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.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

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

Noticeboard archives

Template hijacking[edit]

A template (not sure which one) has been vandalized to redirect clicks anywhere on certain article pages that use it to a Youtube live feed ([1]). One of the affected articles is Barack Obama. To demonstrate the issue, navigate to that page, then attempt to click on any blue link (or even in the white space of the page, as the exploit actually uses a transparent overlay). General Ization Talk 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to reproduce it on mobile ... maybe fixed already? Or just not working on my browser? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Apparently not working on your mobile browser. General Ization Talk 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't work on my desktop either.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This was fixed; see the VPT thread. {{Excessive citations inline}} had a overlay element added to it. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Apparently fixed now -- either undone by the initiator of the hijacking or corrected by someone else. General Ization Talk 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
See my recent contribs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I have seen this same exploit before (redirecting clicks, as I recall, to the same webcast). I won't say more because last time it was all revdel'd so as not to give anyone ideas (WP:BEANS). General Ization Talk 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Spam blacklisted. SQLQuery me! 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I noticed a few templates in my watchlist getting protected the other day; apparently this process needs to be speeded up. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
One of these templates had 8 transclusions. Whatever standards are applied, a template like that is probably not going to be automatically protected, and even if it was there'll probably appear an autoconfirmed sock. However feel free to join the discussion at WP:VPR. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've run a purge job on all pages where that was transcluded, so it should be clear now. — xaosflux Talk 04:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Can I take this opportunity to point out to people that if you see reports of template vandalism, "strange vandalism" or similar, then the first thing to check is this newbie template contribs link (it's easy to reconstruct). The edits are almost always immediately obvious. If there's nothing there you can always check recent changes for unregistered contribs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Zzuuzz: template "related changes" for a page usually helps as well e.g.. — xaosflux Talk 15:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Xaosflux and Zzuuzz: At least one of the templates in the "newbie" link above - Template:Conservatism sidebar - is still transcluding vandalism onto pages when logged out; this image was just appearing on Republican Party (United States) instead of the template when viewing the page in incognito mode. I've purged the page and it appears to be gone from there, but the template transcludes onto 128 other pages according to the tool. I'll see if I can find any others. Home Lander (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
          • @Home Lander: I'll have a bot purge them all now. — xaosflux Talk 16:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Thanks Xaosflux; by chance, can you spill the beans on how to do that? Home Lander (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
            •  Done @Home Lander: you can grab the 'what links here' list from the template, then feed that to anything to script either running WP:PURGE or null-edits to the pages. You could even use AWB and just append {{subst:null}} to a list of pages. — xaosflux Talk 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
              • @Xaosflux: Oh lord, you lost me quickly. I have no experience with the AWB or bots (other than the anti-vandal or AIV helpers). I think I'll just leave that to you. Face-wink.svg Home Lander (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Aww, dang it... I've been meaning to pull a list of our templates with the highest translusion count and make sure that any high risk or highly visible ones are protected. I'll put that back on my to-do list... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
MusikAnimal has done a lot of work to list and protect templates and modules. See the recent User talk:MusikAnimal#List request from Primefac. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Perfect! This is exactly what we need to be doing so we can reduce the risk of major template vandalism that would impact many pages. Thanks for letting me know that this is a currently in-progress task; I'll see what I can do to help (if it's needed). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Primefac protected a boat load from a report I gave him (which I agree with, for the record :). I'm not sure how much further we should go without broader support, but anyway I have a script that I can run anytime you need me to. A bot task used solely for reporting is probably a bad idea, per WP:BEANS. I suspect however that at least one of the vandals we're dealing with is running their own queries. MusikAnimal talk 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Would it be possible to protect all redirects to such protected templates too? Don't know how worthwhile it'd be, but I remember a while back people were hitting template redirects too. ansh666 04:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
We're just talking about redirects, right? Not any pages that reference them? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, like how Template:Info box redirects to Template:Infobox. (Perhaps a bad example, since thankfully the former isn't used at all.) ansh666 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I got'cha. I don't think there's an automated way to do that (or at least easily). Cascading protection only protects subpages of a page, but what you're asking for sounds to be almost the same thing (except... with redirects). You'd have to find each one and do it one-by-one if it can't be done with automation... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
If that's the case, we'll need to stay a step ahead and do this ourselves. I agree that having a bot report these things is not a good idea. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Is diff an attempt for something similar? Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I'm no admin, so I can't comment on the previous, but yes, it looks like the idea is similar. Easy enough to turn into a transparent redirect. See User:Bellezzasolo/sandbox. Bellezzasolo Discuss 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Another: Template:Delink question hyphen-minus + user. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Handled by NeilN. The take-home message is that this is not going to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Dilpa kaur[edit]

Could an admin take a look at the contribs of this WP:SPA account, especially these diffs here which clearly show that this account is engaged in meat puppetry. —MBL Talk 08:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's a disruptive meat puppet. See [2] filed a report just after JosephusOfJerusalem (another SPA) had his report rejected.[3] On report he writes, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[4] Same green font and sentence that JosephusOfJerusalem had applied, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[5]
Few things are clear here, they both are obsessively trying hard to get me blocked/banned, and using same templates/style/words and they are edit warring in tandem. Such deception needs to be dealt with indef block, because these accounts are WP:NOTHERE, all they care about is their disruptive ethnic agenda. Anmolbhat (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat:--Hmm..Some similarity at the AE report but I ain't seeing much meat-puppetryin light of Ammarpad's evidence, the overlap looks to be strong except the hazy overlaps which is not uncommon, given the highly polarised editing atmosphere at your main-space overlaps with Dilpa.You can file a detailed SPI report, including relevant diffs etc.And, Anmol, it's best to comment on content and not on contributors, at article talk-pages.Winged BladesGodric 08:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@WBG: I don't think it is ripe for SPI but I believe the above report is beyond talkpage comments. Do you think this is also mere happenstance? Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) removed content with claim of MOS violation. Reverted by Raymond3023. See the next editAmmarpad (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I ran Interwine but missed the diff.Thanks:)Winged BladesGodric 09:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Saving a template from the preceding report, working on it when the reported person displays more bad behaviour, as is the case here with Anmolbhat, is not meatpuppetry. Your other diffs [6] are a misrepresentation, sometimes i struggle with making my pre-planned edits on my mobile because it gets frozen and goes haywire and copying from my phone notes and pasting and saving becomes a hassle. This[7] was a temporary notice on my part on the page to underline the issues with the text I was trying to remove, until I could fix the text properly when my phone improved, which I did within 5 minutes[8]. This seems like a detraction from the current AE case against MBlaze Lightning's friend Anmolbhat who has just broken the civility restriction. My guess is that when I by mistake pasted my report on Anmolbhat by mistake in the wrong place and came back to insert it in the right place later, during that time MBlaze Lightning started planning a diversion from the AE case against Anmolbhat. What should be looked into is the long-term tag-teaming between MBlaze Lightning, Anmolbhat, Capitals00, Kautilya and some others. Dilpa kaur (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You can make up whatever you want to but we have already understood that you and other disruptive SPAs are meat puppets, with nothing to do here except edit warring in tandem and pushing your disruptive ethnic agenda. According to you, we should investigate long term editors like Mblaze, Kautilya3, Capitals00 so that your meat puppetry can be justified. You make no sense. Anmolbhat (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a comment from somebody who has closely watched this go down for the last few weeks but has mostly been a bystander. I have not directly interacted with Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) or JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs) but have noticed their edits and their editing behavior so far has not been typical of a Wikipedia editor and raised some doubts in my mind. There was a RfC at Talk:Kashmir conflict recently and there seemed to be a Wikipedia:Vote stacking on that page. Now this might seem typical of India-Pakistan pages given the different views. But quite a bit of editors participated in that RfC with little or no edits on the actual page. What was even more concerning was the fact that many of these editors had been dormant for quite some time before the RfC, commented on the RfC and went back to their dormant selves. This behavior clubbed with the behavior on recent articles like Kashmiris, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Violence against women during the partition of India is concerning. In these cases editors have been recently created (past 1-2 months) accounts who have very little editing history on Wikipedia and most of it resolves around a limited set (4-5) of India-Pakistan pages and seems to be pushing a certain POV. An editor was recently blocked for a week for violating the 1RR block for their edits which they falsely claimed were copy-right violations. In my opinion, the administrators need to have a closer look at this since there seems to be something more than what meets the eye. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Adamgerber80's uninvolved observer comments are exactly accurate. I couldn't have said it better myself. There is serious tag teaming/meatpuppetry going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Bishonen I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this and see whether indefinite blocks are warranted. —MBL Talk 00:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am happy and satisfied reading Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)'s explanation of the diffs. I don't see any evidence of meat puppetry. I have in the past been falsely accused of socking by MBL and I would encourage people to take into consideration just how many of these accusations he throws around. --Xinjao (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why you bothered to come back to Wikipedia 29 days only for supporting such nonsensical "explanation"? You can describe though if they are any sensible. Capitals00 (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Filer's tag-teaming and harassment[edit]

The filer has been part of several spurious and failed attempts at getting blocked the users he disagrees with. Just last month on here MBlaze Lightning created a report against Dilpa kaur so ridiculous (he could not differentiate between the different IPs of @Dilpa kaur: and @Danish.mehraj26:) that he had to revert himself [9]. He also paarticipated against me and @Danish.mehraj26:/@JosephusOfJerusalem: in a frivolous SPI which ended up confirming our innocence. The question is why is the filer so desperately making multiple attempts to get others blocked (his own block log is hardly one to envy)?

And what was happening in the middle of all of this? Two IPs,[10][11] located in two different [12][13] Indian cities, turn up to frame me and @Owais Khursheed: for meatpuppetry. Both IPs were had knowledge of a user known as @Kautilya3:, which indicates they were old users IP socking to frame me and Owais. The different locations of the IPs suggest collaboration between multiple old users is happening on IP levels, and even worse is happening through the accounts where they are using hook and crook methods to get opposing editors blocked.

Senior editor @Mar4d: is had also complained of this trend of a group of editors close to @Kautilya3: wreaking POV havoc across articles in the India-Pakistan topic area.

MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00, Adamgerber80, D4iNa4 and Kautilya3 have an extensive record of tag teaming and supporting each other on articles, often where they have had minimal or negligible contribution to article content or discussion on the talkpages.

For example the senior editor @NadirAli: observed on Talk:Violence against women during the partition of India that Kautilya3 suddenly arrived on a talkpage discussion for an article he had no contribution to. Even more interestingly, MBlaze Lightning turned up on the same page to do a revert[14] to ensure the page looked the way Kautilya3 wanted [15]. This despite MBlaze Lightning not contributing much to the article either.

Another example is Talk:Annexation_of_Junagadh#MBlaze_Lightning_cuts where Kautilya3 turns up, after a long absence from contributing to the article, to support MBlaze Lightning's POV.

And even more. During extensive discussions on Talk:Kashmir_conflict#KA$HMIR_revert_justifications between me, @NadirAli:, @Kautilya3: and @Mar4d:, MBlaze Lightning is absent. He then suddenly turns up only to agree with Kautilya3 and Capitals00 here Talk:Kashmir_conflict#NadirAli_edits, though again this contribution is no more than a line. Despite having no contribution worth the name to the discussion he then reverts to Kautilya3's preferred version.

And then comes in Adamgerber80, who had no contribution to the discussion, to restore MBlaze Lightning and Kautilya3's preferred version during the edit war [16]. Note his edit summary ad then check how much he has contributed to the discussions on talk.

Just recently, MBlaze Lightning again proved to be part of a tag team. Until now he has had no major contribution to the discussion on Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus except for one vague statement (and no response thereafter when he was questioned) in support of Anmolbhat and Kautilya3's POV [17]. He then did a disruptive revert on the article [18]. Fortunately the edit war has been ended graciously by the admins who have locked the page now so MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat can no longer break WP:NOCON and do disruptive reverts.

Then there is Capitals00. In an extensive discussion on sourcing between Kautilya3 and JosephusOfJerusalem Capitals00 turns up to make vitriolic comments,[19] with no other contribution to the discussion, and does a revert [20] to Kautilya3's preferred version while there is still discussion going on on the talkpage.

I do not believe for an instant that we can ignore all this collaboration as a coincidence. KA$HMIR (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


  • But they are years old accounts with thousands of edits. That's why the actual issue here is with the disruptive tagteaming/meat-puppetry involving you and other very new accounts with no edits outside this subject (WP:SPA). Also you have selectively canvassed only those editors in your message that push same POV as yours. Anmolbhat (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I am adding to my comment since I have been accused of "tag-teaming" by KA$HMIR. I do have all these pages on my Watchlist for quite sometime including the ones I have mentioned. Even though I have no edits on them, I still keep track of all the discussions on their talk pages and additions by other users. I only interject when I feel the need to. This was the very reason that I had reverted some edits of your earlier username on a different page. My edit comments on that revert was out of the fact that the page was turning into state of constant reverts and it was me who requested the full protection of the page to ensure a proper discussion took place. I reverted those edits to a point in the page which was before the edits by NadirAli since they were the topic of discussion on the Talk page to maintain STATUSQUO. Lastly, I do not believe in Vote-stacking and unnecessary "show of support comments" as was on display during that RfC. Other editors had raised valid points and continue to raise valid points in the on-going discussion and I have not felt the need to interject so far. And as a matter of fact I have add disagreements with Kautilya3 and MBlaze Lightning on different topics in the past so your accusation of "tag-teaming" seems pre-mature and ill-thought. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, let us see KA$HMIR. Here are your edits intertwined with Dilpa kaur's (who is supposedly a Punjabi and Khalistani), and your edits intertwined with Danish.mehraj26, and your edits intertwined with Josephus (who is a Jewish historian no doubt).
On the the other hand, here are the filer's edits intertwined with mine, those intertwined with Capitals00 and those intertwined with Adamgerber80.
Do you see the difference? I doubt you would. So let me spell it out for you. We all watch whatever pages interest us, and we jump in when we see the need. In contrast, your troops show up wherever you go. No matter what their professed interests are. That is what we are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Intertwined contributions only display the ″last 1000 cumulated contributions of the two users″. It does not show intersections. To check intersections you need to use this tool [21]. The tool shows that Dilpa kaur and I have only edited in 4 same places,[22] of which only 2 are talkpages and the remaining two are ANI and AE boards, likely not even on the same threads. JosephusOfJerusalem intersects with Dilpa on 6 pages,[23] of which 1 is the article you mysteriously turned up to 'uninvited' and only 2 are talkpages. His intersections with me are also only in 6 places.[24] JosephusOfJerusalem has contributed to several places [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] where I and Dilpa have not and similarly Dilpa[35] and I[36][37][38][39][40] have contributed where each other has not.

The same is not true for your friends. The tool shows you and MBlaze Lightning intersecting on 404 pages,[41] many of them talkpages. You intersect with Capitals00 on 404 pages too.[42] All three of you intersect in 103 places,[43] many of them talkpages, whereas I, Dilpa and Josephus intersect only on 2 places[44], 1 of them an AE board. Whatever you say now does not wipe the proof I have provided of obvious tag teaming between your meat puppets. I would even request admins to check your emails. Do you really think you can get away with all the tag-teaming without the rest of us knowing that all this is not a coincidence? KA$HMIR (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That is bogus logic. A sample has to be fair for it to have any validity. The size of the intersection doesn't mean a thing. The longer people are here, the more pages they watch, and the more they watch, the more they will intersect with the others. The intertwine results show a fair simple, and they are showing for you and your friends, people moving into pages they never visited before and siding with one another. This confirms Adamgerber80 observed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Its very curious isn't it how you all end up reverting to each other's versions, even if your meatpuppets such as MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 have had scant input on the discussion talkpages/article content. The tool for catching the socks and meats is intersection tool. The intertwined contributions show nothing except the last 1000 cumulated edits. The intertwined tool, unlike the intersection tool, is not useful for showing overlaps and tag-teamers supporting each other. KA$HMIR (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

MBL is not helping himself by persistently throwing accusations of sock puppetry, meat puppetry or single purpose accounts. He has been doing this for months, perhaps years; only recently accusing me of sockpuppeterring. He is offending numerous people with such accusations. If he continues, he should be topic banned from filing any ANIs and SPIs or at the least strictly warned. This is becoming too much.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) It's probably worth noting that User:NadirAli has edited ANI 48 times in the last eleven years: 46 of those were to a single thread about him last July, one more was this, and then there was the above. Posting comments like the above about an editor one doesn't like to threads in which one is not involved is generally seen as a form of hounding. Even if one was ping-canvassed. The good faith way of responding to canvassing like KA$HMIR's above would be to tell them to buzz off. I know nothing about this dispute, but interactions like this make me really, really think that the various editors not on MBL's "side" should be at the very least cautioned. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hijiri, it's almost as if you've missed the fact that MBL filed an SPI against me despite having almost no prior interaction with me. He has been doing that numerous times. Given all this, are you still sure it's me who's doing the "hounding". Forgive me but your comment is indeed humerus, even if not intended to be so.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is having prior interactions with someone a prerequisite to opening an SPI? I would think most SPIs are opened to report accounts one has not interacted with before. Anyway, I didn't miss anything -- you showed up on an ANI involving a user you had conflicted with some months ago (at which time said user had managed to convince a quite conservative CU-enabled user to perform a check on you), and, as a former (repeat) victim of hounding that looked very similar to this, I decided to call it what it was. It seems like MBL opened only one SPI on you, so it's really unclear what you mean by He has been doing that numerous times. [...] it's [not] me who's doing the "hounding" -- are you accusing MBL of hounding you? If so, I would encourage you to present evidence or read WP:KETTLE and retract that baseless accusation. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
PS, your comment about my ANI edits are incorrect. I have edited more ANI threads than that in the past 11 years, with only two being directly against me and one indirectly against me and another group of Pakistanis.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Wait, did you do so under an alternate account or something? I did a pretty thorough check, and it wasn't hard (you've made less than 500 WP-space edits in that time). Are you being pedantic and saying that technically February 12, 2007 was less than 11 years ago? If that's the case then let's just say 10 years, 11 months and 5 days. I was rounding up. The above 2014 diff is the only edit your current account made to ANI between February 12, 2007 and your above off-topic remark MBL, whose edit summary did not include Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles. Ctrl+F "Incidents" and that section title yourself here if you don't believe me -- the former brings up 48 results, the latter 46. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Geogene[edit]

For this comment in response to my prior. At what point does such suppression warrant a topic ban? Can someone kindly evaluate? Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Suppression"? And no, one comment observing that apparent endless sealioning of an issue "looks like trolling" is not ever going to "warrant a topic ban," so I'm not sure what you're proposing to accomplish here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, Humanengr has been aggressively using article and user talk pages to promote personal (non-mainstream/fringe) beliefs and Original Research, and he has persisted without acknowledging the good faith responses of other users. In particular, instead of building on other editors' responses to try to reach synthesis or common ground that might result in article improvement, he responds with leading questions that unilaterally attribute POV to other editors with whom he disagrees. This pattern of interaction is unproductive and provocative and in my opinion, yes, it's what we call "trolling". And far from "suppressing" Humanengr, the editors on American Politics articles have bent over backwards to AGF and try, in vain, to explain basic WP policy and guidelines. If anyone has the energy to document OP's behavior in detail, we could consider some restriction on him to end the huge waste of time and attention he brings with him to these difficult topics. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to point out that Humanengr has, since March 2017, made over 500 edits to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but in that same time, only 21 edits to the article itself. I'm not going to dive into that pool of edits to evaluate their quality, but, at least on the surface, it does seems as if Humanengr may be attempting to dominate the discussion by volume of edits, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken, But the article edits are key framing edits as noted in my comment below; to which I’ll add my cleanup of cites for the lede para to provide better temporal ordering. Thoughts, given those additional details? Humanengr (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at the WP:CPUSH essay, checking off how many of these things describe what Humanengr has been doing in the Russian interference article every day for months.

* They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.
* They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. Like trying over and over again to put "alleged" in front of "Russian interference".
* They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information. Like they were doing immediately before I called them out on trolling.
* They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
* They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.
* They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view.
* They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors.
These behaviors would be considered "trolling" pretty much anywhere. Geogene (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if Humanengr is trolling or just a POV pusher, But I have not been impressed with some of Geogene styles of attack either. Both users I think have issues with NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I'd like to see some examples of my "issues" with NPOV. Thanks. Geogene (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
[45] is a dismissive comment that implies you accept there was interference we we should accept there was (As no RS does explicitly say there was interference). It is certainly POV pushing as much as the OP is a troll. This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives [46], with this added for good measure[47]. This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation. But what many of them are (including) the trolling accusations are disruptive in that they make article talk pages about users, not the article. As you say about the IP's here [48] these posts are a huge time sink, and wastes everyones time.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven, you claim it's "POV pushing" when I told somebody to quit casting aspersions? [49]. Also, you just accused me of violating NPOV because I accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Are you serious? Geogene (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I said "This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives", as I also went on to say "This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation.". My point is that (yes) if you want to assume bad faith and read the worst possible motive into a users comments yours can be seen as POV pushing (and how about the first link, are there any RS that say unreservedly that Russia interfered?). No I did not say you violated POV because you accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election (which is by the way a POV, one you claim you were saying in an article talk page). I said you claimed RS agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Let me ask another question. Do you have any sort of positive doubt that Russia was involved in some way in Donald Trump's election? Are you trying to influence the article in that direction? Geogene (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This is not about my views (or me). Oh and this can also be read as POV pushing, it does not matter what you or I think, what matters is what RS say. Anything else is POV pushing "it did happen and our article must not be allowed to imply otherwise) is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: this is about you, since you're deeply involved there, and since you have found your way into this thread and begun to throw accusations. And, where are those sources that say it didn't happen? I'm assuming you must have them. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Found my way? [50]. You cannot prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. I do not need a source saying "it did not happen", as that is not the basis of an argument I am making, but you have claimed RS have said something. It is thus down to you to either provide that source or admit there is not one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(ec)Slatersteven: That link shows a straightforward summary of the problems with Humanengr's longstanding behavior wrt American Politics. Personally, I would characterize Humanengr as a user who does not understand site policy about due weight and original research, but it's been explained over and over and other editors have concluded his behavior is not constructive and have lost all patience with him. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I said he has issues, I do not agree he is a troll.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
And if you want to wikilawyer this, I didn't say they were a troll. I said they were trolling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talkcontribs) 19:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Which is the same thing, and you know it. But agreeing he has issues, but not the one he had been accused of is not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't agree that it is. And I think you should be introduced to WP:SPADE. Geogene (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(ec)I think both Geogene and Slatersteven are great collegial editors who've made lots of article improvements. "You're a troll" is a personal remark and cannot be evaluated. "You're trolling" describes a specific action and is readily verified or falsified. Humanengr often trolls, according to the definition of that behavior we commonly understand around here. Geogene did not label him a troll, which would be an hurtful personal remark, especially where the problem arises from incompetence rather than ill will or malevolent intention. The two statements are formally and substantively dissimilar. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This is wikilawyering in a nut shell "ahh I did not say he was a "X", I said he wrote like one". As I said I agree that Humanengr has series issues that should have been reported here a while ago. But I do not accept that saying someone is trolling is not calling them a troll, after all are you not what you do?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Helpful guidelines - Fair enough. Let's not get sidetracked, however. Here is guidance we can use to consider Humanengr's behavior:
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It seems from the above that SPECIFICO agrees with Slatersteven that Geogene called me a troll? Do I read that correctly? Can some more neutral party pls weigh in on this point in isolation? Tia, Humanengr (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Humanengt I went out of my way to defuse the label "troll", which I said is not useful and could be a hurtful label, and to concentrate on your behavior, which is what Geogene did. So as I have explained at too much length already above, I do not think it's useful to accuse Geogene of something he did not say. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, SPECIFICO, the issue is not what you said but what Geogene said. [Cont’d below in response to Geogene.] Humanengr (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
You want someone to weigh in on that point in isolation? Isolation from what? The question of whether or not you were trolling at the time? Why would you want to separate those two issues? I was pinged again. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I’ll broaden the issue. Can an admin please weigh in here regarding the issue of verb vs noun (saying someone is ‘trolling’ vs calling them a ‘troll’)? That would be informative. Thx in advance, Humanengr (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Note also here that I credited you specifically for a compromise re ‘concluded’ and ‘high confidence’ in the lede. And this is how you repay? Humanengr (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


Agreed. I've noticed a tendency to not learn from RS, but to constantly push views that can only come from fringe and unreliable ones. This creates endless circular discussions with no progress. This makes them a time sink, where we cover the same stuff again and again. No positive learning curve shown by abandonment of debunked views and adoption of newer and improved ways of seeing things. An inability to see the difference between a RS and an unreliable one gets right to the heart of WP:COMPETENCE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer, re ‘views’: cites pls for where am I pushing ‘views’. Humanengr (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I can see how that comment could look like trolling (I can't imagine a person who follows this issue would actually need a citation for that), but I don't think that it was trolling. A number of points could be made by first asking for a citation, and then responding when such is given.
I can't speak to the disruption caused by either party on that page as I've not been paying close attention to it lately, but I will say that I've seen both editors contribute positively to discussions in the past, and haven't seen either behave in an over-the-top partisan manner, or engage in disruptive behavior before. One or both may well have become disruptive in the past few months, but given my experience with them, I'd need to see some pretty clear evidence before accepting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, Have you taken into consideration this post? Are you of the opinion that all know the trend in “the general public’s sense of ‘interference’ as being ‘allegations’ was becoming weaker”. (I, for one, have not seen polling data either way.) Thx, Humanengr (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Denial of the Russian interference went from plausible ignorance to fringe conspiracy theory nonsense over the past +/- 2 years. Of course that could change when the 400 pound basement Hackensack hacker is apprehended. In the meanwhile however, for Humanengr and a collection of IPs to bring up a continuous unfocused stream of carping complaints without the remotest suggestion of workable edit improvements is unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether it's called trolling, it should be prevented and as long as we're here we have the opportunity to craft a fair and constructive restriction on this kind of disruption. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

My focus all along has been the framing of this article. Toward that end, it was

  1. This exchange between JFG and myself that led to the insertion of “is highly confident” (later helpfully further changed by The Diaz to “with high confidence”, a direct quote from the PS) in the lede sentence.
  2. The effort starting here, progressing through this and ending here that led to 3 words of context in a navbox at the bottom.

