Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.38.154.23 (talk) at 01:56, 25 March 2017 (→‎Magioladitis deletes thousands of user talk page edits and doesn't get the problem: Bureaucrats Noticeboard). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    The Wiki Ed welcome mat

    Last month I posed a question on Adam (Wiki Ed)'s talk page and got no response. Nor have any of the students & instructors who have left queries since 29 December. Nonetheless his account is still churning out welcome messages (around 8500 in the last 15 months) which don't vary, and haven't been interrupted by any signs of human activity in some time.

    I also see no other interpretation than that Adam is running an unauthorised, unattended bot.

    He's not responding on his personal page either.

    If Adam's no longer responding perhaps another account should be doing the welcoming? The present situation does no favours to WikiEd, Wikipedia, the students, or the instructors. Cabayi (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Entirely agreed - @Adam (Wiki Ed): please respond here at your earliest convenience, as I can't help to agree that it appears you're running an unauthorised bot. Although we don't really have much say as to the services Wiki Ed supplies I do think perhaps the welcoming aspect of it could be improved somewhat -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Protonk, the personal account, since I mentioned it. Cabayi (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, this task would generally not be approved even for a bot, see Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently_denied_bots#Welcome_bot. — xaosflux Talk 15:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At 19:14, 3 March 2017 (within that one minute timestamp), the account welcomed 40 different editors. Many of the timestamps seem to occur at roughly the same times, suggesting an automated program running on a set schedule. There's been no activity outside user talk from this account for a while and no response to inquiries about these welcome messages. It seems extremely likely that this account is being run as an unauthorized bot, so I'm blocking it until the human editor returns and explains what's going on. ~ Rob13Talk 16:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Technicalz isn't my dept., clearly; but isn't there a way of finding out what's actually being run on 'our own' site? Wouldn't it have to run from a subpage? or because it's open source, can it just run from a home PC and not be embedded? But that 19:14 timestamp seems to clinch it- one every 1.5 seconds?! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: No bots run on our site. They run off some other site, server, or computer and interface with Wikipedia. There's no way to tell whether something is automated or not except via behavior, at least not in a way that has no false positives and can't be gotten around. The closest we get to running something on our own site is Tool Labs, but even that's really another site that the WMF just provides. Most bots don't use that. For example, my own bot uses AWB and runs entirely off my personal computer. ~ Rob13Talk 21:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @BU Rob13: Thanks very much for the information. Interesting stuff. I understand now, cheers. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 21:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • note, Adam's account has been blocked which at least stops the ongoing botting Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian (Wiki Ed) has taken up Adam's welcoming workload using the same bot. He has at least been interacting with students on his talk page. (Ping Guettarda, his alternate account) Cabayi (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi! Part of the Wiki Ed support system for classes is that User:Ian (Wiki Ed) and User:Adam (Wiki Ed) provide support for student editors. The welcome messages get posted (automatically) to the talk pages of users soon after they enroll in the class, by whichever Wiki Ed staff member is supporting that class. Adam has been intermittently sick for the last couple of weeks. We generally have someone else help out when someone is out sick, but these talk page messages slipped through the cracks.

    The welcoming of users is something we previously did manually, but switched it to be automatically done by the dashboard at some point. I didn't think of this welcoming feature as a 'bot', separately from the general OAuth approval system, which is why I did not go through the bot approval process at the time that feature was added. I can do so if folks think that's necessary.

    I will follow up in more detail later today. In the short term, I've removed the 'greeter' flag from Adam's account (but not Ian's), so the dashboard won't make any further welcome edits on his behalf.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sage (Wiki Ed): I think it would be useful if you could clarify whether the dashboard makes these welcoming edits automatically, or if the user (i.e. Ian or Adam) have to manually approve each welcome. If it's the former, then that would fall under using a non-bot account as an unapproved bot. Bot Policy requires that a separate account be used, and that it be approved before running. If each welcome is being sent manually, and simply being sent from the interface, there shouldn't be a problem. Sam Walton (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Samwalton9: at the level of individual user welcomes, it's automatic. The manually approval happens at the level of a course, but once the course itself is approved, the welcome messages are automatic for each new user that joins the course.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome messages disabled

    I've disabled the automatic welcome messages from Ian as well now. It would be pretty simple to convert it to a dashboard-assisted manual welcome, but that seems pretty pointless since we want to make sure every Wiki Ed student editor gets a welcome ping from the person supporting their class, and the sooner after joining the class they get it, the better. I'll put up a BAG submission soon.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    BRFA is up: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Wiki Ed Dashboard student greetings.
    User:Cabayi: Thank you for opening this discussion. It pointed out a hole in Wiki Ed's support procedures that we'll figure out how to patch, for when staff have unexpected time AFK.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity: the BRFA has been withdrawn (with automatic welcome messages still disabled). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dashboard

    (may be related to the above?)

    Question: is the WikiEdu Dashboard ( https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/ ) considered a bot? And if so, has it been approved by en.wikipedia bot-related approval processes?

    I bring this up while there has been a problem that from that dashboard en.wikipedia pages can be updated (overriding any content that is on the page) without the dashboard editor being responsive to in-Wikipedia user talk page or project talk page comments by concerned in-Wikipedia editors. Example:

    Although nothing much happened any more since last year in this example it got stuck in my head as an unresolved issue. Possibly I lost my cool somewhere along the line, but what I remember is that there was a pile of cleanup after the project had passed through Wikipedia – and, frustratingly, no way to contact the people messing up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would call it an alternate editing interface. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW. I think that it is rather strange that WikiEdu asks people to edit something in the dashboard, and then doesn't even allow sysops to actually do so on their pages... That's definitely something that should be rectified. It's not the wikiway. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "I would call it an alternate editing interface" – yeah, so is AWB I suppose... the question is not whether it is an alternative interface (it is, no doubt about that), but whether it is a bot, and if so, whether it went through due process.
    The worrying aspect (as I saw it in the experience described above) is that you can ping a dashboard editor, or write on their Wikipedia user talk page or on the talk page of the project as much as you like, none of these messages go through to the "alternative interface" (so the editor there ignores it all, not even knowing a concern has been raised). Thus these dashboard editors continue editing Wikipedia via that interface without being aware about any concern voiced through Wikipedia's usual channels. In that sense it is bot-like: it steam-rolls whatever concern and overwrites Wikipedia content automatically with whatever the Dashboard sends out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In as much as it allows Wikipedia to be edited via WikiEdu's tools, and cuts WikiEdu users off from the concerns of Wikipedia's wider community (in effect censoring what messages get through to the WikiEdu users), it's a type of WP:OWN. Cabayi (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really the dashboard needs to go both ways, in that anything on the wikipedia end is copied to the off-site project and vice versa. Its not really acceptable for an offsite dashboard to be in control of a wikipedia page and overwrite it regardless of what wikipedia editors have done in the meantime. Its a core tenet of wikipedia that communication is required *here* between editors. Not referring them to external websites. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "... it's a type of WP:OWN" – that is indeed how I experienced it. So the question can be rephrased thus: do we allow https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/ to WP:OWN pages such as Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016)? I, for one, can not remember ever having agreed to that, and suppose for instance Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval would be a place where such agreement can be negotiated. And indeed "two-way communication", as mentioned by Oiddde, would seem a minimal requirement for such approval to be possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea with the dashboard on-wiki course pages, like Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016), is that they provide an on-wiki mirror of the dashboard.wikiedu.org content, so that things like 'what links here' can be used to easily find out which editors are connected with which other editors through these courses. Two-way editing of those is not practical, because the content isn't structured the same way. Those are the only pages that the dashboard quote-unquote 'owns'.
    In terms of approval process, the system itself went through the OAuth application approval process for the technical side of things, and there was a lot of (well-advertised) on-wiki discussion about the basic concept and using subpages of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed as, essentially, a replacement for EducationProgram extension that was the previous basis for course pages.
    The dashboard does not allow arbitrary editing of other pages, and all the actual article editing, discussion, etc, still happens the usual way. --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I had already understood that much. Your last words ("... discussion ... still happens the usual way") gloss over the fact that project to project (i.e. between "Wiki Ed" and "en.Wikipedia") communication is structurally near impossible, leading to frustration on both sides (frustration from Wiki Ed project participant's side is for instance documented here). So take the interface to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, which is about more than the mere technical approval, and for instance also about how the interface blends in with the English-language Wikipedia. I suppose it should be possible to send notifications about a relevant on-wiki discussion to the relevant page in the dashboard interface when a Wiki Ed project setup causes problems in the encyclopedia (like in the Wikipedia interface we get a notification with a clickable link when someone pings us or writes something on our talk page).
    Several Wikipedia editors, including myself, posted suggestions for a smoother interaction (which ultimately should result in better mainspace content, and better learning curves for Wiki Ed project participants) for future Wiki Ed project setups. I wonder what has been done with those suggestions? (if your reply would be that you didn't see such suggestions, that is kind of a confirmation of my earlier point that the project-to-project communication has in practice proven near impossible). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Francis Schonken: In general, adding more and better support for communication — such as notifying users on the dashboard about on-wiki communication they should know about — is definitely something I want to do at some point. I've thought a lot about this myself, and I've followed plenty of on-wiki discussion related to it. That said, I'm not sure what specific 'suggestions for smoother interaction' you're referring to here. I'm also not clear what you mean by "communication is structurally near impossible". The Wiki Ed system guides student editors to draft their work on-wiki, communicate about each others' work on-wiki, and interact with other editors on-wiki.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "... at some point" – how about now? Re. "... on-wiki discussion related to it" – linking to some of these (if there are that provide insight) might be helpful.
    Suggestions for smoother interaction / structural problems with project-to-project communication – apart from "see above" and "click on some of the links I gave above", here are some points I remember: there were some flaws in the setup of the North Carolina project mentioned above (leading to WP:CONTENT FORK problems etc.). Despite several efforts (by myself and others before me) we could not set up communication with the persons responsible for the project setup, in order to correct these flaws (the North Carolina professor...); Then there was the problem that almost all of the issues caused by the project showed up in a period of one or two days (on a few dozen pages), just before all of the South Carolina project editors disappeared from Wikipedia (a few remedies to avoid that in the future were proposed, e.g. timely publication of the due delivery date of the students' work on the project page; work from draft namespace instead of from user talk space; point students to guidelines that are specifically applicable for the topic area where they are going to edit; contact WikiProjects in the area where the editing is going to take place when setting up the project – instead of leaving the cleanup to Wiki editors when communication is no longer possible while everyone who was connected to the Wiki Ed project has left the building, etc...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "The Wiki Ed system guides student editors to draft their work on-wiki, communicate about each others' work on-wiki, and interact with other editors on-wiki." Again, you're missing the (direct) project-to-project communication for addressing Wiki Ed project setup issues. Also, for the over two dozen pages I reviewed when cleaning up it was clear that either there had been no communication between the student and regular wikipedia editors (where such communication seemed indispensable), or, in the very few cases when there had been such communication, that communication was highly problematical (see student frustration link I gave above). So, whatever the interface was supposed to do in that respect, it wasn't working. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Francis Schonken: Thanks. That cleared things up for me somewhat. The core issues, I think, are the same ones that have been the hardest ones for the education program all along: getting newcomers to engage in communication in the ways the Wikipedia community expects is hard. I think there are some ways that improvements to the dashboard can help — especially around facilitating on-wiki communication — but it will take a lot of design and development work to do that right. When you said "project-to-project communication", I at first was thinking in terms of communication between wikipedia.org and dashboard.wikiedu.org. But I think the problems you are pointing to are more fundamentally about how to get editors whose entry point to Wikipedia is the education program — instructors and students — to think and act like experienced editors. My view is that we've gotten a lot better at this over time, and the structure provided by the dashboard is a big part of that. Over the last year, we worked with significantly more classes and students than in previous years, with fewer of these kinds of communication problems. When such things do come up, and people post about them to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents, we often find ways of improving the process — occasionally technical ways, but usually more along the lines of changes to our training content, our help materials, and our processes for vetting courses and monitoring courses.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Some points:

    1. The "automatic welcome messages" BRFA was withdrawn after a comment that ended with "... Wiki Ed [...] looks like a separate organization and it wouldn't supersede anything on Wikipedia" – if the same is applied to the Wiki Ed project page updates that overwrite all the content on such Wikipedia project pages, this would become impossible by the same reasoning... So that functionality should be disabled immediately, then kept disabled until it passes a BRFA. I'd think (after an initial setup of the project page with the basic content of who is responsible, what the project is about, what the delivery dates are etc), that the talk page of such project page should be used to post incremental messages saying something like "the dashboard page of this edu project has been updated on <date>" (of course with a link to the related dashboard page).
    2. The BRFA for the Dashboard should explicitly include all aspects of (semi-)automatic updating of pages in Wikipedia originating from the Dashboard system. Thus far we've had two: automatic welcome messages (disabled, BRFA withdrawn), and automatic updating of project pages (should immediately be disabled per WP:OWN, see above) – are there any other (semi-)automatic updating functionalities generated by WikiEdu programs we don't know about yet? If so, ask permission for them via BRFA.
    3. Re. "getting newcomers to engage in communication..." – a quick fix that should at least alleviate some of the problems was proposed above: instruct the students that new articles are better started in Draft: namespace (and not in their user talk namespace where they are usually under the radar of Wikipedia communication until the content is transported to mainspace). Draft: namespace is monitored and students will get feedback, will often be pointed to WikiProjects that have experience in the topic area (leading to more communication), all of that long before the "due date" (which is typically the date when students move their new content to mainspace, after which they typically immediately stop editing Wikipedia). Rewrites/updates of articles that already exist in mainspace should likewise better be kept out of user talk namespace, and should take place directly in mainspace (or via update proposals on the article talk page), where of course there will be, in most cases, immediate feedback, and thus communication, too.
    4. Re. "... — instructors and students — to think and act like experienced editors" – err? I think they should think & act like newbies (which gives extra protection per WP:BITE). A part of the problem now seems to be that instructors and students, after following the WikiEdu introduction course, think they behave like experienced editors (with the tinge of arrogance that comes with it – excuse my French), but act in ways that upset regular processes and procedures, and write questionable mainspace content (e.g. in a page on a Vivaldi composition they think it is necessary to write a full Vivaldi bio, instead of just linking Antonio Vivaldi, give an overview of the composer's work, his style and whatnot, writing maybe ten percent of the new article about the composition at hand – without a single reference) – all of which isn't helped when editing from a "I'm an experienced editor" attitude, instead of from "I'm new at this, could I get some assistance?" approach. At the end of the introduction program they should know they are still newbies, so need to keep in touch with more experienced editors to address all sorts of practical issues (e.g. how to add proper references).
    5. Re. Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents – didn't know about that. How about providing a link to that page in the {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} box? That box would be the first place a regular editor learns about a student's involvement, so they should know where to go when issues need to be sorted. Also, this helps for early "regulars"–"students" communication (assuming the /Incidents page is not for internal Wiki Ed communication exclusively).

    All of this said, I will repeat what I said before: Wiki Ed is imho a great thing, that's why I think it is useful to take some time to hash out its issues. The program should give new editors some gusto for editing Wikipedia beyond their class assignment, which it currently only very rarely does: too often, currently, it ends in frustration, so let's do something about it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Still another thought:

    2. In the introduction for Wiki Ed instructors it should maybe made clear that the professors/teachers should not primarily expect to test a student's ability to write an essay via Wikipedia (there are more appropriate venues for that, within their institution): what they are really testing in a Wiki Ed setup is the student's ability to work together with people they don't know, within their field of interest. Are they able to learn from that interaction? This is future-minded: the idea of a single scholar working in his study surrounded by books, undisturbed by the outside world, is overhauled in a wiki setting where there is immediate feedback: how do students cope with such feedback without getting sidetracked? ...seems more like the thing that is tested in a Wikipedia setup (hence my suggestion above to keep prospective mainspace content out of user talk namespace staying under the communication radar). Which entails instructors being instructed how to read edit histories and talk pages (how did the student react to input by others? what did they learn from it in their topic area? did they manage to stay on topic? did they learn something about assessing on-line and paper reference works in a WP:RS approach?). Seems like a setting that will gain momentum in future approaches to research, so today's students would do well to prepare for it (e.g. distinguishing fake news from solid information based on source assessment & input from others is a hot topic nowadays: better learn students cutting edge approaches on how to do that than learn them to write essays old style, which their schools and universities are surely better equipped for).

    --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Francis Schonken: If a single edit in the WikiEd interface leads to a single edit on Wikipedia, then that sounds like an alternative editing interface, not automatic editing. That's perfectly acceptable under the bot policy. It's when the WikiEd interface is set up to automatically edit with no oversight from the editor in question that we have issues. ~ Rob13Talk 14:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tx, the problem is, however, with the alternative interface not accepting feedback: i.e. it doesn't pass feedback on to the editor who accesses & edits Wikipedia through the alternative interface, that is, without logging in into Wikipedia. In that sense the Dashboard operates as a bot, churning out dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of Wikipedia edits blindfoldedly. We wouldn't accept any bot to do that: the bot would be blocked immediately, until it accepts feedback from human Wikipedia editors. Imagine being able to edit Wikipedia with AWB, without being notified of pings, user talk page messages, or whatever initiates normal in-wikipedia communication... That wouldn't last long I suppose, even if you would only make an edit in this way every few days.
    For me it makes no difference whether this is approached as a "go through BRFA to get approval for this functionality", or whether, alternatively, we block all external-Dashboard-generated edits to pages for which the Dashboard claims ownership, because it goes against WP:OWN to let it continue this behaviour. The first approach does however seem to have the advantage to offer a way out. The second approach is fairly simple and straightforward: Dashboard can't own a page in Wikipedia, thus exclude it from operations on Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The dashboard only makes edits on behalf of logged-in users. You must log in to Wikipedia in order to log in to dashboard.wikiedu.org, and we expect instructors to be responsive to problems that come up related to their courses. If you run into trouble with an unresponsive instructor, you can ping a Wiki Ed staff member and/or post to WP:ENI. The 'owned' dashboard pages on Wikipedia are a convenience for other editors to easily connect the dots with active courses. It would be easy to change the system such that it only posted essentially an initial version, and then made no further edits (so that it would never overwrite changes in the meantime), but that would defeat much of the purpose; it would just mean that the on-wiki page would not include up-to-date information about which users are doing what, and what the instructor's latest assignment plan is. I think I'll make some updates to the edit notice (Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wiki Ed) to make it more clear how to address problems (ie, contact the people involved rather than edit the automatically-updated course page). I'm not aware of any problems with these course pages for quite a while, though. The case you noted was more than a year ago.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the lack of talk page messages getting through/pings is an issue, you're welcome to start an RfC on it, Francis Schonken. I'm undecided (or possibly just apathetic) on that issue. It doesn't violate our bot policy, certainly, and I'm unaware of any other policy or guideline related to the issue you've identified. The editors making edits without access to feedback are responsible for their edits (including responding to feedback, as necessary), and they could be blocked if a lack of response to feedback becomes disruptive. There's nothing about the interface itself that crosses some bright-line in policy, though. ~ Rob13Talk 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The editors (who are brand new editors relying on experienced WikieEd instructors) should not be blocked for not giving response to feedback. The people responsible for encouraging new editors to edit through an interface which effectively disables the feedback from reaching these editors are the ones that should be blocked for it in such a case. Fram (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no: it is not my aim to get anyone blocked. Editors monitoring WikiEd processes, i.e. the ones with "(Wiki Ed)" in their username, are doing a great job. But, (1) they should seek permission if they want to override WP:OWN for specific pages, and (2) true, when they strive to get students and their educational instructors to get more engaged in wiki-interaction they might reflect that the way the Dashboard application is set up it rather works against such interaction, than that it supports such interaction. For these reasons I think it best that, unless the permission is obtained (which is in no way a case decided in advance), the Dashboard interface should be prevented to operate any edits to en.Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Francis Schonken: This only addresses one of your points above, but regarding the course pages/WP:OWN issues, the on-wiki course pages (the ones starting with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/) are on-wiki copies of Dashboard-based course pages. Neither Wiki Ed staff nor students nor instructors have cause to use the on-wiki copies. They exist because we heard from members of the community that it might be useful to have an on-wiki record, even if they would only be that -- a record. The way we can keep those on-wiki copies up-to-date is by having the Dashboard automatically update it. That means any manual changes would be overridden, yes, but there's not actually any reason to edit it because, again, it's only a record -- changing it would create a discrepancy between the on-wiki and Dashboard (primary) version and the people who you would want to leave a message for there would not receive the message there anyway (again, instructors/students/staff don't typically use the on-wiki course page). Personally, I like having the on-wiki record, if for no other reason than to have an internal link to include in the article talk page template, but it's ultimately up to the community and if it could feasibly be discontinued if there's consensus to do so.
    Segueing to another point (though my response on this is somewhat redundant), although instructors/students aren't going to receive messages left on the on-wiki course pages, the Dashboard is only used for course organization/planning/management purposes, and all editing is done through traditional editing interfaces. So a student shouldn't be any less likely to see a message/notification than any other new user (more likely, in fact, because we regularly remind them to engage with the community on talk pages, check for messages, etc.). I'd be happy to talk more about these issues on my talk page (or elsewhere). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's keep the discussion here, please, I see no need to cut it up on several talk pages.
    All of your explanations only confirm, in my eyes at least, that we should never have allowed edits to Wikipedia via the Dashboard interface. Why not use the Wikipedia WikiEd project page for updating the project status, and instead of copying that page from the Dashboard interface, copy the Wikipedia project page (semi-)automatically to the Dashboard website? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this question. Have you used the Dashboard? If not, I'd recommend setting up your own test class/program on the Programs and Events Dashboard (outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org). It's a fork of the Wiki Ed Dashboard for programs beyond classes, so it won't create those Wiki Ed course pages, but it will give you a feel for why this suggestion doesn't make sense to me. The Dashboard is a piece of software for classes editing Wikipedia. No editing is done through the Dashboard -- it's where students go through training, add their assigned articles, where instructors can see an overview of student work, etc. The on-wiki course page is a brief, static information page. There is no static page to edit in the Dashboard, and its pages are automatically updated based on student/instructor activity. In short, it would be impossible to work the other way, and that's part of the reason why the Dashboard exists in the first place. Again, if you find there is consensus for your view that the Dashboard should not create these static information pages, we can certainly stop the practice, but while I know of others who like having them there, I've not seen others object. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I take the perspective of a Wikipedia editor. Which is by definition not knowing how Dashboard works. And not wanting that that external entity overwrites whatever suggestion I write on a Wiki Ed project page for a better interaction and less frustration. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this line of defence makes the prospect for ever obtaining a permission to overwrite Wikipedia project pages even bleaker: above a Wikipedia admin defended Dashboard-to-Wikipedia edits while "a single edit in the WikiEd interface leads to a single edit on Wikipedia". Seems from the last explanation given by a Wiki Ed editor that that is not the case, while in the Dashboard "pages are automatically updated based on student/instructor activity", and then the overwrite is generated, blindfoldedly as I suggested above, without seeing what one is overwriting on a Wikipedia page. Not an acceptable process. AFAICS there's only one possible course of action: disable that Dashboard functionality immediately until a permission is granted to override Wikipedia policies for the particular case (BTW: a Wikipedia page that gets regularly updated is not a "static" page). Yes, the Wikipedia project needs to be informed about goings-on in Wiki Ed course projects that are affecting or going to affect Wikipedia content, so that information will need to be given by manual edits, and not by automatic overwrites, until if and when the automatic procedure may be accepted by Wikipedia(ns). What is even more needed than periodic one-way information about the goings-on of particular Wiki Ed courses, is the possibility to have, per Wiki Ed course, a forum where the course setup can be discussed to avoid annoyance (both from the course to Wikipedia as from Wikipedia to the course). Such page should probably best be organised Wikipedia-side, but with more responsibility from Wiki Ed side (including its initiators, instructors and students) to interact on that Wikipedia page to address unresolved issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal regarding overwriting of Wikipedia project pages

    The "replacement" of content of Wikipedia project pages as mentioned in the first paragraph of the Wiki Ed "editnotices" template is disallowed. This does not diminish the need for two-way communication between people operating individual Wiki Ed courses and Wikipedia editors interested in particular courses of this kind. Wikipedia project pages about such courses will become platforms for such communications: basic information about the course will continue to be posted on the Wikipedia course page, and course participants are by this platform notified of possible suggestions, questions and remarks by Wikipedia editors.

    Wiki Ed's preference for students to work in their user (talk) space

    As already discussed in my suggestion No. 3 in the previous section, a quick fix for sound student-regular WP editor interaction would be to keep students out of their user space for drafting mainspace content. A violent (as opposed to sound) interaction is documented in progress here: a student's draft has been deleted from their user space, with admins quibbling (surely way over the newbie's head) whether the delete was opportune. That's not the welcome we want to give to newbie students, nor is this something where established Wikipedia editors (including admins) should devote that amount of time to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a suggestion that new student editors not work in their sandboxes before editing articles? Part of the point of doing that (not just for students) is that content is less likely to be deleted from userspace while new users get a handle on editing... --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The main point is not the likeliness something can be deleted (this is a Wiki environment), but the soundness of the interaction. The in-progress example I linked to above illustrates a deletion under the cloud of a frustrating interaction. So snap out of the reasoning where "avoid deletion of whatever a student writes" is a goal in itself. If the student knows what they have to do better to make an edit stick, with admins addressing the needs of the student (instead of having a discussion over the student's head), then there is a useful interaction from which the student, Wikipedia and the Wiki Ed project benefit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal regarding preferred workspaces for Wiki Ed students

    Both Wikipedia-side as Wiki Ed side interaction between Wiki Ed students and Wikipedia editors is promoted: that interaction is not helped by students working isolated from the wider Wikipedia editing community on prospected Wikipedia mainspace content in their user talk space ("sandbox" testing of the wiki editing mode is not affected by this). For this reason:

    1. Students will create new proposed articles in Draft namespace;
    2. If the work of the student is intended for an existing mainspace page, the student will work in mainspace and/or the talk page of the affected article.

    Other comments

    I'm uninvolved in the above incident(s), but I believe some of the discussions above would be better discussed in the wp:village pump rather than here. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 16:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unable to edit because of misidentification with a blocked user

    I once used a public computer apparently used by someone called Jamenta, and now my anonymous edits--almost all connected to my expertise with William James on whom I have published many articles as well as a\n Academic Press book--are all being deleted--even from the talk page--based on this misidentification. See below. Please advise. And thank you.

    "Unhelpful changes./* corrections */ Please explain why correcting grammar and adding a brief quote by a well respected knowledgable source is unhelpful."

    "Because you have been banned from wikipedia on your account Jamenta for inserting fringe content on wikipedia, swearing and making legal threats."

    "You have an obsession with quoting William James. He was a psychologist who was duped by paranormal claims yet you quote this guy like a religious script. He he is mentioned in the article, a long quote is undue to a fringe point of view."

    "It is not a long quote. I shortened it once and am willing to make it even shorter. You are apparently unacquainted with James's full writings on parapsychology. He remained open-mined, unsure, and ultimately "baffled" by parapsychology. But whatever your personal opinion about James, it is not serving Wikipedia--a forum dedicated to balancing different opinions--well here. A minimum, specific reason of support by a well-respected authority on Myers specifically and parapsychology in general, is essential to match the many reasons opposed by other, far obscurer, and by no means better vetted, authorities."

    "Once again, the Jamenta thing is false. It was assumed because I posted from a public computer. I have no idea who Jamenta was or is. Please address the substantive issue raised here pertaining to this article." 71.167.134.66 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So Jamenta does not stantd for William James? But both of you have an interest in parapsychology...? What administrative action are you seeking. Please be brief. El_C 23:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure sounds like a duck to me. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just happened to be passing through ANI (ugh, why did I do that) and it's somewhat surprising nobody more invested in this issue has noticed this, but: it is obvious from Jamenta's early contributions how his username came to be, and El C's hypothesis is incorrect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am looking to have the capacity to suggest edits based on my expertise. If the first step I need to take is to appeal this misidentification with Jamenta so that it never arises again I will begin that appeal. Once again, I am an Academic with a significant publication history. 71.167.134.66 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And I have no idea who Jamenta is. The computer I used, ill-avisedly I now see, was with a huge law firm, with a staff of 800 people. Lots of people are interested in parapsychology. Some, alas, bringing to it more heat than light. 71.167.134.66 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)I can show you my Academic bona fides. You would have to believe I was some sort of Jekyll/Hyde character to be posting like the examples I saw.71.167.134.66 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Who was it that just removed my last post here? : “Create an account and then you will no longer be anonymous”. Wikipedia:Why create an account? --[[User:Aspro|Aspro]] ([[User talk:Aspro|talk]]) 01:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Was it anonymous user 71.167.134.66 ? --Aspro (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And too bad, because it's the intuitive thing to ask: why not register an account? It only takes half a minute. El_C 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 71.167.134.66 - Whether you are Jamenta or not, we cannot take your word for it that you are William James. You could go to WP:OTRS and ask them how to go about providing them with the information they need to prove your identity, but (I'm not absolutely certain, but I think) you will probably need to create an account to do that, since we can't have the proven "William James" flitting about from one IP to another, that would set up a situation where just about any IP could say that they were William James. On the other hand, if anyone is really convinced that you are Jamenta, they can file a sockpuppet investigation report (SPI), and if admins decide the evidence is sufficient you can be blocked from editing, whether you have an account or not.
      If anyone has corrections to this information, please feel free to jump in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your time here. I can create a user name with my real name, but what is to keep my real name from being identified with this Jamenta person? Should I just disown the identity when I sign on, and make my appeals about it therefrom? One other concern: My sense is that NPOV is not always enforced when it comes to parapsychology. Can an Administrator override a trigger happy editor like Mr. Macon here. Can a pile-on of obscure critics really not be answered by one well-sourced renowned critic? If you find my changes serve the interest of fair play can you revert them now? That would be encouraging. There is little point in my continuing to try to balance out a pile of negative references with one positive reference if it will always be reverted by those, like Mr. Macon and company, who apparently does not believe parapsychology deserves a NPOV.71.167.134.66 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Understood. Would very much appreciate hearing from the Administrator community whether they think Mr. Macon's deleting my sourced James review of Myers Phantasms of the Living in the 2 Wikipedia articles it appears in, an insertion I made to balance out the pile-on of obscure detractors, was in keeping with "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."71.167.134.66 (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That isn't the role of Administrators and probably belongs at WP:NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit was reverted because I believe (see WP:DUCK) that you are blocked user Jamenta, and additions by blocked users editing as an IP in order to evaid the block may me deleted on sight. The question you ask above is not for this noticeboard. I would also note that, when you posted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Violation of fair and balanced policy you did not limit yourself to the question you asked above, but instead repeated your "I am not Jamenta" song and dance, a topic which belongs here.

    Thank you, Doug. I will go there71.167.134.66 (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC). Tho at some point the Administration community might need to weigh in on what seems to be a concerted effort by a group of Editors to prevent a balanced reporting of the history of parapsychology. WP: FRINGE does not clarify whether Skeptical Extremism or the American Association for the Advancement of Science should determine the viability of James's openminded approach to parapsychology.71.167.134.66 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is strong evidence 71.167.134.66 is the banned user Jamenta himself or associated with that user.

