Page move-protected

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 directly with your concern.

Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives

Recent behavior by Ghoul flesh

Editor Ghoul flesh has been making personal attacks in his edit summaries.

  1. 20:54, August 14, 2016 (UTC)
  2. 23:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Side note - An investigation for this user, is also under way for edit warring here.

Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I've left ANI notice on their talk page. — RainFall 06:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The second item is stale and not all that bad. The first, though, is fresh and a clearcut personal attack. This editor seems to misunderstand the principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Yes, we have articles about highly controversial topics. That does not mean that an editor is perfectly free to call another editor a "moronic fuckface". I suggest a block until the editor agrees to abandon such disruptive behavior. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Definitely think the first diff is a clear cut personal attack but as Cullen328 stated above, I don't think the second one is as clear cut. I think that the user is clearly not assuming good faith on these edits as well. I have some concerns as well based on the edit warring discussion about the users ability to maintain a neutral point of view, but I will reserve those concerns as they have not yet proven to be an issue. -- Dane2007 talk 06:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have issued a 31-hour block for that first example, and I'm prepared to escalate should anything like that be repeated once this one expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems like Ghoul flesh has also demonstrated WP:NOTHERE behavior, as he/she made this aggressive comment questioning his inclusion on WP:AN3RR, even though he/she has made comments ([1] [2] [3] [4]) on it before making the aforementioned post, so he/she should already have an idea why he/she is on WP:AN3RR in the first place. Parsley Man (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes I have to agree, this is a relatively light ban. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm very surprised it wasn't either much longer or a NOTHERE indef. GABgab 01:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Upon getting out of his block, Ghoul flesh has failed to assume good faith on my part, demonstrating WP:NOTHERE behavior on Malik Shabazz's talk page ([5]) and making baseless accusations of bias ([6]). Not sure what kind of punishment this requires, but I for one am not convinced he learned much from his 31-hour block, let alone annoyed by his behavior. Parsley Man (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with this assessment, Ghoul flesh has definitely exhibited further WP:NOTHERE behavior. Parsley Man notified prior editors so they could review the changes and good faith should have been demonstrated. Boing! said Zebedee placed the original block; pinging to notify of the new concerns. -- Dane2007 talk 00:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like to clarify that the editors I notified were those who would've disagreed with the material I was contesting. But this did not give him any right to exhibit that kind of reaction. In fact, I would say that he was perfectly free to do the same with editors he would've trusted to even the playing field. I certainly wouldn't have held it against him. Parsley Man (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not the only one that accused you of bias. I find it hilarious that you're gonna report me for that. Quis separabit? was exactly right. You're oblivious to the fact that WP:POV goes both ways. You should be blocked if anyone else, for your tireless reverting of information on the article that you simply don't like. Ghoul flesh Jack-o-lantern.svgtalk 03:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The difference is that you have been warned about this kind of aggressive, WP:NOTHERE behavior a couple of days before and got blocked for it. Now you return, and clearly there's still a problem if someone (me) reports you again and another user backs up this report. Parsley Man (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment and support for a longterm block: How this user has contributed for over a year without figuring out how utterly unacceptable this behaviour is (let alone without facing additional blocks) is quite beyond me, but this recourse to personal attacks and offensive profanity to underscore aggressive, caustic and insulting sentiments needs to be met with an immediate community response. The absolute lack of any respect for WP:Civility (a pillar policy) is so profound here, it amounts to a basic social competency issue.

Based on "just" the diffs here, I have considerable doubt this user has a temperament which will allow them to contribute productively to a collaborative project like this without establishing a WP:Battleground wherever they go, but right now their perspective is so far out of whack with community standards, they can't even see what is wrong with their behaviour, as evidenced by comments such as this: Wikipedia is not censored. I can call you whatever I'd like." Actually, no, you absolutely cannot, Ghoul flesh; Wikipedia content is not censored, but there are numerous behavioural policies which restrict what you can and cannot call another contributor on this project (for starters, you need to immediately read WP:Civility the provisions of which are amongst the most basic and non-negotiable conditions of participating on Wikipedia). If you really made it this long here without having this pointed out to you shines an unfavourable light on our own current standards for confronting incivil behaviour in a timely fashion, but let me make this plain now: if you want to contribute here, you are expected to treat others with respect and an even temper, no matter how right you think you are, no matter how wrong you think they are, and regardless of how powerfully you feel about your reasons for being here (which seems largely to be about righting great wrongs).

