Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Antonioatrylia on Talk:Asia Kate Dillon[edit]

I have a feeling that I should be posting here, but I should probably say up-front that I'm very bad at judging when someone's behaviour is harmful towards me and I might miss details that others would notice. I'm tagging User:Funcrunch here because they've seen the discussion between me and User:Antonioatrylia and feel like they could add helpful commentary while remaining neutral.

The start of this can be found here. I made a draft of Asia Kate Dillon on 2nd March 2017, it was rejected due to lack of notability but then accepted around 8th April, now being considered notable. But a mainspace article had been made in between my creating the draft and the draft being approved and considered notable. It was decided that the mainspace article contained less information and should be overwritten with the draft, which Antonioatrylia rolled back and disputed, arguing with me and another user until an admin stepped in and backed up the original decision.

They are clearly very upset about the final decision, judging by User_talk:Antonioatrylia#Seriously?: "No trace of the history of all the editors who contributed to the originally created mainspace article for Asia Kate Dillon remain. Everyone's contributions to the original mainspace article were for nothing, because a failed AFC draft was used to overwrite the original mainspace article. It is no wonder that so many editors are leaving wikipedia.". (Two people involved in that exchange are User:Anthony Appleyard and User:Anne Delong.) Anthony Appleyard notes that Antonioatrylia did most of the work on the mainspace article that was overwritten, so I can understand their upset, but they're certainly not remaining neutral or prioritising the quality of the article over their own feelings.

Antonioatrylia's behaviour since then feels to me like they are holding a grudge.

After the draft was moved to mainspace, Antonioatrylia tagged it with a Not Notable tag - something that they never did to their original mainspace article, which was much smaller and less detailed. They were upset when it was removed.

Some of my edits were removed by Antonioatrylia due to having primary sources as references. These include Dillon's birthday (which Dillon mentioned in a tweet) and Dillon's role in a movie (that is available to watch online courtesy of the director, with Dillon mentioned in the credits). When I questioned this decision, Antonioatrylia told me that primary sources are not considered reliable. I did a little research and found that primary sources are appropriate "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person ... will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." I also found in the section about film specifically, "[t]he film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters." Dillon's tweet tells us their birthday very directly, and the film itself has Dillon in the credits at the end, so it seemed to me that both of these would be acceptable cases for primary sources to be included. I explained my motives and re-added the sources, expecting that my edits would be accepted since I had shown that Wikipedia policy was very clearly on my side, but Antonioatrylia rolled back the edits and put an edit war warning on my talk page. (It is not my intent to edit-war at all, and I don't want to take part in that.) They told me, "Do not edit war to try to get your incorrect preferred version into the article." I assume the incorrect preferred version they are talking about is the one that includes Dillon's self-professed birthday and the primary source of their appearance in a movie?

They also tagged the article with WP:UNDUE, and described their reasons in a way that didn't make sense to me - that Dillon's gender and career are given undue weight in the article, implying that more weight should be given to their personal life in the article, I assume? (I may be wrong there.) Me and Funcrunch both felt that WP:UNDUE didn't apply here, and discussed it openly in the talk page, so I went ahead and removed it from the article. Antonioatrylia rolled that edit back, saying "I will be restoring the undue template because the issue has not been fully addressed." This to me reads like an intent to edit-war by Antonioatrylia. I do not want to be threatened again with being blocked for participating in an edit war. (Relatedly, the main reason there is such weight on Dillon's career and being nonbinary is because their notability is centred around them being an openly nonbinary person campaigning for visibility, inclusion and acceptance of nonbinary people, and they're using their career as a nonbinary actor playing the first ever nonbinary US TV character to do it. My edits to expand on their personal life and career aside from being nonbinary have been rolled back by Antonioatrylia.)

Overall, Antonioatrylia has been aggressive, pushy, superior. "Consider your self warned for not showing good faith. I won't bother to template your page with a notice for failure to good faith." (Here.) My interactions with this user have been very unpleasant, and left me feeling reluctant to edit because I suspect that Antonioatrylia will roll back my edits and accuse me of edit warfare if I argue with them. I'm very much a casual editor and I just want to make a good article with as much complete information as possible, but I feel like every time I do a little work on the article the edits are rolled back. And I feel that this is because "my" draft was chosen over "their" mainspace article.

Because I am not very good at judging these things, there may be important information that I've omitted. I hope that others can visit the links I've put here and post about the things I've missed, and perhaps Funcrunch, Anthony Appleyard and Anne Delong can add details too.

Thank you for reading, and I welcome your thoughts! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • My take is similar to Cassolotl's. I feel that Antonioatrylia's templating was motivated by his resentment of how the article merge was handled. When I noted this at the article talk page, specifically pointing out Antonioatrylia's own talk page comment on the merger, they accused me of not assuming good faith. My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary. I believe evidence has been provided that Antonioatrylia's templating and subsequent reactions were motivated more by his feelings about the merger than by genuine concerns about WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Funcrunch (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
A request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard for dispute resolution about Asia Kate Dillon, but I had to close it because the dispute is also pending here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment After the draft was moved to mainspace, I added some elements from the original very short article, crediting the appropriate editors. Articles aren't notable or non-notable according to size and detail, but according the existence of reliable independent sources, even if they aren't yet in the article or aren't properly formatted. There was no way to solve this to everyone's satisfaction, because both drafts were worked on in good faith. This a a bi-product of Draft space. I understand Antonioatrylia's frustration because at one point it seemed that it would be resolved the other way, so he/she kept working on it. That's not a reason to make inappropriate edits, though.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment As Anne Delong has stated above, I was frustrated about how the merge turned out. But that was it. I let out my frustration in a statement on my own talk page and went about my business. I frequently remove references from many articles when they are from unreliable websites such as myspace, twitter, imdb, blogs, and many other such places. I also apply tags or notices to articles after I have worked on them and tried to find good, appropriate, and reliable references. The original poster above tries to make some point aboint me putting a tag on one version but not the other of the article. I would not put a tag on until after I am done working on an article.

The merge happened. I started working on the article until I reached a point after my work where I felt that article subject was not truly notable. At that point I placed a notability tag. This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board. The OP is trying to blow out of proportion that I tagged the article and edited it because of a grudge, me being upset and other very colorful adjectives, none of which are true, nor non of which can be substantiated by any evidence or proof.

On the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon the OP freely admits that they are not acting in good faith. I informally warned them there instead of placing a template on their own talk page. The OP, who by the way is a SPA editor who looks to have only edited this and one other subjects biography, who both identify as non-binary or genderqueer. I mention this becase on the OP's talk page they also identify via a user box that they are agender and prefer the usage of certain pronouns such as they and their just like the article subject.Perhaps, it could be a possibility the OP is a little to close to the subject and their lifestyle to remain neutral while editing the article. They (OP) has shown WP:OWNERSHIP issues of not wanting anyone else editing the article other than themself and one other editor, Funcrunch who also self identifies on their user page as agender via a user box and uses preferred pronouns. I believe all editors from any walks of life should be able to edit the Dillon and all articles freely on wilipedia with out being tag teamed by a pair of editors that could possibly have an agenda to make the Dillon article have a slant toward agender and non-binary issues. I pointed out on the talk page article that there was too much of that going on to the point of undue, and I finally decided to mark the article as undue so other editors could see that and help fix the article to have a neutral tone as is tthe requirement at wikipedia.

One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board. There they had two points: that I removed a reference to an archive of a twitter post that was being used as a reference for the birthday of the subject. In my edit summary there I put it was unreliable as from twitter, and was considered self published. If that is not correct anyone may freely put it back. The other item the OP complained about was my removal of a reference to a vimeo video clip of film that you supposedly have to watch until the end to be able to see the credits to verify the subject as having appeared in the film. That is really way too convoluted to expect our readers to do all that. I group vimeo in with youtube and consider both unreliable in any respect, and I frequently remove other such references for being unreliable. Again, if any editors think that is a fabulous reference, go ahead and put it back if you have a consensus on that.

This entire filing is frivolous in that this is actually a content dispute. The OP admitted that they were acting in bad faith towards me on the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon. This OP SPA editor is trying to make a big blow up kerfuffle about how the article was merged in the past as a reason to object to another editors opinion in a simple content dispute. None of their schlock is true. I was frustrated by the outcome of the merge, but I let my frustration out on my own talk page, and then went back to editing as per usual. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am more than happy for others to make edits to the article, and I definitely don't feel territorial. Honestly, help would be very much appreciated; I don't have a lot of energy, and I love when people improve pages I've created or edited. So I'm not really sure where you've got this idea that I am only happy for me and Funcrunch to make edits to this article, Antonioatrylia. :/ If people have things they'd like to add to the article that are not about Dillon's gender I'm very happy about that; I've not removed anything from the article that anyone else has added. If there were facts without citations I've added "citation needed" or researched and found a source myself.
When you say that you removed the Twitter reference because it was a primary source, and if anyone feels this is not correct they are free to put it back - I did this. I posted explaining that your removing the primary source was incorrect in this case, and I put it back. I provided links to Wikipedia policy and quoted them, on the article's talk page. When I edited the primary sources back in, you rolled my edits back and threatened me with punishments associated with edit warfare.
You mention that I am editing articles in a particular subject area as though this makes me in some way biased, but I think it is pretty normal for editors to edit things that appeal to them based on interest, no? Yes, I am excited that Dillon is the first actor to play a nonbinary character in US TV, but I don't feel that I am being territorial. I am not upset that people are editing "my" article, I don't feel any ownership of it because it is a subject close to my heart or something. My problem is that you undo my edits, and when I show you that Wikipedia policy backs up my edits you ignore me and roll the edits back and state an intention to keep undoing my edits and threaten me with punitive actions if I continue to act in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
Overall I feel bullied and pushed around, and like you are rolling back my edits that are perfectly valid. I would expect most people to say, "oh yes, it looks like Wikipedia allows primary sources in this case, cool beans" but instead I am having things thrown at me like that I have only edited a few pages - as if this is somehow evidence of poor behaviour? I made a new account sometime recently because I lost my login information and figured a fresh start might be nice. In fact I have been a casual editor of Wikipedia for many years, mostly fixing grammar and spelling, and tidying up badly formatted citations. I even run my own wiki on another site, so I know how it is to have something you have created get rewritten and replaced and honestly, I think you have to be comfortable with that when you are a wiki editor. I feel pretty comfortable with it. It seems unfair that this being the first article I've created is held against me.
"One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board." I will be the first to admit that I'm not familiar with how this all works. I've never had to deal with this kind of behaviour from another editor before, so I am learning how this system works as I go. I didn't know that it wasn't allowed to post in two places at once, and when I opened this complaint here I added a link to the dispute topic to let people know, hoping that someone more experienced would take the appropriate action. I note that a volunteer kindly closed the dispute topic pending the closure of this one, which I'm grateful for!
"This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board." With respect, that's not something for you to decide. I still feel like you have been aggressive and mean to me, and I'm hoping that some support here can help resolve this matter. I would just like to improve the article in peace, without someone rolling back my edits and then threatening me with punishment even when I supply evidence that my edits are in line with Wikipedia policy.
The Not Notable tag is probably not that big of a deal - the draft that was moved to mainspace was moved there because someone decided it was notable, so I don't feel that removing the Not Notable tag was in error. But I note that Antonioatrylia is focusing on this particular template, when I am more focused on other things they did. One of them being that they kept putting the Undue template on the page when other editors of the page were in agreement that it didn't apply even after Antonioatrylia had explained their reasoning. And then warning me for "edit war" behaviour, which I don't feel I've done - and when they say that they will keep putting the template back even though no one agrees with them, edit warfare is something that would describe their intended actions. If other experienced and knowledgable parties back up the decision to tag the page with UNDUE, I would be fine with that - but the opposite has happened.
I'm grateful to User:Funcrunch for backing me up here. I agree with them when they say "My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary." I would like to assume good faith, but after repeated aggressive moves I was sort of forced to the conclusion that Antonioatrylia is taking things personally, ignoring me when it suits them, and being mean. Whether or not they're doing it deliberately or they're unaware I don't know, but I don't think I'm misinterpreting this situation. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Your behavior here Cassolot has been quite poor, in that you on miltiple times throughout your report have mistated that I removed the twitter reference because it was a primary reference. Please provide a diff of me saying that. What I did say in my edit summary was that I was removing a reference to an unreliable website, and it was an archive of a twitter post that would be considered as self published. You call a removal of a reference to an unreliable website agressive and mean? You need to not take things so personal. I put the undue template back one time, not plural times and only after a talk page discussion. The two editors dicussing it besides me were you and Funcrunch, who I explained in the posting above are both possibly putting forward an agenda that keeps both of them from editing neutrally. They both possibly have a bias. Other editors need to assess the article who have no bias, so the article may be fixed and put to a neutral point of view as is required at Wikipedia. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's the diff where you said the Twitter source was unacceptable because it's self-published. But to be clear, it's not the individual details of the dispute that I'm picking over here. It's the way that I'm feeling picked on, like you're trying to push me around, you're being rude and threatening, etc. You've threatened me with punishment over an edit war that hasn't happened while insisting that you will keep undoing an edit that only you object to, you've berated me and another editor over not having good faith, and you're continuing to chide me like I'm a child even now. It's really unpleasant. I would probably just give up and leave Wikipedia, but I'm passionate about the site and interested in the subjects of the articles I edit so I'm trying to go through the proper channels to resolve this optimally, you know? Anyway, I will pause now and await input from an admin. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment You have provided a diff that does not show that I said Twitter is a primary source. Look back in the thread. When challenged you could not provide it. So you have repeatedly misrepresented what I said, most probably to try and make me look bad. Then also you change the words in your last paragraph to self published insteasd of primary sources. That right there is you being deceptive. Why would you change the sentence, because there is no diff where I said that a twitter reference is a primary source. The diff you provide says exactly what I said that I had said. That seems to be a fail on your part and very deceptive to say the least. You, Cassotol are unpleasent to deal with. Your actions of possibly pushing an agenda and being biased makes it difficult to edit the article effectively to maintain a neutral tone. I have cut back on editing because you haveruined my enjoyment on editing wikipedia. You continuosly misrepresent what I say to try to accuse me of for instance. We had a talk page discussion where I said I was putting the undue tag back on the article. You surely, right away put the disputed references back in the article. I reverted back to the discussed version, and sent you a message warning you against edit warring. I or no one else threatened you. You should really strike that. And btw, your co- editor Funcrunch who is also possibly biased and working to put forth an agenda, reverted my change to make the section header neutral. I hope that you are aware that since you opened this thread that your behavior and actions are put under the same scrutiny as mine. It is possible that you could receive sanctions for your deceptive practice here. When you were unable to provide the diff where I said twitter was a primary source, you changed the language of your statement to match what I had actually said. I also feel like I am ready to leave wikipedia after this unpleasant incident with you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that an administrator or similar hasn't responded. So I guess I am posting to make sure this section doesn't get archived! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, editing to make sure this section isn't archived. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No one will engage that level of text walling. You should have really done a better job summarising. I suggest this be archived and you both take it to DRN where you can, hopefully, find a way to combine the best of both versions. I will be tagging this extremely lengthy report as (for our purposes) resolved soon. El_C 00:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C: I didn't realise! I thought it was important to include all the details so that an admin could make a good decision. I'll save the contents of this discussion elsewhere and try to submit a summary. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 10:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no word limit to ANI like there is to AE, but basically, you can see how lengthy textwalls tend to simply get ignored. The only reason I'm even here, answering this report, is because Antonioatrylia randomly picked me, soliciting my help on my user talk page. Sure, feel free to summarize, but intuitively, it feels like a content dispute, which would make this the wrong venue. I still think you two should try to find a way to combine both versions. El_C 10:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C: Just weighing in briefly: As I posted upthread, from my perspective conduct is more at issue than content here. Please don't be too hard on Cassolotl; while not new to Wikipedia, they are new to dispute resolution, and when asking for advice on the article talk page, I suggested DRN to them initially. But I then said that conduct issues would not be handled there, so ANI might be a better venue. Funcrunch (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Though taking this to ANI may have been worth a try, it now appears that no admin is likely to take any action on what seems to be a content dispute. This thread ought to be closed. My suggestion is that particular questions about primary sources could be taken to WP:RSN. In particular, drawing any conclusions from anything posted on Vimeo risks being discouraged at RSN. The most practical direction to take this is to improve the sourcing up to the standards of similar articles and then see if we have the appropriate amount of coverage for this person, given what the sources say about them. It seems to me they are notable enough to have an article but that if weak or self-published sources are dropped (especially about upcoming projects that don't satisfy WP:CRYSTAL) than a somewhat shorter article might result. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel like my intention here is being missed so I just want to make it very clear - my dispute is not over content and what should and should not be included, but about Antonioatrylia's conduct. They have been rude, aggressive and threatening towards me. But I can't describe how without mentioning the content disputes, which are a separate issue! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 11:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, this report has too much text and not enough diffs. Unless you're able to demonstrate misconduct briefly, I am not that inclined to involve myself, sorry. El_C 12:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly a content dispute which I said in my first response to this thread. Cassolotl has called my removal of references to unreliable websites rude and agressive. I call it improving the encyclopedia. I do it every day on many different articles. After they put back disputed references into the article despite a talk page discussion going on, I warned them with an approved template against edit warring. For that I have repeatedly throughout this thread been wrongly accused of threatening Cassolotl. As I said before in this thread those accusations of me threatening them need to be struck. They take things way too personal. The next time they accuse me of threatening them by placing a template on their user talk page, I will be reporting that as a personal attack. Antonioatrylia (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jvm21[edit]

This user systematically violates WP:NMOTORSPORT, creating the articles about drivers who have only competed in the F4 Championship or even karting drivers. Now he recreates an article about a driver who is not notable and was deleted two weeks before. Please somebody reason him, if it is possible. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I've deleted the article per G4. Can it be made clearer in NMOTORSPORT which series of racing are relevant, and which not? F4 clearly isn't, but is F3, for example? Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
According to WP:MOTOR consensus, the driver who have contested only in national F3 (British, Japanese) is not notable. European F3/Formula 3 Euro Series level driver is notable. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Well there's been no improvement with this editor since their last mention here. Careful @Corvus tristis:, you may get a reply like this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts:, I think that after this, I'm ready for anything from the user. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
He def. doesn't like interacting with anyone, as this last comment shows. Clear cut case of WP:NOTHERE if there ever was one. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
So what's the outcome of this? Will an admin at least drop a note on their talkpage about the multiple concerns raised about this user's conduct and editing? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attacks[edit]

User User:KazekageTR has made radical changes on Turkish War of Independence without sources or gaining any support from the talk page. Naturally, I reverted his/her edits, yet he/she was constant without even providing any edit summaries. This user even insulted me and made personal attacks here on my personal talk page. I think this user will continue doing this and not sure what to make of this. (N0n3up (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC))

