someone, "stay off my talk page," and such requests are usually expected to be honored. But that's a user's own talk page. Things like "don't de-prod things that I have prodded," "don't comment at AfD's I nominate" - that kind of demand is invalid and frankly a little ridiculous. (Example: "Stay away from me, that means anything including DePRODing. You repeatedly violate time after time".[21]) People who routinely patrol PRODs and AfDs are going to continue to do so, and no user has the right to say "don't do that on anything I initiate". In fact, if a user feels there is a systemic problem with another user's nominations, they are entitled and perhaps obligated to seek them out for evaluation. (In ST's case, the record shows that only 58.7% of ST's AfD nominations actually get deleted, which may be a valid reason to subject them to special scrutiny.) My reaction to this report is that ST should be instructed not to claim an interaction ban when none exists, and he should be told to stop personalizing the deletion process in this way. I did comment on ST's participation in the AfD process at E.M.Gregory's talk page, but that is not the issue being raised here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SwisterTwister, you are talking as if this was just about one person, and claiming they agreed to stay away. But this is not an isolated thing, not about just one person. In the nine links posted above by NA1000, I find "you have been told to stay away from me" comments to five different people (most of whom respond with something like "Huh? When did that happen?"). In one case you put something that sounded like a threat in your edit summary: "I have specifically told you to stay away, final time"[22] In addition to those five users to whom you said they were banned from interacting with you, there are two others and an IP where you were are less assertive but still saying "keep away from me". This is a pattern with you, and the message you need to get here is, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. Stop pretending you can impose some kind of interaction ban based on your say-so alone. It doesn't work that way. You can't tell people they are not allowed to remove your PRODs or comment at your AFDs. We are looking here for some assurance from you that you understand this and won't do it any more. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment I notified SwisterTwister about this discussion on his talk page, but he replied by removing my notification, saying in his edit summary, "An apparent mistake I presume as I see nothing here". [23] I'm not sure what this means, or why he hasn't responded in this section yet continues to edit at a high rate. Everymorning (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed closure: Warning about "keep away" orders

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A proposed closure: Topic ban on deletion activities

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, there has been no friction between us, and it does not start here. 

You might also want to review WP:NOTAGAIN, which states (emphasis in original), "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion...If an article is frivolously...renominated...for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past..."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose When you have an editor that is highly active in an area you are always going to find some faults. I am not convinced that these outway the good work and obvious dedication thaey are showing. This is only a weak oppose as I admit that there are issues here that need to be addressed and because the sanctions proposed are not overly harsh. AIRcorn (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I see that SwisterTwister came back to this discussion, after an absence of nearly two weeks, when Awilley notified him of the "keep away" decision. Once again he has nothing to say to the point, just a claim that this whole enormous discussion boils down to a few "Keep" !voters trying to eliminate a "Delete" !voter from the process. But in the first place, there are dozens of us commenting here and most of us are neither "keepers" nor "deletionists". And in the second place, Kvng's proposal would not stop ST from !voting at AfD, only from nominating articles for AfD or PROD. His only other comment was to defend an NAC close that had already been dismissed as a "non-issue". The bigger picture: ST still doesn't get it. He didn't understand the "keep away" controversy, and he doesn't understand why anyone has a problem with his delete nominations - or even THAT they do. He has been ignoring this discussion, and his few responses have been non-responsive. Those who say he will learn from this discussion, or will change his habits based on what is said here, are deluding themselves. He hasn't learned anything from all his previous trips to ANI, and he hasn't learned anything from this one either. Only official sanctions are going to change his behavior. (At least, I hope they will.) MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Why do you say he doesn't understand the "keep away" controversy? I read his silence on that issue (as opposed to his comments on the topic ban and AfD closure) to indicate that he accepts the community feedback and prohibition of misleading interaction bans. Maybe I am an optimist, but I have seen ST change some of his editing behavior based on feedback he has received from me and others.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Actually he wasn't silent on the subject of the keep-away orders; he was just clueless, didn't get it or chose not to get it. He commented on that issue here three times, on August 30, and each time he talked about ONE user who "caused him stress". He was asked multiple times, what about the OTHER six people you ordered to stay away from you, and then claimed as an interaction ban? No response. No further comment here. No comment on Awilley's post on his page. No recognition that this had been a pattern with him, no acknowledgement that he understands the issue and won't do it any more. In fact if he had said something like that - something showing that he now understands that the practice was inappropriate, and promises not to do it any more - I would have taken that in good faith. I would not have proposed the section above, for him to receive that instruction as an official warning. I only did that because it was clear to me that he wasn't hearing us. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - While on my break, I still piddled regularly using my alter ego Farmer Brown, including patrolling ST's user page. This was after I closed the last ANI on ST [24] (as MelanieN has pointed out). This means I casually checked a lot of his work during that time. First, let me be clear that I like ST and even supported him for admin when he ran[25], but his work over the last year (maybe longer) has been rushed and sloppy, to the point that it affects others greatly. This includes New Page Patrol and AFD. I don't say this as a statement on his character, but on his performance. I'm not saying all or even most of his work is problematic, it seems to go in spells. I'm saying that it is a net negative to have him around deletions because the efforts to follow and fix is greater than the value of the good work, in my opinion. With this in mind, I have to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

We should not be trying to assess ST's net contribution. This concept has been mentioned in supports and opposes. We will not be able to build a consensus around a net contribution assessment as there is no formula for net contribution. We need to be focusing here on ST's negative contributions. Please support the proposal if you beleive the negative contributions are disruptive enough to merit action to prevent them from continuing. ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You are free not to. I chose to. I trust the ability in the closer to read my comment and weigh it accordingly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I find Swister Twister to be far too fast to decline submissions and nominate potentially decent articles for deletion. Whoever used the phrase "deletionist robot" was apt; ST needs to slow down, thing things through and not exceed his authority. I notice that the sanction is carefully worded and he could still !vote on others' noms. Montanabw^(talk) 04:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support I find a large percentage of this editor's comments in AFC reviews and deletion discussions to be almost incoherent. Their consistent failure to respond to questions from new editors and experienced editors alike is troubling and disruptive, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

kick to arbcom

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

AFD closes

Not a problem ~Awilley (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:SwisterTwister closing AFDs early, such as they did today on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthy Habits, is troubling. That ST also tagged the article AND did the AFD close is more troubling. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC) This is a non-issue. SwisterTwister tagged Healthy Habits for speedy deletion when he saw that it applied. DGG deleted it but did not close the discussion. This happens sometimes. It's entirely appropriate for anyone – including the person who nominated the article for speedy deletion – to close the deletion discussion when that happens. This is known as "general housekeeping" under WP:NAC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation. Such an explanation on the close comments would have been most helpful. The closing comment ST left was very abrupt and non-informative. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC) I suggest this be closed as one isolated event of an acceptable close is not concerning; I specifically closed it because it was speedied; what's the exact concern here? Aside from apparently not giving a sufficient explanation? I've closed several AfDs with no issues. Numerous and numerous people have made these closes before, and the user makes no attempts at including these or at least enhancing their statements. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC) If you feel that it is fine to continue closing AFDs with vague comments that cause confusion and waste other editors time, then so be it. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC) ST saw a deletion discussion, tagged the article for speedy deletion, DGG deleted it, ST closed the deletion discussion. Is this non-ideal behaviour? It could be ST and DGG tag-teaming to obfuscate nefarious improper deletions, except that it is not plausible. DGG is the admin carrying admin responsibility and accountability, and is well above such silly behaviour, and if not is easily held to account. And the AfD nominator and single !voter were very clear and strong for deletion, with no one suggesting anything else, and so there is no bar on speedy deletion (a single Keep !voter can bar a speedy deletion). So, the speedy tagging and deletion were good. ST then cleaned up the redundant AfD. ST has trouble with his explanations (a language barrier I believe?), but this AfD is not an example of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues with XPanettaa

XPanettaa (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

• I don't know about this particular matter, but I've been running into this editor and, while I'm still staying on this side of AGF, I have my doubts about their competence, esp. in regard to what are reliable sources. Like in this edit--it only takes a quick look at http://2-dutch.nl/ and the rest of the sources to know that this subsequent edit was invalid. There's a bit more in the history of that article (like this edit summary), but I have hope that it won't end in disruption. They seem to be a fan of a particular genre of music, writing up every artist they run into. That's great, but given those edits and others I've seen them make (like comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Noise (2nd nomination)), they are just not well-schooled in policy and guidelines. I just hope that rather than protest they will take the opportunity to learn. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• The promise to stop editing files lasted about 12 hours. An edit to a fair use image on an article [26] increasing the size of it which shouldn't be done and a subsequent edit to that file's page [27] adding information that is not confirmed by anyone. As stated above, I have zero confidence that they will stop doing what they are doing without administrator intervention at this point. --Majora (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm. And this is not to be marked as a "minor" edit. XPanettaa? Drmies (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know it really is to be marked as a "minor" edit. XPanettaa (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A minor edit is one which does not change the substance of a page. Adding/removing a tag from a page/media item is never a minor edit. See WP:MINOR Mike1901 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• XPanettaa you do need to start taking advice and following the rules. Drmies had a word with you on your talk page about external links and you didn't take any notice at all and are still doing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• XPanettaa continues to violate copyright as well as mark edits as minor when they shouldn't be. See the history of A Rodent Like This. This is starting to get into IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Could an admin please put a stop to this? --Majora (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

JamesJohnson2 v. Philip Cross

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

Originally posted by Philip Cross (talk · contribs)

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

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

Originally posted by JamesJohnson2 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

Edit by JamesJohnson2

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

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

Addition by Philip Cross

A new editor, User:Danielstn, in reverting JamesJohnson, has made this entirely reasonable comment in his edit summary: "Removed irrelevant Karadzic trial references. Even if this wiki page were titled "Accusations of genocide against Slobodan Milosevic", the Karadzic trial cannot be cited as an exoneration, as the prosecution weren't even trying to prosecute Milosevic." Philip Cross (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit by JamesJohnson2 16:55 14 September 2016 (UTC)

In reference to User:Danielstn comment, his statement makes absolutely no sense for following reasons:

• Accusations brought against Slobodan Milosevic's and his alleged crimes are present in the article as they should be, as they are part of information related to him. Therefore it follows that any court findings about this alleged crimes, should also be present on the page. If we were to follow his logic we should also remove allegations against him as well which is ridiculous.
• While the trial was not about him, the court has investigated his involvement in Bosnian crimes and has found that there is no evidence which supports the claim that he has participated in the alleged crimes. Therefore this relates to the allegations against his person and should be present on the page.
• We are here to present the facts not to hide them, and it is a fact that "International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia" has investigated Slobodan Milosevic crimes during Bosnian war and has found that there is not enough evidence to support this accusations. As a Wikipedia editor you should present the facts not hide them, regardless of whether you like them or not. After all we are not here to say one side of the story.
• If you want to challenge the courts findings go to court do not pretend that they do not exist.

I've opened a talk page on this issue, and made some changes to the article that retain a reference to the Karadzic trial. However, I've removed the misinterpretation of the ICTY's judgement on this issue as "exonerating" Milosevic - please see my talk page comments for details.

With reference to the specific comment by User:JamesJohnson2 above that "the court has investigated his involvement in Bosnian crimes and has found that there is no evidence which supports the claim that he has participated in the alleged crimes." - this is not true. The court made an inconclusive statement about his involvement in a subset of the Bosnian crimes, which are themselves a subset of all of the crimes Milosevic was charged with.Danielstn (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

To User: Danielstn, I recommend you read the finding in article 3406 on pg. 1303 a little bit better, as it clearly states that court could not find enough evidence to support the claims that Slobodan Milosevic was involved in the "common plan". "Common plan" to which they are referring to, is outlined on pages 1294 to 1306 and covers all the crimes allegedly committed by Serbs in Bosnia. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a brilliant example of WP:SYNTH and misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources. EEng 19:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

To User:EEng#s, actually it is neither, for it to be misuse of WP:SYNTH I would need to combine two different sources to reach a new conclusion and I am only using single source. In addition to this I am not combining different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Both references are from the same section of the document and my conclusion is the same conclusion that is made in source provided.

Also I am not offering only WP:PRIMARY sources if you read the article on WP:PRIMARY sources it states that they are account close to the event like witness statement about the event or witness testimony. In this case ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) Can only be a WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY source, and witness statements, witness testimonies and reports provided during the trial are WP:PRIMARY based on which ICTY has made its informed decision. We are talking here about a body which has been licensed to make a legally binding decision not about some proxy news agency, which appear to be only sources your side of the argument used. Also there are plenty of other WP:SECONDARY sources I have provided above. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Cobbling together different bits of one source is still SYNTH, and anyway court opinions are primary (except possibly, in limited cases, for their recitation of uncontroverted background facts). EEng 02:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You are not reading WP:SYNTH page again, it clearly states "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source", my conclusion is clearly explicitly stated by the source, and I am not using two sections as finding about Milosevic is sub section of the single common plan section, therefore this can not possibly be WP:SYNTH. Its ironic that you were discussing misuse of WP:SYNTH and you keep misinterpreting it.

I respectfully disagree that court is WP:PRIMARY as I have already explained above. In any case its unimportant, as I have already provided big list of WP:SECONDARY sources with same conclusion as mine in replies above, which in interest of non spamming I will not list again. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I was responding only to your post saying, "I recommend you read the finding in article 3406 on pg. 1303 [blah blah] 'Common plan' to which they are referring to, is outlined on pages 1294 to 1306 and [blah blah]", which is SYNTH. You can explain all you want but court decisions are primary as to the own conclusions and formal statements, which can rarely be taken at simple face value. If you listed any secondary sources they're lost in your TLDR.

You're an SPA with 33 mainspace edits. If you don't start listening to experienced editors trying to help you understand how things are done you're not going to last long here. EEng 04:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And I have already responded to your so called SYNTH and other [blah blah] statements in extensive details, repeating the statement with out any further insight does not help your argument, just the opposite in fact.

Is the second part of your statement a "threat"? If that's how things works around here (threats and insults with no insight) I would not want to stay around here anyway. Thank you for your "experienced" help. but no thanks. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a threat, a prediction. Ignore at your peril. EEng 05:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds allot like what movie villains say after being asked about the threat they have just made. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Except on Wikipedia there's no screenwriter to save you just before the axe falls. EEng 07:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that it is a threat. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you say. EEng 07:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Lysimachi WP:OWN and WP:CIR issues

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

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

1. A total lack of knowledge about their talk page. I doubt they even know it exists.
2. Weird understanding of "redundancy". See diffs [28], [29]. I tried to discuss this here as well.
3. Repeatedly adding a bunch of citation needed tags [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], despite being reverted multiple times by multiple editors [36], [37], [38],[39]. Even though a compromise edit was carried out [40], per another talk page discussion it was still reverted and the citation needed tags were added again.
4. The editor had engaged in similar behaviour about the language section for which I launched an RFC. However, this is extremely tedious. If for every small change we have to launch an RFC or a talk page discussion, it is seriously disruptive.
5. The editor never makes any attempt to initiate a discussion even though many of their edits are bold edits. On being reverted, the simply do the same edit again.
6. Failure to understand how references work. I removed this reference as it was essentially a youtube video - a recording of a concert. Nothing in it mentioned that the music was related to "Han Taiwanese" and the source is also not reliable. Yet it was added back again without an explanation [41].
7. The user also seems to have a "weird" understanding of NPOV. Apparently using the word "Chinese" in the article Han Taiwanese is not acceptable. The user has constantly changed Han Chinese to Han people even though one redirects to the other and our article is at Han Chinese. Diffs [42], [43], [44]. The user keeps saying that any mention of "Chinese" is a violation of NPOV. The user also keeps removing stuff to this effect - see [45], [46], [47]. To be honest, I am sick and tired of dealing with this. I had tried a dispute resolution on this (mediated by UY Scuti) but it failed as the user did not respond later. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_141#Talk:Han_Taiwanese.23Lead_sentence_WikiLink.

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

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

2. The "compromise" edit adds a footnote saying "Some sources refer to Han Chinese as "Chinese" or group them with other Chinese peoples". That footnote does not cite any reference at all, a clear violation of WP:V. In addition, how can those sources, if any, be applied to infer the numbers of Han people in each country without WP:OR? The current version of the article Han Chinese says there are "655,377" Han Chinese in Japan according to the reference 国籍（出身地）別在留資格（在留目的）別外国人登録者(Number of foreign residents by country in 2008). The citation itself even points out that the number is "by country"/"国籍（出身地）". Is Lemongirl942 saying that all Chinese are Han Chinese and all Han people are Chinese?

7. The article has always mentioned "Chinese" even before Lemongirl942's edits. The "(also referred to as Taiwan Han Chinese)" part that was added to the first sentence of the lead was removed due to, as mentioned in edit summaries at least three times, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:REDUNDANCY, and, I would add here, WP:OR and WP:V.

EdJohnston: Could you name a Wikipedia policy saying that a redirect on Wikipedia can be cited as a reliable source for two terms being synonyms? (Han culture is also redirected to Han Chinese, so according to the "normal Wikipedia practice", anyone can replace the former in any context with the latter?) Is there any evidence that "Han" and "Han Chinese" (or "people" and "Chinese") are used in all contexts by all authors as synonyms?

Regarding the the DRN mentioned above, I have said what I think in my last statement.

Additional question1: If both Lemongirl942 and EdJohnston think "Han" and "Han Chinese" are synonyms, why are they so keen in changing the former to the latter?

Additional question2: "warning Lysimachi that he may be blocked for disruption if he makes further reverts about the definition of Han-related groups without first getting consensus on the talk page", is EdJohnston implying that Lemongirl942 got consensus on the talk page before Lemongirl942 made changes about the definition of Han-related groups? Lysimachi (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And you reverted again? You edit summary doesn't make any sense and your interpretations of guidelines are not shared by others. Please stop your disruptive editing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing and stop pushing your POV. You have shown no evidence that "Han" and "Han Chinese" (or "people" and "Chinese") are used in all contexts by all authors as synonyms. Lysimachi (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lysimachi: Do you think nobody has shown evidence backing up the statement that "'Han' and 'Han Chinese' (or 'people' and 'Chinese') are used in all contexts by all authors as synonyms" because nobody has said anything like that? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Lysimachi Could you please explain this edit? Your edit summary makes absolutely no sense. Could you justify and explain how the edit violates each and every policy you have cited. It is very clear that you have no understand of policies and it is competence issue. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You tried to say Han Taiwanese are "also referred to as Taiwan Han Chinese" and cited five references [16][17][18][19][20]. WP:V: "anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." None of sources you cited seem to say so. In fact, [20] does not seem to mention "Taiwan Han Chinese" at all, while [16], [18] and [19] don't seem to mention "Han Taiwanese". Your claim is not verifiable. WP:OR: The claim seems to be your original research, for which no reliable, published sources exist. WP:REDUNDANCY: You made the first sentence unnecessarily redundant. WP:LEAD: "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." How important is "Taiwan Han Chinese" to be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead? WP:UNDUE: "Taiwan Han Chinese" is given undue weight. In fact, the only source ([17]) which mentions (but not equates) both Han Taiwanese and "Taiwan Han Chinese" also mentions "Taiwan-Han Chinese", "Taiwan Han-Chinese", and "Taiwanese Han Chinese". Why is "Taiwan Han Chinese" given special weight here? WP:NPOV: You are trying to push your view that Han Taiwanese are Chinese. Sure there are sources saying that, but this is clearly disputed. Even if there are sources saying Taiwanese people are Chinese or Taiwan is a part of China, you won't find it in the first sentence of the lead in Taiwanese people and Taiwan. Lysimachi (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you like high standards. Many of your own references do not mention anything about "Han Taiwanese" at all. In fact the population source says that 98% of Taiwan is "Han Chinese" and yet you wrote 98% of Taiwan is "Han Taiwanese". More important you have a total refusal to discuss anything. Do you know WP:BRD. If anyone reverts a bold edit of yours, you are not supposed to revert again. You fail to understand and neither do you even talk part in any discussions. This is nothing but status-quo-stonewalling. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow

Quote 1: WP:UNDUE: "Taiwan Han Chinese" is given undue weight. In fact, the only source ([17]) which mentions (but not equates) both Han Taiwanese and "Taiwan Han Chinese" also mentions "Taiwan-Han Chinese", "Taiwan Han-Chinese", and "Taiwanese Han Chinese". Why is "Taiwan Han Chinese" given special weight here?

What's with the hyphenation? That makes no difference and no sense at all. I'm not sure if you actually understand English.

Quote 2: WP:NPOV: You are trying to push your view that Han Taiwanese are Chinese. Sure there are sources saying that, but this is clearly disputed. Even if there are sources saying Taiwanese people are Chinese or Taiwan is a part of China, you won't find it in the first sentence of the lead in Taiwanese people and Taiwan.

Huh? This article is about an ethnic group. That fact that Han Taiwanese are "ethnic Han Chinese" is said by many sources (or you need to show a source whhich explicitly says that Han Taiwanese are not of ethnic Han Chinese descent. "Han Chinese" is an ethnic term NOT a nationalistic term. You clearly fail to realise the difference. Also NPOV is supposed to mention both viewpoints if there are both. Mentioning only 1 veiwpoint is clearly against NPOV. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem of here is that you are refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK and persisting despite having a very weird understanding of the policies. This is extremely disruptive and it is not helping. I suggest you stop editing on that article unless you attempt to discuss. I have half a mind to push and indefinite block for you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a strong case of nationalism here, this won't end well. On a content point, it makes sense to identify the vast majority of the population of China as Han Chinese, since there is also a not insignificant population of non-Han Chinese, particularly those in the far western autonomous regions and up north in Mongolia. Taiwanese are, for the most part, diaspora from China that fled following the victory of the CCP at the end of the Chinese civil war. The term Han Chinese stems from their origins and I'm certain you will never find a source for an indigenous Han population on Taiwan. If a Han population were indigenous to Taiwan, then they're hardly likely to be referred to as Han, right? Blackmane (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Gravuritas not behaving well

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

---

Note: This ANI complaint and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent and unfounded allegation of Sock puppetry above have become linked because they both now address persistent unfounded allegations of sock puppetry (though this one addresses other unfounded allegations as well).

Note: I am not the author of the preceding (unsigned) note. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The user

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

is being impolite, as is indicated by the following of his edits:

[48], [49], [50], [51], [52]

I think that these might constitute breaches of WP:CIVIL or perhaps even WP:NPA. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The latter ones in particular. I've asked him politely to stop being unpleasant to his fellow editors. fish&karate 14:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fish and karate:.....and I've asked you not to rush to judgement. I would like to respond, but it might take a little time.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I added a further impolite comment. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to respond, but given that this has been brewing across a large number of actions by both MM and me, and I would like to present a clear picture, this may take a number of days. However, firstly, regarding the second of MM's list [53]. This was intended in a jokey fashion following a premature edit by MM, and when I saw that MM had mentioned it ruefully elsewhere, I realised that he had been offended by it. I posted a note of explanation on MM's user talk, which he presumably deleted, and if it didn't go the whole way to an apology for that specific post, then I do so now. I have to say that it is not playing the game fairly, MM, in excluding that note from this complaint. I don't know how to retrieve it: maybe you can? I added this [54] as an aide-memoire.

Regarding the fifth of his complaints, my allegation of stalking [55], then please look at [56]. MM had shown no interest in that subject before, and just made an entry just encouraging another editor with whom I was having a difference of opinion to oppose me. That's as clear a case of stalking as you can get in one post, and I assume that MM has only been stopped from a repetition by my clearly calling his action what it was. In the same post he implies that I deliberately distort the facts. That's all I have time for now, but I hope I will be allowed time to respond to the rest in a couple of days.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Noting an observation you've made of another editor and stalking are completely separate things. For example, I'm noting that your presupposition that MM commented to another editor about perceived behaviours equates to stalking is false. Now, by your apparent (apparent because that's what it looks like to me right now) definition, I am stalking you. Whereas in reality, all I did was make a note of your poor application of stalking. That's as clear a case of stalking as you can get; I'll give you a better one, an editor watches your every edit follows you to every page you touch and makes changes to your work. That's stalking. ElektrikFanne pointed something out to you btw, since you apparently haven't seen it I'll relay it again; Making allegations of that sort without evidence is a sure fire short cut to an editing block. Try not making tendentious claims with no evidence, one diff is almost never going to cut it. I've made a point of doing a quick interaction analyzer on you two, the results are here. Doesn't look like stalking to me. That doesn't discredit the possibility of stalking (you can stalk someone without actually interacting with them), but, given your single diff and limited overlap I'm not inclined to believe a claim of stalking without better proof. You've taken your little tantrum to various WP fora and got ignored; what tantrum? and where? in diffs please. That would go far further to credit or discredit the claim of stalking than their comment to Elektrik Fanne Does. Feel free to take the necessary time to address all of the above, you mention it'll take a couple days. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify: my calling MM a stalker was based on the single post that I referenced. He has made no other moves that could be termed stalking. Your discourse above is somewhat devalued by your misleading quote, and your check, if you read my post, was completely unnecessary. You quote me as saying That's as clear a case of stalking as you can get but what I said was That's as clear a case of stalking as you can get in one post. I understand that people have shown much worse, much more extended, stalking behaviour: I choose to believe that MM was setting off on some behaviour and was only prevented from continuing by me labelling him with it quickly. If the verdict of the relevant admins is that I get blocked for screaming too early, so be it. But let me emphasise in fairness to MM, I am not aware of any other action of his which could be called stalking.

The tantrums and other less-than salutary terms refer to a series of actions by MM relating to UK railway privatisation, and I would ask you to suspend judgement on that aspect until my response to those is made.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I am indeed waiting for your full response before I make any judgement on the merits of the original post. Regarding misleading quote, ok I can see the difference but I will comment that I choose to believe ... labelling him with it quickly is a presumption of bad faith. I have a feeling though that both parties share some responsibility for this. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think Mathmensch's edits are worth considering too: this edit, for instance...? Deliberately provocative? WP:GRAVEDANCING? Both? _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Right here is my response to the remainder of MM's complaint, As mentioned above, I would like my stalker comment dealt with separately as responded to above, and the 'premature ejaculation' was a poor option by me, for which I have apologized. I'll take whatever is coming for those two offences on the chin.

As far as the rest goes, here is a partial timeline for MM's WP interventions. I doubt it is complete, but I don't have any more spare time, and am not familiar enough with the tools on WP to trace any other things he has done in this respect. The background is that MM has decided that he, and he alone, knows the way to statistical purity as far as the metrics used for seeing what has happened to the railway system since privatization and various other milestones in the UK rail system. There is also a huge amount on the relevant talk pages.