Because this user's behaviour fails to comport so completely with basic community standards, because of the recent previous block, and because of the WP:IDHT attitude/inability to acknowledge the issues and promise to work on them, I don't see any alternative but a community sanction in the form of a block, and I think the minimum contemplated here ought to be two months. And if we see so much as a single "moronic fuckface" type comment at any point thereafter, we shouldn't hesitate to move directly to an indef. Snow let's rap 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Update - It appears Ghoul flesh has calmed down and gravitated away from the situation. He is now working devotedly on presidential elections in South Dakota and there doesn't seem to be any problems there at the moment. Parsley Man (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Two Month Ban

Per my comments immediately above, I propose an immediate ban for repeated, blatant, and deeply hostile WP:Personal attacks, WP:Battleground behaviour, a general lack of comportment with WP:Civility and a steadfast refusal to listen to the community's concerns about these disruptive behaviours, or even begin to familiarize with/internalize basic behavioural policies. Given the combativeness and level of animosity in this instance, I suggest a two month ban, perhaps with an option to appeal after a month if Ghoul flesh can present a considered statement to the community demonstrating that they understand how far they have departed from expected behavioural norms for this project with a promise to correct this behaviour moving forward. Snow let's rap 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. Snow let's rap 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support a shorter block, but with a pageban (durations up to the discretion of the closing admin). At the very least, it seems clear that they cannot collaborate cordially in this subject area. See also: "Grow up" GABgab 13:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support a shorter block. Imposing a two-month ban now (especially after he just got out of a 31-hour block) seems a bit extreme at the moment for me. If he comes out of his block and continues to exhibit such behavior, then yes, a two-month ban would be appropriate then. Parsley Man (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, Parsley, as you're one of the people who has had to directly engage with GF (and may have to again) I'm inclined to defer to your perspective; if you have specific ban length or alternative sanction you feel would be appropriate, I can partially strike and amend the proposal above. Or if you don't feel comfortable suggesting one, we can just leave it to further comments or the closing admin to sort out the details. If we continue to see battleground behaviour though, I definitely think the next block needs to be scaled up to a few weeks at a minimum; the profanity-laced PA's we've seen here are beyond the pall, and there's not been so much as a single word from GF so far to show that he understands how badly his misunderstanding of our behavioural guidelines were (i.e. "I can call you whatever I want"/"moronic fuckface"). I truly feel we'd just be postponing the inevitable (that is, the next ANI discussion) if we defer this without some assurance from GF that they will work on their behaviour. Snow let's rap 01:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what I have in mind, though. I'll just leave it up to the input of others. Parsley Man (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as a two month ban. Due to the continued behavior, especially after a block just came off, I think it is adequate and that Parsley Man's proposal would be too short to impress upon the importance of following the wikipedia policies. -- Dane2007 talk 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I kinda like this guy. Also I'm like sorry and stuff and realize my inappropriate behavior... whether you proceed with a further ban or not, my behavior should no longer be an issue. Ghoul fleshtalk 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I sure hope so. Parsley Man (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I am glad to hear that. GABgab 02:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Incivility at Talk: Ajax (play)

Persistent incivility by User:DionysosProteus at Talk:Ajax (play) § Sophocles' or Sophocles's?, in the form of: refusing to give details[7][8][9] about sources that the user claimed to possess[10], and which would help substantiate the user's claims, even after several requests[11][12][13]; responding to requests with ridicule ("these idiocies",[14] "this idiotic behaviour" and "nonsense"[15]); and various forms of condescension ("Try not to be stupid about it",[16] "use your head",[17] "get a grip"[18]).