That is not a personal attack... --Tarage (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@N0n3up: Well, you really did the exact same to him.... —JJBers 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
User:JJBers and Tarage, considering you guys haven't made as much contributions to Wikipedia nor have been around long enough as I have, not to mention neither of you are even admins, I'll make it clear to first look at the edits in the talk page and article in topic before jumping to conclusions. KazekageTR made long and very extreme changes without even providing a single source nor gaining consensus for his changes. Since I opposed, he/she comes to my talk page and drops F-bomb on my talk page. That's not what I call a productive behavior and something I would never dream of doing. If someone makes radical changes like he/she did, you first discuss and or present sources to back your claim, until then, the article should stay the way it was in its original form. (N0n3up (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
@N0n3up: this is why... —JJBers 01:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
User:JJBers The only thing I see is a concerned Wikipedian telling the editor stop making crazy arbitrary edits and to gain consensus. with capital letters to make the post more noticeable since KazekageTR didn't notice my first post, nothing wrong with that. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm waiting for a more authoritative figure whose made as much contributions to Wikipedia and have been around long enough or longer than I have. (N0n3up (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
@N0n3up: That's still uncivil to just go to someone's talkpage and "scream" at them, and calling them a vandal. —JJBers 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
User:JJBers and Tarage. Well, he/she DID vandalize the article since he/she kept adding unsourced content without consensus after been told not to, while cursing at other's talk page. You seem to not know what you're even talking about. In case you didn't notice, this is ANI, "A" as in Admin, something you're not. I think I'm wasting precious time with two interloper who didn't contribute nor has been in Wikipedia for as long as I have, bye. (N0n3up (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
@N0n3up: Please read WP:AGF before commenting anything else on this. —JJBers 01:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@N0n3up: This is vandalism. This might have problems but it is not vandalism. Don't misuse Wikipedia behavior policy. Further, all-caps comments and edit summaries are strongly discouraged at WP:SHOUT. Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND. Before you open an ANI complaint, be sure your own hands are quite a bit cleaner than they are in this situation. And make sure you have followed dispute resolution guidance at WP:DR. ―Mandruss  01:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Although not vandalism, this user did constantly put radical unsourced info without consensus, not to mention that this user used the F-word on my talk page. I simply restored the page to its original form, I tried to do the right thing. As for mines, I just knew about the all-caps rule and other once you told me, my bad for the misdemeanor. (N0n3up (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
Do not tell me what to do based on edit count. You can make millions of edits and still be wrong. And you are wrong N0n3up. It was not a personal attack. --Tarage (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Tarage What are you still doing here? You and JJBers straight up walked into this discussion for Admins, not new editors who feel like posting on ANI reserved for admins. And yes, it was personal attack, this user used the F-bomb in my page and was inconsiderate and brash. And the fact that you tried to ping my name but got JJBers name instead really makes me wonder your purpose here, so it's best if you get lost, I'm waiting for Admins, not randomers. (N0n3up (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
@N0n3up: There was no personal attack, you and the other editor acted uncivil, you violated SHOUT, and he was uncivil about it. And this isn't only for admins, and your OP is just a waste of administrator resources at best. —JJBers 15:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) N0n3up, this page is not "reserved for admins". Non-admins and "randomers" can and will weigh in as well (and before you go through the trouble of checking: I've been editing here almost thrice as long as you have, making over six times as many edits to mainspace as you have, but such comparisons are really neither here nor there, and certainly shouldn't be used as an argument to dismiss feedback from others). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do right now is warn both KazekageTR and N0n3up to stop being uncivil, and try to let them talk it out in the talk page of the article the edit warring happened. And then just simply close this. —JJBers 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Just noticed that, I'll just warn him not to edit war anymore. —JJBers 16:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@JJBers: One thing is posting a message on my talk page, another is adding unsourced content without consensus after a day that the 3RR rules apply. (N0n3up (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
@N0n3up: You seem to reverting at random, and citing consensuses that the edit repairs, if this continues, I'll be reporting at AN3. —JJBers 16:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@JJBers: Neither KazeKageTR nor you made your case on the talk page. I'm simply restoring the page back to it's original version. And now you because you feel vaguely offended are doing exactly that. In that case, I will as well post and ANI here against you. (N0n3up (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
@JJBers: You were saying? (N0n3up (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
@N0n3up: And what? —JJBers 16:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @N0n3up: '...this discussion for Admins, not new editors who feel like posting on ANI reserved for admins; it is not, twice over. It's for 'administrators and experienced editors,' as it says at the top. Incidentally, Tarage has been here over twelve years, so they could possibly call your insinuation of lack of tenure as an WP:ASPERSION. And since you have been involved in an edit war with the other editor (amongst others!), you can hardly blame them for joining the discussion. You should take these points as, perhaps just an encouragement to focus on any actual adminstrative issues that are required and not personalize the discussion. Many thanks, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Now this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:N0n3up reported by User:JJBers Public .28Result: .29. 17:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Honestly, at this point, I originally posted about KazekageTR adding arbitrary edits without source or talk-page argument/consensus, unwittingly making some minor mistakes along the way, but again, I'm only trying to do the right thing. (N0n3up (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Can we just close this at this point, this is going almost nowhere. —JJBers 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Why don't we talk about how JJBers is arbitrarily adding unsourced unsupported content on Turkish War of Independence without providing a single argument not even taking it to the talk page? As said "here" for a trouble editor. (N0n3up (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
JJBers didn't add anything, they reverted you. At this point, one wonders if you have a particular fondness for cyclically aerodynamic fibrous cellulose. Take my advice and let it go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
User:MjolnirPants No, KazekageTR added new unsupported contents, so I reverted to longstanding original. Now JJBers is reverting me to the same version of KazekageTR's unsupported content. Get your facts straight. (N0n3up (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
One wonders no more. One is quite sure of it, at this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a fine thing to say. (N0n3up (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
On the same point, I'm waiting for an apology from you for your personal attack against me. --Tarage (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a mature thing to say. (N0n3up (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC))
Yes, it is actually. I've been completely mature this entire time. I explained to you that what you thought was a personal attack was not one, and then you proceeded to attack me. Heck, you've attacked every single person who responded. Now, it appears you have completely run out of arguments all together and are now just saying statements. I hope someone closes this section before you get a block for personal attacks. Ironic. --Tarage (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You have done nothing but concentrate on editors and not the topic in hand as a matter of fact. So if I were you I wouldn't be too confident. And considering you have taken this much time to write that post, seems you got nothing to do at the moment. I think I've wasted my time. (N0n3up (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC))
Tell me, does ANY editor agree with you? I'm having trouble finding one. --Tarage (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to tell you once again, since you seem to have problems with processing or understanding certain matters. KazekageTR added new unsupported contents without , so I reverted to "longstanding original", as in the "neutral version" that the article was "before the conflict". And if you're referring to JJBers wanting KazekageTR because whatever reason, he still didn't add sources, argumentation nor consensus to why KazekageTR's edit is on the right, he's acting on guts alone. Until then, the neutral version needs to be in place. WP:BOLD, get it? Goodnight. (N0n3up (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC))
Last warning. Stop with the personal attacks. --Tarage (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang block[edit]

N0n3up has responded to all criticism with falsehoods and personal attacks, as seen above. All of this evinces a battleground mentality. I believe a short block may be in order until they can calm down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support I was going to give them one more chance to be civil before going this route, but yeah. Enough is enough. --Tarage (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have never made any personal attacks. Don't mix "not getting along" with "personal attacks". I originally came here to ANI for a problem regarding a user who constantly adds unsourced contents without taking it to talk page. I think User:EdJohnston said something similar regarding the edits on Turkish War of Independence. Nevertheless this ANI discussion has gotten out of proportions to the point that it seems we're diverting from the original reason for this ANI. (N0n3up (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC))
Question. Do you know what casting aspirations means? --Tarage (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
May you grow up to be a successful attorney!!! Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that anyone got your joke... M151 Jeep (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Since reading the discussion, I see that WP:BATTLEGROUNDMENTALITY is fully happening with this user, and a short cool down block is needed. —JJBers 12:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Because I have more edits than all 3 of them combined and I am the newest guy. considering you guys haven't made as much contributions to Wikipedia nor have been around long enough as I have, not to mention neither of you are even admins, AN/I is not for raising middle fingers ot your fellow editors! And here is where ancient weapons break down, whats gonna happen to Kazekage? Ok, he got shouted at, its not justification to go dropping uncivil F bombs on other's talk pages. He should at least get a template. L3X1 (distant write) 13:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
That seems fine, I was thinking of just a simple warning for civility —JJBers 16:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think blocking N0n3up would achieve anything useful at this point, and might only achieve upsetting N0n3up for whom I have sympathy. I suggest N0n3up take some of the advice and feedback included in this entire thread to heart in order to avoid future instances of shooting themselves in the foot. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Carry on: N0n3up sure has been using capital letters on most replies quite a lot, and using all caps is not polite, as this could be equivalent to screaming or shouting in anger. I would recommend to calm both sides down and part ways with all. If anything else happens, a new discussion could open up anytime in the future. Slasher405 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't like so called "cool down" blocks, as per WP:COOLDOWN: Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. If he is actually engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior then we should topic ban him from that area. -Obsidi (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. If blocking a user is going to result in more aggressive behavior, then perhaps a topic block would be better. Bmbaker88 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for N0n3up[edit]

Seeing the fact that a cool down block may not be appropriate, I propose that N0n3up be TBAN'd from any major conflict related pages. This is the fact the their block log shows that the most recent block on them is in relation to the American Revolutionary War. While the most recent edit war happened on another conflict related page. —JJBers 14:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC) (Withdrawing)

  • Support in lieu of a cooldown block per Obsidi. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Interesting thing about this is that the American Revolution incident involved between me and editor User:JuanRiley (now blocked forever). I usually don't stay in the same types of articles and usually before reverting, I take it to talk page. The reason for Reverting KazekageTR is because, again, he/she added massive unsourced information in the article without even taking it to talk page even after I told them to take it to talk. And now, some people here wanted to first block me, now ban me because per them, I wasn't nice enough for them, pretty much sums up this entire ANI. (N0n3up (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC))
I'm pretty sure that's a personal attack right there. —JJBers 20:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see your allegation (N0n3up (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC))
  • Support Something needs to happen to let him know this behavior is not acceptable. I'll take what I can get. That he's still arguing is proof that something needs to be done. --Tarage (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Me stating what exactly happened being a reason to be banned is not really a concrete reason, besides, I think it's fair to discuss before implementing such actions, Btw, the block mentioned is more than a year ago. (N0n3up (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC))
Help me out here N0n3up. Do you admit that your initial report was wrong? Do you admit that it wasn't a personal attack? Do you admit that you have made personal attacks on this page? To me? Any recognition that you have behaved poorly would help. Otherwise I can't help but think you just aren't getting it. --Tarage (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Tarage I'll be blunt. I am not a perfect user, no one is. I make mistakes from time to time. Originally I came here to deal with a problem with the best intentions but not the best form of method. I wanted to deal with one problem while you and the other one wanted to deal with my behavior, and I don't blame you, I would've done the same. Although I would do it after dealing with the problem article separately. Again, not my best ANI, at this point, I think it's best to shut it down since it's going nowhere. (N0n3up (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC))
I have yet to see any form of apology from you, or recognition that you have personally attacked me and other users. Saying "I am not perfect" is FAR from admitting fault, which is what you need to do to put this to bed. --Tarage (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I did say it. My behavior did not help with this ANI which I am to blame and should've acted differently. Matter of fact, this ANI was wrong to begin with. (N0n3up (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC))
Striking then, so long as you understand that this should not happen again. --Tarage (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
So what now? (N0n3up (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC))
Let it die. The longer you reply to it, the more it sticks around. Count your blessings it didn't go any further than it did. --Tarage (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Since the user has fully admitted it, I think a custom warning should be it. Any admins want to do this? —JJBers 13:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman Spinner editing dab pages in breach of ban[edit]

Roman Spinner (talk · contribs) was banned from editing dab pages in February 2016. They are currently involved in a messy repeated AfD for a dab page, in the course of which they substantially altered the content of the page while nominating it (for the 2nd time) for AfD.

Perhaps their ban on editing dab pages should be extended to a ban on nominating dab pages for any sort of deletion (CSD, PROD, AfD), to keep them away from this area of editing in which they seem to cause problems for the encyclopedia. Failing that, they need to be reminded that editing a dab page is editing a dab page, even if the same edit nominates it for AfD. PamD 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Blatant breach of ban, so I have blocked for 48 hours (although I don't think adding an AFD header as part of the nomination process should be considered on its own as enough to break the ban on 'editing'). I support extending the ban to nominating for deletion too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe he could look at archiving that massive talkpage when the block expires. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
For clarification, as Roman Spinner seems unclear about it too, the diff I cited in the initial post was not just adding an AfD header: he made substantial changes to the dab page in the same edit. PamD 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Roman has now explained below that the substantial edit was accidental. It illustrates the importance of checking the effect of any edit, including those which are automated or shortcuts. PamD 12:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest an amendment to the original ban. I believe it left him able to edit on disambiguation talk pages. This has led to many move discussions, and I think the ban should included deletion discussions and talk pages. One example of my concern is Katharine Blake which Roman nominated for speedy deletion three times [1] (it is a redirect to a dab), and created move discussions (see Talk:Catherine Blake and Talk:Catherine Blake (disambiguation), keeping on and on despite lack of support. Roman just doesn't seem to be able to stop himself. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well at that point you might as well make it a topic ban from all DAB pages/discussions. Very little wriggle-room there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, perhaps explicitly covering redirects to dabs too. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd support extending this ban to "Wikipedia disambiguation, broadly construed". That ought to clearly cover the relevant areas being disrupted: if it has to do with disambiguation, it's off-limits. The problem seems at the core to be WP:IDHT: when told explicitly that what they're doing is wrong, Roman Spinner ignores the advice and does the wrong thing anyway, often repeatedly. Immediately renominating Ivan Saric for deletion after being told that AFD is the wrong venue to propose a merge is just the latest example of this years-long pattern. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Boleyn, i believe you misremember the result; the linked discussion, while the initial proposal was not specific about talk pages, modified the proposal to explicitly include them, which Katie's close clearly states. That minor point aside, however, i would fully support the proposal above, to ban Roman from disambiguation altogether. Some of his work is useful, but the continued wrong actions, even after being shown they are wrong, is not helpful at all, and the project should be protected from them. Happy days, LindsayHello 11:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
LindsayH, I appreciate your kind characterization at the start of the sentence, "Some of his work is useful", however the remainder of the sentence, "but the continued wrong actions, even after being shown they are wrong, is not helpful at all, and the project should be protected from them", leaves me puzzled. Other than this unfortunate sole exception over the entire course of the year and two months from the time the dab page topic ban was imposed, what are those "continued wrong actions" that threaten Wikipedia's integrity and where/how has it been "shown that they are wrong"? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment from OP: given Roman's replies and explanation of the accidental nature of his substantial edit to a dab page, I'd be happy to see this dicussion closed now with no further action - but other editors @Boleyn: @Ivanvector: @Boing! said Zebedee: @LindsayH:might wish to continue. PamD 14:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm happy to close this now - after the comments below, I agree there's no further action needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's fine by me. To my mind, a ban from editing disambiguation pages includes a restriction from discussion processes which affect their content, such as suggesting that two dab pages be merged, but if that is not the intent behind the topic ban (I have not read that discussion in great detail) then no further sanction is required. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Personally I disagree, PamD, Ivanvector, Boing! said Zebedee, LindsayH. The original ban stated: Consensus is clear: Roman Spinner is banned from editing disambiguation pages and their associated talk pages. This includes creating new dab pages. Although no alternative mechanism to allow RS to propose changes to dab pages was discussed, I suggest that Roman Spinner create a sandbox for that purpose if he so desires. Roman has continually broken this ANI by editing their 'associated talk pages', more than a dozen times in the last month. This is not a one-off infraction of the last ANI. I suggest if Roman sees something of concern, he picks an editor to drop a line to and ask to look at it. This is a persistent violation of the original ANI - I propose simply that he is made to keep to the original decision of the original ANI. Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman Spinner's reply[edit]

After seeing the proposed draconian editing sanctions mentioned above, I must at least remind all participants in this discussion that, in the one year and two months that my topic ban has lasted, this is the first and only dab which I have edited. Thus, even the section header, "Roman Spinner editing dab pages in breach of ban", may be modified to "…has edited one page…"

Since it wasn't mentioned in the above discussion, I should also indicate, for the record, that the topic ban was solely related to length of dab page entries and did not involve any interaction infractions such as incivility, harassment, edit warring, etc. In fact, during the 11 years and 3 months that I have edited Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis, the February 2016 ANI and the related one above, are the only instances that I been taken to ANI. Also, the 48-hour ban that has just ended is the first and only time that I have been banned.

The regrettable and impulsive decision to edit the Ivan Šarić dab page stemmed from frustration at my inability to call attention regarding the need for a merger of the Ivan Saric and Ivan Šarić dabs and, after being informed that Talk:Ivan Šarić#Requested move 6 April 2017 is not the appropriate venue and, subsequently, after the deletion of the merger tags I had placed at the two dabs, I decided to try the AfD.

Even though this decision brought me the 48-hour ban and the above threats of editing sanctions, if there is at least a bright spot in this, it is that the resulting attention brought help from Ivanvector who did exactly what needed to be done. If not for that, there would still be two dab pages where one would suffice.

The only other complaint mentioned above appears to be related to my earlier nomination of Catherine Blake which seems an odd choice to bring up as an example since Boleyn was the first editor at that discussion who offered to support a variant of my nomination. My proposals at those nominations also had some additional support and there was no suggestion of any wrongdoing or inappropriateness on my part.

Taking a wider view, a single-page violation of the topic ban over a period of 14 months, with the violation (insertion of AfD template) not even related to the reason for the ban (length of dab page entries) should not bring forth threats of a much-wider editing ban in areas (nominations, voting, discussions) where I may be able to contribute. Those areas are completely unrelated to the very-narrowly formulated ban and no arguments above specify why, in addition to the 48-hour ban, I should be further sanctioned in such a harsh manner. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the above The diff I cited in the initial post here was not just "insertion of AfD template": you substantially altered the dab page at the same time. PamD 16:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In attempting to make my reply, above, as brief as possible while including all the key elements, I omitted an explanation relating to your lead paragraph mention that I "substantially altered the content" of the dab page. As I previously indicated, I made no edits to the content of the Ivan Šarić dab page and the addition of the AfD template represented the sole change I made there. Unfortunately, however, instead of adding the AfD template manually at 19:05, 23 April 2017, I took the shortcut of clicking on my earlier edit of 05:27, 23 April 2017 without realizing that in between those two timestamps, three edits had already been made to the page. Thus, I accidentally restored the page to its 05:27, 23 April 2017 form and did not know that it also automatically resulted in those changes until you pointed it out. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah. That illustrates the importance of checking the effect of any edits one does, especially using any sort of automation or "shortcut". That substantial edit of yours, accidental as it may have been, was the main thing which triggered this whole thread. PamD 12:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Response from another editor

Just looking at your edits for the last 3 weeks, I saw 13 separate bits of editing around dabs from you: 2 AfDs and 11 move proposals which involved moving dabs - There was the proposed move of 7 dabs at Talk:Kalinin, Talk:Pamela Lee (disambiguation), Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Talk:Dennis Johnson (disambiguation), Talk:Don Mason (baseball). Of the 13, 12 were closed as a straight no or no consensus. I warned you some time ago that you were breaching the ban, but you replied that you were allowed to when it came to these types of discussions and I took that at face value without re-reading the ANI.