• 3rd Sep 12:21 added POV warning to page Impact of BR privatisation page

[57]

• 4th Sep 16:47 proposal for deletion

[58]

• 4th Sep ANI first entry in new section allegation of edit warring

[59]

• 4th Sep AFD lost 9-0 with some seriously dismissive comments of his proposal by other editors

[60]

• 4th Sep he’s withdrawn the complaint of edit warring, but still complaining about me

[61]

• 6th Sep Privatisation of British Rail

[62]

• 8th Sep 18:51 ANI Off-topic complaint of impoliteness etc in sock puppet thread

[63]

• 9th Sep 20:08 another off-topic moan in sock puppetry

[64]

• 11th Sep RFC / maths science & technology, can’t find a way of showing the diff.

Let's be clear, any one or two or three of the above are perfectly legitimate. Put together with all the stuff on Talk pages, where he has been very dismissive of any attempt to ask him to justify his edits, this can only be described as a tantrum. If he doesn't succeed in changing the article to solely reflect his POV, then he wants it deleted. I think 'throwing your toys out of the pram' is accurate. When prevented from inflicting his lonely view on a WP article, he casts aspersions on my honesty, alleges POV-pushing, or tries to find an appeal route. Self-criticism is not possible. He also thinks that we poor uninitiated are not aware of basic stuff like correlation does not imply causation. Some of his thrashing around WP has been directed at me, but I don't think this is particularly personal and I don't wish to include it in the discussion on stalking: I think that, like a toddler having a tantrum, he is just thrashing out in all directions and I happen to be the nearest thing. (By the way, can I nominate Absolutelypuremilk for sainthood? His patient questioning of MM to try so hard to get an actual meaningful justification out of MM has been impressive).

So I think that MM's actions, taken all together, deserve the epithets that I have addressed him by. I think this causes significant damage to WP by destroying enthusiasm for the whole process, wasting time on his flailing around. There are a lot of WP pages that are effectively edited by very small numbers of editors, and vulnerable to a POV-pusher like MM throwing his weight around. Unless stopped, and I appreciate that my chosen means of doing so is outwith WP rules, he will go on to more, similar damage elsewhere on WP. That completes the case for my defence m'luds.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The point I just made on your talk page still stands - you've recognised yourself that you've been very unpleasant to a fellow editor, now please stop it. I'll have a look at the diffs you've posted above, however. But two wrongs do not etc etc. fish&karate 20:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrator request This edit [65] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread. Please check for a sock.

Gravuritas (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Gravuritas: The chances of anyone performing a checkuser are vanishingly small. If you are to continue to make allegations of sock puppetry, you need to provide proper evidence. That two (or more) users have disagreed with you over an article edit is not evidence of sock puppetry. It is just evidence that they disagree with you, not necessarily that they agree with each other. You have done this twice now that I am aware of (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent and unfounded allegation of Sock puppetry for other example). I do not have the expertise to assess who is right and who is wrong over the privatisation of Britsh Rail, but where two (or more) editors are saying that you are wrong, you should first consider the possibility that you might be wrong (no matter how convinced that you may be that you are not), just as you were wrong at Causes of Brexit. You seem to have missed the warning (now twice): Making allegations of that sort without evidence is a sure fire short cut to an editing block. Or are you now going to accuse Mr rnddude and myself of being socks because we are agreeing on this point whereas you believe you can fire off unfounded allegations unchecked? You also seem to have ignored The first rule of holes: "When you find yourself in one - stop digging!".

I had suggested to the OP that this complaint was off-piste from the one above and should be raised separately. However, as it has developed, it has become more and more on-piste and that original suggestion may not have been as apposite as originally intended. My only defence is: that it was made in good faith. --Elektrik Fanne 13:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear EF. Please let's keep things simple. I have referred to you and the IP poster during our difference of opinions several times as sock puppets; you have complained further up this board; I have explained the grounds; the admins will presumably decide shortly whether my grounds were sufficient, and act accordingly. I await their decision(s). I have, as you kindly mentioned, been civil during our differences.

This thread has been opened by someone to whom I have not been civil, because in my view he showed a highly objectionable series of actions, any one of which was legitimate. I show some of his actions in the timeline above, and it would be consistent with those widely-varying actions if he tried to 'get his way' through yet another means, having failed with various others. I have raised a question here because it seemed the appropriate time and place, and I hope it will be responded to. If it were to be MM socking, then it adds to the timeline of actions under consideration. As in the complaint that you have raised against me, I await the court's judgement.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"This thread has been opened by someone to whom I have not been civil... " (my emphasis). Confession? --Elektrik Fanne 13:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Elektrik Fanne, I think it's clear to anyone who gives us even a passing glance that we are indeed the exact same person. Let's not kid ourselves. :P On a more serious note, Gravuritas, AN/I is not really a courtroom with a judge, jury and if need be executioner. I think it should be noted clearly as well here that the accusation of sockpuppetry must be supported by strong diffs at the very least. If you can show similar editing patterns or behaviours than that is good as well. That said, editors agreeing with one another would not meet this requirement. It's perfectly possible for two completely different people to agree with each other. Also, As far as I am aware, admins are unable to perform sockpuppetry checks, only a checkuser may do that. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

1. I wasn't aware that sock-puppetry questions needed strong diffs. Those don't exist in MM's case, so my question about him is withdrawn with an apology.

2. I have explained my reasons for associating EF & the mysterious equally illogical IP, and the characterization of my argument as merely being two people disagreeing with me is laughable. I've bounced around WP for several years now, had a number of disagreements to various degrees, and don't recall ever having been mixed up in an allegation of sock-puppetry before now. [To my knowledge, I've never even seen a sock-puppet in action before] Moreover, what is not so funny now, Mr rnddude, is that by your joke you seem to be concurring in EF's wonky obvious misstatement of the grounds for my opinion, on top of already having misquoted me in a very misleading way in EF's thread. To be blunt, if there were a jury I would object to you being on it.

3. @Elektrik Fanne- a confession to incivility by me is not needed. My words to Mathmensch were obviously not civil. The defence is that they were accurate. If someone makes a racist comment, I assume that WP is not going to have a fit of the vapours if someone labels it as such. [For clarity, I am not accusing anyone around these parts of racism- it's an illustration) If MM did have a destructive tantrum, it's really not up to him to complain if somebody points it out. I would suggest a significant question for what I've now been told is a non-court or a non-jury is: Do MM's actions amount to a tantrum?

Gravuritas (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ummm.... 1. on top of already having misquoted me in a very misleading way in EF's thread. I haven't commented on EF's thread it was this thread where I "misquoted you" and I'll refer to it later. 2. My joke was not directed to you, and you can choose either to laugh or not, it doesn't affect me. 3. Thanks for withdrawing your SP allegation. 4. Regarding and the characterization of my argument as merely being two people disagreeing with me is laughable you mind explaining this then; This edit [18] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread. Please check for a sock. It's not laughable, it is exactly what you said and did (I didn't even refer to the EF allegation of which I have no knowledge). 5. To be blunt, if there were a jury I would object to you being on it. 1. there isn't a jury and 2. the defendent doesn't get to strike jurors if there was, a lawyer however can. I quoted your words exactly having left the last few words out not thinking that it would change the meaning. I honestly thought in a single post was referring to your post and not MM's post. But that doesn't matter and I've already admitted to that mistake, so could you WP:AGF or naw? 6. I have explained my reasons for associating EF & the mysterious equally illogical IP you realize that's a personal attack right? you're calling EF and the IP illogical and not the premise or position or what have you that they are representing. Comment on content not the contributor, what's the illogical content? (I did say I haven't commented on EF's thread and have no knowledge of the complain). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

1. You are right, your misleading extract was in this thread. 2. Your joke was in sympathy with EF's complete mischaracterization of my point, so I don't accept the 'wasn't directed at me' response. If you are one of the ones sitting in judgment, or non-judgment, then I suggest you try harder to appear impartial. 3. You are welcome. 4. Yes, it is laughable. The question was raised by me because MM has shown a pattern of behavior, in that if the articles on rail privatization are not to his liking, he will seek to delete them, diminish them, or attack whatever gets in his way- including me to some extent. The 3 or 4 fast edits that drew my attention could be a match for that sort of behavior, and my question had absolutely nothing to do with 'disagreeing with me'. I used 'in line with his views' (which in any case is not the same point at all as 'out of line with my views') and not 'in line with his views and behaviour', which is what I was thinking, because I was trying to make the question as mild as possible. When you stressed that serious support was needed to even ask the question, I dropped it. 5. I was happy to drop it & assume WP:AGF until 2. above made WP:AGF a bit tougher to do. My personal judgment of your GF will remain open until I've seen a bit more reasoned argument as a conclusion. 6. I have explained the illogic of strawman arguments to EF until I am blue in the face. He/she has repeated them, extended them, diversified them, and continues with them. If you look at the Brexit threads, you will find around 20, I would guess. If you look at the EF thread in this board, you'll even find a couple there, too. At some point you have to admit that somebody manufacturing illogic on such a scale is illogical. It's not an attack, it's the truth. And, given that that the threads are becoming so intermingled, the IP address editor also created a straw man (slurring 'misleading' into 'deliberately misleading') using exactly the same words as EF. Given that few editors on WP are such homopalaephiliacs, then it was clear that they were equally illogical and I drew a conclusion that they were the same person. It may or may not have been right, but contrary to EF's assertion below, it was not based on zero evidence.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I re-read both your comment above and EF's original comment to which I made a joke to. I thought I had to have missed something and it occurred to me then that there seems to be a misunderstanding. First, you bring up my "impartiality" into question, can we differentiate between impartiality (treating everyone equally) and opinion. I have given my opinions to certain things you've written that I disagreed with, I haven't been partial to the OP as I think is evidenced by this I am indeed waiting for your full response before I make any judgement on the merits of the original post. I still haven't commented on the merits of the OP. I have commented on several things you've said that I thought breached policy, most notably your SPI allegations and stalking comments. I have commented four times on this thread. First, addressing your claim of stalking which you devalued because of my misleading quote, which I explained above and apologized for when I realized my mistake, would you like me to strike or amend that comment? since it's the only thing I can do. Second, to reply to you and inform you that I am not passing any judgement till you give your side of the story (I think impartiality predicates itself on letting both sides tell their story). Third, a joke to EF and an explanation that SPI's won't be accepted without strong evidence. Fourth, a long reply to you on your points about me. The Fifth now begins and is dedicated to point 2. since it's the only one that needs my response; Your joke was in sympathy with EF's complete mischaracterization of my point. Actually it was linked to this; Administrator request This edit [18] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread. Please check for a sock which you've gone ahead and clarified, yet acknowledge that brevity affected the meaning; "in line with his views" means agreeing with, whereas "inline with his views and behaviours" is actually more SPI related. You could only argue that it was my mis-characterization of your comment and not EF's since I posted it in my comment above again. I could sympathize with their mis-characterization given that it was also my own personal reading of that comment. I don't accept the 'wasn't directed at me' response, so you're implying my joke was aimed at you? even though I said anybody. Fine, read between the lines that don't exist. I say things I mean directly, directly. If it was aimed at you, if it was directed at you then my joke would have been; Don't kid yourself EF, Gravuritas has obviously recognized that we're sockpuppets of each other. Or something to that effect. But no, I specifically used something vague and non-specific; anybody. I don't know if you've noticed, but EF has been accused of SP before and it was dismissed without prejudice. I haven't been formally investigated for SP but have been asked questions. That is why I made the joke. We're so far off-topic at this point that I think we're done with this. Anything from here is just going to be circles. I'll give any judgement I have on the merits of the OP later on. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Posting 500+ words and then deciding that 'we're done with this' is a bit off.

Here's EF to me, a couple of posts before your joke, repeating her/his unsupportable assertion for the nth time:

Or are you now going to accuse Mr rnddude and myself of being socks because we are agreeing on this point whereas you believe you can fire off unfounded allegations unchecked?

Your joke:

Elektrik Fanne, I think it's clear to anyone who gives us even a passing glance that we are indeed the exact same person. Let's not kid ourselves

I think most reasonable people would at least acknowledge that it did not look impartial.

Gravuritas (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

So you're contending that my joke was in response to EF's comment? I thought that was obvious. I said it wasn't directed at you and that I was being non-specific so that anybody could be implicated. I thought that was obvious too. This is the offending statement; Administrator request This edit [18] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread. Please check for a sock which both myself and EF characterized in the same way.

Your assertion - This edit [18] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread.

My characterization - I think it should be noted clearly as well here that the accusation of sockpuppetry must be supported by strong diffs at the very least. If you can show similar editing patterns or behaviours than that is good as well. That said, editors agreeing with one another would not meet this requirement. It's perfectly possible for two completely different people to agree with each other. There's my characterization of that comment one more time.

EF's characterization - If you are to continue to make allegations of sock puppetry, you need to provide proper evidence. That two (or more) users have disagreed with you over an article edit is not evidence of sock puppetry.

Clearly, myself and EF agree. We wrote practically the same thing just with different words. This thread is about MM's complaint by the way, I still have no clue what's in EF's thread. I suggest you try harder to appear impartial - well, I will leave that for the judge to decide. I'll try and post a full response at the bottom regarding the actual complaint here. If you're wondering why I said We're so far off-topic at this point that I think we're done with this, it's because this has nothing to do with the merits of MM's complaint and also nothing to do with the merits of your response to that complaint. Also, and this is important, in this court of law, the juror's opinions are weighed by the judge. There is no simple guilty/not guilty verdict. It's a discussion. The closing admin will decide if I have said anything useful anywhere in this thread. I can assure you nothing I have said since 13:43, 14 September 2016 up to 12:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC) will be considered worthwhile since it's much ado about nothing. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that I am now confused as to the two threads, hence my request to keep things simple to EF earlier. I understand now that you may be successfully differentiating in your head between the two threads, but as a matter of practicality that is now hard to achieve. I would suggest that EFs post made it abundantly clear that she views this as a pattern of behaviour of mine, and so it seems strange that you 'have no clue what is in EF's thread' even if you haven't read that thread. My difficulty has been in understanding the verging-on the theological difference between you agreeing with EF in her stance to me regarding the single question I asked in this thread, regarding MM and SP, and you agreeing with her/his much repeated identical stance regarding my viewing EF and an IP as SP. If you do care to look at EFs thread, you will see how 'agreeing with EF' is not a tenable position, even if you don't agree with me. I think I now understand this incredibly subtle difference that you are capable of, and all I can say is if you can really maintain that sort of internal firewall, you're a better man than I am.

Returning to this thread, it appears that WP:CRUSH may describe some of what MM has been doing.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I had a five hundred word response, killed it in favour of two sentences. I'll take a look at the merits of both threads, I'll post one comment on EF's thread and one on this thread. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Gravuritas, your comments to me are now starting to slowly make sense. I have only just now realized that the comment that EF made was not only about this; Administrator request This edit [18] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread. Please check for a sock. But also about their own thread. Which you may note I have posted on. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So let's just get this straight. You have repeated your allegations of sock puppetry yet again. And you have still not provided one single shred of evidence. --Elektrik Fanne 14:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne. Please accept that I am not intending to be provocative. If I am accused of alleging sock-puppetry, I can't discuss it without explaining why I think so. As far as I recall, my mentioning this belief has been limited to this board for the past few days, and unless needed to defend myself, and as the IP intervention has disappeared, then I have no problem promising not to repeat any such allegations in your direction unless there is fresh (strong!) evidence to do so.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Elektrik Fanne & Mathmensch

Would you consider joining me in a request to whoever patrols this board to get on and close this and EF's discussion soon, awarding brownie points, citations for valour, or lifetime bans as they see fit? This is turning our respective differences, which already consumed considerable time, into an even larger consumer of time.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: I would not presume to request that the admins 'get on and close this'. They will get around to examining this at their own pace (and that is generally in proportion to the length of the discussion - so don't hold your breath). It would help your case if you posted a statement that you would not make any further unfounded allegations against anyone without submitting evidence. I should perhaps draw your attention to the Wikipedia policy no personal attacks In particular the bit that says "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [is a personal attack]" and "even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption.".

You might have noticed that an editor who was trolling in the past decided to raise an SPI case (doubtless in retaliation for the opposition he had for all the problems he tried to cause). He was trying the same trick that you were: that is claiming that because someone agreed with me, we must be the same person. Problem was that in one of the examples, the agreement was heavily backed up by references (and at one point, there were no less than twelve for the claim in the article). The opposition editor was relying on a single reference that did not address the issue (and was using this lack of mention as somehow supporting his case (just like you did)). The SPI case crash landed after less than half an hour of flying time. --Elektrik Fanne 17:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"He was trying the same trick that you were: that is claiming that because someone agreed with me, we must be the same person." Blatant falsehood. I've never done that in your direction, or anyone else's apart from seeming to admittedly, once with MM above, because I abbreviated my argument. But you were already claiming and repeating that falsehood before the single instance above. Gravuritas (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what you did. You kept trying to claim that a point that you kept reinserting at Causes of Brexit was a deliberate attempt at deception citing a BBC report that did not even mention deception. I disagreed that it was a deliberate attempt precisely because there was no evidence provided that it was. A passing IP address editor (I presume) just happened to notice the lack of evidence and posted pointing this out. You just kept trying to maintain that non deliberate deception was sufficient despite the topic sentence of the section containing the words, "using deliberate falsehoods". Ergo, you decide that the two people who disagree with you must be the same person. That is not evidence of anything, and you have not provided any other evidence whatsoever. Thus your allegations are unfounded.

As for you claim that, "I've never done that in your direction". A blatant lie because you did so with this edit "You and your alter ego keep talking about ..." and repeated it again with this edit "Just cut the masquerade and admit you are EF" and repeated yet again with this edit Edit summary: Socko McSock. But not a shred of evidence to be seen.

While searching for the quotes and the diffs, I had cause to read what the IP actually said more closely. The IP editor, in his first post stated that, "You both have valid points", and suggested finding a compromise. So he didn't actually disagree with you. You initially declined to compromise, though later did when another editor intervened - though you still have not put the agreed on version in the article. --Elektrik Fanne 12:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop at the second sentence in the para above. I was trying to defend (or insert, can't remember) inclusion of something in a section headed 'lies and misleading information'. Thus all I ever needed to show was that a WP:RS had said it was misleading, or the equivalent of misleading. You have continuously tried to twist this into a claim that insertion in that section meant something else: 'a deliberate attempt to mislead'; 'misinformation', or as above 'a deliberate attempt at deception'. That's not the criterion I was using, that's not the criterion that anyone reading the heading would expect to be used. All these twisted, exagerrated versions of 'misleading' only ever existed in your inventions: they are all your straw men. You saying once that I claimed my desired text was a ....'deliberate attempt at deception' might have been a mistake by you. Saying it as often as you have makes it a wiful, repeated falsehood. Now go away and find one, just one, diff where I claim what you assert I repeatedly claim, and when you can't find one, apologise.

The stress is on the 'without a shred of evidence'. I wouldn't dream of denying that I suggested the IP was your sock. But there was behavioural evidence: you are the biggest manufacturer of straw men I have ever come across, and the IP also produced a straw man in a short post. Not only that, but the straw man was your favourite straw man at that moment 'deliberately misleading'. That's evidence.

I am wasting too much on b$&@&$(()$cks at the moment to do anything much constructive. Maybe I will be available to play next week, or maybe not. Gravuritas (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Per you second para, "all I ever needed to show was that a WP:RS had said it was misleading, or the equivalent of misleading". Even if true, your so called WP:RS did no such thing. A committee, nearly half of whom were Brexiteers expressed an opinion that the Chancellor's claim was misleading but only in the sum of money stated (what a surprise that a committee with so many Brexiteers should do this). This is not evidence that the claim actually was misleading - that was WP:SYNTHESIS from the opinion (advancing a position not actually made in the reference). Not only that, but you were trying to claim that the entire statement was misleading (including the bit that the TSC clearly accepted). As I am fed up with pointing out, the topic sentence of the section makes it clear that it is discussing "deliberate falsehoods" (or 'deliberately misleading information' if you prefer).

We are still awaiting your supposed evidence to back up your allegation, which you have repeated yet again despite an undertaking not to do so. "I have no problem promising not to repeat any such allegations in your direction unless there is fresh (strong!) evidence to do so"). So you not only still owe us this original evidence (which has still not been provided), but this supposed 'new' strong evidence as well.

Since the same points keep getting rehashed over and over again, I suggest that we leave this for those that wield the mops to sort out. --Elektrik Fanne 13:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User: Chriscross619

I believe I reported on this issue last week, but a user has been disruptively editing pages about wrestlers in WWE. Last week it was just a user with just an IP address, but I have reason to suspect that he created an account to get around the fact that a certain page had been protected because of the disruptive edits. His editing style as well is similar to the previous IP address. His username is Chriscross619. I believe that something should be done about this user before he goes and disruptively edits everything. Thank you.

Also, here is why I have reason to believe they're the same person: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Usos&oldid=738993492 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:7111:7E00:543B:36E5:8038:6BB2

The first is from the user Chriscross619. If you'll notice in the Usos Heel Turn 2016 section, he writes "The Usos turned heel in the process for the first time since 2010." The second link is to the same edit by an unauthorized user with only an IP address. They both use the same editing style. Also note that the Usos were heels in early 2011, they made their debuts in 2010 as heels, which is the issue here: he's been going around editing pages and changing the dates of when they were last heel or face.Dohvahkiin (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't get the problem. You've explained a lot about how he might have been an IP but is now registered, but that isn't against policy. And he changed dates, but that by itself isn't against policy, particularly if it is true or he thought they were true, otherwise it is an editing issue, not an admin issue. You have to show malice. Not sure what a heel or face is, as you explained it in WWE jargon. If you want someone to actually respond, you have to keep it short, explain in plain English and demonstrate actual policy violations using diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oh, and you are OBLIGATED to tell the other party you reported them here. You need to go do that. Just look at the top of this page for the template. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I had asked the user in question not to make the edits where he marked heel and face turns before I saw this thread. Generally, we try not to write articles using those words because WP:JARGON.LM2000 (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Let me simplify it then: He's proving incorrect information, and when I correct that misinformation, he just reverts it. No explanation given. The first time I noticed it, he actually left a note in the article itself, and told people to stop changing the date, yet, he was changing the date from the original one given. I've tried to contact him, but get no response. Even doesn't listen to any comments made on the revision history page either. This has been going on since last Thursday I believe. Page even got semi-protection because of the disruptive editing, and that's why he created an account.Dohvahkiin (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In wrestling, the word "heel" means a wrestler who is a bad guy and the word "face" is used for his opponent, the wrestler the people are supposed to cheer for. "Turning heel" means changing your wrestling persona from one that the public adores to one that antagonizes the public. Please re-read the original post, and you will understand it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

See, it is hard to tell if this is an editor or admin issue. The facts that he is removing, do you have rock solid citations for them? If you do, then he would be inserting bad info against sources. If you don't, then it is a matter of "he said / he said". Since admin don't take sides on content, we can only get involved if there is sourcing that clearly shows he is being disruptive. And thank you for the explanation, I have watched wrestling since Fritz Von Eric and Don "The Lawman" Slatton [66] were regulars on the Dallas circuit, many moons ago. (And it is a shame that Don's article is a red link. I knew him, he retired and opened up a bail bond business in Abilene, Tx., but I digress...) We need to be sure the facts are sourced, show the source, so we can see the edits are in bad faith. In the meanwhile, I will poke around and see if there is more obvious evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

See, it's a bit more complicated than that. Whereas he's saying the last time they were heels was back in 2010, there is evidence on YouTube of them being heels until the first half of 2011. Plus, their Wikipedia article even mentions that they turned face in June of 2011, so that would mean any months before then, they were heels. It's more of implied facts than citations.Dohvahkiin (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe he's conceded defeat on The Usos. However, there may be more articles the user has edited that other editors are having issues with, as I noticed another warning posted under the warning you gave to him.Dohvahkiin (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As per his talk page, user seemingly fails to understand what it means to provide valid sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chriscross619Dohvahkiin (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

And I warned him pretty strongly, but realistically, I have to have clear evidence that he is changing facts into non-facts before sanctioning him. Otherwise, it is a matter of you say one thing, he says another, and I pick sides, which isn't something I can do as admin. I have to verify via sources that he is adding bad info/hoaxes/incompetent/whatever. YouTube isn't really a good source, btw. This is one reason WWE and MMA articles are widely ignored by admin, its a pain to verify a lot of this stuff and we can't act without certainty. Previous warning templates aren't certainty, citations are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If I may chime in briefly, @NeilN: and myself have talked with Chriscross619 on their talk page, they did respond to a warning I issued to them, about sourcing and what not as this has been going on over several articles, bad information, unsourced material, etc. I don't think they had bad intentions just misguided. I am under the impression from their responses that there may be a language or understanding barrier either that or they are playing games, I'm leaning towards the barrier as they have made no edits since we talked. I am hoping that after this they will do some reading and understand things better. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 07:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, and this is the approach we want to take. Sometimes it takes a threat of block to get their attention, but a real solution really takes someone taking the time to explain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Brown asked for "clear evidence that he is changing facts into non-facts". Seems like a reasonable request.

In this edit Chriscross619 changes a fact into a non-fact.

This edit by user Dohvahkiin seems to be correct.

Let's look at the (non-reliable, this is wrestling) sources:

"On WWE SmackDown Live, The Usos reverted back to their roots and turned heel for the first time since 2011, attacking the hottest young, new tag team in American Alpha." - dailyddt.com

"But it’s not all over for The Usos and The Hype Bros, particularly the former tag team, who turned to the dark side for the first time since 2011." - blastingnews.com

So, maybe someone needs to check some more of Chriscross619's edits, and see if they are also incorrect.

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Been done, so far none were correct or sourced and were reverted. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• That kind of sourcing is reasonable for the type of article, I understand the NY Times doesn't cover it, so that is exactly what an admin needs. NeilN and I both have given him warnings, mine perhaps more blunt than NeilN's. I see this edit [67] was reverted, but the sources above seem to support it. They haven't edited much since the warnings, and edits since the warnings are what I would focus on for sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Gross incivility and edit war from Engleham

(Note: reopening this discussion per clear consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for review of close on WP:ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

Engleham in response to an EW warning wrote: [68] notified at [69]

@Collect Nice try at a wind-up. Well you know I consider any suggestions you offer to anyone regarding good behaviour, are completely and utterly farcical, given the record suggests you to be one of Wikipedia's most chronic, trivial and homophobic WP:CRUSH edit warriors and, --- need it be said once again --- seasoned stalker. Engleham (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I rather think this series of string accusations gores well beyond the pale. I note that the editor has been sanctioned repeatedly for "disruptive editing"

His edits at Cary Grant include

1. [70] 24:04 12 Sep adding material in nature deleted by strong consensus in the past,
2. [71] 14:35 12 Sep asserting that the claims were fully backed by the sources given,
3. [72] 14:50 12 Sep asserting again (erroneously) that the claims were backed by the sources given, and
4. [73] 14:13 12 Sep using the same material in another article, even though the sourcing and claims were questioned by several editors.