    • It is aslo likely this user has other sockpuppets on the Myers article. My conclusion is that this user is Jamenta or at a minimum associated with that individual. In his defense his wrote that over 800 people worked in the building he was working at on his own IP, but really? Two people have the exact same interest in James and Myers and moan about "sceptic bias"? Whoever this person is, he is not honest. I am all for letting people use wikipedia who make constructive edits and giving people a second chance, but this user is nothing more than a pseudoscience promoter. He fails to understand wikipedia policies on fringe material, he seems to think over a hundred years old opinions from credulous paranormal believers like Myers are reliable sources of information. He has no decent edits, not here to build an encyclopedia all he wants to do is push fringe content. He will never give up doing this, every edit he will make will be controversial and just stir up repeated arguments like he has done before. He is now stirring on another noticeboard. I think it would be best if this guy Jamenta was blocked. 82.132.242.74 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to concur with 82 above. All those IPs are Jamenta or closely related somehow. I've never seen anyone else with the obsession for James and Myers and the willingness to try to argue that "evidence" over a century old outweighs more current sources. Does this have to go to SPI or can an admin just DUCK block these accounts? I'm not sure how viable a range block is. Maybe protect the effected articles for a bit? Capeo (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    82's analysis is very convincing. I would think the best option would be that all the accounts be duck blocked, and the editor's IP edits continue to be deleted as block evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    {{checkuser needed}}  Clerk declined - CheckUser will not disclose the IP address(es) of a named account. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI clerk comment: 82's analysis is missing diffs, and I can't find where 71.167 supposedly admitted to operating any other accounts. I completely agree with I am One of Many that this user's edits bear very little similarity to the angry rants and legal threats of Jamenta. If there's something I've missed, please make a report at WP:SPI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not Jamenta. I have no idea what a sock pocket is. I am a recognized James scholar and will sign on with my own name if that is the only way to pursue this false accusation. But there is little point in my trying to edit for fairness in my area of expertise--using James, where appropriate, to balance pile-ups of obscure and sometimes questionable authorities--if the Administrators will not support my efforts. I think it is essential to make the distinction between promoting parapsychology per se and promoting a fair and balance point of view toward historical figures and events that are part of its history. 71.167.134.66 (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no such thing as a James scholar. Please, just stop. You have no interest in how James, or anyone, came to their ideas from a sociological viewpoint as an actual scholar would. It's more than clear you actually believe this stuff. Capeo (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Now he is WP:FORUMSHOPing, and for some reason has decided that I am the source of the "persecution" he is experiencing. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Violation of fair and balanced policy. We need an administrator to step in and sort this out. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You were the person who deleted my entry. I was advised on this site to take my request for reversion to the NPOV noticeboard71.167.134.66 (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, several people -- not just me -- have deleted your contributions as being made by blocked user Jamenta. Please stop singling me out. Again, your claims that you are not Jamenta belong at ANI, not NPOVNB. Again, your question as to whether there is a "pileup of Myers detractors" which violate NPOV does belong on NPOVNB (ANI does not rule on content disputes), but that wasn't what you posted to NPOVNB, and that wasn't why your contributions were deleted. They were deleted as block evasion by blocked user Jamenta. And your behavior is a classic example of the law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The IP editor and Jamenta are not the same person. It's obvious from examining the writing styles of both editors. And of course there are William James scholars. We really need assume good faith here. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks to me like someone purposely changing his writing style in an attempt to get away with block evasion. I won't reveal all of the things I noticed (no point tutoring him on how to evade his block) but I will point out one: What are the chances that someone who writes "I have no idea what a sock pocket is" would also also write "I once used a public computer apparently used by someone called Jamenta" and "The reason I did not fight the misconception when it arose was because it was a public computer and I did not want to involve the company"? On the one hand, he implies that he has never read WP:SOCK, yet on the other, he is making excuses for using the same IP as Jamenta before anyone here has identified the two as posting from the same IP (While doing that 71.167.134.66 inadvertently revealed that he has also posted as 208.194.97.5 [10]. Also compare [11] with [12]). So he knows that checkuser exists but doesn't know what a sockpuppet is? What he didn't realize is that most admins are not checkusers and that those who are checkusers won't reveal or even check Jamenta's IP against any IP editor -- blocked editors still have full privacy right on Wikipedia, and linking a username to an IP address is a serious breach of those rights. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see where else this discussion can go. Can it be closed?--Aspro (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unless you want a clone of this discussion to be opened by this or some other Jamenta sock in the near future. If I and the roughly dozen other editors who have been reverting the steady stream of "new" users who just happen to be pushing the same fringe content about William James and Frederic Myers that Jamenta was pushing are wrong, we need to have an administrator tell us that so we can stop doing it. If we are right, then this latest sock needs to be told that complaining to ANI isn't going to stop the reverts. Again, can we please have an administrator sort this out and make a decision? Pretty please with sugar on top? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence of sockpuppetry is signficant, but not conclusive. I would like to propose as a resolution of this matter an application of WP:AGF and WP:ROPE: let this editor openly create an account from which to continue editing. His edits will undoubtedly be subject to substantial scrutiny, and can be judged on their merit. The situation is likely to resolve itself on those merits. bd2412 T 04:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support too. I suggested (above) that the OP created an account which would not only support his declarations of no-wrong-doing but would (if he has the wiki-spirit of co-operation) help us. No response – wants to reattain anonymity and out of reach, letting us jump through his hoops of his creation. OP says, quote: “Once again, I am an Academic with a significant publication history.” unquote. An academic's livelihood depends on s/he's work being widely disseminated. He hasn't even bothered to reference his credentials. --Aspro (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have learned my lesson about the perils of not creating an account. I will open one later this month. If anyone follows through the work I have tried to do so far (again I am not now nor ever have been Jamenta), I believe it will be evident that my sole purpose has been to balance historical articles that are overloaded with negative responses to anything dealing with parapsychology. None of the articles I have worked on bear any resemblance to Wikipedia's noble aspirations for what an article should be. If Wikipedia decided to banish all articles dealing with parapsychology (like the New York Times pretty much now does) I would be ok with that. But once an article is allowed, it cannot just hang there as a target for darts.71.167.134.66 (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And yet, after three editors have supported a solution that involves 71.167.134.66 registering a user name and 71.167.134.66 seemingly agreeing with that solution,[13][14] he continues arguing his case editing as an IP.[15][16][17] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I can see your point about double agreeing. I believed, perhaps erroneously, that I needed to respond to Aspro Talk's "No Response." I am still responding here now with my IP because I launched this thread, "Unable to edit because of misidentification with a blocked user," as such and thought I needed to maintain that same identity throughout. The exact same reasoning applies to why I maintained my IP on the WP:NPOVN site that an Editor here kindly referred me to. But then, you have even blocked my responses to those who responded to me there. The responses I was given were worthy of responses, which I gave. I would like to hear from an Administrator how those responses can be restored. Again, I thought it would be confusing to switch identities midstream. 71.167.134.66 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC).71.167.134.66 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I will be happy to restore those comments as soon as I see that you have registered an account and started posting using it, as you agreed to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Guy. I will this week. I assume no one has an objection to my initially registering an account with an anonymous name, such as "Spirit of James"? I want to be sure that the responses to my revisions will be Jamenta-free. (Again, if any good-faith Administrator needs my actual identity at this point to enforce a Jamenta-excuse ban, I will be happy to supply it.) I will also be upfront that I am mostly focused on editing in areas of my published expertise, citing authoritative sources. Please let me hear now from an Administrator if such focused editing is ultimately not appreciated as making a contribution to building an encyclopedia.71.167.134.66 (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't have to reveal your real name, ever. You can choose to do so (as I have done) and you can choose to prove it (as I have also done; just ask at the help desk if you have trouble figuring out how), but those are your choices to make. Using your real name really won't help you at all on Wikipedia, because we rely on reliable sources, not on the knowledge/expertise of our editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Hi 71.167.134.66. You can use your real name if you like, but you might want to take a look at WP:REALNAME and WP:WRW first. As Guy Macon pointed out, it's the quality of your edits, not your choice of username, which really matters the most . On Wikipedia, your choice of username may only turn out to be a problem if (1) it does not comply with WP:UN and (2) it gives others the impression that you have a conflict of interest when it comes to certain Wikipedia articles. However, off Wikipedia harassment can be an issue which is a possibility you might want to take into account if by chance you are a fairly well-known person. Remember that your user contributions are pretty much there for anyone to see and try to use in a manner which might not be appropriate.
    As for focused editing, there's nothing wrong per se with being a WP:SPA. However, limiting your focus to a single article or genre of articles might also limit your ability to better understand collaborative editing and how various policies and guidelines are applied on a community-wide basis. Moreover, being an SPA is not considered a good reason for not editing in accordance with these policies and guidelines. Being an "expert" with respect to a particular field may help you improve the quality of certain articles, but it does not grant you any special status; you will still be expected to edit according to relevant policies and guidelines. There are a number of WikiProjects where editors of similar interests work together on improving certain areas of the encyclopedia. The overall goal of every editor should be WP:HERE and not WP:NOTHERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you both for these helpful tips. Obviously I anticipate more harassment for my decidedly SPA focus on NPOV balance for historical articles related to James's world--which involves a subject, parapsychology, that some Editors have openly expressed complete contempt for. I will continue to be accused of violating the SPA ban of "appear[ing] to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view," when I am trying to use my area of expertise to undo what I see as violations of same. My sole interest is in correcting obvious historical errors and distortions using respectable sources. If I use the name, "Spirit of James," some Editors who have already publicly equated an openminded approach to parapsychology (as James had) to an openminded approach to flat earth theories, will surely feel provoked and especially motivated to counter my edits. They would deny James as a respectable source for the same reason that they would deny anyone who promoted flat earth theories as a respectable source. I have already been told this explicitly on the WP: NPOVN site. But of course, as I pointed out (soon to be unblocked), there are no respectable sources--let alone esteemed scientists, Noble laureates, etc. as there are for parapsychology--who are openminded about flat earth theories. Not one. Yet I anticipate Editors will continue to see my edits as a provocation to promote their "favored point of view" that any source that advocates an openminded approach toward parapsychology, automatically qualifies as an unreliable source. Nonetheless, I still think it best to have my SPA out front, registering as "Spirit of James," by which I am referring only to his openminded spirit toward parapsychology, however much it may be misinterpreted as referring to his solid conviction in parapsychology--a conviction he explicitly stated he did not have. But if any Administrator feels this username is ill advised, please let me hear from you.71.167.134.66 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following has been explained to you multiple times:
    1. Arguing about article content at ANI, as you just did (again), is inappropriate behavior. Administrators do not make decisions on content, only on user behavior.
    2. Arguing that you are not a sockpuppet on pages other than ANI is inappropriate behavior. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. The reliable source noticeboard is for taking about the reliability of specific sources for specific uses.
    I would add the following; now that you have agreed to start using a username as a condition of not being blocked, in my opinion, a reasonable number of questions posted to ANI or the help desk about what username to choose seems reasonable to me. I am not an administrator (I have turned down multiple offers to be nominated) but I have been here over ten years, and I don't see any problem with the username "Spirit of James". I also don't see any problem if you end up making the same arguments Jamenta made. We all agreed (see above) that, if you start editing with a username, we will all assume that you are not a sockpuppet trying to evade a block, no matter what our personal opinions on that are. I would, however, caution you to avoid making the same arguments Jamenta made and doing the same things that got Jamenta blocked.' There is some good advice about this at Wikipedia:Clean start, and I would also recommend my essay at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Guy. But again, I have no idea who Jamenta is or what he said. So as long as no one mixes us up again, as my own account will apparently assure, I don't see how clean start is relevant. Our styles, apparently, are completely different, as an Administrator here has already noted. I have not been, nor ever intend to be, abusive. I am sorry you think I had a specific article content post just now. It was very much directed at past and anticipated future User behavior as applies to SPA, and whether using my proposed name would be overly provocative. But I very much appreciate that although you are not an Administrator you have weighed in favorably on it. Pending no Administrator caveat, I will go with it. Thank you.71.167.134.66 (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User is now editing with the new username. I suggest closing this as resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Winkelvi block

    If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. - WP:BLOCK#Unblock requests

    I would like to recuse myself at this point from further action on this block, and would instead like the community to decide on what to do with Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). They have a long history of edit warrior behavior, now at 6 blocks for breaching the policy on edit-warring. I personally do not think they are going to change this pattern, and do not see any pragmatic reason to think otherwise. I suggested at most lifting the block and replacing it with a 0RR (with exceptions for blatantly obvious vandalism/spam), but there's still not evidence that this will be a net positive decision. As such, I would believe it is best if more eyes look at this and am giving my full endorsement to any community decision, even if that is a complete reversal of the block (which I do not anticipate). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reduce the block to something far shorter (maybe a week, but I have no strong opinions)
    This was raised at ANEW by a pop-up disposable IP account, and concluded with 1 day and a 3 month blocks for two parties in trivial and fairly symmetrical edit-warring (Yes the edit-warring is real, I don't dispute that). I cannot see that such an unbalanced conclusion is at all appropriate, whatever the track record of the editors. I am particularly concerned at how it was raised! Edit warring is a problem, but disposable socks to cause trouble is a far greater one. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is a problem, but disposable socks to cause trouble is a far greater one. I'll say. Granted, I don't actually agree with you on what should be done in this case, more because of personal editing philosophy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse three months or perhaps indef Raise to indefinite block. If and when unblocked or it expires, 0RR indefinitely. How many chances do you give an editor? Five? Six? A dozen? I first ran into Winkelvi in Bess Myerson a couple of years ago, and it's the only true nightmare I experienced on Wikipedia. Enough already. Coretheapple (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Amended, per subsequent comments. Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose if anyone goes to WV's talk page to investigate, they'll see there are at least 6 admins who already support an unblock with an indefinite 1RR restriction, which I'm planning to enact on Monday, if no one has done it before then. Coffee opposes that and so brought it here. There was some vague accusation that WV was adminshopping before this was brought here, so it's worth pointing out that among the admins supporting this are an unpinged admin who has previously blocked him for a month (me), an unpinged admin who has previously declined a more lenient unblock request (LB), an unpinged a pinged (sorry, my mistake, she was pinged) admin who, I believe, has previously issued WV a topic ban (Bish), and another unpinged admin (Ritchie). None of the admins who were pinged by WV are supporting a straight unblock, and none of them have reputations for shady behavior or favoritism. It seems to me that 6 admins all agreeing on a course of action for an unblock, and only the blocking admin opposed, is pretty close to as good a definition of consensus as you're going to get around here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A 1RR restriction cannot be unilaterally placed by a single administrator unless the user is editing in a topic area that's under WP:AC/DS, or if it's approved by community consensus. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why this is the most appropriate venue for this review Bbb23 (in reply to your comment at this editor's talk page). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a single administrator, it's 6+. And anyway, yes a single admin can impose 1RR as an unblock condition, if the blocked editor agrees. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: Errr... yes it can. WP:CONDUNBLOCK --NeilN talk to me 21:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN, Floquenbeam - You're correct; if the editor agrees, then yes it's perfectly fine. Sorry, should have made that clear. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah, Bbb23, and NeilN: "If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. (WP:UNBLOCK#Unblock requests) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not making this shit up as I go along you know... — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was replying to Oshwah but did you add the right wikilink? --NeilN talk to me 22:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that I am making shit up as I go along... tsk tsk. WP:BLOCK#Unblock requests — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well somebody elsewhere just pulled a cowboy unblock that I disagreed with, yet I didn't feel the need to haul them to AN and make a song and dance over it; I'm going to let it go. (And I realise writing this is ironic). Likewise, 5-6 administrators have reached a consensus of what to do, why can't you as blocking admin just accept that sometimes things don't go your way and move on? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad he didn't. It's a chronic issue that deserves daylight, not the shadows of a user talk page that nobody is watching. Keri (t · c) 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Because it has nothing to do with me. I'm doing what I think is best for the community and encyclopedia's interests. I'm not "hauling" anyone here but the action itself, so I'm not sure where that came from. I'm confused though why any administrator would have an issue with their decision being brought here, if they actually thought it was the correct one per the community's wishes. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: "[I]f anyone goes to WV's talk page to investigate, they'll see there are at least 6 admins who already support an unblock with an indefinite 1RR restriction ...." I don't see 6 admins supporting that. I see five admins: three friendly admins that WV pinged, one admin known for their extreme leniency and cowboy unblocks (Ritchie, who unblocked WV's one-week block after 2.5 days in February 2016 with a three-month 1RR restriction), and one with a longterm feud with the blocker. I also see a number of admins there disagreeing with that plan. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC): edited 23:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In this particular case, the claim seems pretty untenable, but there can be a real question about exactly counts as a first revert. But when it comes to a 3rr rule block, you were edit warring either way, so you aren't likely to get off on the technicality. Monty845 22:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially given this edit WV made to his user page about 1RR. Keri (t · c) 23:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse either continued block, 0RR, or both. I don't think this user intends to do ill, but the aggressive editing style and sometimes discourteous mode of personal interaction has exhausted the patience of the community, as seen in his block log. Speaking in my capacity as an involved editor, not an admin: just a few days ago, at Ben Carson, WV (1) edit-warred to restore challenged material of dubious relevance; (2) did so without first posting on a talk-page discussion that I had already begun; (3) failed to give a substantive rationale once he did show up at the talk page (merely "I happen to disagree" and then, once pressed, that the content "worth noting"); and (4) blindly reverted a subsequent, separate edit; inaccurately called it a revert; and failed to acknowledge the mistake. That pattern is not promising. If unblocked, then 0RR with the usual exceptions (blatant vandalism/spam), as Coffee has agreed to, would be called for. Neutralitytalk 22:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the admins (except Coffee) called for 0RR; we all called for 1RR instead. I'm unsure as to whether you missed this or whether you do genuinely prefer 0RR as an option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to the "community" (of people who are not watching WV's talk page). Keri (t · c) 22:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please. You want everything handled on ANI? Drmies (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just prolific, tendentious repeat offenders. What a fucking stupid question. Keri (t · c) 01:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened here to bring people like you out of the woodwork? First you're clamoring for openness, and when I ask if you want everything out in the open you say that's a "fucking stupid question". Learn some manners, child. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere have I advocated for "everything to be handled on ANI". Your mocking tone and straw man ad hom tells me everything I need to know about you. Given that I have never advocated bringing "everything" to ANI, it is a fucking stupid question, designed purely to belittle me and undermine my opinion and dripping with trademark passive-aggression. As is your pathetic trolling/baiting attempt with "learn some manners, child." What's next, "your mom" jibes? As for "What happened here to bring people like you out of the woodwork?" And what exactly are "people like me"? You mean "other editors"? The "community"..? And "the "woodwork"? You mean working on the encyclopedia and not daring to question your judgment, like good little drones? What a thoroughly unpleasant little man you come across as. Keri (t · c) 18:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At about the same time as Drmies was insulting Keri, he left an abusive post on my talk page in which he stated that my "condition" (i.e,, my Asperger's, which I just mentioned in a comment) is more "excusable" than Winkelvi's.WTF? Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity - I do prefer 0RR, as supported by Coffee and Keri. I think it's more than justified in light of the prior blocks/sanctions. As usual, it would not apply to blatant vandalism or spam. Neutralitytalk 22:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse the initial block as a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. But also Support Unblock with 1RR, indefinite duration, with an expectation that it wont be eased for at least a year. Personally, I don't think 0RR is a reasonable solution outside very active and controversial areas. Monty845 22:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse and frankly 1rr is not really an incentive to not edit war. 0RR or dont bother. -edit- And after reading his talkpage, that excuse was laughably unbelieveable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Coffee's wrong in counting five previous edit-warring blocks. Before this latest one, Winkelvi had been blocked six times for edit-warring, and two of them (including the one I levied) were removed by the blocking admin well before they would have expired. Swarm unblocked with a rationale of Sock involvement demonstrated post-block, edits exempted from 3RR (i.e. WP:3RRNO), while I unblocked and then left a comment of Winkelvi was in the middle of discussing the situation; I wouldn't have blocked if I had seen this. I'd say you should count this as four EW-related blocks. Whether or not four-versus-five-versus-six should affect anyone's vote or anyone's contribution to this discussion I won't say; I just hope that people consider the entire block log and not just the blocks themselves. In particular, don't count all of the [admin] blocked Winkelvi lines, since at least my second block of him (the one-second block) was done just to add an apology to the block log; I'm thankful that nobody, so far, has carelessly just counted the number of lines. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason for the included number is the pattern of behavior itself. Just to clarify. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, that makes complete sense, and if I were voting here, I'd focus on the behavior pattern in my argumentation, regardless of how I voted. I just wanted to ensure that everyone inspecting the block log understood what was going on. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, perhaps the block log and blocking admins' comments deserve closer scrutiny. For example, this: "I made it clear in the last ANI that the community has had enough of this... previous blocks of up to one week have not been enough to get the point across." or this: "If you don't understand that, perhaps a month is too short, because we cannot keep indulging you in your near constant battleground behavior with everyone. Your behavior is nearly constantly disruptive. You do it even when warned, except apparently you think as long as the disruption is with some other person it is OK. Every single time you are blocked you say you've seen the light and will change, you never do. IMHO, next block for the same behavior should be indef." Keri (t · c) 23:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its worth noting that in the last year they have also been blocked for deliberate harrassment of another editor and 'feuding' with other editors. Both conduct issues. That is aside from the edit-warring blocks. At what point do we accept Winkelvi is either unwilling or unable to play nicely with others? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All that I'm asking is that you consider the block log carefully; if that consideration leads you to think that it's time to believe that he can't play nicely with others, I won't attempt to dissuade you, just as I won't if the consideration leads you the other way. Just trying to make sure that everyone understands the facts well. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think 0RR may be justified here, given that WV's default mode is complete entrenchment in a given position without willingness to really listen or discuss -- as exemplified by Neutrality's example. This kind of behavior would be expected of a newbie, but it is unacceptable for someone who has been here 5 years and made 25,000 edits, and there has been no indication of any longterm change. I hate to say that because WV can be a good ally if he happens to agree with you, but the longterm edit-warring, tendentious editing, and personal attacks really need to be stopped. Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocking administrator comment - Winkelvi is once again (cleverly IMO) admin shopping/canvassing: [18]. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)edited — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why didn't you just say in a neutral way that he has made a new post on his page?? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because, I've never found it necessary to call a spade by any other name. This is this editors 10th block for disruptive behavior, in 4 years. I can't be asked to simply assume good faith without merit at this point. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • This pinging habit of WV's is a bit irritating, but calling it canvassing here is overblown. 01:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
          • Coffee, you are not asked to assume anything different than anyone else. Your record of poor blocks and lack of discretion is as egregious as your description of Winkelvi. That is why we are again discussing, with much drama, your block. I would have hoped that the last reproach would have instilled a more thoughtful approach to blocking but it seems that is not the case. In any event, your block has caused much more disruption than Winkelvi. Please reflect on that and moderate your behavior and maybe take a break, say a year, from blocks. --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I suggest you open an ANI thread, or go to ArbCom if you actually think that you have any chance of convincing anyone of your aspersions (without evidence). I'd also like to point out that while you may think that my integrity is why this thread exists, you are actually discussing this matter because I asked you to. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)@DHeyward: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Coffee made a bad block and we're here to discuss or overturn it. In fact, the opposite is the case. Coffee opened this thread himself to ask for review, and there appears to be near-unanimous endorsement from everyone who wasn't canvassed. In addition, your casting of aspersions here is unwelcome and unproductive. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you User:The Wordsmith. DHeyward, really? Drmies (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll add myself to the list of admins who supports an Unblock and indefinite 1RR - I have not dealt with Winkelvi before as far as I can remember. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen plenty of Winkelvi, and he of me. This edit warring is an unfortunate habit. The talk page discussion is so long that I can't even tell if he really got it--that this was a violation and a blockable one. Can any of you tell me if he posted that he gets it? Anyway, I supported, or maybe even proposed! an unblock with a 1R condition for three months--I'll settle for anything that resembles that, and if there's a majority for 0R, I suppose I'm OK with that too.

      Softlavender, I hear you--I think Winkelvi is one of those editors that just can't help himself when given the latitude editors think 3R give them. I don't want to be the psychoanalyst here or anywhere else, but that's what I think, and I think we have quite a number of those editors, most of whom function quite well though sometimes with restrictions, and you understand I'm not naming names here. His edits, as far as I remember, aren't tendentious; sometimes they're just...persistent. That's not good either, but it's not irredeemable. He's no POV warrior, for instance. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My use here of "tendentious" to describe WV's behaviour is intended to reflect that of WP:TE: "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions" (my emph). WV's edits certainly meet those criteria. Keri (t · c) 01:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was torn whether to use the word "tendentious" or the word "WP:BATTLEGROUND". If you like I can change it to that, as it is a more accurate, yet stronger, description, and has been noted by various admins like Floq (e.g. in the diffs provided by Keri). In terms of "getting it", I don't think anyone who has filed, and/or been subject to, as many ANEW reports as he has, over the past 4 years years [19] (I count at least 75, including one a week ago), can maintain any semblance of credibility after repeatedly claiming that (he thought that) the first revert doesn't "count" in 3RR: [20], [21], [22]. He knows the drill perfectly; yesterday he clearly warned a user who had made three reverts for 3RR, and then when the editor breached 3RR with a fourth revert Winkelvi reported him [23]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC); edited 03:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant nothing personal, by the way--and I meant "tendentious" in the strict sort of POV sense. I agree with you on the ANEW experience and I find the whole thing rather baffling, but I'm paid to AGF, sometimes to a fault perhaps. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite 1RR regardless of unblock and neutral, leaning support on unblock Frankly, I think the project would be better off if everyone was subject to 1RR except in cases of obvious vandalism, etc. The 3RR principle, that everyone is allowed edit-war up to a certain point, runs counter to AGF, since we should be assuming as soon as we are reverted once that the reverter is acting in good faith. 3RR also places an arbitrary numeric value on what counts as an edit war, and so encourages gaming of the system by users who don't engage in talk page discussion but edit carefully to make it look like they do. The only exception I can think of is where the reverter's edit summary made it clear that they had, in good faith, misunderstood your original edit.[24] So yeah, I would probably support an unblock and indefinite 1RR for just about anyone, but given the repeated nature of this offense, and especially that the last block was repealed with a 3-month 1RR restriction I am a bit more ambivalent on an immediate unblock, and can't see how anyone could oppose the 1RR restriction regardless of whether they agree with my personal philosophy. (Full disclosure: ArbCom subjected me to 1RR in late 2015 for some edit-warring that had happened in early 2015. I had immediately regretted said edit-warring and happily accepted the 1RR restriction. It will be the last restriction I appeal, if I decide to appeal it at all.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to say Hijiri 88 that I'm impressed by your disclosure here. I've not known many restricted editors to be so forthcoming, without requirement (at least I don't know of a requirement... correct me if I'm wrong). It is definitely appreciated by all of the reviewing editors here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't mention it. Honestly the disclosure was more of an afterthought. I actually think it kinda hurts my case, as it means that my case-relevant argument (that Winkelvi was subject to a fixed-term 1RR restriction as a condition to his last unblock) is sandwiched between two long pieces about me and my principles, and so is likely to be missed. I honestly hate when people !vote in these discussions based exclusively on their own principles (or their like/dislike for various participants), so I really hope no one thinks that's what I'm doing here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too much drama. Conditionally unblock and close this kerfuffle. --DHeyward (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block as a valid action of admin discretion. Given the extensive block log, I find the length to be perfectly reasonable and in the same situation, I likely would have imposed a block of similar length. Since the issue of unblocking with a 1RR condition has come up, I strongly oppose that. It almost never works, especially not in editors with an extensive history of edit warring like we see here. We'd be back here in less than a month. He has given some indication that he understands what he did wrong, so I would Support an unblock (or reduction in block length) with a 0RR editing restriction. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wordsmith, hello. I'd like to point out the Winkelvi has a long history of saying that he "gets it" after a block, before reverting to the same type of behavior after being unblocked or having the block expire. Check out this message [25] that he wrote in January 2016 after receiving a 1-week block for edit-warring. After reading it, consider his behavior since then, and please tell me if you still trust him when he promises to stop. Also, I would encourage you to read these edits from May 2016 after he was blocked for feuding with another editor. [26] They demonstrate clearly Winkelvi's history of saying after a block "I didn't know what I did was wrong, but now I do, and I won't do it again." I think we're at the point where we can stop giving him the benefit of the doubt. Due to this, and also his repeated history of behaving inappropriately on talk pages, I politely and respectfully encourage you to modify your position to supporting an indefinite block. Display name 99 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Display name 99: I have seen that, yes. I understand that he's said that before, which is why I only support unblocking with the mandatory 0RR restriction. I'm big on forgiveness , so I'm not going to outright switch to supporting nothing but an indef, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if that's what needed to be done. Consider me Neutral on that. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me we should note all of the admins that Winkelvi has been ping-canvassing from his talk page [27], [28]: MelanieN, Diannaa, Bishonen, JamesBWatson, Anna Frodesiak, Drmies, Bbb23, Laser brain, NeilN, Ponyo, Ritchie333, Floquenbeam. (Those are "nopings" on my end.) Although I think Coffee is being a bit aggressive in his insistence not to accede to the other admin opinions on WV's talkpage, those admins were all canvassed except Floquenbeam and Laserbrain, whereas it is the community at large who bears the brunt of WV's behavior, and therefore the community should probably have a voice in this matter, given the very long history, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is quite in fact why I brought this here. I don't have enough energy to try to discuss this matter with that many people all at once (by myself), and it is my personal opinion that these admins do not a consensus make. I believe firmly in the community's ability to decide what is best in matters like this, and as such have deferred this matter to you all. Laser brain declined the original unblock request and another formal one was not made, WV instead decided to use a system of pings to get unblocked. Obviously, I have grave concern for such a system... and WP:ADMINSHOP shows that our community does as well. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)UTC)[reply]
        • Huh. I'm normally inclined to agree with Drmies in cases like this, but I don't here, as that definitely looks like canvassing. I've never quite understood why something can only be called "canvassing" if the users were specifically contacted on their talk pages, especially in cases like this where that is impossible and pinging on one's own talk page is all one can do. That's way too many people for Winkelvi to be pinging. The fact that all or at least most of them are respectable Wikipedians who aren't likely to come to his aid just because he canvassed them doesn't change the fact that he did canvass them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (edited 04:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
          • Hijiri88, I don't think Winkelvi can expect me to agree or jump to his defense if the position is indefensible--in this case, the block itself was justified and I said so. BTW, I don't think that canvassing need come by the way of some sort of notification; a ping will do as well. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • My apologies for the lack of clarity. I meant that in this particular case I don't agree with your assessment that calling it canvassing here is overblown since whether or not the apparent intent or actual effect resembles legit votestacking, accusing someone who pings that many users of canvassing/admin-shopping can't possibly be overblown. I didn't mean to directly equate you with the "if it's only a ping, it can't be canvassing" crowd. Clarified accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, yeah, (apparently) bypassing WP:UNBLOCK in favor of pinging 8 friendly admins is not good. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A year ago Winkelvi was given a 1RR restriction for three months as a condition of an early unblock: [29], [30]. He doesn't seem to have learned anything from that sanction. That would seem to indicate that whatever happens with this discussion, the sanction should be longer and/or stricter. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block Endorse block, support indef There's only so much WP:ROPE you can throw out. It's been shown that 1RR can't do much, so I really doubt the effectiveness of 0RR at preventing the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 0RR for a duration of one year and unblock (after which WV can appeal the sanction in a community discussion and if failed, every six months thereafter) 1RR clearly hasn't cut it before and I doubt that increasing the duration is helpful. I agree with Anna's judgement of the editor, I've seen them elsewhere but I think it's better if they stay away from any kind of reverts for a while. --QEDK (愛) 05:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was curious about Coretheapple's mention above of his "nightmare" encounter with Winkelvi on Bess Myerson two years ago and checked that out. It does indeed seem to have been a nightmare, and in my opinion is representative of Winkelvi's inability to, and refusal to, brook disagreement. He appears incapable of letting go. Winkelvi arrived at the article here: [31], and made 120 edits to it in 2.5 days, including massively, heedlessly, endlessly, and obstinately edit-warring with Coretheapple and Alanscottwalker (edit-warring begins here: [32], clicking "Next edit" from there on out is quite instructional). This resulted in Winkelvi being reported at ANEW [33] and the article being locked for a week, at which time Winkelvi left the article completely. Not however before covering the article talk page with endless IDHT walls of text [34] (from top to bottom of that talk page, 79 edits and tens of thousands of bytes in 6 days: [35]) and leaving behind two very frustrated, be-numbed, bewildered, and resentful editors. If Winkelvi is unable to edit collaboratively, and needs outside intervention on such a regular basis, this is a real problem and needs a major solution.