I would also say that the behaviour that led to the last ANI was not so much the overlengthy entries, but that you just wouldn't listen, over a period of years. Your response gives me no indication that there has been a change. Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I participated at the Talk:Ivan Šarić RM, and I agree that Roman messed the followup badly – instead of just redirecting one dab to the other (a routine action that emerged from the discussion, and that just nobody took upon themselves to execute), he opened no less than two consecutive AfDs. Still, I think the complete topic ban on dab pages is a bit of overkill. Those RM proposals were all within reason, and the last two were closed in favor of his proposed move, while the Talk:Kalinin one was rejected largely on procedural grounds (that mass nomination was inappropriate). I am not aware of history of his topic ban. No such user (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for mentioning the RM proposals. As for the Ivan Šarić AfD, I did indeed mess up badly on that one and I apologize to all participants here for having to spend time discussing it as a result. In my frustration at being prevented by the topic ban from merging the Ivan Saric and Ivan Šarić dab as was ultimately done so quickly and easily by Ivanvector, I took the unwise and rash step of re-adding the AfD template, instead of the wise step of posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation and asking other Wikipedians for help in unifying the two dabs.
However, I would like to assure participants that such rashness is very atypical of me and represents a nearly unique occurrence. In my entire 11 years and 3 months on Wikipedia, I have never engaged in edit warring, 3RR or incivility and certainly have no pattern of any such behavior. The topic ban (with length of dab entries as the sole reason) has already lasted a year and two months and this single unfortunate incident should not be used as a reason for expanding the ban and barring me from editing in ever-wider swaths of Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Account dating to 2006 with never a talk page comment[edit]

So far as I can see Tobibln (talk · contribs) with 34115 edits since: 2006-07-03 has never replied to complaints etc on their talk page or used an article talk page, although I haven't checked all 65 pages of contribution. And there is a long list of queries, complaints, etc. dating back to 2006. Any suggestions? Doug Weller talk 12:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that this has been brought up before. The user appears to have made a grand total of 4 communications with other editors: [2], [3], [4], [5] with the latest being 8 years ago. Sam Walton (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
[6]. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Tob blanked his userpage yesterday, and he seems to be doing better, only 7 edits in 2014, 11 edits in 2015 and 3 warnings in 2016. Half of this year's warnings are simple bot notices. I think we ought to do him a favor and archive his page for him, the first 75K bytes is up to 2011, so it would leave enough warning to show that perhaps not all is well. L3X1 (distant write) 13:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, his last 500 contribs date back 18 months to Dec 15, and 224 of them are still current. So he seem to be an ok editor, even if he doesn't respond on his talk page. The next thousand edits of his takes us back to dec 14, and seem to be improvments on aerospace related pages. L3X1 (distant write) 13:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, not a big deal, but my warning about linking dates was the 3rd. And User:HighInBC suggested linking to the old thread, so they should be told about this. Although they haven't been around for 3 weeks. Pinging User:Jetstreamer also who brought the complaint. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Genre warring[edit]

@Jjbrown5: is genre warring on Pink Floyd related articles, Mainly here - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that Jjbrown5 is suddenly active after the recent administrator actions related to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iloveartrock and WP:ANI#Rangeblock needed for long-term Pink Floyd vandal. I am suspicious of this new activity in a dormant account, especially when many of the targeted articles have been protected against the rash of disruptive IPs, and a rangeblock is soon to be applied. Jjbrown5 has been doing the same genre warring activity as the disruptive IPs.[7][8] Conveniently, the Jjbrown5 account will be able to edit through protection. I would not be suprised to find that this account was a sock. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Iran or Persia[edit]

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) recently removed Category:6th-century BC Persian people in favor of Category:6th-century BC Iranian people on a lot of articles, while making that category a soft-redirect. I reverted part of them (tried to catch as many as I could), and then the editor posted on my talkpage,[9] to which I replied,[10] and at the same time started an edit war at Category:6th-century BC Iranian people,[11][12], ignoring my call to discuss first and claiming that this is "basically 3rd grade stuff". Please explain to this editor that he must discuss such mass edits before implementing them, or at least after he has been called to discuss. User notified on talkapge,[13] but notification removed[14] with claim "Making an issue out of nothing, absolutely silly. I am not going to take part in that.", so not responsive. Instead he prefers to remind me of my "recent" block for edit warring.[15] Debresser (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically Debresser here is making an huge issue out of nothing. I already said my stuff here [16]. I am honestly not interested to take part in something that shouldn't be a problem - also, I find it funny how he simply started mass-revert crusade and now is basically avoiding to discuss with me about his actions. With all due respect, he should talk to me about it, not hide behind the users here. And yes, it is important to note that he has been recently blocked due to edit-warring.
"but notification removed with claim "Making an issue out of nothing, absolutely silly. I am not going to take part in that.", so not responsive. Instead he prefers to remind me of my "recent" block for edit warring."
Well that's clearly wrong, since I wrote other stuff to you as well actually regarding the issue, which you simply chose to ignore. If you're gonna mass-revert several articles, then you should also take the responsibilty and discuss with the user about it. Every normal person would get frustrated by that, obviously. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not avoiding discussion. To the contrary, I called on you to start a discussion instead of edit warring, and you have not done so. you even started to edit war. Please understand that posting on my talkpage is not "discussing". Discussions should be posted at the appropriate places, like WP:IRAN, WP:HISTORY, not on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
In all honesty, that's not really a good excuse. You still had time to respond to me, which you chose not to. Take responsibility for something you have done, that's all I am going to say. Also, if you're that of a constructive user, you wouldn't have started a mass-revert crusade, but would have written to me first, and asked why I did those edits. Not to mention I even gave a proper, non-biased justification for my edits. Also, you might wanna take a look here [17]. You brought this issue up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents way too early, and should have sit down and talked with me first. Furthermore, regarding me 'starting a edit-war' [18], I only corrected a huge error, it was a no-brainer to me tbh - you might wanna take a look here [19] [20]; This is why you write to the talk page of the user about a topic he is widely more knowledgeable about before making 11 reverts. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I left you an explanation in an edit summary, which was reason for you to undo it. I responded to your message on my talkpage, and still you reverted. So I had no choice but to take you here, which - wonder, oh wonder - instantly had the desired effect of stopping you. Now, please discuss this somewhere, post a link to the discussion here, and I am sure admins will close this soon enough as "requiring no action". Debresser (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I am sorry I didn't look at every edit summary of your 11 reverts which made my notification box explode. That's what talk pages are for mate. Also, you may have responded on your talk page, but you still avoided my justification for doing those edits, and is still doing so. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You really don't seem to get it. This is not the place for a content dispute. For that, please open a proper discussion, either on one of those WikiProjects or at WP:CFD. This page is for the behavioral issue. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Couldn't care less, I just am explaining my actions. Nope, not going to post on WikiProjects or at WP.CFD, but in the talk page of the category itself (WP:DISCUSSFAIL). --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
HistoryofIran's contributions don't look to encouraging. His conduct with other users isn't too encouraging either, in case your'e wondering what that text is, he's saying :

"LouisAragon Aleykum Salam! I write my own history with the culture of other nations? You're donkeys, you Persians, no time to write history! I am writing to you to in order to stop stealing the history of the Turks, you bastards. !!"
struck out as incorrect, this was done by another user,not History of Iran

This recent comment to Debresser wasn't all that great either. He looks to have recieved a block (admittedly back in 2016 (May 2016) ) for edit warning in a Persian topic, and there are a few more besides this one, further back, and he looks like he's heading back into that territory again. I'm thinking possibly a TBAN for him might be forthcoming.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
KoshVorlon: You're completely right, my contributions [21] [22][23] don't look encouraging at all :). Besides, that text wasn't written by me, but by this guy, [24] who has a history of insulting people in another language, hence why he got banned [25]. You're basically falsely accusing me of saying something I literally didn't say. Why would I insult my own ethnicity? Also, where do you see that I am 'heading back into that territory' by looking at my contributions besides the issue with Debresser [26]? Since when did expanding articles become disruptive? I will admit that I could have been more gentle when writing to Debresser, but I wasn't outright hostile towards him, nor did I insult him or anything like that. It's quite normal to get frustrated when a person makes 11 reverts and then refuses to discuss about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@KoshVorlon: that "comment", which you highlighted here, was made by an indeffed user named "Rufet Turkmen",[27] not user HistoryofIran. What you just did, was copying the translation I added on admin Ymblanter's talk page (2 April 2017), word for word verbatim,[28] and presenting it right here as if they are HistoryofIran's words. Please strike your accussation once you read this. Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
And what's more interesing about this whole "case", is that user "Debresser" never had an actual dialogue about the matter on his talk page, nor on the talk page of any of the articles in question (not counting the accusation of vandalism straight off the bat). Sure, "HistoryofIran" ignored BRD (which isn't even a guideline/policy), but its "Debresser" who found his way to this drama board pretty much right away. That much said about "proper editing". - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, FYI, all these 5th/6th-centuries BC Persian people categories were made by an user who has a long history of tendentious editing, and who was forcefully placed under a mentor until the recent past.[29][30] I don't blame HistoryofIran, who has single handedly done most work on Iranian-related aticles for years, for challenging them. Yet user Debresser, who, as far as I can see, has barely ever made any content edits to Iranian-related articles, was there swiftly to report HistoryofIran, to a drama board. Go figure. Overhasty attempt to get rid of someone, thats what this is all about IMHO. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:ANI is not a "drama board", but is the place where editors go when they have to deal with edit warriors who are not willing to discuss. The fact that I don't edit Iranian-related articles that much (just a few), has nothing to do with this. Nobody owns any section of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Well you're making it like a drama board, this shouldn't have been an issue from the start. Hmmm, who is the edit warrior, me, or the person who did over 11 reverts? Who is not willing to discuss, me, or the person who has time to revert/edit and write here, whilst still not responding to my justifcation (most likely because you don't have anything proper to say tbh). It was me who wanted to discuss from the start, whilst you ignored me and then brought this issue to this board. Also, did I ever accuse you randomly of vandalism? No? Did you do that to me? Yes? Well I think we've found out who the disruptive editor is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

HoI is a good editor and he does good contributions to Iranian-related articles. However, I don't understand why he removed that category from several Achaemenid articles like Cyrus the Great[31]? Weren't Cyrus and Achaemenids Persian? Is that category unnecessary? Why? --Wario-Man (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I did that because that category gives limited options compared to the Category:6th-century BC Iranian people. A lot of Iranians weren't Persians (but according to Debresser, it seems that all Iranians are Persian [32], which is heavily incorrect ofc). A good example is Mandane of Media, who was of Iranian Median descent, but yet Debresser reverted my edit on that article as well, which clearly shows that he didn't even take a proper look at the articles he reverted, but reverted for the sake of reverting, imho. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In view of the fact that HistoryofIran still tries to make the point that I am the problematic editor, which he explains with various accusations that have no leg to stand on, despite the fact that he is the editor who unilaterally decided to make tens of undiscussed changes related to categorization of a group of articles, refused to discuss them when he was reverted and asked to discuss, and still has not opened a discussion about them, I propose that this editor be temporarily (blocked or) topic banned, till such time as he shows he understands the error of his ways as well as his willingness to discuss these edits and similar edits in the future. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure I was the one that wanted to discuss in the first place [33] - it was your own choice to not reply to me, hence you are the one that refused to discuss, not me. Of course I haven't opened a discussion about it when there's an ongoing issue here, which shouldn't have been an issue in the first place if you chose to reply to me instead avoiding my argument for those edits. Obviously you still have time to answer back, so don't make it look like I am the one refusing to talk. Also, pretty sure my 'accusations' are pretty solid, especially the Mandane of Media part. Heck, my reason for those edits are literally up above, you're welcome to answer back. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think this sounds more like a content dispute with the categories. —JJBers 17:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with JJBers. This is more of a content dispute concerning categories and should be discussed on article talk pages. Instead of Debresser making a demand for discussion on the talk page, why have they not started a discussion? This discussion should be closed and both Debresser and HistoryofIran should be expected to discuss this out on the appropriate article talk page(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely agree - I'll create a section on the talk page of Category:6th-century BC Persian people right after this discussion has been closed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Why only "after" this discussion is closed? I'd say that is additional proof of your bad faith. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
How is that proof somehow? I just think it would be more suitable that way, you might want to calm down. Fine, I'll create a discussion when I am home, where I'll be eagerly waiting for your response.
I too think that the category talkpage is not the optimal place for such a discussion. There exists WP:CFD and Template:Cfm for proposing category merges. One of the reasons is that category talkpages are usually not visited by many editors. Unfortunately, HistoryofIran is not inclined to take any good advice from me. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
"Good advice" that's subjective. Sounds more like a way for you to avoid taking part in this issue further imho.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofIran (talkcontribs)
You really don't get it. Poor you. I came here to report a behavioral issue. I do not have to discuss any content issue with you. In addition, you refuse for the third day now to open a discussion about it, insisting without any basis in policy or custom, that you want this discussion closed first. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Poor you (speaking in your language now), you should have thought about that before making 11 swift reverts without any form for discussion, you're no saint yourself. Don't assume you're the boss of Wikipedia. I haven't 'refused' anything, don't put false words in my mouth, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I started a thread on Category talk:6th-century BC Persian people about this. —JJBers 15:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks JJBers, I'll get to it right away. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Debresser, you are the one that started this ANI thread, and you should be the one that takes it (and should have taken it in the first place) to WP:CFD. Please do that, so this unnecessary and ill-placed content dispute thread can be closed here. Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

This is part of an editorial war already reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dapi89 reported by User:K.e.coffman¨ I suppose its better if all matters are resolved in one forum. Otherwise, I think its rather a case of WP:OWN on behalf of User:Dapi89, proven by such statements by him as: Editors opinions count for nothing and I will do as I please. There are three editors who agrees. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Dishonest. I said I will do as I please on my talk page, not the article. Also, our collecrive opinions dont matter, its the sources that should prevail. That is the point i made quite clearly. Please dont lie. Dapi89 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Dapi89:, you are required to notify users when starting a discussion about them, see the big orange edit notice at the top of the edit page. I have notified them both for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Somehow I feel I am involved. I did not edit the article, but contributed on the talk page. I notice that Dapi89 has voiced the first accusation of tag teaming on 4 April 2017.[34] Since then the editor has made no attempt of WP:DR, but confined him/herself to short comments speaking of a possible "destruction" of the article that he/she has to prevent. Thus the editor seems to perceive anyone who is not with him as being against him.(from WP:AN3RR). The editor routinely resorts to accusations. From today [35]--Assayer (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
For the administrator who look into this case: Wikipedia editor Creuzbourg (person who started to mass remove material on the Rudel page) tagged the article as containing excessive intricate details and contains unreliable sources even though is a GA article that requires to meet the comprehensiveness criteria and is throughly reviewed, has also tagged with the same tags these following pages:
→ FA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Kesselring&type=revision&diff=777161722&oldid=776657232
→ FA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Mölders&type=revision&diff=777174753&oldid=776113712
→ GA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Galland&type=revision&diff=777163959&oldid=776113388
→ GA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erich_Hartmann&type=revision&diff=777160461&oldid=777010274
I don't believe Creuzbourg editing of these articles is being done in good faith, he acts as if he have consensus for tagging and removal of sourced material on these Featured Articles and Good Articles. In other words, from my observations he is biased and agend-driven editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe that Featured Articles and Good Articles are beyond criticism. I am not driven by any agenda. I do not normally write about WW2 German military history or biography, but tried to improve an article that I found faulty. I tagged it and started a discussion on the discussion pages. I did not want to do, what most WP-editors do, i.e. just leave a tag and run; however the tag was immediately removed, the discussion thwarted. I am immensely disappointed with Wikipedia that such disruptive behavior can go on and on and on, and extremely tired of the whole thing. I am perfectly willing to be banned from editing Rudel or any of above articles, as long as Dapi89 also will be banned. The articles are faulty, and the tags should not be removed before consensus is reached. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Update and request: Dapi89 has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring (in a conflict which is relevant to their OP complaint of tag teaming). They ought really to be able to comment here without any cumbersome please-move-this-to-ANI system, so I've offered to unblock on condition that they edit nothing other than this ANI thread for as long as the block would have lasted. They're not online and I have to go out now. If they agree to the condition, I'd appreciate it if any passing admin would kindly unblock, with a note about conditions in the log. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC).
Response by Dapi89: Then no, on principle. I'll agree to leave the Rudel page alone for 72 hours, if the same rule is also applied to the tag team operating there . Dapi89 12:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC) (Diff). Assayer (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Assayer. So much for that, then; he'll remain blocked, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC).