Thus he has also clearly engaged in edit war as well as calling another editor "homophobic" "seasoned stalker" "edit warrior" etc. Collect (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his addition was poorly worded and written like a tabloid too, affecting the neutrality. Rather than discuss it this editor immediately opened an RFC, which I doubt will prove productive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Any yet another [74] example of him calling me a liar. Please - someone, anyone, do something. Collect (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I made two edits to the Cary Grant article, which were cited by reliable sources, and qualified in their claim. Collect reverted it with "Gay edit reverted - please get consensus before trying this type of edit" Charming. That's the kind of incisive encyclopaedic editing one really responds to. I reverted it and continued to add further citations and saved. Blofeld reverted it so I set up an Rfc. Collect has been stalking me for over a year, on and off. The previous example (one of several) is documented below by me, should you wish wade through it. I'm a careful and conscientious editor, but sometimes one has to put up with nonsense. How much time has he wasted on this page on trivia involving others this year? Never mind. What he doesn't like, and what's driving this, is his being called to account on his WP:CRUSH tactics. Anyway, we move on. Well at least I do.

---

You very well know I've had to address your stalking of my edits in the past. But let's look more recently, shall we? On the 17th, although you only made a handful of article edits, you directly and indirectly stalked me. 1. On 17 August I edited William Drummond Stewart adding the review citation of Benneman. 2. The same day you run across to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard taking issue with Benneman, slagging the suggestion that he's a reputable scholar. When that didn't work, you claimed your issue was that it constituted a single source. Someone else pointed out an additional source, which you dismissed. That's not enough for you. Because you can't win you... 3. Start incorporating mention of Benneman as a "law archivist" into the body of articles! First for the article on William North. Then that of Count d'Orsay. Your background knowledge of both topics is so poor, you think Benneman is the only scholar to suggest both individuals may have been bisexual. To repair your damage to the articles, I added a slew of pertinent new references and remove Benneman's name from the body of the text - and completely from the d'Orsay article as there are more pertinent sources. Incorporating scholar's names into the body of articles is never best practice unless they have dramatically changed the field of studies. And it has been abused for vanity purposes. It certainly shouldn't be employed to pursue a personal agenda, as you have been doing. 4. The day wasn't over. You chose to revert a quote on Frederick the Great's article I'd added just two weeks prior. 5. Having obviously looked at my edit log, from the hundreds of articles up for deletion, you THEN chose to vote opposing me on Frederick Blond, which I voted on only a hour or so before: [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Blond]. And that's just in one 24 hour period when you're on a vindictive roll. As I've said before, you need to grow up. You clearly have a very strong bias against the incorporation of any suggestion of homosexuality/bisexuality into articles, when relevant, however many sources are supplied. And you have a very clear bias against myself – completely understandable, as I've shown you up, and your WP: CRUSH modus operandi repeatedly. And I know how much that infuriates you. Well, you need to get over it. I'm a very cautious editor with a loathing of supposition beyond what can be established by sources. And will delete anything that steps over that mark. e.g. with regard to William North - if you Google "steuben + "extraordinarily intense emotional relationship" + will" you'll find a slew of articles stating that this phrase was in Steuben's Will but edited out by an earlier biographer. A few articles even suggest the Will reads "like a love letter". I checked the 1930s biography, and the Will, and the claim is complete tosh. The phrase came from a biographical source which I identified and added, and inserted a note in the citations, which will hopefully quell this canard. And I've deleted other similar gay overclaims elsewhere in the past. However, there is a point where the amount of circumstantial evidence can sometimes tip to "beyond reasonable doubt". No one ever saw Oscar Wilde engage in homosexual acts, he denied it in a public court, and he was married with two children. Does that make him straight? I hate false history. Including gay history that makes false claims or exceptional ones that are not supported. But neither am I a friend of bigotry that seeks to distort history. There is a seachange going on in historical studies where previously suppressed material is being published, and existing material re-evaluated, and if it is relevant, then I will endeavour to incorporate it, after filtering it through the editorial lens. Engleham (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment @Engleham: now I have no dog in this fight, however I do take into question your choice to misquote Collect's edit summary, the edit summary reads as follows, "BRD "Gay edit" reverted - please get consensus before trying this type of edit". You removed the " " from around "gay edit", denoting the content of the edit, not the edit itself. That behavior, if common with you, could get you into trouble for lying or misrepresenting facts. Personally, I think an apology is in order for that at least. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed the commas not to change the content but for formatting. I actually think the commas make it appear even more flippant! Anywaays, I think I'm very forbearing, but when it comes to childish WP:CRUSH tactics, which are just corrosive to the spirit of Wikipedia, I admit I have a short fuse. I note that in January of this year, I added this to Collect's Talk page: "YES, you were stalking me. And YES, I'll call you out again if it happens again. I've read what people have posted about you, so I realise my experience with you is far from unique. They got your number, and, so have I. By that I don't mean 43,000 edits, which impresses me not one whit. As I believe has already been pointed out to you, some of the most prolific and barnstarred editors on Wikipedia are some of the very worst. And your crowing as to being a crusading white knight of neutrality also impresses me not a whit: those who truly exercise it don't feel the need to go on about it; I've also witnessed several pathological manipulators claim the very same. You seem to hold the delusion that YOUR personal vision of Wikipedia, is the one that should prevail....Being flexible with some edits and content that may grate your teeth, if they don't blatantly contradict policy, is the way it works. In other words, with a measure of generosity... you are acting FAR from the neutrality you proclaim. Neutrality on Wikipedia also demands being reasonable, and not egotistical. I echo the advice of others to you: being more considered and generous in judgements, by editing less rather than more, would benefit not only Wikipedia, but also yourself." Fortunately, I usually don't have much to do with him -- its only when I move from drier or academic articles to popular articles such as - God save us - bloody Cary Grant, that there's intersection. But he clearly does stalk and needs to chill out -- including I'd suggest, with the amount of time spent tying up editors' and admins' time here and elsewhere with trivial issues. Is there a secret list maintained of chronic abusers of people's time and good will? Perhaps there should be. Engleham (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Moved to correct section as per Clpo13 many thanks ;) ** _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Did you mean to add this to a different section, perhaps? clpo13_(talk) 18:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I've recently reviewed the secret list of chronic abusers of people's time and good will. User:Collect does not appear there. Based on OP's TLDR WALLSOFTEXT and baseless accusations of homophobia and wiki-stalking, I've sent an in camera nomination of OP to be honored by inclusion on this occult list. The secret overlords will be holding their monthly clandestine meeting at a confidential time and undisclosed location of their choosing. After their Star Chamber proceeding, all will be set aright. David in DC (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't got anything useful to add to a discussion here (which clearly you haven't), it's probably not useful for you to post here at all. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Engleham:, I don't buy the "formatting" excuse, not from someone who claims to be a "careful and conscientious editor". But I don't want to get distracted by the side show - the main point is that you labeled another editor in a way that is a gross violation of civility. It is now up to you to decide whether you wish to stick by that comment. Note carefully, I am not asking whether you happen to believe it, but whether you think it is a proper thing to say here. If you think it was not a proper thing to say, you can think about appropriate next steps. If you think it was a proper thing to say, I'm going to request a community ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick Calling out an editor for engaging in WP:CRUSH; homophobic editing rather than fair editing; and stalking, isn't a "gross violation of civility" if the record supports the accusations and/or the other editor sincerely believes it is so. It's simply a plain english statement. What possible euphemisms could otherwise be employed? Whether, as here, the editor wishes to play-act at taking 'offence' at being confronted on their behaviour is up to them. After the expense of exceeding patience and civility, it needs plain stating if one is to have a hope of seeking modification of it. Let's briefly take just one of those accusations, the one you might consider the most difficult to prove, and I'll give you a single instance, and one that doesn't involve me. The article for Frederick the Great states: "Recent major biographers of Frederick, including Alings, Blanning, Burgdorf and Hahn, are unequivocal that he was predominately homosexual, and that his sexuality was central to his life and character." After that statement there's five citations. The statement is exceedingly clear. Last week I noted an editor added a link on the article to the LGBT Royalty page. Fair enough. It was swiftly deleted by Collect with the statement "very weak categorization at best". Now: given the contents of the article, you could not call that in any way an edit made in "good faith". I didn't bother addressing it, because it's pointless. And yes, one can characterise this a minor incident, which it is, but multiply it by 100 edits and the material begins to look quite compromised. Multiply the civilPOV pushing and stalking activity, and you may appreciate that my tolerance of it is less than what it was. Should they be subject to a ban? Or is such behaviour always too, too laboursome to prove? Hopefully, such exposure may give this editor pause. I think a sanction of myself for plain stating would be wrong, and send entirely the wrong message to them. Engleham (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I did not respond earlier, because I had not seen this until now. Despite the opening, it is not a ping. I don't see any value in responding at this late date.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Community ban requested

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

---

I had hoped that a little introspection would persuade Engleham that, even if they were convinced that Collect was homophobic, it is incivil to make such an assertion, and there are better ways to approach the issue (such as suggesting that particular edits were problematic, which is fundamentally different than smearing an editor.) I was wrong, and Engleham has declined to apologize and/or remove the castigation. I am very forgiving of editors lapses, if there is contriteness, and oppose blocks or bans associated with one-off events, but if one is specifically asked to think hard about a comment, and one still stands by it, then I don't want that editor contributing. Perhaps some time away and some introspection will persuade the editor to come back in the future with a more civil approach to editing.

• Support (as proposer)--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Homophobic is considered a standard description of a behavioural motivation. Some consider it an honour. Suggesting there's another way to describe that Frederick the Great edit and the similar one's he's made as anything other that what they are, is being utterly disingenuous. And as I stated, sending the wrong message to the wrong person. If sitting at AIDS death beds taught me anything, it's not to tolerate bigotry, and to know for fucking sure what I stand for. Consequently, if bigotry and the distortion of articles that flows from it is what you're willing to mollycoddle: after 10 years contributing here, I won't be back. And it will be a very easy decision. Finis. Engleham (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was easy for me to support when you willfully misrepresented an edit summary as I mentioned above and I don't buy your excuse for a second. Not to mention your tone in your comment just now, yeah, that's not helping your case. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As I stated, I did not change the message summary intentionally to alter its meaning, and I have no idea how you think the removal of the commas does. Do tell me, because for the life of me, I read it the same. If anything, it makes him look better and less anomalising of the expression. And I certainly wouldn't have intended that! As for leaving permanently, I'm serious. Have you looked at Collects back history? I mean genuinely gone in and looked. Because I'm making all this up? Engleham (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

They are not commas, they are quotation marks. It's important to copy the edit summary as it is and remove nothing. Also, as I said in my first comment on your issue, I have no dog in this fight, I know nothing of either one of you. My problem with you is that you removed something from the edit summary that could have and in my case did affect the interpretation of the summary. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Repeat: If anything, it makes him look better and less anomalising of the expression. And I certainly wouldn't have intended that! Engleham (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

And I repeat (notice I'm actually using quotations properly): "...removed something from the edit summary that could have and in my case did affect the interpretation of the summary." as in, your removal of them affected my initial interpretation of the summary. So, as I said, that's why you copy and paste them exactly as they are written. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I said I'm sorry. I quickly edited several commas in Source because things were italicising oddly, and I'm sorry I removed the inverted ones. I'm happy for you to read it any way you want, and interpret it any way you want. Christ: now I know how Hillary feels when she sneezes.Engleham (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support This is not a "one-off", rather it is the latest in a chain of long term problems with this editor. Personal attacks such as this are unacceptable, and Engelham's response indicates no intention to change course. There seems, therefore, no alternative to imposing the next block in the escalating series, as a minimum, as previous sanctions have failed to prevent recurrence. I'd further support an indefinite community ban on this occasion, since time-limited blocks have proved ineffective, and unblocking therefore needs to be only after the community is convinced the reasons for sanction are understood, and will not recur.-- Begoon 02:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon Mmm. Given Collect has even blocks than I, and for edit-warring,[75]what sanction does that formulate for you? Engleham (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

One further observation: it appears this has quickly assumed, thanks to @Sphilbrick, the format of a trial. I thought in a trial the evidence on both sides was carefully examined. That isn't happening. What's happening looks like both the easy cop-out, and pettiness. Well, that won't be a first here. As someone has previously noted, the AdminBoard's response to CivilPOV pushing has always been particularly poor given the time it takes to research. Engleham (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not going to comment on the merits of Collect's and Engleham's dispute, but per his block log and seeing how Engleham has continued to decline to apologize, I have to agree with Sphilbrick's sentiments. Yes the editing gets hot at times, but it's no excuse to not engage in a reasonable and not combative manner. If you are unable to do that and insist on playing a part in furthering conflicts and making others feel attacked, then you don't belong here. Calling others "homophobic" is contrary to our collaborative atmosphere, it does not matter if you think another contributor is "homophobic" or not, you're supposed to keep comments like that to yourself. As a formerly banned editor myself, I know from experience that eventually an editor should have to verbalize what is the problem with their editing/behavior before being allowed to continue to participate. I think this is such a circumstance. —Mythdon 03:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I'm never going to apologise for naming homophobia IF, after making every possibly concession, and being civil, it appears transparently clear that this behaviour is driving and and distorting edits. Because there's no other word in the english language that describes it so it can it can discussed, and hopefully mediated. That's why we have this clumsy word!!! Engleham (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

By way of a drive-by meta comment, what you seek, Mythdon, is not an apology but a change of mind, which is usually far more difficult. An apology without the change of mind would be insincere and disingenuous, and I doubt you want that. It is not an unimportant distinction, since it affects how we think about these disputes. In my most humble of opinions.
Also it's not clear how many participants here understand that accusations of homophobia, like just about any accusations at Wikipedia, may or not be PA, depending on whether there is evidence to support them. Homophobia does exist in the world, it can affect Wikipedia content in a seriously bad way, and it's appropriate and necessary to call a spade a spade. I say that knowing absolutely nothing about this case and without taking a position in it.
What constitutes adequate evidence of homophobia? I have no earthly idea. I doubt there is a "correct" answer to that question, just varying opinions. But the debate needs to be framed in the correct way unless we wish to overhaul WP:NPA, outlawing pejoratives outright.
My reasoning does appear to conflict with that of Sphilbrick, a more experienced editor than me, so I would be interested in his/her feedback. It's possible this is yet another case of conflicting community consensuses being allowed to persist because it's too difficult to resolve them. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I do disagree with your position, but it is a difference of nuance, albeit a non-trivial difference.

As a community, I believe we have stressed the importance of distinguishing between edits and editors. Thus, if editor A makes an edit that sounds like the type of edit a homophobic person might make, we describe the edit as consistent with homophobia, but do not leap to the conclusion that the editor can be described that way. There are multiple reasons for this. The editor may be unaware that the comment is viewed as homophobic by some. The person perceiving it might be wrong. There might be a misunderstanding in general.

The situation becomes a bit muddier if multiple edits occur. It becomes harder to separate the editors from the editor, but that's what we are supposed to do. Accusing an editor of being homophopic is a whole different discussion than debating whether edits 1,2 and 3 should be viewed as homophobic.

Engleham has declared the right to label someone as homophobic. I believe our community has said that such a labeling is not acceptable even if true (I happen to think it is not true, but that's not the central point.) Our message to Engleham ought to be that they are entitled to their beliefs, but we as a community have decided that they should not be expressed openly. Perhaps the community would like to revisit that position (or correct me if I have it wrong) but Engleham has essentially said, on more than one occasion - I don't care about your community standards, my views trump your rules If we do not enact a community ban, we are saying that a view good edits mean you do not have to follow the community rules. Enacting a community ban means that we, as a community, do have a right do decide what is acceptable discourse.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and I agree with that. I still think an apology, by itself, would be meaningless so demanding one, by itself, is pointless. Perhaps I took Mythdon's comments too literally, or perhaps we're using different definitions of "apology". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that demanding an apology is useless. What I think is needed is for the light to go on. I don't look for I apologize for my views, but I understand that expressing those views is contrary to the community norms, so I promise not to express them in the future. I retain the right to argue, even strongly, for my version of how the article should read, but I will cease labeling an editor based upon my opinion of their motivation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Copy-and-paste not allowed. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sphilbrick sums it up my position as to exactly what I was meaning by "apology". Took the words right out of my mouth. —Mythdon 20:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support I witnessed this user's behavior on Talk:Gary Cooper, where they tried to insert material on another golden-era Hollywood star's alleged homosexuality. In-between RfCs, Engleham received a one-month block for, among other things, a disgusting antisemetic attack on a fellow editor. After returning, Engleham proposed an almost identical RfC. Engleham didn't WP:DROPTHESTICK in the dispute, so it comes as no surprise that they continued to make ad hominem attacks. Some time away from the encyclopedia may be the best solution in this case.LM2000 (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@LM2000 among other things, a disgusting antisemetic attack on a fellow editor. Christ. What an utter bald faced liar you are, whoever you are. I've never been antisemetic in my life.Engleham (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the comments you made on your talk page on May 24. Right before your most recent block.LM2000 (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what was suggested, which was an utterly ridiculous and gross misrepresentation of lighthearted comments, (and taken as such by the balanced and sane), which had nothing whatsoever to do with antisemetism. Engleham (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support I was going to fast-forward past this section but the 03:22, 13 September 2016 comment above made me read enough to see that Engleham needs a break until ready to join the community. People disagree (aka fight) about edits all the time, but participants need to focus on edits and sources without claims about the motivations or honesty of others. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Noting my comments at User_talk:The_ed17#User_talk:Engleham where I note Engleham's comments:

your very own endlessly tedious soapbox lecturings on bias. (But as everyone who has ever crossed you knows all too well, such injunctions don't apply to you -- especially if you think you can get a rise out of the other party, puerile unhelpful rubbish that some other editor will eventually delete anyway - and not just your nemesis User:Dr. Blofeld.,

Your predicable baiting bullshit can rot by itself, Rosenfield's biography of Hepburn never appeared. Why? Because he suicided the same month as he wrote the review slagging Higham,

What?! You left out the part about the Gay Illuminati Conspiracy.,

If this material fails to convince anyone of Engleham's fairly clear incivility, I do not know what would. Well, maybe his remarks iterating his attack should make the case clear, I suppose. ("I'm never going to apologise for naming homophobia" appears to be an attack and refusal to even make a pseudo-apology for his attacks and disruptive editing , as I do understand English fairly well) Collect (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, @Collect that's correct. As a master of disruptive CivilPOV pushing edits, which many, many, many people have called you out on, I too am calling you out on it. And on your stalking. And on your homophobic edits. Will you admit to being homophobic? Because your edits, blind to fact or any semblance of concise rational argument, certainly have all the markings of old geezer bigotry, and are wildly distortionary in that respect. Engleham (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Support permanent ban at this point I think that Engleham has now set a record. At least he has not used anti-Semitic slurs as he did about another editor. Please, someone, act. I think he has dug a hole large enough at this point. For the record, I am not "homophobic" as my friend and neighbor who was an early AIDS death could have told you. Your repeated namecalling is extraordinarily ill-aimed, and makes me less than pleased with your view of civility. Collect (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Collect. Yes, I'm sure you did a nice neighbourly line in patronisation. Contrary to what you state, you ARE clearly a liar peddling LM2000s gross falsehood. Which you know to be so. Obviously that cancer didn't grow on its own! Engleham (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Collect. Oh dear. I now see the dear Dr is accusing you of lying as well! Aren't people simply ghastly! And on such a VITAL self-award! It must have been shattering. It was wise to scrub his comments from your Talk Page. But then, scrubbing all that endless negativity from others must be exhausting. I prefer to let people's silliness, like here, just sit and fester, so others can come along later and smirk at it in wonder. Engleham (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So now you add "liar" again to your incivility? And I peddle gross falsehood? I think now you need a permaban more than ever. And you were warned by an admin recently that he would impose a far stiffer sanction if you repeated your recent behavior? I simply suggest that at this point, you are not only not here to build an encyclopedia, your actions appear well bent on destroying it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support with regret. I was going to oppose this as s serious overreaction to a legitimate grievance. The term "homophobic" in the modern world is a slur. It is a blatant accusation of bigotry and Engleham should know that. But a CBAN is the closest thing the project has to capital punishment and I am not a fan of that in any form. (If I have ever voted for a CBAN I can't remember it.) Unfortunately as I read through the comments, including his 03:22 statement it is becoming uncomfortably clear that Engleham just doesn't get it. The final nail in the coffin was a look at his block record. This is an unrepentant serial offender. An indeff block would work for me. But we are where we are. The bottom line is that too much time has been spent over the years dealing with this kind of disruptive behavior from one editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. An indefinite block would be sufficient in this case. Community bans should be reserved for the very worst of the worst, and this editor isn't even currently blocked at all. Most admins that oppose community bans point out that a "de facto" ban is automatically put in place when an indefinite block wouldn't be reversed by any reasonable admin. I see this as overkill. Indef, if needed (currently it apparently is not), then go from there. Doc talk 06:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871 The ed17 stated on Engleham's talk page: "@HighInBC: I've upped the block to a month. The level of disruption is just too much to ignore, and there have been several previous two-week blocks. Next one will be indef. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC) " Yes - the user has specifically been warned that their next block would be indef. So the conditions you mention do exist already. And this violation is worse than any admin has ever tolerated in the past. Collect (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Shall we go through your blocks, Collect, step by step? Engleham (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh. The die has been cast. But I don't buy it. I'm sure I'll be the only oppose here. A CBAN is overkill, absolutely. CBANs are for prolific trolls. This guy is unpopular. Why is he still allowed to comment here if he needs to be CBANned? A block would not suffice, to prevent disruption? PC overkill. Doc talk 08:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support After seeing the comment "More of this A Type New York good jewishboy overthinking and anxiety, and you'll be in the coronary ward nursing your new stent" on their talkpage it is clear they are unable to avoid personalising disputes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That was in response to the fabulous NYBrad after my No vote for the lovely Oz Admin. Bless him: in the office we all thought we'd die. Speaking of dying: I think Doc9871's suggestions are slightly confusing. I admit I'm not on the distinctions between these two sanctions, but the difference between them appears a mere matter of semantics, and the kind of thing that makes non-Wikipedians hoot. One appears to be Death, and the other, Death With Spit. Rather Monty Pythonesque, non? Especially given the most enthusiastic potential rock thrower here is - quelle surprise -- Collect who lodged the whinge. Also perhaps not surprisingly, hypocritically he has a longer block log than myself..... for edit warring. And it was my refusal to tolerate any longer his particular tactics in that regard which created this situation. We know Wikipedia doesn't grasp irony well, but I'm feeling quite martyred. Messiah like, even. So whatever is most suitable Death Option in that situation would surely be the preferable one. Engleham (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

To get to the point where you make a 'Jew' joke/insult/whatever targeted at another editor, you have to firstly identify they are of Jewish heritage (in this case fairly easy), then think its appropriate to do so. Firstly I think its telling you think its appropriate at all to make that sort of racist stereotyping comment, secondly deliberately personalising a dispute in that manner is against any number of policies. RE the difference in sanction, an indefinite block means that any administrator can unblock you on a suitable display of contrition. A community ban means a discussion has to be had by the community. A community ban is proposed when when editors think there is little chance of rehabilitation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to read my original comments somewhere on the admin voting page, then mix yourself a cocktail, and read his interpretation of them. I think you'll find it was a light-hearted but well-framed joke. My litmus test is a similar gay joke against myself. If I took offence: well fuck me for taking myself so seriously. I didn't hear back, so hopefully he got it. In the new world of perceived slights and the constantly triggered, I don't particularly care. Ta for the explanation on the sanctions. So I was right! ;-) No, I certainly have no contrition with regards to this one. Any gay man truly worth their salt would slap themselves for pandering and conceding as much as I have to such persistent homophobia. It needs to be named. The idea, floated upthread, by @Sphilbrick that there are other ways to approach the issue and suggest the edits are problematic ---well, dur -- but genuine bigots will never negotiate even in the face of fact, so one either walks away, become another victim of WP:CRUSH, or call their bluff - which, after a long, long history of revisions and realising no level of concession was considered acceptable, is what I did. Engleham (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The majority of editors that really need to be community banned would have been blocked and forbidden from commenting here a bit ago. Congratulations! You have the ability (for now) to comment on your death sentence. An unusual situation. Doc talk 09:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised Madam Defarge has prolonged it. Bring on the purple, I say. I believe everything that needs to be said has been said. I acknowledge Wikipedia operates in a collegiate manner. However, occasionally, one may have to make a call within that paradigm. Consequently, I believe I did the right thing; the guiltier party is going unpunished and will so continue their behaviours to the detriment of fact. Process wins over fairness, and content suffers. Engleham (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Dickens, eh? Typical. Ban this upstart. Forthwith! Doc talk 09:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support', pace Doc, who makes a very good point. Yes there is a distinction, but IMO a block is a unilateral action and something that has consensus from a larger group is basically a ban, so a debated sanction like this one is a ban whether we call it that or not. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Should I do the closing summary? A sad discussion regarding an editor trying to deal with long-term bigotry by calling it out, and which could have addressed what is a familiar but occasionally deeply problematic issue in a more empathetic and innovative manner, but instead chose to go down a predictable route of simple condemnation of the response, but not of the triggering action. Unsatisfactory resolution that offered no insightful discussion on a very real problem that can impact on editors, or ideas for fresh approaches to rigid editorial walls shaped by belief. Departed of his own volition. Engleham (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Silence, Fiend. Doc talk 11:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

For a tender shimmering breast-clutching moment I thought that read 'Friend'. Engleham (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Friend only to the foul denizens of the abyss! Begone, Thing! Unspeakable. Banished and accursed! Doc talk 11:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't.... stop. Let me just undo a few buttons. Engleham (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. Now, seriously. The cart has been put in front of the horse here. Yer basically screwed for being un-PC. "Consensus" on this thread will have you community banned. It's not due process by any means, but it's reality. Sorry I couldn't do more to sway the mob. From now on we should have NOTHERE be a community ban criteria, BTW. Doc talk 12:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yer basically screwed for being un-PC I haven't said a single word about the hair of ArbCom. But yes, that sense of unease when justice seems ill-served and peremptorily, does hang like a vapour. Engleham (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - An indefinite block is enough here. The comments by Engleham have overstepped any bounds of civility, no personal attacks and arguably aspersions and on the one hand left my jaw slack, but, on the other hand came from a misguided attempt to uphold the rights of the homosexual community. I have no qualms with standing up for what you believe in, but, when every single editor says in one form or another "you fucked up" it usually means that "you fucked up". That's where the request for contrition comes in. You could have and should have said to yourself; okay, I may be wrong here. I hate false contrition though, absolutely despise it. So to be honest, I actually prefer Engleham's brutal honesty (honesty regarding what he thinks) to some false half-baked apology. Now if you showed some genuine contrition that's fine, but, it's not going to happen. Besides, Departed of his own volition. Goodbye and good luck, and please avoid using slurs on possibly innocent people. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note on Re-opening: This discussion was closed yesterday by User:Ritchie333 with the following summary:

Engleham (talk · contribs) is blocked for one month for repeated personal attacks and failure to drop the stick in disputes. Although this is considerably less than the community ban people are calling for, those who have opposed the ban (especially Doc9871) are still comfortable with a block, and one month off (per precedent set by The ed17 in May and escalating accordingly) seems to be about the lenient I can make it given everything that has been discussed here and not make it sound like a witch hunt. Engleham is reminded that repeated behaviour in future may well result in an indefinite block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Per a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for review of close on WP:ANI, this close did not reflect the consensus of the community who had commented so far. In that AN thread, some proposed reopening this discussion, others proposed changing the 1 month block to a community ban. I'm opting to reopen this, both to see if there is a late surge in people who agreed with Ritchie's approach, and because community ban discussions typically last at least 24 hours. The 1 month block while the discussion is going on throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the plan; however, I think Engleham has commented adequately (and to his great disadvantage) in this thread already, and there is universal agreement that a 1 month block is at the very least justified, so I am not going to unblock so he can make more personal attacks in a thread about him making personal attacks. if he wishes to comment further, he can post something on his talk page with a {{helpme}} template, and if it does not contain personal attacks, someone can move it here. I will let him know about this change to the situation on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support community ban. Engleham got his first block for personal attacks in 2007, and his latest one last May (the current block not included), and was blocked multiple times for personal attacks and harassment in between those blocks, clearly showing that he either can't change his ways or doesn't want to change his ways. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support for CBAN An extensive block log is one thing, but having just reviewed Engleham's recent user talk page comments and their contributions to recent discussions, it's clear that their present perspectives on what constitutes appropriate engagement on this project fall so woefully short of even the most baseline community standards regarding civility that this must be considered a basic competency issue. Nearly every criticism of their behaviour or comment by a concerned community member is met with a PA--including recurrent references to race, old age, and other personal characteristics that some might say cross into the territory of hate speech, but which certainly, at the very least, are crass and caustic. Volunteers who have attempted to reach out and advise that the worst of these behaviours be avoided, as civilly as they might advise on such, have been derided to an extent that can only be appropriately classified as heckling.