The lede sentence and the bottom navbox; the former to start the body with an accurate statement of what the ODNI did find and the latter to show any such alleged activity is not unique.

But I failed on one issue that Slatersteven captures perfectly when he says: “no RS does explicitly say there was interference.” Note that Geogene misinterprets by responding “where are those sources that say it didn't happen?”.

And the title presents ‘interference’ as fact.

I regret my failure to correct the top of the frame. Apologies for that.

I believe if you look at the record, you will see that the frame has been my focus.

I will comment further anon as necessary, Humanengr (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

no RS explicitly state there was such interference that is such spectacular bullshit [51], [52], [53]. You have a bizarre POV that's at odds with reality. Worse, you're perpetually trying to Debate Club it into the article. You never let anything go. You were just now complaining about the article's title. You're still trying to plant "allegedly" in there to cast aspersions on the mainstream view. People have been trying that since December 2016. It never goes anywhere. The reality of Russian interference, per sourcing, never goes away. You know the former, you must surely be aware of the latter, yet you keep bringing it up. This is unacceptable. Geogene (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
And I can't remember exactly what Slatersteven said earlier. If you quoted them correctly, then shame on them, they should be embarrassed for such an absurd falsehood. But--this is a key thing--they're not tendentiously trying to wear everyone down with endless argumentation to change the article to reflect their (alleged) POV. In fact, their lashing out at me here earlier is probably the first time I've seen them cause any problems. Geogene (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven, are the links provided by Geogene in the preceding para sufficient to change your view expressed above that “no RS does explicitly say there was interference”? thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven, Care to comment? I’m getting a better handle on our differences but think we are in sync on this. I await your take here given your exchange with Geogene above. Humanengr (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Well people need to read more then the headline "– a security research firm said that the same Russian hacking group" "and should largely be considered an arm of Russian intelligence as they attack American institutions." "The hackers, said to have links to Russia’s GRU military intelligence unit" "The intelligence community concluded last year that Russian hackers probed election systems". So in fact they seems to be very careful to attribute or caveat the accusations whilst saying it happened. As I said we need a source that unequivocally says it happened.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Examples - It's in the nature of this kind of behavior that single diffs don't readily convey the extent of the problem. So I am linking a few threads. These are just from the current talk page. This has been going on for a long time. Other editors may have further examples. There is a long history of the same behavior at article talk and elsewhere. Keep in mind, the concern is what Geogene correctly described as trolling. It's not overt incivility, personal attacks, etc.
There's_still_little_evidence_that_Russia's_2016_social_media_efforts_did_much_of_anything[54] [55] [56] Then after that long first thread went nowhere, he reopens the issue again here: Recapping from above § on WaPo’s Philip Bump on social media SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is a diff from December, 2017. Humanengr gained no support in a long thread rehashing a previously settled issue on the article talk page, but he continued to press a pointless and circular discussion of the question. So @MrX: launched an RfC to definitively settle the issue. The link shows some of Humanengr's engagement at the RfC. Note that he mass-pings @MrX, Neutrality, Geogene, O3000, SPECIFICO, My very best wishes, Slatersteven, Fyddlestix, Casprings, Gouncbeatduke, and ValarianB:, which can only be expected further to prolong the repetitive discussion. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Propose TBAN from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections[edit]

Let's see where we stand on this. Per MVBW above, please indicate your views on a TBAN of @Humanengr: from this article and related topics, broadly construed. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Per above. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see where you're coming from, but I'm reluctant to TBAN him from the whole subject area at this point. It's a gut feeling, that's all. What would 'broadly construed' consist of? Dschslava Δx parlez moi 00:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Standard Wikipedia definition for TBANs -- just means that the user could not go to an article on the CIA, e.g. and remove a reference to the report on Russian hacking. Unless others have a better definition for this case, I think using the common framework makes it easier to deal with. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Has he been warned before (I am not sure this has been raised here before). If the answer is yes I support a TBAN, if the answer is no then he should be warned that his actions are unacceptable and that if he continues he will get TBAN (with maybe a small temporary sanction at this stage).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Humanengr has been engaging in polite dialogue and careful editing of the contents (as noted above, he made many more edits to the talk page than to the article itself). I understand that he can be criticized for verbosity and insistence, but that's a far cry from "trolling". Most of his contributions and questions are designed to try and improve the article. Sure, some editors disagree with his POV, and this is why we have talk pages. In my view, neither Humanengr's nor Geogene's behaviour are actionable. They should go back to the talk page, mutually AGF, and strive to reach consensus. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the "regulars" at that article, so I'm well-versed in the events reported, their history, the evolution of the article, and the perennial disputes about it.) — JFG talk 12:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a serious issue with him raising the same damn thing 15 times worded slightly differently whenever he does not get consensus (over, if I recall rightly, over multiple forums). But without kind of community Waring it seems unfair to ban him over this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I would add I find it very odd that no one deemed his actions report worthy, until he reported another user, and then they leaped straight for the TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
When someone is just being disruptive with WP:ICANTHEARYOU, it is not an easy case to bring, and even harder to get action on, from what I've seen. Most editor don't want to risk WP:BOOMERANG and gain nothing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Humanenegr has been warned more than once by Admins, and numerous times by civilian editors, on talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
So now admins have been militarized? EEng 16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Cf. GorillaWarfare, NuclearWarfare and Bongwarrior. - MrX 🖋 17:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Not to mention D'Armies. EEng 01:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
EEng, why are you dragging me into this? What topic ban am I getting? I'm militarized? Y'all heard I got a Daisy Red Rider for Xmas? Drmies (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedural commentSPECIFICO is under an April 2017 sanction enjoining her to refrain from requesting sanctions against her fellow editors, except via the WP:AE process or an uninvolved admin's talk page. Her public call in this thread for a boomerang against Humanengr appears to be a violation of her own AE sanction, which arose due to similar inappropriate behaviour in the past. Pinging NeilN for comments, as the administrator who imposed the sanction on SPECIFICO. — JFG talk 12:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @JFG: I agree that input from NeilN would be helpful here, but this discussion could at least be argued to be about community sanctions, not discretionary sanctions, which would therefore fall outside SPECIFICO's sanction. Of course an admin could unilaterally impose a TBAN as a result of this discussion and then who knows where we'd be? GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @JFG and GoldenRing: While the wording of my sanction restricted SPECIFICO to those two specific places, the purpose of the sanction was to stop SPECIFICO's practice of calling for sanctions on article talk pages and user talk pages. Requesting sanctions on an admin-geared noticeboard is not disruptive and does not go against the purpose of the editing restrictions I placed on them. --NeilN talk to me 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It seems almost prejudicial to "see where we stand" on a topic ban on an editor without a proposal for the topic ban which has been backed up with accusations of bad behaviour supported by diffs. This proposal lacks such evidenced accusations, and cites this post by My very best wishes which neither proposes a topic ban, nor contains supported accusations. Cjhard (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Links are provided in upper section. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that comments by Humanengr do not help to improve this page, but result in significant waste of time by other contributors. However, this should be up to contributors who frequently edit this page. If they want to debate these issues with Humanengr to infinity, this is their business. My personal inclination, as an occasional participant of this page, would be to support this proposal. If there is a clear violation of anything (I do not really know), this should be reported to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, seems like much of this is a difference of opinion rather than actual disruption. And jumping straight to a topic ban is a step too far. fish&karate 15:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly way beyond a difference of opinion. A TBAN or page ban seems less restrictive than a block, but if you feel there should be, say, a 6-month time span set for the TBAN that would be less of a restriction than a TBAN that would need additional community process in order to lift it. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments like that on article talk page can be viewed as an WP:NPA problem. When repeated multiple times, this is a WP:TE pattern. Hence my vote above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per previous comments by SPECIFICO, Geogene, Bullrangifer, and Beyond My Ken. This user is congenial, but their many voluminous posts are a time sink and a net negative in this subject area. Volunteers should not have to waste hours upon hours of their unpaid time swatting at every oddball theory this user comes up with. Several attempts have been made to get Humanengr to alter their approach, to no avail. They show a lack of understanding and inability to grok our core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 16:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Considering the obvious contentiousness that led to this, I could get behind a 1 week TBAN for one or both parties. Note that this is exceedingly short on purpose: I've seen them both engage productively, so I know they can. But apparently tempers have been rising, based on the discussion here, so maybe doing something to cool them down would help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a one-month topic ban on Humanengr, for all things Russia/Putin. Now that I'm aware they've been arguing "nationalist bias" over at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. [57]. I guess if they can't cast doubt on whether Russia interfered, next best thing is to say America does the same thing. This is obviously tendentious. Geogene (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Time-sink, tendentious, POV pushing. Needs to stop. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Geogene. This is a specious, other things argument. Yes, America does interfere in the politics of other nations, and has done it for generations, BUT that's not the subject here. For me, the tipping point is the continued pushing of doubts about whether Russia interfered in the election. To me, competence as an editor is intimately related to a positive learning curve. We should learn from RS, and trust them in the same way we should place our trust in scientific research. For scientifically falsifiable "facts", the best we can do is trust good research and place it above our own opinions. The same applies here. We should place our trust in RS, and change our minds, giving up the opinions which differ from them. We can "have our own opinions, but not our own facts" (Moynihan). It's not imperfect, but science and RS are self-correcting, unlike erroneous opinions.
Until Humanengr starts openly admitting that Russia interfered (and is still interfering in US politics) in the election, I will not totally trust their competence. A month-long topic ban seems appropriate, and I think we have a right to expect evidence that the topic ban has effected a change of their opinions on the matter. Otherwise, in the future, I'll support a much longer, and wider, topic ban. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Et tu? Let’s start here: “Yes, America does interfere in the politics of other nations, and has done it for generations”. How many of those were reported unequivocally (Slatersteven’s term above) as “America interfered …” (your terms) by your vaunted RS news media? Tia, Humanengr (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That is not the subject of discussion. This is about Russian interference, not American. That's for a different article. Bringing up American interference is a red herring to change the subject. It doesn't help you. This diversionary tactic is also an example of the tu quoque fallacy. Just because America interferes does not justify Russian interference, and in this article we're only dealing with Russian interference. United States involvement in regime change is thataway >>>>>. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The subject of discussion is the standard you offered to judge one’s behavior: “We should learn from RS, and trust them in the same way we should place our trust in scientific research. Etc., etc.” I offered a test of that standard by applying it to a different sample set. In response, rather than admit you can’t provide data to validate your proposed standard, you improperly accuse me of tu quoque:

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
  3. Therefore X is false.

I do not claim Russia did not interfere. I dispute the unequivocal claim that they did.

As Slatersteven noted, no RS news media source makes that unequivocal claim.

The issue is not my competence but, judging by your own criteria, yours and Geogene’s and SPECIFICO’s in reading RS news media as stating unequivocally that Russia interfered. Humanengr (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You are ascribing statements and views to other editors that you can not document with diffs. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
You, here:

Oh. Glad to try to explain my view. The article is about the interference in the election. Some aspects of interference were first reported in the press around March 2016 I believe, then in subsequent reports in various media throughout the balance of the campaign. Then after the election we had official confirmation that the intelligence community had been tracking this and then we had the so-called JAR in early January, 2017. Now I think it is important to differentiate between the events themselves and the sources and reporting that revealed those events. Obviously the process of investigation and revelation is ongoing and we do not yet have a full accounting of all of the various modes of interference and their extent and effects. So, whatever was in the JAR was placed there by its authors to balance two sometimes conflicting needs. By the way this is true of any revealed national intelligence estimate. The goal is to give the public as much information as possible about the interference while not revealing our intelligence sources and methods. Given that constraint, the information in the JAR was incomplete. The information available to officials with security clearance was far more extensive and detailed. That's still the case today.

After the JAR came out, we started to get various editors who claimed, because the JAR could not reveal those still-classified details, that the conclusions in the report are incorrect. We initially had many such editors. Now we're down to a small few. They cite marginal sources for this fringe viewpoint, and are quite adamant about their POV. They are attaching great significance to the level of detail in the JAR because they seem to feel it casts doubt on whether the Russians were involved in any cyberwarfare against the US. But this is nonsense. The report is just one account of part of the story. The story itself is the interference itself. That was my point -- that this fetish about the report itself is off-target.

Thank you again for explaining your position. Humanengr (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
1. That blockquote is from 3 months ago. 2. It is from your personal talk page, when I went there hoping that you could refocus your participation on sources and article content. 3. It doesn't document the political stance you ascribe to me above. You will never be able to document that, because I have not said it. 4. This shows (more clearly than anyone else could ever hope to explain} why the TBAN is necessary. And, to update my view: I think it should not have an end date. It could, of course, be lifted according to standard policy. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment This is a helpful example of what attempting discussion with Humanengr is actually like: Endless sealioning, Whataboutism, and a tendentious pro-Russian POV. This is why they need a TBAN, because they're still not getting it. Geogene (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to say Humanengr you are not doing your case any good here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I followed this article and participated in talk page discussions for quite some time. I don't remember Humanengr edit warring or otherwise forcing text on the article against consensus. Their worst crime seems to be insistence in arguing for their position on the talk page. This editor is clearly making an attempt to improve the article through collaboration with other editors, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much time and energy trying to convince people. That might get tedious if the same points are repeated, but it doesn't seem deserving of a ban. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Lean Support. I can see why this topic ban might be deserved now, especially given behavior in this thread. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Once again, a proposal to block someone for courteously maintaining their position on the talk page: a position in this case consistent with the editorial line of the BBC (that Russia may have attempted to interfere in the election, but that this is not established as a fact). Someone should give Humanengr a medal for maintaining their cool in the middle of all this nonsense. -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Darouet:, when did the BBC say that this "is not an established fact"? Geogene (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Geogene: As I've pointed out on a number of occasions, e.g. here [58] or here [59]. Last I checked their editorial policy remained the same. -Darouet (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any copies of the BBC's editorial policies in those links. All I see is a couple of editors repetitively and tendentiously trying to cast doubt on the mainstream viewpoint. Here's a recent (last month) AP source that explicitly makes the connection between the Kremlin and the DNC hackers. [60]. It's not controversial. It's not even in serious dispute, outside of the RT/Sputnik News orbit. Thank you for the timely reminder that this is not the first time TBANs have been discussed for disruptive editors in this topic area. It makes Humanengr's conduct harder to understand. Geogene (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Darouet:, "courtesy" and "cool" are not at issue here. There's plenty of documentation been cited regarding competence, tendentious refusal to get the point, and other disruptive behaviors that are not rebutted by kudos for courtesy. If you have substantive rebuttals to the concerns that have been documented here, that would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: All you've documented is that Humanengr has routinely disagreed with you, Geogene and MrX. That's not enough to have someone banned. -Darouet (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, that is something I have neither mentioned nor documented, nor do I know whether it's true. The fact is I have no opinions about politics and the like and I have no idea whether the many other editors who favor a TBAN have any such opinions. I have opinions only about article content and conforming it to reliable sources, as I stated to Humanengr in his talkpage thread he linked. Frankly Darouet, your snide dismissal and personalization of this long ANI thread is a stain upon the page. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You're not impressed I managed to do all that in so few words? -Darouet (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Darouet and Red Rock Canyon. The parties involved need to learn how to compromise, and bringing this dispute to AN/I was not the way to do that. Jusdafax (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Akandkur[edit]

Akandkur has been creating errors and adding irrelevant information on KQEH, making the article hard to read. He is not here to build an encyclopedia. He has also been engaged in an edit war. [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a NOTHERE pattern of editing to me. I see that you've attempted to engage on talk, but you need to either continue doing that, or find someone else to help you deal with their lack of response. Edit warring along with them will get you both blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I've warned him not to add unsourced content. What Sarek said - keep discussing. If the problem continues then let me know. ElAhrairah inspect damageberate 19:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer[edit]

There's an ongoing situation which does not appear to be getting any better. TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)

Hammer, as is his habit, and his right, has been busy AfDing articles. A typical example (no involvement of mine) would be Education in Moldova / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in Moldova as "Meandering mess with no central topic, no sources, no notability. If there is a topic here, then WP:TNT and start over. This has been sitting to rot for over 10 years and no one will even so much as look at it. "

It's not the AfD that's the issue here, it's the attitude. There is no way "Education in Nambia" is going anywhere, so just what is this AfD expected to achieve - other than an opportunity to slag off editors in general? TNT is not policy (I'm one of those who's long advocated it). There is a stream of those, all of much the same "How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?" attitude.

I got involved here: WikiProject Automobiles#Bandini deletions where 18 articles were blanked as redirects in 5 minutes flat, their category speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G6 for being empty (a technically invalid CSD anyway, see WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#G6 on "empty" categories?) and the related category and template XfDed at CfD:Bandini Automobili / TfD:Bandini Automobili. These deletions were robustly opposed. I also warned Hammer that this was heading ANI-wards.

There's plenty more of the same - AfD:List of ecclesiastical abbreviations AfD:Petroleum politics for just a couple.

At AfD:History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. we see another where there is no chance of that topic being deleted. Closed as an unsurprising speedy keep. After which all of the keep !voters were then boilerplated with "So are you going to fix History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. with the sourcing that supposedly exists, or are you going to just let it stink up the wiki forever?! "

Given that I'd just removed his prod of Sterilant gas monitoring and fixed up the issues involved, I do not need or deserve this sort of abuse.