      I'd also like to state that, for the record, I don't know how long it has been going on, but Floq and Coffee have an obvious feud going on (I noticed this in re: the TRM AE discussions), and so Floq should not be implementing any change here in my opinion. And also for the record, Winkelvi knows very well which admins he can curry leniency from, from having interacted with them in the past, and several of those were indeed the admins he pinged in his first round of pings, so the discussions on his talkpage should not be seen as binding or representative, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • I was waiting for someone else to point this out organically before I commented on this, but Floquenbeam has no place in reviewing any of my administrative decisions ever as he has a clear lack of neutrality regarding me. If he makes any action here whatsoever, he's going to have to answer to the Arbitration Committee. (Of course I highly doubt he'll actually make any action on this at all; he has baited people to try to make them respond out of hand in the past, so I'm sure that's likely what's happening here [since he's very aware of our current standing]. I will not be falling for such a trap.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Softlavender is correct in every respect. One of the most frustrating things about Winkelvi is not just his serial edit-warring and cluelessness, but his ability to game the system, finding admins he can coax into giving him "just a second chance" or a third chance or a fourth chance. I don't know if this was a factor in the recent hostilities, but he also claimed to have a medical condition that somehow contributed to or "explained" his edit-warring and tendentious conduct. His lengthy block record only hints at the burden he is to the project, as he is constantly being dragged before this or that drama board. Search the drama boards and you can see for yourself. Here is one, an encounter with User:Tenebrae from 2014 that I just picked at random. Read that. No action. It just goes on and on and on, and he keeps on getting a pass until finally he gets blocked. Personally I am surprised that he has not been indeffed by now, but he always seems to find yet another sympathetic admin to give him yet another second chance, so that he can return to his old ways until he gets yet another second chance. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my impression, also. The gaming of the system is very clearly demonstrated by this diff from a couple of weeks ago, which should be read in its entirety. WV always claims to be shocked and surprised when bought to account for their actions, but their words there demonstrate complete clarity about how "the system" works, and how to game it. The irony is breathtaking. Keri (t · c) 16:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give them the choice, stay blocked 3 months or agree to 6-month-to-1-year 1RR as unblock condition — While 3 months reflexively seemed a bit much when I first stumbled across it (but then checked the block history and totally understood why), it's also a strong incentive to agree to an unblock condition of WP:1RR. To be perfectly clear, his revert history at Billy the Kid clearly and obviously violated WP:3RR, and is doubly damning considering he's reported other people on AN3 before (I actually patrolled one of the reports the other day). What's worse is the fact that he was unable to acknowledge his error directly after the block, disputing the technicalities of what constitutes a revert—and to be clear, he's wrong. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of 3RR, as well as the concept of WP:EW as a whole. This, first and foremost, needs to be rectified. I've always been a fan of imposing 1RR over blocking when possible, and on a completely tangential note, it might be a good idea to start an RFC to allow admins to unilaterally impose 1RR restrictions on an editor (without needing an WP:ACDS) in place of, and for durations proportionate to, normal blocks (subject to same appeals process as blocks). This would have been a prime case where an immediate 1RR restriction could have saved everyone a bunch of time and would have been pretty obviously supported. --slakr\ talk / 09:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The thing about imposing 1RR instead of blocking, without community discussion, is that nobody knows that the 1RR exists except the people who happened to be watching the user's talk page at that time. So the user can freely violate 1RR and nobody knows and they do not get reported. That's why drawing the community's attention to the discussion and also allowing input and buy-in into sanctions other than blocks is very important. (And it's not the case that Winkelvi does not understand 3RR -- he has reported or been reported at ANEW at least 75 times -- see my and others' posts above.) Softlavender (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse (I was pinged above) If there is an unblock condition should be 0RR, if anything, because 1 RR has already been tried. Winklevi needs to get with the program, and the more rope that has been extended, the more they seem to not get with the program. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock with indefinite 1RR (with an exception for WV's own talk page) as proposed at user talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse with the only chance of unblock early being 0RR for at least 6 months, but I think a year is best. I think it's pretty clear that Winkelvi has issues with reverting. Hopefully a 0RR would keep the positive contributions without allowing wiggle room. I read the Bess Myerson talk page posts and am impressed with the paitence shown by the other editors. I might have blown a gasket with that level of edit warring and wall of text posting. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block-I stumbled across this discussion and decided to give my opinion. I've interacted with Winkelvi a few times, most notably at Billy the Kid in early 2016. This was the first GAN that I reviewed, and I committed a few embarrassing mistakes, for which I take responsibility. But what I saw from Winkelvi was a persistent battleground attitude that included not only edit-warring but persistent hostility, questioning of motives, WP:Ownership, and vindictive behavior towards anyone disagreeing with him. By examining the history of his block log and the talk page and AN/I discussions concerning him that have taken place since then, I have found no reason to believe that he will change anything. Perhaps the biggest mistake that I made at that article was not failing it immediately after the edit war, which was largely out of guilt for originally passing it prematurely. What ensued after that was also a sort of nightmare, aided somewhat by my lack of knowledge on GA reviews and occasional immaturity, but rooted largely in Winkelvi's near-constant battleground attitude which alienated most of those who worked on the article.
    On his talk page, pinging Drmies, Winkelvi said that he "gets it." He has a history of saying that sort of thing after a block, but then somehow we always end up at the same place as before. A 1RR has been put in place before. Now he is back to the same type of behavior, so it's time to take it up a notch. But even a 0RR would still result in Winkelvi being able to continue his accusatory, battleground, and non-AGF behavior on talk pages. He may even resort to doing that more often, knowing that if he reverts and is caught it would likely result in a longer or indefinite block. What I saw on the Beth Myerson talk page is disturbing, and we could see more of that sort of talk page drama if Winkelvi knows that he can't revert anymore. That's why 1RR and even a 0RR won't work well enough. It also doesn't help that I find Winkelvi's excuses about not knowing the technicalities of 3RR to be totally unconvincing, considering his experience, history of edit-warring, and history of reporting other users for edit-warring. I'm not buying it.
    Winkelvi has been given plenty of chances. He has thrown away all of them and in the process has caused the WP community an enormous amount of time and anguish. I don't think that there is enough non-destructive behavior from Winkelvi to outweigh this. That's enough to say that he is a net negative and that an indefinite block would be in order. Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Block, support indef block - As far as I recall, I have no involvement with this editor. Reading the above, I think there is plenty of evidence to not only support the three month block but to extend it to an indef. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 16:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I wasn't going to comment here, but in view of a couple of comments above, I will. User:Coretheapple, Winkelvi has had the aspergers userbox on his page for as long as I've known him, and your "he also claimed to have a medical condition that somehow contributed to or "explained" bla bla", is shameful, as if it was a new thing and most likely something he made up. "Medical condition", bah. You will answer me if you wish, naturally, but I have no more to say to you. @Softlavender:, when you say if there isn't an ANI discussion, "the user can freely violate 1RR and nobody knows and they do not get reported", you're assuming bad faith in a way that'll be like a knife to Winkelvi. He's on the autism spectrum, as he points out himself every now and then — it's no sort of secret — which colours his interactions with others. I understand that Wikipedia is not therapy, and I have certainly seen him behaving atrociously on talkpages. But he's actually big with rules, and I don't for a moment believe he'd violate a personal, specific sanction "freely" just because "nobody knows". Please compare the section "About me and editing" on his userpage, where he says among other things "Because those of us on the Spectrum are unfailingly "rule-followers", we are also honest to a fault. When we are accused of lying or intentionally being disruptive or not acting in good faith, it's quite hurtful." I've found that to be very true, both parts of it: Winkelvi follows rules, as long as they're very, very exact and spelled-out rules, and he's dreadfully distressed if he's accused of shady dealing. (Compare his reaction to Coffee in the first discussion, right under the block notice, and btw I think Ritchie333's comment on that discussion was excellent: "... when I block somebody I generally punt any conversations about the block off to reviewing administrators... picking a fight with an editor you block is generally counter-productive." How I wish Coffee had worn his listening ears for that.) Also, never mind the autism spectrum, which people obviously aren't obliged to know about, it's a nasty thing to imply about anybody, that they'd cheerfully violate a restriction they had agreed to. That's what WP:AGF is for: because we know so little about anybody on the internet that we're commenting on.
    While I'm here: I've advocated unblock + indefinite 1RR on Winkelvi's talkpage, but I won't record any sort of bolded !vote here, because I'm not sure about the unblock. That's because Winkelvi does behave badly sometimes even apart from of edit warring, and I can certainly sympathise with the people who have experienced a "nightmare" interacting with him. That's far from something I'd wave away. But I do want to say, please don't unblock on condition of 0RR. One of Winkelvi's latest comment on his page, here is rather convoluted, which of course doesn't serve him well, but the takeaway from it is that, while he's fine with 1RR, he hates the idea of 0RR so much that he'd rather ride out his 3-month block. So please, people, don't do that; either keep him blocked, or give him an indefinite 1RR restriction. (On balance, I believe the 1RR restriction would be more helpful going forward than the block, but I think both are acceptable.) Bishonen | talk 16:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Oh please. You're acting as if he just has a userbox and that was that. How dare I mention that! What you didn't mention was that when he was doing his number in the Myerson article, and in other of his many disputes then and afterwards. he was constantly "playing the Asperger's card," citing that alleged condition as an excuse for his actions. Yes, it is a claim, no it is not verifiable, yes, it is irrelevant, and yes, it is one of the many ways he gamed the system. was claiming that he Asperger's is the cause of his conduct. He has two entire sections on his user page devoted to describing how his Asperger's is the cause of his conduct, and he has brought it up in defense of his actions. In this exchange with Jehochman he said "I'm not clueless, I have Asperger Syndrome (as is broadcast at the top of this page). People with Aspergers are generally quite intelligent with high-IQs. So, no, not clueless, just asking for specifics (something Aspies need at times to understand what someone is referring to vaguely)." The "broadcast at top of this page" comment refers to the fact that he has a notice at the top of his talk page referring to his Aspberger's "If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me," So no, it is absolutely not just a user box. "People on the autism spectrum need to be aware that pulling the 'Oh, but I'm a poor misunderstood Aspie/Autie' card out of the pack is a bad move! There are a lot of us in here, and we can tell when someone's using it as an excuse!" Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (additions and strikeouts, since I've heard objections to use of the term "playing the Asperger's card") Coretheapple (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishonen, thank you for your message, but I'd like to point out a view things that I object to in your comment. You say "Winkelvi follows rules, as long as they're very, very exact and spelled-out rules." Um, no. The 6 blocks for edit-warring (not counting the one with sockpuppetry) show that this isn't the case. Take a look at this quote from WP:3rr:
    "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."
    That seems pretty exact and spelled-out to me.
    That's also not to mention the constant disruption that Winkelvi has caused on talk pages and drama boards during his 3+ [5] years contributing to Wikipedia. In a previous block, resulting from a long-term feud with another editor, an editor (possibly Floq, but I'm not entirely sure) called attention to the fact that Winkelvi seems to think that it is acceptable to, after being warned against feuding with one editor, to instead feud with another one, or (this may be from someone else) to "regularly change [his] mode of disruption." That's not Autism. That's called gaming the system by pretending to be clueless so that people will take pity on you and keep giving you chances. Display name 99 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, I should know. I have borderline Asperger's. Display name 99 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! I do too, not so borderline. Other stuff too. BFD. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen: "Winkelvi follows rules, as long as they're very, very exact and spelled-out rules." - I have loads of respect for you (as you know, and I hope at least some of that is mutual), but WP:3RR seems like an awfully cut-and-dry, spelled-out, exact, clear, (whatever other synonym to refer to blatantly easy you deem necessary) rule. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coffee: yes, I respect you too. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen, I disagree with your conclusions, but I will contact you via email so as to avoid prolonging the drama here. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are two main concerns expressed by the editors above - edit warring and talk page bludgeoning. 1RR is the obvious solution to the first concern but I foresee two problems. First, according to the "rules", Winkelvi can revert once a day on an article ad infinitum. Second, this allows anon IPs to troll Winkelvi as they have done in the past. For the talk page issue, I would suggest he be limited to one post a day but that may lead to walloftext posts. What is really needed is a mentor that Winkelvi has to go to whenever he runs into a conflict. However that could potentially be quite a demanding job and I don't know if anyone would volunteer to take it on. --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe mentoring has been attempted in the past. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem. I think we can discuss this without getting into NPA territory when it comes to Winkelvi and his userbox. I also think we can disagree with with Coffee without making him out as some rogue Nazi admin--he is not. I also think we can disagree with Floquenbeam without thinking we'll end up at ArbCom. And I think we can disagree with, for instance, Bishonen's assessment without being rude. Winkelvi broke policy; the block was justified. Coffee blocked and others disagreed; that's fine, that's what we're here for. Discuss it without criticizing the blockee, the blocker, the hypothetical unblocker, the proponents of more blocking, etc. Keep it civil please. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm only commenting here because I noticed WV posted to my talk page the other day seemingly accusing me of being responsible for his latest block (which I'm not). Anyway, I strongly strongly endorse this latest block because this is the sixth time he's been blocked for this same offense. Aside from what others have said, it's important to note his last block was for harassment of Calibrador (talk · contribs) -- the name used by photographer Gage Skidmore. (See here for more. WV's first edit following that block's expiration -- literally his very first main space edit -- was to remove a photo Skidmore had taken from an article [36] and he has continued to do so since [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. Ultimately, I think we should just indef block him and get it over with, instead of having this discussion again every five or six months. Calidum 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block, raise to indef: I'm another user who has been harangued and pursued by Winkelvi, much as Coretheapple and other describe, when he inserted himself into a discussion for the sole purpose of personal attacks and to stir trouble, and participated in an edit war about which he knew nothing in an effort to prosecute some old (and in my case, imaginary) grudge, most recently at The Crown (TV series), but also in at least one other article. He's also done the same with Calibrador in recent days. He works the "I'm on the spectrum" card for all it's worth, but speaking as someone with Ph.D.-level expertise and 30 years in the field, his social and communication skills are far too developed for a person with Asperger's syndrome. People, as uncomfortable a thought as this might be, some people with disabilities do actually abuse their disability rights, and Winklevi does so. How long will our bleeding hearts protect him, at the expense of how many editors he hassles and harangues? How many chances will it take before the community realizes he is a lost cause, and should be indeffed? --Drmargi (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)@Drmargi: Please clarify your comment his social and communication skills are far too developed for a person with Asperger's syndrome. Are you saying you don't think he actually has it? This would appear to contradict your statement that Winkelvi is abusing his "disability rights" as you put it, implying he does have Asperger's. If you think he doesn't, how can you claim to refute a diagnosis solely over the Internet? I know a person in RL with Asperger's who I am confident could conduct themselves to an excellent standard on Wikipedia, as indeed do many other autism spectrum editors here. BethNaught (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not diagnosing anything; I can't do that over the internet, nor would I care to if asked to. I'm simply commenting on characteristics and behavior as I see them. --Drmargi (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As someone who has also had the misfortune to be on the brunt of Winkelvi's unrelenting wrath, I vouch for Drmargi's statement above. Winkelvi embodies what Wikipedia should not be. Preventing other editors from ever having to interact with them would be a great accomplishment for this project. Calibrador (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw what you experienced recently, which was worse even than what I have, and was appalled. I was glad to see a block was applied in your case. I mine, Winklevi's behavior barely caused a blip. --Drmargi (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume this is related to the Carrie Fisher 3rr image issue? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block, support unblock with indefinite 1RR restriction. - Coffee's block was proportionate and reasonable. I believe that Winkelvi has the best intentions, and that his contributions are a net positive. That said, his doggedness is his Achilles heel. Since he is rule-bound, following a one revert restriction should be no problem. Personally I follow 1RR except in the most extreme situations, which I find avoids a great many conflicts. Winkelvi could benefit from the realization that any truly bad edit will probably be addressed by another editor, so he should not feel it imperative to correct it himself. My advice to Winknelvi to go out of his way to be accommodating to regular editors who push back. As to NeilN's suggestion, I thing a mentor would be beneficiaL. Perhaps someone like the esteemed Drmies would be equal to the task. I also see Bishonen as an inexhaustible font of wisdom and practical advice.- MrX 21:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
      • MrX, I can barely raise my own children, and I don't think I should be in charge of making coffee let alone "mentoring" a real human being, but I will do what I can. But please don't let any unblock be conditional on my or anyone else's offers to help out: the merits of the case, that is, to which extent the community has faith in Winkelvi, should be the deciding factor. You said it well, "his doggedness is his Achilles heel", and I hope he recognizes that. Personally, I have faith, though I understand that Winkelvi has made some enemies here. But I really always have faith, even in editors I've blocked myself or been in disagreement with, even in some of the most serious cases brought before ArbCom. I can't help it. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Drmies: I fully trust you to make me, for the record. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Drmies has opined on his talk page that Winkelvi "can't do all that much about his self-disclosed condition."[46] I don't think an editor who holds such an opinion should mentor this user (and I believe it has been tried in the past). Besides, If that assessment is correct, no mentor would do any good. I don't think we are in a position to make such a judgment. But I do believe that for whatever reason or no reason, his behavior will not improve. It's important to note that this is a problem that stretches back ate least two years.This massive ANI case from January 2015 was what I was referring to in my comment when I used the term "nightmare," that and the talk page issues referred to by Alanscottwalker below, Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • We've also noted that one of the problems with WV's behavior is his tendency to ping numerous friendly admins hoping that he will get some support. So I'm not sure why we should appoint one of his favorite admins to "mentor" him. I don't mean to offend Drmies. It's WV's behavior that is concerning me. Also, can we please stop calling him "rule bound?" WV uses the rules when he thinks they will help him. But when they don't, he ignores them. Those 6 blocks for edit-warring tell the story very clearly. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Display name 99, I think you misunderstand "mentor". It means a friendly but possibly strict coach; it doesn't mean "cop who keeps someone on a leash". That I'm supposed to be "friendly" to Winkelvi is yet to be determined, and at any rate that's your assessment of Winkelvi's hypothetical assessment of my attitude toward Winkelvi--do you understand my point? You don't know, and neither does Winkelvi. But let's say I am in fact "friendly" to them (that I'm an admin has nothing to do with it)--why on earth would you want to give someone a mentor who is unfriendly to them? Isn't that just like taking out an insurance to make sure they'll fail? And can I repeat that I am not seeking to be anyone's mentor or feel qualified to be anyone's mentor? Drmies (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Drmies, of course I wouldn't want the admin to be "unfriendly." My concern was the possibility of either bias in the admin or WV deciding to think that he had someone he could use to come to his rescue in the event of an argument, and nothing more. I understand your lack of enthusiasm for the job. I personally don't think that it will work, and repeat my statement that, due to the persistent and severe behavioral problems occurring over the past years and in spite of repeated warnings, an indefinite block is by far the best way to solve this crisis. Display name 99 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's not what mentors do, typically. I just got done sending a long email to my friend and colleague Coffee, with some details about someone from a while ago, in a case somewhat similar. This editor, who had similar editing behavior, got indeffed on the spot for all the right reasons and has worked themselves back into the fold, now without any restrictions and problems. I don't think I was necessarily their "mentor", but we had discussions via email, they'd ask me what I think they'd should do, and I'd tell them what, to the best of my ability, I thought was a good thing to do. Mentors, in my experience, don't necessarily go and jump in the middle of disputes; mentors aren't advocates, though they'll act in the best interest of their protege. So, I don't know about Winkelvi, there's no guarantees, but he's a human being and he's been here a while, and he's done some good (IMO much more good than bad), and I'm not going to give up on someone as long as they have an interest in improving our beautiful project. I will confess to something: in modern US parlance, I'm a liberal, I suppose, and that means, to me, that I don't easily give up on people. Frequently one gets very disappointed that way, and there are no ribbons or medals for getting it right, but I suppose I was Born This Way. And if 0R is the best I can get out of it, that's fine, though I prefer 1R, because 0R really means "we have no faith in you whatsoever"; 1R means "we don't trust you to stop on time". That's a big difference. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Drmies, I understand not wanting to give up on people. But there comes a time when one must consider the common good. In this case, it is the interest of the project and the well-being of its contributors. If the person in question has shown a consistent failure to follow directions and change disruptive behavior, and causing countless other people a huge amount of anguish in the process, and has not given any indication that the behavior will change, any concern for that person must be made secondary to doing what is best for the community.
    You say that a 0R means "we have no faith in you whatsoever." And what reason would there be to have faith after 6 edit-warring blocks in 3 years? It's a good thing to not want to give up on people, but you also need to use some common sense to deal properly with abusive people who clearly aren't going to change. And because the abusive behavior extends beyond edit-warring, and includes extensive harassment, bludgeoning, and other forms of aggressive behavior on talk pages, it should be clear that a 0RR won't even come close to solving all our problems. Only an indefinite block, made after years of smaller blocks and warnings and countless hours spent by countless editors sorting through drama and trying to find a solution, can put this unwanted behavior to rest. Display name 99 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad I don't feel that way. What I do or do not need is between me and my creator. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Winkelvi has more edits than I do and has more time in the project (24,000 edits and nearly five years). We're beyond the point at which mentoring would do any good. It's been years and years and blocks and blocks. Even if mentoring was capable of working, I believe the mentor would have to believe that the editor in question was capable of changing his behavior and dealing with whatever behavioral issues he may have. Drmies has already indicated he has no such confidence, as I observed previously. Note this exchange with Jehochman. And I agree that he does seem to be a partisan and that it would not help. Coretheapple (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coretheapple, please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say I have no confidence Winkelvi can change his behavior; au contraire. And I'll say the same to you that I said before: you can't be a mentor if you're not sympathetic. That is not the same thing as "partisan"--a. it puts everything in the context of conflict, which is the wrong way to work in a collaborative project and b. a mentor is not a punisher. If you are somehow worried that this evil Winkelvi's mischief is going to go unnoticed because partisan admin Dr. whoever is shielding his misdeeds from the world, you're mistaken. All edits are out in the open, and by last count there were some two zillion editors in this very thread who want Winkelvi blocked indefinitely and will be keeping a close eye on him. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You told me on your talk page that Winkelvi "can't do all that much about his self-disclosed condition"[47], by which you mean his Asperger's. If so the situation is hopeless because Winkelvi blames his behavior on his Asperger's. For instance, in this exchange with User:Jehochman, he said "Jehochman, I'm not clueless, I have Asperger Syndrome." On his user page he has two entire sections on the subject. One says "If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Wikipedia editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help." Immediately below that, in a section entitled "About Me and Editing," he goes on and on about his Asperger's and how it influences his editing. He has another Asperger's notice at the top of his user talk page.

    If we take him at his word that his behavior is caused by Aspergers, and if we accept your belief that he can't do much about it, then mentoring will not work and he needs to be indeffed for the good of the community. It isn't fair to expect that the community bear the brunt of this person's behavior, whatever its cause, if self-control is not in the cards. "Some people, whether on the autism spectrum or not, just don't belong in Wikipedia. Vandals, trolls, and abusive and disruptive editors can be blocked or banned, and being on the autism spectrum is no excuse for unacceptable behaviour."

    I realize that you have a lot of empathy for Winkelvi, but you need to have empathy for the people who have to deal with him. The reason there are a "zillion people who want him indeffed" as you put it is not that we are evil, but because of his behavior. You have never had to put up with bad behavior from him, because he shows a different face to adminstrators. As numerous editors have pointed out, he's extra-nice to you guys (unless you block him). The rest of us don't have that advantage. Coretheapple (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    entirely arbitrary break

    • Just to be clear, the problem with my long ago interaction with Winklevi, was yes edit warring, but also his unbelievably and intentionally ignorant arguments (eg, admitting he did not read sources) and offensive long drawn-out fights (over basically nothing, at all) and gross accusations (over less) - Winklevi needs be told straight out that he harms Wikipedia. He just has to shut down this manner of interaction, which begins with reversions, 0RR actually takes care of all that, if he can buy into it - read Anna's comment on his talk page, about going to write something worthwhile -- that is what he needs to do, (don't go near others work) if he has any hope, beyond the block. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block. I was involved in the Myerson issues referred to above. The continued prevalence of identical issues is discouraging. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block Back in 2015, I had a rather acrimonious encounter with Winkelvi when he reported another editor for edit warring. I will admit that WV's prediction that the other editor would continue to edit war did prove true so I'll give him that much. That other editor ultimately got himself indefinitely blocked for edit warring and socking, but that's by the by. I've generally avoided WV after that encounter. However, the argument does show that WV knows full well what it is to edit war and that any sort of prevarication is basically bullshit. Anything less than a 0RR restriction upon expiry of the block would be too lenient. Blackmane (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I won't weigh in with any particular recommendation, because to me it just seems like a quibble about degree. But I would add that, just recently, I too had a rather difficult encounter with Winklevi. I found him to be unreasonable, illogical, stubborn and unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion. When he made up his mind, he was like a bulldog with a bone and that was it. So the question is, if that's someone's personality, is there really any administrative action that could reasonably be expected to change it? As we've already been down this road many times before - isn't the past, predictive? X4n6 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a perfect way to describe the situation. The Myerson incident above might be the egregious example, but it's far from the only case of WV taking it upon himself to be prosecuting attorney, judge, jury and executioner. See this discussion in 2014 about Breaking Bad. And who could forget this one regarding Chelsea Clinton or this 2015 one regarding Taylor Swift. (Whether female musicians are singer-songwriters or merely singers and songwriters is apparently a cause celebre for him: See here for another example.) For a more recent example, see multiple threads at Talk:Ilias Psinakis or Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)/Archive_19. Calidum 22:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Calidum: Yes, come to think of it I received a note from User:Robert McClenon over that odd issue. [48]. Evidently there was an RfC on that nonsense in a project some time before, and I was summoned by bot to participate. Coretheapple (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multi-war veteran. Happened to see this and noticed some comments from editors who haven't been directly involved with him, yet are weighing in. While I've been subjected to a series of edit wars with him in Dec. and Jan., I don't want to offer any opinions unless invited, since this seems to be an admin board. Another veteran, who became a casualty, is User:Pauciloquence, FWIW. --Light show (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    Light show, I'm not an admin either. Non-admins regularly contribute to this board, so feel free. Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression was that besides the hounding by immediately going to articles I started working on, his edits were clear provocations to edit war for pure joy. By the third article in a row, it was pretty obvious that he was treating edit wars as a form of sport. He also had some kind of clear backstage pass, since he got that other editor speedy blocked w/o notice and got me speedy blocked twice in a row at Commons on a near fabrication while edit warring at En/WP. He had no fear of admins, most of whom seemed to be his buddy.--Light show (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Light show, given his block record, I doubt very much that most admins seem to be his buddy. Sorry, but that's silly--he just got blocked for three months so please--backstage pass? Your link is to Commons, where apparently you are blocked indefinitely for serial copyright violations; here, you have been blocked for edit warring by Courcelles, for more edit warring by Future Perfect at Sunrise, and for more edit warring by EdJohnston, and by Moonriddengirl for violating a topic ban (uploading copyrighted images, I think?). Kindly tell me which one of these bans and blocks are Winkelvi's fault. I see now that I closed that community ban in 2014, so maybe that's the sour grapes?

    Anyway, since one of the participants here now thinks I'm a passive-aggressive cunt, I should probably stop weighing in. If y'all think Winkelvi is irredeemable and you want to throw him out indefinitely, please do so without false representations and personal attacks. You'd appreciate that if it were ever your turn. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesus! I'm not a member of the Light Show Fan Club, we've had a series of disputes over Melanie Trump within just the past week, but he sure as hell showed more civility than you have in this entire discussion, with your steam-out-of-ears tone and now a gratuitous personal attack on Light Snow. You are in zero position to lecture anyone on personal attacks, sir or madam. And you do realize that your flailing about here contradicts the point of your missive--which is that Winkelvi has buddies in the admin corps? Without which we wouldn't be here? Coretheapple (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Does "cunt" count as a personal attack? Why isn't your buddy blocked for saying that? Did I miss you warning him? As for Light show, the attack (on Winkelvi and the admin corps) is his--I merely asked which of his many blocks are supposedly caused by Winkelvi. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That other editor I first mentioned, who hasn't been around since December, is apparently reading this and sent me a request. Since Winkelvi got them speedy blocked w/o notice, he/she has been trying to get unblocked. So if any admin has a few minutes, maybe they can review his case and help them out. For a newbie, they were making some very good quality improvements to a number of bios. --Light show (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Light show, I read through that investigation. [49] It appears as though a Checkuser never confirmed the connection. I think that's a major problem. Every person accused of sockpuppetry should be entitled to a Checkuser search. This way, the sockpuppetry is confirmed, and so the indefinite block would not be based exclusively on circumstantial evidence. I'll admit that the circumstantial evidence in this case does seem to be strong-I've interacted with one confirmed WS sock before, an account by the name of Jilllyjo-and I have observed some similarities. Yet this shouldn't be enough. Finally, the connection is listed as "Likely." Then it was closed. Nothing else happened. In a criminal court, being able to argue that the defendant "likely" committed the crime is not enough for a conviction.
    It's also worth noting that the blocking admin, Bbb23, was pinged by WV. Bbb23 also protested Coffee's decision to open this thread, so it appears he may be a bit sympathetic to Winkelvi. Thus, although it is beside the original point here, I support the investigation being reopened so that a CheckUser may be brought in to investigate. Display name 99 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect: a CheckUser (Bbb23) did investigate, and Pauciloquence is checkuser-blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, I have one quick question before I strike my comment supporting the reinvestigation. If the CheckUser did indeed confirm that the two accounts came from the same IP address, why does it only say "Likely," and not "Confirmed," as it did, for example, in the Wordseventeen/Jilllyjo investigation? Display name 99 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only guess since I wasn't involved with that investigation and don't have CheckUser access myself, but my interpretation is that a "likely" result indicates a strong likelihood of connection on a technical basis (versus "confirmed" which is definitely the same user), but still a positive result when the user's behaviour is also similar as it seemed to be here. Or more to the point: a CheckUser placed the block, so it's a CheckUser block. I trust Bbb23 would not annotate the block log in that way if there were any doubt. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole thing is of questionable relevancy anyway, Display name, just to clarify one point: many if not most SPIs do not involve checkuser because they are WP:DUCK situations. Such as, for instance, the same promotional article being re-created. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then. Display name 99 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You guys are getting a little worked up - maybe you could take a step back? HalfShadow 01:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies has been worked up over this for the past couple of days, so I'm glad someone noticed. But just to answer his question, which is a fair one: no, I did not warn the editor in question over the word "cunt." Drmies was throwing around words like "asshole" so I figured that word was OK with him. Coretheapple (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Coretheapple: Drmies is not the subject of this thread, nor has he done anything to deserve the blowback he is getting here. Can everyone please focus on the question at hand, which concerns Winkelvi? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I said "assholish quality of y'all's discourse"--a comment on content, not on an edit. Coretheapple, Keri, and now Display name are having a little coterie on User talk:Keri, where [Keri referred to me as a cunt. The comment is still there for these boys to snicker over. Core is simply trying to get under my skin, but has not been able to turn Light show's lies into anything substantial against Winkelvi. And from the other editors here, who all seem so concerned with behavior, crickets--at the very least you'd think someone would say something over this "cunt" business, for which the civility police wanted Eric Corbett's head, or the false accusations re:Winkelvi and the admin corps by a serial edit warrior and copyright violator. Community, where are you? Drmies (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • It would be best if you all took a step back. Your apparent emotional attachment to the issue is distracting and disruptive to the many editors already involved here who are working toward consensus. For what it's worth: @Drmies: "assholish quality of y'all's discourse" may be a comment on content but it contains a blatant and IMO very unnecessary insult to the person contributing that content; @Keri: the next time you associate an editor with your "mental list of 'cunts whose opinions I disregard'", it will be noted in your block log. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as one of the editors you refer to above, I wasn't aware the term was used. Why? Because it was in another thread on another page. It only got here because you chose to bring it here multiple times, in the most inflammatory way possible. So if anyone should be called to task for its presence on this thread, it's you, Drmies. Otherwise, we'd have been none the wiser. Here, it does nothing but stir people up and deflect from the matter at hand. --Drmargi (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm I don't know what you all don't get about being told to drop it, by more than one administrator. The next person I find trying to prolong this side dispute is going to find themselves blocked. Enough already. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block. As someone who also had a nightmarish encounter with Winkelvi, I knew it was just a matter of time before his behavior came into light. He is quick to accuse other people, but when someone challenges him on his own behavior, he gets extremely defensive and cries "personal attack". With Winkelvi, he can do no wrong and its always someone else's fault. His problem is much bigger than edit warring. He was recently given a two month block([50]) a few months back and the first thing he did when it expired was lash out at two admins.[51][52] Does this look like someone who learned his lesson and can change his behavior? Despite a lengthy two month block, he was still defiant and told the admin he was wrong and learned nothing. I don't know how he got away with that and I am not sure if the admin ever read his comment. This is a user who can not admit that he is ever wrong and will never change. He also knows the rules clearly and is always reporting other users for edit warring, so no one should buy his excuse about being confused about the rules. Due his battleground behavior and earlier feud with me(long story), he even reported me at WP:ANEW here over a time stamp which was quickly dismissed as probably the most ridiculous and pettiest report ever on Wikipedia. This is the kind of editor that does more harm than good to the project and what Wikipedia doesn't need. He has been given plenty of chances. Enough is enough. TL565 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've not had any dealings with Winkelvi (that I recall), so I can't really comment on their conduct, or who they might have rubbed up the wrong way. However, I'm more concerned that the starting point of this block was a malformed report at the edit-war notice board by an IP who appeared out of nowhere to only disappear again. Apologies if that's already been brought up in this thread, but there's a lot of text here already, and I find that to be a major part of this which appears to be overlooked. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see anything wrong with it. It was just an IP who noticed the hypocrisy of Winkelvi's report on another user for violating the 3RR when he had just as many reverts. It's a good thing the IP brought attention to it because he would've gotten away with it too. TL565 (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'm off to watch repeats of Scooby Doo. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, in most cases I have seen (perhaps not this one -- I haven't checked) the real hypocrisy is claiming that the only thing that matters on ANEW is the number of reverts, as I mentioned (somewhat vaguely) in my earlier comment. Again, I haven't looked into this most recent edit war, but for the sake of argument imagine that Winkelvi had been desperately pinging the other user on the talk page and presenting reasonable arguments for his version, and the other user was either ignoring said comments completely and not posting on the talk page at all or posting variations on "You're wrong" or "I don't care" (or even "You are a stupid poopy-head" -- I've seen it happen). In this scenario, Winkelvi would still be wrong to revert multiple times (he should have just come to ANEW first), but he would clearly be the less guilty of "edit-warring". If Winkelvi, after edit-warring back, then decides to go to ANEW, that still is not hypocrisy on his part -- it's him doing what he should have done to begin with. Again I should specify that this is only in response to TL565's comment above; I am not saying definitely that anything like this scenario happened here. It's just that since it has happened before. I once narrowly escaped a block for having taken bait like this (since there was tag-teaming/meatpuppetry involved, the other party hadn't even technically breached 3RR yet), so it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case both users did post to the talk page here, though WV's only justification appears to be "I think they are not improvements" and you need to observe BRD with no other explanation. Of course, when he filed the report at AN3, WV claimed the other editor involved had not attempted to discuss the matter [53] despite the ongoing discussion. Calidum 12:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear: by "malformed" all it means is that the IP didn't follow the correct format for reporting a 3RR violation [54]. If you examine the edit history of the Billy the Kid article[55] you can see that it was clearly a 3RR violation. But what's striking is what he was edit warring over. Here is the diff of the edit in question. These are piddling, inconsequential, trivial wording changes, such as changing active voice into passive. (E.g., changing "reviewed the photo" into "the photo was reviewed"). This is identical to his behavior in Bess Myerson 26 months ago, down to the last detail in the sense that he pushed the revert button repeatedly over trivial, inconsequential semantic issues in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Sorry, I didn't even notice the word "malformed". I took Lugnuts' comment to be more about the (malformed or no) report being filed by an IP who appeared out of nowhere to only disappear again, as Andy Dingley said at the top of this thread. I'm usually inclined to cut people slack when it comes to failure to conform to templates like that because, honestly, a lot of the instructions on Wikipedia noticeboards and the like are really difficult to follow, especially when it looks like ANEW works essentially the same as AN and its other subpages like this one. Frankly, it's increasingly hard to assume good faith on the part of the users who write some of those instructions, as from time to time when questioned they seem to indicate that the goal is to make it difficult to use such-and-such process and so decrease the rate and which said process is used (I'm not talking specifically about ANEW here). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate here is mostly in reference to this ANEW entry: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive338#Winkelvi (Result: Blocked). A new IP address appears, alleges, "Winkelvi made four reverts in 11 hours on the same page" but doesn't even say which page this was, so that's unverifiable, and Coffee blocked them for 3 months within an hour and without any sort of discussion or clarification as to what had happened.
    This is a bad block. Not because Winkelvi wasn't edit-warring, but because on-demand long blocks by passing socks have traditionally required IRC or requests at Wikipediocracy, not just an unformed handwave at ANEW. That is a much worse thing than anything Winkelvi was doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that an IP not abiding by proper format makes it a "bad block." There's no question that was a terrible 3RR report, in the sense of not even mentioning that it was in Billy the Kid. But to figure out what he meant, all one had to do was look in Winkelvi's recent edit history, and there it was. This was not an accusation of sockpuppetry, just something very obvious. Keep in mind too that people are blocked for edit warring all the time, without any ANEW report being filed. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    Hijiri88 "Perhaps" not this one? Rather than taking a quick look at the actual circumstances, you propose an alternative scenario so that you can bring up a pet peeve that does not apply? I am the other editor who was edit-warring with Winkelvi over simple copy edits involving minor stylistic changes (mainly using passive-voice constructions vs. active-voice). It started when I reverted Winkelvi's reversion of an IP editor's copy edits (which were completely valid). I've had other run-ins with him at the same article, and found Winkelevi's intransigence to be the single greatest impediment to the article's progression toward GA status, which was strange, considering that he was the nominating editor. His interactions with the poor reviewers who accepted the thankless task of dealing with him were a sight to see. I can only say that in the years (since 2011) I've been editing, Winkelvi is by far the most unpleasant person I've ever tried to work with, inside WP or outside. The history of his behavior in the many negative encounters he's had on WP speaks volumes. I would certainly have pointed out Winkelvi's hypocrisy (after the expiration of my 24-hour block) if the IP hadn't. Carlstak (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone (TL565) made a general statement that was (in general) wrong, I replied in general, and while no one complained another user (Coretheapple) corrected me on something that was really peripheral to what I had written (it was clear that no one was particularly concerned with the malformed nature of the ANEW thread), so I replied to that. I am under no obligation to comment any further on this particular case than I already have; I presented my opinion on what should be done in this case (which was a very popular opinion, not an "alternative scenario [...] that doesn't apply") three days ago. I said "perhaps" merely because I was not sure either way (as far as I am concerned, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference regarding what should be done here), and for the purpose of what I wanted to write I was under no obligation to find out. It was NOT meant to imply that I had looked into the specific details here and was unable to figure out whether or not what I said applied. The rest of your comment beyond the second sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with me, and so I will not address it. (For the record, I too have interacted with Winkelvi in the past and found his behaviour unpleasant. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. Frankly, with Winkelvi blocked at the moment, I'm a little more concerned with how unpleasant you are being with the above highly belligerent remark.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Highly belligerent"? Please. Carlstak (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does Scooby Doo have ad breaks? I'm selling a bridge. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoinks! Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 15:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IP didn't even make a separate report. It was supposed to be in the same report at Wikinelvi's [56] Some one else later separated them and it got archived seperatly. TL565 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right - that does make quite a difference then. An interesting theory has been hypothesised for this, but that is Wikipediocracy's mud, and they can fling it themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a helpful clarification, but I really don't believe it is all that consequential. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block as well within admin discretion. Coffee ought to be admonished for bringing this here: a pretty clear consensus had already developed below Winkelvi's unblock request and this thread is a very transparent attempt to forumshop the result he was the only one not agreeing with. That said, we're here now and other issues have come to light. Having read both threads I support unblock with indefinite 1RR restriction with the standard WP:3RRNO exemptions. This will not affect WV's anti-vandalism activities as blatant vandalism can be reverted anyway, it will only prevent WV from getting into the revert wars they have such a tumultuous history with. So I hope, anyway. Any second revert on any page anywhere would result in an immediate and indefinite block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, after the block, Winkelvi continued his habit of pinging friendly admins to try to bail him out. Knowing from experience which admins he can gain favor from, it's a pretty clear case of "admin shopping" and thus shouldn't be seen as representing any kind of general consensus. Most of the editors on the talk page agreeing to a 1RR were canvassed.
    Appealing to the community was in truth the best decision, because it is we who have to deal with Winkelvi's behavior. We shouldn't be forced to let a group of hand-picked administrators decide what to do with Winkelvi. In a place like this, anybody, no matter what their previous interactions (if any) with Winkelvi, can see and comment on the proposals. Display name 99 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the end but not the means. Anyway, arguing about it beyond this point is not going to aid the discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, Coffee should be thanked for both the block and raising it here - you, perhaps, should be "admonished", for your raise the heat, "admonishment" - raising it publicly is policy and actually much better process for multiple reasons (someone above actually says your 1rr will work better now, because we are all suppose to be imposed upon to watch him). Did you read Anna's last comment on the talk page? You want to leave temptation? So, an indef can occur. Better to remove temptation (or mistake), entirely. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I said let's not pursue this, and instead you pursue it by threatening me? That doesn't jibe well with your missive about not raising the heat. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absurd. There is no threat. Unless, you are claiming your original comment was a threat. My comment was even milder than yours. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I interpreted your "indef can occur" comment as directed at me. I see now what you were referring to below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Sincerely, thank you, for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hey y'all, let's not get upset on my account. Ivanvector, there's simply no logical way you can call a deliberate selection of favored admins: consensus. If this was the case every single editor here, when blocked, would never use the {{unblock}} system anymore... we could all just ping who we wanted to be on the panel of our fate. This is why the policy states: Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. Furthermore, it looks like you may be accidentally misreading what Alan wrote. I (and Alan can correct me if I'm wrong) believe he was merely referring to what impression your comments might make upon WV and what affect that might have on him (e.g. a future indefinite block due to unhindered disruptive behavior). At any rate, I'd rather we not blow this up too far out of proportion; I've already fully explained my reasoning for coming here. If certain editors decide they don't want to believe me, so be it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coffee: in the end, however this came about it's coming around to probably be a proper outcome. However, it does honestly look to a neutral observer (or to me, maybe I'm not as neutral as I think I am) like you only posted here to get around the emerging consensus to overturn your block. But you're right that admins were canvassed, and you've already explained the situation, and you posted in the right forum, but the other discussion is still going, and there's all the different talk page posts, but ... I don't know, it's all a mess. Let's all agree that this got to where it needed to be and leave it at that. To that end I've struck my comment above, I don't honestly see the point in admonishments anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: I want to assure you that I did not come here to avoid a consensus, I came here to avoid a cherry-picked consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. I get it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    not so arbitrary break

    Reading through the above a few times, I think there are two main courses of action editors are recommending:

    1. An indefinite block
    2. An unblock with an indefinite 0RR or 1RR editing restriction.

    It'd be helpful when judging consensus if editors stating a preference above could indicate if they could live with the other option. --NeilN talk to me 17:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Remove temptation, from someone, who behaves as if they cannot handle it, and then gets into obnoxious BATTLE over their reversion: Block and 0 RR, sure if they take the 0 RR, I am neutral on ending block early. (1RR has already been tried). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block It'd be a matter of days before the 0RR/1RR restriction is broken - not because the editor would deliberately do it, but because their temper enthusiasm would get the better of them. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As indicated above, I'd definitely prefer indefinite. However, I could live with letting the block expire after the full 90 days and then going with an indefinite 0RR after that. However, there's no way I could do 1RR. It's been attempted already and didn't come close to solving all of the problems. Display name 99 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I favor an indefinite block, and I think an immediate unblock with a 1RR or even 0RR restriction would be a mistake and would be unfair to the editors in subject areas in which Winkelvi is a prolific contributor. It's kicking the can down the road. It's not just reversions and edit warring, it's a general cluelessness, a refusal to "get the point." Even without reverting, an editor can wreak havoc on talk pages, driving away editors by filibustering and wall-o-text rants, very much as Winkelvi did at Myerson and as he began to do at Billy the Kid. And over what? Nothing. Passive versus active voice. Little turns of phrase. Whether someone should be called a "singer-songwriter" or a "singer and songwriter." In fact, even if a 0RR restriction had been in force in January 2015, the nightmare that he inflected on other editors on the Myerson talk page would have been just as awful. He's been shown plenty of compassion and given multiple chances. Time to show compassion for the rest of us, Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with an 'indef block' is that a)its not a ban and so not subject to community input to lift, and b)any admin can unblock in the future based on whatever Wink can convince them of - as they have an extensive history of saying 'I'll change' this is clearly a suboptimal solution. So regardless of their block length/when they are unblocked, he needs a 0RR restriction which can only be lifted by community consensus. He is well aware of 1rr, 3rr etc and since he has repeatedly (there is ample evidence above) shown no interest in not edit warring despite knowing full well what it is and all the details around what constitutes a revert, only 0RR has a hope of working. I say working, but I mean 'cause less disruption to other editors'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points. What about a site ban? It's the same thing. OR an indefinite block that can only be lifted by community consensus, if there is such a thing. Please see my comments above re talk page abuse. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Only in death: Actually, a community imposed indefinite block cannot be unilaterally lifted by any single admin without community consensus to do so. Blackmane (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to review WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. As written the policy states any non-arbcom indefinite *block* can be appealed in the usual manner via an unblock request. Only community *bans* are required to go back to the community/arbcom. Granted any admin who did unblock after the community voted for an indef block would likely end up here, but the editor could not be reblocked without accusations of wheel-warring. Its the weakness of blocks vs bans for persistant offenders. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block. Let's just recap the situation. He was blocked in June 2014 for edit warring. January 2015 for edit warring over multiple pages. Twice in March 2015 for edit warring and disruptive editing. July 2015 for edit warring (overturned on a technicality). November 2015 for edit warring (ditto). January 2016 for edit warring. May 2016 for feuding with multiple editors. September 2016 for harassment. March 2017 for edit warring. That's ten blocks in the period of 1,000 days -- one every three months. It's clear this behavior has not stopped and I don't see any positives to outweigh the many negatives other editors have described above. (Note that he could still ask the community to have the block lifted in the future -- indefinite isn't infinite -- and it might be good if he were the one saying what he would do differently to avoid confrontations instead of us offering him lifelines in the form of revert restrictions.) Calidum 18:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, I wanted to see how much further the rabbit hole goes. There were at least 16 other reports at WP:AN3 concerned Winkelvi where either the page was protected, he warned or no action was taken without explanation. Here they are:July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, September 2014, October 2014,October 2014, January 2015,January 2015,January 2015,February 2015,March 2015,May 2015,May 2015,November 2015,June 2016 and September 2016. (He's also filed a number of reports himself, but I didn't take time to sort through many of them). Calidum 01:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - neutral with regard to indefinite block, it's not my preferred option but Winkelvi has clearly exhausted the patience of many editors. I oppose 0RR in any case as I've only ever seen it lead to gaming the definition of a revert followed by more dramah (I mean generally, not just in this case). I also think a site ban is unduly harsh for this and do not support it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is true, isn't 1RR, even more so? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ... what? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You talked of gaming, 1RR would seem more gamable than 0. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in my experience, no. With 1RR there's some leeway, while with 0RR you basically guarantee that the next dispute will be over whether or not a particular edit was a revert or not, with little care about the actual substance of the edit. It's counterproductive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block. It's clear that there is a significant body of administrators who can be manipulated by Winklevi, leaving me with no confidence that the 0RR/1RR restriction and subsequent mandatory indef would be enforced. Worse, were Coffee to do so, he'd be subject to a quick hauling over the coals by at least some of his administrative peers. Moreover, it's clear that the experiences of those of us who have been on the receiving end of Winklevi's behavior are of little consequence to the group Winklevi has wrapped around his little finger, and we will continue to be pursued, harangued and hassled by him. Given that, the one and only acceptable choice is to indefinitely block him. --Drmargi (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A site ban may be overly harsh in this situation. Why not finish his current block then 0RR indefinitely? That would be a step-up from the last attempt to reason with him, while avoiding a site ban. This solution, however, would be his last chance to reform, at least in my opinion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGracefulSlick, the biggest issue with that is Winkelvi's equally consistent hostile and combative behavior on talk pages. Talk:Bess Myerson and Talk:Billy the Kid are the two best examples. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Display name 99 good point. I was trying to suggest an in-between from the two most said proposals. If an indef block is decided by consensus, I would not object because I have no personally experience dealing with this editor.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block is my preferred solution, which I support with great regret in this and other cases. I have spent a lot of time reading all of the background information in the past several days and that has been a depressing process that has failed to convince me that a more lenient outcome would be better for the encyclopedia. In the sake of disclosure, I had a brief and unpleasant interaction with this editor a couple of years ago, and have steered clear since. Of course, I could live with another solution because I accept consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started to post in this thread a couple of times now, and deleted what I wrote because it made me want to bash my head into a wall, and then come back to it to find it even worse. I see I waited too long and we're now in the "Requests for Banning" phase. This whole thing, from top to bottom, is basically How Not To ANI: The Thread. The tendency of ANI to escalate drama and work up a crowd is well attested. I think it's often underappreciated how frustrating and distressing editors can find these long threads in which people show up to pick apart the subject's perceived personal faults as exhibited over the last several years. (Likewise with frequent comments from the blocking admin on the blocked editor's talk page. Best to let others step in.) The original plan worked out by a group of admins familiar with the situation - unblock after some time to think + 1RR - is a sensible one. Most of the comments here overlook the fact that 1RR did work pretty well in the past, but the restriction expired. So renew it. (There's also a lot of pixels spilled on the length of the block log, but "gets blocked once every six months for 3RR" is really not the kind of thing that breaks the wiki. He's hardly the only established editor who occasionally goes over that line.) Since he says he'd prefer to wait out the block than work under a 0RR restriction, I suppose those are my second and third choices. The proposals for an indefinite block or siteban are unwarranted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by working up a crowd, as virtually all the editors posting here have had experiences with this editor, aren't just kibbitzers dropping in for blood sport. Also the focus on edit-warring has overlooked the talk page issues noted by some editors here. 0RR would not address them. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I think 0RR is worth a try. Indef, just means until someone unblocks - it is often quite short. The reason 0RR would work, is it takes away the incentive to enter these BATTLES, at all.Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    True, there is that possibility. But if you have 0RR, there would be no impact on talk-page concerns such as you I believe noted. That's why a site ban makes sense. Reading CBAN, it seems specifically tailored for this kind of situation. Coretheapple (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I think the talk page BATTLE stems form the reversion warring, and trying to "protect" his re - version using his battle tactics. Remove reversion temptation at all means remove the reason for BATTLE - means he goes and does something else, like create articles on on his own or with someone, as Anna suggested on the talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But all 0RR means is that the battle shifts to the talk page. He has his preferred wording. He puts it up there. It is reverted. Now instead of revert-warring he takes it to the talk page and calamity ensues. I believe this happened when Myerson was protected, as I believe it was. Yes, hopefully he would stop that behavior. But he won't.. I trust you know how hard it is to deal with such situations. It's not like 3RR, which is cut and dried. We just had a situation like that in another article, involving a small group of editors who went against consensus.
    So there is a talk page nightmare. You come here. You know how hard it is to convey to third parties that a tendentious editor is being tendentious. Meanwhile, the protection corps materializes. He gets another chance. More promises. More time down the toilet. It's like the man said --- like beating your head against the wall. Sorry to be so gloomy and dismal, but that's just how it is. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He no longer has the ability to force his view in article space, he must get consensus on the talk page - he is most unlikely to get consensus if he takes his BATTLE stance, and being ineffective is probably his best teacher, here. It's plain there will not be a ban, at this time - and as someone else said the step-up is 0rr, and I think it takes away almost all his incentive to Battle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Remember this exchange about "plagiarism" in Talk:Bess Myerson? Which did not exist? He was unable to force his view on that in article space but it made no difference. 0RR doesn't address this kind of talk page situation. Only self-restraint. Which ain't happening. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    I do remember, it began with a his desire for reversion of the stupidly alleged plagiarism, and it was around the same time that he admitted he did not read the sources, all which goes against his desired version, and makes it all ineffective. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And an accumulation of that kind of thing is why there is an interest in indefinitely blocking. I agree, though, that the elephant in the room is that whatever is done here might be reversed by admins who are sympathetic to WV and not to the people he encounters. I would suggest that an indef, after a discussion like this, would not be casually overturned. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, the world won't end whatever the outcome here. The test, I think, is what causes least additional stress and time wasted for the community, defined as "editors who might encounter him." What will result in the least drama in the long run? So let's say he's indeffed. Then the burden is on him to come back after a period of time and make commitments, and subsequent to such a return there would be less incentive to be troubling. As a person who myself has struggled with ... well..... [57] I believe that this makes the most sense. Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But, no. If there is an indefinite block, with no required consensus instruction on how to lift it, it is just left to the lifting admin to do what they think best. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there's our answer - an instruction. Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And the choices, at present, are 1RR or 0RR. Alanscottwalker (talk)
    No, I think it's premature to judge the outcome of this discussion. The last one in which I participated in ANI concerning this editor went on for many days. Softlavender suggests a talk page restriction, for instance. Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Come now, Opibina, your "bashed head" is drama to the max. This so-called "group of administrators" includes, at least 1, where the last comment on the talk page was essentially, 'maybe you should stay blocked then, you need to find something else to do, because you can't handle it' That's working it out, too, but just not in your way, no point in your bashing your head, silliness. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Opabinia regalis: Re: "The original plan worked out by a group of admins familiar with the situation - unblock after some time to think + 1RR - is a sensible one." That plan was "worked out" by three friendly admins WV pinged, an admin known for his extreme leniency and cowboy unblocks (Ritchie, who unblocked WV's one-week block after 2.5 days in February 2016 with a three-month 1RR restriction), and an admin with a longterm feud with the blocker. It was not worked out or agreed to by anyone who has had to deal with WV's disruption (and those that have not had to deal with WV's disruption would include you: [58]). In terms of ANI, you are on record as stating "Nothing good happens at ANI", but in your four years active on Wikipedia you have made only 75 edits here, even though you have been an admin for most of that time: [59]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC); edited 23:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah, why would I hang out in a place I don't like? "The food here is terrible - and such small portions!" ;)
    And yeah, if I've ever crossed paths with Winkelvi, it was forgettable. Not part of the "protection corps" supposedly hanging around. That's how this is supposed to work - independent review by uninvolved people with fresh eyes. Some of the stuff here - joining in to reanimate a minor two-year-old content dispute - well, that's a little bit like the "not letting go" behavior Winkelvi's accused of, I'd say. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Like DHeyward, you're missing the point. The reason there is so much agreement on this thread is because hundreds of good-faith editors have been at the receiving end of Winkelvi's obstinate, relentless, heedless, and highly disruptive behavior over the past several years, often multiple times in different venues. The Bess Myerson article is just one example out of several hundred. If there were an ArbCom case, people would present dozens more (I myself have several examples). If you have not been on the receiving end of Winkevli's harassment (and very few admins have; WV knows better), then you do not have the same experience others here do. And ANI is not "supposed to work [by] independent review by uninvolved people with fresh eyes". It is for knowledgeable and experienced editors to give their best recommendations. Lastly, if you think the Bess Myerson article example is a "minor" content dispute, then you have not examined it thoroughly. Either that, or you do not understand extreme edit-warring and WP:BLUDGEONING. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am not missing the point nor is Opabinia regalis. I've been around the block to know the difference between a collective feeling of low-level annoyance and long term abusive editors. The lack of diffs, lack of ANI reports, lack of AE reports and virtually no diffs except for multi-year one-off encounters. If he has such a record, take him to ArbCom. This ANI has all the markings of a pile-on with each editor that ever had an unpleasant experience leaves their "death by a thousand cuts" diffless anecdote. I have now read Bess Myerson talk page and he had valid criticism and input. So much so, that only a technical violation of 3RR would warrant a block. There was no abuse or disruption and he called for sourcing where there wasn't any. Nothing wrong with that at all. Another example is how many of winkelvi's detractors lament his pinging admins to his talk page. None of the pinged admins cared. No one thought it necessary to remove talk page access. Yet, there are busy-bodies here that are upset by this behavior. Why is that? It doesn't concern them. It doesn't bother the admins - that makes it defacto not disruptive. But that's another hallmark of piling on. He's not pinging or berating those that are making rather broad accusations against him without diffs. These "one time at band camp..." anecdote need a lot more evidence, not just torches and pitchforks. The place for that is ArbCom because what's hear at ANI is too shallow to warrant additional sanctions. --DHeyward (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the pinged admins didn't care -- he chose admins who were predisposed towards him. There are plenty of diffs and links provided in this thread -- not all of them sufficiently relevant, but enough of them are. And you didn't look at all of the 120 edits WV made to Bess Myerson in 2.5 days including endless edit-warring over some of his unnecessary changes. There is some degree of piling on in this thread, but that's because WV has relentlessly targeted hundreds of good-faith editors over the years. Beyond the piling on, however, you'll find very experienced and circumspect editors and admins such as Cullen328, The Wordsmith, Neutrality, Black Kite, QEDK, Ealdgyth, Calidum, and Blackmane endorsing a three-month block (or longer) and/or a 0RR restriction. So it's hardly an overall pile-on, however much I may disagree with an indef block. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A 3 month block is the status quo. A 1RR restriction has been encouraged by many, including myself. Those are reasonable. Site ban, indefinite block, etc are not reasonable. Please don't argue for additional unreasonable sanctions and then cite admins that are essentially not asking for a change. --DHeyward (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to your statement that "This ANI has all the markings of a pile-on", which it is not in my opinion, given the number of very experienced and circumspect editors and admins who are advocating strict sanctions (0RR [The Wordsmith, QEDK, Ealdgyth, Blackmane]; 0RR and continuation of the three-month block [Neutrality]; indef block [Cullen328, Calidum]). Softlavender (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Block + indefinite 1RR. I am not a fan of indefinite blocks and I also don't think we need to unblock at this point in time. I too, like many editors, have had my run ins with WV and I think while the block was 100% righteous, we can give WV some rope. WV states that he responds well to cut in stone rulings, so we can do that. When he is able to edit again, it should be under indefinite 1RR restrictions. Further edit warring and attacks should result in laddering of blocks. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a mess. Of the options presented, I favor unblock with indefinite 1RR restriction, although if the consensus was for 0RR instead of 1RR, I can understand that POV. I do not believe that an indef block is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block. Yes, it's a mess. End it. The endless saga has to end. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock with 1RR as the admins on his talk page suggested. Are we really going site ban someone over 4 edits to Billy the Kid and two year old reference to a kerfuffle at Bess Myerson? This ANI thread has been more disruptive and been more of an "administrative burden" than anything Winkelvi has done. He's a passionate editor over a very small topic area. That's the type of editor we want to rehabiliate and retain, not site ban. Since the caustic nature of this ANI post has driven many of the contributing admins away, there is no way to form a consensus that changes the status quo. He's been blocked for 3 months because of a 4th revert to that highly watched, hotbed of controversy article of Billy the Kid - apparently the cause of much "administrator burden." Oh and two years ago, I understand that people were upset with his talk page comments at the article Bess Myerson. I could probably get more detail if I read those articles. He has not participated in this ANI mudslinging contest which has actually caused more disruption than anything Winkelvi has done. Keep in mind, we are NOT at ANI because of Winkelvi. Winkelvi was given a 3 month block which was not contested here or brought here by him or anyone seeking a change. Had he been lucky enough to have received an Arbitration Enforcement block, this ANI would have been closed as out-of-process. Think about that: our highest burden articles would not have allowed this process to occur, yet there are editors that think he should receive harsher punishment. Unbelievable. --DHeyward (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Are we really going site ban someone over 4 edits to Billy the Kid and two year old reference to a kerfuffle at Bess Myerson?" No of course not. It would be because of the 10 total blocks (not counting the sockpuppetry one because of the technicality) that he has accumulated over the past three years, and his lengthy history of bullying other editors on talk pages. And yet you single out those two incidents and act as though if these were the only two major things that Winkelvi ever did wrong we'd still be having the same sort of discussion. Unbelievable. Display name 99 (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Billy the kid revert is why he was blocked for 3 months. I did not bring up Bess Myerson but those seeking his ban surely did and they hold a two year old grudge as if he was still actively editing it. For reference, the two year old "talk page bullying" is much smaller than this ANI as well as being much more civil. The entire ten year history of the Bess Myerson talk page is smaller than this ANI. Winkelvi has no authority or rope to bully anybody and no evidence has been presented that he has done so - specifically the editor that he was edit warring with was blocked for a day for the same issue and the same "administrative burden." Beth Myerson was not a "nightmare" by any stretch of the imagination. If those are the strongest indicators of his poor behavior, there is a problem with the system, not Winkelvi. Those were lame an tedious but a real yawner in terms of drama. I care less about the number of blocks and more about circumstances and if the 4th revert on Billy the Kid and talk page kerfufle on [[[Bess Myerson]]] that occurred 2 years ago and is so small, the entirety of it hasn't been archived in nearly ten years.. If the 10 blocks are as lame as those examples, he's not a problem that needs banning or anything more than a revert restriction. His biggest crime on Billy the Kid was that he was forcing BRD when others were not and they edit warred until both broke 3RR. Happens every day. For that, Winkelvi was described as "most unpleasant person (they)'ve ever tried to work with, inside WP or outside." After an edit war over copy edits. That's just doesn't get past the BS meter. Methinks they doth protest too much. --DHeyward (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DHeyward, you are misrepresenting me. My statement, "Winkelvi is by far the most unpleasant person I've ever tried to work with, inside WP or outside" was based on this instance and several prior encounters with him. I would ask you not to draw conclusions without doing your due diligence, which you obviously haven't done. Carlstak (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DHeyward, you're missing the point. The reason there is so much agreement on this thread is because hundreds of good-faith editors have been at the receiving end of Winkelvi's obstinate, relentless, heedless, and highly disruptive behavior over the past several years. The Bess Myerson article is just one example. If there were an ArbCom case, people would present dozens more (I myself have several examples). If you have not been on the receiving end (and very few admins have; WV knows better), then you do not have the same experience others here do. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To put Softlavender's comments in perspective, I suggest that editors go to ANI Archive 871 and scan down to No. 26, "Winkelvi." I do believe it is much longer than this ANI, stretched on over some days, and involved multiple articles and many editors, including some, on both sides, to be found here, including the same defenders. It began with an alleged polemic on his user page, continued with User:J. Johnson's concerns re 2014 Oso mudslide, moved on to Bess Myerson, at which point a topic ban was discussed (the discussion indicates he consented to absent himself from that article and then reneged), went on to an accusation of canvassing (Drmies closed the discussion by agreeing, but called it "mild"), moved on to his user name, then Meghan Trainor, the result of which was that Winkelvi and two people he was in a dispute with were blocked for 48 hours. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not unblock except under 0RR. A long block (3 months) does not seem unreasonable in light of the long history of problems. I don't think indef is the appropriate action (yet) but it seems clear that the community has reached the end of its patience. 1RR has been tried before and has not produced lasting improvement; so 0RR is the logical next step. Regardless of how this turns out, however, the next block should be indefinite. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leave block as is and indefinite 0RR on expiry per my earlier statement. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm personally not seeing a consensus to unblock among people who were not pinged by Winkelvi. Also, while I understand an indef block is on the table, I think there should be an ArbCom case before that eventuality is enacted. I personally think the three-month block is defensible given that the last block was for two months. In terms of what should happen after the block ends or expires, I suggest both 0RR and some sort of agreement (similar to TRM's in his AE appeals) not to draw out article-talk disputes. (I'm not sure how to achieve that, but perhaps something like an agreement not to post more than twice in any given disagreement.) We really need to cover article-talk discussions in the sanctions, since WV can bludgeon even a simple well-cited RfC discussion into infinity with endless irrelevant arguments. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC); edited 07:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This discussion was framed as a choice between two polar opposite alternatives, blocking indefinitely and unblocking while imposing editing restrictions. Perhaps the solution is to affirm the three month block and at the conclusion thereof impose an 0RR restriction plus an article talk page restriction of some kind.
    Also I just noticed a comment from Winkelvi on his talk page, in which he said that in this discussion there have been "outright lies, a lot of half-truths, (and) total mischaracterisations". That's a serious matter and I wish I had noticed it sooner. I think it is essential that Winkelvi be given the opportunity to enumerate those "lies, half-truths and micharacterizations." Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I offered him the opportunity to have a statement copied to ANI. He declined, but the offer remains open. BethNaught (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's a serious accusation. I'm surprised he wasn't held to account for that on his talk page, as it is an attack on the integrity of editors posting here. He should either substantiate that accusation or withdraw it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock with one-year 0RR restriction (which can only be lifted after the expiry of the duration in a community discussion) and oppose indefinite block (edit conflict). I (and a few other editors) hold that WV is capable of being a net positive (still). I think the editor should simply stop using the *revert* function because I believe they have lost the ability to use it without being contentious. I urge that for the duration of a year, they will do something else and be able to regain the community's favour. --QEDK (愛) 16:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to be a pain, but could you clear up I think the editor should simply stop using an ability so contentious, I believe they have lost the right to use it without its use being contentious being 0RR because I'm having difficulty parsing what you're actually getting at here. Blackmane (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies. I messed up the paste from the edit conflict and made mistake in the original too. Edited now. --QEDK (愛) 10:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Break for a different point

    • Comment There is more than one way to create mayhem and harass another editor. I had an unpleasant entanglement with Winkelvi back in the first quarter of 2015. It happened because Winkelvi edited an article on my watch list and we went through the usual dance of an editor making a BOLD edit and then not following WP:BRD. However that is not the reason for this comment (as such behaviour has been covered by many other editors). This comment is to highlight something else. For reasons now obscured in the mists of time (ie. I can not be bothered to look into the history of many articles to find the root cause), Winkelvi became involved with a dispute with user:Kbabej. Winkelvi targeted many articles that user:Kbabej had created, or had made more than a trivial contribution. If the article had a significant history Winkelvi would change it, and then edit war to keep the change (see for example the creation and a section on the talk page: Talk:Robert Hastings Hunkins#WP:UNDUE). But another tactic employed by Winkelvi was the use of AfDs targeted at articles created by user:Kbabej whether or not there were reasonable grounds for doing so. 0/1RR only tackle edit warring in article space, they do [not] stop other sorts of harassment: links to relevant AfDs in particular look at the period 03:16–03:46, 6 March 2015 when Twinkle was used by Winkelvi to create about 20 AfDs. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @PBS: I was wondering if you could suggest a possible remedy for what you've described. We are at that point in the discussion. Nothing that you have described would be addressed in the edit-warring (0RR/1RR) remedies. Apart from blocking, what else could be done? Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to wait to see what other have to say before commenting further. -- PBS (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PBS, did you mean "they do [not] stop other sorts of harassment"? Carlstak (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I think I understand his point if "not" was unintentionally omitted. Coretheapple (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake I did accidentally omit "not" -- I have now added it in. -- PBS (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This latest twist makes me think an indef is not enough. If Wink is so vindictive as to follow edit histories and harass editors he doesn't like on other articles, and misuse Afd, then it's time to discuss a community ban. Shame on those calling for an unblock. This is clearly a nasty editor, and needs to be shown the door. Jusdafax 21:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A perfect example here. [60] Calibrador makes one edit, then Winkelvi shows up, changes the edit and makes a bunch of edits of his own despite not editing the article before. More evidence of this stalking behavior here [61] which led to the block before this one. He continued the same vindictive behavior here [62] and here [63] on Carrie Fisher which was a highly visible article at the time. It's easy to ask for leniency when you haven't been on the receiving end of Winkelvi's wrath before. TL565 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This 3RR discussion appears to be the upshot of one of the tussles noted above. What's notable about it is how petty it was, and what a waste of time it was. Two almost identical versions of one photo were at stake in the edit-warring. Winkelvi pinged admins he thought would back him up (which boomeranged). Much back and forth. Over nothing. Result: nothing. Coretheapple (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Coretheapple, that thread is one of the funniest things I've seen all day. Thanks for posting it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned before, This one takes the cake. He reported me over a time stamp. It was so petty and dumb, one user almost left the project for good over how ridiculous it was. TL565 (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't understand what you meant by "time stamp," so I wasted three minutes of my life to look at the edit history. I think it's important for editors to understand what happened, so I will briefly elaborate. An editor (hereinafter "Dave") posted a talk page comment that he neglected to sign. Some time later he signed it. The date stamp was inaccurate, as it was off by some minutes from the time he actually wrote the comment. TL565 (who deserved a trout slap for doing this) changed the time stamp to reflect when "Dave" actually posted it. Winkelvi objected. An edit war began. Then an AN3 discussion initiated by Winkelvi. Over nothing. Coretheapple (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    TL565, that's probably the most ridiculous report for anything that I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Also, I like how he reported you for edit-warring after only 2 reverts, but later claimed that he didn't think he deserved a block after 4 of them. The hypocrisy is almost beyond belief. Display name 99 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It bears mentioning with respect to the foregoing that Winkelvi has 25,760 edits and has been editing since April 7, 2012. The "time stamp" discussion occurred in September 2016. Coretheapple (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does "TL565 ... deserve[] a trout slap" for correcting the timestamp? Correct timestamps are extremely important -- to verify who said what & when, especially if there is a later dispute or report or a question of who was replying to whom and why. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was seen as refactoring other people's talk page comments and should be up to the original poster to correct their post. Whatever, I don't do that anymore. if someone wants to put the wrong time, that's their problem. As you can see, Winkelvi knows the rules very well on here. TL565 (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In no way, shape, or form is correcting a timestamp on a previously unsigned post "refactoring other people's talk page comments". Please see WP:TPO. This proves that Winkelvi does not sufficiently understand that policy, even after 5 years and 25,000 edits. What he appears to be here for at least some of the time is battling with others via inane edit-warring, arguing, and spurious reporting, to the point of petty vengeance. Softlavender (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it seemed a little piddling, but your point is well taken and I withdraw the trout slap! Coretheapple (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wow. Having looked over all the complaints about Winkelvi here, and some of the voluminous discussions involving him elsewhere, I get the impression that he enjoys conflict. There is an unusual amount of animosity being expressed here, even for ANI. When someone repeatedly engages in behavior that has had negative consequences for them, it's because they're getting some kind of psychological payoff. Winkelvi is the star of these wiki-battles, the star of the show, so to speak, and attention is centered on him. Massive payoff. Carlstak (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, Winkelvi again?? What colossal waste of time, and patience. Indefinite Block him, please, and let's be done with this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    J. Johnson, Winkelvi is already sitting out a 90-day block. We're here to decide what else to do with him. Major options that have previously been proposed in this thread include unblocking with a 1 revert or 0 revert restriction, having him sit out the full block and then apply the restrictions, or applying an indefinite block. Which do you prefer? Display name 99 (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for the lack of precision; I will emend. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I finally had to take a breather from all this, being a working girl, but came back to look at the progress, and continue to be appalled by what I see. It seems to trouble no one that Winklevi has essentially called all of us who have reported our issues with him liars. To her credit, BethNaught gave him a chance to make a statement, but instead, he chose to climb up on the cross and play the martyr. His choice, of course, but to what end? Well, it certainly cuts off our ability to confront him about the waves of bullshit, harassment, pursuit ad nauseam that many of of us have been subjected to. Meanwhile, the "poor widdle Winklevi" pageant drags on with no action, and we who are in his line of sight must wait for some sort of solution to his widespread, chronic and highly problematic behavior. Again, when are we going to be the priority of the administrative corps weighing in, rather than an editor with a long block log and a massive collection of excuses? --Drmargi (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It rather undermines your point to throw in a near-PA such as "poor widdle Winkelvi", don't you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Especially after the Calibrador and timestamp discussions were posted, and of course all the other evidence that has been submitted, I can't see how anyone who isn't a buddy of Winkelvi can be in favor of anything less than an indefinite block. (I'm not accusing anybody, I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to me.) These issues demonstrate a clear intention by Winkelvi to harass, stalk, and bully editors that he doesn't like. It's about time we got a consensus here to get this disruptive and unhelpful editor off this website indefinitely. Some sort of community ban would definitely take care of it for me. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there's been a lot of evidence here, but, collectively, it doesn't add up (at least in my estimation) to an indef block. That's the kind of thing we usually save for real, hard-core vandals, puppet masters, and other miscreants, and I don't see Winkelvi as being in that category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not correct. Another user with very uncannily similar issues (edit warring over nothing; tendentious editing on talk pages) and a much shorter block log was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing after an ANI discussion similar to this one. I don't know how kosher it is to identify that user, but if anyone asks, I will link to the ANI at which he was permablocked. The primary difference is that user's failure to cultivate administrators to bail him out, run interference for him in situations like this, and give him another chance and another chance and another chance. Coretheapple (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a matter of fact that editor had only been blocked two times previously, both as part of the same dispute in which he/she was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. I think one of the comments in that ANI is worth repeating as it applies to this situation as well:

    Personally, I don't like the idea of letting more damage being caused by this user; I'd prefer skipping straight to the most nuclear option available because this sort of tendentious editing is such a time-wasting exercise for existing contributors, and more dangerously, it has the effect of chasing away the limited resources we have too permanently. . . . I have yet to find a situation where the net outcome for the project has been positive by delaying sanctions in the never-ending wait for a user with these sorts of issues to reach the required level of improvement. Rehabilitation on the English wiki hasn't been successful for this type of issue, and has in fact caused further cuts (read: burn-out) to the resources available here. The community has had more than enough experience with earlier good faith attempts at fixing this type of issue which has repeatedly proved ineffective, and it is simply at the point where it cannot afford to keep making the same mistake.

    The subject of the above comment was much, much less of a burden on the community than Winkelvi.Coretheapple (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet more talk page drama here, Talk:Mike_Pence/Archive_2#Photo. As you can see, I didn't have as much patience with him as some other users. This is someone who will never admit to making any mistake. Instead, he will escalate it and accuse you of personal attacks and not assuming good faith. For sake of the community he needs to be indef blocked already. Just imagine how much future drama and anguish will be saved if it is done now. TL565 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • having read through those two ANEW reports, all I can say is "Wow, just wow" at the complete and utter pettiness of them. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any escalation - incl. indef 1RR, indef 0RR, or (extremely unfortunately) indef block. I have only rarely interacted with Winkelvi and these interactions were quite cordial. I have had far sourer interactions for which I would not request an indef block than almost any presented here, I am however extremely concerned about the hounding of calibrador described far above and another editor whom I cannot name because it has been lost somewhere in the mess. Winkelvi has, in my estimation, done some good work for the project. In this sense I would hate for the esclation chosen to be an indefinite block and absolutely despise even the notion of a community ban. A CBAN would perfectly exemplify the nature of AN/I's reputation for stoking minor flames into engorging blazes. That said, to anybody not viewing this through a rose-tinted ("tinted" really it's two-layered frosted glass you can't see anything through) lens, it should be apparent that doing nothing (including letting the block ride out) will by extension do nothing to curb real (or even perceived) issues that many editors have with Winkelvi. It would be irresponsible for those defending Winkelvi to set him up for this future failure that will (read: will) invariably (read dramatically: in-fucking-variably) result in a future indefinite block or community ban. I am concerned, however, that 0RR will only stop edit-warring and not anything else. I cannot think of a valid remedy for the issues of battlegrounding and harrassment (wikihounding) presented above. Indeed the most common remedy for these behaviours is an eventual indefinite block. To be blunt, I would support an indefinite community ban for a furthered instance of wikihounding, harrassment, or abuse. For the time being I cannot because at some point the statute of limitations has to be applied. For me, it is too late to be bringing a spate from 2 or more years ago as evidence. This statute is subject to my subjective interpretation of events. As far as I am concerned, edit-warring is not solved by indefinite blocks, but, by editing restrictions whether P/TBAN in instances where edit-warring can be linked to topics or pages, or, 1RR and 0RR where edit-warring is pervasive and widespread and not limited to a page or topic. I would have to demand a strong case be presented (separately from this display) to act or recommend an action over wikihounding and harrassment.
      Unrelatedly, I found certain behaviours displayed here by involved and uninvolved editors to be quite poor and worthy of reprimand themselves (trout or warning only; even though some of it is block worthy). DHeyward is not wrong to call this thread "caustic" especially when considering some of the behaviour displayed here. It has left me with a quite sour taste because some editors that I do respect have participated in this. This I find unfortunate. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re "statute of limitations": the two-year-old disputes are relevant in demonstrating how the same issues have persisted over the years (edit-warring/tendentious editing on active vs. passive voice at Myerson in Jan. 2015; and edit warring/tendentiousness over active vs, passive voice at Billy the Kid in March 2017 and talk-page time stamps in Sept. 2016). Yes, threads are caustic. Why? Because editors are only human, and it seems to those of us who have dealt with him (who are not administrators he has cultivated) that Winkelvi is viewed by his defenders as an object of compassion and the community just has to suck it up and endure him. As I indicated above, that is not the approach that has been taken in very similar situations in the past, including one that I'm personally acquainted with and discuss directly above. Coretheapple (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, threads are not caustic. This thread is caustic and it became caustic because of the participants on it. The causticism has nothing to do with the subject matter; case in point, Winkelvi has not said so much as a syllable (to be put on this thread) for the duration of this discussion. You could deflect this to the "defenders" of Winkelvi, and indeed you'd be half right, but, you'd also be half-wrong. A positive and a negative have no net value. This thread would be less than 1/10th of it's current length if editors were not swiping shots at each other in replies and instead made their case and then left - as I will proceed to do so from here on out - and accepted whatever outcome as that would be, by definition, community enforced. You may respond if you wish and I will read the response. Don't take this as me just knocking the table over and saying "I'm out". This thread is unique to me (despite my participation in possibly a hundred such threads) in that there are three separate "extended content" closes of unproductive (inflammatory even) commentary between editors that were required to re-rail the discussion. As for my statute of limitations, I have one question to be self-answered and the net result is the same. Were these dealt with at the time? if no then the statute has expired for me and I won't take it into any consideration unless they detail something especially egregious (harrasment for example), if yes then double jeopardy/time served whichever the case. Escalation does not mean relitigation. Besides, I am supporting any action taken (because some action should be taken) and I personally recommend indefinite 0RR to end the issue of edit-warring. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I guess it would be preferable if people were more succinct and pleasant, but that tends not to happen when people are trying to describe tendentious editing to third parties who don't always ooze empathy and sometimes are belittling. It also reflects the wide swath cut by an editor with 25,000 edits, five years on the project and recurrent issues. As a point of comparison, this ANI has only gone on for five days. The 2015 Winkelvi case, scroll down to Item 26 here, involved identical issues, was far longer and more acrimonious than this one, and dragged on for twenty days. Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Ritchie333 astutely noted, the longer this thread goes on without a clear consensus, the more likely an admin will come along and shove the entire issue "down the road". I understand many editors have a variety of issues with Winkelvi but taking whacks at him won't be allowed to go on for too much longer. --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I didn't start this discussion, and neither did any of the editors taking "whacks" at Winkelvi as you put it. A block was imposed and whoa! What an uproar. Defenders are pinged and rush in. So Coffee came here (which itself got him chastised severely). Want to kick the can down the road? Nothing can be done to prevent that even if there was a succinct discussion without whacks. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, while I don't agree with you, I can see how some might view this as unduly like Festivus. If you have any suggestions for a compromise, please suggest. I posted one (adding to what 99 said below), but I didn't have my heart in it and I self-reverted it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This edit to Winkelvi's talk page bears mentioning here. Personally, if I was a neutral uninvolved administrator trying to make a decision here, I would have Winkelvi sit out the full 90-day block followed by an indefinite 0 RR. It would seem to be the best way to find a middle ground between those calling for an indefinite block or community ban and those calling for a 1 RR, while also satisfying all those who want a 0 RR. Display name 99 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I think I said upthread or elsewhere, I oppose 0RR because it means Winkelvi cannot revert someone lacking WP:COMPETENCE doing something good faith but obviously wrong anywhere. Consider a newbie adding something factually correct but full of puffery and weasel words; is Winkelvi violating 0RR by removing that puffery and stripping it back to the bare facts? However, when I proposed 1RR, I put a pretty clear stipulation that a) it was forever and b) on the first violation he would be booted off and not be allowed back without taking the standard offer, which appears to have not been mentioned so much in this thread. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, if Winkelvi was to be placed on a 0RR and happened to see an edit adding factually incorrect material, he could either wait for somebody else to revert it or ping the editor as part of a POLITE message on the article's talk page. I just don't think we can trust Winkelvi after hitting the revert button once to not do it again if his reversion is reverted, while claiming vandalism or whatever else he can think up to excuse his behavior. Display name 99 (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse blockextend up to six month block, and no appeal before three months have passed per prior experience with this editor. That experience had nothing to do with edit warring (interaction with a COI editor who wasn't editing mainspace anyway), but everything with Winkelvi's rude talk page behaviour. Transforming the sanction to 0RR/1RR would only address part of the problem. This sheds a new light on Winkelvi's "... Aspergers ... please leave me a civil message ... Being rude will get you nowhere." – hadn't seen that caveat at the time (maybe it wasn't there yet), but this is for me a deal breaker: it seems to suggest that they want to appropriate some sort of "right to be rude" (under the protection of "hey, I have autism spectrum so you can expect me to be rude") but won't treat others on the same footing. Accidentally I meet quite some people with autism spectrum, ADHD, ADD,... IRL. Some of them may be generally ruder in their interactions than others (who, for instance, may be extremely shy): however, for finding a place in society it never helps them to suggest that they should expect society to adapt to how they prefer their interactions with it. The Wikipedia editing community is such a society: Aspergers should never be an argument in how an editor wants to tailor their interactions with that community. So the message the Wikipedia community should be sending here is that behavioural guidelines apply the same to everyone. When Winkelvi returns to editing (if they have Aspergers there is little doubt that they will return to editing imho), further infringements on behavioural guidelines should be addressed with escalating blocks (which thus may be something in the order of magnitude of six months next time). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Updated !vote, see below.00:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Francis Schonken: Do you have any thoughts as to whether restrictions on, say, his talk page behavior subsequent to expiration of the block would be worth trying? I ask because there seems to be sentiment to wrap things up. Among people who have dealt with Winkelvi, there is no confidence that administrators will actually apply escalating blocks even if they are theoretically available, hence a desire to find a solution here that will put an end to this situation. Coretheapple (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Issuing specific behavioural strictures à la tête du client kind of beats the purpose of sending the message "that behavioural guidelines apply the same to everyone" (which I would prefer – see above). Wrapping this up once and for all—wouldn't that be nice...—may be impractical: either Winkelvi is given a positive chance to exhibit better behaviour next time, no more encumbered than by a block log which needs not to be mentioned again when their behaviour turns for the better, or face a chain of appeals and counter-appeals draining community resources.
    Re. "... no confidence that administrators will [do or not do whatever in the future]" – not the topic here. I'm not an admin but respect their discretionary powers. While an admin would take the flak for installing a pre-emptive measure of this kind, that admin would also be issuing a vote of no-confidence in their own kind for their inability to address a future situation which may or may not occur. Thus I'd advise any admin not to react with such pre-emptive measures. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure it's one of the topics here. It has to be. We are here in a discussion commenced by the blocking admin, Coffee. Winkelvi pinged a bunch of administrators after he was blocked, and the pinged admins proceeded to roast Coffee over an open spit. Coffee held his ground and came here. Winkelvi himself has attacked the editors here as "liars" but declined to actually say what "lies" have been told about him, which not one admin has challenged on his page. So yes, indubitably, the prospect of Winkelvi resorting to such tactics in the future, and admins showing empathy toward him and not toward people with whom he comes into conflict, is definitely on the minds of non-admin editors he has encountered in the past. 0RR, 1RR and possible talk page methods are not designed to tie the hands of administrators, however. The point simply is to act now, rip the bandaid off the skin so to speak, enact measures so that we won't be back here again. Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be more worried about the (implied) canvassing, and the name-calling, during the current proceedings than about what might or might not happen in the future (and about how hypothetics might reflect on admins). Looking a bit more into the current case (my first reflection was primarily based on a previous experience) I'm updating my preference to six month block. I still feel less inclined (but strictly speaking not opposed) to 0RR/1RR kind of accompanying measures: if they would edit-war again that would call for appropriate measures, even before 3RR is trespassed. I'd appreciate if the closure of this thread (and the notification to Winkelvi when it gets closed) would mention they need to take a close look at the Wikipedia:edit warring guidance again: that it can be detected way before a technical 3RR violation, and that editors should live up to it. And that WP:EDITCONSENSUS is official policy, while WP:BRD is less than an essay, and not at all as practical as it pretends to be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm agnostic on unblocking, but I strongly support at least a year's 0RR restriction if unblocked early. The 1RR restriction seems to have not taken, so to me, repeating that isn't going to solve the problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not relevant to the discussion at all. BMK, Coretheapple has received the message, either they heed it or they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr rnddude (talk • contribs) 06:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLUDGEONing in this discussion