Indeed, for me there seems to be more than a little bit of a sense here that Engleham thrives on this kind of discord--a notion supported by his repeated (and quite frankly creepy and deeply inappropriate) references to sexual gratification whenever someone expresses a particularly strong objection to his behaviour. The overwhelming impression I got from reading his talk page in particular (and the often self-amused, gleeful way in which he responds to concerns there), was that he just thinks he's a very clever chap, and that he need not regard the concerns of his fellow community members as anything more than an opportunity to prove his wit through naked insults and by relaying the insights he feels he perceives into the character of others. This impression is bolstered by the fact that even long-term blocks do not seem to concern him and do not seem to have modified his behaviour in the slightest.

Taking all of this together, my impression is that this editor lacks a temperment necesary to contribute to this project in a constructive manner and a community ban is in order--and especially necessary so that the editor is blocked from returning unless they convince the community that they have taken the time to truly understand and internalize this community's most basic behavioural standards, rather than potentially manipulating a single admin who might be unfamiliar with their track-record for disruption and vitriolic treatment of others. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• copied (and updated [e/c]) ( Begoon 03:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)) from Engleham's talk page:

  {{Help me}}

  Thank you @Floquenbeam and again, @Ritchie333 @Doc9871 I would like to say on the re-opened thread:

  I was endeavouring to get the behaviour of the complainant to stop. It is something of no little surprise to me that no one has commented on that fact, or whether the statements made were true, or possibly true. The other party's harassing behaviour has been beyond endurance. I stated firstly that they had been "S---g" i.e. relentlessly following my edits, even when repeatedly asked to stop. And I pasted upthread a review of their actions on this over a single 24 hour period to enable some perception of it. I stated that they had been civil POV pushing and "H----c" in their editing. Whatever personal views an editor holds I care not a whit. However, it is a different matter if in their editing their personal disapproval refuses to allow neutrally worded facts, supported by reliable sources. The other party has 10 previous bans, mostly for edit-warring. That suggests, does it not, that there may be truth in my statement they are civil POV pushing, and that they have generated a huge amount of frustration in other editors, not only myself - frustration that leads to frankness. As for the second statement, I don't know any euphemism to describe 'H---c' behaviour in editing - does anyone? Not conceding neutrally worded material backed by reliable sources, isn't just unfair, and compromising: it's enormously frustrating for any editor. There's lots of material most of us don't like on Wikipedia, but if its neutrally worded and backed by reliable sources, we don't touch it. To sum up: (a) I wrote what I did from deep conviction that it was true, and repeated bad behaviour (b) I wrote it in order for the behaviour to cease and (c) and I don't any other words to describe the behaviour. (I don't believe 'H----c' is uncivil when it describes the specific nature of the edits, and I'm only blanking it to ensure this is hopefully posted.) To install a lifetime ban for this seems extraordinarily unfair. It also seems to be sending a very wrong message: that YES, you can get away with any amount of bad behaviour on Wikipedia, provided you are very keen, very cunning, and ingenuously civil. And I believe most experienced editors here would at least privately concede that they are aware of this invidious loophole. Engleham (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding, or pretending to misunderstand, the nature of the observations from the numerous members of the community who have decided to endorse a community ban against you--an extremely rare sanction that most of us don't like to consider for any but the most hopeless circumstances. If this were a mere dispute between two editors, no one would have contemplated that action. But your personal attack directed at Collect (who, it must be admitted, has a checkered history of his own) is simply the last straw for a community that has given you rope just one too many times, only to have you return to the same disruptive, incivil behaviour. Your conduct in this thread alone makes it fairly obvious how hopelessly incapable you are of taking criticism or advice from anyone; ever attempt to get you to reflect meaningfully on your behaviour is met with snide, sarcastic remarks which you seem to feel represent wit, but which in reality is just an unflattering composite of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, personal attacks, and outright WP:TROLLING.

Your talk page is even worse. Any attempt to restrain your incivility there is met by truly caustic reprisal. When one particularly patient and well-intentioned editor reached out to you with excessive politeness as part of an effort to get you to reform your behaviour with the softest approach he could manage under the circumstances, you zeroed in on his Jewish ancestry instantly, in a comment which only didn't get you banned then because he chose not to report it. And really, you need to stop trying to convince us that comment was meant collegialy; no one says, in essence, "Oh stop overreacting, Jew--you'll have a coronary!" in a spirit of comradery. The fact that you either think (or more likely, want to pretend) that Newyorkbrad didn't respond because he took that light-heatedly demonstrates your basic lack of social competency here. I can pretty well guarantee you that he didn't respond not because he was chortling away at your quick wit but because he chose to take the high ground and not enable you in pulling him into the kind of mud-wallowing that seems to be your modus operandi here--an act of cool deliberation and indifference to your blatant trolling that is so impressive, I intend to give him an anti-flame barnstar for it. All of which doesn't even touch the comments where you respond to criticism with creepy sexual or violent undertones that you can't possibly not recognize as inappropriate in this environment.

These acts are not isolated incidences, but indeed (insofar as I have been able to tell from any page I looked into when considering my position on this community vote) entirely typical of your approach to disagreements with others on this project, straight through to your most recent interactions. Worse still, you can't even admit that there is anything whatsoever wrong in your approach to these situations, no matter how many editors attempt to articulate the issues to you, no matter how they do so, and no matter how many sanctions you are handed for this behaviour, making it absolutely impossible for us to consider giving you further rope. Your efforts in your most recent post to reduce this to just an issue between you and Collect (despite all of the commentators above making it clear that they are endorsing a ban because of your general behaviour), so that your actions will somehow be "justified", shows just how completely you are missing the message here; even if Collect's behaviour was just as deplorable and unacceptable, that would only mean that we would be discussing two community bans instead of one.

I think you need to accept that you blew past your point of return a while ago (and with people trying to flag you down to warn you). This ban has universal support from everyone who has commented--the extremely small minority that don't think you should be CBANned are still suggesting a "mere" indefinite block. It seems to me that this ban is going to happen--and must happen, because you are not presently equipped with the social tools and the perspective necessary to correct your behaviour. So my advice to you is this: take this as a learning opportunity. Leave the project for a time, and reflect on what got you here. By which I mean, not what other people were involved in you getting here, but what you did that brought you to this point. Pursue other collaborative ventures if you can, and, if you still feel called to our community endeavour, come back in a year or two (surely six months at a minimum, but I daresay that would be pushing it in this instance) and make your case based on what you feel were the issues that prevented you from getting on in a civil fashion here. This is a very lenient community that generally wants to see the best in its own, and we need every experienced editor we can get. So if you find the words, and you mean them, you'll probably be welcomed back.

You say that you are a person who has seen a lot of ugly intolerance in your life and that you think of yourself as someone who would never put that kind of negativity into the world--I take you at face value when you say that. But you need to try to hear us when we tell you, the way you have presented yourself here is a source of discord and animosity, and nothing short of self-reflection and honesty will fix that at this point. I wish you luck, but I for one will not be changing my position on the resolution at this time. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• further comment copied ( Begoon 06:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)) from Engleham's talk page:

  One further thing: it should be noted that, a glance at the other party's blog log shows only the equivalent of hand slaps for their behaviour and, unlike mine, no escalation in their blocks whatsoever. In fact, theirs have actually gone backwards in length: "2 weeks, 1 week, 1 week, 48 hours, 1 week, 72 hours, 24 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 24 hours". [76] So obviously this supports to a degree the contention that you can get away with any amount of bad behaviour as long as it is civil -- just don't make the mistake, when you call it out, of stating it exactly for what it is! (Which also begs the question: if my review can be reopened, why not theirs as well?) My mistake has been never to lodge a complaint with ANI, but attempt to deal with incidents alone. If I'm given a reprieve, that's one mistake I won't make in future. Engleham (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose CBan as being WP:OTT. The block as is is sound. Rather distasteful, actually, the desperation with which the 'community' is scrabbling around for its pound of flesh *sigh* Highly unnecessary. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  Ah yes because a CBan can be WikiProject Ottawa. Got a better link there? -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 19:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  This illustrates the absolute absurdity of this CBAN request to me very clearly. "All of which doesn't even touch the comments where you respond to criticism with creepy sexual or violent undertones that you can't possibly not recognize as inappropriate in this environment." Creepy violent or sexual undertones. What the hell is an "undertone"?! Doc talk 08:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's like an overtone but lower. EEng 08:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, EEng, it's only the band that made one of the greatest singles ever..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well Doc, maybe I'm talking about the post immediately above where he responds to your (apparently insincere?) criticisms with "Don't.... stop. Let me just undo a few buttons." Other examples include, "let me get the ", "it's making me so HARD!", ect. Do you find that to be appropriate conduct in a volunteer workspace? If so, I daresay you are in the minority here. Mileage may vary with regard to the use of violent imagery as a metaphor and whether it's appropriate, but it's worth mentioning as part of the issues that Newyorkbrad brought to Engleham's talk page which earned him such volatile rebuke, including reference to Brad's supposed predilection towards "overthinking and anxiety" as an "A Type New York good jewishboy"... Snow ^{let's rap} 08:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"can't possibly not recognize as inappropriate". I don't even know if that makes grammatical sense. Can you specifically point to actual reasons this editor must be CBANned without launching into a philosophical dissertation? The essay you wrote above? It doesn't convince me that this specific editor must be CBANned. Doc talk 09:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, what lead you to the assumption that it was meant to convince -you- of anything? It was clearly written as a response to Engleham's assertions that his behaviour was justified and that discussion here should focus solely on his conflict with Collect. And to a lesser extent, also an honest attempt to impart to him what would need to be done to return to the community if he is banned. That you don't find it compelling doesn't weigh heavily on me, but it's certainly not philosophical--these are pragmatic concerns. And yes, the sentence is grammatically sound. Just as a side note, I won't be engaging with you further here; there's enough distraction attached to this thread without chasing you down this rabbit hole. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You're an admin hopeful, eh? Keep hoping. Diffs are better for proving actual bad behavior than your bandwagon little rant. Bye. Doc talk 09:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth would I provide you a diff for a post that he directed to you and that you clearly were aware of? But ok, let's see if I can remember how this diff thing works: here's a diff of someone being incredibly incivil and needlessly personalizing a discussion by apparently going to my user page to look for something personal about me that they can work into a petty insult that has no bearing on the discussion at hand, just for the sake of it. I think you should pause and consider where you are taking this; none of this nastiness is helping Engleham's situation. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Can any editor demanding a community ban briefly explain why a block (indefinite, if need be), is insufficient to prevent disruption in this case? Why is a CBAN needed? Has there been block evasion? Is blocking just simply not going to work here? Doc talk 10:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: The main difference is that community bans can only be undone by the community (through consensus among editors) and the Arbitration Committee (see WP:UNBAN), while an indefinite block can be undone by any administrator at any time, simply through unblocking the editor. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So extreme caution must be taken with this editor? Because if just any admin unblocked them it would be a serious mistake? Doc talk 13:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

While you can unilaterally overturn a vanilla block just by hitting the right buttons, don't expect to walk away from it without being dragged to this very noticeboard, tarred, feathered, and if you're really lucky, emergency desysopped. You cannot win against a blocking admin who really wants to win. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Community ban. Support a one month Civility block (Ritchie333 was on point here). Block log and positive contribution history do not indicate that a more severe action is called for. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it is acceptable, not just to violate community norms, but to openly state, more than once, that they will continue to break the rules? If that doesn't earn a ban, what does? --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment copied from Engleham's talk page. Huon (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick "to openly state, more than once, that they will continue to break the rules?" That makes me seem like some mad rogue element! What I specifically wrote was: "I'm never going to apologise for naming homophobia IF, after making every possibly concession, and being civil, it appears transparently clear that this behaviour is driving and and distorting edits. Because there's no other word in the english language that describes it so it can it can discussed, and hopefully mediated. That's why we have this clumsy word!" The naming of the stalking or Civil POV pushing doesn't seem to have been such an issue. If you can suggest to me some way to describe homophobic editing so it can pointed out to the other party in a way that would be acceptable, I'm completely willing to adopt it. Providing it's as clear as the current word. Does that make sense? When you're trying to moderate an action one has to name it somehow. Get where I'm coming from? n.b. I don't object to homophobic editing if it's balanced and backed up by sources. It's the blind blocking of the other perspective I object to, even when heavily sourced. Engleham (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Engleham: The problem is that your opinion about what is or isn't a proper source doesn't match Wikipedia's definition of proper sources (see WP:RS), as was painfully evident on Gary Cooper where you repeatedly added what was nothing but rumours and wild speculations, sourced only to fringe books, material that isn't even mentioned in any of the major recognised biographies and is contradicted by other sources. Your definition of what constitutes "homophobic editing" also doesn't match the general definition of that here, or in society at large, and demanding that all other editors adjust to your definitions just isn't acceptable. Accusing other editors of homophobia just because they revert your improperly sourced edits, as you did with me on Gary Cooper, also isn't acceptable. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a community ban, but support more stringent blocks if the trolling and unacceptable comments continue. GAB^gab 15:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose indefblock or community ban. I became familiar with this editor from a dispute in May and realize that he seeks to make substantial good-faith contributions to the project. It must be said that after he was brought up short in May regarding his sexually laden comments, so far as I know he ceased to make such comments, nor has he returned to the RfA pages where that dispute originated. There are aspects of his recent contributions that obviously are problematic, but I would favor a much more nuanced response than Engleham's permanent exclusion from the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: From this very thread. Look, if you want to try to see the best in this contributor, that's admirable, and I for one won't attempt to sway your !vote, but I think you just illustrated the very heart of the problem here: no concern that the community brings to this editor, as proactive individuals such as yourself or collectively, ever gets corrected (or even so much as acknowledged by him as an issue). He just waits out his block and then goes straight back to the offensive behaviour. When you brought that issue to him from the RfA, he just laughed at your perspective (literally, he said he was laughing), insulted you as a wound-up jew, explicitly told you he was going to change nothing in his approach, and then did exactly that (as evidenced by the fact that he's continued with that behaviour here). I think you may want to go back and read his responses to you before you declare that he was "brought up short", because he blew right through your objections (as he does with the community at large) and just continued with his usual, disruptive behaviour.

And the sexual thing is really the least of it. Yeah, it's weird and unsettling and unacceptable in spades. Telling someone that you want to touch yourself because that's what their being upset does for you is a behaviour that, if done in the workplace, would be considered textbook sexual harassment. I don't think we should view it any differently just because the people here choose to volunteer their time, and I know from your comments to him that you feel much the same way. But it's not even this editors most disruptive behaviour. Not even close. The various racial and ageist comments are probably what concern me most--though there's a true packet of inappropriate behaviours to choose from here. The irony is that this whole discussion kicked off because Engleham wants to fight what he perceives to be homophobia, and he's willing to make leaps in judgement about what other editors feel in that regard and what he speculates to be the motivation for their actions. And yet, he has no problem with insulting people on the basis of their heritage or age or other group features--in an outright and unapologetic manner. We know that he considers it perfectly alright to suggest that you are prone to nervous energy because you are Jewish, but what do you suppose he would have to say if someone attributed some offensive characteristic to him because he is gay? Holy moley, can you imagine the result?

And yet he still cannot acknowledge that any of his behaviour is problem. Look at the above--not on one occasion does he concede even the smallest issue with his approach. In fact, he tells us outright that he will not change anything, no matter what we say. Either everyone who criticizes him is being too PC, or we don't get that Collect "made" him say what he said with his edits. Look at his talk page, same story; all of those issues brought to him and he just laughs them off and insults the people bringing them to his attention. That's why we're considering this ban now. We don't need contrition from him, but at the very least we do need an acknowledgement that there are issues and promise that he will work to bring his behaviour within our community guidelines. He seems to be psychologically incapable of making that concession, so what options do we have left aside from to conclude that he is going to remain unable to contribute to this project, and interact with it's other volunteers, without this continued disruption? Snow ^{let's rap} 22:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad:, as the author of the request for the community ban, it wasn't remotely my goal to push for a "permanent exclusion from the project". I have a strong dislike for indefinite blocks, so have never supported one, but I strongly support the community's belief that civil discourse allows negative comments about edits but not negative comments about editors. Had Engleham acknowledged that distinction, and simply stated that in the heat of the moment they inadvertently stepped over the line, or even that they didn't appreciate the distinction, and now that they know, they would refrain in the future, I wouldn't be calling for a ban, or even a short block. But even after being told that such behavior will not be tolerated, they openly stated their intention to repeat it. I don't think we should allow such a person in our community, but as soon as they claim they will follow the community rule to comment on the edit, rather than the editor, I'd be happy to let them return. I see that a ban is not supposed to be short-term, so perhaps an indef block would be more in line with my position, but I still dislike them, so I'll stick with support for a ban, to be overturned as soon as the editor agrees to follow the rules.

@Doc9871: You asked why a ban not a block. I'll try to give my rationale, which is mostly semantics (which is often invoked to mean it isn't important, but I am using it to say it is important.) Imagine an editor who mostly does good edits, but then commits a copyvio. They get warned. They do it again, and again, and eventually they get a short block. If they keep doing it, they get an indef block, with the message that we will welcome them back when they can demonstrate they understand the rule and commit to not violating it. I would characterize that editor as a member of the Wikipedia editing community, who has a problem that needs to be addressed. They haven't claimed that copyrights should be ignored, they haven't declared that they will deliberately violate copyright policy, they've just been sloppy and haven't taken on board that we intend to respect copyright. If someone asked me to talk about our community, I would describe it and would count that editor as part of the community. In contrast, Engleham has been told that labeling a person, rather than an edit, as homophobic, is contrary to our policy. The response isn't "oops, I will try to avoid that". The response is "too bad, I'm not stopping". I do not want that person to be part of our community. They can respond - "it grates at every fiber of my being not to label a person the way I see fit, but I accept that your rules prohibit it, so Ill stop." If that response, or the equivalent is given, I'd support lifting the block now. So, in my mind, someone who is subject to a block is a member of our community, but currently blocked so unable to edit presently. Someone subject to a ban is someone we do not want as part of our community, as long as they insist they retain the right to personally attack other editors. Functionally, not much different, but the mindset is important to me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - per his own statements in this thread - (1) I'm never going to apologise for naming homophobia - doesn't seem to recognize or even acknowledge that calling someone homophobic is a personal attack. (2) it appears transparently clear that this behaviour is driving and distorting edits - if it's so clear, then it should be easy to provide evidence in the form of diffs to support this argument. (3) Collect has been stalking me for over a year, on and off - here's their interactions for the last year. And it appears to me from just a random sampling of those interactions - Bowers, Kelly, Holt, Beaton - that Collect was correct in his reverts, and there is no evidence (that I can find in their interactions) of "homophobic editing". And yes, Collect is keen on removing speculation/insinuation/gossip/innuendo and poorly sourced content about people's sexual orientation, and he should be thanked for that, rather than being labeled and attacked.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  copied ( Begoon 02:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)) from Engleham's talk page:

  "And it appears to me from just a random sampling of those interactions" The Beaton addition isn't mine; the Bowers edit removed a quote from The Independent which supported the subject in his claims: its sneaky erasure made him seem less reliable; his Kelly edit removed information cited with the two leading newspapers of Australia (the individual was Australian, but hey, what do they know), and the Holt one he actually lost to a host of other editors (see the Talk page thread: it's slightly shorter than the Bible).

  "A personal attack" See my clarification to Sphilbrick upthread.

  "where you repeatedly added what was nothing but rumours and wild speculations, sourced only to fringe books" Yes, because everyone knows that publishers like Viking, Doubleday, and McFarland & Company must not be reputable. And yes: the theories were very wild. I wasn't permitted to state even the name of the Cooper's closest friend, actor Anderson Lawler. I certainly won't make the mistake again of wasting my time editing Hollywood bios, when every source put up, not matter how authoritative, is rubbished by keepers of the flame. As another editor wrote on my page: "Cooper is a conservative poster boy….I faced a similar battle..It's just not worth the hassle to try to insert facts about people that a certain element don't want to hear, so save yourself the heartache." Engleham (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Snow Rise, who has made several extremely insightful comments here, and per why I blocked Engleham back in May. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Further thoughts (with apologies for commenting after closure)

@Drmies, Collect, and Engleham: I am disappointed that I returned to this page today to find this discussion closed. There's nothing wrong, procedurally, with the closing, and I had, and have, significant thoughts that I would like to have considered, and my "relative silence" was based upon my thinking through how best to express them. The concerns here do not arise from silly behavior such as Engleham engaged in a few months ago, or from the obnoxious types of comments he was making then, but seems to have mostly stopped making now. (Bear in mind that I'm the person who went to his talkpage and read him the riot act at the time, which he didn't appreciate one bit.)

Rather, what is raised here is a fundamental issue about the treatment of the sexuality and private lives of historical figures. What Collect sees as immature gossip-mongering based on dubious sources, Engleham may see as socially productive recognition, based on the best albeit imperfect sources available, that members of today's LGB+ communities had historical predecessors, and that their need to live closeted lives in the twentieth century to avoid stigmatization, career loss, and worse does not exist today when the article subjects are long gone. Engleham sees Collect as a "homophobe," and he is wrong about the substance of the allegation and doubly wrong in how he has expressed it—but Collect sees Engleham as a POV-pushing introducer of pointless salaciousness into the encyclopedia and I don't think that is right either.

What exactly is to be done with this is not an easy question; obviously we don't want the name-calling, and we may not want some of the content Engleham is proposing, though I don't think it's all as beyond the pale as Collect suggests, either. Compounding the problem here is that Engleham's wiki-personality is one that won't back down from a fight—or to put it more correctly, won't admit he's backing down from a fight. He never acknowledged that his RfA comments back in May created a completely unnecessary mess—but he hasn't been back there. He never acknowledged that some of his personal remarks were making people uncomfortable—although he did write at one point about understanding that different Wikipedians come from different experiences—but he's stopped making them. He never acknowledged that his references to my parents and my religion were ham-handed and ill-advised, but he dropped the subject. I think with a little bit of thinking he'll realize that the term "homophobic" is inflammatory and unnecessary and he'll stop using it, even if he's unwilling to admit that he shouldn't have used it or regrets having done so.

But maybe it's all moot after all, or maybe I'm just misguidedly trying to save someone who's too high-maintenance to bother with. Any thoughts? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Brad, no apology necessary for commenting after the close, but please accept mine if you felt I closed it too soon. Your various points are well taken, and I just want to say that my close had less to do with the substance of the matter and more with the manner in which things were expressed--a manner which, apparently, is pretty soundly rejected by the community. I suppose that is part of the essence of civility. I hope that Engleham realizes that there is a way back into the community, but considering the previous history ("pre-existing narrative", in the context of the current US election) and the strong statements made by commentators in this thread it seems that simply dropping the matter isn't enough, nor did the editor actually drop the matter while this discussion was going on. I really can't comment on Collect's role in the dispute since the discussion--which has been going on for a while--didn't focus on it. It is entirely possible that Collect doesn't come to this with clean hands but the discussion didn't produce anything that lets me point a finger at him. I hope indeed that Engleham comes to the realization you describe above, and that they will be wise enough to take the appropriate course of action, which might include you as a champion. That kind of role is one that I have always admired in longterm editors including yourself and that on occasion I have been able to emulate. I think you know better than most people that that is a lonesome occupation, and I hope that others appreciate that.