It is not acceptable to stalk opposing !votes like this. Certainly not in this continuing context. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I replied that way because none of the Oldham !votes addressed how the article was notable. They were just WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:DEADLINE, none of which are valid rationales for keeping an article. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
No, you are lying here. RetiredDuke gave you six sources for it, right in that AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
To clarify my own position here, I would like to delete it per IDONTLIKEIT. It is sports content, I have zero interest in it being here (and I'm also the last person able to expand it). But that is not policy, so it doesn't count for anything. The topic, given its significance, is a shoo-in for GNG and (as confirmed by the sources given) there will be sources around for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See also this very recent thread at WT:MILHIST; TPH has been on something of a spree lately of nominating obviously-notable topics on the basis that he hasn't heard of them or doesn't like the sourcing. This isn't a new issue—TPH has been doing it for close to a decade—but the problem seems to have significantly intensified recently; as well as the AFD activities Andy Dingley raises above, I'd estimate that whenever I clear out CAT:EX at least 50% of the WP:PROD nominations I decline as inappropriate turn out to have been nominated by TPH when I check the history. ‑ Iridescent 21:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Check out for Articles_for_deletion/Cliff_Padgett as well; there is a series for false claims about inability to source. (The fellow shows up, in context, in good sources, from a simple Google search.) Before that, it was PRODed] with a rather low-key edit summary. Anmccaff (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest making a list of editors who post the most PRODs that are declined, double check to make sure that it isn't one admin doing all the declining, then topic banning the editors on the top of the list from PRODing articles.
This is getting a little meta-, but I'd suggest doing no such thing unless you also checked it against AfDs, too. Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't check PRODs at all, because they can be removed for any, and indeed spurious, reasons. AfDs would be the only metric to use here. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Meh. There's guaranteed to be someone at the top of the list regardless, so that's not automatically evidence of a problem. Reyk YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of this was me trying to clean out the backlog at Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. Most of the articles I found were in such dire shape that I felt WP:TNT was the only way to treat them. And it infuriates me when people scream for a "keep" in an AFD but are utterly unwilling to do the legwork to unfuck the article. So it gets stuck in an endless loop of "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources -> Article looks like trash -> Gets nominated for AFD for looking like trash -> "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources, on and on and on. It wouldn't get under my skin so much if the people who are clamoring for the sources they find would add them to the article because it's really not that fucking hard.
That said, I'm going to be less deletion crazy next time I attempt to plow through a backlog that big. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, you either did not bother to check for sources, or you checked and lied about it. That's not a minor error. Anmccaff (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:ATD is policy, TPH. Trying to use AfD to clear a cleanup backlog is inappropriate, disruptive and, as you surely must have noticed by now, futile. We don't delete articles for fixable content problems and editors who !vote to keep an article because they think it is fixable are under no obligation to work on it. It's not a case of "being less deletion happy", it's paying attention to what deletion is actually for and doing your due diligence so that you're not wasting others' time. – Joe (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's also a shame that when Andy Dingley removed the PROD from Sterilant gas monitoring and spent a while cleaning it up, he didn't check that at least half of it was a copyright violation. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a point, or are you just shit-stirring? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Charming. But, yeah, the somewhat obvious point would be that if you're going to remove a PROD from something, it might be a good idea to actually check it for obvious issues, but perhaps that's just me. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No action: I don't see trolling here. Just a deletionism-inclusionism dispute that's boiled over to a noticeboard. When someone holds a belief that's different from yours as to policy and practice, it's entirely possible for that belief to be held sincerely, and for those actions to be taken in good faith. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Have you read the comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Bandini_deletions? Bulk-blanking 18 articles in 5 minutes (so no actual review of each) with descriptions of "not notable", "all technical garbage", "redundant and all technical crap" and "unsourced fanwank" is not a valid attempt to clean up anything, it's an excuse to slag other editors. Then boilerplating the keep !voters [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] is not any part of the AfD process that I recognise. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
What's bold redirects have to do with this? Redirecting poorly-sourced small articles containing primarily technical details to a master article is good practice. Frankly, all those articles should be merged and redirected to something like List of Bandini Automobili vehicles, and all the cruft should be removed. As to the talk page messages, they may be a bit confrontational, but again, this is WikiPolitics: deletion vs. inclusion. It's not trolling, let alone sanctionable. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
And here[72] is another case of inadequate prod summaries. There is clearly an abuse of procedure here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC).
And this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detrended correspondence analysis had plenty of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).
Just stumbled over that. Got my goat too. This reminds me of someone angrily lashing out at things that don't fall into their personal area of interest or understanding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
See also this one. Same "no sourcing found". The sourcing is not terrific, but there is certainly some "out there", and in the article as well.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think it's "trolling", per se, but the fact of the matter is that when I first became an admin back in the halcyon days of 2011, I quickly noticed that, WP:HAMMER-subjects aside, TPH's nominations at xFD were...we'll call them spotty at best, and they have not improved - if anything, they've gotten worse, with nominations that indicate a complete failure of WP:BEFORE (for instance the nomination of {{Petty family}} for deletion, which was refuted with five seconds at Google - and, some times, the distinct impression the subject being nominated wasn't even read. I'm not sure what can be done here, procedurally, as TPH does do good work, but he needs at least to spend more time researching topics before nominating, as this is a continuing behavorial issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I suggest a week's ban on prods and AfDs, to be extended for a further period if behavior does not improve. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).
  • Diff – "You just admitted there is no sourcing, yet it's notable anyway? On what planet do you live?"
  • Diff – "You seem lost. Sources go in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
  • Diff – "So are you going to fix it, or are you going to just let the article fester and rot forever?"
  • Diff – "You seem to have confused the AFD for the article. IF you find sources, put them in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
  • Diff – "And saying that there are sources = adding them to the article right? If there are souces, WHERE THE FUCKING FUCK ARE THEY and why are they not in the article? Don't say there are sources unless you can fucking prove it yourself, mmkay? Otherwise, I could say there are sources out there on my own ass, and it could have a fucking article."
  • Diff – "And that means the article is now automatically FA right? No one ever needs to do anything to it again? It's notable, it's the best thing ever on this goddamn wiki? How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?"
  • Diff – "So trivial that you didn't even add them to the article. Because you clearly believe that saying "I found sources" is the same thing as adding them to the article right? They will just magically add themselves."
  • Diff – "Again, finding the source means it automatically adds itself to the article, right? Nothing more has to be done here? It's automatically turned into an FA just because you found that? If you're going to argue notability and dig up sources, then how much harder is it to fucking add them? I see this all the time: people scream their heads off that it's notable, argue that it be kept, but no one ever adds the sources, so 10 years later the article is still an unsourced trainwreck."
  • Diff – "What's stopping you from adding them? AGain, are you expecting the article to magically turn into an FA overnight just because you said keep? If you're gonna talk the talk, walk the walk. Not that fucking hard."
  • Comment This user, in addition to clearly working against WP:CIVILITY, does not often reference proper deletion policy, acknowledge WP:GNG, and their WP:BEFORE checks have been incredibly insufficient (if they are even performed). It took me 20 seconds to find that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Asajile Mwambulukutu fulfilled WP:NPOL. I've suggested to them that if they are really oh so bothered by the poor quality of certain articles, they ought to make the fixes themselves (curiously, they did not respond). These accusations that other users do all the work are rather hypocritical. After all, if it's "not that fucking hard" for someone else to add cited info with new sources, then surely TPH can do it themselves, "fixing it instead of sitting on [their] fucking hands". I don't consider this trolling; TPH isn't disrupting the system for the sake of disruption. They just want to get rid of things because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This user has been around too long to be unaware of the criteria for deletion and ignorant of how to conduct a proper BEFORE (aka Google search and clicking). They should know better. I for one would like to see them topic banned from AfD until they demonstrate some civility and an understanding of deletion policy and BEFORE. Otherwise they are just wasting more of our time with Deletion nominations that should never have been thrown into the queue in the first place. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment- This looks like TPH making a bunch of ill-advised deletion nominations and exasperated comments at how crappy some sections of Wikipedia are, but not trolling. Reyk YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe not for the PRODs and AfDs, but when it comes to these, after the AfD has closed, [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] I find it hard to think of any other term for it. It's a closed AfD, even though he then re-filed it immediately afterwards (and then thought better of it) so just what are these comments intended for, or likely to have the effect of? They won't change the article, all they're going to achieve is to gratuitously piss off a bunch of editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Being exasperated and annoyed with editors who don't fix things is not trolling. Accusing someone of trolling is essentially the same as accusing him of vandalism except in talk or user talk space, that is, editing in talk spaces to undermine the community deliberately. I don't think what TPH is doing there is deliberately aimed at undermining the community, but at pushing for responsibility. And I really don't think it even has a negative effect other than getting people's attention. This is one of those situations where someone does something I wouldn't do, but that I wouldn't do it doesn't make it sanctionable. Andy, I expect better proof of misconduct from someone of your expertise. In particular, the discussion you cite above at WT:CARS draws more attention to your own reactions than anything else. I seriously fail to see why you felt the need to rush to ANI over a bunch of bold redirects. That you are Tired of this guy is hardly relevant, and I am really surprised at your response to an honest commment from TPH, that him saying there was nothing worth keeping in the redirected articles should bring the case even closer to ANI. Andy, disagreeing with you is not cause to bring someone to ANI. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I share Hammer's exasperation at article quality, but as I've already said, it's the way he goes about it, not the issue that has brought him here. His attitude was heading that way already (and not for the first time) and I made that very clear. Blanking a whole set of articles is wrong (they're hard to source in detail, not unsourceable - Bandini are listed in all of my "complete encyclopedia of" books, just not in much detail) - but to disparage the articles as "unsourced fanwank" is tantamount to disparaging the editors in that area as unsourcing wanker fanboys. You do not get to slate other peoples' interest groups like this, any more than I get to delete Oldham Athletic because I've no interest in footie. For him to then start harassing his opposers at the Oldham AfD has gone beyond exasperation to trolling of individuals, and that's when this went to ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - this will go around in circles until TenPoundHammer gets a topic ban from the deletion process. fish&karate 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand his frustration. There are a number of articles - a very large number in fact - whose current content fails core policy, but whose subjects are asserted to be notable and thus they are defended. This is an existential conflict between "the subject is notable, therefore the article must exist and it's not my job to render it compliant with policy" and "the article is not compliant with policy so should be nuked regardless of the importance of the subject" (ake WP:TNT). This struggle is as old as Wikipedia and will never go away. My suggestion to TPH is to try stubbing them instead. Just nuke the no-compliant content and recognise that any article that is part of Wikipedia's international directory of education topics will never be deleted. We don't need to re-fight the school wars. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The thing is, he's not restricting himself to pages whose current content fails core policy, and it's fairly clear from his deletion rationales that he's not actually reading the articles either; he's just slapping deletion tags on anything he doesn't like the sound of. As a very recent example, this is what Chad–Sudan relations looked like at the moment he tagged it for deletion with a rationale of No basis for an article. Like most X-Y relations articles, this is just a random slapdash collection with no focus; for the benefit of those who aren't aware, the borderland between Chad and Sudan is better known in the west as Darfur and the uneasy relationship between the two countries is one of the most significant in Africa, and if TPH had even performed a 30-second skim-read he'd have been aware of this. This isn't a one-off but a consistent pattern; as well as the assorted examples given in the OP and the claim that the Battle of Pęcice must have been a hoax because he'd never heard of it and his lying about there being "no sources" when I pointed out that I'd found multiple RSs within two minutes, we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin house, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petroleum politics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public domain film just from a dip-sample in the last few days. ‑ Iridescent 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm. Most of this bilateral relations articles are either a series of news stories or blatant OR, but I take the point. However, I also share TPH's frustration with people who !vote Keep, assert that there are sources, and leave an article unsourced or otherwise crappy. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There are two points of concern here:
  • There is clearly no attempt to follow WP:BEFORE here. While a one-off AFD nomination without BEFORE could be understood, and a few of these look obvious that BEFORE wouldn't have helped, most show that the AFD nominator should have done work ahead of time to better justify the reason to AFD the articles. AFD is not cleanup. The AFD process is geared to put the onus on those deleting, though if the issue is something completely unsourced, then yes, those !voting keep need to be doing some legwork to avoid deletion via WP:V.
  • WP:FAIT is also appropriate here. While the breadth of the articles do not necessary impact one set of editors too much, still nominating this many articles at one time is flooding the system (particularly admins and regular AFD editors). This FAIT point would likely be less of an issue if the first point about BEFORE had been followed, but this still should be kept in mind.
Why we ask these is not something well documented in policy so I can fully see TPH's argument that they were using tools available to do necessary cleanup work. That's a reasonable AGF argument, but that's why TPH should be well aware now that this is not the approach to take in the future. --Masem (t) 16:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I am not an admin, and am currently mainly patrolling CFD and the AFD lists for History and Christianity, which is as much as I currently have time for. Most of my time is devoted to editing a book on the history of the iron industry, which often contains research based on primary sources. If I come across blatant mistakes I correct them: in one recent case I was mistaken and my edit was very properly reverted. The problem as I see it is that certain editors are nominating articles for AFD, because they lack (or have inadequate) in-line references. However WP:V requires that content should be verifiable, not that it should be verified by in-line references. A distinction needs to be drawn between articles that are not credible and are probably WP:OR and those which may be correct, but lack references. Some of these will require research in secondary (or even primary) sources, because relevant and credible material (WP:RS) is not available on-line. The right answer in such cases is to tag the article for its defects, in the hope that some one will fix them. As far as I am aware there is no time limit for this. TenPoundHammer's fault seems to applying a time limit, rather than devoting his time to fixing those defects that he can fix. Some of these may require the editor to have access to a library or even primary (archival) sources, but not every book is available in every library, and archives (unless digitised or filmed) are generally only available in a single repository. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • TPH needs to be topic-banned from all deletion-related activities. His nominations are often wilfully incompetent and his attitude stinks. It has always been thus, and it's time he was prevented from wasting so much of other editors' time. --Michig (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't have agreed to this, and I'm the OP.
But then I was reminded of this, from 2012: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer
There has been no change in six years. Same old problems. So yes, "topic-banned from all deletion-related activities". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical marine climate looks germane to this discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Clearly he wasn't in the same O level geography classes I sat through... 8-(
To continue with this crusade of badly thought out AfDs, even whilst ignoring an ANI thread on the same topic is indicative of the underlying attitude problem here. Topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. Prodding by stealth shows wilful Bad Faith. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC).
  • Alternate suggestion. We've got a couple of problems here. First, we've got a lot of well-intentioned but abandoned crap articles. Lots of those have been tagged for cleanup without a reason given (probably out of desperation), and so contribute to an appalling backlog of 9200+ articles in that cleanup "category", some of them there now for nearly 10 years. Doubtless various people have wanted to address that backlog before, but have been cowed after poking around and finding themselves somewhere between confused, lost, and disinterested. So I emphathize with TPH for advocating a "blow it up" solution to cut the Gordian knot. I also emphathize with those pushing back, saying notability is there, sources exist, the article can at some point be improved by someone (just not them!) and so policy says don't delete.
To TPH: You're definitely not trolling, you're trying to improve the encyclopedia. But you are being disruptive, because your approach is not achieving its objective, namely improved or deleted articles, because in your end-justifies-the-means approach you're making too many factual errors about the existence of sources, and because you're unproductively annoying other people who could be on your side. Rather than a formal TBAN from deletion processes (which is gaining traction here out of frustration, may lower collective blood pressure, but won't solve the underlying issue) could you make a voluntary commitment to not PROD or AFD articles explicitly or implicitly based on WP:TNT until/unless it becomes accepted policy, to not assert lack of sources in a deletion discussion unless you have taken real time to check, and to not argue with others about whose responsibility is it to fix an article. Instead harness that energy to propose and help enshrine into policy a better solution for abandoned crap articles. I could see WP:TNT, or some version thereof, becoming policy, now that we're a lot more mature than 10 years ago. Or if not, a solution with a template saying something like "This article has been abandoned for many years, in a state a far cry from what we aspire to. If it's a topic of interest, please help us improve it" bot-added to any article that's been in cleanup-tag purgatory for 3+ (or whatever) years. The details need fleshing out, but I think people could get their heads around something; and it will have much more positive impact than frustrated AFD nominations, speedy keeps, recriminations, and unchanged articles. Martinp (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As I noted above, I support no action here because I see no misconduct on TPH's part. I also see no disruption, contrary to what Martinp asserts above me. The incident that appears to have triggered this report, a thread at WT:CARS, is not even related to deletion, but to boldly redirecting old unreferenced articles. That TPH has a history with deletion is true, but we aren't here to discuss past conduct, we're here to discuss whether TPH has done wrong. Focusing on past conduct is prejudicial and only really relevant to remedies. That is, we are putting the cart before the horse. Again, TPH has not been shown to have done anything wrong, and talk of sanctions—whether or not they're disguised as voluntary restrictions—is both premature and inappropriate. There is no consensus that TPH has done wrong. So let's slow the hell down. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you consider it appropriate to blank an entire series of articles with no discussion and no attempt to add references? –dlthewave 03:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I went through some of TPH's recent AfD nominations and I agree with those who find them to be inappropriate and disruptive. While TPH may be frustrated with articles that need better sourcing, AfD policy does not support that as a deletion rationale if sources exist and can be found. And TPH is aware of this. So bringing articles to AfD and then harassing participants in the discussion who point out existing sources is disruptive and inappropriate conduct. And this has been going on (possibly on and off) for years. Rlendog (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: He didn't blank anything. He redirected unsourced articles that had sat unsourced for ages. This is a perennial problem in the deletionist-inclusionist debate, the matter of WP:BOLD merge/redirect actions. We do not have a functional process for this, so the usual method is to be bold. So, responding to your actual question, whether BOLDly redirecting unacceptable articles to a master article is appropriate, my answer is that it is entirely appropriate. Taking someone to ANI for being "tired" of him, as Andy said at WT:CARS, is the inappropriate action taking place here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider dropping the F-bomb because other users won't adhere to your demands to be in line with WP:CIVILITY policy ([79])([80])([81]). And same with repeatedly nominating things for AfD without citing proper deletion criteria outlined in the deletion policy after years of working in AfD (these aren't just mistakes). -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom would tend to disagree with you, that swearing on-wiki in the midst of a dispute is inappropriate, let alone uncivil. Fairly recently, I recall someone telling another to "fuck off" was not a civility violation. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, it ought to be. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC).
Agreed (both). I seem to remember that this would have been a CIVIL breach (and rightly so), but clearly not of late. I think it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I still think it's absolutely frustrating that people say "Keep, it's notable, see, here are sources" but never add them, so five years later, the article looks like absolute shit. How hard is it to just add it yourself? We've been around this block so many times -- people have questioned my civility in this, but no one has ever agreed to do anything about it. I would think that if I were being disruptive enough to cause a problem, that something would've been done years ago. So why don't we just drop the stick and walk away from what's left of the horse? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
...we seem to be getting around to doing something about it, bide a while... regarding "no one ever adds sources", that's just a vast crock. I don't hang out at AfDs much (more so recently due to NPP drive), but in a couple months I've seen a least a dozen that came out of the discussion with "Keep" due to refs having been improved by participants. Which is still not a requirement. Consequently your approach of bombing AfD with sloppy nomations to coerce people into cleanup clearly strikes many as disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
On that point, I move to close. The above comment, which is pretty representative of the other complaints in this thread, deals entirely with disputes over Wikipedia policy and simply couches those complaints in behavioral dispute language. TPH is absolutely right that these sorts of AfD outcomes happen, and in my opinion is absolutely right to call people out on them. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, but it is not an indefinite webhost of materials that violate core policies. We need to find the balance between WP:TIND and WP:NOT, and bootstrapping an ANI thread in order to silence people with whom you disagree is not how we develop policy on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
But again, materials that violate core policies isn't the issue here; the issue is that TPH is arbitrarily tagging pages for deletion based on the fact that he hasn't heard of the topic (typically using the edit summary of "add", presumably in the hope that watchers will be less likely to spot the deletion tag being added), and lying about claiming to have searched for sources when it's clear he hasn't. Which "core policies" are you suggesting Chad–Sudan relations, Tropical marine climate or Battle of Pęcice are breaching? ‑ Iridescent 09:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I think TPH and Melndaliv are right that it's unhelpful to just dump a list of purported sources on the discussions and walk away (or worse, simply assert there must be sources out there somewhere and then walk away) without any thought of actually bringing the article up to a minimal standard. But a bunch of ill-advised AfD nominations is not a useful way of dealing with the problem (though on many of them a good dose of TNT is exactly what's needed). And if TPH is using misleading edit summaries then that is a problem, more so than just getting grouchy about a lot of shitty, never-to-be-improved articles. Reyk YO! 09:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Dumping a list of sources but not adding to the article (whether at the talk page or the AFD page) is helpful, but practice has evolved that as long as those sources are identified and linked in a common sense place to the article (eg the talk page, the AFD header that should be on a talk page after it closes, etc.) then for purposes of sourcing, we are supposed to treat the article as if those sources were included. This can lead to sloppy articles, no question, but I also agree that as long as we have no deadline and the location of those sources are obvious, using AFD to force cleanup just because those sources aren't in the article is very much against the spirit of WP. Tag with a maintenance tag instead. (The other issue of simply asserting there are sources but not supplying anything close to a proper WP:V link, that's different, and needs to be stopped). --Masem (t) 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Iridescent: I'm not talking about those articles, and nobody else in this thread seems to be talking about those articles either. In fact, you bring up the other problem with this thread, that it's like a shifting sand dune. There's no actual substance or consensus to any of the complaints here, just a bunch of people with different problems or different complaints airing them. This isn't a proper use of ANI, and there's no administrative action that could possibly lie to address the myriad minor complaints that have been brought up. It's time to nip this thread in the bud and close it now. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
How about no. There's a large of number of statements here that TPH's behaviour is experienced as disruptive and they should change it. Your inability to understand the issue if it's not presented in a two-sentence executive summary is not a reason to shut down the discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • 1. We are constituted that articles don't need to be sourced to pass AfD, they need to demonstrate an ability to be sourceable. TNT is not policy. You are right that articles are poor and that they ought to be better, but it's not policy to use AfD to delete them when they aren't. Either accept that or get out of AfD.
2. How about you doing some of this? - a serious invitation. Rather than PRODing "sterilant gas monitoring" as "no sources", do what I did and add some. Takes longer, but it achieves more than a handful of snowball AfDs being thrown right back.
3. This cleanup relies on other editors, not just one brave hero and his flaming hammer o'justice. So starting out by pissing off all the likely editors is no way to encourage anything useful to happen. I got as far as taking the Bandini books down off the shelf but still haven't worked on the articles (and chances are probably won't) because having articles continually described as you have been (which is just plain unacceptable anyway) is no way to motivate any efforts to improve them. Bandini only built something like 70-odd cars (cars, not models) and we have 18 articles. Are they really all separate notable models? But at present no-one is really looking, because you've entrenched an opposition from the cars project who have taken the entirely expected line that the only way to defend against your bulk actions is with a bulk defence. Maybe the 1963 750bis belongs as a section in with the 1962 750, not separate, but your attitude has completely shut down any such discussion. You are acting against your own supposed goal of encouraging cleanup. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment In line with my Alternate suggestion above, but trying to get away from the debate on TPH's conduct here, I have proposed some options for policy solutions to the issues at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Pruning/blanking_abandoned_very_bad_articles. Would appreciate comments there how we can move forward, away from the glare of should individual X be doing something and is a sanction needed. Martinp (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

How about a 3 month total ban from PRODs but not AFD's. If at the end of that time TPH's AFD hit rate doesn't start to improve (at least 70% ending in delete/merge/redirect) then a total ban from deletion? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose: There's no consensus that misconduct has occurred, let alone that sanctions are required. Let somebody lay out a coherent case that there's misconduct first. Everything thus far has been disjointed and vague waves to a long history of problems. This kind of thread is how ANI gets its "pitchforks and torches" reputation. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
If you think there is no problem after reading all of the above, looking at their PROD/AFD history and the various comments linked by editors above, then short of eating a baby I doubt there is anything that would convince you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
As I said, there is no coherent case of specific misconduct anywhere above or below. All that's happened is a bunch of people have come out of the woodwork to air assorted, unconnected grievances against TPH. Many of the complaints aired in this thread have nothing whatsoever to do with deletion and would not be addressed by this preposterous topic ban. Similarly, most of the arguments above and below do not support a single, coherent sanction, but just a mishmash of "topic ban from all deletion" or "topic ban from AfD" or a bunch of other things that aren't even related or supported by any evidence. If this discussion results in any sort of topic ban, I would counsel TPH to appeal it to the Arbitration Committee immediately, because there is simply no coherent consensus emerging here, let alone discussion among the complainants. There's just a bunch of angry people saying angry people things into a wall of text. This is not discussion, let alone deliberation. This is simply another case of ANI bringing out the pitchforks and torches because someone unpopular pissed him off. Unpopularity is not and has never been cause for sanctioning or punishment, and couching someone's unpopularity in terms of him being "disruptive" or in terms of "protecting the project" does not mask the odious nature of this sanction. I am appalled. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No coherent? Unconnected? Not supported by evidence? Editors have provided multiple diffs showing where TPH has clearly not done the basic groundwork to nominate an article for deletion. Multiple diffs over an extended period have shown this behaviour to be disruptive to a wide range of editors. Your post above has no basis in reality and is verging on outright fabrication. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban from AfD, CSD, and PROD, based on this thread and especially on Northamerica1000's diffs. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC); edited 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Supportindefinite topic ban from all deletion related areas I agree with some of my fellow editors above that TPH, for all his probably good intentions and all justified frustration with WP:Somebody else's problem mentality, has not yet grasped (and apparently is unwilling to ever grasp) that policies and guidelines apply to him as well and that just nominating stuff for deletion is neither helpful nor allowed by policy. If he were to invest all that time and energy into acutally fixing the articles he finds problematic, the project would be better off and banning him from deletion might achieve just that.