    I must say that I am more than a little put off by Coretheapple's choice to act as the prosecutor in the case against Winkelvi, which smacks of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:ABF. My suggestion is that they refrain from any additional commentary, as their bias is quite apparent in their expressed views, and they're unlikely to contribute any clarity to this discussion with further commentary. They have no obligation to depose other editors to find out their views, nor are they doing themselves any particular favors with their overall behavior in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheesh. I wasn't "deposing" Frances. I just wanted to see if she had any views on the other remedies, that's all. She didn't mention them, and I wanted to see what she thought. Trying to get to a solution. Yes I have a position. Have I hidden that? Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    <squeeze>(Well, I'm not a she – no big deal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you've smeared it into every corner of the discussion. Time to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll take your kibitzing under advisement. However, in the interim you may want to not disrupt dialogue on this page, meanwhile, by commencing side conversations like this one and interjecting gratuitous remarks like this one. Coretheapple (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncollapsing. Please do not collapse again, the subject of your behavior is entirely pertinent to this discussion. And BTW, as a Wikipedia editor in good standing, I'm not "kibitzing", I'm pointing out something which other editors may wish to take into account when evaluating the weight to give your many commentsin this discussion, and to consider in determining the cause of your obvious vehemence about getting Winkelvi indef blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Frances Schonken, the same goes for you as well. I did not "refactor" your reply, in fact, I put it directly after the question asked by Coretheapple, preserving the flow of the discussion. You had no reason to undo my moving this to a different sub-section. This is now a different issue, and should not be collapsed, please don't do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You put my reply before the paragraph I was replying to, which is refactoring; fixed it now. Would close this subsection as rant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My apology. I didn't realize that your reply was in two parts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Pointless and disruptive. Please stop. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that is not the case. Many of Coretheapple's comments qualify as rants, this is a coherent, rational objection to WP:BLUDGEONing and disruptive behavior throughout this section on their part. "Disruptive" does not mean "I disagree with it", in this context, it means something on the order of "preventing or discouraging community members from expressing their opinions by attempting to control the discussion through sheer volume of commentary," which is why I asked Coretheapple to stop, and allow the community to reach a decision without their continual "guidance". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Compromise proposal

    We have a very extreme range in the !votes on this entire thread, from "immediate unblock with limited-term 1RR restriction", to "indef block". I propose a compromise: Three-month block followed by indefinite 0RR, appealable in six months if no talkpage WP:BLUDGEONING has occurred. In other words, the current three-month block remains in place, followed by an indefinite WP:0RR restriction. The 0RR restriction may be appealed here at ANI after six months (six months after the block expires). If no talkpage WP:BLUDGEONING has occurred during that time, the 0RR restriction may be either lifted or replaced with a 1RR restriction. Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Every block is subject to appeal. I think we can leave it to our admin corps to decide if the unblock request is warranted or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To Figureofnine and BMK: The proposal explicitly states (in bold) that the current three-month block is retained. If you support the proposal as written, that is a given. If you support it with changes, or support something else, then that would need to be stated in your !vote. Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My point to Figureofnine, is that, while I could well be wrong, I cannot recall the forced imposition of a non-appeallable block, although if Winkelvi were to agree to not being allowed to appeal the block, that would be a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A non-appealable period of a block is possible, as it would be for any sanction, but not the entire block duration, except in the case of TP abuse. Many Arbcom sanctions in the past have come with non appeal periods. Blackmane (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I would agree with the proposal if it called for IRR, but 0RR is not warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK, I totally hear you on that, and various people in the thread have advocated a 1RR restriction. But the concern repeatedly voiced that 1RR merely allows edit-warring to be spread out more slowly, and the overwhelming number of "indef block" !votes, caused me to propose a situation where the concerns of the "indef block" !voters and the "0RR" !voters would be covered. Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support My view hasn't changed since the last two times I !voted for the same thing. Blackmane (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - in short; I have advocated for 0RR above and I fully and absolutely agree that the block should not be lifted. I'd say 1 year appeal, but, six months is fine if that is the consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per my above comments Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you, Ritchie, but as others have observed several times, 1RR will not stop Winkelvi from edit-warring (nor from talk-page bludgeoning); it will only slow him down on the edit-warring, and will not stop talk-page bludgeoning at all. Also, there is enormous support for an indef block, and therefore I believe a 1RR proposal, even an indefinite one, will be very unlikely to gain consensus. Whereas a proposal that meets everyone's concerns can easily gain consensus and avoid an indef block. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    0RR will probably increase talk page bludgeoning. I believe the effect will be similar to The Rambling Man's talk page when he was briefly blocked, which might as well have had a redirect of WP:ERRORS2. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are editors who spend days, weeks or months not reverting. I'm sure there are editors who have never reverted. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles that have never had a single revert. If Winkelvi can't control his talk page behavior, if he needs an outlet in reverting, then he should be indefinitely blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, please re-read the proposal: The only way Winkelvi can have the 0RR lifted is to completely avoid talkpage bludgeoning. That was specifically built in to my proposal. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as the best feasible option. I thank Softlavender for wading through all this, finding the common ground and for proposing a solution that will achieve two important things that are loud and clear in this discussion: a) the need for long-term consequences accruing to Winklevi for his edit warring and; b) the need for a very short rope where Winlevi's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is concerned. --Drmargi (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - although I don't really care if the block remains as long as the 0RR is put in place. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think this proposal works. The block should not be subject to lifting except by community agreement here, and Winkelvi should be warned against canvassing, as he has done for years whenever he gets in a jam. Canvassing specifically defined as pinging. We are here because of canvassing, which resulted in the mess on his talk page and the mess here. Thanks to Coffee for holding firm on the block and to Softlavender for this compromise proposal. Also I with agree with User:Starke Hathaway below and other editors that this needs to be the Last Chance Saloon, with the next step being an indef. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I actually proposed the exact same thing a few days ago somewhere in this mess of a thread.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is an editor whose zeal too often overmatches his judgment. That's been hard on a lot of members of the community and has sucked up a lot of time and electrons. But, the long history here still argues for trying to reach some reasonable accommodation. We may never think of a true vandal as a member of our community. But Winkelvi is demonstrably not a vandal and is a member of our community, however vexing his behavior sometimes may be. Taking one more shot at retaining his contributions while ameliorating the drama, a shot embodied in this proposed compromise, seems to me a risk worth taking. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - per my two comments above. This is an editor shown above to have multiple long-term issues aside from blatant edit-warring, including massive edit stalking and abuse of AfD to vindictively get back at other editors. This is an editor hostile to those who dare to disagree with him and one who simply believes they are never wrong, except when they are about to be sanctioned. The admin canvassing alone is reprehensible. If you don't indef now, we will be having this same time sink of a process down the road. I see plenty of support for an indef above. The long history of problems with this editor should end here and now, instead of kicking the can down the road. Jusdafax 16:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jusdafax, I'm with you here. But unfortunately we don't have consensus for an indefinite block or community ban. Too many people voted in this thread who either a) are Winkelvi's allies or b) have never been victimized by him and who don't know how severe the behavior is. I think that this solution is clearly the best we can get. As I said below, I hope (and am confident, I might add) that if we end up back here in less than a year's time because of Winkelvi's inappropriate behavior that we can finally get rid of him. Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's try to keep this discussion on topic, not pursue unrelated issues. --Drmargi (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Canvassing is one issue, but there's more I'm curious about as one of his battered and banned victims. How can an editor who hadn't edited anything at Commons for at least the previous year, be able to post a message to the Commons AN and within an hour get numerous primary editors there supporting him: ie. having them speedy delete w/o notice multiple images, opening a major discussion and succeed in getting me indeffed on a near technicality? Besides pinging other Commons editors who rushed to his side, he kept referring to me as a "she," when he knew I wasn't and had been reminded a number of times to knock it off. One Commons editor even retracted his "nonsense" block. BTW, has he ever apologized for the wreckages he's left us with? --Light show (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, to add some context about his Commons AN, he posted it around the same time I reverted one of his hounding drive-by edits. Most of his edit warfare was strangely over extreme trivia, as you can check. He came to articles he never edited and simply started breaking stuff. --Light show (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment "within an hour get numerous primary editors there supporting him"-Initial post at Commons was 02:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC) The first response to it was more than four hours later-06:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC). You were indeffed as a Commons Community Ban on 30 December 2016. It was because of what you did or didn't do in the way of uploads there-not the actions of another editor you either have mis-stated or can't prove. We hope (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It came just 41 minutes later, not 4 hours..--Light show (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is fixing bad links a response? the edit. We hope (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are all your comments that important that you have to "od" them to stand out? Are we playing "look at me"?--Light show (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They are to keep them connected with your comments due to your mis-statements vs what actually happened. We hope (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. They are mis-formating the discussion and cluttering the page with digressions. You really should demote your comments into a single thread. Use the colon key. --Light show (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a reasonable reflection of the community's loss of patience with this editor. I would prefer that the block be replaced by the 0RR restriction immediately, rather than forcing a three-month wait to see whether Winkelvi intends to abide by the restriction or not. If we've decided that 0RR is the appropriate restriction then the block is no longer preventative. I prefer 1RR for reasons I've stated earlier but will not oppose on that basis. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Winklevi would do well to heed his own advice - "Edit warring is not just violating 3RR, it is also a behavior...", which came from this EW report from 6 months ago noted above, WV also drops this policy reminder from WP:EW and WP:3RR into that discussion: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. And when he is accused of having "a lengthy history of edit warring" in that discussion, he responds with - Precisely why I know what I'm talking about. So in my opinion, WV knew he was edit warring in this instance for which he was blocked, and since he acknowledges his lengthy history of edit warring, it should come as no surprise to him that there was an escalation in this block. I also believe Coffee's block was justified and endorse it as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support-This is clearly the best we can get out of this discussion. My hope is that if we end up back here any time within the next year or so because Winkelvi continues to cause trouble, we can get consensus for an indefinite block or community ban. But for now I'll settle with this. Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC) I also think that if a significant (or increased) amount of talk page bludgeoning occurs during this restriction that it could be enough for indefinite block, as opposed to merely not lifting the restriction. Display name 99 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my prior comments and David in DC. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Many of the initial admins have bailed. This is a solution in search of a problem. Admins had it worked out on Winkelvi's talk page. It should have enced there. There is no way any consensus of the community can be achieved when so many have moved off the discussion due to the caustic nature of this thread. Any change from here is invalid. File arbcom if a different outcome is desired. --DHeyward (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)+[reply]
    Of the five admins on WV's talk page that had "worked [it] out", none of them were neutral. Three of them were friendly admins that WV had ping-canvassed rather than using WP:UNBLOCK; one was an admin known for their extreme leniency and cowboy unblocks (Ritchie, who unblocked WV's one-week block after 2.5 days in February 2016 with a three-month 1RR restriction); and one was an admin with a longterm feud with the blocker. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your aspersions and this is not the place to make them. Feel free to file an Arbitration case with evidence but your viewpoint is skewed enough as to make this "compromise" moot and certainly not a good faith effort to respect many different views. --DHeyward (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can disagree but that doesn't make Softlavender's points any less truthful. I also don't see how this proposal wasn't done in good faith. It literally is an in-between for those who want an indef block and those comfortable with repeating the 1RR stipulation again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made aspersions; I'm stating observable facts. I don't know why you feel my viewpoint is skewed. The "many different views" expressed before my proposal were as follows [Note: many people expressed their !votes two or three times so I have counted carefully and eliminated redundancies]: 16 supports for 0RR; 13 supports for indef block; 12 supports for 1RR. I created a proposal that would satisfy the concerns of those calling for an indef block but keep Winkelvi on wiki while providing both a preventative to his edit-warring (as desired by the plurarity -- the 0RR !voters) and to his talkpage bludgeoning, but still allowing him to improve and for the sanction to be ameliorated if he so chooses. This proposal addresses the major concerns of all parties, while still keeping him on wiki. I do not think an ArbCom case is necessary since if concerns are addressed and a consensus is agreed upon, a lengthy drawn-out and contentious ArbCom can be avoided. If you can think of a proposal likely to gain consensus which addresses the concerns of the majority, you can certainly propose it. My goal is to resolve, not to prolong, this dispute. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The obserable is you have a beef with Winkelvi. It's as observable as any other that you have listed. If you you have evidence that the admins you hace characterized agree with your characterization, then present it so we know. Otherwise it's an aspersion that implies the admins you have characteried are acting contrary to the interest of the project. I doubt any agree that they have a grudge, animosity or anything less than impartial. Take it to ArbCom s tey are serious allegations that you think we need to accept as fact. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The original remedy is and was a 3 month block. The alternative was lifting the block with a 1RR restriction. Any proposal outside of that range is moot as the caustic process has driven moderates away. It is invalid as those that chose moderation have been beaten away with incessant attacks. We should be here discussing alternatives between those originally proposed and not piling on burdens that only Winkelvi's most ardent detractors were willing to continue participating. --DHeyward (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Assumes facts not in evidence. You cannot know why people are no longer participating here. Many editors prefer to state a position and move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly why canvassing views 7 days after the original sanction after many have given up is not valid. The community has moved on with no change. --DHeyward (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolving an ANI thread is always valid, especially when it can avoid an ArbCom case (in fact, ArbCom does not accept cases unless sufficient obvious forms of resolution have been attempted). No canvassing was done; however if anyone wants to neutrally ping every single person who has participated in this entire thread but not yet !voted on this compromise proposal, that would not be unwarranted and I don't think anyone would object. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The original remedy was indeed a 3-month block. The request for an unblock was declined by Laserbrain. Instead of filing another unblock request, Winkelvi ping-canvassed eight friendly admins. Of those eight, three of them, along with an admin known for their extreme leniency and cowboy unblocks and an admin with a longterm feud with the blocker, agreed upon a 1RR unblock condition, whereas at least two admins on the talkpage disagreed with that. The case was then brought here for review. Nothing is moot simply because you happen to disagree with it; there are plenty of moderates (including admins) here who advocated much stricter sanctions than those five non-neutral admins: (0RR [The Wordsmith, QEDK, Ealdgyth, Blackmane]; 0RR and continuation of the three-month block [Neutrality]; indef block [Cullen328, Calidum]) -- by the way those are "nopings"; I simply linked their usernames without pinging in case you don't recognize them. Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do those admins agree with your "facts" about their motivation? If not, the place to call admins "cowboy" or "feuding" is not here. They spoke, you ignored. That is not the hallmark of compromise. --DHeyward (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't listed motivations, only observable facts, and neither admin has denied these observable facts. "They spoke, you ignored. That is not the hallmark of compromise." I'm not sure what that means. I was not present in the talkpage discussions, nor do I have WV's talkpage on my watchlist. I have explained the facts of the case to you. The compromise I am seeking is the resolution of this ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, I suppose I am "friendly" with Winkelvi in the sense that I have civil discussions with him, and he's asked me for advice here and there. But if you think that makes me somehow not neutral, and if you think that therefore my opinion on the talk page proposal is null and void... well I don't quite know how to finish that sentence. I suppose, if I have to be neutral, objective, and trustworthy by what I think your definition is, I should be an asshole to everyone. In other words, I strongly object to tenor and content of your statement regarding the half-dozen admins, some of whom are among the most active and most respected (not me, but I can live with that--but Floq and Bish were in there, no? and Ritchie?) admins on the damn project. What you're proposing, between the lines, is the end of adminship: you talk with someone, you're not neutral/acceptable anymore. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as second choice after indef block. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 02:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support just to close this. I would also add that breaking the 0RR should result in an indef, so we should hopefully not have to deal with this again. I would also propose that WV is allowed (although I'm not sure it's forbidden) to ping people or adminhelp template to revert when necessary, but should be used judiciously. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I previously supported an indefinite block but also said that I was prepared to support consensus. This seems to be the compromise most widely supported by the community and I hope that this can be resolved very soon with general acceptance of what I see as the emerging consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Something is needed beyond hoping against hope that, after years of these issues with little discernible improvement, a 3-month block will cause Winkelvi to suddenly see the light. As this proposal appears to stand the best chance of consensus, I support it. I also agree that this should be the last chance before indef, provided the next complaint has as much substance. While I accept the theoretical possibility of an editor who contributes so much as to be worth this amount of turmoil, I've yet to encounter them. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Close with no additional sanctions beyond 3 month block. The conduct did not become worse after the block. --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What is that supposed to mean? He couldn't edit beyond his own talk page after the block. That's how blocks work. Display name 99 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It means what it means. If Winkelvi is supposed to be cast into outer darkness because of his personal behavior, he could have exhibited plenty of aspects of that behavior on his talk page. It's what purely disruptive editors do--and Winkelvi didn't. DHeyward, what is the world coming to, that I would agree with you--I suppose that also makes me non-neutral, and my opinion of no value... Drmies (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies he basically called all of us pushing for more sanctions liars, and then refused to provide any evidence to support the statement. That seems disruptive to me. He also took a statement that I made and bolded certain parts of it to make it seem as though I hoped he would get an indefinite block after this discussion was over, although the statement was clearly referring to a hypothetical scenario in which Winkelvi continued to be disruptive even after being placed on a 0 RR. Display name 99 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my comments elsewhere in this thread. I think it should also be made clear that this is the last step before indef. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lukewarm support. I thought we had this hammered out, a consensus among admins none of whom related to Winkelvi, and some of them certainly not known for being pushovers. I still support a 1R restriction, for all the reasons given by Ritchie, DHeyward, and others, but if it's between this and an indef block, I'll take this. And I note also that this thread is interminable in part because Winkelvi has rubbed plenty of people the wrong way, but also because some of those people seem to be very litigious and fond of carrying grudges. The project is big enough, and 1R is an incredible tight leash, and those who've been put on it can testify to that. It's behavioral training, whereas 0R is just punishment and an invitation to just fuck with an editor and get him upset, for those of who who hate him so much. What I will ask of you, Softlavender, should this be passing, is that you (yes, you) built in a line that says "DON'T POKE THE BEAR". Hounding/harassment will not be tolerated. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Rubbed people the wrong way"? That's why we're here? Against whom are an array of grudge-holding and "very litigious" editors? That's a neutral statement by a neutral editor and not an advocate? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, you know that I hold you in very high regard, and you also know that I am not quick to call for sanctions against editors. But in this specific case, I think that you are underestimating the sheer amount of disruption to the encyclopedia that this editor has created for years, alienating and antagonizing many otherwise productive editors over and over and over again. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a reasonable compromise, although I'd prefer a 1RR per discussion on this long thread. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as reasonable compromise per above. I view the 0RR as frankly essential. Neutralitytalk 18:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    www.beerglasses.eu

    @McGeddon: Spam link repeatedly inserted by a different IP each time. Maybe start with page protection. Target page looks non-commercial and I don't think it's being inserted anywhere else yet. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's also being added to beer glassware. You can see it on the range contribs. Coffee semi-protected pint glass, but we might need to do a range block if it spreads to other articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the spam rate gets out of hand, you could also consider temporarily blacklisting the URL for a bit :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I found and removed an older example of it at Breweriana [64] left by 2605:e000:1525:c089:4005:8164:f476:bfcf. Since it's over a month old, and as I understand it IPv6 addresses change more often than the weather, is there any point in leaving them a notice about this discussion? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'd say it's kind of pointless to alert a stale IP address. The IP addresses above are from Cyprus, and this IPv6 address geolocates to the US. It could be this is simply a popular website in its niche. This search can locate any further external links. Oshwah's idea about the spam blacklist sounds like the best solution if this becomes a burden. Sometimes, though, you just have to scan through the linksearch and revert spam. It's tedious, and you don't get barnstars for doing it, but someone has to clean up the spam that's not disruptive enough for blacklisting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can never remember how to do a link search but I've got the article watchlisted and will report if it becomes a problem again after the protection expires. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeking a one way IBAN re Andy Dingley

    For a while now, Andy Dingley had determined that I am a baleful influence that he has to set right and has parachuted into disputes I am having with other editors.

    Following on the Vipul paid enterprise matter, I and other editors have been starting to clean up effective altruism advocacy in articles those editors worked on per this COIN thread (I will be bringing a more pointed RfC about that matter soon). Unsurprisingly, other EA advocates have been pushing back here and there.

    Andy who, for clarification, is not one of the Vipul editors nor an EA advocate as far as I know, continued his BATTLEGROUND behavior against me and just interjected himself into one of the article discussions here and here, apparently having seen the EW notice one of the participants there left on my talk page. He has never before edited the article or its talk page. (user-search at article, user-search at talk page)

    Dealing with advocacy is hard and here we have unpaid advocates teaming up, and are also dealing with content generated by the network of paid advocates who had teamed up. The last thing we need in this effort is HOUNDING wiki-politics complicating things.

    There has been a nice calm period since they were blocked for 31 hours, (block notice), back in November 2016 for hounding me at EWN. That was after I had warned them here in November 2016. (see diffs there)

    That was after I had warned them here in April 2016 about interfering with SPIs I had filed on a serial-socking hounder. That had followed a very hot period in March per this and this.

    I am now requesting an Iban. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (redact to clarify, for those who are not reading carefully Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)) (redact - struck badly stated case. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    • I'm a vegetarian. A news story this week has been on Memphis Meats, who are vat-growing animal cells to make a "meat". So I went to see if we had an article on it, and guess what I find - Jytdog and his perennial bullying tactics and 2RR edit-warring tatics [65] [66]. I have not edited this article, I commented at Talk:Memphis Meats.
    In return I get this, User talk:Andy Dingley#Hounding, again, and now here.
    I am sick of Jytdog's behaviour to any number of other GF editors, particularly new editors. His history speaks for itself. He also has a very thin skin, if he calls a disagreement on an article talk page "hounding". And no Jytdog, I didn't "follow you" to that article, I'm a vegetarian (and have often mentioned this) and I'm interested in vat-grown meat news. We are both editors who have been here some years: yet it was you who opened an SPI on me, even after you'd said you wouldn't do such a ridiculous thing. Let alone awarding me a "moron diploma".
    As an editor who does "good work" in rigorously enforcing MEDRS, Jytdog has some powerful friends. So a few months back I was even blocked by one of those admins for pointing out at ANEW, also Talk:, that 4RR was a brightline block, even for Jytdog. An admin who then ignored my requests to discuss this. Now you appear to be conflating me with a paid editing scheme - is there any valid reason to bring that up here, or to attempt to connect me to it, or are you just flinging mud?
    Unsurprisingly I oppose IBANs. I would like Jytdog to damn well behave himself though, to me and others. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have enough experience on WP to know the policies for this situation, but I want to provide my perspective as a new user who is very frustrated by Jytdog's behavior, which seems both like very strong advocacy against certain viewpoints (perhaps motivated by inappropriate behavior from those viewpoints, but it's still advocacy) and like very rude, unprofessional, perhaps even harassing behavior. I hope someone who knows more about WP policy is able to do something about this. Utsill (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And Andy's post at the article has succeeded in attracting one of the AE advocates that I was trying to work with at the article where Andy inserted himself. See their contribs. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "one of the AE advocates" - or as most of us would describe them, the same editor you've been busy reverting at that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy as usual when we interact, you are misrepresenting the situation -- I didn't say you were connected to the Vipul thing, at all. I said you have parachuted into a complex, much bigger set of issues, complicating them with your grudge against me.
    More relevant to folks reading here, here is an inappropriate use of an article Talk page by Andy to continue the dispute. Classic WP:BATTLEGROUND. I will not say more here. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "as usual when we interact": every post, a sideways slight at your opponent.
    Why post about a paid editing scheme in an ANI post you have raised about me? If you are alleging a connection, then say it. If you are not, then you are simply slinging mud. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • More personalized BATTLEGROUND at the article talk page, here. The disruption is clear. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's battleground about that? You started this by demanding an IBAN, and casting aspersions in your post by implying that there's a connection between Andy and Vipul, a paid editing enterprise, so of course he has to be allowed to defend himself. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry you don't understand. Article talk pages are for discussing article content. Andy is creating drama there attacking me, instead of addressing the content issues there. Not appropriate and Wikipedia 101 level stuff per WP:TPG; he should know better. This thread is the place to "defend himself". And my OP did not connect Andy and VIpul. Please stop continuing Andy's misrepresentation. I have added a clarification above. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I do understand, and don't try to talk down to me, the way you always seem to do in all discussions you get into, no matter who you get into a discussion with, it only makes yourself look bad. You have IMHO no case for an IBAN, and yes, your text did try to connect Andy to Vipul, without a shred of evidence, which also makes you look bad. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So just WHY 'did you feel the urge to include a paid editing scheme in an ANI post against me? You're right, I don't understand. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Jytdog since you know a lot about Wikipedia (probably more then me) can you tell us what "Boomerang" is ?? Jena (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • ....... yah ok .. I think he has to stay away from Andy but ... I think in 6 months he is looking at a block Jena (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ach, I also see that in addition to posting about this at the article talk page, Andy WP:CANVASSed Utsill to this discussion, here. And Utsill being a newbie, fell right into that. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that you're using ANI to slag them off as an "AE advocate", apart from them being the editor you're busy reverting at Memphis Meats, it's only fair to inform them too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, this thread is solely focused on your BATTLEGROUND behavior. The only reason I mentioned the context is because you carrying your grudge against me into this specific situation exacerbated a much larger issue that has already consumed a lot of the community's time. You are again diverting and misrepresenting the problem. If you actually read the links in the OP about the Vipul matter and the COIN thread you would understand what you interjected yourself into the middle of. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Seems like you're the one who is hounding Andy, and not the other way around, checking every single edit he makes, and then quickly posting here, trying to make him look as bad as possible. This thread is not focused solely on Andys alleged battleground behaviour, BTW, your behaviour is also fair game here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 23:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just how am I "in the middle of" this paid editing thing? Please, humour the diploma-carrying moron here. I'm just talking about meat substitutes, I don't understand this other thing you're accusing me of. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are really not taking the time to understand. The article into which you interjected yourself (and Thomas I already showed that Andy never edited the article, and went to it after an EW notice was placed on my talk page - he followed me to the article, not the other way around) was created by a sockpuppet of an EA advocate as shown here. The two editors with whom I was talking, both edit EA topics as you can see from their contribs and I have already started interacting with them on other articles as part of the cleanup of Vipul's enterprise before discussions happened at this article. Vipul's entire enterprise was EA driven, if you take a few minutes and actually read the links and I anticipate there will be further issues with the already present EA advocates in WP as that cleanup continues. You are not even trying to understand what you stepped into the middle of in your hounding of me and canvassing of a newbie editor. The latter is especially bad form as you are actively trying to screw up the head of a newbie. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another PA struck out.
    Jytdog, as I've already told you, I'm a veggie so I'm interested in vat-grown meat and Memphis Meat (which you've been pruning as NOTNEWS) has been all over my newsfeeds this week. If you're calling me a liar, then come out and say so directly. After all, you've already called me a sockpuppeteer (or was it a puppet?) and today you're dropping me into some paid-editing fracas. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your protestation about what led you to get involved may or may not be true. Others might believe you but give your history with me, I don't, and you came in swinging there with the same things you always say and made a mess of this just as you did the SPIs I linked to above. Your pattern of hounding me and making messes is clear. And even if what you are saying is true, given that history and your already having been blocked once for hounding me, you should have restrained yourself, but you didn't. So you walked right into this, either way. Also, I have removed the edit that you made to my comment above in this diff. You are just going for the trifecta of behavior violations aren't you? HOUNDING, canvassing, and now editing others comments. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are outright calling another editor, me, a liar? Thanks for that. It sits nicely along the paid editing attacks. As to "making a mess of your SPIs", the only SPI I encountered you at (apart from the one you filed on me) was poor old CaptainYuge whom you hounded off the project in a month, after you'd made such a hatchet job of the RepRap project page that external press started to cover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you are explicitly lying. Your interference with the many SPIs on Biscuittin is there in the history (your contribs here) and some of your hounding comments (and my responses to them) there were reverted by an admin here. I am asking the community to keep you away from me. The block you received did not wake you up, so this needs to be imposed on you. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. I check Jytdog's user page and find a link to a GMO topic ban. Memphis Meats wants to grow in vitro animal products. In other words, MM wants to use the genes that produce product and skip the genes that grow other stuff. Does that hit the broadly interpreted GMO predicate? Glrx (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it. AFAIK, the vat-meat people are avoiding GMO (either because they don't need it, or they don't need the inevitable bad press). It's a problem of getting (genetically) unmodified cells to grow in the vats.
    I have no wish to catch Jytdog out on some contrived technicality - but I do wish he would back off his aggression to everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the motion that jytdog back off his aggression. DennisPietras (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I note his recent reversions of you at Induced pluripotent stem cell and clearly that only slips through, "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted" because it's an and, not an or. Now that's brinksmanship. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on the bigger issues, IPSCs aren't GMOs, even under a broad interpretation. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog, can you explain how Memphis Meats is part of the Vipul paid-editing enterprise, which you stated in your OP? For those wondering about a topic ban violation, WP:AE is that way. I have no comment or opinion on the Jytdog/Andy feuding. Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not part of the Vipul paid enterprise. I didn't say it was. It is part of the EA advocacy that has gone in WP, which Vipul's enterprise falls within, and which we are going to run into a lot from non-Vipul affiliated editors, as we go to clean up after the Vipul enterprise. (The Memphis Meats article fits into the EA universe b/c one of the EA movement's targets is alleviating animal suffering; Memphis Meats aims to grow meat in vats, from cells, solving the problem with technology.) The MM article was created by a sockpuppet of an EA advocate as shown here. The two editors with whom I was talking, both edit EA topics as you can see from their contribs (here and here, and Utsill especially was strongly resisting removing promotionalism from this article. The killer thing is that Kbog had proposed a decent compromise when Andy stomped in, stalking me, and blew it up, attacking me and the content argument I had been making there. I hope that is more clear. I apparently explained this badly in my OP. My apologies to everybody. Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your OP states "I and other editors have been starting to clean up effective altruism advocacy in articles those [Vipul's] editors worked on per this COIN thread .... Andy ... just interjected himself into one of the article discussions here and here ..." (underscoring mine). Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Argh. I first encountered Kbog when I was cleaning up Giving What We Can, which is an article that the Vipul editors worked on. Kbog at first fought the clean up. In discussions with Kbog on their Talk page, Utsill joined in. In that discussion at Kbog's Talk page, Kbog started understanding the problem Ustill did not. Then Utsill added promotional content to Memphis Meats, which I reverted, and that started a conflict at that EA advocate article. Which Kbog had just about resolved, when Andy brought his BATTLEGROUND with me there, complicating the problem. Like I said already, there is a set of EA advocates and we are going to keep running into them at other EA-related articles. The Vipul set of EA articles is a subset of the EA articles in WP. Jytdog (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Front-loading your IBan request with all that irrelevant self-congratulatory misleading material was gratuitous. That said, it's clear that Andy came to the article via the edit-warring notice on your talk-page (edit-warring notice at 12:23, 18 March [67]; Andy's first edit at 18:48, 18 March [68]), and not through a "news story this week". Andy, I'd advise taking Jytdog's talk page off your watchlist and stopping tracking his edits. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    dang. I was trying to explain why it was so frustrating when he did it this time; i view the cleanup work as something many people are doing, that i am part of. Andy butting in here hurts the whole effort, in my view. I wasn't aware of being self-congratulatory - thanks for saying that you heard it that way. It is clear that i communicated badly and i appreciate you taking the time to try to figure out what i was trying to say. Jytdog (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, if you are requesting a one-way IBan with someone you need to immediately make your case, with sufficient probative diffs, that the other person is stalking, hounding, and/or harassing you. Anything else is irrelevant, particularly when it is lengthy and stated in such a way that the interpretation of it is liable to be incorrect. I'm not an admin and I'm not deciding this case, but my recommendation would be for Andy to take Jytdog's talk-page off his watchlist and to stop tracking his edits and other people's mentions of him, and if this gets brought up here at ANI again there will probably be a one-way IBan enacted (if it is not enacted now). Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, have you read your email? If so, you can assume what I'm asking for here. I would still like an apology from you (and Jytdog, but that's never going to happen) but I do request, as strongly as I can here, that you stop accusing me of being a liar. You know why now. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Understood Softlavender. The case stated concisely is as follows.