Boomerang proposal: 30-day topic ban for User:Dapi89[edit]

  • WP:BOOMERANG: the reporting editor has a long pattern of uncivility and ad hominem arguments. Just today, at the WP:3RRN, he suggested that he can also provide evidence of Coffman of violating the 3RR rule on many occasions (diff). When I invited him to file such a report, he responded with On reflection, this is a case of Wikipedia:Tag team without providing any proof for this claim: diff. Substantiation is lacking from this report as well, which I consider frivolous & without merit.
This has been an-going pattern with the editor, please see some of the edit summaries by Dapi89 from the Rudel article as well as others:
This pattern of behaviour is disruptive and a topic ban from Luftwaffe / WWII articles (perhaps starting at 30 days, same duration as floated at the 3RRN) may be in order: diff from 3RRN. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Although this has many appearances of a content dispute, I agree with @K.e.coffman: that @Dapi89:'s POV edits and source disputes are problematic. This user has every appearance of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to preserving "their" sources and interpretations. They frequently accuse "opposing" editors of lying, rambling, dissembling, and incompetence. Their block log shows 6 blocks for disruptive editing, personal attacks, and/or harassment. This is behavior that has persisted and show no signs of abatement after these blocks. Examples just since their last block include, but are certainly not limited to (in no particular order):
Dapi89 clearly has an issue with K.e.coffman and seems incapable of participating in any discussion of WWII topics, especially ones in which the latter is involved, without resorting to accusations of bias and incivility. Equally clearly, there needs to be some resolution of these issues. Since I am also tangentally involved, I refrain from suggesting any specific remedies but trust to the evaluations of the folks here. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've attempted to discuss issues with the editor previously, but it was not successful; see: User_talk:Dapi89#Edit summaries. I've also attempted to engage the user in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (people)#Current consensus, but apart from an erroneous claim, no dialog was offered. Another contributor pointed out the personal attacks (Talk page), but the response was: I'm not going to rephrase. There is a history of disruption with this editor and I will make the point in which ever way I like and the standard ad hominem about the suspect agendas of arch-polemicists. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- despite being warned about a potential block and / or while blocked, User:Dapi89 has continued to cast aspersions and belittle other editors, as in
  • cant seem to distinguish the wood from the trees (diff);
  • it appears as if you have taken sides (diff);
  • Dishonest. (...) Please dont lie (diff).
He has offered no substantiation to the claims at this ANI discussion, while insisting that there's a tag team operating at the Rudel article. I have concerns that once unblocked in the next 36 hours, the user would continue this pattern of behaviour, and I thus reiterate my topic ban proposal. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support TB Luftwaffe Length of time is immaterial to me. And an instant 24 the next time he is incivil or makes PA/aspersions.L3X1 (distant write) 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose TB Luftwaffe This argument between DAPI and 2 other editors seems to have degenerated on all sides, and I object to banning a professional historian who specializes in aerial warfare. auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not just two other editors, as documented above. While this particular incident started with Dapi89's accusation of tag-teaming against two editors, but his bad-faith accusations over many, many WWII content disputes are not limited by target. The statement "degenerated on all sides" is also an apparent mis-interpretation of events. In this dispute, as in others involving Dapi89, his interlocutors have refrained from the personal attacks and incivility that are clear in his own statements. As to the professional historian charge, even professionals are expected to edit by consensus and good sources. Every time Dapi89's sources are challenged he becomes very, well, unprofessional. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
  • not sure who posted this, but I will say that the whole discussion is out of control. I'm more likely to support an "all fighters to their corners" approach to give everyone a breather. Including those of us who are trying to keep up with the opus-like volume of material posted on why such and such is bad, or good, or problematic. auntieruth (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You're correct, I missed adding my sig. Apologies and added now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The allegations of incessant bickering (diff) & the discussion having degenerated on all sides are without merit. @Auntieruth55: please provide diffs to substantiate this statement; alternatively, please strike it. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I refer you to your own posts. This demonstrates incessant bickering. Every week I'm reviewing something that you're editing; some of your material is very good, especially on the Russian and Ukrainian fronts.--I like it very much. As for the "diffs", I don't have time. Papers to grade, exams to write, articles to edit, reviews to do. Anyone looking at the history of the pages in question can see it. As for degenerating, the name calling -- whoever does it-- needs to stop. The bickering is not helpful, No one has time for it, and I wish it would stop. auntieruth (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Auntieruth, I understand you may well have better things to do in real life than to provide evidence (diffs) for your accusations against K.e.coffman. But in such a case, the proper course of action is to refrain from posting those accusations. Seriously. I don't see how K.e.coffman is to be expected to answer something so unspecific as "your own posts ... demonstrate incessant bickering". Especially since uninvolved editors such as me can see K.e.coffman's posts, they're right above, and I don't see any bickering in them. Except indeed in their many quotations of bickering and intemperate remarks by Dapi89. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC).
  • As a comment, not all academic or other experts are able to properly edit WP. A professional historian obtains importance in their field by finding new data or original reinterpretations; aWP editor must do neither. An academic is expected to have a distinct personal POV, and to firmly defend their hypotheses as superior to those of other people; a WP editor must do neither. Some professional historians , especially those known for writing general textbooks, are able to write and interact in WP mode; some are not. The ones who cannot resist OWNership are usually banned from even a topic area where they are experts. Their ideas are not banned: they can still contribute by their published works, which can then be used by other editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you for clearing that up. This all goes back to a discussion of whether a specific source is considered reliable: Just, Günther (1986). Stuka Pilot Hans Ulrich Rudel. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History. ISBN 978-0-88740-252-4. Schiffer is a private, family owned publisher. They have a wide array of books. I'm just not convinced that this is an alt-right wing publisher promoting fascism. There has been a focused effort by one or two editors to limit the publications that are considered neutral for this range of articles, and I just don't understand the problem with it. I don't think it's DAPI's effort--although he/she is sometimes a bit abrupt--but I also think coffmann can be off target on these things too. I'm concerned that a series of articles that have been collectively valued and reviewed by the project are being taken apart unnecessarily. Can they use some discreet editing? Probably yes, but not on the scale that has been happening. Two of the editors involved seem to expect instant responses to their posts, and that just doesn't happen. We all of us have "real life" and cannot be expected to drop everything because they have posted a question. I do appreciate that coffmann is now (most of the time) posting questions on the talk page before massively unilaterally deleting information, or bilaterally doing so with the other editor's approval. I'm just not convinced yet that this is the right thing to do. auntieruth (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
An editor who routinely says things like: "I don't give a damn what you think," and "Your opinions are not important," and "Such an assumption is colossally stupid" is not "a bit abrupt". This minimizes and papers over the very persistent attempts by Dapi89 to bully and badger editors into acquiescing to his position. Couching this behavior in terms of the dispute over Schiffer is also inaccurate. As noted above, this behavior has involved other editors besides User:K.e.coffman and User:Creuzbourg. This is hardly behavior provoked by one content dispute. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
As can be seen on the talk page, the "conflict" evolved with a discussion about "intricate details". It was actually me who first questioned the bias of Günther Just's work on Rudel on 2 April 2017, not because of its American publisher, however, but because of Just's close personal ties to Rudel, the NPD and, later, the DVU. In short, Just is a well known journalist of the extreme right and his work is strongly biased. A little to my dismay that did not become a major issue during the ensuing debate and it was never commented upon by Creuzbourg. Instead the discussion focused upon style, intricate details and GA criteria (i.e. question of "comprehensivenes"). There is one thread on "sources". But what has been reverted by Dapi89 ever since were mainly copy edits.7 April 2017 or 25 April all the while he only minimally contributed to the discussion. --Assayer (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP[edit]

On my talk page: here by 80.195.114.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). In regards this revert sourced by this article: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/19/uk-mail-driver-unable-to-work-car-accident-charged-800-pounds. Jim1138 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is the diff you intended, right? If so, it looks like an implied legal threat to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes DanielRigal's diff is correct.
I reworded the entry on [[UK Mail] and added an additional The Guardian ref. Jim1138 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The IP does resolve to Business Post so it's from inside the organization in question, however it's very well and reliably referenced so the information being included is reasonable. Canterbury Tail talk 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Issue between User:Walter Sobchak0 and Asqueladd[edit]

User:Walter Sobchak0 blocked 1 month by CactusWriter. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 21:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Says Asqueladd: User:Walter Sobchak0 is proving to be highly unconstructive and disruptive with comments and edit-warring.

  • [36] Edit summary: Don't touch my balls (in the original Catalan)
  • [37] Keep that in mind while you go back to your night shift at the "taller de recambios" (repair workshop in Spanish), and leave this to the grownups directed at me
  • [38] People like you are to the Wikipedia what the aids virus is to the human immune system. Know your place, and leave this for the grown ups directed at User:TheOldJacobite

These comments, edit summaries and personal attacks are highly uncivil and not suitable for a collaborative project. He has been warned and blocked due to gross incivility before.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

To which I reply: this is obviously a malicious notification.

  • I've never been blocked due to uncivil behavior. Temporary blocks due to edit conflicts are dime a dozen and most of us have been through this.
  • One of the incidents mentioned by Asqueladd corresponds to an older discussion that has nothing to do with this, and was finally solved peacefully by all parts. The talk page itself proves it and can be checked by anyone. Proof of it is that nobody in that discussion came here to pull anyone's skirt or call attention on me.
  • His own talk page is full of colloquialisms similar to the one I used in Catalan, as well as signs of a rather quarrelsome demeanor. If anything, Asqueladd should be the topic of this discussion.
  • and most importantly, today's discussion was prompted by his profoundly elitist sweeping statement [39] by which he summarized all left-wing voters into a lumpen category of fans of a popular sleazy forum. Not all voters of left-wing parties read "forocoches", wear tattoos or drive taxicabs. When someone writes something like this, they pervert the entire discussion and sink it to its lowest level. Bigotry is infinitely worse than rudeness, and I'm going to tolerate none of it as long as I'm a Wiki user.

My personal opinion is that Asqueladd urgently needs to make a point by neutralizing perspectives of reality (not viewpoints, it's not the same) different from his own. The way to do this is by discussing it in the talk page rather than picking fights or maliciously cherry-picking other users' past history. I don't think this behavior should be condoned. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your assertion that you have never been blocked for incivility is contradicted by [40] and your block log. The above linked diffs show remarks that are completely unacceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
My mistake, I forgot about that incident. That being said, the rest of my arguments prevail. I don't think the Wikipedia should be a vehicle for reactionary politics or manifestations of bigotry such as the one blatantly displayed by Asqueladd. My edits to the page were pertinent, and Asqueladd edited them out on invalid grounds (Jordi Borràs may be a photo-journalist but he's still an expert in far-right politics). Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I am of course open to discuss anything in talk page. In this case how WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, and WP:UNDUE apply to [41]. But WP:BRD has a mechanism, I think. too. Walter Sobchak0 just were warned in his talk page, instead of here. And he has misunderstood my comment in his talk page, too.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
No you're not, proof of it is the way you handled our discussion from the very beginning by creating a whole umbrella of sleaze for half the population of Spain--if any English speaker is reading this, calling someone a "forocoches" fan is akin to calling them a "chav" in England or a "redneck" in North America. Your comment in my talk page leaves little room to misunderstanding and speaks for itself. WP:RS the source is an investigative journalism website, containing an interview with an expert on the topic, so it is reliable. WP:SYNTH the content was duly summarized. WP:NOR if references were given then it's not original, and WP:UNDUE is out of place since the section itself is titled "Alternative views". I didn't write this in the main ideology section. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Let's not get bogged down in the content dispute. ANI doesn't really "do" content disputes, so let's stick to the behavioral issues. I'm not familiar witht he term "forocoches" but I'm willing to take your word on it's meaning. So that's not ok, but it by no means excuses you from responsibility for the belittling remarks you have been making. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow wow wow, for the belittling remarks we BOTH have made. And the context is important. At the end of the day this is the situation:
  • Half of my contribution to the article was stating that Cs was being groomed as a partial substitute for the currently ruling PP (which is rigorously true based on their own electoral pact history as well as on the press I mentioned, e.g. [42]
  • and the other half was a relevant comment that was already properly referenced, by an expert on the subject.
Asqueladd's civil contribution to the debate, then was simply shoehorning an entire landmass of voters into a truckers' forum. Talk about belittling. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Jordi Borràs is not an expert on the topic of "Cs" (which it is not a "far right group" but an ALDE party). The above user used an interview (not a secondary source) to a photo-journalist and illustrator locally known for taking pics of far right groups giving an interview to another local media. Forocoches is a Spanish nationalist forum not a left wing one and the comments is just a (probably unnecessary remark) on the party being voted by right wing voters, but still needing quality and reliable sources (studies of sociological and political analysts) to back that up, not interviews to photo-journalists.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(edit conflict) Again, ANI is not going to help you resolve your content dispute. This is a place for dealing wth behavioral issues, and there obviously is one here. There is no context, none, in which the "leave this to the adults" remarks are even remotely acceptable. (and on that note, I have to go and probably won't be back today, hopefully another admin will step in here.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Jordi Borràs is routinely invited to speak about the groups he "takes pics at", according to your flippant statement. Routinely means a lot of times.
  • " I get you don't like the party, and I also suspect the forococheriles masses don't vote Cs because of their socio-liberal programme", Asqueladd dixit. You were either preemptively labeling me "forococheril" (hence the ensuing interchange) or you were trying to imply that the right-wing that you believe belongs to forocoches (which is debatable) doesn't vote Cs (even more debatable, and equally elitist). Either way, I don't think you and I will reach a common ground. On a side note, Beeblebrox, there has to be some form of admonishment policy against what Asqueladd just did, rescuing past conversations out of oblivion and lumping them all together to attack a user's character in order to make a (political) point. There is a reason why those past conversations didn't end up in this board, please look at them in their context and look at how the conflict was resolved. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hence, exactly what my remark means is: a right wing community may be voting Cs not because of their social-liberal programme but because of their Spanish nationalism while defending statements about voting bases and the likes need to be back-up by quality sources showing due weight. Unappropiate? Probably. Elitist? Maybe, although surely no more than [43]. I opened this thread for the administrators to deal with the pattern of gross personal attacks by you. The first diffs, which you consider just "rudeness".--Asqueladd (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
So in a nutshell, you felt protective of "your" wiki article and came here pulling the headmaster's skirt: "señorita, me ha insultado!". Big deal. The worst that can happen to me is being banned from a place that I only visit sporadically--and rather whimsically, I must say. You, on the other hand, cannot log yourself out of your own limitations. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Temporary blocks due to edit conflicts are dime a dozen and most of us have been through this Well obviously there aren't enough of them being dished out if receiving one is considered a good thing, like how in youth gangs getting nicked by the coppers shows you're a man. The worst that can happen to me is being banned from a place that I only visit sporadically--and rather whimsically, I must say. You, on the other hand, cannot log yourself out of your own limitations. Suicide by admin? L3X1 (distant write) 21:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
that expression would only make sense if I had anything to lose in account of my actions, which is not the case. I'm not earning a salary from wikipedia and my life doesn't revolve around it. Every minute invested here adds to zero input for me. More reason not to cave in under an imaginary non-existing pressure. Pinpointing someone's stupidity is not an insult, it is a fact, and I lose nothing from saying this here; and Asqueladd is an idiot. I'm sure there are more idiotic people in L'Hospitalet or Ullan Bator or Boise, Idaho, but right now he epitomizes idiocy like nobody. He was an idiot before he started editing the page on Cs, he's been an idiot while he was editing and he'll be an idiot after the page (and the party) disappear, and the only thing that's going to change is that he's going to be a bigger and flabbier idiot, and maybe have some idiot kids or kickstart an idiot project in some futile direction, or practice an idiot face 20 minutes every morning in front of the mirror, or establish an idiot NGO or maybe an idiot political party if Cs no longer exists. He's the stereotypical mouth-breathing Cs voter--such an idiot that you he excites even biological curiosity, and you have to wonder how much idiocy can fit in a single person, with the classical effete affectation and the delusions of lumpenized middle class, "no pidas a quien pidió", the kind of people who came out greeting Franco in 1939 in the streets of Barcelona while barely knowing who he was. The impertinent reactionarism that comes from a rudimentary mind. Too nihilistic to vote PP, too cowardly to vote Falange and too stupid to realize they shouldn't vote in the first place. The kind of people who voted Alessandra Mussolini in Naples back in the 90s just because she was pretty and green-eyed. There's the banality of evil and there's the banality of idiocy and we're speaking of the latter here. I walk the streets of Barcelona, past a traffic argument, someone shouts "idiot" and the thought of Asqueladd comes up, like a form of nostalgia. How are you, Asqueladd, by the way? Idiot! Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The above rant is not acceptable on any level. I have blocked User:Walter Sobchak0 for 1 month for their continued incivility and personal attacks. CactusWriter (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Good block - and Walter Sobchak0 should consider himself lucky you are so lenient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
24 hours for each of the 21 insults, and an extra 10 days for gall. CIR? L3X1 (distant write) 02:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Filter IP by location? Lots of Montevideo disruption at Carlos Gardel[edit]

Is it possible to filter IPs by location? For more than seven years, the biography Carlos Gardel has been the target of many disruptive accounts and IPs from Montevideo, Uruguay. They can't accept that their favored story about Gardel being born in Uruguay has been solidly disproved. Here's a list of the Montevideo IPs from the last four months:

If there is a way to filter Montevideo IPs who are trying to edit the article I would be happy to hear about it. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No, there isn't a feature of the mediawiki software that allows for that, at least not anything that mere admins have access to. —DoRD (talk)? 12:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It might be possible to do this with an edit filter. If you add a request at WP:EF/R someone with the relevant technical knowledge (which is not a set that includes me) should be able to say one way or the other at least. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, that might be an option I hadn't considered. —DoRD (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Lugnuts[edit]

I request that an independent admin and or the community review the recent behavior of User:Lugnuts and consider issuing a reminder about civility. I have sporadically interacted with that user in AfDs where we sometimes disagreed. I didn't think much of that and I made a friendly suggestion on his talk page, asking if he could improve an article in an area he seems interested in: [44] which he reverted with an unfriendly and offensive edit summary beat it. I asked him to cool down in a friendly fashion [45] to which he responded by reverting me with a much more inflammatory edit summary why don't you **** off my talkpage and don't come back?. He also posted to my talk page [46] where he accused me of bad-faith at AfD ("go away and make some more bad-faith AfD noms"). I have requested that he refactors or removes his comment accusing me of bad faith, a request he has ignored in the past hour or so, while being active making edits elsewhere, including in my just-started AfD [47] where he accused me again of bad faith, and out-of-blue threatened me with a topic ban. I have asked him to remove the unfriendly bad faith/topic ban comments from his post at the AfD, which he clearly ignored, having posted in said AfD without refactoring his comments ([48]). He has then proceeded to post the accusation of bad faith in yet another AfD discussion ([49]) - this was clearly after he must have become aware of my comments asking him to avoid accusing others of bad faith (a clear WP:NPA), and it is also the reason I decided to report his behavior here (because clearly asking him not to post such accusations is ineffective, or worse, encourages him to post more of them). Further, his behavior in the recent AfD where is clearly trying to derail the discussion by ignoring my question and reposting his comments verbatim is highly suggestive he is not interested in discussion anymore (consider: [50], [51], [52]). This kind of combative behavior is problematic, since it leads to WP:BATTLEGROUND problem, hence I believe we should collectively remind Lugnuts that we are supposed to edit this project in a friendly and collegial manner, and keep in mind our policies such as WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. PS. I originally intended this to be only a request for a civility reminder, but given his recent AfD edits, and since he did raise the issue of topic ban himself (WP:BOOMERANG), perhaps a week or two of imposed rest from AfDs, where he clearly cannot contribute constructively, may be worth considering. PS. I am not notifying Lugnuts on his talk page that I posted about him here, since he explicitly said he does not want me to do post there; I trust he will see the notification ping and/or someone else will leave him a courtesy notification. PPS. To avoid escalating this, I would note I am strongly against any stronger measures than civility warning / short-term AfD topic ban - the editor is making a lot of constructive edits elsewhere in the project, there is no need for any stronger remedies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You still have to notify people of ANI reports about them, even if they have requested that you stay off their talkpage. The only way you would still not be responsible for that would be if you had an IBAN with the person. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Since you say so: done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Actually, IBANs also don't except one from notifying of ANI discussions.[53] The only way an IBAN affects it is that one is not allowed open a discussion of the other user unless it is covered under BANEX. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Given your position on WP:NSPORTS ([54]), it seems to me that you are the editor making pointy comments and pointy AfDs. Perhaps it is you who should stop nominating sportspersons for AfD, and stay off of Lugnuts' talk page. I think refraining from both of those for the foreseeable future would solve this issue immediately. I recommend that this thread be closed with no action and that the OP take my advice. Softlavender (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
How does nominating two sportspeople article in that many weeks, and starting a VP discussion, makes anything here my fault? I don't post on his talk page and I have no intention on doing so - my last post there was at your insistence. If I have made any "pointy" edit or comment, please cite the diff, or otherwise please do not attempt to make the victim (me) into a villain, or turn this into "it takes two to tango" discussion. I have been civil and respectful throughout this entire incident, and I only reported the situation here after several personal attacks and a ban threat aimed at me. I have not responded in kind, but asked the community to step in to avoid any escalation. I most certainly do not indent to stop my regular (I've routinely been nominating various articles for AfDs for years), civil, and policy-respectful behavior because another editor has started to personally attack me. I hope that the community input will be more helpful than your "let another editor's personal attacks make you stop editing, and be sorry that you have provoked him" suggestion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If by posting this at VPP, then a few days later nominating the very example in the first line of your proposal for deletion isn't pointy, I don't know what is. And other users in that AfD have also said the nomination was pointy too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Na that seems perfectly reasonable. I was tempted to AFD a few of those myself. If an article seems indicative of a wider problem, enough to open a discussion on a noticeboard about the wider issue, the basic reason for the wider problem (in relation to that article) does not go away. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Care to cite diffs for those plural editors who think those AfDs are pointy? The only plurality I see is people repeatedly telling you to stop staying that NCYCC superceeds GNG, because it clearly states itself is doesn't do that: [55], [56]. The only POINTed behavior I see is here: [57], [58]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm also not seeing what's so disruptive about anything Piotrus has done. They seem reasonable AfDs to me. Reyk YO! 10:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