    In addition to the examples provided above (the most fragrant of which is imho trying to use the "uncontroversial maintenance" G6 criterion to get rid of things he does not like (and, unfortunately, suceeding)), there was recently a slew of A7 mistaggings and misleading and incorrect statements regarding his edits and those of others. Examples:

Even though RFA#7 was nine years ago, all the concerns that were raised back then about his approach to deletion still appear to be well-founded today and I'm sure TPH knows that his approach is not correct but still he persists time and time again. I think after 14 years, we should honestly consider whether his approach and the drama it causes again are really worth his participation in deletion related areas, especially also considering the valid points NA1000 makes about his civility in such discussions. Regards SoWhy 10:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef topic ban from all deletion related areas - per North America’s diffs, as noted by Softlavender, and subsequent discussion and diffs. This person is an abusive bully of the type who the community needs to sanction. Actually I’m in favor of an indef block from the project until some genuine contrition and commitment to complete change is expressed. I thank Andy for standing up and speaking out. Jusdafax (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose- I definitely do not approve of the less-than-informative edit summaries, and it would be hypocritical of me to try to excuse it when I have previously criticised others for lying in edit summaries. On the other hand, what's happened in the past when someone on the inclusionist side has used inaccurate edit summaries to obscure what they were really doing was to smile benevolently and pat them on the back. It won't do for the community to mete out punishment and praise for the same behaviour depending on wikipolitical affiliation. Futhermore, the preceding debate looks more like a mish-mash of unrelated gripes and grumbles. Let there be a coherently set out case against TPH first. I don't approve of the misfire AfDs but, since the articles are getting kept mostly, it's hard to see any major disruption. Reyk YO! 11:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I follow: If the nominator knows that the AFDs will be kept mostly because he is deliberately ignoring WP:NOTCLEANUP, how is continuing to nominate such articles that not a major disruption? And if an editor persists in using false edit summaries after multiple people asked them to stop, including pointing out that several policies in fact require that they use informative edit summaries, how is that not disruptive? Just saying "Well, when editor X did that, he was not sanctioned", is not really a strong argument, because you admit that TPH is doing something wrong, you just don't feel like it's fair to sanction them for it when others weren't. For the record, I think anyone trying to obscure their edits in edit summaries should be sanctioned, not just "deletionists". Regards SoWhy 11:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support a topic ban for all deletion related areas at very the least. After reading through all the above it seems clear that TPH's presence in the project is disruptive and a massive time sink for other editors. I think an indefinite block would actually be the most appropriate action until and unless TPH can demonstrate a genuine understanding of why his/her activities are problematic and can provide a convincing argument that it will not happen again. - Nick Thorne talk 12:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from delation activities. My attention was first drawn by this AfD, which I closed in some good-humour, assuming it to be an aberration of sorts (although the MILHIST thread was disquieting). But for those who do not see a long-term pattern of disruptive nominations and/or persistent and outright failure of WP:BEFORE, This is TPH's last fifty AfD noms. There is a proportion that have been or likely will be closed as delete, in line with their nom. Good. There is also, though, a massive number which are clear keeps and snow-keeps, and it is far too great a proportion to be justified. Do a spot check if you will: try and find the ~10% that are actually in-line with the community's thinking on WP:N. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from deletion activities for a limited time. The lack of sufficient BEFORE is one thing (Darfur? Really?). The misleading edit summaries is another. The abuse of people who find sources but don't shoehorn them into the article is another. Put them all together, I'm pretty sure it's time for a break. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • While I concur that TPH means to improve Wikipedia, this is clearly not the way to go about it, as it results in creating frustration and wasting the time of productive editors. Question: Is it possible to give something like a "community admonishment" – in this case to adhere strictly to our Wikipedia:deletion policy (in particular, to present a valid reason for deletion in the nomination), to apply WP:BEFORE diligently before nominating, and to maintain WP:CIVILITY strictly in the ensuing discussion)? If so, I'd prefer that possibility to a topic ban. If such an admonishment is not possible, I support a topic ban, but strongly suggest issuing it for a limited time period, like 12 months.  --Lambiam 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from all deletion processes. His behavior there is largely disruptive. After wasting users time by nominating obvious notable topics neither the Keep voters nor he the advocate of "forceful cleanup" fix the article thereafter and this makes his approach as useless as it is. Majority of his PRODs are declined likewise AfDed articles are kept. He should better channel his deletion zeal in fixing these articles, but it is clear this will not be done easily by himself. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sanctions at this time. Mr. Hammer is an excellent Wikipedian with the interests of the project at heart. Here is the essence of the problem: Looking like shit is not a valid rationale for deletion. I appreciate the frustration about things looking like shit, and I appreciate the frustration about people willing to vote keep but not willing to invest time improving articles on topics which they don't care about, BUT that is not the function of AfD/PROD. These are for deletion of topics about which no sufficient sources are extant for improvement of the article in a satisfactory manner. It's not a testing ground for (extremely rarely granted) TNT deletions. So I would ask this: that Mr. Hammer promise any future deletion requests in 2018 not be made on a TNT basis, but be based solely upon the range of valid deletion rationales, including especially Failure to Meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    To quote TPH himself from his last RFA (#7) back in 2009: "I think that my last RFA failed over concerns that I was editing too fast and making sloppy mistakes, as well as sending too many submissions to XFD. I have tried to pace myself some, and I have reined in the XFDs a great deal." (he said something similar in his 2012 RFC/U). Well, it's 2018 now and we are again discussing exactly such behavior. I'm probably someone who is almost religious about both AGF and BITE but even I don't think anything short of actual sanctions will help with an editor who has behaved this way for more than ten years. And again, I think this would also be in his best interest to simply keep away from an area of the project in which he will likely never behave as the rules expect him to; in fact, I expect that continued participation in these areas will sooner or later lead to a site-wide ban. Regards SoWhy 17:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Speaking of consistent behavior, for those who have not followed all TPH related discussions, here are some highlights from 2010, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2012, 2012 (just stuff I could find with a quick search of the archives). It's unfortunately not the first time we have to consider his behavior in deletion related areas but hopefully it might be the last time. Regards SoWhy 17:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from all deletion-related aspects of Wikipedia (broadly construed) until such time as TPH can show that they know how to a) interpret notability and b) interact with other users in a civil manner. GiantSnowman 16:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Their behaviour is contrary to our guidelines such as WP:BITE and WP:DISRUPT. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a ban from nominating articles for deletion. Given that he hasn't taken the hint either from the thread above, or from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Concerns Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Longhorns & Londonbridges, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Move request, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive753#Webcomic COI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Back off the Hammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14#WP:PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro del Sur, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#False accusationsWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive665#Hullaballoo yet again..., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#3RR advice, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#April Fools' Day article, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#TenPoundHammer's article redirections and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer, or from the concerns raised in all seven of his RFAs, that numerous people have concerns regarding his approach and that this perception isn't something new but is an issue going back a decade, then he's never going to get the hint that IAR doesn't mean "ignore any policy you don't feel like following". If Carrite is correct that TPH is an excellent Wikipedian with the interests of the project at heart, then there are numerous ways he can improve Wikipedia without both annoying the people who writes the articles he tag-bombs, wasting the time of people who vote in the doomed-to-fail AfD discussions he starts (the current current deletion rate for AfDs he nominates is between 25 and 30%), and wasting the time of the admins who have to assess his WP:PRODs and close the AfD debates he starts. I'd be inclined to allow a slight bit of wiggle room by which if he finds an article which he genuinely feels is unsalvageably bad, he's allowed to post on the talk-page of the relevant WikiProject and suggest that someone else consider nominating it for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 17:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Adding for those who aren't aware that while this conversation is ongoing TPH is still nominating articles for deletion on spurious grounds. ‑ Iridescent 16:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
      Note that this nomination was made shortly after he commented here that " I admit I burned myself out by trying to take a chainsaw to Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field and ended up making far more prods and AFDs than necessary." I am really trying to AGF but he is making it almost impossible with such nominations... Regards SoWhy 17:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef topc ban per my comments above. --Michig (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose- on the condition that TPH agrees to not nominate articles solely based on WP:TNT and avoids making uncivil comments at AfD. Some (but not all) of TPH's nominations are definitely legit. The problem is that TPH seems to believe strongly in WP:TNT deletion, but a lot of people do not. I happen to think that bad articles that have existed for some length of time should be deleted, but understand that not everyone agrees.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for limited time. There is plenty of evidence of bad behavior which outweighs the good. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC).
  • Comment I think it's pretty clear that there is an absolute lack of consensus here. I admit I burned myself out by trying to take a chainsaw to Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field and ended up making far more prods and AFDs than necessary. I have stopped "stealth prodding" if I feel a prod is warranted, and I have been trying to re-tag without instantly nomming everything right away. I do do searches, but sometimes it seems I have this magical power to not find things on Google that everyone else does in five seconds. Again, if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • How exactly do you read 13 Supports versus 4 Opposes (one of them a Weak oppose) as "an absolute lack of consensus"? It's nonsense and disinformation like that statement that has gotten you in this position, and you're not helping yourself by digging in further. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
      • A bunch of people talking about different things but who say "support" do not make a consensus. Your reading of the situation is the precise reason why WP:NOTAVOTE is a thing. There has been no deliberation or any real discussion other than my take-downs of many of the points in the section above. As I said above, doing unpopular things and being unpopular is not and has never been a cause for sanctioning, and if a sanction comes out of this I sincerely hope TPH immediately appeals it to ArbCom. This is a classic ANI clusterfuck of a discussion and why this board gets such a bad name. A bunch of people screaming that they want blood is not how we do things on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
        • There is overwhelming support, with rationales, for a topic ban from deletion activities. Three users want only a limited-term ban. One user limits the ban "from nominating articles for deletion". This is all standard stuff for a closing admin. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hysterical overreaction. --Calton | Talk 03:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from all forms of deletion nominations. Aside from the useless comment directly above, the opposition has been reasonable, but I respectfully disagree. TPH has made numerous problematic nominations and has compounded the problem by berating those who disagree with him. If TPH is so concerned about having someone add the sources to the articles, why doesn't he do it himself? If editors step away from the work they were doing to fix the articles he nominates for deletion, is there really any net gain? Also, despite TPH's argument that "if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now", we can see from Iridescent's evidence that TPH has found himself in hot water over and over and over. It is time to stop kicking the can down the road. Lepricavark (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a temporary topic ban, which seems like the only reasonable incremental step to take. TPH does a lot of valuable work, but, having read through this entire thread, there's clearly a refusal to go along with standard operating procedure and inappropriate remarks when asked to. It should be said that the examples here are a handful of a very high number of edits -- TPH is prolific, to be sure. My hope would be that being required to take a break from the activity would show that there isn't a perpetual lack of consensus about his/her editing such that it can continue indefinitely. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from all forms of deletion nominations. I came here after seeing another of his bad nominations for AfD that lacked any effort to WP:BEFORE. I see he's been warned for years and years and years to change. Now is the time to topic ban.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support temporary topic ban from AfD nominations. I would have thought that the above expressions of concern might make the point without the need of enforcement. But since TPH seems to feel that they are doing just dandy and everyone else is blowing bubbles for the fun of it (that repeated insistence that "if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now" is really... oblivious), maybe some formal prod IS necessary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite I hadn't commented, because I was far from convinced. However new comments (above) like, "I think it's pretty clear that there is an absolute lack of consensus here." show that Hammer still has such a total lack of insight into the problem that nothing will happen otherwise. I'm against a temporary ban, because this has gone on for years without improvement already and Hammer can't say that he wasn't made aware of this before. "Again, if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now. " seems to be a recognition that a topic ban is warranted.
As to, "I have stopped "stealth prodding"" (presumably referring to PRODing articles with the edit summary "add") then I'm glad to hear it. That behaviour of itself is a reason for a sanction. What possible GF reason is there for a "stealth prod"? Similarly deleting categories by using WP:CSD#G6. Right or wrong, we do not get to bend the rules like this because "we are in the right". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support But would prefer a throttle to an outright ban. TPH'es approach overwhelms the community of editors. We can't fix everything, right now, and that's more or less his demand. If he were limited to a small number per time period, the quality of his nominations would probably improve. In any case, with a smaller article count, the community could focus more on fixing rather than merely defending. But if we continue to get this flood of nominations, it only feeds a cycle. It only takes a couple of seconds for one editor to take an article to AfD, but countless editors read through them, do searches, evaluate, etc. just to assert notability, no time is left to improve articles. This disruption needs to stop.Jacona (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef topic ban from all forms of deletion nominations, per Michig and others above. I had hoped this would go down the road suggested earlier above by Martinp, but that appears not to be happening. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose TPH does a lot of good clean up work. It's not glamous but extremely necessary to have a useful resource here. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Many editors agree that TPH does a lot of good clean-up work, but he does a lot of bad clean-up work too. That is what is needed to be stopped. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC).
I guess the question becomes, "How do you encourage the good cleanup while stopping the bad?" You can't topic ban someone from making bad decisions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessarily correct. If the bad decisions are all made in a certain area - here it's deletion - then topic banning someone from this area means they cannot make those bad decisions anymore (at least without risking a site-ban). Regards SoWhy 08:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Overreaction. This is an indisputable shot across the bow; provide a warning or admonishment from the consensus in this thread and consider a topic ban if, and only if, the behaviour continues. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
As other editors have pointed out, warnings have been provided multiple times in the past. The behavior has continued for years. –dlthewave 02:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, Iridescent pointed out above that TPH created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felipe Cardeña while this "indisputable shot across the bow" discussion was in full swing (and he created AFDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical marine climate after he was brought here for creating such AFDs). As multiple people pointed out, this behavior has been warned against many times in the past, including seven RFAs that failed and an RFC/U. I wonder when you think it's been enough if 10 years of people cautioning him to not behave this way was not. Regards SoWhy 09:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A topic ban would be bad for the reliability and an award for those editors who try to keep articles by promising sources and/or editing but fail to deliver on that. In fact, those guys use fake arguments to keep articles. Especially regarding SPAM, that behaviour is seriously undermining policies. The Banner talk 18:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    • "Those guys use fake arguments to keep articles"- really?! That sounds like a serious allegation. Which really means it should be backed by diffs (assuming, of couse, that they're accurate enough to avoid being personal attacks) or withdrawn as unsubstantiable. Just sayin'  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This issue has nothing to do with editors using 'fake arguments' to keep articles. No evidence has been provided to suggest that has happened at all. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Some of Hammer's AfDs are for spammy articles or those with a real problem (i.e. those about the topic, not just the article) - and for those, he's had support to delete them. This isn't about excusing spam, it's about over-zealous reactions to problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support TPH's long-term pattern of nominating well-sourced and notable articles for AfD, accompanied by harassment of editors who step forward to provide sources (or simply point out sources that are already in the article), is counterproductive and contrary to policy. The time wasted by the editors who deal with these shenanigans could be better spent improving the articles or having a civil, productive AfD discussion. I understand the frustration of seeing bad articles kept without being improved, but that is no excuse for TPH's behavior. –dlthewave 19:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support Strong support for an indefinite topic ban on deletion-related aspects of Wikipedia or a !HERE block In fact he can be blocked with WP:!HERE with the right circumstances. All of the evidences that were presented here showed that he was like a naughty bully who would go on and wreck a lego structure built painstakenly by a weak child. I think the topic ban could serve as a lesson or warning for those reckless editors out there to not sumitomo a house while it's being built that make the editing community more toxic & unwelcoming; Deutschland Wikipedia had became a boring pit just precisely because of tendentious people like him which we called löschtrolls (purging trolls). At the moment I'd recommend "In Defense of Inclusionism" reading for your perusal; much thanks to User:Andy Dingley for standing up for the community benefit. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I have slightly modified my vote to include a "not here on wikipedia" block as TPH's level of disruption is astounding. At last some interesting rebuttals from meta:Inclusionism against their line of thinking:

Deletions and deletionism goes against the entire basic premise of Wikipedia: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.

One argument for deletion is, "Deletion solves all problems. No article, no problem." That's like beheading someone to cure brain cancer. It gets rid of the cancer, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Another argument for deletion is, "Inclusionism is for lazy fatwads." What kind of an argument is that? That they've resorted to name-calling reflects very poorly on them.

Referring to Wikipedia as an "all-knowing junk heap" is POV; one person's junk heap is another person's treasure trove.

Sometimes, articles are deleted after not being improved for one year or something. Sorry, but unlike Super Mario Bros., Wikipedia has no time that can run out! We're no video game, and we don't run of time. The point with Wikipedia is that improving an article is never too late, no matter if it's 10 minutes after article creation, or 10 years later!

Deletions and deletionism may cause disappointed contributors to leave the project. It has already occurred several times. Fun?

His thinking is seriously flawed but I'll play a bit of devil's advocate. Why don't get a job as Britannica editor if that's his obsession to rid mediocre or perhaps obscure articles? For me the zeal of their ilk to bring Wikipedia to the par of good old printed encyclopedias is no different than bringing us back to the time where I have to spend quite an amount of tram fees just to go to nearest library. Auf Wiedersehen! 14.192.208.84 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Once again I modified my vote to explicitly calling for an indefinite tban. Cheers! 14.192.208.84 (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for PROD or AFD nominations as per iridescent, for six months or so, but not indefinitely. No topic ban for actually participating in AFD discussions - I think it might do them some good to listen to others, and they could make some improvements by adding those sources they keep moaning aren't present, or that no one puts in (judging from the comments above). I have just reverted a note I left on TenPoundHammer's talk page about my own frustrations at his poor quality deletion work as I wasn't (at the time of posting) aware of the discussion going on here. It would seem like 'pile on' to have left it there, so have come here instead. I'm fairly new to AFD, don't have any history of interactions with TPH, nor do I own a pitchfork. But I have found TPH's grounds for many PRODs and AFDs to be seriously flawed on a number of occasions recently (I understand the editor's desire to improve articles, but competency really is required.) PRODing Tanzania's former Ambassador to South Africa, or the Battle of Pęcice, or Tropical marine climate whilst failing to do WP:BEFORE to check either out is not constructive, and must either be incompetence or intentional disruption. I doubt the latter. AFD-ing dozens of articles that they don't want to clean up themselves, but leaving every one else to scurry around trying to check and work to keep them might seem like one way of improving the encyclopaedia. But I believe it is highly disruptive to the work of other editors and, having now read this discussion, appreciate it has been going on for years. I am concerned that many other notable, but poorly written or poorly sourced topics that TPH hasn't liked have probably already slipped through the net and been deleted. That disruption needs to stop. TPH needs to cease nominating content for deletion, and needs encouragement to contribute in other areas. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for nominations for any form of deletion, I would say indefinite with appeals allowed after 3 months. I'm a deletionist but as others have said TNT should be used sparingly. Likewise some effort should be put into finding sources especially when it should be obvious that there could be sources. Even a deletionist should want to keep notable content, so if sources have been found, ultimately anyone including those who supported deleted should be trying to add them. Weak support for topic from any form of deletion, again I'd recommend indefinite with appeals allowed after 3 months. The badgering and ignoring evidence presented is enough concern for me to feel that way but it seems far less of a problem since ultimately if the evidence is already presented TPH's comments can just be ignored. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Nick Moyes: If you fear that many other notable, poorly written or poorly sourced topics that TPH hasn't liked have probably already slipped through the net and been deleted, shouldn't you support a topic ban from speedy deletion as well? After all, that's the area where a single admin can decide and might have been fooled into making such deletions more easily than at AFD (just see the G6 debacle mentioned above by the OP). Regards SoWhy 08:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You may well be correct, I don't know. My experience of TPH's work only extends to what I've personally seen at AFD recently. It would be very unfair of me to support extending a ban into an area where I've absolutely no experience of seeing the quality of his work. I suspect poor CSD performance by one editor might actually be spotted and addressed more readily by our admins. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef TBAN from PROD and AfD -- given too many warnings, too many chances. Per evidence given above, TenPoundHammer shows that he continues to file frivolous deletion discussions. AfD is not a place to say 'hey, this article needs cleanup!'. !dave 09:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agreed. In the face of mountanous evidence presented here all the "knee jerk overreaction" opposing comments seemed like a cop-out at mininum. Even if the not here block is not taken at least the topic ban would serve as a stern reminder for those löschtrolls out there. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support temporary ban from deletion process, I think indefinite is excessive, and here's why. TPH clearly cares about making Wikipedia better, I don't think anyone can dispute that. Perhaps he cares too much. A month or two off from the deletion process would give him an opportunity to (re)discover the joys of making articles better himself, instead of using deletion - or the threat thereof - as a sweary lever to get other people to do it. Alternatively, I suggest a quid pro quo arrangement where he has to improve/fix one article for every one article he nominates for deletion, and a breach of that will result in the aforementioned indefinite topic ban. I'm sure we can find some admins who'd be willing to monitor that (I for one would be happy to do that). fish&karate 09:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
He could simply be a part of so-called "editcountitis" syndrome which beleanguers many shenanigans. Board member Dariusz Jemielniak is spot-on in this; he told that deletion processes are one of the easiest to score brownies in terms of edit counts. As the OP of a previous RFC on "10 pound hammer" hinted, the faulty system that gave more incentives to deletions instead of creating and fixing, must be reformed. ArbComm must take note of this. Cheers! 14.192.208.84 (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyrighted material hosted on a personal webpage[edit]

At the Danny! biography, a couple of Atlanta-based IPs have been edit-warring with me, returning eight "references" to the article, the references being copyrighted material from news and entertainment sources, all of it hosted on dannyswain.com, Danny's own webpage. Am I interpreting the rules right in removing these? Or are they okay to keep in the article? Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No they should be removed obviously, Using that subjects is fine providing the content is in their own words - If it's been nicked from various places and dumped on their site then no their site shouldn't be used and I would go as far as to say it should be added the spam blacklist. –Davey2010Talk 21:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hold on. More discretion is called for here. We do link to sites using fair use materials. So if the clips are a few seconds they should be okay from a copyvio point of view. Links to lengthier clips fall afoul of our linking policy but be sure these clips are not embeds from properly licensed sources. If they are, link to the official source. --NeilN talk to me 21:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I assumed they meant the text was being copied from news sources and pasted on their website, If we're talking about clips then I don't really think that's problematic. –Davey2010Talk 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No, there is absolutely no text being copied from news sources. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
With the exception of maybe one cited link, which again includes original music composed and performed by the subject, any content (all created by the subject) seems to be less than a minute long. The edits seemed very impulsive as we have seen other articles linked identically. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No, you are linking to entire talk show performances and commercials "nicked" without the permission of the copyright holder. --NeilN talk to me 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Correct, this is the one "more than a minute" clip I was referring to. Anything else related to works-for-hire (commercials, songs) by the subject does deem copyright, and I'm having a hard time understanding otherwise. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The subject does not own copyright over work-for-hire projects like commercials. --NeilN talk to me 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There isn't any content being "nicked" or "dumped" anywhere, the sources in questions lead to work created by the artist and hosted on his personal webpage as a source. Please enlighten me, genuinely as this does not seem to be in any violation, what the issue is. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation, no admin issue. Discussion of relevent external links belongs on Talk:Danny!, obviously. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your posts here are getting less and less helpful... --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Now the Atlanta person has passed 3RR with this reversion. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, despite what 86. says, there are violations of our linking policy. I've reverted and semied the page. --NeilN talk to me 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Am I missing something? I don't see any material hosted on dannyswain.com. There are several links to videos on dannyswain.com but these aren't hosted on dannyswain.com. They are embedded from other websites, either Vimeo or Youtube. It may or may not be better to link to the videos on the source site. In cases where the site the content is embedded has no relevance to the content or article subject, it's clearly not appropriate to link to some random page the video is embedded, for reasons unrelated to copyright. In cases where the site is directly related to the article subject and may provide additional context for the video, there are probably good points for both options all unrelated to copyright, and this should be discussed on the talk page. But embedding should not count as a copyvio, it's an accepted part of how the internet works and the owner of the channel is free to disable embedding if they don't wish this to happen. So what really matters is whether the original channels can be trusted. One of them is from Sesame Street's official channel [83] [84]. There's zero reason to think it should be considered copyvio. All of the other ones seem to be on Vimeo on the channel of StarTower Music, Ltd. [85]. These may be more questionable and probably should be discussed in an appropriate place. (Although remember that besides fair use, the hoster of the channel could have obtained appropriate permissions.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: I looked into that yesterday and it seems StarTower Music is Danny Swain. I'm not comfortable in saying the appropriate permissions were obtained from the copyright holders. --NeilN talk to me 05:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see any material hosted on dannyswain.com. There are several links to videos on dannyswain.com but these aren't hosted on dannyswain.com. They are embedded from other websites, either Vimeo or Youtube. It may or may not be better to link to the videos on the source site. In cases where the site the content is embedded has no relevance to the content or article subject, it's clearly not appropriate to link to some random page the video is embedded, for reasons unrelated to copyright. In cases where the site is directly related to the article subject and may provide additional context for the video, there are probably good points for both options all unrelated to copyright, and this should be discussed on the talk page.