    • Andy originally got angry with me over the RepRap project kerfluffle that was blogged about off-wiki in March 2016 (see that wonderfully titled ANI thread Rude vulgarian editor where Andy latched on) That case involved an SPI into the filer CaptainYuge (here) who was found to have an alt account, used legitimately, but was not running the disruptive account that was mentioned there.
    • Around that same time, two (!) people unrelated to RepRap or Andy started a sock-driven harassment campaign against me and some other folks, which were (after a big mess of sorting) were filed under Renameduser024 and Biscuittin. Biscuittin played games with some of their many socks, and in one of them, did some things that made them look just like Andy acting disruptively toward me, which led to the SPI Andy still complains about here.
    • Anyway in March 2016 Andy took to harassing me at an other article Talk page, writing (among other things) this where he led in with : How did your "disparage every editor and every source, despite knowing nothing about the subject" strategy work for you on RepRap project? Maybe you'll get three adverse media mentions for Wikipedia this time round? and went on from there with similar remarks, which I warned him about per this and this, and you can see other links there.
    • In April he interfered with ongoing SPIs into the Biscuittin matter by interjecting snark and distraction as you can see here and some of his hounding comments (and my responses to them) there were finally reverted by an admin here). I warned him away from doing that here.
    • In April I launched an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack the Magic Negro - Andy was the first to !vote (against the nomination, of course) and was out of sync with the community again. He had never edited the article before - This is really obvious and active stalking)
    • In April he did this pure trolling of me, on the Talk page of a paid editor.
    • He then left me alone for a while.
    • In Oct 2016 after this notice was left on my talk page, Andy, who had never edited the article, interjected himself into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcosynth with this Keep Another behavioural car crash, and Jytdog is in the middle of it. and this comment. (article was gotten rid of via the AfD)
    • In November, after an advocate who was edit warring promotional, COPYVIO content into an article about a law school left retaliatory note on my page, Andy jumped into the EWN discussion with personal attacks that had nothing to do with the matter at hand here I warned them about that here and he was blocked for 31 hours over that, (block notice).
    • What prompts this filing is that i was in midst of working to remove advocacy from another article related to effective altruism, and was working with two editors with a history of EA advocacy editing (as you can see from their contribs (here for Utsill and here for Kbog) who were arguing to keep the promotional content. One of the two, Utsill, left a notice on my talk page. And Andy, who had never before edited the article or its talk page (user-search at article, user-search at talk page) jumped in and of course included commentary directed at me, like this.
    Andy's action here was particularly galling, because a) Kbog, who is becoming reasonable, had proposed a decent compromise when Andy stomped in and blew it up; and b) Andy's action only inflamed Utsill, who was especially strongly resisting removing promotionalism from this article; and c) we are starting to clean up a bunch of EA advocacy articles related to another matter, and I am concerned about this pattern of behavior continuing, especially on the EA stuff.
    • The pattern is clear. Andy sees a notice on my talk page, and goes to where the dispute is and jumps in, making difficult situations worse. I am now requesting an Iban. I have had enough of him interjecting his confused anger into SPIs and already-difficult discussions I often have with advocates in WP. I never have pursued him; he has a continuing pattern of pursuing me. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved User Comment - Let me just pitch my two cents. I am in no way involved with this situation, but I have lurked and watched ANI for a while (From 2016 onward, mostly for my own amusement, but I do pick up on things.) I have seen User:Jytdog brought here a lot, whether it be by someone else or of his own accord, and he seems very argumentative, almost always seems like he's the one to initiate the tension in these kinds of incidents that could otherwise be solved easily. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yukari Yakumo your account is but a few days old. You have never, at least on this account, interacted extensively with Jytdog so how can you be certain he creates tension or is argumentative? It is incredibly unfair to judge him solely on his edits at ANI because generally there will be tension and disagreements by both parties.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGracefulSlick You are right, I suppose. Seeing activity from when I was but an IP does seem very prejudiced. I was noting that he tended to be the one who sparked the tension in these ANI cases as far as I have witnessed from 2016 onward as an IP, but he may have changed since then, or maybe it's just the circumstances of the incident. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been watching this discussion for a while, and it looks to me like there is no chance for any kind of consensus to emerge from it. I'll offer some advice to both parties, take it or leave it. There probably will not be an IBAN at the request of one party or the other, but if the community gets annoyed by ongoing clashes, the community is likely to enact sanctions. Both Jytdog and Andy Dingley: it would be a good idea for both of you to voluntarily act as if there were a 2-way IBAN. Just do it voluntarily. If you see the other user somewhere, go somewhere else. If the other user shows up where you already are, go somewhere else anyway. Do not interact. Do not get concerned with "but he started it first". Do not get concerned with it being unfair if you have to stop editing somewhere that you would like to edit. Life is not fair. Wikipedia is not fair. And if a third-party editor sees more clashes and opens a new thread here, there will be a much more decisive result than what is happening here, and one or both of you won't like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Trypto. There is no evidence, at all, of me chasing after Andy - there is plenty of him hounding me. I don't want to interact with him. I will take away from this, that if he pursues me, I will act like I have an iban with him and not respond, and I will wait a very long while to bring another case if he continues doing this and nobody else stops him. I hear you on the annoyance of my bringing this to the community and of my role in the ugliness above. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog - I express a pretty minor difference of opinion with you at Talk:Memphis Meats and what do I get? An immediate ANI post accusing me of being part of a paid editing syndicate, a post so badly skewed that you've since had to strike it through.
    I have never opened an SPI on you, even though admitting it was a totally bogus thing to do.
    I am not topic-banned from one of the key areas of personal interest.
    I do not spend my time hunting reds under the bed, despite having an admitted COI of my own, so secret that it cannot be divulged in detail except to ArbCom
    I am not the one indef blocked from the project
    Yes, I have been blocked on your account - when you had a friendly admin block me for pointing out that your 4RR edit-warring was a brightline block
    Anything else - I ask other editors reading this to just take a look at Jytdog's past and present editing style, the complaints about him open on his talk: and on this same ANI page right now. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lute88 regarding Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers

    On the mentioned page, I re-phrased a sentence where the Holodomor was written as "genocide", by removing such words such as "genocide" and "engineered" as this description was not neutral. As written in Holodomor genocide question, many historians and scholars do not believe that the Holodomor falls under the definition of "genocide", as well as there being no international consensus that the Holodomor was genocide. The genocide question still carries on to this day, and therefore, the sentence was not respecting neutrality, as writing that the Holodomor was "genocide" is favoring one side. As I changed this, Lute88 reverted the edit, and I replied with that the genocide label was still disputed, where he reverted my edit again, claiming that it wasn't disputed, and when I linked the user to the Holodomor genocide question page after editing again, he reverted the edit without giving an explanation, and kept doing so, yet again without reason, leaving me to presume that the user is simply ignoring facts that is presented to them. 92.6.41.228 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Lute88 reverts all the edits which potentially may be perceived as contradicting pro-Ukrainian POV. They rarely bother to provide a reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: The IP has not, however, pointed out the diff in question. Their change doesn't actually make any sense within the context. Both versions are awkward, but the IP is edit warring their changes. There's an article talk page for discussion of the phrasing. I think it needs modification, but 'Soviet' is not a replacement for 'Russian' for starters. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not object against blocking both of them for edit-warring. I do not like any of the versions either, both look like original research.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP hopper was trying to delegitimize the Holodomor, but lost track of what he was doing.--Lute88 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To entirely eradicate the word "genocide" from these events is a white wash. While there may be a difference of opinion as to the application of the word "Genocide", the fact of the controversy is incontrovertible. This is a content dispute that should be worked out on the talk page of the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't see an editor behavior issue here, that's all. I have no opinion on the content issue. Coretheapple (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    This does not 'delegitimise' the Holodomor - it is still mentioned without any sort of denial or questioning, and links to the Holodomor article, a better solution than giving a disputed label, as the edit was on the summary. I agree that there could be further improvements, but reverting everything without reason is not a good approach at all. Also, you have falsely accused me of using an 'IP hopper' - falsely accusing someone on the spot is a form of cyberbullying on Wikipedia. In fact, I have a dynamic IP address which is the common form these days, utterly pathetic behaviour, not surprising. 92.7.0.121 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP close of a contentious RfC

    The RfC at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories was recently closed by an anonymous editor. That shouldn't be bad in itself. WP:NAC allows for editors in good standing to close such discussions, but the IP in question has a prior history containing only a single edit. Their close also weighs in so heavily on the extreme end of the range of opinions that were presented during the discussion, that it appears like little more than a humorous (tongue-in-cheek?) supervote. Their close has already been reverted by several different editors, but they go on reinstating it. – Uanfala (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I wanted to talk about this in a venue like this, too.. but Uanfala was faster.

    The problem here is evident: These editors persist on irregularly reverting a closure via reverts, to the point that we have to discuss this here instead of my talk page or WP:Adminstrators noticeboard itself. Closures should not be reverted if they aren't clear vandalism or similar. The reason is simple: If they could, then everyone could continue reverting until a closure is made they like, giving those editors who are more revert-happy an advantage. That is the reason why you must go via the closer's talk page and then ANI to get a consensus against the close, if it was indeed made in error. But the way these editors went is clearly disruptive to the process(but at least they don't seem to be bad faith actions).109.43.1.204 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever else, if you're really on 4RR I don't see how that falls under any exemption. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3, my mistake. I was counting the IP's original close: [69] plus three reverts to restore it: [70] [71] [72]. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus and longstanding precedent support closes of non-contentious discussions by non-administrator editors in good standing. Is this an editor in good standing? Who, having never apparently attempted to close a discussion before nor even participated in project space at all before yesterday, just happened to decide to try their hand at closing a huge discussion with likely disruptive implications (concerning what all users can and cannot post on their own user pages)? Or is it an editor who participated in the discussion and is logging out to try to force a close that favours their opinion? Or a banned editor trying to disrupt the project? I don't know, I have no idea and neither does anyone who looks at this now or reviews the discussion later, but judging the outcomes of such controversial discussions is not a good situation for assuming good faith. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And several editors have already observed that the close gives an air of bias, which I agree. Closes of controversial discussions where the motive of the closer is in question are not likely to be respected by the community. This should be re-closed by someone with a demonstrable history of closing controversial discussions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is exactly the reason for not discussing this with me and then, if necessary, at the noticeboard itself(as opposed to Incidents), but instead trying to force this by reverting? If you think that this decision really has an air of bias, then you can surely try to find and identify this bias and tell me or at least this venue what exactly is, in your opinion, the problem with this close. It does not create exceptional workload, it can show you that you imagine a bias that isn't there, or it can help in correcting the close and, if the case is indeed reopened, prevents a close that has these problems, if they indeed exist, to be made again. Reverting, on the other hand, does not help closing the debate at all. Experienced editors with an account and a history of good closings in controversial discussion apparently didn't close that discussion even when the debate slowed down, so I closed it instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.1.119 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • IPs (and inexperienced registered users) should never close contentious RFCs, and especially not RFCs about Wikipedia policy. Period. Such closes should always be made by admins and very experienced long-time registered users. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then find those admins and registered users with long-time activity and very high experience, and ask them to help with those closures. If there were enough extremely experienced registered users closing discussions in a normal time, I would probably not close those discussions. It doesn't seem like that though. If there aren't enough admins and very experienced registered users doing closures, then either someone else- like me- does that task or it is not done at all.109.43.1.119 (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'll likely find yourself blocked the next time you revert an admin re-opening your RFC close. --NeilN talk to me 14:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no good reason for me to revert that again anyways, we are discussing this right here. What I propose here is that the discussion is indeed reclosed, and that the complainants are directed to complain about the closure the usual way, and to use arguments in that discussion instead of unsourced and unexplained accusations like "It seems biased". However, someone else will look at this and decide, after the arguments come to a conclusion. So no, I won't revert again, but thanks for the warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.0.140 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The arguments and actions of the reverters conflict with WP:NAC, which allows "any editor" to close RfC; both WP:NAC and WP:Closing discussions explicitely say that the reason that the closer is not an admin is NOT sufficient,

    and they conflict with WP:Closing discussions, that sets the correct method of challenging closures; first discuss with the closer, and then, if necessary, go to WP:AN. Reverting closures without discussing and getting consensus at AN/with the author is wrong if there were any arguments provided beyond simple votecounting, and if the other usual exemptions don't apply(Vandalism, legal reasons...). There is a very good reason for all this: Reverting empowers editors to try to circumvent consensus until someone closes it the "right way", especially if consensus is determined to be with the minority of votes(because a large number of the majority votes were against policy/had no reasoning and/or core policies would be violated otherwise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.0.140 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Read the page you linked to (WP:NAC) again, especially the line that says "Additionally, per this RfC, any non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin" (my emphasis). Your close was reverted because of weighing in "so heavily on the extreme end of the range of opinions that were presented during the discussion, that it appears like little more than a humorous (tongue-in-cheek?) supervote" (see first post in this thread), not because of being made by an IP. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also adding that WP:NAC allows, in its second sentence, non-admin closes by "registered editors" (bold in the original text), not any editor. – Uanfala (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore WP:NAC makes it clear that discussions should be closed by someone with the appropriate experience, including experience of Wikipedia's policy and workings. If we're to believe that this IP isn't a sock then they apparently have few or no prior contributions at all. (And if they are a sock then they definitely should not be closing RfCs.) I don't think anyone's suggested that this discussion has to be closed by an admin but a contentious RfC on a guideline like this one does need to be closed by an admin or a non-admin experienced editor in good standing. And the IP should note that the fact that nobody who has commented thinks this closure was a good idea is a strong signal that such a result wouldn't be seen as acceptable. Hut 8.5 17:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will agree with other editors here that the IP has been acting inappropriately in these edits. I am one of the editors who reverted, and I explained in my edit summary that the close was a supervote, so for the IP to complain that we all just reverted without explaining the problem is untrue and disingenuous. On the contrary, it has been the IP who was edit warring. It really was an outlandish close that did not reflect the actual discussion, calling among other things for editors who have unapproved categories on their user pages to have their user page editing access removed. And I also think that there is a clear smell of some blocked/banned but experienced user editing logged out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Infopage or essay, whatever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We probably should actually promote that page to guideline. We quote it and make decisions based on its advice as though it's policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted the IP's edit at NAC. It is completely inappropriate to make such a change without first getting consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have removed the passage in question, for several reasons. Essays and the like should not try to write policy, and there is as far as I can tell, nowhere in policy that says IPs can't close discussions. NACs are required to be non-controversial to begin with, and so, due to the presumably self-evident nature of the discussion and close, it shouldn't matter at all whether the editor is registered or not. If it does matter then it is probably not an uncontroversial close and thus probably shouldn't be an NAC regardless. In either circumstance the question of whether the editor is registered or not is immaterial.
    We should also be taking care in these conversation that we don't start quoting essays and infopages as if they are policy, because they aren't. TimothyJosephWood 17:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't care what that essay says, and I will explain this further at the essay talk page, but all I did was restore the existing language. It wasn't me who changed anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yh00157 - inability to read talk page, constant unsourced and undiscussed moves/edits

    I have some concerns re the above user re apparent disregard to talk page notices regarding marking edits as minor, the first dating back to 2014, and the most recent being a bit more than a fortnight ago. The user is also now moving pages without consensus and no visible proof regarding the moves - I have (un)moved Stadler Eurolight to its original name of Vossloh Eurolight as no proof was offered for the name, other than the summary "factory ownership change"; the main Vossloh article citing that ownership was changed but nothing saying branding would be too. I have a feeling that the user may be a sock of blocked user D47817 but cannot find too many similarities other than inability to read their talk page and topic similarities. Would an uninvolved admin/experienced editor care to investigate and evaluate what action should be brought forward? Thanks all. Nördic Nightfury 13:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is either incompetence or just blatant vandalism. Either way I think that the user should be prompted to respond, lest they banned from Wikipedia entirely should they continue to ignore warnings. I don't like to suggest banning right off the bat, but this seems like long-term nonsense going on and sanctioning should occur. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had concerns with this editor going back six years (earliest at User talk:Yh00157#Update tag). They have never replied to one of my messages on their user talk page; in fact, their only edit to that page was 09:49, 12 February 2011. So there is a definite communications problem here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A block is needed here; from their contributions log, they know that their user talk exists since they removed a less than polite note from an editor asking what on earth Yh00157 was doing, and only a block will force this user to confront and discuss their problems which date back a number of years. Listing every single edit they make as minor when some are very much major changes is not helpful, but doing it for several years is a problem that requires a block. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely see a lot of page moves and edits without consensus, and many warnings on the user's talk page that have gone ignored. Since this ANI thread was started and the user notified after their latest edit, I say we wait and give the user an opportunity to respond here. If the user proceeds with making edits or page moves like this and without discussion or consensus, I support blocking. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    For info - he has started editing again today. I see Redrose has fixed a DAB link put in by the subject. Nördic Nightfury 12:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have blocked the user for 31 hours for continuing to mark non-minor edits as minor, and ignoring warnings on their talk page and the discussion here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      With this edit, I guess that Yh00157 has seen the message. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    revert war on Korean dialects, disputes regarding language family categorization

    This is regarding editors using the IPs 117.53.77.84 and 211.54.2.241. I was just doing spot-editing of some pages I was looking at a week or so ago, and basically got pulled into this back-and-forth reversion "war" with this editor. The pages I specifically refer to are the following:

    The specific modifications I made to those pages, categorically-speaking, were:

    • Changing the language family color from "Altaic" to "isolate"; I justified this change because of the discrediting of the Altaic language family.[1][2][3][4]
    • Adding estimates of speaker populations and the relative accuracy of those estimates. I reached my estimates of estimated speakers for each dialect by using South Korean population data from 2014, North Korean population data from 2008, and Korean diaspora population estimates from 2015 (with regards to the proportions of dialect speakers in the diaspora, I admitted in my edit explanations that there is a substantial fudge factor involved; I estimated that within the diaspora, at least half spoke the Standard Korean/Gyeonggi dialect, maybe a quarter spoke the Gyeongsang dialect, and smaller proportions spoke the other dialects, I didn't attempt to reconcile these proportions with the large number of ethnic Koreans in the diaspora who can't speak Korean at all).

    I made assorted modifications to the pages (e.g. adding a "citation needed" tag for unsourced claims, etc.) as I saw fit.

    At first, the individual doing the reverting left no explanation. When I left a note on that IP's talk page, I received subsequent responses in Korean. While I am fluent in Korean, I found it inappropriate that the editor, who may have little or no knowledge of English (which would explain the lack of explanation for the reverts), left a message on an English-language talk page almost entirely in Korean. At any rate, the rationale that individual gave for the reverts were as follows: 1) because the Turkish, Mongolian, and Manchu languages still use the Altaic family tag/color (these were formerly lumped together under the Altaic umbrella as the core grouping), this is valid for Korean (which, by the way, does not follow; only certain expanded versions of Altaic ever included Korean), and 2) province population estimates are not a valid surrogate for numbers of speakers of local dialects. I replied (in Korean) that the Altaic language family was discredited and thus the Turkish, Mongolian, and Manchu language family/color tags were also therefore incorrect, and that the point of estimating the number of speakers was not to obtain a highly accurate estimate but rather to provide a sense of relative scale of speaking population. The editor's response to my objection to the Altaic color/tag was that the use of the color was not necessarily an acceptance of the grouping (the references I provided evidently were sufficient for the author to concede that point) but for the sake of consistency.

    My edits are sourced and corroborated in other references, and while I've asked for semi-protection for these pages to nip this revert war in the bud, some individuals have recommended that I bring this series of incidents here.Ecthelion83 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    1. familycolor Altaic is not about an language family. It's just an areal classification along with Khoisan, Amerindian, Papuan, Australian, Caucasian, and Paleosiberian. See Template:Infobox language family.
    2. There aren't any statistics about the linguistic demography published by the SK government. Ecthelion83 has misunderstood each SK province's population data as each dialect's population data. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Using familycolor Altaic to the Korean language was already accepted. See 1 and 2 --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the link for Altaic (areal) on Template:Infobox language family links to Altaic languages. Again, the Altaic classification is discredited; we should begin discontinuing its use. There is no rationale on Template:Infobox language family that provides any sort of published authoritative documentation for the use of the Altaic tag in any form for Korean, only an exhortation that the language family tab be appropriate. The appropriate language classification for Korean at the moment is language isolate.[1][2][3][4] The one change by User:Florian Blaschke is justified by "we use Altaic as a colour for the areal group" - it should be noted that he is a scholar in Indo-European linguistics, and as far as we can tell he has no relationship to Korean, so it is unclear what he means by "we," and as he is not a primary researcher in Korean (and even if he was), he provides no published documentation for this arbitrary classification.
    • I haven't confused population data for speaking population; if you even read my original discussion here, you should note I am well aware of inaccuracies in making estimates as I did (but, since you clearly missed it, I repeat: the point of estimating the number of speakers was not to obtain a highly accurate estimate but rather to provide a sense of relative scale of speaking population; I am aware that a provincial population estimate does not necessarily translate into an accurate estimate of the number of speakers of thats province's local dialect - I just did a best-guess or "ballpark" estimate because those dialects' infoboxes lacked these numbers).Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Altaic (areal) means the colour is just an areal classification, not about a language family. So there is no reason stopping to use it.
    2. Population of each Province doesn't mean each dialect's population. For example, people from Western South Gyeongsang (e.g. Jinju, Sacheon) and Northern North Gyeongsang (e.g. Andong) use somewhat unique dialects. These dialects aren't as same as mainstream Gyeongsang dialect. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3. We don't have to fill in the gap about 'speakers'. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, even the areal classification for "Altaic" is questionable, as the entire hypothesis has been discredited.
    • You are just repeating what I have already noted. The Korean dialect pages refer to provincial-level variances in the spoken Korean language; I believe that the fact that a high degree of accuracy in the number of speakers is difficult to obtain (especially given the large size of the Korean diaspora) does not mean we should leave the estimated number of speakers in each dialect's infobox blank. In addition, for an estimate of speakers based on provincial population to be so inaccurate as to be invalid, the degree of permanent migration in and out of each province would have to be substantial, and as far as I know most migration within Korea is not of the permanent kind (with the exception of migration to Seoul and Busan), so using population estimates to partly approximate a number of speakers is reasonable. If anything, given the degree to which many Koreans can easily speak multiple dialects (usually one's home dialect plus Standard Korean, i.e. the Gyeonggi dialect spoken in Seoul), the number of speakers of some Korean dialects may exceed the population of the provinces from which they originate.Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should add that the other editor's rationales do not justify mass reverting behavior. We have been "talking," so to speak, on each other's talk pages, but we are basically reiterating the same argument we are having here.Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes...that is why it is called an edit-war. You need more eyes on this as mentioned below; please also use the link I left when I denied your protection request. Lectonar (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a breath Folks, this is clearly a content dispute and Administrators are unlikely to pick sides. Have you tried discussing the changes on the Talk page of the article? If so, your next step should be to start a Request for Comment discussion on the talk page. If that fails, Dispute Resolution is the next step. I'm not sure who advised you to bring this here, but it wasn't the best advice they could have given you: having a very public content dispute on this page will probably end badly for everyone involved. In summary: (1) Discuss on talk page. (2) Request for Comment discussion. (3) Dispute Resolution. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is more than 1 page whose content is in dispute, but I'll do what I can to generate a discussion on each page.Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b "While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related." Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, University of Utah Press), pg. 7.
    2. ^ a b "When cognates proved not to be valid, Altaic was abandoned, and the received view now is that Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic are unrelated." Johanna Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (1992, Chicago), pg. 4.
    3. ^ a b "Careful examination indicates that the established families, Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic, form a linguistic area (called Altaic)...Sufficient criteria have not been given that would justify talking of a genetic relationship here." R.M.W. Dixon, The Rise and Fall of Languages (1997, Cambridge), pg. 32.
    4. ^ a b "...[T]his selection of features does not provide good evidence for common descent....we can observe convergence rather than divergence between Turkic and Mongolic languages--a pattern than is easily explainable by borrowing and diffusion rather than common descent," Asya Pereltsvaig, Languages of the World, An Introduction (2012, Cambridge). This source has a good discussion of the Altaic hypothesis on pp. 211-216.

    The Korean user is probably a korean internet nationalist, he will not stop his edits and his ignorant behavior. Maybe he will even start to call us Chinese or Japanese "agents". It woulb be great to block him for some days or longer. Maybe you writte him also in korean if he do not understand english. This topic was already discussed and the result was to support the remove of the altaic color classification at least on korean and japanese, but also one the former members of core-altaic. 213.162.68.186 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-war/vandalism; korean nationalist use sock pupped

    The korean user use two ip adresses, one mobile in seoul and one computer in seoul. He use 117.53.77.84 and 211.54.2.241

    This two ip adresses edit/vandalise the same pages. He ignore all discussion pages and questions. He refuse to give a explanation. It seems that he can not even speak english.

    Especially on japonic languages and related pages; on koreanic and related pages and on ainu language.

    He is using unenzyclopedic way.

    It would be nice if some would warn him or block him for some days, maybe he will inderstand than. Or a block for english wikipedia because of using sockpuppets.

    213.162.68.183 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    1. 117.53.77.84 is my home IP, and 211.54.2.241 is my workplace's IP.
    2. Familycolor Altaic is about an areal classification, not a language family. See Template:Infobox language family. It justifies using the colour to Koreanic languages and Japonic languages.
    3. Using the familycolor already accepted by other users. See 1, 2, 3, 4. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    4. He made some personal attacks against me. See 1, 2. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that these are personal attacks. This should be dealt with accordingly by an administrator. I can't help with the family color or anything. Do you have any way to prove that one IP is home and one is workplace? We need something more than just your word in something this serious. I'm not an admin so I can only really help to a certain extent. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I prove it? --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure. Maybe an admin could help. Maybe @Boing! said Zebedee: or @There'sNoTime: could be helpful; they help at SPI. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, no time right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to point out that the OP (IP #1) has been edit-warring and apparently hunting down and reverting IP #2's edits. Perhaps this should be taken into account. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe User:일성강 or User:Kumasojin 熊襲 made block evasions via the IP 213.162.68.183. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should stop making accusations with absolutely no probable cause or concrete evidence. You can request an investigation at WP:SPI. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to point out that IP #1 (accuser) is located in a country that doesn't use Asian symbols like in the usernames above, so one of them socking as IP #1, who is on the other side of the world, is doubtful. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See this. And 213.162.68.183 is an Austrian IP. Any questions? --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user 117.53.77.84 get already blocked 4th times. Also I and other users have said him that the altaic classification for japanese and korean is obsolete. This was already discussed and the result was to support the deletion of altaic colour at least by japonic and koreanic. Also ainu language is not paleosiberian. The areal classification was accepted in past. But researches change this. We/wikipedia should update this. There are enough evidence. Also it is stated that koreanic is an isolated language. Altaic now seen as discredited by modern linguists. And if you mention areal classification, remember that korea is not in central asia. It is east asia, or sometimes north-east asia. Also you are ignoring modern facts and only belive your controversial or outdated source. I have writen you on your korean talkpage. You ignored and deleted it. Do you reguse a discussion. You only write noe to get not blocked. And even when you change or corrupt wikipedia pages it will not change the reality. Modern linguists all accept that altaic is obsolete and korean is isolated. Not to mention the newest genetic research from korean ulsan university that clearly show that koreans are not of northern origin. But you nationalists ignore all facts that do not fit your worlview. 213.162.68.183 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    1. The language family and ethnicity aren't directly related. For example, are Maldivians and White British people directly related in ethnicity? Obviously they aren't.
    2. Ainu languages originally used a paleosiberian familycolor. But User:일성강 changed it to 'language isolate'. I simply reverted it because this user is blocked now.
    3. Because there aren't any Japonic and Korean 'familycolors', we have to use altaic familycolor. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator note I don't know what kimuchi is, but you only get one warning for personal attacks([73]), 213.xx, and this is it. El_C 16:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Than time has come for wikipedia to update the colour classification. As the classification is still controversial a areal family of koreanic and japonic(including ainu) would make more sense than the obsolete altaic one. And i am sorry for the verbal attack. 213.162.68.183 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You have a couple of options here: list a Request for comment; get a Third opinion; try the Dispute resolution noticeboard; or any of the other Dispute resolution steps. El_C 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator note As the IP was given a final warning prior to them continuing to make aspersions about Korean "nationalists", I've blocked their IP. The other IP that was edit-warring with them has been blocked as well, as this isn't their first EW offence. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fangusu range block request

    Fangusu has been using the 2607:FB90:54* range recently (link shows edits since new year, but activity has been mostly within last week). Info on recent socking can be found at User:EvergreenFir/socks#Fangusu. There's a link to the SPI page there and the LTA page. There are existing range blocks in place for this user already. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a really large range... I think the best solution to this is to block as we see them. Unless anyone else has input? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't very many edits. I think collateral damage is probably more important than the size of the range. I'm not really familiar with this vandal, though, and it's not easy for me to tell which ones are Fangusu. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is Fangusu, or at least not only her. A couple of her usual ranges WHOIS to a university which counts several known trolls as its students, including your end date change vandal. It's been a long time since I've seen Fangusu try to add anything new to the encyclopedia, she's been obsessed with restoring her old edits lately. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In the range you posted, it looks to me like these users are the date change vandal:
    I don't think any are Fangusu. Several are random unrelated vandals. This isn't enough to construct a range, so I mined the range's contribs through 2016 as well. We've got a user who likes Wrestlemania, one that's into The Eagles, one that likes to update lists of Nickelodeon broadcasts, but none that stand out as any of these LTA cases. One-off IP blocks are probably fine here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SummerPhDv2.0/Wikipediholism trolling

    Prior case: [74]

    Summary: Over the past three years, this editor has been blocked at least 30 times (that I found...), evading each one. In the last AN/I case, their non-answer answers basically said: "Gee, maybe I didn't make all of those edits."

    A brief rangeblock, a sock case finding they might or might not be another long-term vandal followed, with a month long range block.[75] More nonsense soon followed.

    Yamla feels they are de facto banned.[76] I think it's time to make it official. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support official ban obviously. --Yamla (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Ban - Enough is enough. If a user is blocked over 30 times with countless sockpuppets, they've obviously never been here. Get them out. (Side note: originally I thought we were trying to ban SummerPhD, which made me go 'wtf' for a few seconds.) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support official ban Pretty obvious here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Simple as that. Lectonar (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the community has exercised sufficient patience. Lepricavark (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Thirty times?(!) This one has slipped through the cracks. El_C 14:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - easy call. They have no business being here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - We've done all we can as a community. If you know me well, then you know that I'm usually the one person a person that asks to help and mentor someone - even when nobody else will. In this case, we've exhausted all options and we've given this user many more chances than most others. Unfortunately, it's time to say goodbye. :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Is this some sockpuppetry world record? Most socks used by a single editor? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not remotely; I know one who's been an issue for years. HalfShadow 22:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I suspect he may be the IP that randomly appears on my talk page every so often asking who is allowed to post on my talk page. Thankfully it seems people are watching it, as it often quickly gets reverted. Needless to say, I'm not sure what's wrong with this person, but they obviously have no interest in being a net gain to the project. --Tarage (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually Oshwah, you're not the only one. I do the same thing. But I'm with the flow on this one. I've ran into this joker before. Support the ban. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    HA, you're right. Sorry... I didn't mean any kind of implication with my comment above. There are a lot of good helpers on Wikipedia; unfortunately, this person cannot be helped. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would also like to point out for the record that this editor in question also tried to play vandal and counter vandal with himself, creating both JB1213 and Mali1702 in an attempt to create a fake sockpuppet for banned user JordanBaumann1211, and then reporting said sockpuppet with the other account, I guess in some twisted attempt to make one sock look like a legitimate editor? Either way the checkuser caught it, but this is the level of abuse we are talking about. --Tarage (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarage: - This isn't your everyday sockpuppetry, this is... advanced sockpuppetry. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - A no-brainer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Blocks for the sock-clown who vandalises my talk page in revenge for what i did for Betty Logan? Where do I sign? L3X1 (distant write) 22:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Better late than never. Jusdafax 22:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is this going to solve the problem? He's an IP hopper, so unless your going to indef all his IPs (not cricket, I hear) Slitherio will just go buy a new one, and for my An/I it was said that a rangeblock couldn't happen, because 25% of the world would be affected. L3X1 (distant write) 22:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know where you're getting this from, L3X1. I've personally range blocked this vandal twice, and I'll probably do it again if this passes. Maybe later I'll write an essay about IP addresses, range blocks, and how they work, because there seems to be a bit of confusion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • NinjaRobotPirate I would love to read that essay. You can't possibly rangeblock all of them; they're too far apart. A rangeblock requires us to specify a range of addresses that must all be blocked, and the only way we could block all of them is blocking all addresses that begin with numbers from 58 to 121 — that's 64 of the possible 256 numbers in the first group, i.e. literally a quarter of all extant IPv4 addresses. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC) is where I got it. L3X1 (distant write) 00:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia has a few scattered pages that explain these concepts, but I was never really satisfied with them. Well, I finally made stab at it: User:NinjaRobotPirate/IP editors. It's way too technical, but I guess it's not horrible for a first draft. In my head, it was a lot more accessible, but when I started writing, it came out like a rehash of Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. Oh well. I hope it makes some degree of sense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indeed, better late than never. Blackmane (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per all the rational comments above. This is a no-brainer snowstorm. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support official site-ban. Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. To answer User:L3X1's question, this doesn't mean we'll start applying broad blocks to IP addresses just to catch a single person. What it will do is make it easier for admins to "shoot on sight" when they see this person appear, rather than having to wait for antisocial behaviour then clean it up. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment - User admits to continuing to sockpuppet in the comment directly above. Case opened and user ignored. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - beyond obvious. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - no added value. User is already blocked on sight for block evasion and disruption. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that a rangeblock would be more effective as we wouldn't have to even block them in the first place. It stops disruptive behavior before it happens. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rangeblock probably isn't possible or it would have already been done. There is no requirement for an IP to be banned before they can be rangeblocked. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The value is in the route to appeal. An indef blocked user (even one who is de facto banned) may appeal to any administrator and convince them that they won't repeat the behaviour that led to the block, whereas a sitebanned user must appeal to the community. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appeal clearly isn't an issue here, so still no added value to be found. This is a feel-good measure with no practical impact, and thus not worth doing. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - This user qualifies for taking the WP:STANDARDOFFER on July 9th, 2017 (as of this edit). Will this user be barred from taking this offer, or will they be allowed to. I think that all this sockpuppetry amounts to not being allowed to take the offer ever. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SO requires six months without block evasion. As they've been evading their block as recently as this week, they wouldn't qualify until late September. Still, I see no reason why WP:SO shouldn't be extended here. Given the years of disruption, it'd be hard work to convince the community the ban should be lifted, but it's possible. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We never revoke the standard offer, that's why it's the standard offer. But there are some users whose appeals are highly unlikely to ever be successful, and this is probably one of them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    False birth/death dates/places