  If editors wish to reopen this because it was closed too quickly, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue with the way you conducted the close, but, I preferred the outcome of Ritchie333's close to this one. I thought an indef was sufficient since it could be overturned by an administrator if they were given good reason to do so. A community ban requires community consensus and to be honest I don't think anything would come of an appeal by Engleham. I think if so many editors were able to jump on this so quickly in support of CBAN than an appeal doesn't stand a "snowball's chance in hell". I don't like throwing out an editor that does contribute out the door in this way. This isn't a WP:NOTHERE case and so I hate to see the CBAN implemented. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I would indeed like to see this reopened, as I remain troubled by either an indefblock or a ban as the outcome, but there's no point unless someone agrees with me. It's quite likely that Engleham will never check here again anyway. We need to find a way to resolve issues that isn't too fast-moving in banning a ten-year contributor, as happened here, nor too slow, as in noticeboard threads that languish, or monthslong arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Brad, whilst I supported here (which I guess makes me a part of the 'lynch mob shouting "Ban him! Ban him! Ban him!"[77]) I don't disagree that a better way to deal with long-term user issues like this one is sorely needed. As you say, it can't be arbcom (whose last two accepted cases, incidentally, seem to me far better examples of "lynch-mobs" than this is - although, on the positive side, the "mobs" may not ultimately prevail there...), and this board does not always do this well. So what does that leave us with? A revamped version of RFC/U, which, despite its flaws, was capable of some good? Discussions for elsewhere, I guess. I also think people are being overly pessimistic about the response which a considered appeal from Engleham would receive. Sure, it would need to satisfy folks that the issues were addressed, but plenty of people manage to express strong opinions here in acceptable ways, and the community has a long record of accepting appeals which it feels have a chance of a successful outcome. -- Begoon 02:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else have thoughts here? I recognize all the ironies of my being the one to take this position, but I still think the outcome here is a mistake, albeit one for which in the absence of a further appeal by the banned person himself, I probably have no remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Webzen Games

An editor, Zenoknuckle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently popped up trying to add POV-style info about the this game company supposedly banning its userbase, etc, using bad sourcing (youtube videos), and appealing to popular opinion as a reliable source for community outrage, etc. Part of the stuff they added was well-sourced, but they've started deleting this well-sourced info as well in anger after being told that some of their additions were in violation of WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:VG/S. It doesn't seem like I'm getting through to them on their talk page, either. Eik Corell (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Zenoknuckle? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, corrected it. Eik Corell (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Better to just fix it from one of the diffs, which I did. Wastes less time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if that counted as a re-factoring no-no. Also: why has this person not been warned about 3RR, which they're extremely in violation of? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm in the middle of giving him a warning on his talk page. I prefer to go that route since he is new. Explain a few things, including how he will be blocked if he continues. No one has warned him on his talk page or explained any of this outside of a summary. And to answer your question: refactoring is changing someone's text to give a different meaning. Fixing something like a very obvious technical error is acceptable. Correcting their general spelling or grammar, no, just technical things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: Got it. Thank you. It's also worth pointing out that this editor hasn't been here in several hours so maybe this whole thread should be moved to a more appropriate locale. Is this really an ANI issue? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Its fine at ANI, we aren't slavish to any format or hard standard. The goal isn't to block him, its to get him to stop, and now he has enough warning that it is up to him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Still no edits since this started, so I would say that it is over for now and can be closed. He has been warned which is sufficient for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: He's still at it, unfortunately. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that one edit can't be definitely pinned on POV. Looking at it, I can see others doing the same, and I can see others disagreeing. It was a primary source, not a 3rd party reliable source, after all. The whole article is a mess of tables where none should exist, all that should be prose. He isn't barred from editing that article, he just has to follow the same rules as you I. I think that one edit falls under WP:BRD. WE have to give him a chance to conform. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing, advocacy, and control of philo articles, by Flyer22 Reborn

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

---

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

---

Moved from WP:AN § Inappropriate editing, advocacy, and control of philo articles, by Flyer22 Reborn

 – clpo13_(talk) 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is the proper place. There's an issue with a number of philosophy pages by an editor, Flyer22 Reborn. The editor, who admits not being a philosopher and not having training in the field, has 'claimed' a number of philosophy articles. The editor, very directly, dictates what can and not not be in an article, even when demonstrating a fairly poor, and bias, view regarding much within the field of social philosophy. This isn't meant as any sort of insult, but on numerous instances, as noted, students have illustrated some truly abysmal scholarship. The latest example being an article on sexual objectification that, literally, details the issue as a disjunct between feminists and social conservatives. Such an approach would never be an acceptable, for any encyclopedia. This is one example of a number of social philosophy articles were some editors, such as Flyer22 Reborn, simply refuse to allow a scholarly approach, demanding its bias. It's really quite ironic how many times quotations from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are directly contradicted in social philosophy articles on wikipedia. Editors who are clearly advocating for certain ideologies, such as Flyer22 Reborn, really need to be hemmed in honestly. Maxxx12345 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly more in heaven and earth, Horatio... Than your willingness to ignore When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. Know what we mean by that....? Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 22:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Maxxx12345 you did not inform Flyer22 Reborn of this thread as instructed by the big orange box above the editing field. I have done so. You should be aware that all articles on WikiP can be edited by anyone - not just "philosophers". You have provided no examples to back up your assertions. This should either be closed or moved to ANI. MarnetteD|Talk 22:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion to ANI. The box at the top of WP:AN says: If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. clpo13_(talk) 22:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably a quick close unless Maxxx12345 provides some solid diffs that show Flyer22 has been editing disruptively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This report looks about as valid as this one. Maxxx12345, I'd really like to see some diffs for your assertions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There is an article "Sexual objectification". Flyer22 has (at least recently) made one edit to it (actually a series of three edits in a row), here, in April of 2016. The effect was to remove a section "Body Image and the NFL Draft" (which TBH looks like pretty dubious false-equivalence men's-rights material to me, but I haven't studied the matter). Maxxx12345's engagement on the talk page is not broad and seems to be of the the nature of "I have read up on Kant, and Kant used the term "sexual objectification" and therefore the article "sexual objectification" should be about the term as used by Kant, period" which I would think is highly debatable. But at any rate that is what talk pages are for. If Maxxx12345 is right he ought to be able to persuade. Not having done so (or tried really) not sure what Maxxx12345 expects to be done here. Do you want us to block Flyer22 Reborn or warn her or something? I'm not seeing a case here for that... Herostratus (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I almost closed this for not providing any evidence of policy violation. I assume another admin will if Max isn't forthcoming with an actual cause of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Reopening, it seems

Pinging Maxxx12345, clpo13, Dennis Brown, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, MarnetteD, NeilN and Herostratus. Since I didn't have the chance of commenting while this thread was open, I will comment now: Maxxx12345's accusations are false. For example, I have not claimed a number of philosophy articles, depending on how a philosophy article is defined, and I certainly am not WP:OWNING any of these articles. I'm not sure how many would categorize the Sexual objectification article as a philosophy article (at least solely as a philosophy article). And I am well-versed in the topic of sexual objectification and other gender/sexual topics. Another note, I don't remember stating that I am not a philosopher and/or that I have no training in the field. I don't comment on my profession(s) on Wikipedia. My problem with Maxxx12345 is that he tries to bias our articles without any regard for WP:Due weight, and he is always attacking me, including as an IP. Examples include this matter (keep scrolling) that was a result of his derogatory comments made as an IP at Talk:Sexual objectification, this matter at Talk:Gender where he used his registered account but also showed up as an IP to mention the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy," like he did above in this ANI thread, and this section where he attacked me because he viewed a section of the Gone Girl (film) article as biased. In that latter case, I decided not to engage, except for leaving a singe note. Popcornduff responded to him and I left it at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The 'ownership' section of wikipedia states, and I quote "It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.". Now this is a quote of what Flyer22 said on just the latest article "This article is supposed to be about the topic as defined by WP:Reliable sources and as applied with WP:Due weight. WP:Content forking in this case would be a no." Flyer22's possessiveness is clear in this example, as it is with others where Flyer22 simply tells other 'no' when edits are proposed that they do not personally agree with, regardless of sourcing. As far as undue weight, as I noted, Kant is the thinker who penned the idea. The complaint is, literally, the person who penned the idea, and is also where MacKinnon bases her work, would be undue weight. The person who coined the term can't be included because it's undue weight. Here's a link clearly detailing that point is just factually incorrect (and it's obviously a reliable source) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/ I've made numerous attempts to explain positions, such as what essentialism actually is and the resulting positions that are and are not essentialist, to no avail. The David Reimer case, as I tried to explain on my talk page with the editor, is another good example: the author has the crux of the matter actually backwards, with a strong advocacy position. I am accused of being bias, yet I am, literally, summizing the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy regarding Kant's work. How can a summary of what is usually considered THE most reliable source on a subject and its author in any way be considered bias, undue weight and/or not a reliable source? Such a position clearly is incoherent. Flyer22 openly admits being an advocate of certain ideologies on their talk page, and in a number of articles this has been a problem, including the Gone Girl article which, for a time, was an article which was mostly about certainly ideological stances and not the film. As anything can look and see, it was after I and some other editors objected (and we were initially told 'no' again) the article was in fact changed to coincide with proper Wikipedia standards. (Most of the article became an ideological position regarding third wave feminist views on the movie, and later revised once attention was brought to bear.) As I stated earlier, this is a problem for Wikipedia and should be addressed. Authors of ideas are considered undue weight. The most respected encyclopedias in publication today are not considered reliable sources. Attempts at helping articles, encyclopedic articles, shed ideological positions and mirror the top encyclopedias in the world are called bias. That's about as clear evidence as one could hope for that an editor is advocating for positions, particularly ones they note on their talk page that advocate. It's not others who are bias, such as myself and the Stanford Encyclopedia. Maxxx12345 (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Maxxx12345: ...did you actually read Dennis Brown's close? _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The latest above post by Maxxx12345 is exactly what I mean when it comes to his editing and views of me. It's nothing but more misunderstandings about how Wikipedia is supposed to work, mischaracterizations and false accusations, including the claim that "Flyer22 openly admits being an advocate of certain ideologies on their talk page." The only "ideology" that my talk page (the top of it) currently "advocates" concerns the WP:Child protection policy. Any other "ideology" of mine (at the top of my talk page or past that) is Wikipedia policy-, guideline- or essay-related, including the WP:Neutral policy (that many at this site, including Maxxx12345, commonly misunderstand), the WP:Sockpuppet policy...and the WP:Advocacy essay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Maxxx12345, since you've ignored the closing completely and restarted the thread, let me give you this to ponder, as I change roles: Looking at your talk page contributions, what I find is complaining about the status quo without any real suggestions. Philosophical opining instead of concrete suggestions. This is evident on the talk page of Feminism and others. It is kind of like arm chair quarterbacking where you are happy to tell people what they are doing wrong without doing any work yourself. This isn't particularly useful or helpful, and is in fact, irritating as hell to the people who are actually writing the article. I empathize with them. That is not how we write articles here.

At Wikipedia, all are equal, so assuming you are an expert (we have no way to verify this) your input could be useful and appreciated, but must stand on the merits of the contributions themselves, not your self-proclaimed expert status. In other words, we follow the sources, which are considered the real experts. Note that "sources" is plural, not singular. You have to put your money where your mouth is, provide text, provide sources, expect some pushback, and politely and calmly defend your ideas. Let someone else add to the article page if you aren't comfortable doing so. Expect they will change some of the wording, which is no different than if you had put it on the page yourself.

I can't speak to all of Flyer's comments, as I haven't read them all (and I know her fairly well, although we don't work on the same projects) but I don't see the problem you see. I think she may be correct in assuming you misunderstand the role of Wikipedia in general. Wikipedia is a crowdsourcing experiment, not a free version of Britannica. We achieve neutrality by compromise and discussion, as everyone has a bias. Being "right" isn't enough, you have to persuade. Honey works better than vinegar, btw.

You have to change your methods. You must bend in the wind that is Wikipedia, not the other way around. Start small with simple content requests, throw them out there, apply a little humility, and listen. If you want to convince someone they are mistaken, you won't do so by criticizing or coming across in an arrogant fashion. Wikipedia does not "need" me, nor you. It is a better encyclopedia if we are here, talking, compromising, discussing, debating and seeking common ground, but not everyone is capable of doing this.

I'm trying to give you some help, some tools that will allow you to stay here. Once you understand what Wikipedia really is, including its many shortcomings and imperfections, once you accept them, then you will find it easier and more rewarding to participate. Or you might choose to not participate at all. It is your choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought I was suppose to respond. As far as concrete suggestions are concerned, I've made quite a few and the only time they've been dismissed out of hand has been with this one editor, who as I noted, openly states they are an advocate for certain ideologies. While I readily admit being fairly poor at 'doing Wikipedida' this is an issue which I grasp quite well. If you read the analytic feminism page, you'll see I basically wrote teh article. If you look very closely you may notice, and find humorous, my lack of skill grasping much of this 'marking-up' so wrote the article around the sources already linked (linking references may seem simple, but I find difficult).

My claims regarding knowledge are fairly illustrated, I would argue, by the numerous concrete additions I have provided to Wikipedia. Just recently a number of editors thanked me for my insight regarding some legal and philosophy of law nuances which helped bring to light incorrect positions on Wikipedia that were being picked-up by larger news sources. Variety was quoting a Wikipedia article (on Nate Parker) that contained misinformation via a distortion of sources. While I was thanked for my input, which was collaborative and detailed in the talk page. Flyer22, however, points to the issues which I commonly edit (social philosophy oriented articles) as a sign of my bias. In fact, the only time I've run into any difficulty is with this one editor who has defended such positions as a movie article being predominantly a polemic on her (and others) ideological views. I have edited, provided sources (most often in talk pages as you are correct regarding my not being particularly comfortable making anything besides the most basic mark-up changes) and collaborated with others with the only time there being an issue revolving around Flyer22's strong views on third wave feminism.

I am all for discussion and compromise. Again I would point to any contributions I've made which Flyer22 wasn't involved. The Gone Girl article was revised once attention was brought to the issue. Others have noted that the lack of inclusion of analytic feminism within feminism (actually the dominant view in academia and policy circles) is a profound error of omission. I was thanked for my work on helping with the article on objectification, analytic feminism, western philosophy, and others. On talk pages I detailed my positions, provide sources and work with others. Flyer22, routinely, unilaterally decides what is and is not acceptable based on clear and strong advocacy of prominent views within third wave feminism and identity politics. In fact, on all occasions, every single one, when a number of other editors have become involved my additions were welcomed and the editor's accusations of issues of undue weight and POV were found to be in violation and her ideological input over-turned.

I apologize for my recent complaints on the feminism. You noted irritation, and would ask you consider that in reverse. Please see my history of doing precisely what you suggest regarding my contributions and then being told, unilaterally by Flyer22, those precise practices are unacceptable within articles they are extremely possessive of. It is quite irritating when someone with strong advocacy views, which have been reigned in on several occasions once other editors became involved, openly dictates to others what can and not be altered in 'their articles'. I would again note my contributions which have been noted as helpful and inline with Wikipedia standards, time and again (regardless of my poor ability to 'do Wikipedia') as evidence of my fully embracing the help you and others have offered.

When an editor openly states they're very possessive of articles, and does advocate for positions, please try to understand that is irritating to those of us who are simply trying to make Wikipedia better by providing scholarly level of input. Maxxx12345 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Shepherding an article is different than WP:OWNing it. I can't vouch for Flyer's every edit, just saying there is a grey area that is actually helpful. There are some topics where politics have made editing the article hell, and in those articles there are shepherds who will make it a bit more difficult to edit, but it is a worthwhile trade off as it greatly reduced drama, and policy supports this. Feminism and gender topics are good examples because they attract so much POV editing and have spawned Arbitration cases that lasted months here. We are all a bit gun shy of changes to those types of articles. When I say "concrete examples", I was talking about the talk page edits where you are complaining. It is better to say "How about we change Section X to this: ""Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, duis imperdiet""..." than it is to just complain. Really, a complaint without a suggestion isn't helpful, it only makes you a critic.

You are still relatively new, which is why I'm willing to spend extra time to help here. Flyer is not perfect, nor a saint, but my experience has been that she is a pretty good person who can be reasoned with, one whose motives I've never had to question. You both have some fixed ideas, you probably need to approach each other slowly, but there is no reason you can't work together if you took the time to get to know each other. You need to be patient and introduce ideas one at a time and allow all other editors the opportunity to first disagree, then be gently persuaded. And be open minded to being persuaded yourself. Sometimes it is due to a policy that you might view as arcane, but it was forged out of serious problems and we had no choice but to institute the policy. That is the breaks in an open project like this. It's really on you at this point, your two ANI reports failed to actually present a cause of action (using our silly little rules). Your best bet is to grin and bear it, and believe it or not, you could learn a great deal from her regarding our policies on BLP and gender issues. I'm sure she knows them better than I do, I have to be a generalist here as admin. Once you have more edits and experience behind you, these rules will make more sense and be 2nd nature to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

One final note: If you were editing US geography articles or other topics that are NOT prone to politics, you would not be running into issues like this. It is only the politically charged topics that frustrate editors, because so many rush in to push their point of view. Your choice of topic is the number 1 hot button at Wikipedia right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Flyer22, why in the world did you bring this thread back from the dead when it was already closed with comments that couldn't have been more favorable to you? Why are you wasting everyone's time by defending yourself against dead accusations? It's over. EEng 08:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  I agree, but since Maxx has piped in, it was useful for the statement above. It did make it clear how much Maxx misunderstands the whole of Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Fine, and now let it end here. EEng 19:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Jytdog removing talk pages comments based on their opinion

A IP address added a comment to the talk page for Zika fever with an edit summary of "not about improving this article." [[78]]. This is extremely inappropriate and inexcusable for a veteran editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorDownUnder (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

False positive? The IP did have a history of unconstructive edits; however, the comment made by the IP today was about the status of the article. It also looks like it was probably a class assignment made by an editor who hadn't logged in. Nonetheless, I'd give Jytdog the benefit of the doubt. (And I do agree with the editor who restored the comment.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

EditorDownUnder, whatever your beef with Jytdog is, [79] making frivolous reports to ANI is not acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Editordownunder seems to have a vendetta against jyt [80]74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Interaction Ban for EditorDownUnder

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

This AN/I request seems to be a boomerang in my opinion. EditorDownUnder appears to be harassing Jytdog since May 7, 2016. The diffs show that EditorDownUnder is unable to work with Jytdog in a manner that will improve the encyclopedia. Many of the diffs show the comments are not constructive in resolving any type of dispute with the content. Eight diffs in this section plus this AN/I, I would suggest an indefinite interaction ban on EditorDownUnder to prevent further harassment of Jytdog.

More diffs:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7

That's my thoughts on this AN/I anyway. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Would also support regular ban if EDU refuses to abide by I-ban.74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Block as WP:NOTHERE, otherwise IBAN with zero tolerance. EDU is a waste of bandwidth. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• I came this close to simply enacting a NOTHERE block, but the editor has done some work that's not related to following, hounding, and harassing Jytdog--but not a lot. Especially the edits pertaining to Philippe_Cousteau_Jr. are striking: they follow Jytdog, who had been reverting an editor inserting basically spam/promotion in a biography, all the way to the edit warring noticeboard to try and screw him over, in this edit. EditorDownUnder, please see WP:IBAN and note where it says "A one-way interaction ban prevents user X from interacting with user Y". That's what you have: a one-way interaction ban with Jytdog. Don't follow him, don't comment on him, don't talk to or about him, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I do not see any harassment here. I just had a look at the diffs and editordownunder's comments and I do not detect malice, rather simple disagreements. We should not be punishing newer editors for disagreeing with old-timers. Also, a simple look at Jytdog's talk page suggests plenty of people disagree with his editing practises. Furthermore, such an action will merely make Jytdog more entrenched in his routine dismissal of criticism towards his editing style. Pwolit iets (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments

To respond to disagreement by invoking a disconnect, means suggesting that Jytdog is above scrutiny and that the half-dozen editors that have disagreed with him only recently are more-or-less hallucinating. For example here Jytdog misrepresents wikipedia guidelines. Here Jytdog appears to be making ethnocentric edit summaries and some Greek editors might even perceive Jytdog's comments as racist. Pwolit iets (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If so these hypothetical "Greek Editors" would lack any grasp of the actual meaning of "racism". The "Greek" reference refers to the Greek Language as used by some to compose impressive sounding words to represent common concepts such as "greed". You also fail to show how Jytdog actually "misrepresents" Wikipedia:Requested moves. Kleuske (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I called it an ethnocentric comment and I stand by that designation. This time it happened in an edit summary but I don't want to see it anywhere. Be it an edit summary, a thread post or whatever. Let's just hope this is the last time Jytdog makes ethnocentric comments of that nature in any venue. As for requested moves, Jytdog claimed that unilateral moves are not allowed. Pwolit iets (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Almost forgot. Jytdog also believes that Wikipedia's mission statement is "to communicate accepted knowledge". What does he mean by accepted knowledge? Accepted by whom? In my opinion, such reckless misunderstanding of Wikipedia suggests Jytdog at best needs a mentor, and at worst should be discouraged from airing his thoughts on wikipedia norms since he will merely cause confusion to others. For all of this I will be very disappointed if the closer of this thread closes it lopsidedly in favor of Jytdog. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

fwiw, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING (part of WP:NOT): "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."

References

- Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pwolit iets: Everything you've said in this thread is laughably wrong. Jytdog's reference to "greek" was not a slur, but a common idiom for complex language. Jytdog is entitled to disagree with you about his interpretation of policy: this is why we have discussion pages. Jytdog is also absolutely correct that WP's mandate is to communicate accepted knowledge. We have policies explicitly forbidding us from communicating beliefs which are fringe or minority views. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't misquote me. I never said its a slur - I said its ethnocentric: big difference. Jytdog is not not allowed to proactively disagree with widely-held interpretations of policies. As for your last point here's some quotes "sum of all human knowledge" - Jimmy Wales; "collect and develop educational content" - Wikimedia Foundation. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So are you suggesting nobody could use any words related (in any way) to any ethnicity in any edit summary? I've heard of political correctness, but that's just ludicrous. Also, you need to read WP:PG. Your cherry picked quotes aren't making your case. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No. I'm claiming that when taken as a whole, his dismissiveness of criticism, his misrepresenting of guidelines, his ethnocentrism, his slanted view of policies, his strong deletionism and his vulgar incivility, you see a pattern. Pwolit iets (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

When taken as a whole, your complaints here paint the picture of harassment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with MjolnirPants, your comments here just support the claim of harassment. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that's all I see too. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, to be honest, I'm a thick-skinned person, and don't realy care for foul language etc. I also dislike spurning genuine volunteer efforts and if I come accross that way; my bad. My only real beef is the usage of ethnocentric comments since I feel they are wholly unnecessary and possibly inflammatory. If that aspect of his editing withers, myself and Jytdog will become not only friends but close ones too. Ethnic commentary hits too close to home for me due to some real-life experiences i've had, so therfore anything that even hints at that tends to get to me - sorry if that seems unreasonable. Pwolit iets (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

But, let's face it, it's nobody's fault but your own that you ridiculously insist that you see something wrong with someone referring to a real phenomenon - combining greek words into made-up, seemingly scientific terms - in a perfectly ordinary way. If you go around looking for offence, sure, you'll "find" it, but you dug deep enough here to look pretty silly. How would you have felt about "latin"? -- Begoon 04:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The article nurture versus nature claims that people's personalities are shaped by their real-life experiences. Thats why things that seem plausible to one person will seem implausible to the other. Thats why I don't expect others to share my perspectives on everything. Mentioning the linguistic phenomenon is okay, but something akin to "made-up word" or "neologism" or "protologism" would be a preferable statement to specifying the extact ethnic group. If it was a one-off, I would have let it go. But it has become habitual for Jytdog to make such comments. Pwolit iets (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for all that. I'm afraid it didn't help much, though - your nonsensical "position" on this is still all Greek to me. -- Begoon 04:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're this worked up about unintelligibly complex things being referred to as "Greek," I imagine you must be positively outraged at the ethnocentricism inherent in the popular description, frequently used on Wikipedia, of malicious destruction as "vandalism" (see: Vandals). Rebbing 07:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not entirely beyond imagining that someone will now take up the cause of righting that historical injustice. EEng 07:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It's all really quite Byzantine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is getting too funny. I wasn't going to respond except I'm listening to the The Sisters of Mercy. You know. The goth rock band. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. The complainant has taken the step of adding being "prejudiced" to the list of things we're not supposed to do in edit summaries (diff for WP:ESDONTS; diff for WP:SUMMARYNO), so that may not be so far off. Hopefully, we can soon work to heal the stereotyping and alienation inflicted on aerospace engineers by the misappropriation of the term "rocket science." Rebbing 21:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Whoosh... I suspect. Nevertheless, I fear that this is all descending into some sort of Double Dutch, and we risk the victims of our hurtful ethnocentrism rising into the billions, should the next elicited response therefore be "Dat is Chinees voor mij." -- Begoon 01:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Bad and agressive attitude

The user Spshu (talk · contribs) have an intransigent and bad attitude on the Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics and revert my good faith and procedent edit on [81].OscarFercho (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. You revert without comment,[82] say nothing to the user whatsoever, file this AN/I, then fail to notify them of it (which I have done for you). Do you think that maybe, I don't know, even attempting to discuss the issue with the user could have been a better move than coming here? Doc talk 08:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Barring the filer's complaint, I don't think Spshu has the competence required to participate constructively as an editor. He has refused to own up to the fact that he violated WP:TPO by editing another user's discussion comment, has made incendiary remarks about other editors, has made grammar and spelling errors in articles, and has a lengthy block log for edit warring (7 counts of it, to be exact). Also, his unblock requests reek of WP:NOTTHEM. Make of all that what you will. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 08:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the block log when digging. Certainly not ideal editing behavior. Perhaps they will respond here... Doc talk 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. My edits its of good faith, and I no need to notify to all contributors of that article, a list in fact, cause its updates of current info, in this order, my edit you cite wasn't a revert, was a new edit.OscarFercho (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Good faith edits can be reversed. That isn't a defense to have it how OscarFercho, or any other editor wants it. General speaking, in an argument on WP, both sides can make good faith edits and still make opposing edits. That is why there are talk pages. OscarFercho, you should not talk about an "intransigent and bad attitude" that is exactly your attitude. And you can not even seem to grasp the issue. The general issue, of making minor edits that don't really improve anything, was already under discussion although directly about the reception info (now expanded to included box office receipts). Then you go ahead and make a similar edit then complaint that you were reversed, deciding that I am "intransigent" then declaring me hostile because I am discussion the issue? I have been civil but frustrated do to the lack of understanding and basically OWN like statements made there (which I have ignore for civility's sake) like he is the final authority. I requested that he not remove reliable sources for primary sources, OscarFercho, said OK then when reverse the edit with out retain the reliable source. I am not going to change my mind just because you for a flimsy reason, argue or don't. Just because you don't understand my reason doesn't make my reason wrong.