But embedding particularly of videos from sites like Youtube or Vimeo should not count as a copyvio, it's an accepted part of how the internet works, viewers still see any advertising and can also access the original channel and the owner of the channel is free to disable embedding if they don't wish this to happen. (There may be legitimate disputes when it's more akin to Hotlinking and the site owner may not really wish it but hasn't restricted it due to the complexities.

So what really matters is whether the original channels can be trusted. One of them is from Sesame Street's official channel [86] [87]. There's zero reason to think it should be considered copyvio. (And again, whether it would be better to link to the video directly on Youtube or embedded on dannyswain.com should be discussed if necessary but the decision should come down to reasons besides copyrights.) All of the other ones seem to be on Vimeo on the channel of StarTower Music, Ltd. [88]. These may be more questionable and probably should be discussed in an appropriate place. (Although remember that besides fair use, the hoster of the channel could have obtained appropriate permissions.)

Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb conduct[edit]

I am requesting admin intervention with respect to the article talk page behavior of Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) at talk:Kim Davis. Joefromrandb, who was the subject of an RFAR in November. There is a discussion underway about revising the lead. Here are some of Joefromrandb's contributions so far:

  • "It was developed by collaboration among overtly biased editors who somehow managed to get it through a GA-review with no less than 3 outright lies in it, to say nothing of the myriad biases and exaggerations."[89]
  • "Hopefully nothing now. That's all been dealt with. I'm just noting that Mr. X again and again edit-warred demonstrable falsehoods back into this article in the past." [90]
  • "Oh, yeah; how could I forget the most-recent pile of bullshit: "Davis and her staff were found to be paid too much". [91]
  • "That's real cute, El C: purposely waiting & protecting the wrong version. I used to respect you." [92]
  • "It sure fucking is. [93]
  • "You put lie upon lie into this article, so please don't pretend you have any interest in it being "good"." [94]

He has been especially hostile to Prhartcom (the editor who I believe took the article to GA status). Example: Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 6#Write, don't just revert

Edit summaries:

  • let's be real
  • spare me
  • more lies
  • so disgusting
  • fuck no!
  • bollocks

Joefromrandb has a history of edit warring and berating editors,[95][96] in lieu of collaborating with them. Arbcom decided not to do anything about this three months ago, so I'm now asking someone to do something about it now. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 23:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is nothing new. The lies to which I referred are indeed lies, and all there in the article's history, along with its talk page, for everyone to see. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of lies, this user has conveniently chosen not to mention the bits of my original post to El C that I struck as inappropriate many hours ago. You simply can't make this shit up. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Joefromrandb: whatever the factual status of the article (now or previously), your assumptions of bad faith and sniping at other editors is extremely unhelpful. Surely, whatever problems the article has can be fixed without calling people liars or trolls. clpo13(talk) 00:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
"Trolls" perhaps, but the issues with the lies are crystal clear. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Where is a list of the supposed "lies"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Joefromrandb. When you accuse another editor of repeatedly adding "lies" to an article, then you are obligated to provide proof in the form of diffs. Mentioning the edit history of a lengthy, complex article is not sufficient. Provide proof promptly or withdraw the accusations, please. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I already went through this with El C on the article's talk page. The (partial) list of lies is right there. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned on the talk page, I think items on the list should be expanded. El_C 04:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It's pushing midnight, but in the morning I should have time to post a complete lie-by-lie summary. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Even one diff would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Midnight has come and gone. Are we going to see the lie-by-lie summary with diffs or a retraction? By the way Cullen328, Clpo13, and El C, this still doesn't addresses the hostility like calling editors "overtly biased", or the edit warring. Or this or this If this isn't going to be addressed here, then I'm just going to take it back to Arbcom.- MrX 🖋 23:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I certainly have no problem with that, MrX. Go for it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. I was really hoping to avoid that for all of the obvious reasons, but as usual, ANI is just not working. I will give it another day or two on the off chance that someone comes up with a creative solution. If I hadn't started the Kim Davis article and collaborated with so many great editors there, I would just walk away and let it be someone else's problem. But I can't. I'm seeing a good article damaged by retaliatory editing and editor morale (including mine) harmed with vicious attacks on their motives and their honesty.- MrX 🖋 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

() (edit conflict) Regarding the "lies", the threshold for content inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Content is either supported by reliable sources or it is not, and that is the basis of content discussions. Referring to content as "lies" is nothing but an obvious breach of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Demonstrating with diffs that content isn't supported by sources does not justify referring to it as "lies". I vaguely recall being involved in the dispute in some way and I'm pretty sure there were just conflicting understandings of what the sources said, varying interpretations of wording, a really mundane and trivial dispute. Certainly nothing to warrant personal attacks over an unrelated content dispute years later. Given this user's block log, something should be done. Preferably a voluntary retraction and a genuine, non-passive-aggressive pledge to either be civil or recuse from that content dispute, but short of that, I would support a block or alternative remedy. Swarm 00:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I have to agree with others that Joefromrandb has perennial and unabated conduct issues, has been brought to ANI many times, has been blocked many times, and yet still has not changed. I agree that an ArbCom case may be necessary, since the trips to ANI do not seem to work. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

My, oh my[edit]

Can I please have an administrator look into the contributions of this seemingly combative, aggressive editor who is refusing to get the point? It seems they get into the same old, same old arguments on current event portals, as well as displaying frighteningly incompetent behavior. Their contribution history should suffice to display they are single-purpose only. Thank you. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde!Contribs 02:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It is almost certainly the same person as this person who made the same poor edits to 'current events' and refused to communicate other than agressive edit descriptions claiming everyone was a 'troll' or 'sockpuppet'. Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm and to think that I "dude"d them in October. Blocked for 31 hours. Keep an eye on this--I'm sure they will return. If they come by to chat, that's great. If they keep this "you're a troll" bullshit up, we'll look into rangeblocks. PS MURCHISON-EYES YOURE JUST A TROLL HERE WITH YOUR OBVIOUS BIAS, maybe? ;) Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: See Special:Contributions/2600:8800:ff0e:1200:38cb:9114:760:e5f1/64, this is their range. I was dealing with them in October. Home Lander (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Home Lander. I have never seen a range that was so truly home to one editor. The only thing that is stopping me from blocking the entire range for a few months is the good article edits they make, and the fact that one should never block before breakfast. I am interested in the opinion of some other admins. And in coffee. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Drmies: The disruptive Portal edits seems to have a political agenda - recent ones [97] [98], and one where they edit warred with me and several others last year [99]. What would be great is a software change so you could block someone by namespace, in this case, disallow Portal edits from this range. Home Lander (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What a great idea. The Moose 06:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

New account adding contentious cats[edit]

Would an uninvolved admin take a look at a new account, Jenny0627forever (talk · contribs · logs)? It was created in July 2014, used for the first time and only a few times in February 2015, then created 丹寧日 in April 2017, and on 18 January 2018 created several contentious categories about feminists, including Category:Biphobia feminists and Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists. These are being added to BLPs, and the account is edit-warring to restore them when they're removed. For example, see Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffreys, and Germaine Greer. SarahSV (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that @SarahSV is one of the partisans in the dispute about those categories, and has repeatedly declined to even acknowledge my requests[100][101] that per normal CfD practice, articles removed from categories under are listed at the discussion so that editors can assess the articles concerned and their souring.
Every CfD tag includes an : "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress".
I disagree with the BLP concerns, but can accept that if genuine they would justify breaking the don't remove rule.
I would find it easier to sustain AGF if discussion was not being undermined by the non-disclosure at CfD of which articles have been removed. I hope that SarahSV will remedy this situation soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Describing anyone with an arguably-negative category should only be done where there is a clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources which do so; when in doubt, the category should be removed. This is because categories are not nuanced, but strictly "either-or." If there is any level of dispute or debate about the categorization's applicability, we need to default to "no category." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
SarahSV did the right thing. BLP-violating labels on the bottom of the article are not ok just because a CfD discussion is running. Update the CfD tag. Perhaps ask for category-removal diffs to be logged in the CfD, if this doesn't perpetuate the violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
If articles are removed while the categ is under discussion, that removal should be disclosed at the discussion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 18#Category:Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminists is discussing an empty category. Without disclosure of what articles the categ might include, editors not already well-versed in the topic will lack crucial context, including the ability to assess whetherthere actually was a BLP violation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's quite right too. let's continue at Template_talk:Cfd#Removing_members_during_a_CfD_discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah c'mon SmokeyJoe. A discussion on conduct while CfDs are underway needs much paticipation than will arise from putting it on a template's talk page. It should be located at WT:CFD, which is watched by over 20 times as many editors as Template talk:Cfd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
If there is edit-warring over these, it's minor and on both sides. It's deliberate removal by one side, citing BLP as "TERF is a slur", despite it being a sourceable self-identified label. Emptying categories during their CfD discussion is particularly wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This discussion has gotten off topic. This is supposed to be about Jenny0627forever (talk · contribs · logs) edits. I find her edits to be problematic. However, I'm even more concerned about the fact that she hasn't responded to any of the challenges against her edits. She seems determined to right great wrongs and appears to lack in understanding of Wikipedia policy. I think a block until she attempts to communicate with other editors might be in order. JDDJS (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Jenny0627forever's last edit was at 03:46, 19 January, so perhaps it has stopped. SarahSV (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Query regarding IBAN's[edit]

When in an IBAN, is the other person able to follow me all over the fucking shop? Cos I'm getting massively pissed off by this shit now, Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the incidents board. If you’re complaining about an incident, spell it out, with diffs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a query Darkness Shines (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes. There is nothing in WP:IBAN that would prevent that. On the other hand, WP:HARASS may apply if it's obvious that someone is following you to multiple articles to cause distress.- MrX 🖋 19:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Sound diffs forthcoming Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I would remind you of your own IBAn, and the fact that it says "Limit IBAN vio reports to blatant violations." As well as saying much the same about harassment and stalking, If this is not blatant there would be a danger that it could boomerang, so be very sure there is some blatant examples of (whoever this user might be) following you to pages.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

17:45, 17 August 2017 My first edit to Antifa. 17:18, 2 November 2017 Gilmore's first edit to Antifa.

Paul Pelosi Jr. I AFD'd this he appeared on the article.

Highland clearances my first edit here, 4 November 2017 Gilmore first edit, 9 January 2018 to my mind this was done so his name would pop up on my watchlist. Proud Boys, my first edit 5 January 2018 Gilmore first edit 9 January 2018 I'm discussing The Root as a source, 6 January 2018 Gilmore posts about it on another editor talk who I'm in disagreement with regarding the source 6 January 2018 Sea lioning I AFD it 10 January 2018 Gilmore appears at the discussion 13 January 2018 For which he was blocked. Pacific war 17 October 2017 (Not my first edit here, this is about Mexican involvement) Gilmore 22 October 2017appears wars against three users and gets blocked for 3RR. Rose City Antifa I created this article and the edited on 24 November 2017 Gilmore appears on 26 November 2017 He has followed me to Antisemitism in the United Kingdom my first edit, 9 October 2017 Gilmore 25 November 2017 I created Antisemitism in the Labour Party Gilmore appears here as well. There are more but this is enough to show that since the TBAN was placed he has been following me around Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That's an astonishingly poor way to begin. Might be worth rephrasing, if you haven't already torpedoed yourself. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Never been so pissed off you no longer give a shite i guess? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
About Wikipedia? No, I have not had that experience. You're free to do as you will, just trying to point out repercussions. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I would say this is not the clear cut kind of case you were told you needed. He may well be trying to wind you up, but frankly editing pages (for example) you are not even editing is not stalking, even if he thinks you are watching it. In the case of the others, well it's not exactly a lot is it, and not even the pages you are currently very active on (the last appears to have been 2 days ago, on one of the articles). The other you have not edited for a month. Sorry this looks like just the kind of spurious fishing for ban you were warned not to do.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For everyone unaware, I have been trying to mediate this interaction ban via email for the past week. I had a soft agreement to not bring things to ANI without getting outside input as the last one did not go so well. I wish my advice had been heeded. So now, it needs to be discussed publicly before I give up on both of you. @Darkness Shines: I explicitly told you that you should avoid bringing things to ANI as your last report was not received well. I told you to give me the information of any violation and that I would report it for you if I believed a violation took place. Why did you ignore that? I did ask C. W. Gilmore to not edit any page that you have edited within the last 30 days, so that advice was also ignored; however, it isn't necessarily a violation of the IBAN (just stupid and ill-advised). If either one of you want to avoid being blocked again, I strongly suggest you let me continue mediating the both of you and that you both listen and dial it back quickly before you do something you can't recover from. I know both of you are passionate about editing, but this is not the way to go about it. Nihlus 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No, either he stops following me or fucking indef me, I do not need this shit Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Indef him then with this attitude ohh and.
Donald Trump on social media, No edits by Gilmore
Fake News Awards, No edits by Darkenss
Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present), no edits by Darnkess for over 30 days, then Gilmore edits, then Darkness edits.
Talk:1576 Cocoliztli epidemic, yep, gilmore did breach his agreement.
So not a lot here really.Slatersteven (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The way I read that first diff is: On the Trump page, Darkness refers to the Fake News Awards on the 18th. Gilmore edits the Fake News Awards on the 19th.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Which is why I agree that Gilmore is pushing it a bit. But it is a stretch to call this stalking. Yes Gilmore is playing silly buggers, and needs a warning. But by the same token this is Darkness fishing for a ban on Gilmore on some shaky grounds. In essence he is saying that Gilmnore cannot edit any pages he has any link due, not matter how tenuous.Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
By what standard is this phony "Fake News Awards" notable for inclusion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Note - I followed Volunteer Marek to that article [102] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No idea, I have not be party to, or following, the merger discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's the thing, the merge discussion was on another page, that I know nothing about. It took me a while to even understand what everyone was talking about. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

While the phrasing of the report is poor, I find the diffs persuasive. It seems a pretty clear case of Gilmore following Darkness on multiple pages. For tolerably obvious reasons, I'm not going to place a block myself, but I think someone should. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: I'm not sure your trigger happy touch is needed at this time. Your previous blocks only served to drive this mess further than it needed to be. Nihlus 20:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Slater you are an idiot, I did a rm on that page last week, the persecution one, seriously learn to actually look at shit Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
So the date of that edit?Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment @ Sarek, I stay off pages for 5days so as to avoid any interaction, if others from the IBAN show up, I finish what I'm doing and stay off that page for 5days. There are articles such as US politics, world news and events were are interest overlap, so I set the 5day rule to avoid interaction. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@C. W. Gilmore: I suggested that you stay off those pages for a month. Why do you think five days was a reasonable compromise? Nihlus 20:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nihlus: - I can look back 5days and be pretty sure I don't miss anything, 30dys on something like a Trump page is not manageable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@C. W. Gilmore: It's not unreasonable at all since there are tools for this. Nihlus 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Frankly Gilmore I am almost as unimpressed with you as I am with Darkness , you know full well you are pushing the envelope, and I have said this to you before. The moist likely result is that the pair of you will be indef. Trying to wind him up by sneaking "half violations" is not going to sit well, and we are not all so stupid as to not be aware of what you are doing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Again we go back to the only way to prevent this just being brought up once a week is a total ban on each user editing pages the other edits, yes it will create a race to claim pages. But that might cause less disruption then this constant bickering and needlaing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would only support this if it was limited to 30 or 60 days; however, something needs to be community enforced as they are not really listening to me. Nihlus 20:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not think a limited time offer will have any effect. But would give it a goSlatersteven (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It will allow them to edit a page that the other maybe edited a year ago. It will allow us to avoid wikilawyering. Nihlus 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
And CW edited the Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present) a day before that [103]. Besides (as has been said) Gilmore has not been banned from editing pages, and if you look at this [104]I see a ton of pages Gilmore has not fetched up on. So this is not stalking.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ohh I see, sorry I misunderstood, I thought you meant it would only last that long. I agree there has to be a non grandfather clause. yep edited within the last 30 days seems fine.Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment There are multiple pages where all parties to the IBAN have edited, that's why I set the 5day rule for myself, to keep distance. It's because of overlapping interests and intersecting edits. Also, I can check 5dys with certainty. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a problem, you did fetch up on pages you have never edited before. To be fair you also did not edit a lot of pages he does.Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
We seem to overlap because of some of the editors we follow. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That is possible, which is why I did warn Darkenss to be careful before launching this ANI (and got told top fuck off for my trouble).Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't like me, that's grand but stop being a dick. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it is best if I do not respond to you anymore, as all you seem to do is react aggressively. I have no wish to be accused of badgering a user.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The OP here just talked himself off a 2-week block after a couple of days, and it's only taken a couple more days to pick up where he left off. If he won't listen to good advice from others, maybe that block should be reinstated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Given the constant abuse I have been subjected to for sustaining this ANI was not a good idea, yes it should be.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note I stay off whatever article or talking page is not clear for 5dys. If 5dys is not long enough then give us both the same time frame to work with and I will comply. If posting on a Talking page while the other is on the article is not allowed, then say so; I'm getting tired of being dragged to AN/I every week. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That is total bullshit. There is no time limit on how long you should avoid pages where your opponent has been active. The rule is simple: stop following DS around. You had an opportunity to demonstrate that DS's edits needed your attention and that argument was not accepted. An interaction ban means that interaction is banned. Stop looking at your opponent's contributions and talk page and do not edit pages where they have been active. Johnuniq (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually it is the truth, I followed Volunteer Marek to that Trump page and found it clear of any IBAN[105]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've moved onto editing other areas due to the frustration of dealing with Gilmore. And now I seem to be running into some of the same issues of him following my contributions for seemingly unencyclopedic reasons. I admit I have assumed bad faith on one occasion, but interacting with this editor can be truly infuriating, especially after being borderline canvassed by him on Jefferson Davis Park. Honestly before I even saw this report today I was thinking of how I might get rid of the feeling that he's trying to crawl up into my asshole and set up shop. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Gabriel, making fun of suicide is not a 'joke' I appreciate, it brings back too many memories. Please don't do it again. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
What?Slatersteven (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I suspect this illustrates a fundamental problem here; CWG appears to honestly believe that his wishes and beliefs have power over other writers, the rules of Wikipedia, and factual questions; the problems with DS and others are symptoms, not the root cause. This is not a problem likely to fix itself in a week of sulking. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, there's a couple problems there. I didn't make the joke, I posted onto another editors page referring back to their use of it. You make it incredibly hard to assume good faith when you show up in places you have no encyclopedic reason for being to throw your two cents into a conversation where your name was not even mentioned. Kindly fuck off. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
They should compromise in the state of Washington, that bastion of Confederateness: Leave the portrait of Jeff Davis, but paint a dress on him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Misogynist. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No. You must be unaware of the legend (true or not) that when the Union arrested him, he had been trying to evade capture by dressing as a woman. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No, and no. Its was just a poke at the way so many conversations connected with CWG get hijacked, For great social justice. All of your threads are belong to us. Anmccaff (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Look, jokes about suicide are not acceptable, even worse when they are made at another editor's expense [106] and picked up and repeated [107], even if my uncle had not committed suicide, it would still not be appropriate. And before you go saying it was just a joke, suicide by hammer is not [108] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Jokes aside, I see that you have in no way offered any sort of defense of the other conduct issues I brought up, but you seem to be doing a fine job hanging yourself on your owngetting yourself blocked. Did not intend hanging comment to be humorous but quickly saw that it could be taken that way, apologies. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Gonna have to agree with Gilmore here. Gabriel, that was incredibly uncalled for. I suggest you stop now or I will pursue sanctions for this. Don't joke about suicide. --Tarage (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that suicide is not something to joke about. I didn't. I did refer to another editor's joke about suicide when posting on their talk page, and that was perhaps off color. What I don't see is how Gilmore even became involved in me posting a barnstar to another editors page. It's tough to AGF there, which is why I decided to comment in the first place. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
off topic discussion
May you never, ever lose someone close to you from suicide. It hurts like hell. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well I find your offhand assumption that I haven't to be pretty goddam offensive, but I do agree that it is incredibly painful. Gonna throw a hat on this as off topic. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we just block both of them and be done with it? Yes, their contributions may have been worth something in the past, but this has become a net drain of many administrators time, and we end up here every week. At some point, this has got to stop, and since it seems like both parties are too stubborn to figure out how badly they are behaving maybe we should have a break from both... --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
And the two of you can go do something use full for once Ya. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
You continue to defy your IBAN. How useful is that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Both editors are banned from editing any page the other has edited within the last 30 days, any and all pages --Originally posted by Slatersteven but modified to be a suggestion rather than a topic header by Tarage (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I will be fine with that, however, something like that Trump thing could happen again as they pages are not connected, in fact I didn't know there was talk of merging until this AN/I came up. 30dys, clear on All pages (article and TP), can be done. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Quite frankly you are in no position to bargain right now. I suggest you stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tarage, that was not me bargaining. I was agreeing to it, sorry if it came off badly. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, the above section header was actually added by Slatersteven [109]. Lepricavark (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry is that not permitted?Slatersteven (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Think about readability for a second. 1. It doesn't even say who posted it. It's just a header. 2. The super bold text implies perhaps that an administrator has made it fact, rather than a suggestion. Either way, I've modified it so that it's less confusing. Feel free to fix it how you see fit, but just a section header is not a good way to make an argument. --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm working on learning how to look back 30dys on article and Talking Pages, with the hopes that going from 5dys to 30dys will be enough. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (1) Click on "view history". (2) Click on "Edits by user". (3) Enter the username in the field provided, and submit. (4) All edits by that user on that page will be displayed, with the most recent on top. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, and it looks like I have to do it for the article and TP separately. One question for you, Diannaa, is there a way to avoid something like the Trump article issue brought up? I had no idea what was happening on the other pages when I followed Marek to the one I commented on. As I never went to the other page, how was I to avoid this happening again? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I don't understand the question. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
He is being reported because he went to page A (which DS has never edited) and this is stalking because there is a discussion on page B about a merge. He is asking how he avoids editing pages that have not be edited by DS, but just mentioned by him elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The connection could have been discovered by investigating the merge proposal at the top of the article. However if this example was the only one in the other party's report it's unlikely sanctions would be the result, as the connection is a little tenuous. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, DS has added additional diffs to an existing post, and most of those seem to be before the IBAN. \It is in fact old material that has already been dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, quite a few are since the IBAN, they also show this shite had been on going for a while Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
"Most" and "quite a few" are not mutually exclusive, and for that last comment alone (calling another user a shit head) you should get a block. Why is this even being tolerated?Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
What was the date of the IBAn, by the way?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I never called anyone a shithead, that's a missed space, fixed Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore/Darkness Shines IBAN Revision[edit]

Per the above discussion and my own experience in trying to mediate the two, I recommend we as a community formally alter their current restriction.