What is pointy about starting a general discussion, including a specific example, getting a lot of positive feedback, and then sending that example to AfD based on your own position and on much of the feedback you received from other editors? If the vast majority of people at that VPP discussion had disagreed with him and they had AfD'ed it anyway, one could argue that this was a pointy AFD. In this case, it seems like a perfectly legitimate AfD with opinions nearly evenly split at the moment. The second AfD seems more likely to end in a straight keep, but claiming that the first AfD is bad faith and that he should receive a topic ban from such AfDs is much more disruptive than starting a discussion about a topic that clearly divides the community and needs revisiting in an RfC, and starting two AfDs. Fram (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You can't see the issue of doing that within a few days of an active discussion? Really? Fine if it was after AND there was a clear consensus, but certainty not during the conversation. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I can't see the issue. If the discussion was only about that article, maybe. But here? In what way is the AfD trying to disrupt enwiki, and not simply trying to get an article deleted which he, and a fair number of others, believe doesn't meet our general standards of notability? Fram (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"A fair number of others" Four. Including your token delete vote. Based on that, considerably more than a "fair number" believe it does meet the general standards of notability. It's disruptive as Piotrus has tried to use that as a deletion tool, seen that the proposal wasn't going as smooth as he'd hoped, so went to plan B, in an attempt to delete said example, trying to make his case look a little more robust. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you stop with your accusations that others are acting in bad faith? This is what this entire discussion is about: your behavior, where instead of discussing the merits of keeping or changing NSPORT policy or such, or discussing the notability of specific articles in light of our policies and arguments, you engage in personal attacks against others (in particular, myself), speculating about their (mine) motives, in clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I can disagree with you and still be civil and respectful towards you and assume good faith. Why you cannot return the same civilized attitude towards myself? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The evidence I've already posted here shows me that, in my opinion, you acted in bad faith/made a pointy AfD. That opinion isn't about to change. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
What evidence? That I started two AfDs and one VP discussion? Sure, I am very guilty of that. I hope the community will comment on whether this gives you the right to be incivil to me and make a series of personal attacks (as evidenced by a number of diffs above), because let me remind you - this discussion is about YOUR behavior. If you want to discuss mine, you are welcome to start your own section or subsection, title it "behavior of User:Piotrus", and post your "evidence" of my misbehavior there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Of other users also calling your AfD pointy and disruptive. Such as Softlavender in this very thread - ("it seems to me that you are the editor making pointy comments and pointy AfDs"). Funny how both you and Fram chose to ignore that. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
(ec)My "token delete vote"? Right, not much point in discussing this further with you if that is how you see dissenting opinions. Doing things you don't like is not the same as disruption. Accusing people of "bad faith" and "pointy" actions and threatening them with topic bans for no good reason is disruptive though. Fram (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a good reason, as I've already listed. Please take time to read the post. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Not agreeing with you is not the same as not having read your post. Your "evidence" simply isn't convincing at all. Your "token" dismissal of all opinions not agreeing with yours is the worrying part, not the nomination of a few AfDs or the start of a long-needed discussion about NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought you said "bye" in your last "reply". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Moves of rejected drafts to mainspace by Janweh64 were discussed at this board in February. While all agreed that such moves are not actually forbidden, the editor was given a good deal of advice by various admins, including this: "You should not move articles into mainspace when you have a COI. You should request review as the template allows for. You absolutely should not move an article back to mainspace after it's been moved back to Draft."; this: "bad idea to move to mainspace yourself, terrible, terrible idea to edit-war back into mainspace" (same editor); this: "it would be much, much better if Janweh64 stopped moving his pages to the mainspace and submitted them for review instead"; and this: "his COI has clouded his judgement". Since then, the editor has:

and also directly edited pages such as Robert C. Hilliard (attorney) and Keck Graduate Institute where he/she has a declared paid relationship.

Question: what form – if any – of discouragement is appropriate when an editor refuses to heed guidelines or listen to advice, and cites IAR as a reason for ignoring them? As far as I'm aware, WP:IAR is about ignoring rules in order to improve the encyclopaedia, not about ignoring rules in order to improve your bank balance. (Note: This is about behaviour not content – I've not examined the merit or otherwise of the articles or edits in question.) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggest sanctioning user, starting with a short block—but will refrain from doing so until they've had a chance to respond. El_C 10:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
<To the invisible voices:> What? IAR! *** Seriously though (and I wasn't joking before), is there anything that can be done to discourage this, short of blocking? Warning clearly doesn't work. What other sanction is there? Move-protecting the pages maybe? El_C 10:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read 1, 2, and 3 before rendering judgement. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"Nuke the whales?—→Gotta nuke sumthin'." I'm glad you're doing good (albeit paid) work, but you've been cautioned before against editing and draft-moving directly. So why not simply heed that advise? Plenty of editors out there willing to assist, I'm sure... El_C 10:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs), who originally rejected the article has since reviewed and patrolled the article: Oncology Care Model.
My reasoning is simple, I do not receive fair treatment in some rare cases. With most AfC rejections, I respect the judgement of the reviewer and simply delete the draft. See: [59], [60], and [61]. I have tried using WP:AFCHELP to no avail. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose when the system is failing you, IAR isn't such a bad alternative. Still, I would hope for better checks on paid editing—editing directly feels intuitively wrong to me. El_C 11:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Do the articles meet notability standards? If they do, clean them up from any other issues. If they don't meet notability standards nominate them for deletion at WP:AFD. If they are deleted then they are deleteable again G4. ~ GB fan 10:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, otherwise moving them back to languish in draft is tantamount to deleting them with no consensus. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A few things: IAR requires that a rule exist in order to break it. WP:COI is a best practice guideline. It is not policy or a must-be-obeyed rule. COI explicitly does not say people with a COI cannot under any circumstances edit articles they have a COI with, because despite many attempts the community has consistantly failed to make it say that. Janweh is also under no formal editing restriction from doing so, beyond the same 'you shouldnt do that' that already exists in the COI guideline. Given the diffs they have posted in reply above, I dont see a problem. If the argument is 'Janweh has been making articles live they have a COI with that are overly promotional' that would be an issue. If the complaint is solely 'Janweh has been making articles live they have a COI with' you need to demonstrate *why* that is a problem. Or open a discussion at WP:COI in order to amend it to forbid the practice. Good luck with that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to dive in - the drafts created by this paid editor should be forced to go through the Articles for Creation process before they become live articles. Why hasn't this been done, or even suggested? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been, the user says My reasoning is simple, I do not receive fair treatment in some rare cases. With most AfC rejections, I respect the judgement of the reviewer and simply delete the draft. El_C 11:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
That's what I get for diving in. @Janweh64: if you don't feel that an AfC review was fair, you can resubmit the draft with a comment such as "Request that another editor reviews this draft" and it'll happen. AfC reviewers aren't biased, most will just happen to randomly review your article having never read it before. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Since the previous ANI, I have voluntarily and under no clear obligation have started using AfC. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. But in some cases AfC reviewers fail to recognize a notable subject, perhaps clouded by my COI. Like I have said above with examples I usually accept their judgement. But in some case where I strongly believe the subject is notable, I take action to move the article as is my privilege under WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. I even invite the reviewer to nominate the article for AfD.
For an example of how my paid editing is beneficial to Wikipedia please read: Draft:Don_Reitz—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If people don't see that a subject of your article is notable, the onus is on you to prove them wrong. You're a paid editor, you have to abide by WP:PAID and not just take it on yourself to move your drafts to article space. Please work with us, or find another way to make money. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that WP:PAID only states, "If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." I follow that policy strictly: See User:Janweh64—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'd suggest actually reading it - including the sentence about editing articles that you have a conflict of interest with. To put it simply, the general consensus is that paid editors have an inherent, non-neutral point of view regarding subjects that they are being paid to edit. Create your drafts, submit them, and then walk away. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Janweh64: Please read WP:PAY (not just WP:PAID). The usual process is through the AfC or edit request process. If you have been through that, and you still think the reviewer was really wrong, you can bring your proposed changes to the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where the community will review your proposed changes. -Obsidi (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • support 1 week block. COI management has two essential aspects - disclosure and peer review. The 2nd is essential to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia in light of the bias that a COI creates. Moves of articles to main space by creators after they were rejected by peer reviewers is rarely acceptable; it is not acceptable in the case where a COI is present. This is not a case where IAR is inappropriate. Janweh I advised you earlier to behave in ways that are of the highest standards. The community tolerates paid editing, it doesn't love it. The more you do to create a bad reputation (for instance here by ignoring peer review) the harder your role here becomes. It is just self-destructive, as well as harmful to Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read: WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Simply reaching a consensus on whether or not a COI editor has the right to move an article from draft to articlespace is sufficient to prevent further disruption.
A quote from WP:Policies and guidelines which, unlike WP:COI, is a policy and not a guideline: "Be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms and dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Do not be afraid to tell editors directly that they must or should do something." It is easy:
  • An editor with a COI with a subject may not move a draft article to the mainspace or create a new article on the subject in mainspace.
  • change "are very strongly discouraged from editing" >>>>>>>> "should not edit"
  • "may propose changes" >>>>>>>> "should propose changes"
Otherwise, you are punishing me for declaring my COI religiously when 1000s of others are right now editing with no declaration. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Si Trew at RfD[edit]

user:SimonTrew has been flooding RfD with up to 70 nominations a day (see any RfD log page in the last week, or from shortly before Christmas. e.g. all-but a handful of the 74 nominations at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20 are by Si Trew), in almost all cases without having done even the most basic of WP:BEFORE checks to see whether they should be deleted or not, and ignoring feedback about what consititutes a good redirect regarding WP:DIACRITICS. [62] is a good illustration of the mentality - trying to nomiante as many redirects as possible in as short a time as possible, regardless of the disruption it causes.

I have asked him on his talk page to slow down on several occasions, e.g. User talk:SimonTrew#Relax in December and user talk:SimonTrew#Please slow down today. He's been instructed to do basic WP:BEFORE on multiple occasions, but has repeatedly refused to do so sating that "it's not my business" (see user talk:Thryduulf#Slow down for example).

Examples of problematic nominations: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 21#64 Oozumo, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Log/2017 April 22#Marten Trotzigs Graend, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20#Keflavikurflugvoellur and many others.

It's also worth noting that my intention to bring this here was described as "bullying" [63] [64] [65].