Electricburst1996, I would not talk if I were you about competence. From the first time we met in a BRD, you repeatedly don't or hardly discussion any issue and run to 3RR (for example: [83]). We were rejected for 3O do to your refusal to discuss that first issue. Yet, you were reverting my own edits to my talk page and fail to know that the other editor in changing his edit made it look like I incorrectly quote him (I could be considered incivil under WP:IUC: 2. Other uncivil behaviours (e)). I did what it recommends. So, you have done worst in attempt to force me to agree that I did some wrong for the other editor failing to WP:REDACT and Electricburst1996 being bureaucratic, which WP is not suppose to be.

Spelling and grammar? Really, Electricburst1996? Editors have different strengths.

So I am not allow to point out error in the administrator's judgement? One of the "NOTTHEM" was in regards to a administrator who choose to not give me any chance to defend myself before the block is issued, so defending myself is NOTTHEM? I dare Eburst not to defend himself at a noticeboard when he is called to task. Electricburst1996 decided that he did not like the punishment which Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive908#BOOMERANG_for_User:Electricburst1996 boomeranged against him. He has hounded me since over the six blocks and now the seven he planned. (So asking editors to show up on talk pages is wrong (that is BRD)? While they get away with another edit to game the system? In one case, an administrator who know a sock was involve allowed himself to be a meatpuppet of sock in choosing to block me in edit war with another sock.) He even seemed to have planned to get me and himself block for an edit war hoping for an indefinite block as I when out of my way to edit in area we both don't edit in. warned at that block by the administrator: "I don't like the pattern of removal of comments at WP:AIV by Electricburst1996." So you edit warred and TPO all in one at AIV. Spshu (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That boomerang was thrown by Cebr1979, who was/is a problematic editor. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cebr1979. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Others joined in, Electricburst1996, and said the boomerang was correctly thrown. You have become a problematic editor: not discussion disagreement and running to the noticeboards first (do you want a list?), purposely getting a block & getting some one else blocked, taking editors to noticeboards because you did not think the block wasn't long enough. cong

I am no more problematic in the short term than you've been in the long term. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Spshu, you've been around since 2006, which is long enough to the point where you should fully understand Wikipedia policy. From WP:TPO: "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Again that is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY since in effect they did the same to me in making that edit, which don't seem to care. Spshu (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Signal boost

If possible, I'd like u|John from Idegon, u|Swarm, u|KrakatoaKatie, u|Huon, u|Bearcat, and u|Darkwind to weigh in on all this. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you may not recruit other that may be biased to such a discussion per WP:Votestacking. Spshu (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As I do not edit in the subject area of either comics or movies and have had no significant interactions (to the best of my knowledge) with any editors involved here, the mere act of pinging me (canvasing me?) here is in itself disruptive editing. Just sayin'. And with that I'm out. Please don't do that again. I pick the fish I fry, and my pans are full. John from Idegon (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

On top the pinging, Electricburst1996 choose to remove the above subsection indicating he was wrong to do so, which John did not recommmend. This is also one of the tactics that brought down the boomerang, as he removed talk page discussion I started in which I was not allowed to defend myself thus a block. Spshu (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm also not clear on why I was pinged, as I've had no involvement with the dispute here — and while I've sparred with Spshu on a couple of recent AFDs (the only reason I can see why my participation might have been invoked), it hardly approached the level that would have caused me to have any sort of longterm interest in reviewing their longterm edit patterns. So I have nothing to say and no idea why anybody thought I would. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Here's the attitude that I said.OscarFercho (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

What showing that Electricburst1996 improperly removed post is bad attitude. Or not rolling over for you or Electricburst1996? I don't think your going to change my attitude that I am here to build an encyclopedia. Spshu (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. This report is basically "malformed". There's no remedy requested, and the "problem" seems to be ill-defined and not actionable here. I recommend this be closed. Doc talk 08:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Unlike the others who were pinged, I have a rather good idea why I was chosen, and I'm not happy about it. I'm particularly concerned about this. Expecting to be blocked for one's own conduct in the hopes that the other party gets indeffed? Seriously? Electricburst1996 should re-think their approach to collaborative editing. Huon (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: Valid concern. I would like you to look over this entire report, though, and decide what action needs to be taken. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Accusations of plagiarism (directed at me)

The IP stated on my talk page that they would bring the issue to "Wikipedia admin" (I assume they meant ANI) requesting my block if I did not remove the plagiarism,[84], so I brought it here myself.

A week ago, a user claimed we had the dates wrong in the "Archived episodes" section of the article (originally showing 1972 to 1986, they said it should be 1972 to 1994); so I checked what was stated on the reference to the U.S. Library of Congress, and updated the article to use those dates (1978 to 1983). Initially on the talk page, an IP said "The dates are not revelant" and now wanted to drop their mention. Now another IP is claiming that my use of the dates in the article is plagiarism, on the article talk page I've directed the IPs to WP:CP.

This most recent dust-up traces back this edit (Apr 29th). I also semi-protected the article in May, and shortly after started a discussion at ANI about the disruption which resulted in some IP blocks (ANI archive), and that thread linked to more history on my article talkpage (my talk archive). I have been tempted to hand-out blocks to the IPs making continued false accusations and causing disruption at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television), but would prefer to get additional admins involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how citing a reference for the dates of a TV program can be considered plagiarism. "I'm going to tell mommy on you!" sounds like a pretty shitty way to win a dispute, too... --Jayron32 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Once you edited the content[85][86][87][88] you became WP:INVOLVED and should not have used the tools on the article.[89] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Due to possible perception of improper use is why I have repeatedly brought issues at that article back to ANI, to review my actions or the actions of the IPs involved. This is the third or fourth time I've asked for review of the article and/or activity surrounding it just since the page protection was done. I fully acknowledge that, in hindsight, I should have requested that action at WP:RFPP. But, at the same time, given the long history of disruption over there, an uninvolved admin would have taken the same action. Also, minor technicality, but the first edit you linked from 2012 was extremely minor cleaning-up wording from another editors changes to the article. So, any potential impression of involvement would not apply prior to my edits earlier this year., --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

2004 link stricken from above comment. Good point. While WP:INVOLVED does say "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion", this edit[90] was not reverting blatant vandalism, and I don't believe that "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". The fact that you made that edit and one minute later protected the page[91] certainly gives the appearance of using the tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Your comment above ("I have been tempted to hand-out blocks to the IPs making continued false accusations") when the false accusations were made about you is also troubling from a WP:INVOLVED perspective --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, in hindsight I acknowledge I should have submitted a request at WP:RFPP to avoid a perception of improper use. However, the labeling as "e.g." in the policy makes clear that blatant vandalism is just an example of a straightforward case, not the only type of straightforward case. That link you provided to my edit in the article should be viewed in combination with article and talk-page activity from Apr 21 through May 12th (as well as relevant user talk pages during that time). Given that history, I believe that any uninvolved admin would have made the same decision for page protection. Still, if you feel that my use of the tool requires greater scrutiny, I think it best if that be discussed as a separate thread (or secondary sub-thread to this one) - so as to keep each discussion focused. If the community does not agree with me after reviewing the related materials, I'll fully honor, respect, and abide by any consensus decision is reached. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No need for further action or a separate section. "in hindsight I acknowledge I should have submitted a request at WP:RFPP to avoid a perception of improper use." is good enough for me. I suggest that we drop this now and move on to my comment below -- we still have a disruptive IP to deal with. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, none of this changes the fact that the charge of plagiarism is laughable or that that the IP is being disruptive. I think an uninvolved admin should step in and do what is appropriate to stop further disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• This falls under "raw facts are not copyrightable", and yes Barek, I'm pretty sure this is the second ANI I've commented on where you've using the tools on an article you've edited. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh...

• Burger Wars; This edit[92] followed by this use of tools[93] looks a lot like using the tools against an IP in a content dispute.
• Poulsbo, Washington; This edit[94] followed by this use of tools[95] also looks a lot like using the tools against an IP in a content dispute.

...and that was just checking a few recent uses of the tools. It is likely that I can find many more examples. Note: even if most editors would have made the same reverts, that just shows that the IP was on the wrong side of the content dispute, which is not the same thing as blatant vandalism that is exempt from WP:INVOLVED. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is user Barek so heavily involved in disruptions to this article. And why has he personally removed the mention of the fact and sourced content that Senator Bob Dole preserved this churches TV show into the Library of Cingress archives. Barek removed the Dole mention from The World Tomorrow page and the Garner Ted Armstrong page and refuses to reinstate the Dole preservation mention. Another conflict does involve the Assange World Tomorrow article in that the show was never aired or called the World Tomorrow. The title was changed to The Julian Assange Show prior to airing o. RT, Russia Today television network. The show only aired on RT, and it was not called World Toomorrow as planned due to trademark and copyright. No wiki editor will correct it and change the page title to The Julian Assange Show. And since IMDb is not considered a credible source the Assange IMDb link needs to be redacted. But, no editor will ma me this proper edit either. Barek cutting and pasting verbatim is not acceptable under Wikipedia rules. Neither is close paraphrasing. The article Archived Episodes section is a duplicate cut paste job. Lift the block so that this WT article can be corrected and so the Dole reference can be reinserted. Barek needs to recuse himself from further tampering and the appearance of wanting full editorial control of this article. User Werldwayd is clearly associated with the Armstrong Worldwide church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.37.22 (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not "refused". I have suggested an RfC to address concerns. The first time it was met with personal attacks and intensified demands. The most recent was ignored. However, as the demanded wording has now changed to match the source, I've gone ahead and added the material.

Please show me the alleged "cut paste job" as you call it.

As the the other article - it's landed in its current page as a result of an RfC it has been extensively discussed on the article talk page. The existing third-party references call it by its current name. The show's official website uses the current article name. As has been requested repeatedly by multiple editors, please provide third-party reliable sources to support your claims. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France

Will someone please help out with the edit war started by Keith-264 on Battle of France? He's pushing some kind of really weird POV where the French didn't really lose the battle because the Allies won WWII or some such nonsense. He's got a bunch of fished-out sources with cherry-picked quotes where scholars elaborate on the fact that Germany ultimately lost the war, and he's disrupting the article by "interpreting" them as supporting his removal of "German victory" from the infobox.
I mean the whole affair is just borderline-comical.. can we get the page reverted to status quo and protected for a while? -- Director (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly a content dispute with a heathy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board. I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol. I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today. I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; as he was in February...? Why the sudden volte face? _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've full protected the page for a week. If it goes back to edit warring after that, I will liberally hand out blocks. These aren't newbies, these are experienced editors that should know better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about this but my comment from about half-an-hour ago disappeared

• I have not started an edit war but I am being ganged up on and as the comments above demonstrate, my attempts to improve the NPOV of the article are being maliciously used to blame the victim; I've even been abused for agreeing with one of the other editors for heaven's sake. I keep asking the people who disagree to canvass the RS but they won't and interpret my suggestion as evidence that I'm a devious, manipulative folk-devil. Over the last couple of days, strangers have appeared and joined in the abuse, which is even more unfair and smacks of orchestration. I wouldn't mind but it really insults my vanity to be attacked by people who behave like third-rate generic managers, with a belief that NLP is a satisfactory substitute for communication. I have copied the list of RS that I began last year and asked for opinion on the milhist page. I'm going to step back from the infobox again and concentrate on the Analysis section (there isn't any analysis in it) and put my findings on the talk page in the hope that wiser counsels prevail. Thank you Keith-264 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Keith-264: What about my questions above? Just out of curiosity really. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"It's clearly a content dispute with a heathy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board. I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol. I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today. I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; as he was in February...? Why the sudden volte face?"

This isn't a question, it's a denunciation couched as a question; you haven't asked out of curiosity but offered another example of rank bad faith. Try unloading it.Keith-264 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It / they is / are questions; do you know how they can be recognised? It's by means of a question mark closing the sentence. I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you. You, Keith-264... The one unloaded upon. _Muffled ^Pocketed 21:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

FIM, editor is clearly distressed. Cut them a little slack. Keith-264, the question was asked in good faith. It hasn't appeared to be a problem for a while, now it has, hence FIM's question(s). If you edit anything like me I focus on the IB last. So, it could just be that you've only just now got to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No it wasn't as even a cursory look at the wording and the reply demonstrates (Would you like me to spell it out?). What are FIM and IB? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This entire dispute is a nearly-identical rehash of discussion in archives 1, 2 and 4 of the article talk pages. Not all the editors are the same but the issues mostly are. The personal attacks/snark are new, however. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The insults are coincident with the new editors.Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What new editors? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Keith-264, FIM -> Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (aka Muffled Pocketed) and IB -> Infobox. Fine, I'll unload FIM's question for you. I personally found nothing rude in it and read it three times.

It's clearly a content dispute with a healthy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board.

Meaning that content disputes belong on the article talk page only and that any report of edit-warring should be at WP:AN/EW and not here.

I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol.

Meaning that FIM is mentioning EW on your talk page as standard procedure. A warning is necessitated. Templating unnecessary, but, WP:AGF. I doubt FIM is after your head. Unless you can demonstrate that there is "bad blood" between you. That said, FIM, don't template the regulars it wasn't needed especially considering this. Also, since I looked at the article, you entered the edit-war as well FIM, would you prefer a template or can I just say that you could have handled it better without joining the action. I know it's tempting, wars are fun, but, dramatics get too heated far too quickly. I prefer if nobody burns themselves for no reason.

I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today.

Meaning, that there is a discussion on the article talk page and that the edit-warring seems to have stopped 13:28. Now officially false due to the edit warring of the past day, but, eh, it was valid at the time.

I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; as he was in February...? Why the sudden volte face?

Two pronged, 1. It's unusual that the result has come into dispute now, given that you have been editing and improving the article for months (since at least February). 2. Volte Face -> why the sudden change in position. You hadn't brought up the result until recently, so what happened?

I re-read it yet again, I don't see anything offensive or lacking in good faith. I stand by what I said, the question was asked in good faith. I also looked at the warning on your page and your response; There is no edit war but you seem to be trying to impute one. So explain this series of edits for me; reverts on 11 Sept at 20:45 and 21:17, on 13 Sept at 01:03, 01:03 (again), and 08:27, on 14 Sept at 01:20, 01:43, 02:37, and 07:00, on 15 Sept at 04:12, 06:34, 07:22, 13:27, 13:28, 16:26, 16:37, 16:40, 16:44. Article page protected for six days with admin only editing access. That looks a hell of a lot like edit-warring to me. In fact that is edit-warring at its very core; Edit wars are when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. There are a total of 18 reverts on that page over the course of 5 days. All parties are however responsible for the edit-war as it is impossible to edit-war without at least two people tangoing (in this case at least five; FIM, you, Director, Irondome and KevinNinja). Now, FIM's reply was snarky no question about it. As was yours Keith, you failed to assume good faith with this; it's a denunciation couched as a question; you ... offered another example of rank bad faith. It was far more heated than anything FIM had said in their question, take it down a notch. "Denunciation", tell me where in that were you denounced? was it the warning template? since that was about the only thing I am seeing as being unnecessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

My comment was edited by Keith, I have left a copy of the changes below, and restored my comment to the way it was before the changes were made. No changes to meaning were made, only notes put in next to things I said.

Now, FIM's reply was snarky no question about it. As was yours Keith, you failed to assume good faith with this [no I didn't there was plenty of evidence by then of bad faith]; it's a denunciation couched as a question; you ... offered another example of rank bad faith. It was far more heated than anything FIM had said in their question [no it wasn't], take it down a notch [set me an example by owning your judgement]. Nor, was it a fair assessment of their comment [yes it was]. "Denunciation", tell me where in that were you denounced? was it the warning template? since that was about the only thing I am seeing as being unnecessary. [Look at the talk page and the insults directed at me] Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly a content dispute with a heathy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board. I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol. I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today. [I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result suddenly and focussing are inferences not questions]: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; [content with the status quo another inference and an implication that I disturbed the status quo] as he was in February...? [another inference] Why the sudden volte face? [an inference and a judgement followed by a question mark. This is a disingenuous way of getting someone to account for his/her inferences, all of which are self-serving]. If this is straight, what does bent look like?

On a brighter note, what is your opinion of my decision to trawl the RS to make a list of those who use decisive German victory and those who use German victory? I'm plugging away but it would speed the process if other editors with different sources joined in. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

On a brighter note, your crappy accusations are not standing up. Self-serving? Bent? Where do get off? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll focus on the brighter note. Yes I did look at the talk page and notice walls of discussion. I honestly agree that decisive victory throws out any semblance of nuance. That the Germans managed to push to Paris in mere months is quite amazing. That is indisputable. The suggestion that the story ends with the capture of Paris and capitulation of the French just doesn't stack up though. Wikipedia is based on RS, this is how it should be. If you find RS that dispute the claim of decisive victory then of course I could only support the RS. Whether or not it turns out to be a time sink, ironically, only time will tell. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Btw; Keith, can I ask that you don't edit my comments. Not because you put anything rude in there, but, because it confused the hell out of me. Your notes are duly noted and I've separated them down for anybody who wants to check them. I do have a question about them; [set me an example by owning your judgement]. What do you mean by this? Are you referring to one of my own outbursts, I know I've been ticked off with other editors. I never claimed my judgement was always on point and I am happy to be called out on it as needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion about decisive but as I keep pointing out to other editors, it's irrelevant, we're here to describe what the RS have to say about it. I have added more commentary from RS in the talk page, despite the odd reluctance of several editors to accept it, throwing accusations of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, even though it is cited and open to scrutiny. The bibliography and further reading sections have dozens more so it should be easy to to add the examples I've cited, what's stopping the naysayers? Notice also that Horne does use decisive, so there should be a few more. At first I expected to be a little red-faced at the end of the exercise, on the assumption that quite a few recent writers would use lazy adjectives and adverbs, decisive being a way of writing big rather than war deciding (the Clausewitzian sense) but not as yet. You wrote It was far more heated than anything FIM had said in their question [no it wasn't], take it down a notch and I glossed it. Who are you to decide what is heated? You could have asked. Who are you to say it was worse retaliation than the perpetrator's abuse? Who are you to tell anyone what to do? You could have suggested. This is where I think you failed to own yourself and put it on me. Notice also is[the] abusive reply from FIM above; it's tempting to resort to the Stephen Fry defence. Keith-264 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note to (almost) everyone in this thread: Since you're obviously having problems understanding each other (and this old limey is having problems understanding most of you...), skip the lingo and write in plain English, because as it is it's more like something out of Monthy Python than a proper constructive ANI-discussion... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Oi! I'm English ;o)) do you mind offering a few examples of "a proper constructive ANI-discussion"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, a proper constructive ANI-discussion is a discussion where all participants write, and explain things, in a way that can be understood by everyone, whether they're regulars here or not, so that we get a dialogue and not just a number of parallell monologues, and where everyone listens to what others say. Because this board is for solving problems (with editor behaviour, not article content), and if people can't explain the problem in a way that is easily understood by others and/or can't give advice in a way that is easily understood by those who are being given advice, no problem will be solved. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the trouble is, who decides? Complaints about me were made here to recruit allies not resolve anything, because the dispute is about the relevance of RS, if you look at the France talk page you'll see what I mean. There's been some movement over the last couple of days so it may be that "German victory" is what most of us will settle for in the infobox but I won't hold my breath. In the meantime I'm working on an analysis section of the aftermath. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please block this user : 124.105.25.125 or anyone in the Philippines.

Dear Sirs,

This is a case of wrong revision and lie: This person : 124.105.25.125 has revised the PATAS wiki as per below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippine_Atheists_and_Agnostics_Society&oldid=737378971

and spread fabricated lies in some social media pages about me that I was removed and misappropriate funds in PATAS. That is not true at all..this is to smear my reputation.

I have also placed a request to protect the page PATAS or remove it in its entirety to prevent others from editing from anyone from the Philippines. I am taking back what is really mine. Some Filipinos are evil people, no matter how good you are to them.

Thank you and kind regards, Marissa Langseth, RN, MSN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapimarissa (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hapimarissa: Hi. Did you read our guideline on conflicts of interest? If not please, have a look, because if you're the founder and a former chair of that organization you cannot edit that page. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hapimarissa may not edit that page directly, but she may certainly request edits to the page. I agree that there is ill-sourced, controversial material that was in the article...and I say was because I just rolled back the article to as it existed before the recent edits by the IP, which started 2 September. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

All this policy wonk aside, that edit is a blatant unsourced BLP violation that needs revdel. Blackmane (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's wrong anyway. The COI doesn't forbid people from editing the page (as cannot would seem to imply), it just strongly discourages it. (This is actually a good reason why we don't forbid it. I can't see the deleted edits but realisticly if it's a significant enough BLP violation to support revdel, no editor shouldn't face sanction for removing it. On the flip side, one reason why we strongly discourage it is it can be difficult for people with a COI to see the difference between a case like this and a legitimate content dispute or even material that should stay in.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I just did the revdel's and didn't really read the rest, but you are correct. COI editors MAY edit any page, they are just strongly discouraged from doing so. I edit some pages I have a minor COI on (no money, folks) but I tread very carefully. Most COI editors don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, I read the edit before Dennis revdelled it (thanks for that btw, Dennis). The IP had changed the existing sentence that draws from the source into a sentence that accused the article subject of criminal misconduct, but using the original source, i.e. blatant unsourced BLP violation. Blackmane (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

193.85.211.55

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

---

• 193.85.211.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP appears to have been blocked indefinitely by administrator: JzG (talk · contribs). Just wanted to put this at the noticeboard so an administrator (not necessarily the current blocking admin) can change/correct the block as they see fit. Generally, IP's should probably not be blocked indefinitely, especially shared IP's, as this one is registered to a school. 73.96.115.6 (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

They aren't blocked indefinitely. Its a soft block, which means anybody with an account can log in and edit freely. If it was blocked indefinitely, it would have account creation blocked. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 01:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Yoshi24517: The time duration says "indefinite". It doesn't matter whether or not it's a soft block, IP's generally are not blocked indefinitely, I was just wondering whether or not JzG (talk · contribs) did this on purpose, or if it was just an accident. That's all. 73.96.113.50 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, since this is about an action by JzG I've notified them of this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 01:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• JzG is still an active administrator. If you have questions about the block, the first step would be to discuss it with him, not post on ANI. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

School IP, soft blocked due to vandalism. I don't think that's a problem, but if anyone else wants to change the block they are welcome. This thread was started by a "brand new" IP with zero previous contributions. Not that I have recently expressed an unflattering opinion about Gamergate troglodytes or anything. Guy (Help!) 01:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, s/he seems fairly prolific on 73.96.0.0/16, doing the kind of gnome work where one would stumble on that block (AIV reports/IP ID tagging). Doesn't mean the GG kids aren't out to get you, but this cigar may just be a cigar. Kuru (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't see many (any) useful edits from this address over time. However, noting JzG's okay for changes and the provisions of WP:IPBLENGTH, I've amended the block to six months. Hope springs eternal that next year's students will be more constructive than this year's ones. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Mary Poppins would be proud of you :-) Me, I come from the September that never ended. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Young people these days. It's not music, it's just noise. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually young people have started listening to and buying vinyl LPs again - you can even get them in Sainsbury's now of all places - so hope does indeed spring eternal. On a related note about "brand new" IPs, these drive me up the wall; not because of any direct edits they make, but because they're impossible to tie down to one talk page and keep a conversation going, and have no trail of previous history. The only sane thing you can do is treat them as if they might as well be a Gamergate troll and assume their edits have zero accountability. I'm not expecting a bunch of editors to jam up Heathrow Airport with big "IP Lives Matter" banners, though.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"LP Lives Matter," too ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: They can buy all the vinyl LPs they want, if it's a Lady Gaga or Panic! at the Disco LP, it doesn't count.

To be fair, I listen to music that is often referred to as 'noise' as well... ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

24.141.6.209

24.141.6.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making various kinds of threats via various pages. Please deal with them. Feinoha ^Talk 05:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

User got blocked by an admin. Case closed. Feinoha ^Talk 05:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Block is only for a period of 24 hours, wait it out and see if they return to continue with said behaviour or disappear. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not likely to be back on this IP since has already been blocked on multiple IPs tonight:

• • • 78.127.222.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • 89.216.156.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • 188.61.207.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • 92.98.150.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dozens of rev dels, and at least three pages protected. Meters (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

These IP's are most likely blocked User:Nate Speed, and yes, pretty much every page they touch needs both article and corresponding talk page semi-protected. Sro23 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy

Poodleboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently returned after what is, in essence, a ten-year hiatus following a short arbitration enforcement block in 2006. His main focus of editing has been climate change, where he has been combative and edit-warred (e.g. [96], [97]). His comments align ideologically with climate change denialism (e.g. [98]). This was the kind of editing that led to the AE block.

In the last few days he has taken it upon himself to wage a one-man war against the characterisation of Intelligent Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.". This text has been in the lede since at least April 2014 and has been discussed on Talk several times. Four consecutive discussions demanding removal of the (sourced) characterisation "pseudoscientific" exist on Talk, three of these were started by Poodleboy. All four were closed (by three different editors) as no consensus for the change. On closure of the last, Poodleboy immediately started a new thread again demanding the change.

Several people have engaged thoughtfully on Poodleboy's talk page, but he does not seem to have taken on any of their advice.

Bluntly, Poodleboy appears to me to be here to Right Great Wrongs. His constant wrongteous anger is wearing to everybody else involved in these discussions. I propose a topic ban from topics related to both Intelligent Design and climate change. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we go for something succinct rather that blunt. Would it be fair to paraphrase the offense I am accused of, as "Poodleboy continued to respond to some commenters (perhaps half a dozen or more) after two or three people tried to terminate the discussion."?Poodleboy (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't edited on climate change since that recent block and I'm a supported of the climate change consensus, not a denier, evidently JzG is going for a twofer. What he is bluntly stating is not truthful or objective. The discussion on ID was not a one man war, there was another arguing for a more encyclopedic voice, and there was good and civil, give and take in the discussion, until a biased and involved editor started edit warring on the talk page, using closure and deleting a comment on the talk page [User:Binksternet] and issued a warning this warning to me [99]. Notice that this editor User:Binksternet unilaterally claimed there was no possibility of the discussion bearing fruit. The discussion had been continuing and was substantive in exposing the positions and correcting assumptions. Binksternet's bias is shown by his warning only one participant in the discussion and by his sudden panic at the thought that a graph long in the article might lend credence to the topic.[100] Note that I have not edited the article and instead worked to try to achieve consensus on the talk page. I will notify Binksternet that his name is being mentioned. Unilaterally closing discussions should not be acceptable discussion behavior. Note that he was not a participant on the talk page, there he no evidence he actually read it. Notice also, that I considered the discussion on the ID talk page complete and even proposed retention of that discussion to avoid needless repitition before this unjustified ANI was started. Unlike the past ANI, I have been a model of civility. Regards. Poodleboy (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you said that you're a supporter of evolution too, but strangely all your edits to related topics are aimed at watering down the scientific consensus, just as all your edits to climate change topics were aimed at watering down the mainstream view. On Wikipedia, you tend to be judged by what you actually write, rather than what you say you believe. Calling Oreskes' work "an embarrassment to science" and defending Heartland as "equally valid" sure as hell doesn't look like a supporter of the reality-based view on climate change.