Current

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

Proposed

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. Additionally, both users are prohibited from editing any page and its corresponding talk page if the other user has edited either within the last thirty (30) days. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

I don't think exceptions should be considered otherwise we will most likely end up back here soon. I consider this to be a last chance for both of them. Nihlus 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Nihlus 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this last chance business hasn't worked any of the previous times it has been applied. We're at the point where we need blocks to prevent further time being wasted on this. --Tarage (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Tarage: I would personally be against blocking them currently given my discussions with them (I have hope I can get through to them), but I wouldn't fight it if the community wished it. However, I would be against an administrator blocking them without community sanction. So, feel free to propose it if you believe that it is the best solution. Nihlus 23:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do just that. --Tarage (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support With the understanding that this is an absolute final chance. I know it is not my place, but if it were up to me if either of them breach this the offending party would get an IBAN (and yes that would include frivolous reporting), automatically no ANI notice or discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment ANIs like this one are a waste of resources and a drain on our community. I think we should add a requirement, that, if either user feels the other has violoated the IBAN, the user must first privately discuss the violation with an admin of the user’s choosing. If, upon review, the admin found that the complaint was non-frivolous, the admin would open an ANI on behalf of the reporting user. Billhpike (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah good luck with that. I brought up that very point with DS the last time this occurred and he told me he doesn't trust any of them. So there's that. --Tarage (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the 30-day clause, but how about they are banned from reporting each other? This is getting ridiculous. If there's a violation, then someone else will notice it. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: The administration of this would be intolerable or impossible, and the additional workload involved in making any edits for both editors would be, in my view, unacceptable. If editors can't manage freely roaming about the Wiki on their own, they don't belong here. Just from the thread above, I'm instantly of the opinion that Darkness Shines is too combative to remain here. CWG is less combative but I see some really hard to believe claims being stated, and I take the other discussants at their word that dealing with CWG is also impossible. I see this additional hurdle as something futile that'll be violated within days, bringing the aggrieved party crowing back to ANI claiming victory. I see no reason to reward one of these characters just because the other manages to slip up first. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as an option. This would keep them out of each other's hair. (Of course, if either of them start to game the system by pre-emptive posting on articles just to claim them, then it's indef block for that editor.) And of course if this new version of the IBAN were to prove just as useless, then it's a three-month block for both of them, no appeals possible. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and I would also add a clause about being banned from reporting each other at drama boards. They can report any issues to a trusted administrator and they can make a decision on it. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with the added proviso (per Black Kite, Billhpike, and A lad insane) that neither editor can report the other for anything, but that they can notify an admin. If the admin declines to act, it's over. If this fails to resolve the conflict, I would support escalating blocks starting at six months duration, with no ability to appeal.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I can support this as a temporary fix, but I have to say I do not see this as a bilateral problem. One of the two parties here has been, shall I say, very difficult for everyone who has interacted with him to deal with. Most editors, like myself, have just stepped back and minimized their dealings with him. Some, such as DS, are not able to, as he is involved in the same areas day in and day out. Frankly, it may be better just to topic ban (post 1932 American politics) both for a limited time (6 months) and step back and see who is still standing after that. John from Idegon (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with the inclusion of being banned from reporting each other on any noticeboard. ansh666 20:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as impossible to enforce and easy to break unintentionally. This would be a even bigger mess than the current one. Imagine if this was on a highly active page? They could reasonably be expected to have no clue they broke this IBAN and then the other uses it to get them block. No, too complex and the poor admin who actually has to enforce it will have any enforcement action overturned within 72 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Exactly right, and I am glad someone else has hit on the same thing that I discussed above. At some point, ratcheting up the complexity of sanctions is not the answer. Sure, you'll get the block you're expecting at some point, but it won't be for the reason you supported the upgraded sanction. What I find even more astounding is the argument that this should be unappealable, or that blocks handed out under this sanction should be unappealable. A narrow ANI discussion cannot change the rules applying to UTRS or the Arbitration Committee, nor can it make a final determination as to its own validity. If this sanction passes, I would not only expect, but I would encourage either or both to go to the Arbitration Committee immediately to have it overturned as unworkable (though it is also pretty likely that one or both would also draw sitebans). Just issue blocks and let them plead for the Standard Offer in six months. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and also support neither side reporting violations except privately to an admin. If either party doesn't trust admins, well tough cookies since we got here largely because of their behaviour and in addition, no action is likely without either an admin acting unilaterally or a discussion in which a fair few admins participate. I'm not as convinced that there is definite evidence of stalking here. But I have seen enough to know neither side seems able to properly respect the i-ban e.g. completely ignore the other editor as if they and anything they said or did doesn't exist. This seems to be the last chance to make it work before we end up with something like the proposal below. I think I said a few days ago I hoped to never see anything about either editor on ANI. However I didn't expect this would actually be the case and sure enough we're here. 04:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk)
  • Oppose - I'm becoming more convinced that iBans and Topic Bans may cause more disruption to the project than they resolve. They also appear to be a form of censorship. Perhaps "disruption" needs to be better defined so we can focus more on a collegial environment instead of grade school. Atsme📞📧 12:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Atsme You wrote " iBans and Topic Bans may cause more disruption" That's a reasonable point, but short term blocks are not working and apparently another editor has tried to mediate whatever the underlying dispute is. Do you have any alternative practical ideas about how to resolve this? - MrX 🖋 18:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Tell Gilmore to stop following me would be a good start Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Quit looking over your shoulder.- MrX 🖋 19:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
MrX, I'm actually working on a few intermediate solutions that focus on clarification of ambiguities in our PAGs. I see the latter as a major contributor to the types of content disputes that typically result in blocks, TBs and problematic interactions between editors. An idea that just now hit me as an interim remedy would be an extention of the mentor program with a probationary period for each editor, so in essence, instead of having a mentor, it would be more like a monitor, and for those who follow David Icke, it would a monitor lizard.[FBDB] While on probation, the two editors will be required to first review the page they intend to edit to see if the other editor is involved. If not, make the edit. If arriving 2nd to the other editor, then the 2nd editor must obtain approval from their assigned mentor/monitor (whichever term fits best) before making an edit to that page. The 1st editor would have to follow suit after the 2nd editor has edited. The result is a slowed down process using a two-heads are better than one approach which serves as a deterrent to making hasty mistakes and improper interactions. It also encourages collaboration and reduces friction, and the project maintains its editors and benefits by their edits. In the interim, I intend to continue working on some of the problematic ambiguities in PAGs, which is why I've started spending a bit more time at the dramah boards. Atsme📞📧 19:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: Excuse me if I find your opposition perplexing and inconsistent. These two editors are already subject to an IBAN, so opposing will not remove the IBAN as this is not what this is about. Additionally, your oppose in the section below leads me to believe you are not looking for a solution; however, I then read your comment immediately above which goes completely against your initial oppose of not believing IBANs are helpful. You say they are disruptive and "grade school", but your suggestion is an IBAN itself and more "grade school" than my proposal. Please clarify. Nihlus 00:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Nihlus - I'll try to clarify:
  1. This section proposes a revision to the current iBan, specifically Additionally, both users are prohibited from editing any page and its corresponding talk page if the other user has edited either within the last thirty (30) days. I opposed and expressed my feelings about the dramah we experience overall from having to deal with these matters at AN/I and AE as a result of iBans and DS, not unlike the time we're spending on it right now. My position is that we need to cure the disease of ambiguity in our PAGs that cause the content disputes and edit disruption instead of continuously treating the symptoms. It may not be the complete answer but it's a start worthy of review.
  2. It is not at all unusual for 2 editors to edit war over a content dispute and be called to "the principal's office" (grade school resolution being the whole AN/I experience) because of something as simple as a misinterpretation of an iBan, TB, DS, or PAGs. It's a recurring problem and a huge time sink for our admins when they could be devoting more of their time to fighting vandals, socks and trolls where there's real disruption.
  3. Blocks, iBans and TBs do not help editor retention as far as I can tell. Think of it as you would a cost-benefit analysis - how many editors & admins are involved here now and how much time is spent VS the "disruption" caused by 2 editors in a content dispute? Why not simply fix the content problem and move on? How about a procedure that involves an automatic cease & desist order for the edit warriors until the content admins review and fix the content issue instead of focusing only on the behavior? That's why I said, ...iBans and Topic Bans may cause more disruption to the project than they resolve. They also appear to be a form of censorship. Perhaps "disruption" needs to be better defined so we can focus more on a collegial environment instead of grade school. Again, grade school being the whole AN/I experience - editors being chastised, reprimanded, and/or punished like children, and what happens in the end? We lose good editors when we probably could have deployed a slightly different approach from bans and blocks.
  4. I opposed the proposal to indef block both editors in the section below, stating quite unambiguously that I favor editor retention and quite frankly, if our community has gotten to the point that we have to indef block 2 editors because they don't like each other, we need to dig deeper into the cause rather than focus only on the effect. My comments are not only consistent, each supports the other. Hope that helps clarify. Atsme📞📧 02:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
So, what's your approach to solve this mess? Or by move on, do you feel that there is none and the general community ought to be greeted at regular intervals with this drama-fest involving none but these two.If you have some grand plans, take the two under your fold and execute them so that we may never again see the n-th battleground litigation of these two-way issues on the same locus.Winged BladesGodric 03:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Struck the parts, since you hae elaborated on a approach.Missed that:)
Winged Blades of Godric, having made the recent mistake of imposing a special ban that was meant to fit the circumstances, I'll speak for myself and not Atsme, that this IBAN would actually be much more likely to cause disruption than it would be to solve them. Engineered bans tend to do that. They're difficult to follow and even more difficult to enforce. Sarek tried to enforce a normal one in good faith recently, and the drama it caused took up more community time than it was worth. This sanction, which is worded so that it is all but guaranteed to be violated by one of the parties, will be next to impossible to enforce, and if it is enforced, will be either be overturned by the community quickly or will lead to an ArbCom case. That is much more disruption than what we would have if we simply closed this with a warning to both parties to stay well clear of the other and that any future IBAN violations will likely lead to a lengthy block. If this IBAN passes, I'm confident we will be back here or at ArbCom very soon. It looks like it is going to pass, but I really hope it doesn't: the mess that would be caused by attempting to enforce it will be very bad for the community. So if you want my proposed action: final warning. Leave it at that, and next time, deal with it in a way that won't cause a case request. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree on the part of difficulty in enforcing these engineered I-Bans and hence am not supporting it.Also, ....if we simply closed this with a warning to both parties to stay well clear of the other and that any future IBAN violations will likely lead to a lengthy block.... is not beneficial.There shall be some upper bound on the number of warnings.It's just plainly stupid to watch these two pop up with their regular barrage of complaints (each primarily targeting none but the other), every alternate week or so at either AN/ANI.On a related note, I'm quite optimistic about the prospects of this leading to the near-inevitable Arb-Case.Winged BladesGodric 04:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm a pragmatist: the block below is not going to pass, and I think this sanction would be a negative. No need to waste more time figuring out a new sanction. I agree on an upper limit on warnings, but I think in this specific case, it's the least bad option. Either that, or one of the parties files a case request, which I doubt either of them want to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This is getting pretty fucking stupid! - Support and if either party violate the Iban then one or the other should obviously be blocked. –Davey2010Talk 20:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Per Tony and Mendaliv.Winged BladesGodric 04:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore/Darkness Shines Indefinite Block[edit]

Look at the above sections. Look at the absolute mess it is. We have two editors who, for whatever reason, are incapable of leaving things well enough alone. Look at their block logs. Look at how much time and energy has been wasted on this. Time that could be spent actually building an encyclopedia. Between Gilmore's toeing of the line at every chance he can get and DS's inability to be civil for more than 5 seconds, we have a net loss to the project. Perhaps removing one would solve the problem, but they are both so stubborn that it doesn't matter anymore. It's time for this to stop. We can amend IBAN restrictions till we're blue in the face. Just end it. Block them both until they understand.

  • Support as proposer. --Tarage (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support enough is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm at the line but not ready to cross it. I am willing to give them one final chance. Nihlus 00:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support mostly per my comments in opposition to the IBAN revision. Between the combativeness and incivility of DS and the non-credible claims of CWG, there's no reason to reward either of these people with what'll be taken as a victory. Indef them both and the victory is Wikipedia's. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I get that I'm a newb here but these two editors are, at least as far as these ongoing disputes go, working at cross purpose to the encyclopedia. Set these two asses to grind corn, as my papa used to say. Gabriel syme (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This sounds most unhygienic. EEng 06:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Wait what? I'm trying to back out of a place in no way belong. Is it not good practice to strike remarks that you find to be mistakes? Gabriel syme (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't take anything EEng says seriously. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm deadly serious. Suppose Gabe here offered you some home-made cornbread. Would you eat it? Be honest. EEng 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok I missed the joke yall can be delightfully infuriating! You've reduced me to using this abhorrent symbol ;-) Gabriel syme (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I expect that you mean well, but that kind of remark is not helpful. These editors have both contributed a great deal to Wikipedia over the years, and while I believe the indefs are necessary at this point, there is no need to insult them on the way out. Lepricavark (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That is noted, struck, and thanks for your cooler head than mine taking a hand in this dispute. Uh, it's apparent to me that I'm really not ready to be involved in discussions here, I'd just had a real difficult time with one of the involved editors. Stepping off this now as yall seem to have things well in hand. Gabriel syme (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for responding graciously and striking the remark. You're still fairly new and have plenty to learn (not that any of us ever stop learning), but your ability to admit your mistakes will serve you well. You've earned my respect. Lepricavark (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is becoming ridiculous. !dave 08:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support two-month blocks for each. Although they both have lengthy block logs, I don't think we've reached the indef point for either editor. I think an unappealable two-month vacation for each will help each of them decide whether Wikipedia is a project they value enough to edit constructively and civilly and while acting within its guidelines and their editing restrictions. If either or them continue stalking or disruptive or uncivil editing/behavior after the two-month block, then that editor gets indeffed. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a long block for both, per "what part of IBAN did you not understand?", relentless gaming and sniping - and it's time to find a proper redirect target for WP:ENOUGHALREADY. Couple of months is good. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The discussion above does not seem to indicate DS is breaching the IBAN. In fact, the discussion seems to indicate he has a reasonable complaint. The solution isn't "both sides bad" if there is merit to the complaint. DS appears angry but thats understandandable considering that the people discussing it are also just as perturbed. --DHeyward (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose DS is certainly wrong to have allowed himself to be provoked and overreacted as he has. However, this is by no means a case of "both as bad as each other". The only time I seem to ever see Gilmore's name is in the context of stirring up trouble and the same cannot be said for DS, who is a valuable contributor until his short fuse burns out. He should get himself a longer fuse, and not rise to provocation so easily in future, but treating this as two people equally to blame is not correct. -- Begoon 09:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose –This will be purely punitive and plain cool down block against policy. There's not even clear evidence that one of them has breached the topic ban, talk less of all of them. If there's, then the appropriate sanction should apply to the breaching party. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ammarpad: Have you assessed the long term disruption caused by these two users in the past? !dave 10:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @My name is not dave: Blocking is used to stop ongoing or prevent imminent disruption not past disruption which is not even laid out here clearly. I actually never crossed path with either but my thought was clear; they are under active IBAN, if one party breaches it, sanction the party. But to block them under vague term "that till they understand" is not the right thing here. Do you have evidence of any active disruption that blocking both indefinitely will prevent? –Ammarpad (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - We have been down this road far too many times; I appreciate some editors' willingness to offer these two (another) chance. There comes a time, however, when you must cut your losses, knowing you lived up to your pledge of good-faith and did the best you could.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Just how many times had DS had blocks that have been overturned (including Indefs)? If DS is blocked and then reinstated Gilmore has to be as well, DS cannot learn that all he has to do to get another user blocked indefinably is just to get himself a block he knows will be over turned.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Give the updated IBAN proposed above a chance. If that doesn't work, then fine. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose overreaction. However it does appear from above that Gilmore is not able to stop following DS and is likely headed for an indef. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in favor of giving the previous revision a chance. If that fails, then sure. (hope I'm not close-paraphrasing Black Kite!) ansh666 20:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a resolution that prevents at least one serious content-contributor from seriously contributing content. From what I've glanced at, DS's complaint has merit. If you disagree, it would be easy to ignore it too. No one is forced to spend time here. (At the same time, I'd advise you not to insult editors who, previously, hadn't been part of anything annoying, DS. There are better ways of expressing the strength of your frustration, and written dialogue at least gives us a better chance of waiting to respond until we've regained our cool (unless duty calls, of course)). I guess I wouldn't oppose a more immersive or extensive interaction ban here, but to block them won't improve the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I favor editor retention and quite frankly, if our community has gotten to the point that we have to indef block 2 editors because they don't like each other, we need to dig deeper into the cause rather than focus only on the effect. Atsme📞📧 12:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above - We need to give the revision a chance however if DS or GW fuck this up then I would start supporting blocks (indefs if need be)- This is a lifeline for both of you so I would strongly suggest you take this lifeline and obviously would suggest you both stay away from each other, I think it's fair to say at this point the communities patience is wearing thin. –Davey2010Talk 20:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal. Both editors have been around for quite a while and made helpful contributions to Wikipedia. Some kind of temporary interaction ban might be best to let them cool off a while. -Darouet (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support If these two can't act like civilized people then they can fuck off down the road. --Adamfinmo (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Third option[edit]

Once again, ANI fails to resolve a complex user conduct issue. An admin blocks a productive editor for violating an I-ban or a policy; another admin comes along to unblocks the same editor and claims that the blocking admin was too hasty/carries a grudge/is involved. Proposals are made to resolve the conflict, but editors with diverse opinions oppose and the proposals never get off the ground. Lather, rinse, repeat. Everyone loses.

This simply needs to go to Arbcom to be resolved. It's their job to step in where the community has failed to resolve an editor conduct matter. Since both editors obviously have a role in perpetuating the dispute, this could possibly even be handled by a motion.- MrX 🖋 18:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. I was thinking about this earlier. !dave 19:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Read my proposal above first...Atsme📞📧 20:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not feel like dragging this to Arbcom as I believe this is something I can mediate if given the tools with my proposal above. Many of you are too quick to block or call for an escalation in the process, and that is not something we should be doing. Nihlus 00:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support kicking this to the Committee, as I suggested above. The proposed amended IBAN is so unworkable in practice that I believe it should be invalid. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Well it's not clear to me that the first option has failed yet. If you don't believe it will work and feel it should go to arbcom as some other editors have said, or believe one of the editors will appeal to arbcom the moment it passes, that's fine. But I don't see the point in kicking something to arbcom solely because the community has failed to offer a solution when one of the proposed solutions (regardless of whether it's going to work) still has a fair chance of passing. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Well yes, wait until this thread is ripe for closure at least. !dave 09:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Three month block for C. W. Gilmore[edit]

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is banned for three months for harassment and Wikistalking in defiance of an interaction ban.

  • Support as proposer. I have spent some time looking through the contributions of both. Though there is undoubtedly some fault on both sides, the event that caused this report was transparent Wikistalking, and while Darkness Shines is a highly productive editor, C. W. Gilmore is much less so - only 800 main space edits in something over six years, nowhere near enough to buy the goodwill necessary to offset harassment of an editor with way over ten times the contributions to the project. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

New editor Catfurball and article move[edit]

User:Catfurball moved the Bariloche article to San Carlos de Bariloche without explanation or consensus. Bariloche is the WP:COMMONNAME, San Carlos de Bariloche is the formal name. I set up a discussion topic on the talk page, waited a day with no response, so I moved it back to the original. My move brought it back to the article title that it was moved to in 2015. Catfurball moved the article yet again to San Carlos de Bariloche. So I asked them on their talk page to please discuss on the article talk page. The user then removed my comment and continued editing. I noticed they did this with another editor earlier here. As Catfurball does not seem interested in discussing the topic, what can be done? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bahooka: I've moved back the article and move protected it. Catfurball needs to read and follow Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves before they are blocked for move warring. --NeilN talk to me 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance, NeilN. Bahooka (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Important note (reverting good-faith admin close). Catfurball's 2,100 edits are genuinely problematical across the board: [110]. They are completely edit-summary-free, and also completely citation-free, even though they are important substantive changes to existing text. The editor also removes important messages from their talkpage rather than responding to them: [111]. I'm thinking this person needs to respond, cite, and explain, or they may need one of those qualm-free blocks NeilN is famous for. I would like some more investigation of, and opinions on, their edits please. Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've dropped them a note asking them to respond here. I don't particularly like doing these kinds of blocks but if editors don't communicate and collaborate with each other we might as well turn into the new Knol. --NeilN talk to me 05:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

False Allegations by Unscintillating[edit]

User:Unscintillating has repeatedly disrupted Afd discussions to accuse me of outing another editor. The most recent accusation occurs here: [112] This comes after I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop making such accusations, which he completely ignored, here [113]. Other times he made the same allegations are: [114] [115] [116] and [117] Besides the fact the allegations are false, deletion discussions are not the proper venue to bring such claims.

The outing allegation actually originates from User:Alansohn here: [118] [119] & [120] I pointed out the obvious reason I could not possibly have outed Alansohn [121], Alansohn has not made that claim again, but Unscintillating continues to do so. The reason Alansohn could not have been outed by me is because he clearly stated on his talk page his name (as if you couldn't have guessed) and town where he lives here [122], which only now has been removed (you can check the deletion log on that).