    Over the last few months I've repeatedly seen different IPs adding what turn out to be false birth and death dates and places, examples including this or this. They do occasionally add correct ones, but most of the cases I've seen are wrong. They almost always use the article title as their edit summary. Unfortunately there are probably dozens of articles where they've done this (I spot them when they do it to Israeli politicians on my watchlist). Because it's from a different IP every time, blocking is pointless, but I was wondering whether some kind of edit filter could be put in place to identify them by their edit summary? Number 57 19:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification Possibly I need to clarify – I think this is one particular editor using different IPs, not a complaint about IPs in general – the reason being the same edit summary being used every time. Number 57 22:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Number 57 - I think it stems farther than just birthdates. I see many changes made to death dates, ages, weights, heights, and other numbers like this. Edit summary wouldn't be too bad, but I believe that we have an edit filter that tags changes to birthdate, weight, and height already. It would be interesting to see one implemented that could detect edits made by non-comfirmed users that change only the numbers in a birthdate, date, age, weight, height, etc and add/remove nothing else (so... an editor that changes 2015-05-10 to 1990-05-10 only), and then warns/rejects knowing that no reference was provided. Problem is... I know it would probably cause a lot of false positives and trip-ups... :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that most of the edits are not changing a birth or death date, but rather adding something that isn't true (a lot of the one's I've seen had only the year listed, to which they have added made up day and month details. For birth/death places they will add a town if only the country is listed, or add both town and country if the parameter is empty... Number 57 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked for this edit filter before, for the "cause of death" vandal. I don't think it was ever implemented. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is still at it... Number 57 21:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-admin comment - Is this happening on a specific set of articles? Is there anything connecting these edits or IP users to one another? DarkKnight2149 19:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the Israeli articles, it seems to be largely those born in Eastern Europe. Following their edits to other articles, Romanian people seem to be a focus too. Number 57 20:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • PCR comment This is kinda normal latest is Mark Hamill. IPs are greater harm than good on BLPs and I would kinda like to put all hi-profile BLPs under indeff SEMI. Pending Changes doesn't solve the problem, as PCRs have to spend their time undoing unsourced additions/changes/deletions by hand. L3X1 (distant write) 22:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's sad to say, but I honestly wouldn't object to that. I think the same is usually true for IPs editing Featured Articles, and even many Good Articles. DarkKnight2149 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I dunno, I sense it happens everywhere and all the time—I just reverted one 45 seconds ago at Carrie Underwood. El_C 22:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That's what I was thinking when I asked my above question. I think more evidence is needed to suggest that these are connected incidents. DarkKnight2149 01:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • IPs often change numbers in infoboxes, including heights/weights. I monitor some error tracking categories and need to deal with IP edits that break templates in infoboxes–not many in recent days, but usually there are a few each week, although I only see the changes that break certain templates. I don't worry about them anymore—if the WMF wants the encyclopedia to deteriorate who am I to object? After all, there are thousands of good editors who carefully monitor all edits to the over 5 million articles. It appears that some IPs have a hobby of changing numbers, perhaps to prove how unreliable Wikipedia is. Here is an extreme example. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I call it in my ES "#integermonkeying". It is a hard type of vandalism to detect, if its not blatant (Joe McNotable weighs 5000000 pounds, and Dallas yesterday had 2.3 million pop. but now has 93billion). Monkeying with revenues, sports scores, its a real pain to determine between updating and hooliganism. L3X1 (distant write) 01:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IP is at it again today. Is there a way to identify this IP based on their edit summary (always the name of the article) and get a bot to do rollback on them? Number 57 16:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Milcho Manchevski and related has Stage 4 terminal PROMO

    Somehow I got on Milcho Manchevski and was shocked to see how much puffery and promo was on it. I removed all the bad stuff (about 80% of the total conten) and began to investigate who was responsible for all this. I also checked various articles associated with Milcho (his films) and have come up with several SPA promo accounts that may be socks of this one: User talk:Davidklausner1 Now Mr.Klasuner 1 did say he was Milcho's agent and wanted to drive traffic to his website, but not a confession of sock-mastering. These are the SPAs in question:

    Davidklausner "Milcho Manchevski's assistant"
    Dragan.atanasov
    2017reception
    Pmm1112
    Daronpan

    These are the articles affected:

    Shadows (2007 film)
    Mothers (2010 film)
    Bikini Moon
    Before the Rain (1994 film)

    I'm posting this before I do a mass nuking of PROMO, puffery, redlinks, and then PROD everything that might not be notable so that everyone can see the state of the article and take appropriate actions. I also don't know if this should be duplicated at SPI or not, but a CU for the accounts (which were just notified) would be helpful. L3X1 (distant write) 21:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    AdditionI find it interesting that David, Daron, and 2017 all were editing at the same time, and 5 days after David's last edit Daron begins. L3X1 (distant write) 23:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is considered by many to be one of the most original and innovative artists of our time for his unique blend of experimentation, poetry, emotion and a demand for the active participation of the viewer in the construction of meaning—wow, with a straight face(!). El_C 22:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beyond My Ken, we were making almost the exact same edit at almost the exact same time. If that isn't active participation by the viewer I don't know what is. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amithvpurushothaman Suggestion

    USER:Amithvpurushothaman has created a puff article Sreedeep ck alavil which was deleted once already today. I CSD'd it only to have the user remove the speedy deletion tags. He has been warned twice now. Please can we consider blocking him for 24hrs or whatever the appropriate sanction is Gbawden (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I see this has been done now. Frankly, I would have blocked him for longer because it is obvious he does not understand the basics. Deb (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Halon8

    An account User:Halon8, inactive since 2012 shows up and reverts two of my edits, which are reverts of a sock of the blocked user User:Жовтневе багаття, calling my edits "vandalism" and asking me to go to the talk page (which obviously contradicts WP:BRD). I would normally decide that they are a sock of the same user and block them indefinitely, but they have a non-zero contribution from before 2012 which does not look as a contribution of User:Жовтневе багаття. Could someone please have a look at this user and decide what to do with them? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    There seems to be a concerted effort by several users to remove all references to autonomous movements in Russia. These sections should be strengthened with sources e.g. http://www.justicefornorthcaucasus.com/jfnc_message_boards/imperialism.php?title=window-on-eurasia%3A-separatism-remains-strong-in-tuva&entry_id=1214897100 , https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JKuCE2crlhgC&lpg=PA57&ots=DgPz8NyGpt&dq=tuva%20separatists&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=tuva%20separatists&f=false rather than simply deleted (or deleted if they are genuinely non-existent/no longer active movements- but this need to be evaluated individually not en masse). It is difficult to see how removing large sections of content (where there is clearly evidence for this content) is not vandalism, but I do apologise if I was too quick to use this term. I don't appreciate being called a sock puppet for reverting what were likely politically motivated edits violating NPOV. Since these are contraversial issues they should be discussed on Talk and a consensus reached. Halon8 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is great that you "seem" to see a "concerted effort" of several (which?) users but I am sure I did not coordinate anything, just reverted a blocked sock edits. Could you please explain how did it happen that your first edits since 2012 are two reverts?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I find wikipedia to be a fairly hostile place which is why I don't edit frequently. The editors who removed content can be seen on the history page - basically you and User: My very best wishes (I thought there were some un-named users as well but I may be mistaken). I was looking for content about Russia's autonomous movements and I found that it had largely been deleted so I reverted it. I apologise that I'm not an expert in wiki-lawyering. I am going to wait for others to weigh in on this. I really don't understand why this can't simply be discussed on the talk pages of the two articles. Many of the 'movements' listed are made up of only a few people (e.g. Yorkshire or Wessex) but without some sourceable definition of what is 'active' and what is a 'valid' autonomous movement then Russian movements should not be treated differently to the others Halon8 (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusing other editors of vandalism isn't going to do anything to alleviate the perceived hostility. That's assuming bad faith. Kleuske (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have apologised for using the term vandalism. I still find it hard to understand how any editors would remove such a large amount of content in good faith including for example the well known Chechnyan independence movement. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/world/europe/russia-chechen-ramzan-a-kadyrov.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FChechnya&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0 Halon8 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Irondome tells me that the sockpuppetry accusation has been withdrawn. If so, this should be stated on the ANI and on my Talk page. Reverting someone's edit is not a reason to call them a sockpuppet and open a dispute about them, and a long standing Administrator should know this. They should be leading by example not letting their emotions get the better of them and terrifying editors with threats of blocking. Imagine if I had been a new user who had made the revert - Ymblanter has admitted that they would just have blocked me immediately which is in violation of policy. He/she could have just posted on my Talk page or the article's Talk page to start with. I have incidentally found the section of the Talk page where he had earlier discussed making the edit with My very best wishes, but it is misleadingly not in the existing Russia section, doesn't mention Russia and doesn't really explain anything which has added to the confusion. I admit I was wrong to call him a vandal or assume anything about his motivations for removing the content and I apologise for this, but I would like to receive an apology from Ymblanter for his overreaction. Halon8 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Halon8, as you have mentioned me I must clarify here. I said that "that suspicion appears to have been withdrawn". However Ymblanter in his subsequent comment still has suspicions that you are a block evader. Can you please clarify, are you in any way connected to User:Жовтневе багаття? Ymb above states "I would normally decide that they are a sock of the same user and block them indefinitely, but they have a non-zero contribution from before 2012 which does not look as a contribution of User:Жовтневе багаття". I took that to be a sign that you were not. However Ym still harbours doubts from his comment on my T/P. I think you should explicitly clarify your identity, and we can move forward. Irondome (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, my suspicions became even worse. Users with the total contribution of 212 edits (an zero between 2012 and 2017) usually do not start by reverts in articles which are under WP:ARBEE, they do not exactly repeat edits of a recently blocked user, they do not wikilawyer, and they do not demand an apology. We have unfortunately seen a huge amount of users with several dozens edits in ARBEE topics who suddenly start adding POV (both sides) and wikilawyer, raising suspicions they are WP:NOTTHERE. Many of them have been taken to CU and found to be socks of blocked users. The standard practice was to block those on the spot, not letting them to waste time of users in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously I am not User:Жовтневе багаття. I don't know how I'm supposed to clarify my identity, but I am happy to do what is asked (short of revealing personal information online). I don't think your 'standard practice' is consistent with Wikipedia policy or with the spirit of Wikipedia, but maybe this place is very different these days. Please remember that I am a real person and real people behave in a variety of different ways - we don't usually spend our whole lives editing Wikipedia non-stop. I reverted one set of edits (reverting the removal of long-standing content) - that is not reason to block someone or threaten to do so. You have been aggressive thoughout. You should only be blocking people for disruptive editing not because you suspect (based on very little) that someone is a 'bad' user. NB just because whatever-his-name was a sockpuppet doesn't automatically mean that restoring the material deleted by My very best wishes was a disruptive edit. I didn't look in depth at who had made the edit before I reverted them, and honestly, I would be worried if that was the approach that everyone was taking now (although I likely wouldnt have said it was vandalism if I had checked the user histories more closely). Edits should be judged on their merits not by checking whether someone is in the gang of respected people. Halon8 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC) And just to clarify, I am in no way connected with User:Жовтневе багаття, I had no knowledge of this person until Ymblanter brought me here and I looked at their user page. Halon8 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments repeatedly removed by another user from ITN nomination discussion

    An user with a different opinion about whether to post an article has twice removed a comment of mine about sourcing issues in a nomination. He has also posted a vandalism tag on my talk page. He has also struck out another user's comments previously. He appears to believe this is justified on the basis of my lack of civility, but he had made no effort to reach out to me to edit my comment while preserving my good-faith attempt to point out the sourcing issue with the article. He has also posted a ban tag on my talk page despite not having administrative rights.

    Maybe I haven't read the ITN project guidelines clearly, but I believe this is a flagrant violation of standard project discussion guidelines.

    I appreciate a quick admin response, to both of us, to clarify how this should progress. I'm happy to rewrite a more constructive comment on that discussion page, but I'm not doing it because someone decided to plaster vandalism templates onto my talk page with TW for a project page discussion comment. This feels like an attempt to harass some anonymous poster out of not posting a comment on the awful sources on their pet article.

    link of first edit 73.61.16.86 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As I informed you on your user talk page after also removing your post, the proper venue for complaints about a nomination once it is posted is WP:ERRORS. Further, your complaints seem to have to do with the content of the article itself- which if you dispute it, should be discussed on that article's talk page. No one has posted a "ban tag" to your page, but warnings, which anyone can do. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed your second comment because Luke was too busy spamming TW tags on my talk page. My apology.
    I'm still confused. Was the problem that I simply posted in the wrong avenue, or was there a civility issue? The other user's comments are ambiguous about this. I didn't think WP:ERRORS was the correct page to post it, as it requires a verified error, whereas the problem with the original posting was that the central claim to significance is completely unverifiable.
    As for going to that article's talk page - to be frank, I don't have much faith with finding an effective resolution on that article's talk page because there's another user has been edit warring in that article and repeatedly inserting unreliable sources in a disingenuous way. example. The quality and accuracy of that article seems obviously bad enough that it merits an immediate removal from ITN. I'm also simply not involved enough on Wikipedia anymore to want to waste 2 hours with a drawn-out conflict resolution process against some experienced user who is trying to push an agenda. This shit is why some of us left in the first place. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please. I didn't remove your comments because of a difference in opinion; I removed them because they contained strong and unnecessary profanity, as well as being better suited at WP:ERRORS, which I did state in the first warning that you proceeded to ignore. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is profanity a legitimate reason to remove another talk page comment, and is it a legitimate factor in deciding whether a talk page comment constitutes vandalism (if that's even possible)? I'm not asking rhetorically, I want an admin to clarify whether I've completely misunderstood basic guidelines for a decade. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessary profanity can amount to offensive content, which is against the rules. The usage of the template was justified. I generally don't use the specific templates but rather the generic vandalism template, so I hope that this clears up any confusion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your premise that it is, under any circumstances, appropriate for a user involved in a talk page discussion to remove another user's comments out of a personal perception of "unnecessary profanity". I don't have a particular interest in continuing this dispute, as I've stopped using Wikipedia formally for years, but this seems like such an absurd breach of etiquette to me that I want an admin to weigh in on whether this is indeed permissible.
    I also suggest you follow WP:AGF and try not to use vandalism tags for content-related or policy-related disputes. I'll in turn follow the same principle and assume you weren't aware that this is not the intended use of either those tags, or of Twinkle as an anti-vandalism tool. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    sigh... @NeilN:, can you look at this to satisfy this user's request for administrative action? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that this edit is a really egregious example of what had happened in that discussion. Let me clarify the context for people who are confused: 1. multiple sources agree that a mosque had been hit by an air strike; 2. the U.S. released a statement that they had an air strike on a nearby location, but specifically denies hitting the mosque; 3. this user wants to write "the U.S. admits hitting the mosque" in both the ITN stub and in the article, and his justification is "Do you really think the US would admit to a mistake?" 73.61.16.86 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that an article posted with incorrect or invalid sourcing would qualify as an error. I would also say that if your post didn't contain 'how the fuck' in it I might have left it and posted what I put on your talk page there instead, but I didn't see a need to leave the vulgarity.
    If you don't have faith in using the article talk page, that's something only you can decide, but talk page discussion is how things are done here. There are other dispute resolution procedures available to you if your concerns are not properly discussed. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't be pursuing a dispute resolution process against an experienced user who is clearly trying to weasel a fabricated statement into the front page with extremely disingenuous original research and edit warring. The edit I linked above, and his contributions page, is more than enough to demonstrate what has happened. If you don't find that problematic, it's up to you, but I'm not wasting more time to help this piss-poor project while the two of you are too preoccupied with policing vulgarity instead of fixing the egregious soapboxing on a current front page article. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that way. This whole effort is only as good as the people who participate. If you choose not to participate, that is your right, but then that limits how far you can advance the goals that you seek. I assume you are aware of this since you state you have been here for a decade and it would seem that all those efforts are not from the IP you are using currently. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "the whole effort" you're referring to my concern over the quality of 2017 al-Jina mosque airstrike, then not many of you have been participating; nor were some of you paying sufficient attention during its ITN nomination stage. Your argument amounts to asking me if I'm willing to fix the article, wrestle it away from someone who has clearly not been editing that page in good faith, and/or try to get it removed from the front page because it is so clearly a violation of policies on reliable sourcing, soapboxing, and copyright.
    And no, that's not something I am willing to do. Here's a better suggestion: before that nomination closed, the two of you could have spent 5 minutes looking at that page, realize that it has a source that has never been cited on politics/news on wikipedia as a reliable source, or just read the comments from the article creator who was discussing his own conjectures about what happened during the discussion of the nomination itself. At that point, write "oppose", explain the rationale cogently, and maybe we wouldn't have had a trash article with fabricated claims on the front page for more than a day. But instead, you've dedicated most of your attention to policing my single use of the word "fuck" in a discussion comment. Let me clarify: I'm not whining here because I think I'm a victim, I'm whining here because some of you clearly enjoy spending more effort on meta/community edits and templating other users rather than taking an easy opportunity to fix completely broken content in a front page article, and are still lecturing to me about my effort. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those sourcing issues in that article have been fixed by another editor and I, but you two are free to go help. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, you could have read the warning templates left by me and one by 331 stating that you should go to WP:ERRORS instead of ranting and raving in the nominations' section. If there is an error, then you go to the error page. You don't voice your unhappiness at the candidate page. Also, I don't think you understand that unwarranted profanity falls under offensive content. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. You can be banned for saying 'fuck' without reason. You can't say it in a menacing or offensive tone. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: - Should the IP reveal their account or is this unorthodox? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @UNSC Luke 1021: I'm not sure if they have an account or not (they could be using a floating IP); I was simply reiterating what they said combined with what is visible in their edit history. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @331dot: - Can we close this discussion? The IP seems to have left Wikipedia entirely and no new responses are occurring. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Responding to an edit summary that mentioned me: A user posting a valid concern to the wrong page by mistake or ignorance is not disruptive. I can still remember being a newbie and posting messages to user pages instead of talk pages a few times. If I had been plonked with increasing levels of disruptive warning templates then I might have concluded Wikipedia was a pretty hostile place and acted accordingly. Instead, I received non-templated messages telling me the proper place to post and moving the posts for me (even after I did this a couple times). Sometimes, a message without a template makes the message clearer. As for the profanity, content posted on the main page often causes strong feelings to occur so the occasional "WTF?!" is understandable. --NeilN talk to me 19:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @NeilN: - I just want to point out that the IP states above that he's been here for a decade, so I don't think WP:NEWBIE applies here. But yes, I will take your advice in the future. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @UNSC Luke 1021: Thanks. As a matter of fact yesterday was the first time I did some admin work at ITN and it took me a good ten minutes and a pointer from an editor to figure out how some of the things worked over there. --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Coda

    I don't know if the main thread should be archived or not, but this subthread is probably no longer useful. Thanks for noticing, User:Yngvadottir. Further discussion is probably better at Luke's talk page; the last thing we need is a reason for him to post to a noticeboard to reply to stuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I think there needs to be a coda here. @UNSC Luke 1021: on January 21 you were blocked by JzG in the spirit of a suggestion by Floquenbeam to give you one last chance to avoid an indef or a site ban. Floquenbeam's proposal, which you were strongly advised to adhere to, included your not posting at AN/I, yet I see you active in 3 or 4 sections above, and here you responded again when the IP specifically requested admin input, and then called for the section to be closed. Floquenbeam's proposed conditions also specifically excluded you from Main Page discussions, yet this situation arose because you removed the IP's post at a Main Page discussion venue (and, as stated above by NeilN, you were wrong in categorizing the IP's edits there are disruptive; I'd go further and say that your reaction to use of the "f" word was a violation of WP:TALK). These proposed restrictions were to have lasted for 3 months. It's only been two. Have I missed a community decision or the successful conclusion of a mentorship? Why is Luke spending all this time at noticeboards, treating the IP badly and generally ignoring the conditions on which he was spared indef or a ban? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd forgotten about that. The ANI thread in question is here: [77]. Luke shouldn't be doing any of this editing until May. He explicitly agreed to these conditions in the linked thread. JzG went out on a bit of a limb, there was frankly consensus for an indef block and JzG showed some mercy. I'm not amused that this is being taken advantage of like this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • A review of his edits shows that he never stopped contributing to main page discussions (started back up 2 days after his block expired on 4 February), or AFD (started up same day it expired) and started in an ANI again early March (1 month, not 3 months, after block expired), and NPOVN and UAA before that, around mid-February. (I'm not counting AIV because I'm frankly willing to overlook vandalism reports, although that was technically not allowed either). I can't explain why no one called him on it; I, for one, simply never noticed, and when I did it didn't register. I think I may have actually interacted with him at ITN/C in February, and just forgot. Harder to understand is how Luke forgot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fuck. @Floquenbeam: - I was unaware that stuff like UAA was off-limits. I did not read carefully when I looked at your proposal and did not recognize that ITN and NPOVN was off-limits as well. I just screwed up by coming to AN/I, although that hasn't begun until a few days ago. I won't deflect the blame anywhere else; I fucked up. However, I don't know why I should be punished for this (even though I am fully aware that I should be blocked for this). I haven't ever had trouble at ITN until now, I was only at NPOVN once because I wasn't sure if a problem was occurring (which I handled calmly and respectfully), I was totally unaware that UAA and AIV were against the rules of my agreement, and I have only been coming to AN/I for about four or five days. I haven't been mistreating this IP, and I know that 331dot was doing the same thing without being called out by you. I haven't been cursing or attacking or anything. I haven't accused anybody of anything. I think saying that I've been mistreating this IP is an extreme exaggeration. However, I was not trying to take advantage of anything and I was the one who fucked up by going to these places. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's treatment appears to have been resolved above; or, at least, is the least of your worries. You agreed to the following in order to avoid an indef block/ban:
    Quote from January ANI, very important parts in bold
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • OK, as one of several who gave final warnings, I'll comment here:
      • I'm going to mention several times below that I'm pretty sure he's young. That's not to be dismissive or mean, it's just an explanation for behavior that would otherwise be attributable to darker motives.
      • Adding the Bee Movie script is not out-of-left-field crazy; according to my own kids, it's apparently a thing kids do (Google "Bee Movie memes". And then weep about our future). I can imagine a kid doing this, thinking it's funny, without thinking too much about copyright, when he sees others doing it. So this is probably not evidence of outright trolling. It's just evidence, after many, many previous actions, of poor judgement.
      • Talk of a true site ban seems like a severe over-reaction. Reasonable if he had no redeeming traits, but I don't think that's the case. There's a decent chance of a salvage operation here.
      • Talk of giving yet another final warning is a severe under-reaction. I gave a pretty clear one, and it wasn't understood.
      • I suggest a 2 week block. To firmly grasp the attention. And no unblocks after a few days if there's a "you've firmly grasped my attention" unblock request. A hard 2 weeks. Long enough to be painful, short enough to not encourage bad ideas.
      • Followed by a 3 month ban on non-article related edits. So the following would be OK: articles, talk pages, Wikiproject pages about articles (like, for example, WP:MILHIST and WP:TANKS, his own talk page. The following would not be OK: ANI, RFA (well, already done), XFD, Main page discussions, Wikiproject pages where he gets involved in arguments, etc.
      • While it seems mean-spirited, I suggest a ban on editing his userpage too. My hope would be to instill good habits, so that when the 3 month ban is over, there's no desire to go back to his old ways. If he really sticks to this, he'll have a decent reputation as a content builder at the end of the 3 months. Reputation is important, I would hope he wouldn't want to risk it doing something stupid on his user page at the beginning of month 4.
      • If he can find a mentor, great. Not sure that should be required, but it should be encouraged.
      • Kids mature quickly, so this isn't completely Polyanna-ish. I really have seen young users I was a hair's breath away from blocking indef change their ways once it became clear that fun time was over. Not all of them, not even most of them, but enough to know that there's a reasonable chance of success.
      • If problems resume after 3 months, or if problems begin on the pages they're allowed to edit during the 3 months, then cut bait.
    --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So effective immediately, follow the restrictions you agreed to. Or the deferred indef block will probably be reinstated. They are in effect until May 4th. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: - So... Is there anything I can do to prevent myself from getting into more trouble and keeping this from going to ANI? Anything you can suggest? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ? it's at ANI now. But my best suggestion is to do what you agreed to do, which I helpfully highlighted in bold inside the hat immediately above: A 3 month ban on non-article related edits. So the following would be OK: articles, talk pages, Wikiproject pages about articles (like, for example, WP:MILHIST and WP:TANKS), your own talk page. The following would not be OK: ANI, RFA, XFD, Main page discussions, Wikiproject pages where you get involved in arguments, etc. ... a ban on editing your userpage too. Only work on articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: - So is AIV and UAA off the table? I do most of my work there. All the other stuff will go away until May 4 (or June 23, depending on if the timer resets). No ITN, ANI, NPOV, SPI, user page or anything not stated otherwise. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (/Floq allows a feeling of exasperation to wash over him for a moment/) Why are you asking that? Do AIV and UAA have anything to do with only working on articles? Yes, they are off the table. You agreed to only work on articles. Keep to that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Luke, basically anything that you can get to by typing WP:(insert redirect name) into the search window is off limits. That includes all of the noticeboards (AN, ANI, AIV, ANEW, ArbCom, UAA, NPOVN, RSN, DRN, etc), policy pages, guideline pages, template pages, CSD/AFD/MFD. Basically anything that is related to the administration of Wikipedia is off limits. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Floquenbeam: - I just want to clear up any lasting confusion here.

    • This TBANish thing wears off on May 4th or June 23rd (because of timer reset from ANI excluding this discussion)?
    • My user page is off limits (like the exact page this links to)?
    • Anti-vandalism is disallowed entirely, or just going out of my way to stop it (excluding obvious vandalism that I find by chance)?
    • I cannot participate in any AFD, including articles I have extensively worked on or created (such as Astroneer or Battle of Raseiniai, for argument's sake)?

    Sorry if these questions sound somewhat moronic, but I just want explicit clarification so I can avoid yet another incident. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • No disrespect, but what is the point of this boundary-pushing? Your instruction was four words long, and in boldface: Only work on articles.
    • Anti-vandalism is disallowed entirely<Facepalm> If you see vandalism, remove it, like every other editor. --Calton | Talk 08:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have to agree with Calton here - if you have any question about whether something is allowed or not, consider it NOT allowed. That's the safest way. Just don't edit anything not in article space and you'll be safe. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the most important question in my opinion: Did the timer reset (does the TBAN wear off on May 4 or June 23?) I don't want to go back to ITN on May 4th just to get myself even deeper in the hole by finding out it wears off on June 23rd. Last question. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • UNSC Luke, they are in effect until May 4th, 2017 per Floquenbeam; So effective immediately, follow the restrictions you agreed to. Or the deferred indef block will probably be reinstated. They are in effect until May 4th. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @UNSC Luke 1021: I didn't really sign up to be your boss. These aren't restrictions I'm imposing, they're restrictions you agreed to in order to avoid an indef block. But since I seem to have morphed into this role:

    • I originally said 4 May above, as that would be 3 months since the unblock, but the more I think about it: since you've essentially never followed these restrictions, I hesitate to allow them to expire in just over a month. 23 June makes more sense. So yes, contrary to what I said above, they expire on 23 June. Thank you for clarifying.
    • Participation at an AFD someone else initiates on an article you've been involved in creating is fine; it's part of content work. But I would anticipate that would be very infrequent. But no starting AFDs yourself, and no participation in AFDs of articles you haven't been involved in extensively.
    • Tell you what, I'll protect your user page to remove the temptation.
    • AIV reports and user warnings about vandalism to articles you've been involved in are OK, but I would anticipate it would be very infrequent; just vandalism you see in the normal course of article work, on articles you have edited for content. Vandalism patrolling is not OK.

    --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Floquenbeam: Regarding "I'll protect your user page to remove the temptation." I agree with NeilN at RFPP that this is counter productive - Luke should be proving that he can avoid the temptation himself, not be technically forced to adhere to the conditions. If we wanted we could create an edit filter to stop him editing anything but articles, but frankly that wouldn't be very useful for allowing him to show that his behaviour has changed. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We have two goals here: demonstration that he can avoid temptation, but more importantly (IMHO), instilling good habits. Obviously he isn't disrupting anything by editing his userpage, it's just we want him to get used to doing productive work, and not fiddling with his userpage all day for 3 months until the restrictions lapse. I'd be more than satisfied that he's shown he can avoid temptation if he stays away from AN/ANI/AIV/AFD/ITN/etc. I think we can do him this small favor. I hadn't seen the request and decline at RFPP, so sorry about that NeilN. But my own thought is to leave it in place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever is decided is fine with me. --NeilN talk to me 15:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since his response to this thread has been to open a Peer Review on an article on which he's never previously edited, as far as I'm concerned AGF has well and truly expired here. I'd support a community ban if there's a single further WP: space edit from him outside the narrow parameters defined by Floquenbeam above. ‑ Iridescent 18:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I opened a PR on that article so I can get information on how to improve it. It isn't up to GA but I don't know what to fix. I want to improve this article when I receive feedback. I don't see how I'm causing a problem by requesting some review from peers. I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to open a peer review because it will help me in the articlespace. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Luke, this is how you get blocked from Wikipedia. How many times do people have to tell you to edit NOTHING but articles before you understand. What you did is not an article. Stop editing outside of articles. It's very likely that you have already done enough damage to warrant the community block being instated, but on the absolutely slim chance that you manage to avoid that, I'm offering you this advice. STOP. EDITING. ANYTHING. BUT. ARTICLES. PERIOD. --Tarage (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2017 SWAC Women's Basketball Tournament

    An anon on this page is undoing User:Yamla's rollback of a user that was blocked for engaging in sock puppeteering. Can someone familiar with this individual check the edits. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 00:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Restoring edits by a blocked sock does seem quite suspicious. I blocked the IP for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stephen removing image with no basis in policy

    ChoreographerTrisha Brown recently died. As part of working on her article, I searched for a free image to add to it, having also done so in the past, but was unable, again, to find one. As part of the most recent search I utilized Google images, Flickr, the NYPL Digital collection, and the Library of Congress Digital collection. Unable to find a free image, and the subject now being deceased, I added a non-free photograph File:Trisha Brown.jpg to the infobox, a headshot reduced from a full-body shot. The image is properly rationaled, and, because the subject is now dead, there is no possibility of a new free image of the person being created.

    Admin User:Stephen has continuously removed the image, on the grounds that an adequate search was not performed for a free image. I'm not sure how, exactly, Stephen knows how much or how little of a search I performed, nor how much searching took place in the past, but in any case, as far as I am aware there is no pre-set time required for a free-image search before a non-free image can be used, so Stephen's removal is both unsupported by policy, and out of process, as we have a procedure for discussion of non-free images.

    I request that an admin inform Stephen that he should stop his removal of the image from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While AGF that you did, can you point to where you've tried to document what image searching you've done before her death? For NFC images after death, we usually want editors to wait roughly 3 months to allow an appropriate free search to be done (including if possible approaching friends and family after a period of mourning); however, if you can readily demonstrate the search for free images in the past without luck, that time period can be made much shorter. There is an element of AGF, and here, BMK is a long-established editor that seems well aware of NFC so that AGF has significant weight, but in Stephen's shoes, I don't see anything on the talk page to assume an image search had been done in the past, which is why if you had documented past efforts, that would give more strength to the argument to shorten the wait. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point out where in policy it requires a 3 month waiting period or documentation of the search. And how, for heaven's sake, am supposed to "document" my actions? In any case, point me to policy please, or WMF instructions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NFCI#10 presently says a month but current discussion and general past practice has been closer to 3. And the aspect of documentation is something under current discussion too, as to help editors shorten this period. You could have documented it by having a comment at the talk page "Anyone have a free image of this person? I've at X,Y, Z with no luck...".
    The whole point of this period is to avoid lazy editors that simply think "Person is dead = no chance of making a non-free = can use non-free immediately". We need editors to be a bit more aggressive in searching out free images before resorting to non-free, because often you can find free images in other atypical places that existed before death. And while we can't force editors to contact copyright holders, or copyright holders to license works freely, this is still a step that should be encouraged. Hence why the waiting period to encourage editors to go seek out those images. They may, they may not, but it avoids rushing to include non-free just because the person died. That's why if you have noted previously that you tried to search for free and failed, that's a valid reason to keep.
    Now I'm not saying Stephen's in the right here. We don't want to encourage hard numbers here (as soon as you do that for NFC, it is gamed from lessons from the past), but Stephen seems to be enforcing just that. That's why I think in this case, with your veteran experience, we need to AGF that you did prior searches before the death with no luck; it would have been helpful if that was documented to make it a very clear case in favor of retaining the picture, but I still think it should be kept here. But this is an atypical case given that we are talking an experienced editor reporting their failure in finding free images. Newer editors generally do not have the history to demonstrate that they've reasonably tried. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification, I was unaware of the 1 month period in NFCC #10 (I don't know if that's new or not), although I was aware of the discussion of making a 3-month period, since I commented in the discussion. And I don't want it to seem that I am married to this image or any non-free image - if someone better at searching then I can find a usable free image, I'm fine with using it, unless it's of such terrible quality that it demeans the subject and the page. As for my prior search, I don't think I can document it, as I didn't make any edits to the article at that time. (It's not unusual for me to search for free images when an infobox of a prominent person is empty.)Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, good idea to post on the talk page when I'm unable to find a free image, I'll do so from now on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given how pendantic some NFC-handling admins are, that's probably a good action, but again, I do want to stress the need that such admins should consider the editor that has added the image and consider AGF that a search had been done, particularly if they are a major contributor to the article. If this was a random IP adding the same image, sure Stephen's actions are completely legit. Here, it's more vague but I would definitely support inclusion at this point. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, the problem has been certain editors trawling through recent deaths and adding any old non-free image to their articles without any attempt to locate a free image. At least BMK did attempt to do so. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That I did, and if anyone has any leads, I will continue to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) It might also be helpful if you posted a request at WP:RI or c:COM:RI or maybe even on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Most of the WikiProject banner templates have a parameter "needs_photo" or something similar which can be used too. Part of WP:NFCC#1 is not just that you are unable to reasonably find/create a free equivalent, but that others are also unable to do such a thing. If it can be shown that you have actively tried to get others involved in the search and nobody has been able to find a free image, then justification for non-free use becomes stronger. I'm not trying to restart the kerfuffle at Talk:Jane Morgan#Restarting the discussion, but that probably could've been avoided if an effort had been made to get others involved in the search for a free equivalent at an earlier stage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear what you're saying, but I've never had anyone remove a non-free image that I've added to an article about a dead person. Your suggestions are good ones, though, and I will keep them in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced claims on Sofia airport

    Sofia airport article had this version where you can clearly see them claiming having almost 5m passangers and then down at the table a number for 2016 saying 4,980,387[41]. The source says nothing of the kind.

    I removed the unsourced info, asked for a source at article talk-page, and no answer was given rather than being reverted with the accusation of me (!!!) doing vandalism. Can someone please help so the unsourced information doesnt get in again and warn User talk:Mashine1984 not to iinsert unsourced information back to the article? FkpCascais (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You were bold, someone reverted you, now discuss. I see you posted at the talk page, why not go to WP:RFC or get a third opinion. --Darth Mike(talk) 17:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Certified Gangsta's userspace

    Certified Gangsta (talk · contribs) has had a long and chequered career on Wikipedia since at least 2006, with many different usernames — YOLO Swag, Bonafide.hustla, and Freestyle.king come to mind — and a long block log. Certified Gangsta was one of his earliest accounts, and he has now returned to that name after being gone for four years. AFAIK, he used to mostly change his name per the proper procedures, which means the block log has come with him. Bonafide.hustla and Freestyle.king are, however, exceptions: those blocks (quite numerous) are here and here. Please note that there are links to those logs in Certified Gangsta's log: look for User:East718's dummy entry on 21 November 2008.

    All clear so far? My problem is this: in 2013, Od Mishehu created a page in Certified Gangsta's own userspace, containing a list of six other blocks, all of them from 2006. These old blocks seem to be all now under the name Certified Gangsta, so I don't understand why they don't appear in Certified Gangsta's regular block log. The technicalities of this are beyond me, and I appeal to people to please not explain it here, unless against all the odds it has some interest.

    Certified Gangsta doesn't like having this page in his userspace, and has blanked it and asked me to delete it. User request to delete subpages in their own space falls under the WP:U1 speedy criterion, but the case was unusual, and Od Mishehu had specifically written on the page "Note: Please note that this page should not be deleted even if the user requests for it. This is the user's record under old user names."[78] Therefore, I asked Od Mishehu privately if he was all right with me deleting the page, but he's not, and refers to the specifics of WP:U1: "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page."

    I would still like to delete the page, and would like to know what the community thinks. My reason is twofold:

    1. I don't see that we need such a scrupulous record at all of blocks that are so old, 2006. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

    2. If we really do need that ancient record, then I don't understand the need to keep the list in CG's own space, which is humiliating and chafing for him. I'll acknowledge that he has always been a problematic user, but he's nevertheless a person, and deserves personal consideration just like everybody else. I see where Od Mishehu was coming from when he created the page in 2013, but why not move it somewhere less hurtful, now that the user has returned? Od Mishehu has put a note in CG's block log, at the top, linking to the page. Now obviously that note in the log could just as well link to the same information somewhere else — say in Od Mishehu's own space. I'd appreciate knowing what people think.