You have failed to address the core issue, which is that four separate discussions showed no consensus for change (and there are plenty more in the archives that also have no consensus for change, as was pointed out to you), yet your response was to start a fifth thread. That is beyond boring. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You neglect the core issue that two of those four were before the last ANI, and that you were involved in one of the recent closures, when others, including eventually yourself, saw there was more to discuss and the discussion continued. I wasn't repeating myself, and if I my points repeated others that have been archived in my responsiveness, then the other participants must not have read those archives, because they did not seem to anticipate the problems with their points.Poodleboy (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, my Heartland comment was not about climate science, but about the attempt to portray them as holding the position they do because of corporate influence. Their response about the internal controls and standards in place are what was equally valid. Oreskes is not justified in drawing the conclusions that she does from just analyzing the abstracts, such opinions are most likely to be expressed in the discussion portion of the articles. Her students conducting the evaluations were inconsistent in applying the standards. The methodology was poor. Poodleboy (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that JzG chose to mischaracterize my position at ID, I don't oppose the statement he mentioned, and I never demanded removal of the pseudoscientific characterization, just that it that it not give a biased, unencyclopedic impression by being in the first sentence. Poodleboy (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Face it JzG/Guy, you were an involved admin unilaterally closing ongoing discussion on an article under discretionary sanctions. Acting as an admin without disclosing that were were an admin, and you, yourself continuted discussing after your failed close attempt. Perhaps you just wanted the last word.Poodleboy (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic bans I am involved in that I moved a comment by Poodleboy into a collapsed section using the edit summary "extend close: article talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources" (diff). Poodleboy's response (diff) was to post a new section with a heading taken from my edit summary, and with a convoluted comment indicating a hard-to-follow dissatisfaction. An article talk page, particularly one with an "Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience" box, is not a place for interminable attempts to make a case. There is no sign the attempts will stop without ANI action. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  You don't consider this comment, posted before I was aware of any ANI a "sign" [101] ? It is pretty clear that I was through with the discussion. This dissatisfaction was with your erroneous edit summary characterization. Why couldn't you come up with an excuse you could defend for using a premature close to cut of an on-going discussion with multiple participants?Poodleboy (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  The second of my two diffs is your "sign" link. Article talk pages are not intended for on-going discussions merely for the sake of discussion (WP:NOTFORUM). As stated, talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article. Perhaps everyone else is wrong, but Talk:Intelligent design shows there has been no consensus for your proposal since July—a topic ban is needed as you are still promoting the idea despite the Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  So you just chose to ignore the evidence that I considered the discussion complete and sought to avoid a repeat, and lie by stating there is no sign? Ironically, the ANI came after it had already stopped. That would have been clear, if there hadn't been such a rush. Poodleboy (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic bans - this editor's response to a DS/alert I left for them as well as their comments above, are examples of how this editor is only here to show how clever they are, and not to build the encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Are you able to contribute without deceiving others or perhaps yourself? You did not leave a DS/alert for "them", you were closing the discussion that others were participating in, it wasn't like I was commenting on my own, yet you only left an alert for me. Face it, you were biased and involved, and devolved into edit warring on the talk page, when a civil and substantive discussion was ongoing. Poodleboy (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on climate change and evolution. This person is poison to the project, working to diminish the scientific position wherever possible, especially by denying a consensus and instead attacking individual elements that contribute to consensus. A divide-and-conquer strategy. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  I guess that is how you define "the project", you are involved in a pick-them-off-one-at-a-time strategy. Have you even read the Global Warming page? The "scientific position" follows where the science leads, it isn't fixed. The IPCC lowered the climate sensitivity range from 2.0C-4.5C down to 1.5C-4.5C in AR5, and refused to give a best estimate for the sensitivity as in the past because of a divergence in the evidence. Recent publications have reinforced the lower end of the range again. The next reports range is likely to be even lower. The fact of the matter is we don't know whether the net feedback from the water cycle is positive or negative over the time frame of interest, even though the increase in water vapor is a positive feedback contribution.Poodleboy (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support evolution topic ban, no opinion on other proposal – I've been following the discussion at talk:ID and Poodleboy's arguments have been flawed and display either an agenda or a serious lack of competence. Arguing that pseudoscience is not a defining characteristic of ID is unsupported by logic and evidence and lacks objective understanding. Refusing to listen and to drop the stick shows that change is highly unlikely. Poodleboy, demonstrate that you can work collaboratively somewhere else on WP as you can't manage it in this area. EdChem (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  You misunderstood the logic. Others were arguing that pseudoscience was intrinsic or inherent in ID. I pointed out that more than the definition was required to reach such a judgement. One can define ID without mentioning pseudoscience, in fact, other encyclopedias manage whole articles without mentioning it. One could argue that it is a matter of empirical necessity. You ignore the evidence when you stat that I refuse to listen. My responses were on point which is difficult to do if I didn't listen. The whole discussion was collaborative. Don't you find it, just a little bit strident that so many editors feel they must have the pseudoscience opinion in the first sentence? After all that is the whole point of the attempt to improve the article. If you are so confident in your position, why don't you see if that sentence can survive a featured article review? Keep in mind that only two of us in the recent discussion were actually trying to improve the article, everyone else was for the status quo. It wasn't like we weren't open to all kinds of alternative language suggestions. There was only one side unwilling to compromise.Poodleboy (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic bans The bludgeoning on ID has to end. The point that other encyclopedias don't use the term is ridiculous. They in fact go further into depth and assign ID the very definition of pseudoscience. At WP we have the luxury of simply linking it and not having to go into the definition. Capeo (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Evidently, you didn't notice that I had already stopped on the ID talk page and that I had never edited the topic page at all. I did recommend that the excellent discussions that were had there be preserved and not archived, so the others don't fall into the trap of trying to improve the article. It will help them to see the quality of effort that has already been given, and not think that it wasn't just incompetence that prevented a reasonable compromise. As for me, I had already given up. Poodleboy (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You edited the talk page today. Capeo (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are quick, it is the content of that edit that is the admission that it is over and the recommendation I have been mentioning. If JzG/Guy had waited a few days, this whole whatever-it-is-called wouldn't seem urgent or necessary. Regards.Poodleboy (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic bans I edit climate, but not ID. I support the TB because (A) Poodleboys responses in this very thread demonstrate his penchant for attacks and difficulty with AGF,

example from above thread, you are involved in a pick-them-off-one-at-a-time strategy

example from above thread, :Are you able to contribute without deceiving others or perhaps yourself?

Also, (B) the other reason I support the TB is specific to the topic of ID and it is this - Poodleboy apparently has self-imposed at TB already, as evidence by his above comment "I had already stopped on the ID talk page and that I had never edited the topic page at all..... I have already given up" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Penchants for attack on this page don't count, this is an attack page. I haven't been uncivil on any topic or topic talk page since the last thingy-me-bob. Each comment you cite above from this process is either mirroring a similar attack on me, or points out evidence that the characterization is true. You are spinning rather selectively. Poodleboy (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support that is some of the most in depth and persistent IDHT I have seen in a few years. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  It is most complete, that is why I felt finished. I couldn't think of any further arguments, and the other side was left only with their locally superior numbers. If that discussion wouldn't convince the others then there is no hope. No one on the other side ever proposed a compromise. I would like to retain the ability to vote on the page, if ever the community were to change. After all, implementing bans on people one by one, doesn't allow an alternative community to accumulate.Poodleboy (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on ID generally: I was involved in the ID discussions. I have trouble in assuming the good faith of someone whose professes that X is totally a Y, but one should not say so right away to preserve the "appearance of objectivity". If I recall, a total of two other editors were convinced by his argumentation. Despite that, an ungodly amount of time was wasted beating that horse. Thus I strongly support the ban on ID. I haven't followed climate change. My general impression is that Poodleboy delights in wasting people's time -- and has proven adept at it. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Correct me if I am wrong, but 17 comments over 3 days on the ID talk page is hardly an "ungodly amount of time" and some of those probably shouldn't count because of the edit war [[User:Binksternet] started on the ID talk page, and has continued even during this ANI process. He has deleted comments on the ID talk page again. Could someone please restore that last comment of mine that I have been referencing during this process. It will test whether he really does want to get himself banned as he seems to indicate with his recent behavior. I suspect I may be less than a third to a quarter of the comments in the discussion. Ungodly, not!! Poodleboy (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this the hill you want to die on? The only one who is going to get himself banned is yourself. --Tarage (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't surprise me if Binksternet gets little more than a wink and a nod, despite is far more severe abuses.Poodleboy (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to correct you, Poodleboy. You fired your first salvo July, 22. I would say that's a bit more than 3 days ago. The discussion mercifully died while you were blocked, and resurrected a little time after you came back. If "ungodly" irks you so, would you be satisfied with "shockingly disproportionate to the quality and range of the arguments that have been advanced"? Even if the vast majority is wrong -- that happens -- and you are right -- I'm making a strenuous effort of imagination here, but I suppose that might occasionally happen in some universes -- it should have been clear that the way you were going about it was not going to be productive. Also, some of your over-the-top claims ("I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgeable supporter of evolution"), cast doubt on your sincerity, to my mind. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem with going back 20 times as far, is that the number of comments only increases by 16, for a total of 33 and some of these were mere correction of typos or word choice and a couple others were reversing comments others had deleted. Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy: ok, I finally got what's wrong with your statistics. You are counting only your own edits on ID talk. I said you were wasting people's time. You are evidently free to waste your own however you want, I won't give a single solitary murid's behind. But all edits on ID talk since your arrival, about 160 if I count right, were in response to your necromantically resurrected threads. Plus all the nonsense on the Talk pages of some of the involved, and now we're on the bloody drama boards. That's a lot of entropy being generated for a completely trivial and trivially doomed proposal. There have been many similar proposals (content-wise) in the few years I've watched that page but that's the first time I see such a tempest in that particular teapot. I never accused you of being inefficient at causing other people to waste their time; obviously you're good at it, if that's your intent, for I'm doing just that right now. Your answers seem to somehow always miss the point in a way that invites correction. In your last answers here only, you just offered me a number that's obviously wrong, so that I'd have to check, then find your count missed the point, then explain it; then your answers to MjolnirPants and Yoshi24517 just beg for an explanation of the value of uninvolvedness. Most of your posts come with built-in hooks, and I'm just not sure that's accidental; the more I interact with you, the more I get the impression that you are deliberately setting things up to generate drama. Either that or you're a natural. If anything, I think the case against you is currently understated. I'm altering my support to include the ban on climate change. I would support a permablock if that came up. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was counting only my edits and even overstating them because I included them whether they were just typo corrects or reverting a comment that one of the talk page edit warriors deleted. But I can't take credit for all those responses, because a few were by the one or two backing the more encyclopedic voice for the first sentence, so those comments, and those responding to those comments should not be included. What you call "hooks" in my responses, are where I made seemingly strong points either debunking their points or making the case for the more encylopedic voice that others were not willing to let stand. Frankly, I think both positions were clarified, and would be clear to any readers to come, and that was why I was satisfied and finished at the end. Those who were prematurely trying to end the clarification and full exposition of the arguments must be responsible for the noise they added trying to argue that there was a consensus and that everything had been said, when a clear majority were not through discussing, even if you blame that on my "hooks".

• Support topic ban Just on the basis of the back-and-forth in this thread and the diffs presented herein. I'm completely uninvolved, by the way. Never interacted with Poodleboy or edited either of the two articles in question, to my recollection. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Do I have to paste the whole talk page in here to get you to read it? Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You have absolutely no understanding of the hole you have dug for yourself, that you are so intent on digging further. If you have any semblance of sanity, stop digging. Stop replying to every single person who is voting. You are only making it worse for yourself. --Tarage (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Poodleboy: I want to be clear here. I know you will respond, and I don't care because I'll be done after this. I'm only responding because I believe my initial vote could use some clarification. I based my support entirely upon what you've said here, how you've said it, and what you've said in the diffs provided. I considered it before commenting, and in my opinion (an opinion you have absolutely NO ability to affect by arguing with me here) that alone is enough evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you lack the ability to meaningfully contribute to these topics. I read where you explicitly claimed to be pro-climate change and pro-evolution, and I have read where you made arguments or suggested edits which were clearly anti-climate change and anti-evolution. Even assuming some legitimacy for those positions (there is none), the fact that you willfully lie about your own beliefs strips the credibility from any defense you put forth. Furthermore, I have seen you display a complete refusal to admit any wrongdoing throughout all of this thread. I have additionally seen you make a point of responding to each and every support vote in this thread. Finally, I have seen a large number of editors, some of whom I know to have good judgement all supporting a topic ban (and many calling for a site ban), with none in opposition. To be completely honest, I would fully support a permanent site ban, just based on your behavior in this thread and the provided links. Poodleboy (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That is all I have to say. You may, of course, respond, but I ask that you not ping me in your response, because I will not reply further, in any case. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't lied about any of my beliefs, and while not admitting wrong doing on this ANI, on the previous one I did admit wrong doing. Frankly, I don't see any wrong doing on my part of this latest episode, except perhaps I should have brought an ANI against Binksternet instead of reverting the comment deletions he made on the talk page. However, that ANI, like this one, would probably have wasted far more time than has been expressed as a concern based upon my discussion on the talk page. If wasting time is a fault, it more strongly lies with those who brought this ANI and those who support it. As to climate, I usually clearly state that I am part of the consensus, and if I elaborate further I detail that it is the 97% peer reviewed consensus based upon the responses to two questions. Lukewarmer/skeptics like myself are part of that consensus. The lies I have identified on this ANI are substantiated and your inference and accusation can not be substantiated. Poodleboy (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Per MjolnirPants. Also uninvolved. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 03:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  You two might be the first that are that uninvolved. Hopwfully you at least read the talk page, there is something to be said for at least having an informed opinion.Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy, I am uninvolved but scientifically literate / educated. I read your arguments, and understood them. Your arguments are flawed, however. And even if they weren't, WP works on a consensus model which says you are welcome to make suggestions and try to persuade but in return you are expected to abide by the consensus conclusion so long as it is policy-compliant. Fighting as you have since that became clear, and here at ANI, are the reasons you face a topic ban. EdChem (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Evolution

I feel compelled to defend myself as a strong supporter of evolution and opponent of Intelligent Design. I've been an avid follower of evolution starting in the 60s with the works popularizing evolution by Robert Ardrey, Phillip Wylie and Desmond Morris, and consider Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" contributions and classics that have stood the test time. I think my arguments against ID are less encyclopedic but more persuasive than the pseudoscientific opinion expressed in the first sentence at issue here. I quote myself from my own talk page here:

" I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgable supporter of evolution than I am. I'm so confident that evolution is the best explanation of the evidence that I'm not afraid of giving other hypotheses a fair hearing, and believe that we do evolution and science a disservice by acting so fearfully to suppress other views. Do you really think Intelligent Design has legs to stand upon? How intelligent is the design that has mammal losing the ability to regrow limbs and that has primates with a vestigial pseudo-gene for synthesizing vitamin C? How intelligent was using the same genetic code for humans as for other species, making inter specific virus transmission easier? How intelligent is a design that a species like ours with only 10,000 years of civilization behind us, can see the flaws in and will shortly be able to improve upon? How intelligent is a design that resulted in you making such erroneous characterizations?" [102]

Furthermore, I have a strong continuing interest in the evolvability characteristic of life that has itself evolved over time. I hope to make a contribution here in that area, I quote myself again, this time from the evolvability talk page:

"internal homeostasis, developmental homeostasis, sexual recombination/redundancy and niche reduction"

The way to make beneficial genetic changes more likely is to make detrimental changes less detrimental and the the organism more robust to detrimental changes. The genetic changes that made the human infant a noisy, slow, weak incompetent organism, were made less detrimental by the niche reduction of parental care. The young human did not have to be evolutionarily fit throughout growth and development and in a variety of environments, but just within the niche of parental care, until viable at adulthood. The redundant genes at every location involved allow genetic variation to accumulate until it might prove beneficial or detrimental in new combinations or environments. Internal homeostasis through active metabolism and related partially redundant pathways, allow genetic variation to be tolerated and yet viable conditions maintained. Families of related enzymes from past genome replications are an example of this evolability. Developmental homeostasis enables a genetic change in, for example, bone length to be survivable. It won't fail because changes in the genes for the length of blood vessels, muscles and nerves did not simultaneously happen. A change in genetic or enviromentally caused bone length can be accomodated by the robustness of the developmental process. Far from being merged with other articles, Evolvability is arguably one of the most important concepts for understanding and communicating evolution. The major breakthrough in evolution was evolving evolvability. Evolution was probably a slow process until enough evolvability had accumulated. I think these topics are not covered well enough (some not at all) in the article, and expansion under this topic is warranted. Poodleboy (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)"[103]

regards. Poodleboy (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Systematic attack on redirects to BDSM

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

---

We seem to have a systematic attack on redirects to the BDSM article, which appears to have been going on for some considerable time. See, for example, edits to Bdsm and Bd sm. Most come from a /23 assigned to Korea Telecom, but we have others coming from (for example) 213.143.51.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 213.143.51.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 213.143.50.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that show the same editing pattern and also suggest IP agility there. It's typically one or two edits, then a hop. There are all the usual tricks to try and confuse things, like tag-team editing with good and bad hands, misleading edit summaries, chaining redirects, cyclic redirects (eg. [104]) etc. etc..

I'd notify them of this report, but they are changing IP so rapidly it doesn't seem possible to do so at the moment.

I've tempblocked the four most obvious /24s, and started to semi-protect all the redirects to BDSM, but there are dozens, and I haven't had time to do the lot: see Talk:BDSM#IP-hopping vandal for the details. General behavior and timing suggest this may well be User:Ascvlvfkd back again: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ascvlvfkd/Archive. Can anyone help, please? -- The Anome (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Here are the redirects, 72 in total. I'll get to work from the bottom up if someone can meet me in the middle. Katie^talk 15:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm working downward, currently on Power exchange (BDSM). -- The Anome (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion, perhaps an edit filter for low user_age (docs say that is 0 for IPs) and old_wikitext contains "REDIRECT"? Murph9000 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

We could try it, but he's created a bunch of registered accounts and I wouldn't be surprised if there are sleepers. If it works, we can unprotect. Also, some of these are Neelix redirects that are pretty implausible – are we still working through those? I confess Neelix wasn't an area I tried to clean up. Katie^talk 16:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Possibly low user_age or low user_editcount, with the latter to catch sleepers? Murph9000 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've done some wildcard IP searches, and also searched for remaining redirects to Lie, Contradiction and Molestation, which caught a few more. They've been active at this for quite some time. -- The Anome (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

OK -- I've taken a look at all the ranges involved now, and reverted their edits as appropriate, leaving only the non-mischievous ones. That ought to hold things for now. -- The Anome (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome: feel free to ping if this picks up again, I could whip up a temporary filter to disallow these (if protecting/rangeblocking isn't working out) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar and Ponyo: Not the same editing pattern, but AsadaNamana (talk · contribs), AsadaNamani (talk · contribs), ReneSame (talk · contribs), Sro295 (talk · contribs) and The A- normal Anome (talk · contribs) look as if they may be more sockpuppets of Ascvlvfkd (talk · contribs), which (by general behavior patterns) looks like to be the source of the attack above.

I'll see if there's any workable patterns, but given the fact they're focusing on you it may not be needed - enjoy the attention! :P -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I also note that 213.143.51.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 83.34.117.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have just dumped on my talk pages on several other language versions of my talk page, and we now have a The Anome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agfabnor mal (talk · contribs) editing on Commons reverting my most recent changes. Is it possible to do a global checkuser on this, and possibly some global nameblocks/rangeblocks, to throttle this back? -- The Anome (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And now 213.143.50.142 (talk · contribs) doing the same on my userpage on nlwiki. -- The Anome (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

They are now also bashing away with their other blocked-on-enwiki accounts: see https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:The_Anome&action=history Still, if they're spending all their time on this, they are now too busy to vandalise articles, so that's a win. And their blood pressure can't be doing them any good, either. -- The Anome (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If there are ongoing attacks against editors or their talk pages I suggest you report it on WP:AVI and reference this discussion with a link in your report. Unfortunately this forum is not always the best place to go if you need a rapid response to an immediate problem. You may also wish to request page protection for your talk pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Anome, an admin, knows the above ... -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes ;-) I think they're fairly well under control at the moment on enwiki, which is why they are lashing out across other wikis. Blocking the interwiki stuff will need intervention from those with global blocking powers, which are beyond my current pay grade. I'm more interested in picking up and documenting their patterns of activity from this than anything else at the moment, to allow for the imposition of global measures if necessary . -- The Anome (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Same sockpuppetry as before on gl:Conversa_usuario:The_Anome, and a new sock, Phisxys (talk · contribs) -- they are trying very, very, hard to get me blocked there, using the usual deceptive tactics. Is anyone here an admin on glwiki, or otherwise able to help? -- The Anome (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks to User:Tegel for the global block on Phisxys (talk · contribs), Kind regards, -- The Anome (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Recurrent problematic behaviour from user 167.246.60.1

The present request was first motivated by the fact the user 167.246.60.1 (talk · contribs) is regularly deleting sourced quotes and inadequately altering the same section on Kevin Roberts. Moreover, this user tried to intimidate me with comments like:

• "The Editor who continues to push their narrative has been reported",
• "Take your bias somewhere else",
• "A contributer to this article has a history of biased editing",
• "User Lspiste is a biased editor. Both on this page and in his/her edit history", and so on.

He also put a {POV-check} on the same section, but without starting any discussion after that.

What is worse, as one can see by checking his talk page, is that this user has a quite long history of similar behaviour on WP. As many users did before, I notified him on his talk page, with no result as today. So I think admins should take appropriate actions to address this problem. Lspiste (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories

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

---

I have been involved in a months long dispute on Talk:Electronic harassment over whether to portray the mind controlling of so-called 'targeted individuals' by the US government as a real or delusional phenomenon. WP policy is very clear on this, per NPOV and RS, we must use the consensus of psychologists that this is a delusion. However, one user, Jed Stuart has dissented. Strongly and vociferously, for several months. Except for a handful of IP editors (a very small handful), he has no support on that page. Despite this, he has continued to assert his argument that we present this as a real phenomenon. Following are a list of links demonstrating Jed's refusal to drop the stick and get the point:

Jed's failures at using normal channels to get his POV put into the article

• An NPOV noticeboard discussion Jed started which was closed as having no POV problems. Note that Jed edit warred over the closure.
• A DRN request filed by Jed which failed due to the extremely fringe nature of Jed and his IP supporter's argument
• Jed's RfM request, which so far has been, except for Jed, unanimously declined by participants

Jed explicitly attempting to push his fringe POV into the article

• An edit request to insert claims into the article that people who believe themselves to be targeted by this mind control "maintain professional jobs and show no signs of being violent or mentally ill"
• Jed claiming that the psychiatric consensus is an opinion which can't be put into wiki voice
• Jed expounding on his own experiences with and as a 'targeted individual' to complain about sourced material on the page.
• Jed pushing for the article to state that this phenomenon may be real
• Jed advocating a news article over a peer-reviewed, published paper as a reliable source on psychiatric consensus
• Jed continuing his fight on archived talk pages

The list goes on and on...

I have asked a number of members, including Jytdog and Staszek Lem who have not responded whether they would support a topic ban for Jed. Of those I asked, I have listed those who did respond below. Note that the responses so far have been unanimously that they would support a topic ban.