After a message was left at user's talk page pointing to Wikipedia's civility policy and emphasizing the need to cooperate with other editors[19] (later amended[20]), user wrote a rambling message on the article talk page where the dispute originated, dismissive of the concerns I raised there, in which I personally was accused of various forms of impropriety ("you have belabored so preposterously", "little indication that you have any real interest in improving the article") as well as having my mental state questioned ("you were confused").[21] Further edits on user's talk page included personal taunting in an edit summary ("what is wrong with you?"[22]) and the inability or refusal to "get the point" about fragmented talk page discussions,[23] after a message was posted there pointing to the relevant section of the talk page guidelines.[24]Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reading the conversation you are rather pedantic. That's not really an excuse though I do understand their response to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Essentially you sealioned someone over a basic (as in, taught in secondary/high school) grammar issue which is already covered by the MOS. That someone was incivil to you is a result of you not dropping the stick and backing away from the horse... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you'd better check your definition of sealioning. As the talk page shows, I was the one who started the thread by asking for information. The user in question responded with a vague statement about what's "standard in most literature", apparently[25][26] using a duplicate account. When pressed for details, the user provided a link that didn't actually substantiate the claim. When this was challenged, the user got irritable and very quickly moved to condescension and insults. Also, what MOS says was made clear early in the discussion – this was a question about verifiability as much as punctuation. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You asked a question and I answered it. I wasn't aware I was signed in on that account at the time. You persisted, so I provided a link that answered exactly what you'd asked (the very first result of the search demonstrates it) and I invited you to do the work of satisying your curiousity about the absolutely minor and inconsequential point yourself, having seen how you'd wasted other editors' time previously. You insisted I do the searching for you. I wasn't prepared to do so, for the same reason. Verifiability doesn't apply for such an issue since no source is likely to be found for the question you were raising (it being so inconsequential). As explained on the talk page. At increasing length. As per your behaviour with the other unfortunate editors of that page. I suggest you review your posts to that page for the last couple of months and reassess the manner in which you attempt to resolve problems identified. It's not the responsibility of other editors to explain things to you that you can so easily confirm for yourself.  • DP •  {huh?} 04:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Holy pedantic waste of volunteer time, folks. I honestly can't imagine a more trivial content issue than this to get bent out of shape over--and bear in mind that I have a formal background in comparative linguistics, so I'm used to parsing incredibly minute aspects of orthography. You both seem like contributors who have generally internalized the values of this project, so I think you ought to both be a little embarrassed that you couldn't iron this out between you without allowing things to blow up like this.

DP, I do understand your vexation here--you are absolutely right that MoS governs the relevant content question here and that CocountPorkPie's redundant comments were off-base and would likely have exhausted most similarly-situated veteran editors. That said, comments like "try not to be stupid" are really never appropriate on this project, frustration not withstanding--and you used them repeatedly in that thread, including fairly early into the discussion, which really is a civility issue.

Coconut, DP is correct insofar as you don't seem to be doing due diligence in familiarizing yourself with the appropriate guidelines here. This is a style issue, and governed by our Manual of Style, as the primary working document reflecting WP community consensus on matters of grammar, spelling, and syntax. He doesn't need to provide additional sourcing and context to support a position that is already enshrined in that document. If you feel this guideline is an inappropriate approach to the matter, then you should take it to the MoS talk page, which is the appropriate space for discussing a change to that community consensus. Meanwhile, while DP's comments were undoubtedly WP:BITE-ish, they don't really rise to the level likely to justify a sanction, and bringing this little dispute here, before you attempted WP:RfC or a third opinion is borderline disruptive.