As per Wikipedia:Harassment, "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." Based on this I believe Unscintillating is actually engaging in harassment himself. Also looking at his edit history over the past week, he has almost exclusively only participated in discussions that I have which borderlines on WP:STALKING--Rusf10 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Unscintillating: I don't think these outing accusations are valid. In fact, they seem rather bizarre. WP:OUTING is meant to prevent and protect against the accidental or intentional leaking of personal information that a person does not want on-wiki. It was almost comical for Alan to warn someone for outing when they literally referred to him by the name provided by his own username, and stranger still for you to be citing such a warning in an unrelated forum, in order to generally discredit the user who was incorrectly warned to begin with. Look, if you have a case to make that this user actually has some sort of "anti-New Jersey" bias, now's the time to make it. But otherwise the personal commentary against them is, obviously, going to have to stop. Swarm 06:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Swarm:Opps, I think you just outed alansohn now (don't ever use his first name). But seriously, can it be made clear to Unscintillating that if he does this just one more time, there is going to be consequences. If nothing else, it is completely disruptive.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC).
  • It was high-time someone reported Unscintillating for his behavior at AFD because he is an absolute time-sink. Whenever his odd assessments are wrong (which is often) he makes non-sequitar or extraneous arguments simply for the sake of arguing. Editors like Bearcat have tried to explain the proper approach to him but he has a bad case of WP:IDHT. Here are some AFDs that display his behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the list goes on. But the anatagonizing does not end there; after the AFDs are closed not in his favor (which, again, is far too often) he'll usually question the competence of admins at their talk page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: There is a procedure to follow in the case of outing. It does not involve bringing it up repeatedly at AFD. This has already been explained to you, here among other places. I presume here that your motivations are good, but for the avoidance of doubt, I am asking you now to engage with the functionaries if you think someone is engage in malicious outing, and to stop making off-topic accusations about the same during deletion discussions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Lankiveil, In the terms used by WP:OUTING, an editor's "legal name" is "Personal information".  I provided a diff to the functionary list in December, with a 2016 edit comment that included the word "redact".  So even though they knew that the editor's personal name was protected by OUTING, they didn't take action, because the information Rusf10 posted to Teaneck, NJ in December was sourced public information, not an alleged personal name of a Wikipedia editor.
    Nonetheless, Rusf10 has used the alleged personal name in multiple other edits, and retains one such instance openly on [his/her talk page even now].  He/she generally is opposed to mayors and lower offices being used in Wikipedia articles, so why does he/she make an isolated exception for Teaneck, with a name that coincidentally matches the alleged name he/she is posting?  And then on 11 January he/she AfDs an article that discusses Gallucci, "a former township councilman in Teaneck, New Jersey".  And, "The case promised to affect how the law views anonymous Internet postings and the liability and obligations of companies who facilitate those postings." 
    As for my !vote, bad faith nominations are on-topic as per WP:DGFA.
    Rusf10 claims that I've made "false allegations" in my !vote, but so far he/she only disputes one specific set of details, which he/she is defending by conflating the issue of his target's city of residence with his target's alleged personal name.  IMO, hyperbole is common in Rusf10's rebuttals.  This ANI post is an attempt to disenfranchise my AfD !vote, a !vote which seeks to improve the quality of AfD nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Unscintillating: I didn't see that message to the functionaries list, but if you can contact me privately by email with the subject line of that email I'll look into it for you. Dealing with outing is serious, I agree. But AFD is not the place to do it; it is akin to complaining to a library clerk that your house is on fire. If the fire department have concluded that your house is not on fire, then the guy checking books out at the library is unlikely to be able to assist you. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC).
@Unscintillating: You just don't get it do you? Multiple uninvolved people (not just myself) have now told you there was no outing. It is impossible to out an editor's name when he uses his real name as his username. How many more people have to tell you this? Nearly all of your AfD votes (including those in discussions I have no involvement with) are non-sequiturs that are completely irrelevant to the discussion. In addition to the examples that User:TheGracefulSlick posted here are some discussions where you have disrupted the process with irrelevant comments, including your favorite "this !vote is disputed" (every singles time someone disagrees with you) and nothing can be deleted because WP:ATD prevails: [123] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turing College, Kent [124] [125] [126] That's just a sampling, I could keep going. And how about this one where you are arguing with a admin about your bizarre view that nothing can be deleted due to WP:ATD: [127] Maybe the only solution is to ban you from commenting at AfD. I don't know.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
And please learn to archive your talk page. It's longer than the only talk page visible from space. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

XfD Topic ban proposal[edit]

  • Every time I see Unscintillating around he's wikilawyering endlessly, antagonising people, and incorrectly accusing them of all sorts of things. I was the target of his harassment campaigns for a while; back then the issue was whether or not you should go back and strike through peoples' votes on closed AfDs if it later turns out they were a sock. Most people thought that was a bad idea, but he got so upset over being told to stop it that he spent the next year accusing me of "undermining and sabotaging" the banning policy, bringing the issue up in a lot of unrelated places. Much the same as he's doing with Rusf10 now. This nonsense, and these two threads are typical of his antics. Elsewhere, he got so upset over the Wikipedia:Article_Incubator getting shut down despite Unscintillating's bizarre attempts to reanimate its corpse that he went to ANI to call User:Beeblebrox, then an arbitrator, "objectively delusional" and demanding he be removed from the (nonexistent) "oversight committee". Now he's hanging around AfD making a lot of "wrong venue" and "procedural keep" votes on perfectly legitimate nominations, wrongly claiming they're invalid in some way, and only to annoy the nominators. He's been carrying on like this since he registered here; the only thing that changes is the topic he's wikilawyering about and the target of his harassment. I support a topic ban from XfD on the grounds that competence is required and trolls most certainly are not. Reyk YO! 19:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That should read "XfDs and deletion processes, broadly construed" as pointed out by Begoon and Winged Blades of Godric, further down in the thread. Reyk YO! 08:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban from XfD - Mainly per my above comment. If that, and Reyk's even more revealing evidence, isn't enough, I can also dig through Unscintillating's AFD contributions to find the comment where he stated anyone who agrees with Bearcat, a highly respected contributor to AFDs, suffer from a "personality disorder". Unscintillating tactics at AFD range from harassing well-informed editors to "procedural keep" and "wrong venue" !votes which never stick; I am on the verge of proposing a CIR block but we will give this a try first.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - Concur with Reyk above that Unscintillating has some kind of problem and it may be competency related - hard to believe it is willful trolling, perhaps an issue with logic/fairness/rules. After marginal edit warring themselves at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Second effort for a nutshell they were determined to convict only Rhododendrites of it despite it being pointed out that they had both made two countable reverts and had equivalent behavior. And they would not let it go and even brought it up again in a subsequent section. Not sure what all the history is here but that encounter was enough to convince me that there was some kind of fundamental problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As an active AfD closer, I agree that many of Unscintillating's contributions there are unhelpful at best and frequently hostile as per Slick and Reyk, but most seem to be in good faith. I'm still neutral on a total XfD ban, but I can be convinced either way. ansh666 20:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Well, there's this argument where he's clearly playing "I know you are but what am I?". It's a little while ago now but it definitely shows his habit of trying to infuriate other AfD participants. Reyk YO! 20:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    I've seen enough of Unscintillating's AfD contributions from my normal activity. What I want to see is their response to this criticism (about general AfD contributions). I'm pretty sure what I know it'll be, but just in case. ansh666 20:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Ansh666:I know you're trying to be neutral here to be fair to everyone, but how can an edit like this [128] possibly have been made in good faith?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    That's cute, especially "The nominator has gotten an editor from a topic related to New Jersey indeffed for being an AfD meatpuppet", but I think the question is whether this is more pervasive than one instance... Which it does sound like. Fresh examples would be helpful. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    What Unscintillating was referring to was this [129] There was clear meat/sockpupperty and I simply reported it, so I don't see what the issue was. Of course, Unscintillating attempted to take the SPI way off course by attacking me, those comments were deleted, but can be seen here [130]--Rusf10 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Changing to support given the lack of response from Unscintillating (I am aware it hasn't been very long, but still), plus the wide support from other editors. ansh666 08:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is unsurprising to me to see this report. We haven’t butted heads in a long time, but it is clear to me that nothing has changed. This is a user who, when they have no real argument or their points have been refuted, will change their arguemtnt to something new whether it makes any sense or not. The day of the radical inclusionist is long over, people who still behave like this need a topic ban at the very least. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic banning Unscintillating from all deletion discussions and processes, broadly construed (including voting at AfD, commenting in AfDs, adding prods, removing prods, any CSD work, replying in policy discussions at WP:VPP that concern deletion policy, etc). This has been a long-term problem. Unscintillating somehow combines misunderstanding policy with aggressive wikilawyering, making this editor an unpleasant time sink in this topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from XfD; the comment about editors suffering from personality challenges at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Nulman is beyond the pale. WP:CIR issues are also apparent in the editor's AfD contributions; please see sample: "Groundless discounting of a source". There's distinct lack of a learning curve, with the same issues being discussed with them year over year, as can be seen here: "Bloomberg News vs S&P Market Intelligence". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a deletion topic ban in light of NeilN's final warning below. In light of what's been discussed above, Unscintillating is at the end of his or her rope and is not long for this project. I'm all for hastening this process, and I think a deletion topic ban will just slow the inevitable and provide more wiggle room for wikilawyering and driving off other editors. When the bull has already rampaged through the china shop, there's no sense in risking life and limb trying to lasso it while it's still in there. Set up a line of pikes and the bull will probably come charging out into them. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blanket deletion process topic ban in the event the standards laid out by NeilN are followed. Even if they manage to not hit those tripwires, they still need to stop their specious and tendentious AfD activity. In the Gallucci case AfD Rusf10 mentions above, they informed me I was "supporting outing" by contributing a Delete !vote and they have rather bizarrely taken to using WP:DGFA as a Keep rationale with no reasoning (here and here) They have in the past similarly demanded a WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD analysis from nominators. Its clear that any time they use a policy or guideline shortcut it's merely an attempt to disrupt the discussion and not an honest attempt at achieving a consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: Just to clarify, did you mean "in the event the standards [...] are not followed"? Because if the standards are not met the next step is already spelled out as a block. In other words are you supporting an immediate topic ban? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: the second possibility: and immediate and indefinite topic ban whatever the outcome of their compliance with the conditions spelled out below. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Hopefully the below will sort out the major issues. I would however suggest that bullet point 2 apply anywhere on the project, rather than just "deletion discussions". AfD is not the only place the editor has done this. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support XFD and prod topic ban - The continuous outing claims at various AFDs honestly make no sense at all .... The wikilawyering thing has been an issue for as long as I can remember - Unscintillating is correct and we're all wrong or atleast that's the impression I've got with him, Anyway he's just one huge timesink to the AFD process and is obviously more of a hindrance than of help, AFD's pretty much better off without him and his constant wikilawyering. –Davey2010Talk 02:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Also I also support the block stuff below regardless of what happens above. –Davey2010Talk 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support deletion-related topic ban. Based on this thread and what I've seen over the years, Unscintillating adds more heat than light to deletion discussions, seemingly more interested in wikilawyering, gaming, ad hominem, and rhetorical time sinks than applying principles that have very broad consensus. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for AfD ban. Not that this should surprise anyone, but I just want to make my position clear. Unscintillating almost never adds anything of value to an AfD discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support for AFD/XFD topic-ban.The topic ban should be from all deletion-related pages and discussions, broadly construed.I can pull out a bunch of diffs at ease and he is one of the most troublesome and disruptive wikilawyers, I've ever seen.I've slowly come to appreciate Drmies' advice to stonewall him but a TBan is surely better.Winged BladesGodric 05:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support AFD/XFD topic ban. This disruptive behavior has gone on far too long and the repeated ugly attacks on other editors seal the deal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:POT. The OP seems to be engaged in a vexatious deletion spree and his vision seems to be that, instead of having a series of stubs about public parks, we should instead have a series of AFD pages filled with rancour and wikilawyering. This would be not an improvement and there's no consensus for it – see Webb Mountain Park, for example. This activity is unproductive and could be avoided by following the good advice at WP:BEFORE which encourages us to seek alternatives to deletion. That's long-standing policy and so it is good that we are reminded of it when the occasion arises. Unscintillating is therefore right to do so. If there is a tiresome, repetitive aspect to this then this arises from the tiresome and repetitive nature of the nominations. If editors tax our patience with excessive zeal then they should be advised and then restrained. That's what's happening to TenPoundHammer above and this case seems quite similar. Andrew D. (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: If the only thing Unscintillating was doing was suggesting ATD at discussions, we wouldn't be here now. Your just upset because I called you out. First because you DeWP:PRODed multiple articles without explanation. While you are not required to provide an explanation, it is strongly encouraged. When I asked for an explanation on your talk page, you yourself engaged in wikilawyering, see User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#DePRODing. So in a way you forced the AfD because I had no way of knowing what you were thinking. Then when you came to AfD you've claimed articles have sources without actually producing them as here: [131] [132] [133] Claiming you have sources without actually adding them to the article or at the very least linking to them in the discussion is not helpful at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support an XfD topic ban at the least. I too have ruminated on a WP:CIR indefinite block when I've seen some of Unscintillating's nonsense wikilawyering. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC).
  • Oppose - I'm not seeing much more than an ordinary personality conflict such as those that spring up in heated AfD debates from time to time. This ban proposal smacks of a kneecapping more than necessary action against longterm abuse. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Bishonen. This user has some of the most convoluted wikilawyering in XfDs and DRVs that I have ever seen to the point that it has caused disruption over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • support - related to this, Unscintillating has also recently been disruptive at N guidelines. See for example the recent edit warring at NCORP (that is a link to the history; the edit warring is right at the top) as well as this strange effort to start an RfC, but see all their contribs to that talk page and their recent contribs to the talk page of N itself have been similarly unhelpful. They have been much more together and helpful in the past; unsure what is going on with them. But for now I think the TBAN should include notability discussions as well. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:POT. Recognizing Unscintillatiing's name, I typed it into an editor interaction search to look at his behavior in AfDs in which we have both recently participated, and I must say that I am troubled to notice that several editors arguing for a topic ban have tangled with Unscintillating with the sort of "rancour and wikilawyering" flagged by Andrew D.. I got here via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yantacaw Brook Park, New Jersey, a discussion that amazed me because why should an AfD about a suburban park have gotten so nasty so fast? I took a closer look, and was reminded of User:Rusf10's aggressive, rancorous wikilawyering at a long string of AfD discussions about New Jersey mayors he nominated for deletion in December. (Another editor who showed up in my interaction analyzer regularly tangling regularly with Unscitillating is User:TheGracefulSlick, whose behavior at AfD's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Arkema plant explosion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Neuer and other AfDs where she disagreed with Unscintillating make me uncomfortable with her pushing for an edit ban, because WP:POT.) But it is the escalating series of dust-ups between Uncsintillating and Rusf10 at articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Avenue Bridge (User interactions here: [134]) that make me really uncomfortable with this proposed edit ban for User:Unscintillating. Both editors should be advised to back off as per WP:POT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this seems like a personality clash between Rusf10 and Unscintillating, both of whom can be acerbic and a bit of a trial; for whatever reason the disagreement has led to prospect of a one-sided and seemingly quite unfair sanction here. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory and Carrite: Because Unscintillating's behavior extends far beyond their interactions with Rusf10. ansh666 19:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory and Carrite:, this is not a Rusf10/Unscintillating personality conflict. It is a long-term radical inclusionist pattern of behavior with specious or poorly-supported arguments by Unscintillating where Rusf10 is one of many who has been annoyed or attacked. None of these examples below involve Rusf10:
There are other examples of obstructive behavior that are not evidence of a personality conflict but I think 5 recent examples are enough. None of these were closed as "Keep" by the way (although Jesse Rice is still open it doesn't look like a convincing Keep at this point). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Those are good examples, Eggishorn, but another piece of ruleslawyering (?) from Unscintillating that literally made me reel, just a month ago, was this comment in favor of keeping an article: "This nomination is not for notability. Since notability is not questioned, it is inappropriate to assess notability." (I suppose he meant the nominator, a competent editor, hadn't actually used the word notable/notability in the perfectly good nomination.) That's not a clash of personalities, it's either cluelessness or trolling. I'm sorry, but it just is. I still feel a little dizzy from it.[135] Bishonen | talk 20:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC).
Amend: Reversed the names as I typed , sorry: Oh I acknowledge that Rusf10's Unscintillating's "pattern of behavior with specious or poorly-supported arguments" does not always involve Unscintillating Rusf10, but it is equally true that Rusf10's behavior is so frequently tendentious, specious or poorly-supported that it is simple to adduce examples of articles that he brings to AfD - often doubling down on a challenged Prod - with so little evidence of having looked for sourcing or of familiarity with the subject that it truly verges on disrupt (and then BLUDGEONS editors who disagree.) AfDs like: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas R. Amato, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Reformed Church Hackensack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Sullivan (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellsworth Jones. I think that both editors should be warned to rethink their poorly-researched comments and BATTLEGROUND attitude, and that Rusf10 should be more selective about PRODding and bringing articles to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC) I add that I do not mean to defenc Unscintillating, only to point out that Rusf10's behavior is so problematic in its own right that he amazes me by coming here to call other WP:POTS black.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory:, I think you may have misread my statement exactly backwards - I was not saying that Rusf10 had such a pattern, but that Unscintillating had a pattern of such arguments. This proposal wasn't started by Rusf10 or TheGracefulSlick or even myself or anyone else that has a record of having "...tangled with Unscintillating..." as you said. It was proposed by Reyk and I'm not aware that the latter has any reason to have unjustified personal animosity towards Unscintillating. Even then, whatever the failings of Rusf10's behavior you think exist, for Unscintillating to state that topics on Wikipedia do not require notability or that it is inappropriate to assess notability in AfD discussions is either trolling or an inexplicable lack of understanding about standards and practices. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Amended per correction above@E.M.Gregory:, Thank you for your correction, I've struck the relevant sentence above and I recognize the issue you raised. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory:, I really hate to do this, but since you won't back off of it, you leave me no choice. It is extremely hypocritical of you to accuse me of WP:BLUDGEON when others have pointed out this is exactly what you do at AfD. Here's just one of many ANI's relating to that [136] Just putting it out there, anyone who wants to look at it can judge for themselves. And you want to talk about WP:POT?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Both of you have given excellent examples to show its not just a problem I'm having. And @E.M.Gregory:, I'd be very careful with the WP:POT accusations if I were you, since we know your behavior at AfD has been the subject of multiple ANI/arbitration cases.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, per Bishonen, Cullen and others. The topic ban should be from all deletion-related pages and discussions, broadly construed. For just one example of relentless, disruptive wikilawyering way past any sense of reality see [137] and the 3 sections which follow it. Unscintillating's approach in this, and many other cases, is correctly described by Bishonen as "nonsense wikilawyering". It's also persistent and creates numerous time-sinks. As is often the case it has taken too long for this to be addressed, but there is no doubt in my mind that their contributions in deletion related areas are a significant net-negative for the encyclopedia. Cries of pot/kettle are irrelevant. There is a genuine pattern of behaviour here which needs to be addressed. If there are also problems elsewhere, then address them too in a separate discussion. -- Begoon 08:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Unscintillating seems to be taking things a little too personally right now. I suggest a time-limited ban, perhaps three months. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific note to Unscintillating[edit]

Unscintillating, irrespective of what the community decides above, the following will result in a block from me or another admin:

  • Any further accusations of outing anywhere on the project. If you think outing has occurred, email Arbcom.
  • Personally attacking or disparaging another editor in deletion discussions or discussions about deletions. This is not supposed to occur anywhere on the project but leeway is given for the minor day to day stuff. However you've reached the end of your rope.
  • Sidetracking discussions like this. If you think an editor hasn't performed a WP:BEFORE you are welcome to add a normal deletion !vote with diffs showing sources the nominator should have found. If a specific editor is consistently nominating articles that obviously should be kept then open a thread here and let the community decide what to do.

In short, cut out the disruption, and comment on the deletion nomination, not the nominator. --NeilN talk to me 22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Does this qualify as a violation?[138]--Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Rusf10: The first two comments in response to your !vote seem to be valid and then we get into sidetracked territory. --NeilN talk to me 03:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN:- Right, I was only referring to that diff though since it was the only one posted after your notice above. In other words, he was trying again to engage me in an irrelevant discussion there after he should have seen your notice.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Rusf10: I've dropped a note on their page linking to this subsection. It may be a good idea to disengage with Unscintillating for about a day or so to let things cool down and see how the above discussion plays out. If there is consensus for a deletion discussion ban then point three becomes moot. --NeilN talk to me 03:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, we'll see what happens.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Mate4Malta[edit]

I have been contacted Mate4Malta 11 times between July 2017 and Jan 2018, with no responses and the issues not addressed, although the editor has continued to editor. The concern is the lack of communication and the repeated creation of unreferenced articles.

I have repeatedly pointed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V - no response. Below is a list of creations which are tagged for serious issues, many for being unreferenced. Most of the articles have neither sources nor external links. I have spent hours of my time cleaning up these articles and messaging Mate4Malta to try to resolve the situation, but have got nowhere, they will not communicate or add the sources. They do know how to edit talk pages, as they have edited their page several times, but not in the past year.

Embedded inappropriate image in article[edit]

Re Rita Crocker Clements. The article pulled up for me today with an embedded image, porn I think, at the bottom. Really large image that I couldn't see all of. It seemed to have been embedded in the last edit before my current revert on the article. Yet, there is nothing that I could see in that edit that had an image in it. When I tried to simply delete the edit, I got a message that it could not be deleted. The revert seems to have worked in removing the image. Looks like now I can't even see the image by pulling up the previous version. Has anyone ever seem embedded porn in an article? Really strange. — Maile (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Once or twice. There was some template vandalism earlier today. It's been fixed so it looks like you briefly caught a cached version. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Maile66 (and others), if you can't find anything obviously wrong with the prior version please try a purge instead of a revert. --NeilN talk to me 16:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Legalize the purge! Guy (Help!) 19:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring, deletion of headed content and references, censorship of wikipedia, WP:NPOV[edit]

I have been three times reverted (one del and twice rev) by This is Paul at Ben Bradley (politician) where a not-insignificant UK news semi-scandal story had broken nationally, in the wider recent context of exposing/embarassing UK politicians. All 'secondary' reporting quoted was/is based on intial release by BuzzFeed, so due regard to possible WP:CITEKILL. There were 18 separate edits before my arrival (and more since my forced departure after This is Paul's pathetic level 1 warning). S/he has chosen AN/I at Talk:Ben Bradley (politician)#Deletion of sub-heading Ben Bradley (politician)#Brexit and contents including references, expecting y'all to flame me Face-smile.svg. This is more than just RS, 3RR or BLP - it's editor behaviour/would-be control/WP:OWNership, so this board. All of my changes have been sourced, NPOV, and on-topic.

  • 2a. All content was deleted (Heading, old, new, maintenance tag, +refs), the first full reversion "reverting again"

Wikipedia needs to be uncensored, NPOV; This is Paul has summarily, unilaterally decided that sourced content is unsourced, and that some secondaries are better than others when all are based on the same press release. All sources are based on BuzzFeed, although Wikipedia may prefer Reuters, it is what it is and BBC News, The Times, Telegraph, NHS, (all from this post-deletion permalink), Bradley's district newspaper and county newspaper don't care where they get copy from, but apparently Wikipedia/This is Paul has decreed that Daily Express is not allowed as not encyclopedic? How about adding a hatnote??