• Guy Macon expressed a desire for a topic ban at the RfM
• Guy expressed a desire for a topic ban at the RfM
• Roxy the dog agreed with my proposal at their talk page
• Dbrodbeck agreed with my proposal at their talk page
• LuckyLouie agreed with my proposal at their talk page

So now I (really, we) am asking for some uninvolved admins to impose a topic ban on Jed. He should not be editing any articles pertaining to conspiracy theories, as he has an extremely limited ability to separate fact from fiction with regards to them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN broadly construed from all articles or discussions relating to "Electronic Harassment" pseudoscience and fringe theories with the exception of noticeboard discussions where he may be named as a respondent. I think the OP(s) have made their case though I am willing to reconsider if Jed Stuart posts a plausible response. But the numerous diffs posted and a casual look at the talk page history seems to show an editor who is unable to differentiate fact from fringe theory. This would raise obvious problems in the form of WP:PROFRINGE and also CIR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I am expanding my TBAN support to include all forms of pseudoscience and fringe theories as generally understood by the community in deference to many of the comments below. My Support vote/comment has been edited to reflect this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: :Based upon past behavior, I expect Jed Stuart to once again trot out a bunch of URLs that he claims portray the mind controlling of so-called 'targeted individuals' by the US government as possibly being a real phenomenon. It is my professional opinion as an electronics engineer that what is discussed on those web pages (various government programs to develop/explore electronic weapons) all have one key difference from what the "targeted individuals" claim. The real weapons use known physics (heat, light, sound, microwaves) that can easily be detected with standard instruments. The imagined ones supposedly control your mind without leaving any trace that an electronics engineer could measure, using some principle that is unknown to physics or engineering. It's as if he used webpages that establish the existence of carpets to support a claim of the existence of flying magic carpets. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• 'Comment' Agree with User: Guy Macon. I used to have a client who not only used a Tin foil hat, but wallpapered his bedroom in aluminum foil. In any event, this "controversy" and further and unremitting POV pushing for fringe theories needs to be curtailed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Since virtually all of this user's edits from 2012 to the present have been focused on the single topic of electronic harassment, you can click on any diff, and probably find an example of Jed pushing some variation of their POV that claims of people who believe the government is electronically beaming thoughts into their heads should be taken seriously. Over time, the article Talk page has filled with their polite but persistent advocacy for their POV, where you will find evidence of them asking the same questions again and again, only to be answered by multiple editors over and over again. And the result of Jed's constant, disruptive lobbying is editor exhaustion. Reasonable editors no longer wish to engage someone who personifies WP:IDHT. Lately Jed has taken his crusade to various forums and Talk pages where he complains that a "block of editors" are refusing to engage in discussion on the subject. In my view, we have been exceedingly patient with him, but this really needs to stop. I support a TBAN, if not an indef block based on WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTHERE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBAN I can't believe this has been going on for months. An extraordinary level of patience has been displayed here. Enough is enough though. I think the T-Ban should specifically state Electronic Harassment in the wording though, as well as other conspiracy theories.Capeo (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note I mentioned conspiracy theories in my proposal because, in my experience, people who have a vested interest in one conspiracy theory often have minor interests in others, and the problems displayed here should not simply be shunted off onto another CS (where I and many of the others who have supported this proposal will also be editing). Instead, what I hope to see is Jed being stuck editing only articles about his favorite TV shows, books, music, or about his profession, or more mainstream subjects of interest. In subjects where the ability to distinguish reality from fringe beliefs is not at all important, I have some hope left that Jed can contribute. My ultimate hope is that he will learn how to edit WP better, and while he is not likely to change his beliefs, perhaps he will learn how to collaborate, drop the stick and abide by a consensus he doesn't like. At that point, given some evidence, I would support his ban being dropped. But for now, I suggest he be topic banned indefinitely. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason I would mention Electronic Harassment specifically, in a addition to conspiracy theories, is that it closes the door to Jed possibly arguing that EH isn't a conspiracy theory which would just lead to escalating blocks. Capeo (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you said I think the T-Ban should specifically state Electronic Harassment in the wording though, as well as other conspiracy theories. I was, effectively agreeing with you, though I appreciate the clarification. I think it's a good idea, as well to name this topic explicitly, and CSs generally. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. The silicon chip inside my head has switched to overload.... Seriously, the government is telling me this guy needs to go... --Jayron32 17:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I was listed as a party in the dispute, so mine is not a vote, but I do support topic ban, since this person refuses to drop the stick. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: From where I sit, your opinion is as valuable as that of any of the other parties. Being involved in the dispute merely means that you don't need to click through the diffs to form an opinion on the subject. Admittedly, it will take an uninvolved admin to implement the ban, but involved editors should certainly have their voices heard. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN, to include not only "electronic harassment" but also "conspiracy theories", broadly interpreted. Jed included me in his recent mediation proposal even though my previous involvement in the issue, if memory and searches serve, amounted to one sentence from me (now archived here) written in support another editor's lengthy analysis. A review of the links to talk page discussions, dispute resolution attempts, etc., as linked by Jed from the arbitration discussion (half of which I had to clean up as the links he had provided went nowhere useful), will quickly illustrate Jed's "broken record", "I didn't hear that" behavior and, worse, an enormous amount of multiple editors' time spent in response. In all that effort Jed has presented no RSs at all to support his arguments that the experiences of "targeted individuals" (self-described) are anything but delusionary. Even the article he uses as a centerpiece, the one from WaPo, does not back him up; his interpretation that it does is due to very selective reading and carefully chosen interpretation (points that have also been detailed to Jed several times). He alludes to many references to "projects" and "intentions" and "goals" and "possibilities" of electronic mind control but most of them are of poor reliability and the rest end up talking about conventional techniques like propaganda. Nowhere has Jeb offered a RS to a study that says yes, we've shown that you can turn on a gadget here and, via a transfer mechanism that is undetectable except for the desired result, put thoughts in a person's head over there. (I include the "undetectable" provision to rule out things like product placement on TV, which is somewhat effective, could be considered "covert", but is easily detectable.) And finally, many have raised good technical reasons for why such a thing is very unlikely to be possible. It's long past time to say "no more" and put a stopper in this time sink. Jeh (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. Jed Stuart has demonstrated complete indifference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it's very clear he is here with a specific agenda. The chance that he will contribute productively to any topic area is approximately zero. Just ban him. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Block (first choice) or topic ban (second choice). As Someguy says, the chances of Jed ever doing anythign productive outside his area of monomania are roughly zero, and for that eventuality we have the Standard offer. This has been like debating Mike Corley in the golden age of Usenet, and nobody needs that. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, I haven't heard that name in decades. Still too soon, man. Too. Damn. Soon. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Prefer Indef Block but I'll take a TBAN. There is a vanishingly small chance that this user will ever do anything useful for the encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban because the editor will not accept the consensus view as shown in the OP links. There is a minor discussion at my talk on this issue, and the mediation request is a further misuse of community time. An indefinite block would follow if constructive contributions in other areas were not possible. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  I hope on this occasion that I will be given the right of reply. I was not in the three earlier attempts to block me here. see below. All conversations were closed before I could comment. Also, please note that I have limited time on the internet, so my response is slow: 1-3 days. I have not time to read the above now, but will comment in two days.

  #Sea_Lions - Sea_Lions_Not_. - Edit_warring.2C_block_evading_conspiracy_theorist_IP_on_Talk:Electronic_harassment - Jed Stuart (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  No need to wait two days to close this. Support for a topic ban is unanimous, and I don't think there is any reply that would change that. 2607:FB90:6820:CC85:184F:E7D7:3F25:52B2 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've had some interaction with Jed when I closed, as an uninvolved editor, a couple of discussions he was involved with. This caused Jed to declare me as "obviously adopting the attitude of the other side". It really is that binary for Jed - you support him in his mission to let the "truth" be heard or you are part of an evil gang dedicated to suppressing him. Others above have detailed the tedious, time wasting disruption, and I concur. I support a topic ban from pseudoscience as a minimum, but also agree that, with as much history to examine as we have, the chances of him ever doing anything productive and unrelated to this agenda are close to zero, so support indefinite block (or ban, since a block in these circumstances would be pretty much a de-facto ban, as I understand it). -- Begoon 00:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support a topic-ban from electronic harassment. Oppose a broader topic-ban on conspiracy theories only because that is too broad and would result in wikilawyering. Would consider a ban if one were proposed, but a topic-ban for now is fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for User:Jed Stuart's own good. This needs to be a topic ban, not simply an article ban, as there are related articles such as Project MKUltra and not just Electronic harassment. Oppose further action. There are some indications that he has interests in topics unrelated to EH -- for example see here. He should be given the opportunity to contribute to those areas. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Tigrayans

• Hi

Problem with user Otakrem after a long discussion lasting three months, after it was reported Wikipedia:Administrators' ≈noticeboard/Incidents 1 after that there have been discussions with other users 1, ask the write lock for the user Otakrem on the page tigrayans

the problem is a war of senseless changes in section1 Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people of which you complain of the sources that are authoritative sources, ask the page restore, of The Voidwalker 1 with Axumite kings, who has tried to mediate with the words Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes

and to warn Otakrem do not change more paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people but to change it just proving the opposite

• the references are there, not to spoil the work of others

http://orvillejenkins.com/profiles/tigrinya.html

http://www.ikuska.com/Africa/Etnologia/Pueblos/tigrinya/index.htm

http://www.ethiopianorthodoxchurch.org/saint_yared.html

http://www.st-gebriel.org/Styared/gab_yared_music.htm

http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/kaleb2.html

http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/periplus.asp

https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/KingdomOfAksum_StudentsWorksheets.pdf

http://worldcoincatalog.com/AC/C/Aksum/300-310CE-Aphilas/300-310CE-Aphilas.htm

http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/_ezana.html

https://books.google.it/books?id=YTGRcVLMg6MC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Ouazebas+axum&source=bl&ots=qd0ji6e1Es&sig=jRzAKemdzj_pFW4v-dVhBWckEi4&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim4dPpi7LNAhXGDBoKHYBoCTs4ChDoAQgqMAI#v=onepage&q=Ouazebas%20axum&f=false

Bibliography

Tellez, The Travels of the Jesuits in Ethiopia, 1710 (LaVergue: Kessinger, 2010), pp. 89F.

E. Bernard, AJ Drewes, and R. Schneider, Recueil des Inscriptions de l'Ethiopie périodes des pré-axoumite et axoumite. Volume I:. Les Inscriptions Paris: Diffusion de Boccard 1991, p. 247.

Siegbert Uhlig (ed.) (2016). Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha, Volume 2 Eight Harrassowitz Verlag .. p. 211

S. C. Munro-Hay, Aksum: an African civilization Late Antiquity (Edinburgh University Press, 1991), p. 91.

letter to Antoine d'Abbadie, January 8, 1869 mentions a coin of this ruler. Sven Rubenson, Aethiopica Acta, vol 3: internal rivalries and external threats, from 1869 to 1879 (Addis Ababa: University Press, 2000), p. 3

See the article on ELLA Saham by Gianfranco Fiaccadori Aethiopica the Encyclopedia, vol. 2, Wiesbaden 2016

--Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This issue was reported two days ago, and was archived. User:Otakrem says that this is a content dispute, and that Otakrem says that they are removing unsourced material. I commented that I think that there is a language limitation, and that the filing party has difficulty in explaining what the issue is. If this is a content issue, I suggest formal mediation with a mediator who may be patient enough to tease out what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Otakrem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Constantly adding unnecessary information that is politically motivated on page Abyssinian people. Edits have been removed many times but this user is not stopping, and this is not the first time (some of these edits are racist too). ---> I have added the report I accidentally put on the vandalism section (which it should be in too I believe) here. The user Otakrem has been highly disruptive, mainly since the beginning of this month. Unnecessary information has been added on the page I mentioned above and it is beginning to show that this user has just made this Wikipedia account because he is politically aggravated. It is getting ridiculous now as I did think the Wikipedia team would have had this sorted out by now, but it is still carrying on. I have checked the user's talk page, and it looks to me that he has been reported twice already, so I don't understand why this behaviour is still being allowed to carry on, it makes adding new information hard when having to deal with constant edits that need to be removed.Resourcer1 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What I added is per Wikipedia guidelines. The version of the Abyssinian people article that you and EthiopianHabesha have been reverting to is Contested because it is a Amhara-Tigrayan Biased POV. Reliable sources were added to the Criticism of Abyssinian Identity Resourcer1, you claimed to be Eritrean Tigrinya and think that being Eritrean Tigrinya gives you the authority to dictate how the Article should be? Just as EthiopianHabesha uses his identity to dictate how the Article should be. Well that goes against Wikipedia guidelines. I can edit just as you can, as long as I provide reliable sources from Primary and Secondary sources. I edit in good faith however, there has been alot of sneaky edits adding "Abyssinian" where it doesn't belong by EthiopianHabesha. Per WP:TRIBE see the discussion at [105] You are more than welcome to Discuss the additions which are backed by reliable sources.Otakrem (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon, Just to inform you Resourcer1 wrote this on Abyssinian Talkpage [106] see Diff [107], I do not think this is permitted per [108](this seems a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks) Just as I stated above, I have been discussing the article and on why it was POV for so many years, my additions would bring it to NPOV even if Resourcer1 disagrees from his/her POV. Nonetheless, I am being attacked here by Resourcer1 for daring to be Bold and edit an article that has been POV.Otakrem (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Is something actually being done about this user (Otakrem)? I have filed a report and I am still waiting. I see he has been reported by others on this site too but nothing is still being done.EEngNorthamerica1000Resourcer1(talk) 10:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Resourcer1, you have just removed two comments in this discussion by Otakrem with this edit. If intentional, that is unacceptable. Please do not do that again. I have restored them. Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Voceditenore Sorry it wasn't. I want to know who I need to contact to deal with these reports, otherwise, the edits by this user are going to carry on. Resourcer1 (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Musician pages are out of control

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

---

There is an artist here -- Brian Kelly (composer) -- who might be worthy of an article. Maybe not, but it seems like it based on several of those awards and nominations. That page itself has warnings about "a close subject creating the page." I'm not advocating deleting that page. All the pages related to it, however, are a disgrace to wikipedia, plain and simple:

• Pools of Light Solo Piano Songbook - there is no other songbook listed anywhere on wikipedia. What is notable about this book? Absolutely nothing. Delete it. It looks like Tomorrow's Daydream Solo Piano Songbook was also created once and turned into a redirect rather than deleting. Who is looking for that title? No one and therefore it should be deleted, not redirected.
• Butterfly Rapture is a page that was attempted to be deleted but no one came to visit the page so it stayed. Is that how WP wworks? If no one sees a "page for deletion" discussion, the page should exist? This is horrible.
• Look at the links to the page and you can tell someone went out and promoted this artist as if all of these pages are important.
• The template on his page includes four insignificant album pages. Those page should be deleted. The template should be deleted. One of the albums on the page is a redirect to Brian Kelly anyway. Just links back to itself.

Someone really needs to clean all of this up. I don't know how wikipedia lets things like this get out of control and I thought those template pages were only created by experts for important topics.

Please take a long hard look at all these pages. The artist has many nominations and he might be notable, but clearly the albums on their own are not notable and the songbook pages are pure vanity and unworthy of wikipedia entries. I know enough about wikipedia to add certain tags to pages for deletion, but I felt this topic is all-encompassing of at least six or seven pages so I just report the issue here.

Sn00per (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sn00per: While you have valid concerns, this is a content issue which means you should raise these concerns on Brian Kelly's talk page. This board is typically supposed to be for editors' behavior. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Why are the Reference desk and talkpage both protected?

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

---

Coming to the Humanities desk I see it has been protected for "persistent vandalism" by NeilN although there is no vandalism there at all - in fact he reprotected it even before the previous protection expired. So I went to the talkpage only to find it protected as well. I haven't looked at the other desks - can someone look into this, please? 86.128.234.7 (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note I have blocked the IP for being a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change - the person who is triggering these protects in the first place. Happy to explain the reprotects if needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

187.217.189.229

187.217.189.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring at article Henri Poincaré and has violated WP:CIVIL in the following entries on other editor's talk pages: [109] [110] — Myasuda (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Today, another reversion [111] (with insertion of unsourced text) and what appears to be an unwarranted accusation [112] left on a user talk page. —Myasuda (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and potential violation of 3RR on I Am... Sasha Fierce

User:Dan56 has reverted myself and User:Binksternet multiple times on I Am... Sasha Fierce over a dispute on the use of one word. Not only do the revision history summaries by Dan56 show ownership issues, but the thread started by him on the associated talk page here further shows ownership issues. There is an huge thread above on the talk page too in which Dan56 was involved in exactly the same thing about the use of the word from two years ago, but clearly won't let it go still. Dan56 probably realised that he is about to violate the 3RR and so hasn't made a fourth (as three have been made in a 12 hour period by him already) but it does show edit warring. I stopped at two reverts to avoid an edit war, but Dan56 has carried it on since by reverting Binksternet. I don't think a block is necessary here (although Dan56 has got a block log of previous edit warring blocks) but he definitely needs warning about it.  — Calvin999 14:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Warned for edit warring. If it continues, WP:AN3 is thataway. Katie^talk 14:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at BOL Network

I have been trying to keep a SPA from removing controversies associated with this failed network, only for him to stonewall. Can anyone take a couple of minutes to go through the edits and give his two cents before this escalates? TouristerMan (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I explained WP:BRD on his talk page a bit. I would ask you be patient, he is new, and take a look at the individual elements of his edits, see if some parts of that are worth including. If they are, you make it more likely that he will listen to you if you allow those bits in up front, in good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown TY. I already added most of the information he wanted before coming here. TouristerMan (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good. Forgive me for not analyzing every edit, I don't know the topic. Then we wait. I gave him some pretty clear guidance, with clear consequences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• He has started to edit war now. Reported to warring board. I will highly appreciate some seasoned editors joining for some time to take a look at the article and edits. TouristerMan (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to hand off to AN3, although I have tried to correct his misconception that 4RR means "it's perfectly fine to revert 3 times in 24 hours". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Kristijh

Kristijh renamed the 2016 Citronelle, Alabama, homicide article unexpectedly and without discussing it on the talk page beforehand (there is a talk page discussion about the article's title. I warned the user about it, but it appears all he/she did was revert the edit. Judging by the user's talk page history, he/she has a tendency to do that. Then once again, after probably a week of being unaware of my reversion, Kristijh renamed the same article unexpectedly and without prior discussion. Given the user's history (he/she has even been blocked for constantly blanking out his/her talk page), I would say a strict punishment is in order. Parsley Man (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And Kristijh just undid the ANI notice I sent to him/her. This user is definitely being ignorant. Parsley Man (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not restore ANI notices per WP:REMOVED. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

There is still the matter of this user constantly renaming an article without discussing it on the talk page first, especially when there's a section available on said talk page. Parsley Man (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man, this is a content dispute and does not belong on this board. Further, may I suggest you try communicating with the other editor instead of taking them to a noticeboard. Note; A warning is not communication, it's a warning. Actually ping them to the discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the user's history of blanking his/her own talk page, I am doubting communication would be possible. Parsley Man (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... unfortunately they can do that at will. There are very few things that they cannot remove from their talk page. Try pinging them to the article talk page, they can't revert you for that without it being disruptive. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try. But if they do not respond to the ping and rename the article again without making any sort of communication, I for one would definitely believe this is something that should be discussed on ANI. Parsley Man (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, it does seem to be a repeated behaviour and collaboration and collegiate behaviour is expected. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I've asked Kristijh to put their case forward for renaming at the article's talk page, and I've move protected the page for 7 days whilst any discussion is undertaken. Protection will expire automatically after that time. Nick (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting webhost block

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

---

Could an admin please apply a block to 104.237.224.0/19 as a {{webhostblock}}? The webhost is run by DedFiberCo and the block will affect IPs from 104.237.224.0 to 104.237.255.255 (the entire webhost range).

It seems like we have an antisemetic troll operating on that range. See [113]. The range I requested will cover the entire webhost with no overlap into other ranges so there shouldn't be any collateral but someone may want to check my work. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Checked and agreed. It's a web hosting company, and it has the entire 104.237.224.0/19 block allocated to it. (See https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/DFC-52 for the ARIN company reference.) Blocked.-- The Anome (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You are just having all the range block fun these days. *pouts* Katie^talk 21:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

-- The Anome (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I'm changing jobs in a few days, and the ip range of my current job has been used for more than a little vandalism. If you like, I can log out and go full on troll mode so you can be the one to do the honors.

P.S. I'm not serious. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Guy

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

---

Guy has admitted on the Conflict of interest notice boardsystematically removing content from Wikipedia relating to me. It appears he holds a grudge against me because I represented people who were victims of cyber-harassment by Dr Andrew Lewis, who is a skeptic. Guy mainly edits articles relating to skeptics. He has gone to the extent of suggesting an article in which I was prominent be merged into another, knowing full well my work would not be notable enough to feature in the article after the merger. The way Guy has treated me on the Conflict of interest notice board - including references to systematically removing me from Wikipedia articles - many I won't know of - provides a clear basis that Admin should intervene to stop his vendetta against me because my profession includes helping people he happens to dislike, again evident from what he has said on that notice board. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

BOOMERANG of the day. 2607:FB90:6820:CC85:184F:E7D7:3F25:52B2 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Do you mean when he said: "I removed several cites to Bishop's websites. These sites have in the past claimed to be affiliated with Swansea University. Turns out they aren't. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)". If so, that is what editors do and as long as he is accurate, then it improves the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As you can see from my Talk Page in addition I have been accused of sockpuppetry, breaking WP:COI, and WP:OR. Be honest. I have taken on Josh Moon and Dr Andrew Lewis and Wikipedia is being used as a way to bully me for doing so. I was affiliated to Swansea University, and have uploaded my contract to Scribd for that to be verified, but I have no idea which links are being referred to. Because Guy is in the same circles as Dr Andrew Lewis - maybe Josh Moon also because a thread was started on my on his site because I helped that couple - I have become his target as these actions coincide with the fact Dr Andrew Lewis faced a strike-out application on Friday by the couple I've been helping get their reputation back --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Jonathanbishop you seem to have missed the big orange box above the editing field stating that you must notify an editor when you start a thread about them here. I have done so for you. MarnetteD|Talk 00:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Johnathan, let me just put this in plain English for you. You don't understand policy here nearly as well as you think you do. You are new, this is forgivable, it takes time. You are editing articles with a very strong conflict of interest. This is allowed but it is strongly discouraged. Why, you ask? Because most COI editors do just like you are doing, come here, try to quote policy without understanding the context of the policy, push your own edits and revert multiple times, then they get blocked. You are already about 75% down the road to that block, by my estimation. If you were wise, you would stick to the talk page of these articles and not edit them directly. I have no idea how wise you are, so I will make no assumption. Otherwise, you will end up blocked, it is just a matter of time. After you've been here a long time, it would be easier for you to directly edit, because by then, you would actually understand the policies you are currently misunderstanding. So, do what you want, but you have been warned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I usually resolve disputes by taking people to court. Wikipedia rules say you cannot threaten legal action. From my point of view the talk pages are like arguing in the street the Noticeboards are the equivalent of a court room --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice boards are not a court room. Aside from how near you are to the WP:NLT policy you will want to read WP:NOTLAW. MarnetteD|Talk 00:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

At the end of the day I have been targeted on Wikipedia because of my professional life off Wikipedia and Admin should not allow that to happen because it is against Wikipedia rules. In the same way I ask judges for judgements when others treat me unfavourably, so Admin should look that all this started not with me breaking WP:COI or WP:OP but because I dared help a couple and teens that were victims of people Guy knew. It was guy who brought this dispute onto Wikipedia by targeting me and so it is him you should be criticizing not me --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It turns out that the particulars of this are being discussed here Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Character theory .28media.29. MarnetteD|Talk 00:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence of the claims that you are making. So far you have not done so. Other policies that you should be reading a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE MarnetteD|Talk 00:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have referred you to the conflict of interest notice board where Guy made clear his actions were linked to the couple I have been helping. His actions are clearly malicious and in opposition to the fact I have helped this couple. If you look at the sentiment in what he says he is clearly motivate my malice to me, including by using Wikipedia as a doxing platform, and any reference to Wikipedia policy by him is a way to try to justify this malice.

For instance "I did remove a number of citations to Bishop's websites all added as far as I can tell by Bishop himself, or by user:DigitalDisconnect, who I strongly suspect is an associate. This was a straightforward janitorial matter. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)", "Admins may also be interested in the deleted history of Jonathan Bishop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views). The debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (3rd nomination) says enough for non-admins to understand the issue. Look at some of the archive COI and spam reports linked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Jonathan Bishop, e.g. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 26 § Jonathan Bishop. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)", "Update: I had forgotten just how surreal the "harassment" claim against Lewis by Garden and Paris was. It's relevant here because Bishop apparently considers this to be an entirely legitimate claim. As an "expert" in online harassment, he considers Lewis to have harassed and bullied these two. In reality, the shoe is firmly on the other foot. Even knowing that he wanted nothing to do with them, they still turned up at an event where he was speaking, forcing him to leave to avoid a scene. They sued him for libel because he failed to publicise their claims of a victory against a Waldorf school in New Zealand. Now I thought that must be a bit of rhetorical exuberance but in fact the judgment supports the statement absolutely. Their chief source of grievance against lewis is that he did not give them a platform, and then that he made a couple of tetchy comments when they would not stop demanding that he publicise their claims. Bishop considers himself an expert on online harassment. I do not know anybody with any expertise in this who would agree with him that Lewis, rather than Garden and Paris, were the problem here. Note that they fired their legal representatives - this is rarely a good sign. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)"

As you can see here [114]] it was Guy that made the first move by removing reference to me from the Character theory page, and it is my view this was an act of retaliation for me supporting a couple who have been affected by a skeptic and this offended him so much because most of his contributions on Wikipedia relate to propping up skeptics --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

In essence it is Guy breaching WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE and that is why I think Admin should take action because I am being targeted on Wikipedia because of my professional life off Wikipedia --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose WP:BOOMERANG per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO for BLP reasons you should refrain from claiming here on Wikipedia that anyone cyber harassed anyone. AFAICT the people you are referring to here suffered an epic failure in their case even if it was about defamation rather than harassment since they abandoned their harassment claim. I presume you know about this since it's basically what you're referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Let us take them in order shall we?

• 1. Garden and Paris spectacularly had zero chance of winning their case against Lewis. Any sane reasonable person looking at even a brief summary, understands on which side the harrassment was.
• 2. When you come to wikipedia and claim someone removing material (that you have added) that is unreliably sourced (chiefly to your own websites which have in the past been fraudulently claiming affiliation with Swansea University, to the point where the university C&D'd you) is 'harrassment', coupled with your views on point 1, it indicates you really do not know what harrassment is. When you go somewhere and make demands, it is not harrassment when you get told no. This appears to be a blind spot you share with Garden and Paris.
• 3. You made at least two personal attacks in the above, a couple more at COIN, and lets gloss over the bordeline legal threat which had Dennis been a less kind admin, might have earned you a swift block. I suggest you go away and think about what people have told you.

Otherwise you may want to duck the curved wooden stick hurtling towards you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• The IP editor at the top had it right. Not only is this the boomerang of the day, but it should win awards for how swift, heavy, polished and WP:POINTY it is. (To explain the last: His self-promoting original research was removed from the article in the diff by another user with the same edit summary as Jonathan used. Jonathan responded by removing the single most well known and widely used set of personality archetypes from the page, with an identical edit summary. This is obvious from the diff and the diff of the previous revision.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User Otakrem

• Otakrem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Constantly adding unnecessary information that is politically motivated on page Abyssinian people. Edits have been removed many times but this user is not stopping, and this is not the first time (some of these edits are racist too). ---> I have added the report I accidentally put on the vandalism section (which it should be in too I believe) here. The user Otakrem has been highly disruptive, mainly since the beginning of this month. Unnecessary information has been added on the page I mentioned above and it is beginning to show that this user has just made this Wikipedia account because he is politically aggravated. It is getting ridiculous now as I did think the Wikipedia team would have had this sorted out by now, but it is still carrying on. I have checked the user's talk page, and it looks to me that he has been reported twice already, so I don't understand why this behaviour is still being allowed to carry on, it makes adding new information hard when having to deal with constant edits that need to be removed. Resourcer1 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Report on same editor: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tigrayans --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

DoneResourcer1 (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Massaro page main image

Hi all. I am former WWE Diva/Survivor Star Ashley Massaro's exclusive manager. I manage several other celebs as well. Ashley has been trying to get her Wikipedia main image changed for quite a LONG time now. She made a dumb mistake recently and mentioned this to her fans on Twitter and subsequently many of them started a change war. Many images that were used were not feee images but we're owned by third parties so one of your moderators (I believe he may be named C Fred, but not sure) kept removing them. This is my understanding. I decided to wait till all the hoopla died down to get involved. I would like to once and for all change the image to one that we own and that Ashley is happy with. Who do I talk to to get clearance to do so without the image I post getting removed? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony T.S. (talk • contribs) 05:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging C.Fred and suggesting Tony T.S. read WP:IUP. Someone more familiar with image policy than I might be able to guide you through the process. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Massaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This noticeboard is not suitable for a discussion because this page is to discuss behavioral issues. Asking a question at WP:HELPDESK would provide any required assistance. By the way, if there is ever a problem of people adding nonsense to the article, the place to ask for assistance is WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just to note that it's refreshing to see a subject's agent to submit a calm request instead of the usual truculent hyperventilation. EEng 06:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Impersonisation

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

---

This looks like an impersonisation. Please block. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• For sure. Any passing admin, please block ASAP, plus revdel I imagine. EEng 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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