    Bishonen | talk 17:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    • Oh lord. Delete the thing. Six eleven-year-old blocks aren't going to matter when there are numerous more recent blocks to consider if sanctions are needed again. If there is an administrative need then an administrator can follow the link from the dummy edit in the block log and view the deleted page anyway. TimothyJosephWood 17:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say keep until there's some better way to knit together the user's disparate block logs, though courtesy blanking should be fine. No other user gets to blank their own block logs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Users don't get to blank their block logs, but whether this subdocument is a block log is less clear; I've never heard of such documentation being kept in a user's space against their will. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the alternative to knitting together the various block logs of a user who's been blocked with multiple accounts is probably SPI. Some idle entry in their user space is probably preferable from a dignity perspective. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This could have been an interesting debate, but there's a shortcut that takes all the complications out of it: I believe I've confirmed that all blocks and unblocks listed on Od Mishehu's page are already also listed in the actual block logs of Freestyle.king and Bonafide.husla, as already noted by East718 in the current block log. So the subpage can be deleted, it has no additional info that isn't already documented. The deletion rationale should be "Page no longer needed, blocks of previous usernames already documented in current block log by East718" or something similar, so people following OM's link won't be puzzled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Hmm, well yes, then that seems fine. Delete the page, whatever administrative need it was fulfilling is fulfilled by East718's entry. Unless OD has some other reason for keeping it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the page but hide the content (revdel?) so that only administrators can see it. That way everyone would be happy, no public humiliation for the Gangsta' but easily readable for the only ones who could possibly be interested in it, i.e. admins. 18:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.W (talk • contribs)
    We're talking here about a user who has repeatedly changed usernames, and who I suspect (although this is only an opinion) does this to try and prevent users from "remembering" him. He ran for MEDCOM under one username, 2 RFAs undr 2 other names (the second one being Certified.Gangsta, in June 2008), and was back in the December 2008 ArbCom elections under yet a different name. He subsequently ran for ArbCom twice more, the second time under yet a different name. A user like this needs to keep his record with him for everyone to see. Unlike most of us, though, there is a good reason to hide part of it: he got renamed twice before the block logs were transfered for renamed users, and those old names were taken by known troll. This pagfeis a way to keep his blocks, under those names, with him - without making him look like this specific troll at a glance. Admins can confirm that when I created this page, I also hid a dummy line in his block log linking to these 2 accounts. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But, as I commented above, the other usernames' block logs are *already* listed in his block log, linked to by East718's note. If you're saying your way would have been better, that might be true, but the toothpaste is out of the tube, the usernames and block logs are all linked. This subpage is just a duplicate. If CG prefers it not be in his userspace anymore, it should be fine to delete the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if we unhide East718's log entry, which I think is worse for CG. This was the reason that I did it - I thought that this would be a better way that next time CG runs for additional rights, he can be judged by the community on all and only his own record. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see now. I didn't know that East718's entry was only visible to admins; I could see it, I assumed everyone could. If there's consensus here that the entries aren't needed at all, then delete the page and keep East's entry hidden. If there's consensus here to keep one or the other (instead of just ignoring those old blocks) then I think the choice should be left up to CG: keep the page, or unhide East718's entry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to imagine a scenario where some decision has been made on sanctions or rights and somehow this information from 2006 pushes things over the edge. The information is sufficiently stale so as to make the whole think look a bit pointy. TimothyJosephWood 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this really going to make any practical difference, ever? Are we looking at a potential Arbcom candidate whose application would be stymied only by those small few blocks out of a lifetime of them? How about we get real, delete this stuff to help a real human person in their wish to come back, and go worry about more important things? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that each voter has the right to decide for himself/herself how relevant these blocks are; we shouldn't make the decision for him/her. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then point voters at the actual block logs, and don't force a user to keep links to them in their own user space like a badge of shame. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A userspace page is generally not seen by visitors to the user's userspace unless (s)he actually includes links to them or transclusions of them. The only link I provided to this page is from the user's block log. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an irrelevant diversion - now that the block logs have been found, there is no policy-based justification for forcing a user to keep their own additional copy in their own userspace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninvolved administrative suggestion: What about just making several 1 second blocks making a note of the old blocks, documenting the time and reason they were done.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be okay with deleting the page as a duplicate of their block log, if we can unhide that block log entry from East718 which adds the necessary context. User:Od Mishehu, is there any reason in your view to keep that log entry hidden? Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Magnolia007

    Blocked indefinitely. (non-admin closure) DarkKnight2149 13:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    SPA Magnolia007 has been consistently whitewashing the article Ali Shilatifard by removing negative material, adding puffery, and edit warring to remove a COI tag added by editors who noticed his activities.

    When a user left him a good faith COI message, he responded By accusing said editor of having a COI themselves and threatening to report them to an admin.

    Could we get an admin to step in here and at least get Magnolia to cool his Jets, so to speak? 2600:1017:B020:C6D5:6041:ADE7:352F:5803 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I dropped a caution on their talk page. Hopefully that will resolve this issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I sure hope so, but these 3 diffs make me think a CIR issue is at play here too: [79] [80] [81]. We'll see. 2600:1017:B020:C6D5:6041:ADE7:352F:5803 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked indefinitely. Another promotional SPA, another indefinite block. Compare my comment in the section "COI editing on Makau W. Mutua" immediately below. User:Ad Orientem's warning does not seem to have had the desired effect. Bishonen | talk 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    COI editing on Makau W. Mutua

    Blocked indefinitely. (non-admin closure) DarkKnight2149 13:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I reported this yesterday to the COI noticeboard, but nobody responded and the user with a COI resumed activity. Masoomulla (talk · contribs · count · logs) has never edited any page other than the Makau W. Mutua page, and his contributions there consist largely of scrubbing negative material. Some examples: [82], [83], [84]. He's also made contributions favorable to the subject. In short, I think we need some eyes on this article and this editor. After I left the COIN notification on his talk page, he failed to respond either at the noticeboard or on his talk page. Lepricavark (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been reverting some of those removals. It's been going on for a month now. I would agree that the editor in question should be contacted. It does not look like an experienced editor, is definitely an SPA account, and probably doesn't know how to use the talk page. Scr★pIronIV 19:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, it's been going on with this editor sporadically for 8 years. Lepricavark (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I support blocking the user indefinitely and then watching the page for sock puppets. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE, except to promote a living person. By the way, Lepricavark, you should close the COIN to avoid WP:Forum shopping. DarkKnight2149 21:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've closed the COIN discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked indefinitely. I honestly think we sometimes have way too much patience with this type of "editor". Bishonen | talk 11:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Given how long this user has been around, it's hard to disagree. DarkKnight2149 13:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An Editor is keep reverting statements related to Trump Administration

    Please follow the steps at WP:DISPUTE. Reporting something here is way down the list. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    And editor User:MordeKyle Keep reverting comments related to trump administration in article 2017 Olathe shooting, even though they're well sourced and associated with the incident, he previously edited that whole article without discussion which resulted in article getting temporarily protected, discussion with him didn't resolved the issues and after the the page protection was expired he still keep reverting edits without reasonable explanation. Diffs 1, 2. Redhat101 Talk 00:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My lord, another report to admins? This is getting ridiculous... There are more than enough reasonable explanations going on, including many in which you were pinged in. You added this information again despite ongoing discussion. The information was reverted, again because of potential WP:BLP violations, along with other policy violations. Please read these policies and you will understand why the reverts were made, and please visit the talk page. This is ridiculous.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did either one of you try DRN before coming here or nah?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)@TheGracefulSlick: It was not necessary as there is a ongoing, civil discussion that has been going on for a while, that Redhat01 has completely ignored. The most recent revert was made after he/she had been pinged in that discussion a lot of time, completely ignored the discussion, and re-added the information that has potential WP:BLP implications. It was rather clear why I reverted. I don't really know what to do in this instance, as this is the 3rd administrative attempt he/she has made to try to dictate content on this article. I have asked another editor to start and RfC in the discussion, because I am tired of being abused here.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MordeKyle: Stop abusing me The page was previously got protected because of your Mass removal of content without discussion, i didn't ignored the discussion on the page, i have updated the comments with proper sources from whitehouse.gov even then you removed it. and the source had no WP:BLP violation.Redhat101 Talk 01:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheGracefulSlick: I tried my earnest to discuss the issue with User:MordeKyle, but it wasn't getting anywhere and the user has a long history of disruptive editing (Instance A, B, C). Which deterred me for any further discussion.Redhat101 Talk 01:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MordeKyle:I have updated the relevant quotes with sources from whitehouse.gov, as was the consensus of discussion page. even then you removed without a reasonable explanation and your history of disruptive editing (Instance A, B, C), is deterring for any further discussion. Redhat101 Talk 01:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dear Administrators please look into the Tags on the entry "Nader El-Bizri"

    this is a content issue. Content issues are not addressed on this page. Use the article talk page. ~ GB fan 12:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Anon: Please see Wikipedia:Writing better articles, and feel free to ask questions about improving the article at The Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk‎. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dear Administrators please look into the restoring of tags by MarnetteD as posted by Edward321 regarding the entry "Nader El-Bizri". Please check whether they are entirely justified and how improvements can be brought to this entry if needed, and whether more editors need to check it. I tried to introduce some amendments but a professional editor like you would manage to refine the entry more. Thanks 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:3DE7:5B4A:4EE8:E3CB (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Magioladitis deletes thousands of user talk page edits and doesn't get the problem

    Resolved
     – fixedper the user's request. Graham87 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magioladitis has reshuffled his talk page archives, and in the process has deleted literally thousands of edits to his user talk page. This is a serious misuse of the admin tools. Multiple editors have tried to discuss this with them on their talk page, but we are not able to get them to realise or correct the problem. I think this is extremely worrying in a long-term admin, and shows that they can't be trusted with the tools (either they don't know what they did wrong and are unable to understand even such a basic concept, or they do know what they did wrong but can't give an honest answer and are unwilling to correct it).

    Solving the technical issue of the deleted edits may not be hard (although perhaps things may have been lost indefinitely due to repeated delete / move / delete cycles), but how to deal with the personal issue of an admin not knowing that they shouldn't delete their own user talk, and are unwilling or unable to correct it? Fram (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OWNTALK. Moreover, anything it in place in less than 3 hours after I was contacted. You message in my talk page was unclear and a bit offensive. After a talk page stalker contacted me I spotted the issue and fixed it. If there is anything else I would be more than happy to help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OWNTALK is about removing or archving edits from your userpage. It is not about deleting them. At the moment your talk-page indicates the earliest edit is 2013 - since you have been editing since 2006 this is a large gap in talk-page interactions. The fundemental problem of 'they are visible in the archives' is that if you edit the archives (which may not be watched and have a history entirely technically divorced from the original talk page posts) it can easily misrepresent past discussions on the talkpage. Given that you just had an ARBCOM case where your extensive talk-page history was used as evidence of problems with your behaviour over the years, I cant see these recent actions as anything other than a deliberate attempt to obfuscate your user-talk history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh ffs, you didnt even remove or archive edits from your talk page, you moved/renamed the entire talk page to an archive page, have now copied and pasted those archives into a new archive, and deleted the moved/renamed archived pages with all the original revisions!. While technically page-moving was used previously to archive, the relevant help pages make it very clear the pages do not qualify for speedy deletion. Let alone under G6 - which in now way allows for the revision history of a user-talk page to be deleted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:OWNTALK:User talk pages are almost never deleted. Are you sure you want to refer to that? --Calton | Talk 11:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I can verify that there are indeed thousands of deleted revisions in the talk page and various archives. If Magioladitis does not act shortly, I will go through and undelete any that I can find. It is troubling that Magioladitis apparently does not understand that this is not allowed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:DELTALK: "User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users ... Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason." If no good reasons are given, they should be undeleted. --Darth Mike(talk) 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to history-merge the assorted deleted archives back into the main user talk-page history? Generally no one will care what Magioladitis does with his archives as long as the original revisions from his talk page are still visible in the talk-page history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone can perform the merge in a better way so that all edits are in visible edit history place, I would be more than happy to get that help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    All done. Graham87 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. It turns in the early years I was performing the archiving by myself by moving the page. Later I trusted a bot to do the job for me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The technical issue is resolved. The disturbing issue of an admin not understanding that they may not delete user talk page edits, and unable to see that there are thousands of deleted edits even when a) pointed to deleted archives and b) presented with individual examples of missing edits, but still repeatedly claiming that all is fixed and that they did nothing they weren't allowed to, remains though. This is the same admin who just had an ArbCom case closed which happened after for years, they didn't understand what they did wrong and why people complained, and who continued with similar problematic edits during that case. I don't know what the exact cause of the problem is, but the end result is an admin / bot operator who is way too often unable to understand problems with his edits even after multiple people have tried to explain them, and (like here) is apparently not able to undo his own mistakes (and has not acknowledged anywhere that they did anything wrong or misinterpreted policy rather badly). Closing this zas "resolved" simply because the technical problem is solved seems a bit too easy and ignores the root problem. Fram (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. I don't expect an Admin to know every policy off-hand, but when an Admin refers to a policy that is only 15 sentences long and directly contradicts their claims, there is a problem. When an Admin doesn't understand what they were doing is wrong after it being pointed out by many users (especially when they provide examples), there is a problem. How can we trust an Admin with the tools if they aren't able to responsibly use them? --Darth Mike(talk) 14:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What steps are required for a de-sysop?--WaltCip (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way that actually works is for the admin to request it at WP:BN. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not contradict my claims. All entries are visible via edit history. Moreover, "almost never" does not mean "never". For example, I have hidden some disruptive material in the past. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram I replied to you in very short notice. In contrary to other messages your message was unclear. You pointed to a page that has been moved and nothing else. Even the example provided to me it showed the page to be in the edit history. Maybe if you use better text next time you get better results. PS The "thousands" is an overestimate the same way that you multiplied the size of my archives by 1,024. Discussing the problem is not unwillingness to solve it. I took action within a few hour despite the fact that I was in the middle of something else at the moment and that I was already online for a long time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • What is unclear to me is, really, wtf was going on. I am glad that Graham took it on himself to fix what shouldn't have had to be fixed in the first place. For better or worse, us admins owe it to the rest of the editing corps to have our shit accessible. "Hiding disruptive material" is just not something to pull into this discussion; that's not what's going on. I tend to think of Fram as someone who may occasionally come down too hard on people, but... but... yeah, we shouldn't have to be here again. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies The problem is that judging by Fram's comments I understood they only meant that the entries have been removed/deleted by the Archives. They never mentioned the revision history. The problem was fixed in a short time. Take note that when the bot archives the pages the edit history remains for the main talk page. I have forgotten that for some years I was moving and recreating the talk page. Everything is in place. I could have done it by myself but Fram was pressing for faster response. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the first message on your talk page about this: "Can you please either indicate where the hundreds of deleted edits in the history of e.g. User talk:Magioladitis/Archive 7 (and the other archive pages) can be accessed by non-admins, or correct your error and make sure that no talk page edits are inaccessible any longer?" I gave an example (which wasn't moved at the time, only deleted, specifically told that it was about "deleted edits in the history" and that they were inaccessible to non-admins, and that it was about hundreds of edits (later turned out to be thousands of edits). The problem was repeatedly re-explained to you, to no avail. Even in your previous response here you still didn't beieve that it was about thousands of edits. "The problem was fixed in a short time. " Yes, but not by you, only after I brought it here, and even then you still don't get it. "Everything is in place. I could have done it by myself but Fram was pressing for faster response." That's simply a lie. You were not able to do it yourself, but claimed repeatedly to have fixed it anyway. You could have said "oops, I need some time to correct this, it will be corrected by Monday" for all I care, but instead you rushed off to do some edit that you claimed fixed the problems, so you could go on with your AWB edits instead of slowing down and actually looking at the problem. I never said that you needed to immediately solve this or posed any deadlines. What I did have a major problem with was that you claimed to have fixed it when it wasn't true, and that you are still spouting nonsense about the whole issue and don't seem to understand what really happened. Fram (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose desysop for gross incompetence. After all this, Magioladitis' latest reply here is full of errors and untruths, either deliberately or because even after all this he still doesn't understand the actual problem. Looking at what Graham has done to resolve the problem, I see that he restored 783 revisions (archive 5), 721 (6), 596 (7), 701 (8), 910 (9), 1056 (2), 377 (3) and 696 (4). Or more than 5,000 edits. So why does he claim "PS The "thousands" is an overestimate"? "I took action within a few hour despite the fact that I was in the middle of something else at the moment and that I was already online for a long time." Yes, you claimed multiple times that you had solved the problem (which was in each case wrong, but since you still don't understand the problem and size of it this isn't a surprise), so that you could go on with your "something else", making many many AWB edits. And you think that not doing your admin duty and thoroughly checking why you are accused of policy violations and dragged to ANI is somehow commendable? "You pointed to a page that has been moved and nothing else." is just wrong on so many levels. I pointed to User talk:Magioladitis/Archive 7, which at the time of my comment had a log consisting of two deletes and a message at the top that it had 596 deleted edits. The first of that page was at 11.26, i.e. hours after I had given that example. Fram (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram The problem was resolved now. If your messages were clearer I would have acted more accurately and faster. You were unclear. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Answered above. I guess everyone who reads the interactions (here and at yur atlk page) can judge for themselves where the problem lies. Fram (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    True. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, there needs to be a system put into place in which users are allowed to do just this. Sadly, as I have seen numerous times, this is completely unwanted by the administrative staff. --Tarage (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    edit warring to close RfC just started two days ago

    I opened an RfC on Donald Trump talk regarding LGBT rights on March 22 here.

    • Today, an editor closed it claiming WP:SNOW here. I reverted the close because the RfC's been up just two days, and has two supports and I mentioned this in the edit summary. here. Then another editor came along and reverted me, without any explanation in the edit summary here. And you'll note, this editor voted Oppose. He's involved and can't close anyway.
    • I'm asking for an admin to reopen the RfC because the bot notices have not gone out yet, and won't for at least a week, and as cautionary note says, this close is too soon because it seems the Oppose votes are early pile on, and closing will prevent editors with other opinions from weighing in. I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked, just reopen the RfC by an admin, and if this closing persists, then a block would be needed. But I think an admin doing this will solve it for now. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What steps were taken to discuss this section prior to opening an RFC?--WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Please read my close statement. I specifically did not call it SNOW, and I stated as such. 2. The second point was probably more important. 3. This dispute belongs in article talk, not here. This is the second time in, what, 10 days? that you've run to ANI to complain about something that should be handled calmly among editors in article talk. This is not what admins do. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And you did not think to comment on the talk page before closing the RfC? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not required. I understood that closes are subject to challenge. I applied WP:BRD and executed a WP:BOLD edit (B). You challenged by reverting (R), which was an entirely legitimate move. The next step is discussion (D). So go discuss. Anythingyouwant's re-revert is a fuzzier matter, but it was just one revert and that sort of thing is so common that it certainly doesn't warrant a trip to ANI. If you want to make an issue of it, you could take it to WP:ANEW where edit warring complaints are addressed. Me, I would just discuss instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The RfC had responses. It is barely 2 days old. The bot notices have not gone out. This is shutting down an RfC the larger community is meant to comment on. This page does not belong to you or any other editor. You are free to give your ivote, but you do not have the right to deny the ivote to others in the community because it is your opinion that it should be closed. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support reopening of RfC. This was a disruptive closing. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you report Anythingyouwant's re-revert as EW, be sure to report this one as well. Many editors mistakenly draw a distinction between "good" edit warring and "bad" edit warring, despite clear advice NOT to do that in the first paragraph at WP:EW. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The RFC was properly closed. Then SW3 reverted without discussion. I restored the close (once), and posted this note at SW3's talk page. Then SundayClose reverted my revert so I left this note at SundayClose's talk page. The proper thing is to restore the close, and seek consensus to overturn it at the proper notice board.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC) @Sundayclose:Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SW3 5DL: I have started that discussion for you. If this is the wrong way to handle this dispute, I'm always open to learning. Please cite p&g. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The RfC should probably have never been started. A five comment thread lasting less than a day does not constitute a reasonable attempt at working out ... disputes required of an RfC, and definitely not on an article with almost 2,000 watchers. RfCs can be lengthy bureaucratic exercises, and frivolous ones squander the time and attention of those willing to repond to Legobot.
    2. This should not have come to ANI at all without at least attempting to discuss the issue, and when it did, OP should have notified the individuals involved, as is required.
    3. The RfC probably should have never been closed, and any autoconfirmed user should have been able to predict that doing so would have resulted in a metric ton of drama. While failure to discuss the issue is a legitimate reason to not start an RfC, it is not clearly a legitimate reason to close one once it's well underway. Once reopened, it should definitely not have been closed again by an involved user.
    4. Performing an obvious SNOW close while claiming you are not invoking IAR actually means exactly nothing. It's still an obvious SNOW, or at least an attempt at one.
    5. The RfC has been reopened, and there is no administrative action that needs done here that I can tell, so I believe we're done here. TimothyJosephWood 17:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So I can henceforth revert an RFC close whenever I disagree with it, even if I started the RFC?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with your reasoning, Timothyjosephwood, still waiting for that p&g to counter mine. But I agree that we should be done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have a policy to stand on either. You have a recommendation from a WikiProject page which applies to starting an RfC and not to closing it, a close that is clearly not uncontroversial and therefore within the scope of an WP:NAC, a completely botched WP:SNOW close besides, which itself is a misapplication of the policy even as it claims to not be an attempt to invoke the policy it consummately misapplies, and now you have a gratuitous link to WP:STICK. TimothyJosephWood 17:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Failure to defer to the opinion of one non-admin editor hardly constitutes beating the deceased equine, so you might want to reconsider playing the STICK card here. I have now found WP:BADNAC item 2, which is the only remotely applicable p&g supporting your argument. It applies if a disagreement from the inappropriately-started RfC's opener, and one other editor, constitutes a "controversy" that I could have predicted. Otherwise it does not apply. It remains to be seen just how controversial the close is, which is why I opened the discussion in AT. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. WP:NAC is neither a policy nor a guideline.
    2. WP:BADNAC is in the section specifically covering XFD
    3. There is however a section covering RfC, and I particularly like this bit, after all, I wrote it: Editors should consider not only whether their assessment of the consensus is correct, but whether the discussion might be better closed by an administrator as a matter of form, resulting in a judgement that would be less likely to be challenged, even if the substance of the outcome would be the same. TimothyJosephWood 18:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Then this comes down to one question: Is it inappropriate to close an inappropriately-opened RfC, subject to challenge? You have stated your view, but you have yet to show p&g that answers that question. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure WP:COMMONSENSE pretty well covers a situation where you boldly close an RfC two hours after it started and it gets reverted by two different editors. TimothyJosephWood 18:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that your common sense and mine are in conflict. User:Cyclopia/Ubx common sense For the record, that's 26 hours, not 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. Point still stands. There's nothing wrong with making a good faith effort to close an RfC that may stand a comparatively small chance of succeeding. And while it may be a touch premature, the question posed itself isn't a gross misinterpretation of policy, and whether to close it early is not something that justifies more debate than it would take for the actual RfC to fail. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timothyjosephwood: If that's a change in your position (I can't really tell), it would help matters if you would add to or strike your comment in the AT thread. You come across as very authoritative there and some editors may perceive you as an authority. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I've been around for about ten years now, so I'd like to think I've started to get the hang of things. That NACs are intended to be uncontroversial closures isn't apparently abundantly clear in the guidance provided, is a problem with the guidance, and one I intend to fix, because it is overwhelmingly the de facto practice with regard to what closures are and are not appropriate for non-administrators. TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the definition of "controversial close" is any close that might be contested by two editors, I suspect virtually all closes are controversial. By your reasoning, then, except for a precious few no-brainers that any 13-year-old could handle, only admins should close discussions. This needs "fixing" only if you say that closes, and NACs in particular, are not subject to challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not dealing in the hypothetical "might be challenged". The close was challenged by two editors, and they are supported by myself, and it therefore is not an uncontroversial close appropriate for an NAC. NACs are intended to be and are for the most part janitorial actions. If you don't understand it then you need to hang out more in XFD type places, and if you don't like it then tough luck. NACs are definitely subject to challenge, and the challenge in-and-of-itself serves as an indication that the close was not uncontroversial and that there is more discussion on the matter to be had. TimothyJosephWood 22:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    there is more discussion on the matter to be had. Precisely. That has been my position from the start of this thread. And I in fact started said discussion. It requires a stunning failure of logic to say that the close was rendered retroactively improper by objections that were not known in advance of the close. If this is where 10 years gets you, you can have it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also remind you that failed RfCs are themselves precedent setting in certain ways, and can be useful in avoiding endless rehashing of the same debate ad nauseam if it is the case that there is not a new argument or fresh evidence to suggest that the previous RfC might be overturned. But a botched closure likely ruins all that and makes us all go through the same song and dance again, when we could be over at WP:BACKLOG fixing shit that matters. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the "Keep calm" message on his talk page, SW3 appears to lose his cool a bit too easily these days. Do we need to swap the trout of a few days ago for a whale? The early RfC close was audacious but justified given the lack of prior efforts at consensus-building and the quasi-unanimous opposition to the OP's proposal. He comes complaining to AN/I counting two supports including his own and one "compromise support", neglecting to note the 8 editors opposing, all providing a cogent rationale (not "me too" !votes). I have no prejudice against keeping the RfC open but it frankly doesn't stand a chance. OP also falsely claims that "the bot notices have not gone out yet, and won't for at least a week", which is patently false [85][86][87] thus abusing the incidents board. — JFG talk 18:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SW3 was referring to the user talk notices summoning subscribed editors to the RfC, not the listings. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unwarranted personal attacks, veiled threat, claims of vandalism and calling contributions "junk"

    I am stunned by the behavior Illuminaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I almost just deleted my account and walked away from WP. It is unacceptable to me that he asks me to share my address "so that we can come and personally verify the legitimacy of your credentials!" Talk:Shakya (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) That should be beyond acceptable limits for this community. I also do not like him characterizing me as "hell bent" on proving I am "an acclaimed scholar" or of "following a personal agenda" or "vendetta". He makes these repeated statements in the edit history and the Talk page. None of these assertions are supported by fact, and they are confounding in that they seem to characterize his actions, not mine. Moreover, he makes unwarranted claims that I have engaged in vandalism in the article Shakya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He continually reverts my edits and calls them "junk", despite the fact that I am making legitimate attempts to improve the article with citations to some of the most well-known scholars on the subject. I am pleased that when it comes to content, additional editors have reverted his deletions of most of my contributions. Will he attack them next? Scottahunt (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    NA com The "share address" comment possibly might be sarcasm, but this behavior is unacceptable. Illuminati appears to be an SPA or someone's sleeper. L3X1 (distant write)
    Yeah, I think someone needs to take Illuminaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aside and let them know this is not okay. --Tarage (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've warned them. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Continued abuse.

    I really have tried to avoid making this an issue, as I would rather just move on and not cause waves, but I fear this is just the beginning of these issues with this user, and he will continue to abuse other users who don't agree with him. Redhat101 uses very aggressive tactics to try to dictate the content in articles. This user even went and got an article edit protected for edit warring, where reverts were being made to removing content that explicitly violated WP:BLPCRIME. How the admin that protected the article didn't see this, I don't know. The user repeatedly kept adding the information after it was made very clear that it was a BLP issue. You can see one of the more blatant violations in the first line of the lead:

    On February 22, 2017, an Indian engineer was shot dead and another was injured when Adam W. Purinton, a white American who mistook them for people from the Middle East, yelled "get out of my country" and "terrorist" before shooting them at the Austins Bar & Grill in Olathe, Kansas

    There was an ongoing effort to clean the article up by myself and a few other editors, and before the edit protection was made, I created the first section on the talk page to encourage Redhat101 to engage in discussion and understand why he was being reverted. At first, I assumed good faith and thought it may just be a competence issue, and I tried my best to explain that to him. He then began a tirade of accusing me of bad faith over and over and over and over, and suggesting that I have not attempted any discussion over and over. He reported me to SPI for sockpuppetry accusing me of logging out and editing as an IP who was trying to explain the same BLP violations. This is about when I no longer assumed good faith, as any reasonable editor would clearly see that the IP and myself are not the same person, and I believe this SPI was made in bad faith. He then went to ANI, claiming I was reverting without reasonable explanation, despite a massive talk page discussion that was going on, that he was pinged in repeatedly yet engaged in no discussion before adding back the information that was being discussed by myself and a couple other editors. Some of that information, the reaction to the reaction stuff by the press secretary, was agreed upon by all of those in the discussion to be WP:UNDUE. So it's pretty obvious why it was reverted. There was also the question of WP:BLP violations that there is a current RfC ongoing about to clear up. My real concern his is the continuation of these aggressive tactics on other editors. I have removed myself from editing that article, aside from blatant BLP violations, because I am tired of being harassed by this user. I should also add that I will not respond to this ANI unless pinged by a user other than Redhat101. I will not allow myself to be abused anymore. I am also sure I am not completely innocent in this claim, because I lost my patients more than once. I tried my best to assume good faith for as long as I could, but this harassment is unlike any I've been exposed to here on Wikipedia before. I have removed myself from the abusive interaction, but I feel this needs to be addressed for the sake of future interaction with other editors. Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    Wasn't this issue closed in the ANI thread above because both of you were told to follow WP:Dispute?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheGracefulSlick:This has nothing to do with the dispute over content in the article. This is about this user's tactics of harassment and unfounded accusations of bad faith. I have no concern over the content in the article anymore, as I've left that up to other editors and an RfC and have discontinued activity in that article due to the harassment.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have excused yourself from activities with this editor, then what would you like done? Blocks are not a punitive measure and it appears the RfC you voluntarily left is continuing without any disturbances.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PS - My apologies for confusing this with a content dispute. The part where you described BLP issues and quoted the article threw me off.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheGracefulSlick: No apology is necessary. I'm not interested in punitive measures. As I said, I have removed myself from the abusive situation. This does not resolve the underlying issue though. This needs to be addressed with this user so this behavior does not continue in the future. I fear it will fall upon deaf ears however, and continue to be a problem. This, and possibly a discussion with the user or some sort of warning would lay the groundwork for addressing future issues, if they were to arise. I'm not sure how exactly this entire process works, as I do my best to stay away from this area of Wikipedia. Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bob Henshaw introducing errors en masse

    For over a year and a half User:Bob Henshaw's only purpose on Wikipedia has been to add census information to articles on English villages and parishes. I've seen him regularly pop up on my watchlist and have never interacted with him prior to today, but a few months ago I saw him add blatant errors to a couple dozen of Hampshire villages that I watch. I thought little of it at the time and quietly fixed his errors. However, a cursory glance through his contributions reveals that he doesn't just add nonsensical statements, mangled sentences, and incorrect population figures to just a few stubs, no, he's been doing this every day for every county in England since January 2015. Hundreds of unseen edits. While I think he's been doing this in good faith and don't want to discourage him from adding population figures from the 2011 census (which is useful), the fact is that does more harm than good and most of his edits are disruptive. The problem is much larger than I can put in diffs, but I'll highlight several I've pulled out from his recent contributions at random as examples:

    • After I left him a message on his talk page pointing out his errors, he ignored it and made two more errors to Antony, Cornwall, completely breaking the infobox template twice and not bothering to fix it
    • Adds nonsensical sentences like "At the 2011 Census the population was included in the civil parish of" which makes no sense gramatically and is just fluff. He does this to almost every article he comes across. He also very rarely adds full stops[88][89][90][91][92][93][94]
    • Lately he's been adding the same horrible construction to villages in Cornwall[95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105]. These are only just a few - spot the missing brackets, full stops, and typos.
    • According to the Post Office the population at the 2011 census. According to the Post Office? This is just one diff, but a recent one. "According to the Post Office" is a commonplace phrase in his editing. No idea what it even means. That and "at the 2011 census", not "as of the 2011 census", which makes grammatical sense
    • [106] According to the Post Office again
    • Durford Wood, 14 Dec: Adds that it is in the the civil parish of Rogate. No it isn't, Rogate is in Sussex, a different county. The post town is also incorrect[107]
    • Bentworth, 31 Jan: Adds that Woolmer is in the civil parish of Bentworth. No it isn't, Woolmer is 20 miles away and isn't related at all. Where does he get this from?[108]
    • Flexcombe, 27 Dec: One of the countless "(where the 2011 Census population was included)," sentence again. Flexcombe is not in the parish of Liss, it is in Steep[109]
    • Froxfield, Hampshire, 18 Dec: "At the 2011 Census the hamlet had become a civil parish in its own name".[110] What the hell. It has had its own civil parish for centuries. It wasn't suddenly created in 2011. Where in this source does it say that? He's making it up
    • Finchdean, 16 Dec: The Post Office does not tell you what civil parish a hamlet lies in, maps do. At least he got the civil parish right this time, but still adds in the fluff[111]
    • Another thing he does all the time is adding in the 2011 population figures in an infobox whilst keeping in the 2001 figures.[112] (only one diff, but there are likely hundreds more). I think this clutters the infobox because there's no need to keep an outdated figure
    • At the 2011 census, not "As of the 2011 census". Rare full stop
    • Isington, 21 Dec: " At the 2011 Census the Post Office confirm that the population". The post town is not Alton, it is Farnham.[113]
    • Idsworth, 21 Dec: Another "the Post Office confirm that", but at least the post town is correct this time[114]

    The diffs are the tip of the iceberg. You just have to look through his past 250 contributions to see that he is adding these nonsensical sentences and false information en masse in almost every edit. I know that he does this in good faith his editing is very problematic. I would like to propose a topic ban if the gross errors continue. I'm sorry that I can't list more diffs, but I invite you to just look through his contributions and pull out an article at random. JAGUAR  21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted a few unreferenced population changes but there are many hundreds, it's getting VERY disruptive, the vast number of poorly edited, unsourced changes. Theroadislong (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite get why you found it necessary to leave two level-3 warnings and one level-4 warning hours after he had stopped editing. --NeilN talk to me 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't look like he's ever used a talk page. A short block might get his attention. --Tarage (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He's used his twice so he know it's there. I'd rather wait and see if he starts editing without responding. --NeilN talk to me 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we want to bet on how poor his unblock request will be? No points for "I dindo nuffin" 01:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    When I saw the heading of this section I thought it was something serious, like use of inaccurate data or unsourced and unllkely information. Biut these are minor errors in wording and grammar. They do not confuse the sense. I think all that is necessary is for them to be silently corrected, and the standard wording explained to him. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Inaccurate information inserted on Meir Einstein

    If you look at the history of Meir Einstein, you will see 2 IPs inserted information about Meir Einstein without providing a source; I didn't find the information they inserted in any news source, so I've removed it twice. I'm not sure what to do if the information is inserted a third time, because that may be considered edit warring on my part. Ethanbas (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing unsourced contentious BLP claims (he just died, so BLP fully applies) is exempt from WP:3RR. You are fine. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks. How long does BLP last for after a person has died? Does it cease applying only for historical figures (however that may be defined)? Ethanbas (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK: "Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. Even absent confirmation of death, for the purposes of this policy anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead Ethanbas (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, exactly - but even this specific information being added would absolutely need to be sourced to be kept, and I doubt you'd any flak for removing that claim repeatedly five years out. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mlpearc

    It seems that this user is beginning to spy-gate on me, and is giving me nearly-fake warnings, thinking that my edits are nonconstructive. For example, I updated a college career with Juju Smith-Schuster with all of its up-to-date college stats, and Mlpearc reverted it without even specifying a single reason. It just comes to show that these users can spy on you and revert your edits for no reason at all. If you could please, could you look into this case? SportsLair (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor explained the reason to you, and you have not attempted to discuss it with the editor, AFAICT. You may learn about a boomerang soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, victims refuse their rights to discuss with those who give out warnings as this may lead to tensions and confusion. Even if one reverts one edit, it can monitor or spy on that user for a temporary period of time, which could possibly violate the Terms of Use. SportsLair (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it is well within policy to look over an editor's contributions if a common mistake is found, yours being unsourced content. That is not him acting as a "spy". By the way, Wikipedia is a collaborative project so ignoring others is not the best option.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note What proof is there of wikihounding? This dosen't really seem to rise to the level of an ANI report. Mlpearc could maybe have spoken plainly to SportsLair instead of relying on templates—and SportsLair should had cited their sources from the outset, certainly after requested. Not much more to this that I could see. El_C 01:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently that's not it - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I will explain the truth. I missed adding sources on some of the articles, but here's the real thing. Sometimes, it's OK to complete an edit without citing a source, but in other cases, a rollbacker will strike, revert your edit, and leave you with a warning. Sometimes, these users can overlook on your contributions to see if you didn't cite any sources, but it may not always be a good idea, as this maybe considered tampering or spying, and it doesn't always good faith. SportsLair (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=772054581"