Honestly guys, getting this unhinged over the placement of a couple of possessive apostrophes and affixes, the difference of which not a single one of our readers was likely to be affected by in any significant way, reflects a misplacement of editorial priorities regarding the work you could both be doing with your time and knowledge sets. I suggest you both WP:Drop the stick on this one, because while the debate is at the moment just a little petty, if it goes much further, it's going to start to become genuinely disruptive and I don't think either of you will come out of the matter looking great. Snow let's rap 23:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Actually, it's not necessary for both sides to walk away. But whichever one does walk away, allowing the other side to have its way on this meaningless question, will be the better editor -- and others will know it. EEng 05:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Please, let’s not pretend that this is a single incident that stands alone — it is a larger problem. (As has been indicated above in this discussion.) Coconutporkpie has opened multiple discussions on the Ajax (play) talk page alone. They are equally a waste of time. Then he discusses related issues on other talk pages elsewhere on Wikipedia, similarly wasting other editor’s time in the midsts of long grindingly inane discussions. (An example is buried somewhere in a discussion on Template talk:According to whom. DP at one point (earlier on the Ajax page) stepped in and helped to resolve one of these inane things, and deserves credit. You can’t really fault an editor for answering a question on a talk page, and then another, and another, but at a certain point you begin to realize you have been drawn in, and you are trapped into being impolite yourself by ignoring him — and then he hounds you with accusations for ignoring him. (As he did to me earlier on the Ajax (play) talk page.) He is devoted to wasting the time of many editors who are, after all, volunteers and could be doing other things. He is a form of troll known as a sea lion. Many editors, myself included, are guilty of taking the bait. Clockchime (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Clockchime, but I'm not buying your speculation that this is an attempt at trolling and deliberate disruption. Looking at both the Ajax talk discussions and the additional template discussion you provide above, they look like fairly garden variety content disputes to me. That is, they (unfortunately) seem fairly reflective of how such disagreements often play out these days between parties who are certain that their approach is best and fight tooth-and-nail over ever little particular, rather than looking for reasonable compromise approaches that might serve the project and the content best. CPP is certainly opinionated, and if there is anything that discussion you linked proves, it's that he certainly seems to have a selective valuation of WP:Civility, based on whether he wants to apply it to his own behaviour or that of his "opposition", but I see absolutely nothing to suggest that he is arguing those points out of any other purpose than to see things done his way. Indeed, that seems to be the very heart of the disagreement here. So, though his behaviour is arguably problematic, you're going to have to present much more explicit evidence of trolling than that he seems to be acting in an obtuse manner to you; otherwise these observations just looks like a refusal to WP:AGF.
I'm not saying you and others aren't right to be frustrated here (I reserve comment on that, beyond what I've observed above), but trolling is bad-faith behaviour on an entirely different level, and those kinds of accusations need to be substantiated by more than "He's got it so wrong and has missed the point so many times, he must be playing with us". People make bad calls and fail to accept consensus all day every day across this project, while still mostly operating in good faith and from a perspective that their approach would benefit the encyclopedia. I respectfully suggest that all evidence here seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you seem to feel that you see; that is to say, CPP is not someone who is here to deliberately derail the project for kicks, but rather someone who feels very passionately about improving it, but fails to see when it is time to let go of their idiosyncratic approaches. Snow let's rap 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School section "Cultural Marxism"

Hi, I'm just looking to get Last Contrarian banned from further editing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section of The Frankfurt School page. Having called an RfC on removing 'conspiracy theory' from the lead Last Contrarian soon found out there was a unanimous uninvolved editorial WP:consensus against their personal viewpoint that Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory. Regardless of this fact they've continued to edit war (barely avoiding 3RR) [27], [28], [29], [30], and they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits against consensus. Something must be done, and administrative action would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

1. It seems you read my mind. I was just about to report you. You accuse me of a possible 3RR violation. I suspected a WP:TAGTEAM ( [31] [32] [33] [34]) between you and User:Ian.thomson yesterday but didn't report it because I forced myself to assume WP:GOODFAITH.
2. People are free to look at the discussion and RfC over at Talk:Frankfurt School. The page is absolutely plastered with long-winded comments by Jobrot which fail to address my original question.
3. Jobrot consistently reverted the NPOV template on flimsy reasons and by claiming a fictitious three editor consensus when most comments on the RfC there were votes without any substantive discussion.
4. Looks like Jobrot believes he owns the article, and content added using reliable sources that do not support his bias look like disruptive editing to him.
5. It looks like this issue was not urgent enough to be reported. Jobrot spent a better part of half an hour [35] leaving replies to comments not addressed to him before deciding to revert my reliably sourced "disruptive edit."
6. This is what Jobrot considers to be a disruptive edit: [36]. Well-sourced quotes and statements backed by reliable sources. Last Contrarian (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This is pretty common for the article: someone comes in, claims that we're relying too much on "leftist" sources that that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, further evidence is provided that it is a conspiracy theory, those sources are rejected as "leftist," and no counter sources are ever provided to show that anyone outside of the far-right regards it as a reality. However, it's usually new and/or anon editors who don't know how (or don't care) to nominally go through process. We have an editor going through the process, consensus isn't going his way, but there's one editor who is continually countering his arguments so that must be the problem. Seriously, though, is Jobrot handling things perfectly? No. But is he the one ignoring consensus here? Not that I'm seeing...
@Last Contrarian: I've only ever encountered Jobrot on this site, I've only ever really crossed paths with him at The Frankfurt School article and talk page, and his talk page isn't even on my watchlist -- so accusations of tag teaming would indeed go against WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Does the absence of a consensus mean I stay away from the article altogether (Barring substantive discussion from commenting editors, I still consider it to be a majority vote)? Have I added any batshit crazy stuff to the section to your knowledge?
Once the NPOV tag was reverted by Jobrot's and your actions, I continued discussions on the talk page. After discovering a WP:RS source (Gottfried) who had an opinion on the theory, I first added him to the discussion and then decided to improve the article by adding his views on the matter. If this is what you guys consider disruptive editing, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that you assert ownership over the section and only certain wording and certain kinds of sources are allowed. And anyone displeasing you guys will be sent to the principal's office. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I still consider the lede to be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. I didn't touch it though, when I edited the section. My plan was to eventually involve some unbiased editors. When three different sources (one of them an admin) have noticed biased editing on the article over the last two years, who am I to claim otherwise:

As I'd mentioned on the talk page, and as can be found in the talk page archives - Gottfried is WP:UNDUE as he holds a tiny minority opinion (and especially can't be used for Lind's views), his inclusion in the lead violates WP:LEADCITE and you're only trying to include it there to further violate the strong editorial consensus produced by your own RfC that the mainstream view is that Cultural Marxism is a CONSPIRACY THEORY. Making the section subject to WP:FRINGE:
Main page: WP:FRINGE
"A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight"
Also; if I want to spend half an hour on Wikipedia refuting your claims via proper policy, editorial consensus and quality sourcing in line with policy, that's up to me. --Jobrot (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Several mainstream sources were provided on the talk page that referred to the idea as a conspiracy theory. You didn't accept them. You were asked for counter sources that demonstrate that any moderates or leftists regard it as a reality. You've previously refused to even acknowledge the request beyond claiming that it's "proving a negative", but I will note that you have just now cited a Slate article written by someone who has WP:HOUNDed Arbcom, called an admin a "capo" on Twitter, and generally not behaved reasonably toward anyone affiliated with this site over something a single (and now topic-banned) editor did years ago. You have instead called for treating something that only the fringe right regards as reality as equally plausible as the mainstream assessment of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not a Wikipedia scholar. I don't spend my days and nights following news about who attack Wikipedia and for what reason. That the "Cultural Marxism" article has seen heavily biased editing is a known thing. The New York Times may not care enough to write articles about it, but the fact than we are here (and someone like me who has spent 8 years on wikipedia without ever encountering an admin) is here and the pages and pages of debate pretty much proves it.
You keep bringing up WP:GEVAL as if it means something in this context. When you label a political belief a conspiracy theory, you need to provide evidence from sources other than their opponents. The section is a case of WP:NPOV violation and the lede is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS based on the views of purely left-wing sources. Left-wing academics and left-wing op-ed writers for left-wing newspapers might believe Cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't become one simply on their say so. There are right-wing sources that use the phrase in a non-ironic fasion all the time. There is an exceedingly well-known philosopher like Gottfried who has written a book on the Frankfurt school and who actually claims that Lind does not believe in the conspiracy theory but Jobrot is trying to have him excluded using WP:DUE in spite of him being a WP:RS. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
As shown 2 comments above, WP:FRINGE requires independent reliable sources; I'd hardly call an article from The American Conservative in which the author specifically says he's friends with William S. Lind and is specifically attacking Wikipedia (albeit a 2 year old article on the topic that no longer exists); independent. Apart from that, you should be using Gottfried's book, but even then he is WP:UNDUE and including him in the lead violates WP:CITELEAD (as stated above WP:LISTEN).
There's no reason to include Gottfried's minority opinion, and nowhere in the article does it claim that Lind says Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory; it in fact says he's a proponent of the theory. And as I've stated on the talk page Lind repeatedly talks of unmasking the hidden agenda of the left to reveal old Karl Marx himself. Proponents of the moon landing hoax or NWO conspiracy theory ALSO don't state that they're conspiracy theorists. So no; WP:UNDUE opinions will not be included in the lead, and you WILL respect the consensus of your fellow editors. --Jobrot (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
For people who would not bother to wade through the wall of text, this is what Paul Gottfried says [37]:

Neither one of us has argued that there is a Frankfurt School or Cultural Marxist “conspiracy.” Indeed we have stressed the opposite view, namely, that certain Frankfurt School social teachings have become so widespread and deeply ingrained that they have shaped the dominant post-Christian ideology of the Western world.