This is Paul has made some 'interesting'(?) remarks "If you throw your toys out of the pram and start screaming about censorship, Knee jerk reactions, the metropolitan liberal elite,({{what}}) and so on, then there is a problem", but has not targeted anyone else, fixated on controlling me and censoring Wikipedia. The latest development is internet trolling of the 'wrong' Ben Bradley, an American TV newsanchor. Suggest this should be added as a test edit, anyone unconnected, for This is Paul to revert you?

AFAIK non of my contributions were unencyclopedic (whatever that's interpreted to mean), off topic, biased, or unsourced. Apologies for the polemic rant, it's as concise as possible. Thanks.-Semperito (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have told Semperito there is no problem with this information being added as long as it is sourced correctly, which it was not. Publications such as the Daily Express, Brexit Central and Buzz Feed were being used to support statements, publications which are not regarded as reliable sources for biographies of living people. I asked Semperito to provide better sources for the information, removing it until this could be done, but instead of looking for references he/she started whingeing about bias and censorship, and threatening to open a discussion here. I believe I acted correctly in removing these badly sourced statements, but I suppose it's always possible I could have used different language, been less acerbic, and pointed Semperito to WP:RS (maybe also WP:DAILYMAIL as it and the Express seem to be similar in nature). As far as I can see the Nottingham Post source included above was not used to source this information. Had it been used then that would have been fine. This is Paul (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment / elucidation The IP-added prose sourced from Daily Express was extant when I added the Brexit Central link (with explanatory edit summary) in October (I would have looked for other sources back then - anything later - now - could be WP:CIRCULAR) - no other objections at all until along comes This is Paul, not having contributed previously: "...so if nobody else has done so already, I'm going to revert you again". (emphasis added by Semperito) - abandon GF and twist the knife. Brexit Central is not a crowd-sourced message board or non-entity blog; in Ben Bradley's own 'hand' and 'voice', his piece is neutral, free from self-promotion, propaganda and puffery, informative and confirms the electorate's 72% 'leave' decision, and Bradley's considerations - to summarize, encylopedic, NPOV, good, interesting WP prose, now denied to the readership, as is the source.

    The initial deletion at 1,098 bytes went to two reversions at 2,306 bytes each. I should have made it clearer that the Nottingham Post link is placed after the permalink, deliberately shown as separated from it, + the Chad = Johnston Press. The 'world' at large is admittedly sourcing from BuzzFeed (hence WP:CITEKILL acknowledgement - they're all 'singing from the same hymn sheet') and the clickable embedded link proves the 2012 content, which Bradley cannot refute - why have a WP BuzzFeed article if we can't refer to it, and internally link, to explain to the readership? I have not editorialized, and have expressed no opinion about Ben Bradley's debacle, or the morals of BuzzFeed. As editors it is incumbent on us to provide any wider view available, and not to be elective-deletionists. Again, this is censorship dictated by one editor's subjective dislike(s).-Semperito (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This is my most recent reversion of Semperito's text. There is no Nottingham Post or Mansfield and Ashby Chad sources included here. The section concerned the subject's support of Brexit which, as Semperito has stated themselves, can be sourced from elsewhere – crucially from at least two sources that would be acceptable. If there are concerns about circular referencing, then it's best left out until such time as they become available. With regard to Bradley's article at Brexit Central, perhaps checking out Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources is also advisable. I would personally avoid sites like Brexit Central, which I would argue falls into the same camp as sites such as Wings Over Scotland, which are basically pushing an agenda. Now this is an issue being blown out of all proportion by Semperito, and the debate over the reliability of such sites should be for some other place. This is Paul (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The reliable sources noticeboard would be the place. Or you could try the BLP notice board as well. --Malerooster (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look in the morning and start a discussion. This is Paul (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion now open at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Daily Express, Brexit Central and BuzzFeed. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
JzG - needs must when reversionists rule - where do ya think I learned it from? I always try to be tactful, collegial and helpful, but the capitalized link above is recent from a long series of IP fan/family cruft changes that I reverted initially, but went back to ensure all 'reasonable' content was included - you neglected to notice/mention that? I don't expect IPs to be cognisant with AGF, but it wears thin. This is Paul has admitted to being "ascerbic", so I will try to use more decorous terms. That's why I didn't file the AN/I for many hours, incidentally. Regarding BLP PRIMARY, I am aware but these are British public documents relating to business, not any actual personal, non-public aspects, so non-scandalous and non-controversial, and the author had stated a British-registered business was American with the wrong formation date from somewhere (probably a press release for the film), repeatedly removing refs without any edit summary. Do ya want WP to be accurate? What do ya want from me - a 24-hour self-imposed abstinence as penance?-Semperito (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
See m:MPOV. No, needs mustn't. The rule is bold, revert, discuss - you seem to prefer revert revert revert WITH ALL CAPS EDIT SUMMARY, forum shop. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:CHR52[edit]

The user CHR52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly attacked/accused me of being racist for no good reason ([139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144]) despite informative replies and several warning templates. In their own userpage, they wrote "Never come here, Please. Mr. racist." after the {{Uw-npa2}} I put.

--Phonet (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I have left the user with a clear final warning to stop calling other editors racist, I do also think there is a CIR problem as well. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) It looks like we're all racists unless we contribute to Japanese Wikipedia. SMH.... BytEfLUSh Talk 04:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Blocked 48 hours. Though now I'm hungry for a pear... --NeilN talk to me 04:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Japanese or Korean? BytEfLUSh Talk 04:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

More deception from ShaneFilaner[edit]

ShaneFilaner (talk · contribs · count) is known for often (not always but on many instances) making problematic sales changes within articles as noted on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#Ongoing disruptions from ShaneFilaner. Source quality not withstanding, this user frequently makes thinly veiled attempts to hide his fancruft via misleading edit summaries. He has been blocked more than once for such issues. A more recent issue coming up since his latest block is trying to trick readers into thinking they'll get a listing from Official Charts Company (the authoritative publication for UK charts and sales) when it's actually from a forum called Buzzjack (which is definitely below reference standards for Wikipedia). I've told Shane that attempting to deceive others on Wikipedia won't go undetected, and thought maybe a more recent warning would help him improve his behavior, though it clearly didn't as he evidently doesn't care about notices or past blocks at this point and should be blocked again for blatant WP:IDHT behavior (probably indefinitely this time). Enough is enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User Crayaran Vandalism[edit]

Can we get a block for Crayaran (talk · contribs)? Yeah, this is AIV stuff, it's there twice, but the user doesn't give up. Sorry if this is inappropriate (crossposting in multiple admin boards). I will take the trout if needed. =) BytEfLUSh Talk 05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dab page needed at salted title Sudheer[edit]

We now have Sudheer (Malayalam actor) and Sudheer (Kannada actor) so need a dab page at the salted title Sudheer. Could an admin please create it? And then presumably protect the page again. Thanks. PamD 10:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Unprotected so you or anyone else can create/maintain the dab. Page was protected presumably due to the activity of a user who has not edited in six years. The round of unprotection in 2012 was the result of a well-meaning admin's failed proposal but didn't relate to this page specifically (read through links in the protection log for details). This sort of request is normally handled by contacting the protecting admin (though I can't tell who it was in this case) or at WP:RFPP. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Thanks - dab page now created. PamD 12:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Montanabw edit-warring[edit]

Nothing left to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Montanabw has been edit-warring [145][146][147] on Colonial Spanish Horse after being asked to discuss on the talk page [148]. This behavior is not improving the article. AnotherDayAnotherWay (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Three edits in seven days, the most recent with an edit summary of Obvious, please respect status quo ante and discuss at talk., is not an edit war by any possible stretch. This is a content dispute and not something that needs admin intervention of any kind. ‑ Iridescent 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This is also forum shopping, since I just closed a thread at AN3 with the same complaints. —C.Fred (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with OP on this, he did not forum-shop. However MTBW's behavior is troubling. TheDogHound (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Recommend no action: OP seems to be mistaken, the talk thread opened only after the last edit to the article. Moreover, the last article edit was two days ago. This is squarely a content dispute. Any edit warring, which I don't think there was, is stale. Also, I am curious as to why a brand new account immediately gave an edit warring warning to Montanabw, then created an AN3 report and this ANI report. Everything within 15 minutes of the account's creation, and the only non-Montanabw edits were to create user and user talk pages, I'm guessing to avoid redlinks in the signature. Something fishy going on here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    • {{Checkuser needed}} I see that OP is now blocked as a sock. Don't forget to get TheDogHound as well, who has an identical editing pattern. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A newly created account whose only edits are to post the 3RR notice to Montanabw’s talk page and to raise this ANI and 3RR report? Am I really the only person who can smell socks?? 148.252.129.201 (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to do here. It is a content dispute. I left what I hope is helpful advice on the talk page of the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  • TheDogHound has now been blocked for casting aspersions and quacking like a WP:duck. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Based on the page history of Interstate 95 in Maine, a sock-infested article where AnotherDayAnotherWay made their last edit by repeating an edit that has been made a number of times before by other blocked socks, they're socks of ItsLassieTime. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    • If it really is ILT, they've been carrying a grudge against MBW for almost 9 years. That would be because MBW exposed the ILT sock farm in about May of 2009. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

For information: A sock case has bee raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LynnWysong. ForSPI (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)ForSPI (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Account created because as an IP 148.252.129.201, I cannot create an SPI case.

I've already been blocked once for suspicion being a sock of ILT. Someone, who is themselves socking, by setting up a bogus account to hide their identity, filed the case because it is a standard harassment technique. I'd file a sock report on that account, but I'm sure the perpetrator is smart enough to cover his/her tracks. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@LynnWysong: If you go to SPI, you will discover that an IP address editor cannot start an SPI case. The instructions there tell you to create an account. It is those instructions that I have followed so any allegations that you make are unfounded. Since you have previously been investigated in this then fair enough. The coincidence was too outstanding to ignore. ForSPI (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
"The coincidence was too outstanding to ignore." Yes, and so blatant that a lot more caution should have been taken. Unless you are someone who thinks I am so dumb and desperate that I would bother to resort to such tactics. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I accept your point. However, there are numerous other cases documented at SPI where users were "dumb and desperate" to do exactly that. I have conceded the matter and fully accept that you are innocent in this and I apologise if I have caused offence. I am only a very occasional editor around here and was unaware that there was any history in this. ForSPI (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the account name "ForSPI" not a violation of the username policy, specifically, the prohibition against
Usernames that give the impression that the account has permissions which it does not have; e.g., by containing the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", or similar terms, such as "admin", "sysop", or "moderator".
"ForSPI" seems to indicate some official relationship with WP:SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
IMHO, no, it does not seem to indicate such. It's an account meant for filing SPIs. There was another user that needed to make a separate account to file ANI and SPI stuff because of harassment from IPs. Such a use seems appropriate. And the username indicates its use. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
So, you'd be OK with a new username "ForANI"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Given the history of LynnWysong,ItsLassieTime, and previous false accusations of socking, I'm not buying the name or purpose. Blocked for the username and per WP:SCRUTINY: "violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." --NeilN talk to me 20:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mount Kailash[edit]

Socks have been recycled. Κσυπ Cyp   19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mount Kailash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dasalakshana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Mahavir dharma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Could an admin please take a look at Mount Kailash, where Dasalakshana, who has just come off a block, and their obvious sock Mahavir dharma are edit warring to reinsert material copied verbatim from Jainism site(s)?
FWIW I opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dasalakshana, but it would be nice if someone could take a look at the article editing in the meantime. Thanks. -- Begoon 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Accounts indeffed, copyvios revdelled. --NeilN talk to me 15:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for dealing with that so quickly. Appreciated. -- Begoon 15:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Alex__xx socks and what to do[edit]

Socks have been recycled. Κσυπ Cyp   19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. This is not my native habitat on Wikipedia, so sorry for any stupidities on my part. I'd like some advice on what to do about Alex Sequeros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), AlexDaBAos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), AlexThepro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and whoever else they come up with next. They are obviously all the same person and their MO is to do some sandbox edits about what a great YouTuber they are, then vandalize Nice Cathedral. As you do. Am I in the right place ... should I be here moaning about them, or at SPI (I have a weird feeling this might be too trivial for SPI), or just approaching an admin I know, or what? I suppose my concern is not just the vandalism from the individual accounts, but whether it is possible to stop them from keeping on creating new accounts ad nauseam? A bit of advice would be most welcome - I'm just looking for a trouble-free way of shutting them up! Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

PS Yes I asked for semiprotection on the article. I know that much! But not what to do about the accounts and whether they just decide on a different cathedral to do ... DBaK (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi DBaK. Thanks for the report. The accounts are all blocked by Bbb23. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
That's great, thanks very much for the help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalism, blanking of content, and removal without proper sourcing on ToonHeads[edit]

Having problems with a series of unregistered IPs (all from the same town in Florida), who keep reverting info on the ToonHeads article, without sources to back up his/her claim. Every couple of days I have to go back and revert the edits, which is becoming a pain to do. I'm requesting admin help. I also request that a sockpuppet investogation be launched as I'm pretty sure they're all the same person (I geolocated them all to Blountstown and Bristol, Florida.)

Dpm12 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and generally content disputes don't go on ANI. However having looked at this you’re very definitely edit warring. What’s worse is the ip is at least removing unreferenced content. You are the one edit warring to add in unreferenced content. Don’t add it back unless you can reference it. And stop edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The numbers vandal is back[edit]

(non-admin closure)Blocked. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This IP range[149] has been blocked twice in the past 25 days for sneaky vandalism, such as changing numbers by one, and then changing them again, and again, until the number is quite different.

Their last block expired on the 14th, since then, this IP range has made 2 unhelpful edits[150][151], followed by some ok edits at Broadford, Skye, Isaac, and Streaky the Supercat and then this vandalism[152], this dubious number change[153], and this vandalism[154][155][156]. good-faith edit were then made at Rogers Drums and Seneca Army Depot, before this vandal's signature number changing started again[157][158]. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: you've posted enough info to intrigue me, but I'd like a little more before I do a wide range block. You mentioned previous blocks. Can you link to them? By the way, a /40 is very likely to have multiple, unrelated people acting without coordination, some of whom will inevitably end up being vandals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
See fist block, second block
Thanks, for posting these, I don't know why I was unable to find them. I am not sure if a block is in order or if we should just watch the range closely and revert anything suspect, but there does seem to be a specific pattern of vandalism by small number changes that indicates the same person, see the above 2 blocks. These recent edits[159][160] made me suspect that the vandal had returned after the second block. Tornado chaser (talk)
Looks like the block log is at Special:Contributions/2600:1017:B000::/40. I'll do another 1 week block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Dueling RfCs[edit]

Tenebrae's RFC has since been removed by Bbb23 and consensus here is that SlimVirgins RFC was not only neutrally worded but also more descriptive, No admin intervention is needed so closing. –Davey2010Talk 01:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to note I've also removed the "2" from the RFC now that this is the first live RFC on the talkpage. –Davey2010Talk 01:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not sure if this has ever come up before. After one editor initiated an RfC at Talk:Woody Allen sexual assault allegation#Request for comment, another editor minutes later initiated an RfC about the exact same issue at at Talk:Woody Allen sexual assault allegation#Request for comment 2. What happens in cases like that? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You could try reading the two versions and understanding that yours was not helpful, and the rewrite was much better. Or, you could make a fuss. Johnuniq (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree; the initial RfC was worded neutrally. Is this common practice now, that anyone can immediately start an opposing RfC over any RfC they don't like? And incidentally, an apparent meat-puppet of someone unilaterally and without discussion vandalized the talk page to remove the original RfC. Is this what we're encouraging now? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't make unsubstantiated allegations of meat puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the original RfC but was promptly reverted and given a warning by Tenebrae. I believe that it is appropriate to rewrite an RfC that is not written correctly, and I feel that the version by SlimVirgin expresses the same intent in a neutral manner while presenting a clear choice between two alternatives. It would be best for Tenenbrae to remove the original version, however the simplest and least dramatic solution may be to let it die out on its own. –dlthewave 23:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Bbb23, Tenebrae, you are making allegations of violations of WP:SOCK (both here and at the article talk page) but have provided no evidence. These should be substantiated or struck and an apology issued to those you have accused. Secondly, I agree with SV and others that the alternative formulation for the RfC was preferable to yours, and I encourage you to close yours. I seriously considered closing it myself, though I would not have simply removed it as Dlthewave did. So far as I have seen, no one has yet thought your wording was superior, so I advise you to recognise the emerging consensus and stop making accusations and over-the-top posts before the situation does include admin action. EdChem (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC) PS: Dlthewave, the code for the ping you are after is {{u|username}} rather than {{u:username}}.
If an admin wishes to close the first RfC as malformed, I certainly accept that. I'm a bit concerned by the fact that no one has explained exactly how it may be malformed; it's worded factually and neutrally and links to another editor's preferred version. If it's not malformed, then I think it might be worth considering whether we want to encourage editors to start popping up opposing RfCs simply out of disagreement.
The evidence of meat-puppetry is circumstantial, which is virtually the only way a meat-puppetry case can be made: I've never seen anyone try to erase an RfC before — let alone just minutes after an editor opposing the RfC had tried to do exactly that.
Again, I accept admins' decision unreservedly. I trust you to be fair and reasonable, and in my experience, admins overwhelmingly have been so. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You also accused User:24.151.116.12 of sockpuppetry because they disagreed with you. [161] SarahSV (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it was because an anon IP that had never commented on a Woody Allen article before suddenly was wading into a contentious discussion out of the blue. Any of us who has been on Wikipedia long enough has seen this pattern enough that it raises suspicions. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Your formulation in RFC 1 requires people commenting on the RFC to know the play by play and potentially leads to a wide grant to take action. The formulation in RFC 2 sets the stage and then presents both options. Just accept that your formulation was not descriptive enough and makes judgement calls in the "Thesis" of the RFC. Hasteur (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what "potentially leads to a wide grant to take action" means. And please describe what "judgment calls" are in the thesis, because every word of it is accurate and neutral. What, specifically, is not? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tenebrae: I've removed your RfC from the Talk page, not because it's "malformed", but because the consensus is that Sarah's version is clearer. As for your defense of accusing editors of meat puppetry, most behavioral evidence is circumstantial. Your accusations were not backed up by anything approaching persuasive evidence. Just because two editors diagree with you in a similar fashion, either by words or by actions, does not make them socks or meat puppets. As in all content discussions at Wikipedia, focus on the material in dispute not on the conduct of editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tenebrae: Your original RfC was neither signed nor timestamped, which meant that Legobot copied the first part of the survey over to the RfC listings along with your opening statement, which meant that the RfC listing entry was inherently non-neutral. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

COI, warring, WP:OR Michael Dourson[edit]

Michael Dourson is being edited blog-post style by TERAitTeam in a second almost identical edit in an hour [162]. The editor has been warned on the user talk page and the article talk page. Request a week's block on the userid. Rhadow (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

COI Replay WP:OR TERAitTeam Michael Dourson ==

Michael Dourson is being edited by TERAitTeam If you click on this link you will notice that my name is not listed on the [http://tera.org/Staff/index.html TERA Website. I am a note an employee of that company. I think WP:OR is trying to keep the facts from coming out in favor of Micheal Dourson. What I am placing on the site is the facts based in years of research. If that is an issue then I will be glad to change my id. As for editing it twice. I am legally blind and I did not think the first edit took. —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you are or not; your username is utterly unacceptable because it implies a promotional and/or role account. Such accounts are generally blocked until a name change is requested, not for a week as Rhadow is asking. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Username blocked. --NeilN talk to me 04:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIR issue[edit]

Indeffed by Bbb23. And FTR I concur with the block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A short look at the contributions of Zixuan75 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) will reveal a multitude of issues: refactoring talk comments and pages, creating inappropriate pages, weird redirects, and just in general, making a mess of things. I believe competence is an issue here, and am requesting a block to prevent further disruption. Home Lander (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Admins are having issues with this user to. I support an indef. block via WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Saiph121: Take 4[edit]

Hi all. Fourth posting regarding Saiph121's inability to to hear/understand/follow a clear consensus. Most recent posting is here.

The consensus at Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) was that only blue-link, non-redirect notable awards should be listed. Saiph121 ignored the discussion, restored the disputed awards and eventually came to the talk page. The consensus widened, again to included only notable awards.[163] They disagreed, of course, and went back to DRN. The volunteers there found that a) no one really felt there was anything to discuss (other than Saiph121) and 2) that it essentially was one-against-consensus.[164]

I thought they might have given up/understood and agreed to follow the consensus.[165]

I was wrong.[166]

I know there is a language issue at work, though they have strongly denied there is a problem. In any case, their postings are often hard to understand. Bottom line: More than enough rope has been played out here. I am requesting either an extensive block and/or editing restrictions on film articles. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As Saiph121 frequently edits both logged in and under their IP, in addition to notifying them on their user page, I have also notified them on their current IP, User_talk:49.145.173.9. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
SummerPhDv2.0 has been totally wrong. His insistence that these disputed awards are "non-notable" are totally incorrect as I have been stating that these awards are considered notable and had Wikipedia articles with WP:MOSFILM to prove with. Yet, he still considers these awards as "Non-notable awards" and always reverted these awards from being included with consensus that he created was totally incorrect and biased. Futhermore, I've also request the help of Brojam to help mediate this current situation as he has somehow restored partially of the awards based on WP:MOSFILM ruling. I am requesting to strongly deny SummerPhDv2.0's request to an extensive block and/or editing restrictions on film articles, as his current actions against me was truly reckless as I was only doing the job of restoring these notable and credible awards that have Wikipedia articles. Saiph121 (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
First of all, your choice of pronouns is incorrect; SummerPhDv2.0's user page should clear up any confusion. Second, I think there's a certain gray area involved in requesting assistance. Sometimes people get stuck and want help mediating a dispute or clarifying a policy. However, outright asking someone to help you "deal with" another editor is clearly canvassing. When consensus is against you, the solution isn't to recruit more allies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I've not looked at the article or talkpage, but as long as the award has its own article, then it's classed as being notable. This is set out in the Film MOS and was agreed with the Film Project some time ago. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahmed Lutfe Inam removing db-repost and recreating MFD'd promotional user page[edit]

Ahmed Lutfe Inam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Following the block of his friend Siddiqsazzad001 he has over and over removed db-repost from his user page and recreated the promotional content that was deleted at MFD. He has been warned over and over[167][168][169][170][171][172] about these things and persists. He posted[173] to the MFD so he knows this has been going on, and he understands how to use templates and what they mean (within the limits of his poor understanding of English). He does this "trick" where he blanks the deletion templates, removes the offending content (he knows what it is), db-authors the page, then recreates it, apparently seeking to "hack" or circumvent the system. He has does this over and over, please see logs (dating back to when MFD notice was there). This user has either been screwing around intentionally or is grossly incompetent and this is closely linked to similar behaviors from Siddiqsazzad001. Trying not to bite the newbie but this has wasted considerable time already. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he's also taken to editing his blocked friend's userpage[174]. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)