What I'm seeking is either a full topic ban from RfD or a limit of 20 nominations per day, each demonstrating that WP:BEFORE has been carried out. I will be linking to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That is simply not true. I time my nominations very carefully, actually. I am on different time zones from other regulars at RfD. User:Thryduulf does not own RfD, but seems to think he does and wants to bully me because of "other contributors". I have a good memory. User:Champion, who hardly ever contributed, came back this morning and bunged in a few. Several new editors I have encouraged to contribute. Because of this admin bully, User:Thryduulf, we will never get anything done. I have said at my talk page, you are not the only admin. User:Tavix got nominated and became admin mainly because of his work at RfD. There is no requirement for this bully admin to come to RfD. It is purely voluntary. "Flooding" is a joke. I split list 11 into chunks and got through 5000 of them listing about 50, that is 1% of what was on that list. I probably rcatted about the same amount and the other 90% were fine as they were. Sheesh, flooding. I am not a bot. I find this nomination absolutely ridiculous from an admin who pops his head around the door, finds he has work to do, then lists me at ANI. Don't do it, go and contribute somewhere else. Why are you an admin? I dunno. I thought to do that kind of work.
As for doing basic "WP:BEFORE". I cannot do that. The User:Eubot redirects the redirects the articles are not going to have RS are they, they are redirects. I don't care whether the article has RS but whether the redirect makes sense. I sift through the language redirects and go keep, delete, RfD. I took another route earlier today to just nominate the redirects at CSD to see what happened. Would be easier. Certianly easier than arguing with a bully admin who has to do a bit of work as an admin. Shouldn't be an admin then. And try to get my name right. Si Trew or Simon Trew. Not SiTrew. I am not some kind of meme. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I counted 8 personal attacks in this post alone. 2600:1017:B021:5EB5:995B:EC9D:49E5:E6F3 (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The example "problematic nominations" are still open for discussion. That is why I bloody well brought them there because I was not sure. The first is Finnish but a bit iffy, in English Wikipedia, the second is still open but the speedy keep is by this involved admin [[User::Thryduulf]]. That's ff--- WP:INVOLVED if I ever saw it. Si Trew (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually, most of the redirects ST has nominated range from the ridiculous to the actively misleading, and I wish they could be deleted without having to go through RfD. (As a fairly seasoned editor I don't question the need for due process, these are just my personal reactions as a professional linguist and a Scandinavian. (Then again, as a Scandinavian, I was brought up in a very consensus based culture, so...)) Anyway, the underlying problem seems to be that there is not enough participation in the RfD discussions so I should put my money where my mouth is and try to participate more. --bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Consensus is for Germanic ones to be kept, including Scandinavian. I listed a couple yesterday for A, Sweden and O, Sweden I think. You may have an opinion on those. All I can do is sort and go that's all right that's a bit iffy that needs a delete. I'm just the card dealer not the players. Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
As a counterexample, I put Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_26&action=edit&section=6 this in saying "Ladies ang Gentlemen this is the kind of thing I keep". Good job I did. Nothing wrong with it. Just some bully admins seem to think I am trying to harm this project. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Just because I don't say I haven't done WP:BEFORE does not mean I have not done it. Do you want my listing to be sesquipedalien? I am wordy enough as it is. Take WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_22#Kestal.2FGoeltepe for example. Did you think I did not try to find that WP:BEFORE I listed it? Fucking ridiculous ANI by Thryduulf. Just because he can't be bothered to work doesn't mean others can't. Should have his admin stripes taken off him. YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Consensus is that the German and Scandinavian ö → oe (and ä → ae, etc) redirects should always be kept (but you still nominate them, e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 22#Schwyzerduetsch), not that ones that are not ones which are not German or Scandinavian should always be deleted. For almost all of the Turkish redirects you've nominated I've found uses in sources indpendent of Wikipedia that demonstrate that transliteration is used, which is a reason to keep them. This is the sort of thing you should be finding before nominating, not relying on other people to find for you. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't nearly a full-time job keeping up with your nominations - hence the request for a rate limit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Si Trew the point I'm trying to make is that I'm putting in literally hours of work (e.g. on 24 April I worked on RfD from 12:44-14:07, 14:45-15:05, 17:43-17:53, and 21:37-22:31 dealing solely with the nominations made on 19th April (almost all by you), I then worked until 23:35 on 20 April nominations (see Special:Contributions/Thryduulf, all times UTC). Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And how many hours of work do you think I put in to make the encylopeadia better? How many? Two? I have to go that's OK, that's iffy, that's a delete. We don't have an WP:X1 concession. "Three years" in your words, I will get it done in ten days, promise, if you let me, but I must flood RfD and I haven't time to do WP:RS, and RS doesn't apply to redirects anyway, I have to go keep, delete, iffy. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
So I don't even get to state my own defence, it seems.
Take this little beauty for example, 15_fevrier_1839. What are you going to do with that. It's a French date that has the accents knocked off but it is not an Engish date. What are you going to do with it? Hmm? It isn't 15 February. What are you going to do with it? You're the admin, you know better than me, you bully. I would list it at RfD, but do what you want with it. Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Taking three years without flooding RfD is much better than 10 days of flooding RfD. My opinions on redirects have nothing to do with my being an admin. As for 15 fevrier 1839 that's an obvious keep per WP:DIACRITCS as it's the original title of the film without diacritics. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Its the title of the film without diacritics. Its common for non-native language speakers to search for a foreign language title without diacritics for the simple reason they may not be able to actually type the diacritics without difficulty. Nor may they be able to actually translate the title into whatever language they speak. It not being an English date has nothing to do with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with Si Trew nominating a huge number of redirects per day. Many of the redirects he nominates are genuinely bad, and he's doing valuable work bringing them to RfD. But... Si Trew, if you stopped including several paragraphs of unrelated, barely related or repetitive text in so many discussions, that would save you enough time that you could have a deeper look into (and deeper think about) every redirect you nominate without slowing you down any overall.
Also, Thryduulf is not a bully; on the contrary, he's probably the single most valuable editor in RfD's history, and pretty much everybody else on RfD gets along with him spiffingly.
Also, this is pointy and you really shouldn't do things like that. And please stop nominating redirects that are identical to an obviously good redirect except for the straight lack of diacritics, unless really special circumstances apply; redirects like that are kept 99% of the time (like 15 fevrier 1839 would be), and nominating them just creates needless overhead. Sideways713 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support throttling restriction of max. 20 nominations per day, per Thryduulf's suggestion, and further that SimonTrew must carry out the most basic of checks when nominating these redirects and make a sensible argument that discussion of the redirect on its own is required, and not mass-nominating redirects for the sole reason that they were created by a particular user or bot. Many of the nominations he's made since I've been back hanging around RfD in the last week or so have been somewhere between not well researched (e.g. Vikor) to completely obviously not necessary (e.g. Correao, Impact de Montreal) to basically nonsense (JZ series 664). These include one he nominated while arguing in the nomination statement that it should be kept (i.e. he acknowledged it did not need to be nominated at all but did so anyway, making administrative work for no reason). These nominations are disruptive to other editors at RfD, but the problem truly is that Si is completely shut down to any criticism of his actions, doubling down as he has here with angry attacks any time anybody attempts to address this situation and further insisting that his way is both the right way and the only way. You can't participate in a collaborative project if you are not open to collaboration, as Si is regrettably demonstrating. Nevertheless, some of the multitude of Si's nominations do result in redirects being modified, however the signal-to-noise ratio on these is exceptionally poor. If Si can learn to nominate only the ones that need nominating, we'll do much better at RfD. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In any case and I have not read Ivanvector's comments, redirects are usually open for "about seven days". Says at the top of RfD. There is no great hurry for a bullying editor to spend five minutes to close them. Some of them may want comment from other editors. Si Trew (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. Your reliable sources probably lead back to the shite Eubot created if you look a bit closer. And as usual I'm the one being accused of being the arsehole here. Now, as for asides, I put them in on purpose to try to lighten the load, bring a little humour in because I know it is a burden. Still, just fuck off. Get someone else to do your hard work. Give me a fucking three year ban cos I have had enough of this shit. Si Trew (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
None so deaf as those who can't hear. There are far more newcomers and others that contribute to RfD than when I went on a break in January, from me listing these Eubots. Yes, I do a song-and-dance act. Sometimes I am even quite witty. Sometimes it's not your kind of humour. You have on your hands just today a professional translator who says "I should contribute more to RfD" and I said on I think her maybe his talk page. Don't bother. Go to WP:PNT. You won't be thanked for it. What kind of recommendation is that for the fucking nonsense at RfD. Fucking nonsense. I am trying to get a job done. If you don't like it, do the other thing. I don't mind R's being retargeted, that is exactly why I bring them to RfD when I say I am not sure. that is how we make the encylopaedia better. Now, when I say it should be kept, I would just keep it but it is another way of saying I am not really sure, I should like others' opinions on this. What else am I to do? Si Trew (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
When numerous editors in good standing have problems with the way you do things, you need to accept that it is likely you who are the problem. Blaming everyone else for having a problem with the way you do it is unproductive. You can either keep doing it the way you do and keep being brought to noticeboards (this is what, the 3rd, 4th time in as many months?) until everyone gets tired of it, or actually do what people ask you to do. Without the unnecessary attempts at wit and humour - no one is here to stroke your ego. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ban from RfD, striking my earlier comment. Today Si's nominations include Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 26#Gyergyocsomafalva, a redirect to Ciumani, a commune in Romania (formerly Hungary) which is named Gyergyócsomafalva in Hungarian. tl;dr: this is another straight {{R from diacritics}}, he just keeps listing them after being asked by many editors now to stop. Instead, he called this "nonsense" and actually created a template just to illustrate this point, which someone (not me) is now going to have to delete. It's this bullshit that is the problem. It's not the first time Si has created pages just to make some point, usually directed at someone who has expressed concern with his behaviour. Admins can see his work at Ladies and gentelman I should like to annouce, a page he created so that he could embed an announcement of some Neelix-redirect-related milestone in an RfD thread. This is well past WP:IDHT and into WP:CIR territory. I would have blocked Si myself for his latest "fuck off" and "fucking nonsense" comments just now, but I am WP:INVOLVED, and while editing this I've struck out my bolded "from RfD" a number of times. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You are just taking the piss. If you think "Gyergoscsomgalva" means something in Hungarian or English, tell me what it is. Please. I should be glad to hear it. It is not a straight R from dias it is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. I was quite proud that we had got through half of the eubot redirects I thought everyone at RfD should be proud of that. I also created {{R from nonsense}} to put the rest of the fucking thirty thousand into. I don't see any barnstars coming my way yet. Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The article itself Ciumani says in the first line it is Gyergyócsomafalva in Hungarian, the redirect you nominated Gyergyocsomafalva is identical without diacritics. It is not 'nonsense'. Now you either have not read any of the information about redirects regarding diacritics which people have told you about repeatedly, or you didnt actually look at the article Ciumani which would be a massive failure of BEFORE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no way he looks at the articles before he nominates them. As an example, he nominated Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 25#Bogus Linda with some nonsense rationale, referring to the subject with feminine pronouns. Literally a 5 second glance at the target article would be all you need to find out that Linda is, in fact, male. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ban from RfD As of today, the user is still being uncivil making personal attacks against bots in the log, here's an example:
    I am FED UP WITH THAT BOT THINKING IT KNOWS ABOUT LANGUAGE. Hippos is Greek for horse as in hippopotamus, river horse, hippodrome, and so on. Then give it a sugar lump, horse likes a sugar lump, that makes a horse hyppy. Then a birdie comes on its rump and it goes neigh or jae. Just.... please.... kill it... now... please. Si Trew (talk) 4:44 am, Today (UTC-4)
    Even though it seems to have support for deletion, this is unneeded for the RfD board. —JJBers 15:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I was notified of an "Officially notified incident at RfD". Administrator User:Thryduulf puts in in his own words a lot of time at RfD and the two things he nomintated he specifically put his hands in at RfD. The clean hands doctrine only applies in real life does it. I have no idea what [[User::JJbers]] is saying, because he or her is never at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I was citing a RfD you made earlier today, here is it for reference. —JJBers 15:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The title of the section on Si Trew's talk page where I placed the required {{ANI-notice}} template is user talk:SimonTrew#Formal notification of ANI thread (the template doesn't provide a standard section heading). I don't understand what the rest of the comment is trying to say. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ban from RfD at minimum. Frankly, I'd be inclined to indef and throw away the key unless a spectacularly good explanation was forthcoming for "I have a feeling the author of Eubot was Jewish.", and I have a strong suspicion that topic-banning SimonTrew from one area will just cause him to go be disruptive elsewhere. However, since there seems to be agreement between those who deal with him the most that the problems are primarily RfD-related, hopefully separating him from the area that's causing the most problems will allow him to do something useful in an area that won't provide a venue for his inappropriate attempts at comedy. The comparisons between Neelix and Eubot isn't valid; Neelix's edits were (in part) actively inappropriate and needed to be cleared up as soon as possible, whereas some of Eubot's redirects may be invalid, but aren't actually causing any harm, so there's no urgent need to rush through them that that would give SimonTrew any kind of "on urgent work" exemption from Wikipedia's usual written and unwritten rules on disruption and basic courtesy. ‑ Iridescent 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • If he does turn to disruption elsewhere then that would lead to a block. Hopefully it wont be necessary, but the spirit of WP:ROPE applies here I think, and his methods are wrong and the results significantly less successful than desired he is intending to improve the encyclopaedia so I think he should be given a chance to do that elsewhere first. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RfD ban. Competence is required, and I'm afraid SimonTrew just doesn't have it. The egregious violations of WP:BEFORE, the nonsensical ramblings that don't pertain to the discussion at hand, the uncivil behavior every time someone tries to reason with him, and the sheer amount of work that RfD regulars have to put in to clean up after him is frankly exhausting. It's at the point where it's simply not worth it anymore. I'd bring in more examples, but I'm busy IRL at the moment. I'll just say that I endorse Ivanvector's analysis wholeheartedly. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Striking "RfD" and recommending full ban per Just fucking ban me. Just do it. Not from RfD. From all of of it. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ban from RFD: Instead of hearing the criticisms and using them to change their behavior, the user is doubling down and being quite uncivil in the process. I have no opinion on the length of the ban. --Darth Mike(talk) 16:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As another data point on the WP:CIR and creating needless work fronts, Admin's can see the deleted history of Olivia stecker where Si Trew endorsed his own PROD, then after the page had been deleted recreated the page with a commentary about something (I'm not really too sure what) before nominating it for speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD#A9 which didn't apply (any of WP:CSD#G7, WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A3 would have though), the original article was in the scope of WP:CSD#A7 subject-matter wise but not content-wise. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want to restrict it to twenty a day, then get a WP:X1 concession. The consensus of the community was that we didn't need one. You can hardly then stick it on me that I list things. What else am I supposed to do? I dunno, shove it up an already WP:INVOLVED admin or what? Tell me what else can I do with them. Where else can I send them. Tell me. Si Trew (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Doubling down. What do you expect me to do do. I am taking personal attacks about making the encyclopaedia better. How would you like it? Doubling down. Just fucking ban me. Just do it. Not from RfD. From all of of it. Then at least I know where I stand. Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And as for JJBeers remark, since I can't seem to reply to them individually. You may have seen straight after that "I am fed up with the bot. I am not fed up with the person. I can be fed up with the bot because it is a bot." or words like that. You do your WP:BEFORE on it. Si Trew (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I wasn't pointing out the redirect you nominated, but the content of the nomination, which shows you made personal attacks to a bot, which still violates that policy. —JJBers 17:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
not that i condone SimonTrew's behavior, but one can't make personal attacks against something that's not in any way a person. Writ Keeper  17:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: I disagree. Any personal attack of a bot is in effect a personal attack of its operator. It's not at all conducive to a good editing atmosphere, and so I don't see why it should be tollerated at all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Thrydulf: It's effectively very much not. If any thing, it is criticism of the edits (the work the bot does) than the editor (the creator of the bot). Writ Keeper is absolutely right. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It's kind of a moot point, since as I said, I don't condone SiTrew's behavior regardless of whether it's a PA or not (which is why I put it in the small tags). But I would argue that a bot is the work of its author in much the same way that a Wikipedia article is the work of its author; if criticizing a bot transitively criticized its author, then I would argue that implies that criticizing someone's edits or articles also transitively criticizes that person. Which of course is contra the whole idea of NPA: to comment on the contributions, not the contributor. I'd argue that a bot is an extension of the author's contributions, not an extension of the author themself. Granted, in this case, the criticism was not at all constructive or civil, and thus it's totally reasonable to call SiTrew out on it, and even sanction them for it. I just wouldn't do so in the name of NPA; in my mind, NPA is a fairly bright line, and I wouldn't want to see it eroded in the way that civility has. Maybe just me, though. I don't mind continuing this conversation if you'd like, but perhaps it should be elsewhere, since it's not really germane to this discussion? Writ Keeper  17:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have time now, but I'll think about your points and if I want to continue discussing it, I'll find somewhere more appropriate (WT:NPA perhaps) and ping you as I agree it's not really the best place here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
This is pretty clearly a comment directed at the creator of the bot. Is it an attack? Depends on context I suppose, but consider the rest of the comment is comparing the bot's behaviour to the "sins" of another editor. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll argue against you. You may have noticed I have never mentioned the nbot author's history but I did some WP:BEFORE and had made a total of fifteen edits mostly minor before this bot was allowed to run. I don't have the problem with the author (retired) nor the bot. That is a sorry state of affairs in 2008 that after a test run of 14-- yes, 14-- successful edits it was then allowed out to wreak havoc. Now, you don't see me naming names. I can have a go at User:Eubot because it is a bot, that is like kicking a kitchen cupboard when you've cut your thumb. It is not like kicking your wife when you've cut your thumb. I am not just allowed but I think entitled to moan about Eubot because I am the one editor here on Wikipedia that is actually methodically trogging through these things. Look at my contribution history today. I must have rtagged and rcatted at least twentyfive as keepers. Of course the ones at RfD are going to cause trouble. I do have a braim in my head. The admin who brought this here is WP:INVOLVED so it surprises me to see making further comments. Si Trew (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I can be pissed off with the bot but I am not pissed off with he or she. They did what they thought right. That is what we all have to do. Sometimes we get it wrong. But that doesn't make you a bad person. I can have a go at the bot because it has no feelings. I would have a pint with the person who created them and say what were you thinking of? You're wrong but you're not bad. The creator only made about fifty edits. Dutch it seems from the name. Well, someone has to clear up the shit. Still, I would have a pint. I am never angry with a person. I am only angry with what they do. Those are different things

(edit conflict) Template:Replto We're not complaining that you are listing things. We are complaining that you are not taking enough care with your nominations, which combined with the volume of your nominations is causing significant disruption. I'm not at all sure what the lack of an X1 concession (which I would agree is not needed, as the proportion of bad redirects is so small and there is no urgency) has to do with anything. As for "doubling down" what we would like you to do is to listen to the complaints that people have about your actions and change your behaviour accordingly. Instead what you have done is made personal attacks while carrying on doing exactly the same thing people are complaining about. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You're WP:INVOLVED, User:Thryduulf. You were the one spouting off at RfD and you're WP:INVOLVED. clean hands doctrine please. Stand off. Si Trew (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
That's not how it works, SimonTrew. INVOLVED is a policy that relates to administrative actions, i.e. actions that involve the actual use of admin tools--it would only apply to Thryduulf if they were actually going to block you or something. It doesn't apply to everything an admin does, just because they're an admin. Bringing an issue up on ANI, and continuing to discuss it, does not involve the use of admin tools, and so INVOLVED doesn't apply. We're neither the police nor the court system, and the clean hands doctrine isn't Wikipedia policy. Writ Keeper  18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ban/block/trout for taking redirects way too seriously. Honestly, if these Eubot redirects are causing you so much stress, go do something else. The encyclopedia is not going to implode because of some silly redirects. clpo13(talk) 18:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
NO it wont ((edit conflict) I don't give a shit about Wikipedia's [[[kangaroo court]] system. I am being treated unfairly. I worked not "five minutes" like the prosecutors says but hours and hours and hours over these fucking things. I sometimes can't remember what language I speak. I have worked so damned hard over them that sometimes I literally can't tell left from right. Then I am told to do WP:BEFORE. I take it as implicit that I do it. What am I supposed to fucking do, list every eubot redirect as "WP:BEFORE I listed this I checked on Google and could not find anything, and it is still WP:RFD#D5 nonsense". In any case, as I have said many times, WP:BEFORE does not apply to redirects it applies to articles. I have no requirement to do WP:BEFORE at all. I have a requirement, in my head, to make the encylopaedia better by making it easier for people to get to the information they want. Not pissing about at ANI by an editor who has a grudge against me. Now, shall I get on to try to make the encylopaedia better are all you all little admins going to waste more of my precious editor's time? Si Trew (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you going to stop wasting peoples time with RFD's that are obviously pointless and where you have done zero checks to see if it is a valid redirect? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If your time is so precious, why are you wasting it on increasingly pseudolegalistic arguments defending a practice every other editor commenting here has cautioned you about? Why not use some of that precious time editing in one of the literally thousands of other areas? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
They're not pseudolegal. I am one of the very few editors I imagine who has actually stood up in court and said yes your honour and no your worship. I know that this is WP:NOTLAW. It is not a kangaroo court either. Si Trew (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I also do actually find its slightly offensive that [[User::Thryduulf]] even in listing here could not be bothered to get my name right. Si Trew (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RfD throttling - I don't care about redirects really, as long as they redirect to an appropriate target I'm happy. What I do care about is people creating extra work for Wikipedia editors - who are, after all, volunteers, not paid for our time - especially when they're told that they're creating extra work and they pig-headedly refuse to cooperate. Redirects are like the bits of a building between two walls, or between the ceiling and the floorboards of the room above - there's a lot of crap in there but it really isn't worth worrying about. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thryduulf is not the only admin at RfD. Other admins such as User:Tavix have got their adminship from RfD. Thryduulf don't own the shop. The accusations of bullying still hold. I think it is just a simple case of bullying. "I'm an admin do as I say, love, Thryduulf". Well, some people stand up to bullies. Now, let me see how many things Thryduulf has listed in his adminship at RfD.... er.... sorry I don't have a finger to count 0. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I care about exactly what you care about User:Exemplo347. This is a storm in a teapot. And it's a bit ridiculous to suggest throttling it to 20 a day. I am the only editor doing it. I don't see anyone else doing it. There are spits and spats but I go through the lists because we don't have, by amazing consensus, a WP:X1 concession. The very admin who is now nominating me said it was not needed. I forget the greek word but in English it is, um what is the word, when you say one thing and do another. I better check on Wiktionary. I could have got on and done some real work and made the encylopaediae better were it not for this fuss. I will try to start doing that right now. It is the last I have to say on the matter. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow, 31 hours is lenient given the block log. That being said, I think this is further evidence that a full ban is necessary, given this took place outside of RfD. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure a full site ban is necessary over those personal attacks, but he might need more than a 31 hour block. You might even want an indef block until he at least says he understands the problem with this behavior and that he wont repeat it. -Obsidi (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ban from RfD Sigh, maybe he will find something better to do with his time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ban from RfD - Frankly, I agree with the comment above that, given this editor's stance he's likely to move to another area and cause similar problems there, so an indef or site ban would be justified, but since we don't do preventative blocks of that nature (but probably should), we can start where the immediate problem lies, as shown by both ST's editing behavior and his comments in this very discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I believe we have enough people in support of a topic ban that we can implement it at this point. Thoughts? —JJBers 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • note I've renamed the tread and changed all instances of "SiTrew" in my comments to "Si Trew" per his comments above and on my talk page. I have not changed any other comments. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I won't bold vote an opinion, because I don't frequent RFD and don't have a good feel for this. I just want to ask a question to the RFD regulars who know him better than drive-by ANI watchers. Si Trew has been here 10 years and made 61,000 edits, much of it redirect related. Surely most of them valuable? Instead of an RFD ban (or a site ban), would it make sense to narrow the scope? Perhaps a 2 week ban from RFD until he calms down? Or a ban from nominating Eubot redirects? It depends on whether he's generally a help at RFD but is getting overwhelmed by the scope of Eubot's contribs, or if he's generally not a help. I get the sense that he's generally a help (I see @Thryduulf: saying nice things on his talk page from December, and I recall @Tavix: being pretty patient during a previous dispute because he does do good work). But it looks like when he gets a bee in his bonnet, he becomes difficult for others to work with. Maybe focus more on getting the bee out of his bonnet? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Simply put, Simon is a net-negative at RfD. Sure, he's got a lot of contributions, but it seems like every other one is an off topic rant, remark or what have you. I'll admit I've got a very long leash, but I feel it's been completely used up. The current flavor of the day is Eubot, before it was Neelix, and his obsession with Neelix didn't end until a months long block. I'm sure if it's restricted to Eubot, he'll find another situation to flood RfD with. This is, what, the seventh or eighth ANI thread dealing with Simon? At what point will we realize that he simply doesn't have enough clue to operate as a competent editor on this site? -- Tavix (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough; I've blocked him more than anyone, so I'm not trying to be his Official Apologist or anything. Just seems a bit of a shame, after being complimented for his Eubot work a few months ago. Perhaps it's my knee-jerk reaction to people talking about a 10-year editor as clueless and incompetent. I do know what you mean, it just seems... a shame, like I said. I won't try to oppose anything here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
A few years ago there weren't many problems with him though. They've gotten significantly worse as the years go on. It's like he's degenerating or something. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Possibly. I know I'm degenerating. Getting old kind of sucks (Speaking for myself, not Si Trew). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Amen to that. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) Currently the negatives (which have been increasing) significantly outweigh the positives (which have been decreasing). If he is to return to RfD it must be with a rate throttle, a demonstrated understanding of the point of WP:BEFORE and a requirement to demonstrate he has carefully thought about each redirect nominated. A restriction from redirects related to foreign languages, diacritics and/or mass-created redirects would be the minimum necessary before I'd consider his return. At the start of this thread I would have accepted just the throttle, but it's become clearer the more others have commented that the level of competence displayed has been worse than I was initially aware of. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Full site ban, somewhat regrettably. In a nutshell, I agree with the ultimate conclusion Tavix made; if SimonTrew's gotten to a point where he's requesting a full site ban on himself, let's just do it. I recall in the past, SimonTrew was indefinitely blocked for legal threats, in addition to all the other RfD-related blocks he's had. At this point, as much as SimonTrew has been cordial (and the opposite) to me in the past, it's quite difficult to see how he's still a WP:NETPOSITIVE for the project with his recent serious lack of WP:BEFORE research on his recent nominations, plus his off-topic comments on RfD nominations are getting to a point where they are now throwing red herrings into the discussions. In addition, with SimonTrew's editing style and personality, I don't see how he could follow a "daily-limit" ban, and editors' daily monitoring of such activity from SimonTrew would be rather exhausting. In my conclusion, at the present time, SimonTrew's capability to provide beneficial additions to Wikipedia is nearly nonexistent, and he and the entire community need a break from his contributions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    In addition, I think WP:ROPE was referenced in regards to only banning SimonTrew from WP:RFD and not all of Wikipedia. My response to that idea: SimonTrew honestly has been provided "WP:ROPE" so many times now that the rope has been destroyed. The amount of editor resources it takes to reel him back in after any of his tangents, whether they contain malice or not, is too taxing on editors and admins. (I mean, legal threats and RfD are two exclusively-different issues.) This really shouldn't be allowed again ... since, at this point, the rope is figuratively broken. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of "community bans" and in this case, I wonder if it is truly necessary. The proposal for a restriction on their editing in a problematic area is nearing a consensus and they are currently blocked for incivility and personal attacks. If they return and continue then there appears to be ample behavioral and policy grounds for extending new blocks of longer lengths, including indefinite, at admin discretion. Creating a site ban adds a layer of punitiveness that seems unhelpful and non-constructive. It is also harder to undo a community site ban. I recognize that the difficulty in removing a community site ban strikes some as a feature instead of a bug. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of site bans either, but given the extent of what SimonTrew has done in regards to legal threats, bombastic off-topic outbursts and the addition of flooding RfD with nominations that lack WP:BEFORE research, I truly think that it is the best option in this case. I've been following SimonTrew's activity for about 4 years now, so I'm not making claim that he needs a full site ban without any knowledge of some hard evidence to back it up. Looking back on SimonTrew's block log, the indefinite block that he had for legal threats lasted for about 3 months (June 2016–September 2016) and after that was lifted, here we are at yet another issue created by SimonTrew that needs immediate attention and requires an ANI discussion. All of these back-and-forth issues are really becoming taxing for the community. And given the fact that SimonTrew is familiar with how to go through the venues to request getting unblocked when he doesn't have talk page access (such as WP:UTRS), and since he had to go through that since his talk page access was revoked during that time, he'd have to go through it again to get the ban lifted with the stipulation that lifting a ban takes more than lifting a block, possibly including consensus to lift the ban. Seriously, if I thought at this point just banning SimonTrew from RfD would prevent any further issues he may cause, such as legal threats, I'd be all for it. But at this point, it's almost like he's already used up any chances he had to redeem himself after all of these issues, especially with his mannerisms of interacting with others on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You have obviously more familiarity with this editor than I. I hardly ever go to RfD, for example. I will humbly defer to your greater expertise on the issue. The only community site ban I have had previous familiarity with was SlitherioFan2016, who was banned for obvious and repeated trolling and block-evasion [66]. I didn't think this editor has raised anything like the trouble that one did, so I expressed caution. Especially since, as Softlavender says, they are currently unable to reply it seemed proper to wait until the current block expired to see if it has any benefit. Perhaps, though, they have reached that level of disruption that simple WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE indefinite blocks are not sufficient. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
While I would support a WP:CIR block (I'm still thinking about whether I support a ban), a WP:NOTHERE block is not justified. Si Trew is attempting to improve the encyclopaedia, and I think believes that he is doing so with his RfD nominations - indeed some of them are beneficial (just not enough to be a net positive, at least at the moment). The problem is with the results of his actions, and refusal to act on feedback about them, that are the issue not his intent. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm inclined to recommend waiting until SimonTrew's short block has expired before any admin closes this thread. I'd like to see whether at this point he understands the problematical nature of his behaviors, and what he intends to do (or not do) to correct that. If he is unable to do (respond to) those two things satisfactorily, well, then there is indeed a WP:CIR issue and measures should be taken in accordance with an admin's assessment of the consensus in this thread and the nature of the overall problem(s). Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • COmment Y'all know I hate incivility, so I am more than displeased with an edit summary like this. If Si can't behave around others without resorting to rudeness, PA, and incivility, they shouldn't do work that requries them to work with others, who may have a differing opinion. L3X1 (distant write) 01:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

break[edit]

Od Mishehu has extended Simon's block (based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#INVOLVED block of User:SimonTrew) to 3 weeks so that it now expires at 20:06, 18 May 2017. That is a very long time for a thread to be open at AN/I and I'd rather this not get archived without an actual conclusion, whether that is for a topic ban, indef block, ban, some combination of these or nothing. Personally I would like to see a topic ban from RfD (defined below) and nominating redirects for speedy deletion appealable separately to an appeal of a block or ban at least 3-6 months of productive collaborative editing elsewhere (at which either a conditional or unrestricted return could be discussed). I'm inclined, and to say that the three-week block is sufficient for the personal attacks yesterday. I don't know if it's been done before, but a suspended community ban that could be implemented by agreement of 2-3 uninvolved administrators in the event of his being blocked for disruption, legal threats, etc. is something I think worth considering. I'm not sure whether breach of the topic ban should be a trigger for such ban or not, but I'm leaning yes as it's an area that is quite easy to define (unlike say "Pseudoscience"). I would consider at topic ban from RfD to encompass:

Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I support that definition pretty much. —JJBers 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@JJBers: I moved your comment here. Your edit here has oddly duplicated the entire thread. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Great, the visual source editor is broken. —JJBers 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I too would not like to see Simon blocked indefinitely. His passion for improving the encyclopedia is obvious, he is just unable at this point to accept that his enthusiasm for redirects is seriously impeding other editors who would also like to improve the encyclopedia, to the point that he needs to have a community-imposed break from that venue. I have seen no evidence that his disruptive behaviour here would carry over to other areas of the encyclopedia. As for the ban from RfD, I would like to see it defined as a ban from all redirect deletion, broadly construed. This would include RfD itself and all its subpages and templates, tagging redirects for deletion (speedy or otherwise), and discussing speedy deletion criteria related to redirects. I'm not sure what Thryduulf means by the discussion of a "suspended community ban": topic ban violations are normally addressed by blocking. I think it's already pretty clear that Simon's next block for a civility concern (NPA, NLT, etc) will be indefinite. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, where are these "lists" of Eubot redirects? I've not been able to find them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Champion/Eubot list. Sideways713 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Rather clear definition ... but will probably be breached at some point. Per my comments regarding implementing a full site ban on SimonTrew, given his history of blocks and actions, my ability to have confidence that such a ban will be followed is, unfortunately, very low. As I stated above that my opinion that SimonTrew should have a full site ban is "somewhat regrettably", it's because as Thryduulf and Ivanvector have alluded, he really is performing all of the edits on RfD in good faith and belief that he is making improvements to Wikipedia. However, the actions he takes following most edits he performs at RfD causes commotion that results in blocks (such as legal threats). If a RfD ban is the route that we are going to take (which I say is rather lenient at this point), then due to his history, after the first offense of breaking such a ban, the response shouldn't be a limited time or indefinite block ... it should immediately be a full site ban. Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Request for Clarification: What about existing redirects? Would Si Trew be able to change existing redirects? For example: Let's say A redirects to B; would Si Trew be permitted to change A to redirect to C? Likewise, what about tagging for speedy deletion? --Darth Mike(talk) 18:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Steel1943, Ivanvector, and Darth Mike: I agree that including nominating redirects at RfD should be included in the definition of breaching a ban from RfD, I'll add it above. CSD is not part of RfD so should be specified separately, i.e. "topic banned from RFD (defined as above) and from nominating redirects at CSD". I strongly dislike "deletion of redirects" because RFD is Redirects for discussion and Si does nominate redirects there for retargetting or further input* and I don't want there to be room to wikilawyer that a nomination for retargetting was not breaching a "deletion of redirects" topic ban. Retargetting a redirect without involving RfD is not covered by the currently proposed topic ban, I had not thought about it before you mentioned it (thank you!) so I am presently unsure whether we do want to restrict him from that or not. If we do, it should be as a third bullet to the topic ban not lumping it in with the RfD bullet.
    * This is fine when done coherently, with thought and not rapid fire - see my nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 27#Foreign language redirects to Portugal (Group 3) from earlier today for how it can be done. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty neutral on whether Simon should be banned from editing redirects entirely. When Si does take the time to actually analyze a redirect and its background and utility, he's usually right, or at least his action can be justified. The problem of late has been that he is not taking this time and just rapidly nominating huge lists of redirects for discussions with no apparent forethought at all, and also the outbursts when he's confronted on this. I think it would be fine to allow Si to go off and edit redirects on his own where he believes that editing them improves the encyclopedia, to the extent that he can do so without interacting with RfD. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think Od Mishehu's extension of Simon Trew's block was a mistake that did not take into account the fact that Simon Trew's input is needed (in my opinion) to fully resolve this thread. Now he cannot comment on this ANI thread. If he was able to comment, he could possibly assure us now that he understands what he has been doing that is problematical, and propose what he is going to do to change his behaviors. We could also see if he has calmed down and is refraining from personal attacks. Now that he can no longer comment here, and there are so many proposals on the table including a full site ban or indef block, I don't feel that this thread is going to wind up in as productive a resolution as it could if ST were able to comment further. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Simon can comment on his talk page if he desires, and Ivanvector has made that clear after his block was extended. -- Tavix (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Antiquities Act[edit]

Resolved: Page protected by Lectonar. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This relatively-obscure article about a federal public lands law is a suddenly-hot topic because of an executive order; there's a flurry of IP vandalism, OR/POV insertions, etc. going on. I've requested semi-protection but the article could use more eyes in general right now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Lectonar has just protected the page it appears, and thanks for it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
As an added update, if you want to report articles or pages that require protection, you may want to report them to the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ANI doesn't always handle things initiatively like this here. Slasher405 (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Slasher405: Well, I took it from WP:RFP actually :). I was doing my evening run of it.... and listing it here sometimes reaps better results if you need quick help. Lectonar (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If you just want protection, then yes WP:RFP is the place to go but if you want more eyes then there are few better places than here in my experience. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Havenx23[edit]

Since starting an account in Nov 2016, this user's sole focus has been changing the first appearance of Gambit (comics) and now Wolverine (character). After a discussion at the Comic project talk page, he continued to change against consensus without sources for three days before disappearing. He reappeared in March with the same behavior. I reminded him of the prior discussion on his talk page, and he vanished again for a month. He reappeared recently doing the same thing, and another polite warning from me resulted in a wall-of-text that ended with a declaration that he will not stop until he gets his way. He has since continued to modify the articles. Based on this comment from last September where he uses the word "buying" to explain his point of view, I believe he may be a dealer who is trying to profit from misinformation on Wikipedia. This issue is not limited to User:Havenx23 and has been discussed on other articles as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The user's response to the ANI notification includes a personal attack. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page points to an unrelated article[edit]

Resolved: All sorted. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is regarding this article: Alejandro Ordóñez.
It turns out that when you click on its Talk tab it takes you to the wrong page, it takes you to this "Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado", when it should take you to Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez. That is, it should take you to a page about the Puerto Rican Alejandro Ordóñez, not about Colombian Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado. That is, it should take you to a page that looks like this: Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez (Puerto Rico). As clean up, the article Alejandro Ordóñez (Puerto Rico) should be deleted (because it's redundant with Alejandro Ordóñez). Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mercy11: I've done the following:

  1. Removed the redirect from Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez.
  2. Redirected Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez (Puerto Rico) to Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez.

I believe this resolves everything. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Repeated replacement of un-cited, and often incorrect, information at Weapons of the Vietnam War[edit]

An IP, [[67]] has repeatedly added unsourced, and often completely inaccurate information, at Weapons of the Vietnam War. This has been discussed on the IP's user talk page.

dif

dif

While this is a shared IP, the articles from it all share a theme - military weapons- and look like a single writer.

Anmccaff (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of the most recent additions after @Anmccaff:'s most recent reverts include adding ludicrous aircraft, such as the F-35 Lightning II which isn't even in operation yet. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes they are, but I get your drift. L3X1 (distant write) 01:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, barely entered into operation, is that acceptable? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It's on the other end, too, of course, with stuff that never made it past WWII; my favorite is this diff, which lists most of the oddball US tanks of WWII, including the M6 heavy tank, that was, for all practical purposes, experimental, and never saw combat, or even left the US; only 40 were made, and they are all accounted for; and this which is also vanishingly rare, and was also always jeezly expensive. Neither the Russians nor the Viets were stupid; passing these to a guerilla was like giving a strad to a busker. Anmccaff (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC).
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have requested page protection to assist with this issue.

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Note, though, that the fellow is "editing" other related pages, with the same standard of accuracy. PP will help, but it ain't gonna fix it. Anmccaff (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

A couple of recent examples:

Warnings/discussions:

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

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

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

My apologies. I did not realize you were being quoted there. I've stricken the reference to you and corrected it. --B²C ? 16:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good analysis and I hope you can now appreciate how time consuming this is. If you take almost any one of IIO's unilateral moves like this one in isolation it appears to be contrary to policy but not that serious; it's the pattern of doing this repeatedly that's the issue. You also hit upon a key point: "You have to understand that unnecessary disambiguation drives people bonkers, and it is against our rules." IIO demonstrates no respect for this community consensus viewpoint and others too (e.g., he seems to barely recognize WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Consistently and repeatedly. This is why I think he should stop making these moves. His judgement is off relative to community consensus. He can argue my judgement is off too on these matters, in the other direction. And I concede it might be - but that's why I tend to not make unilateral moves. He should too. --В²C 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I reverted the move of Haco to Haco (singer) [77]. --В²C 22:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

I dunno; reading that, my first thought was "train, ship, plane, or service?"...and it turns out it's all four. This was, and is, with a couple of m/b shifts, a ship route, the eponymous cargo, the train and a possibly even flying boat route. I expect, seriously, that the post service is far more important historically than either film. Disambguating them out seems a good call. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Except he left Bombay Mail as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Bombay Mail (1934 film), implying it is the primary topic. Well, if it is, then it shouldn't be disambiguated. But there are good arguments to made, as you did, that maybe there is no primary topic. That's the point; the issue of whether it is the primary topic is obviously potentially controversial, and precisely what needs to be determined, and that's why we have WP:RM, to make these determinations. It should not be determined unilaterally. You can't just look at each of these in isolation to see the pattern. --В²C 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Closer look at A True Woman[edit]

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

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

I'd have expected there was a guideline for this, that might be modified in occasional cases -MBE (as opposed to my own favorite, MBP). I'd also expect that a book by a prominent, if adopted, British author would go by the title published by in London, rather than New York. I think someone would have to make the case pretty strongly for it to be otherwise.
On the other hand "might not get noticed" does cut both ways, it implies that this is a bit of a coin-toss. Anmccaff (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Closer look at Sivi[edit]

Tbhotch also linked to this above.

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

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

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

User:Mhhossein edit-warring and making disruptive controversial edits while discussion ongoing[edit]

(non-admin closure) Taken to AN3, closed per request. L3X1 (distant write) 01:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have applied ARBSCW&ISIL/Ds to the article. El_C 02:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user User:Mhhossein has consistently edit-warred and imposed his own edits at Wahhabi sack of Karbala regarding the motives, despite the discussion about it ongoing at Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala#Motive. He has been edit-warring for long over this thing. The whys matter little, but still he seems to think his edits are sourced while I don't think the sources are actually saying what he thinks they are.

I have tried multiple times to adress concerns by discussing the issues and leaving the edits be after them being reverted. The reverts by Mhhossein are multiple where he reverted and made disruptive controversial edits of his own will instead of waiting for discussion to reach an understanding of sorts, in addition to his misrepresentation of sources.:

  • He adds back fundamentalism even though the source he used nowhere says that fundamentalism was the cause of the whole attack. Only that Wahhabis were fundamentalists and their ideology was based on it. This may have played a part in their destruction of shrines, but not necessarily the attack itself but it is OR to wonder about this old attack.
  • No 4 revert where he removed the template added by himself claiming "it will be added if other users think so" even though the issue of unbalanced nature of his edits was already raised.
  • Another controversial edit where the source simply says the attack is an "example of fanaticsm" of Wahhabis, though it doesn't cite fantasticm as a motive. This will make "cruelty" a motive if someone called it an "example of cruelty". Mhhossein however seems to do what he wishes to.
  • Another revert, No 5 where he unilaterally removed the templates of POV and OR and not in source without waiting to finish discussion and completely prove himself correct without a doubt, just because he thinks it does.

3 of the reverts were made in less than a day. I have made reverts myself as well as controversial edits though I later dropped them to avoid edit-warring. Reverts:

  • Revert No 1 as I thought it was self-interpertation (which seems to be correct) and also was unduly biased and POV as anti-Islamic or atleast anti-Wahhabist, though I seem to have less proof for that, but POV does seem to be an issue here.
  • Revert No 3 where I removed Islamic fundamentalism however allowed Mhhossein to revert. I Instead I just added a "not in source" and "original research" template so there wasn't any unnecessary controversy. However, both of them Mhhossein removed without waiting to reach an understanding through discussion.
  • [82], [83] In both these one after the other revert I went on to add back the templates Mhhossein unilaterally removed.

He has made no attempt at cooperation in addition to making little attempts to discuss first and try to avoid edit-warring and controversial edits in the meanwhile. He has made no attempt at cooperation in addition to making little attempts to discuss first and try to avoid edit-warring and controversial edits in the meanwhile. I have warned him multiple times: here, and here. However he reverted, in the first revert he unnecessarily removed my signature which I added. In the second revert he completely removed it, Reason - "OMG!" per him.

Also Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala#Motive has been open since 19 April but regardless, instead of waiting for discussion to reach a conclusion, Mhhossein is doing what he wants. He also asked for a consensus and told me to stop making any edits, even though the problem was verification and the sources not saying what he claimed, also he himself kept on editing. It didn't turn out in his express favor with one user User:HyperGaruda staying out and another User:Emir of Wikipedia not completely agreeing with him. But still kept on doing what he wanted to. He also recently demanded to start an RfC but himself keeps on edit-warring and never bothers to verify his edits properly without a doubt and solving any dispute about them which is a basic requirement.

Also instead of focusing on the topic, he keeps on lecturing me about my comments as you can see from some of his already mentioned comments this and this, this is not what we are here for. As can be seen in the edit history and the talk page, this isn't his first conflict either. I suggest that he be warned for his behaviour and if needed blocked. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

First, you need to communicate more succinctly if you want any action. Second, this appears to be a content dispute and needs to be handled via dispute resolution processes, one of which, RfC, has been suggested to you by the person you are reporting. If you believe there is edit warring, take it to WP:AN3. If not, just reasonably attempt to work out your differences or seek dispute resolution assistance. John from Idegon (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
John from Idgeon This isn't a content dispute. I don't know why you are thinking that as the complaint was about something else and I never complained for any content dispute or factored it. I only provided the content dispute as backstory for why he keeps edit-warring and disrupting. This is more than just edit-war, it also includes disruptive edits. This is why I thought it was better to complain here. If you still think it is better to take it AN3, then I'll shift it. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not the correct board to report edit-warring. The correct board is WP:ANEW. Please report there. Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, I tried to complain at AN3 but the filter doesn't let me no matter how much I shorten it. I tried reporting a false positive, but the filter didn't even allow that. I cannot shift it unless I am able to. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have shifted my comment to AN3 after help from a user disabling the filter. Please close this one now. Thank you. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

LibStar abruptly closing AFD[edit]

Could some administrators please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luerhmen History and Culture Museum, where editor User:LibStar has twice improperly closed the AFD. It is improper for a non-admin or an admin to close the AFD while it is new and there are votes which disagree. LibStar, the deletion nominator, "withdrew" the AFD. I [reverted that with "Not cool. Nominator should update their view, but this is an open discussion. BTW improper closure also failed to note AFD info at article Talk page" and advised them at their Talk. This is wp:BADNAC. After they were notified, they re-implememted it, in what becomes edit-warring.

Then I saw they already reverted it. I considered maybe they didn't understand they were breaking a rule, maybe there was a misunderstanding. I assumed that and re-reverted them with clear notice: "READ the AFD rules. There are votes both ways. This is not your personal game-space." They doubled down and they threaten me!

It seems like this high-handed treatment of the AFD system for impression management. The editor has been putting forth multiple AFDs on museums in various countries in recent weeks, which have sometimes succeeded and more often have not. They responded poorly to criticism of their failing to notify article creators of AFDs. Now this smacks of managing the portfolio of AFDs out there, so that ones where their views are doing poorly are swept away, and their views where they are not severely challenged are left open for AFD editors to see. It also dismisses the good work done by other AFD editors, including good work done to develop the article while the AFD is going on.

I voted "Keep" in the AFD and want the article saved, so it is weird for me to ask for the AFD to be re-opened, but that is the correct process. The bigger problem is the editor's behavior. --doncram 02:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

doncram is hardly an innocent party in this. he has also been following me around for weeks in AfDs that is bordering on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I closed the AfD because as I said in my nomination if sources in Chinese were found I would reconsider. sources were subsquently found. secondly it would have headed to a WP:SNOW keep on the basis. so in the interests of good faith I closed it. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
may I refer to what's on top on AfD close The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page LibStar (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • What are you trying to achieve with this ANI thread? Nominators can withdraw nominations, and this was likely headed for a WP:SNOW close anyway. Reyk YO! 03:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
precisely. if it was a disputed AfD I would not have withdrawn it. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It IS a disputed AFD. The deletion nominator is not allowed, by the rules, to withdraw it. --doncram 03:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It is disputed (there was one delete), so withdraw was not appropriate. Given what appears to be a good faith change of the nominators mind due to new sources, and all but 1 editor saying keep (for what appears to be good reasons), I think a WP:SNOW close is appropriate. -Obsidi (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
agreed, it was withdrawn on the basis of new sources found by a Chinese speaking editor. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The deletion nominator was advised they could update their views. They should have acted politely and done so, which happens all the time. What they did instead was NOT LISTEN to what they were being told, and re-implemented a disputed action and make threats and accusations (including accusations here, above). --doncram 03:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) First, to address the specific AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luerhmen History and Culture Museum. Technically, Doncram is correct. Per WP:CLOSEAFD, a nominator may withdraw, but may not close an AfD if there are outstanding delete !votes by other editors. Therefore, this AfD should have been left to run its course. On the other hand, I don't believe that withdrawing AfDs trending keep constitutes "impression management." LibStar and I have disagreed on many museum AfDs, and we disagree on whether the page author should be notified. I try to provide additional sources, and most of the time it isn't enough to convince them to strike their !vote. I do appreciate it when LibStar was convinced by the new sources, and responded by withdrawing their AfD. I've always seen an AfD withdrawal as a gesture of good faith, as it saves time for all the discussion participants. Altamel (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thank you. yes I wanted to save community time . I've always seen an AfD withdrawal as a gesture of good faith, as it saves time for all the discussion participants. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
so far 3 uninvolved editors have said it's an ok close yet doncram continues to argue and argue. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
All in "good faith", huh? Get in some more bashing while you can. This gives rise to bad taste, along with their badgering at many of the AFDs. --doncram 03:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
hopefully an admin can come along and see if this discussion is worth continuing. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you then arguing in favor of WP:Ignore All Rules? -Obsidi (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
perhaps, this is an instance where I tried to save the community the time and effort of going through an AfD that was clearly heading to keep. all uninvolved editors can see it was heading that way. I refer to article improvement since nominaiton. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Reading what they write here, i think they still have not acknowledged a) that it is a disputed AFD and b) they cannot withdraw in that case. They should leave it to an uninvolved other to close by any "ignore all rules" or SNOW-type closure (and I don't think SNOW was yet justified). They are reading this as approval of their actions. --doncram 03:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

still arguing... LibStar (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Obsidi, were you asking me? Perhaps I did not make myself clear: LibStar should not have closed this AfD. Doing so deprived the one other editor who voted delete of the chance to have their concerns heard out. My point is that it's counterproductive to accuse LibStar of closing AfDs early in bad faith. The best outcome now, along the lines of Doncram's proposal, would be for an uninvolved editor to reopen the AfD for a few days, and reclose it later on. Altamel (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Normally, yes, unless it's unanimous keep, a nominator can't unilaterally shut down a deletion discussion they started. So, technically it was an improper closure. However in an open and shut case such as this, WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY come into play. The rationale for the deletion discussion was lack of coverage, and this was seconded by another editor, but after that existence of coverage was demonstrated so as to render the "delete" rationale moot. If the nominator was mistaken (and by extension the other user who endorsed that point of view and did not raise any other concerns), there's no reason to keep an unnecessary discussion open as a matter of procedure. This is not a big deal. There's really no reason to turn it into one. If any new concerns come to light it is a simple matter to make a new AfD. Swarm ? 03:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The one delete !vote was made before the article was expanded and more sources added, addressing concerns. There's no point re-opening an AFD just so that it can be closed by someone else with the same result. WP:IAR tells us to use common sense - very applicable in this situation. --NeilN talk to me 03:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you Neil and Swarm. you explain it well. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't even get a chance to look at the new sources because I was at work. Nice to know my opinion isn't needed. SL93 (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's now been closed by an administrator. This ANI has achieved nothing. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like it was a big issue this time, but it's a very good rule that if there's disagreement you can't just close as withdrawn. Basically it's about whether SL93 changed his/her mind as well. The IAR approach assumes he/she probably would have given the new evidence, and the comment above indicates that's the case, but the awful situation is when someone hasn't changed their mind but the discussion was closed improperly. If it were me, I'd take a real issue with the close, especially if it were followed by edit warring to reinstate it, and I think that you would, too. FWIW. That said, I understand how it could be messier given what sounds like extenuating circumstances (outside of this particular AfD). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
yes the extenuating circumstances is that doncram has essentially been appearing at almost every AfD I nominate usually as the first commenter... not a coincidence. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • LibStar and Shirt58, please read WP:WDAFD: AfD nominations can only be withdrawn "[i]f no-one else has supported the deletion proposal". Moreover, LibStar, you cannot ever close your own AfD, no matter what. Please refrain from trying to do that in the future. Just let the process play itself out. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
nominators can withdraw their nomination in certain circumstances. what is being disputed in this case is whether the one keep and the substantial new evidence was enough to keep it going. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour at Template:Infobox royalty/doc[edit]

DrKay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has engaged in a slow, but steady edit-war to impose his version of the documentation at Template:Infobox royalty/doc. Since 15 April he has made essentially the same changes 8 times despite three other editors disagreeing with him. These are the edits, along with his edit summaries:

  1. This parameter is deprecated per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes.
  2. deprecated per RfC, which concluded it should only be used for religious figures. Royalty are not religious figures.
  3. This is the consensus at this page. If you think consensus has changed, go to the talk page.
  4. you have performed three reverts in 24 hours, you may not do so again
  5. This is the consensus at this page. If you think consensus has changed, go to the talk page.
  6. I see no change in consensus on the talk page
  7. I'm not lying.
  8. as agreed on talk

Note the mistaken and misleading edit summaries:

Having commented at the talk page and requested an end to the edit-war, I visited DrKay's talk page to see if anyone had already raised the issue with him. I was dismayed to see from the history that he had removed the thread with the edit summary Fuck off, Andy. DrKay has edited Wikipedia for over 10 years and is an administrator. That sort of response to valid criticism is completely unacceptable and indicates to me that DrKay has become too invested in his original mistake to be able to rationally back away from it. I'm therefore requesting that he voluntarily acknowledges that that his behaviour is sub-standard, and that he understands that edit-warring – even without breaching the 3RR bright-line – is not a valid means of reaching consensus. In the absence of such assurances, I request that administrative action is taken to prevent him edit-warring further at Template:Infobox royalty/doc. --RexxS (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Having looked at the edit history at Template:Infobox royalty/doc, I am very disturbed to see DrKay has been edit warring against multiple other editors and has been doing so since 4 April (and accusing others of 3RR breaches in the process while ignoring their own sub-3RR warring). Had I seen the current spate of reverts while it was still active, I would certainly have issued a block. This, accompanied by the uncivil rebuffing of attempts to discuss the matter, is lamentable behaviour from an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Per my comments here my closure of the original RFC explicitly only applies to {{infobox person}}. The question being asked there was Proposal: Should we remove from {{Infobox person}} the |religion= parameter (and the associated |denomination= one)?, for which there was an overwhelming and policy-backed consensus, but it's clear that only this specific infobox was under discussion, not all biographical infoboxes in general.

    There may well be consensus to remove the religion parameter from all infoboxes and rely on custom text in those instances where the field genuinely needs to be included, but that's not what was up for discussion and to the best of my knowledge has never been formally discussed. Because the topic of infoboxes tends to attract some very obsessive people on both sides of any debate, in my opinion any significant change to practice does require a formal RFC with a formal closure. There's long been a tendency for people to try to bludgeon changes through by bullying the other participants out of discussions, so Wikipedia's usual discuss-until-a-consensus-is-reached approach often fails to function properly in this context. ‑ Iridescent 14:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "impose my version". I have no strong opinion on the parameter per se. I am merely an administrator trying to implement community consensus. Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter[86] so I am confused by his actions at the template documentation page, and as he has never posted to talk I am still not clear. When I posted to talk it was only to clarify widespread community consensus that whether to use a parameter is decided on a case-by-case basis at each individual article, to which two editors agreed readily (and no-one has opposed). So, again I am baffled by the extreme responses to what should be uncontroversial re-statement of existing norms. I told Andy to fuck off because he was attempting to stoke the embers of Only in death's harassment, which were long since cold. DrKay (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

DrKay, I am extremely close to indefblocking you on WP:CIR grounds here. Since you seem to have missed it despite it being pointed out directly above and explained in detail, Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter is an outright lie; OID was writing in support of removal of the parameter from {{infobox person}} explicitly. If you want an RFC to remove the parameter from {{infobox royalty}}, by all means start one, but don't edit-war to enforce the outcome of a RFC which never took place except in your own head. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
DrKay, here's a question I'd really like to ask you at your reconfirmation RfA (because I think you seriously need one), but I'll make do with here for now. If multiple people disagree with your interpretation of consensus and revert you, what are you supposed to do?
a) Edit war
b) Discuss
c) Something else
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent: CIR is an essay. "Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter" can be easily re-drafted as "Only in death, the main interlocutor, supported removal of the generic parameter"; there is no intention to deceive. Nor was there ever. Your accusation of lying is just another bad faith assumption tantamount to harassment. I'm not starting an RfC because I hold no strong opinion on the matter of whether the parameter is retained or removed.
@Boing: There is no edit-war. It's over. DrKay (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It might be over now, but I'm trying to ascertain your understanding of relevant Wikipedia policy and assess your fitness as an admin. So can you please explain what went wrong and how it should have been handled? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Since there is no misuse of the tools, removing them will be of no benefit to the project.
I regret saying fuck off, which is out of character, and came about largely because of private events off-wiki involving the ill-health of a third person.
I have read and understood the comments here and at the template talk page. I will continue to follow the consensus of the community and work collaboratively with others, as I have done on many occasions in the past. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
So you will not answer my request for you to explain what went wrong in this instance and how it should have been handled? (And I don't mean just the "fuck off"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
There sure is a LOT of this type of WP:CIR from administrators these days... Is it at all possible to get a review system going already? --Tarage (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Problems with automated filter[edit]

The automated filter keeps on blocking me from making many types of edits and identifies them as disruptive even when they aren't. This happened while filing a complaint at edit warring noticeboard which was disallowed. I am unable to even make a warning for 3 reverts or more as well as report a false positive made by the filter. I'd like to create an account as I have wanted to for some time, but this has happened many times and I doubt I'm the only one. This must be solved. Please fix the filter. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a nasty long-term abuser on your IP range, which is why your edits were blocked. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I have temporarily disabled the filter so you can post your report, but I would encourage you to register an account. Your post would not then be blocked. I will investigate changing the filter to mitigate the situation. BethNaught (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
That is why it kept on disallowing even reports about the filter. Thanks for the help and disabling it, I'll make my edit-warring report. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

For observers concerned about these proceedings, I will note that I have now removed the relevant IP range from the filter, because of excessive false positives on the range. BethNaught (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Leprof 7272 and tag bombing[edit]

This is not a happy thing. LeProf can bring a lot of value and improves articles, but keeps tag-bombing articles like this:

I get it (I do!) that there are parts of WP that are really bad, but tag-bombing this way is not OK.

Leprof has been asked to stop doing this many, many times (Leprof selectively removes or overwrites stuff from their talk page, as you can see in its history). The list below is just some of the discussions people have tried to have with Leprof over this. The list starts with recent and goes backward in time -- start from bottom if you want chron order.

  • January 2017: Noted here at ANI
  • Dec 2016: asked to back off tagging here at their talk page
  • Nov 2016: warned on their talk page here
  • Nov 2016 complaint about overtagging at Peptide synthesis and generally tagbombing at their talk page here edited other editors' comment and replied here, then removed here
  • May 2016 complaint about overtagging Sophie's Choice at their talk page here, removed here
  • April 2016: noted here at ANI; extensive related discussion at their Talk page here, a great deal of that about LeProf edit warring over his edits to the archived ANI discussion (oy)
  • April 2016, complaint about overtagging at Chromosome conformation capture at their talk [age here, removed here
  • April 2016: complaint about overtagging generally at their talk page that had been removed, re-added here, defiant replies added inline here, overwritten by LeProf here, request to stop overtagging in response, here
  • April 2016: complaint at their talk page here about Merlin Mann tagging, removed by LeProf here
  • April 2016: complaints at their talk page about tagging/editing of Scum of the Earth Church here, removed by LeProf here
  • March 2016 complaints about tagging of Intrinsic factor at their talk page here, overwritten w response by LeProf here;
  • March 2016: complaint at their talk page here on March 25 about Acetone peroxide, with follow up here about Villa Baviera; other editor's comments edited, section header changed, and response by LeProf here then later completely overwritten here
  • March 2016: complaint about inline all caps tagging here, removed here
  • Feb 2016: response to editing tagging at Chirality by 2 editors here; responded to by LeProf here in mid-March, with justification of his tagging practices yet noting I am routinely reverted and accused of bombing
  • January 2016: overtagging at Abbvie noted here, removed by LeProf here in March
  • October 2015: two editors warn about over-tagging here. removed by leprof here during March 2016 discussions above
  • July 2015: complaint about overtagging at their talk page here
  • was part of the problem in this ANI thread from 2014

For several reasons, I posted the stuff above on their Talk page here on 16 April asking them to stop.

They did not reply there but did do this series of diffs, tagging the heck out another article.

I waited longer for them to log back in and reply. Today they were back and did this tagging, so it is clear that they do not intend to reply or to stop.

A prior discussion about this here at ANI last April was abandoned because LeProf didn't respond (see thread). We can probably count on them not replying here as well, and they may not log in at all while this runs. They have had plenty of notice that this would happen.

I think a TBAN from tagging articles would be appropriate here. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support TBAN - I first encountered LeProf at A Prairie Home Companion (see history around Dec 2016), and it ended up at ANI (I think I started one of the threads linked above?) and AFC and... well, everywhere. I eventually threw in the towel because it was like talking to a brick wall. As mentioned by Jytdog, LeProf does do good work, but the excessive tagging is, well, excessive (and disruptive). Primefac (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban and it also really bothers me the way this user always has to attack articles as both an account and IP, but apparently this is allowed. Sro23 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Editing the same articles both logged in and logged out is not allowed, and is sanctionable. Softlavender (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender, if you want to throw in an alternate proposal to ensure they're (usually) logged in, be my guest. They have been asked by admin and non-admin alike to stay logged in, and we have yet to receive a straight answer as to why they keep doing it. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from tagging. This has gone on long enough and is extremely disruptive and aggravating, not to mention unnecessary, heedless, legalistic, and over-the-top. It is disruptive editing, plain and simple. Softlavender (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Block till he explains his behavior. Else he's going to get that TBAN. L3X1 (distant write) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from tagging - An attention-getting block wouldn;t be a bad idea, either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from tagging Seems fairly egregious to me despite long term warnings that got ignored. -Obsidi (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes to several sections caused by odd edit.[edit]

Fixed, user has been warned. Primefac (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

this edit appears to have replaced a fair amount of characters, and inserted a few others. Anmccaff (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting... could have been due to a lot of things. My gut is that something in his browser interpreted the text differently, which the save would have flagged MediaWiki as modified. I know that when I copy and paste text out from Wikipedia and edit it using a word processor, I have to be careful when moving it back, as this sort of text easily gets "lost in translation"... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Working on it. Primefac (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Telenovelafan215[edit]

Hi. I come because I have been seeing some behavior a little destructive with respect to the user in question. The user insult to Alex824 days ago. It even creates the Alex824 user page repeatedly. Now revert the Alex editions in this article. But now he tells him to shut up. It is a bit complicated to communicate with this user because they simply ignore the messages, as you can see here, I have previously left messages about other problems.--Philip J Fry Talk to me 23:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The first link [87] was a clear PA insult that should have resulted in a block at that time, but it has been 13 days sense he wrote this. Blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive so I doubt anyone is going to act on that now. But it was very nasty, so who knows. It does appear that he isn't responding to talk page requests and mostly "going silent." He does tell another editor to "shut up" when he is reverting him, that is clearly not WP:CIVIL -Obsidi (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

British Israelism[edit]

This article is under a constant assault from believers of the ideology who can't seem to take "no" for an answer when Doug Weller gives it to them. Would a round of admin warnings or even topic bans be out of the question?

I'm serious, the entire talk page except for the first section is from the last month. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the behavior of specific editors, you need to name them and provide diffs to back up your complaint. Otherwise it is unrealistic to expect admins to do anything. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)