So, Gottfried is not claiming that Lind is not a conspiracy theorist, only that Lind does not believe that a conspiracy exists, which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is claiming. Quoting Gottfried weakens the current lead paragraph. Perhaps that's why Jobrot doesn't want it there. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Gottfried also states in his book: "Nothing intrinsically Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society." going on to say; "The mistake of those who see one position segueing into another is to confuse contents with personalities." [38] and I wouldn't put that in there either (unless I'm pushed to cover his viewpoint fully). But I wouldn't put it in of my own accord because it's WP:UNDUE and in the case of your quote (due to where it appears and what else is said in that article) it's not an independent reliable source (as explained above and below) - we've already covered this on the talk page. Maybe you should WP:LISTEN to what people are actually saying rather than just making up the reasons they're saying it in your head. --Jobrot (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment The depth, breadth and unanimous consensus formed in the very long and conclusive discussion on the talk page makes this a WP:DEADHORSE and WP:LISTEN issue, in which Last Contrarian is failing to regard policy or their fellow Wikipedia editors with any respect. Violating several policies and ignoring WP:GOODFAITH multiple times in the discussion. They've claimed that rabid left-wing editors are stopping them from resurrecting the previous article (which in fact was salted WP:SALT as part of closing the AfD to prevent this exact type of behavior), and they've also claimed they wish users to come away with a positive interpretation of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.
From the talk page: "This is pure WP:OR and you cannot finish reading the article and still end up with a positive interpretation of "Cultural Marxism." If that were not the case, one should be able to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism easily without being attacked by rabid left-wing editors."
In short they're not WP:HERE for the right reasons, and instead seek to use Wikipedia as a personal political WP:SOAPBOX --Jobrot (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hang on a second Last Contrarian the accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I know I've seen editors blocked for such accusations against other editors in the past with out diff's to support the accusation per WP:NPA. Your lack of WP:AGF and automatically accusing another editor of something else in an attempt to deflect scrutiny from yourself is inappropriate. Regardless you do appear to be edit warring based on the diffs provided You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I don't care about thomson. He didn't revert my reliably sourced edit for being disruptive. The problem is Jobrot who is guarding the article like Cerberus guarding the Underworld.
You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. Do you notice a consensus there? There are a couple of discussions. Everything else is a vote. All you see there are comments primarily by Jobrot that evade my questions, ignore propositional logic (thereby constructing ledes based on false syllogisms) and replies that are a wall of text to drown out any adventuring editor. Further, what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced if it happens to go against the articles current statement? Last Contrarian (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
As stated above multiple times, as well as on the talk page; it's not reliably sourced as per WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:CITELEAD (WP:LISTEN, WP:DEADHORSE). "what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced"; in this case the consensus means you should acknowledge that MOST PEOPLE don't hold your views, so you should check your edits against the consensus that Cultural Marxism is in fact; a conspiracy theory (regardless of the claims of proponents). If you'd wished to include Gottfried, you'd need something more independent than right-wing political websites (he has a book you know), and even then it's not WP:DUE and obviously it cannot be put in the lead WP:CITELEAD. You should have respected the WP:CONSENSUS you've brought upon yourself via your own RfC. --Jobrot (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
1. Claim that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory using purely left-wing sources.
2. Obtain a consensus using 1. Make things impossible so that Wikipedia admins have a massive headache and give up. Things deteriorate so much that new mdia across the political spectrum write articles on it.
3. Use consensus obtained above to bar reliable right-wing sources from supporting statements against the so-called "common" mainstream view by claiming they are not independent.
You think that convinces anybody? And you think you're not biased at all. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I support a topic ban, this has gone on far too long and the article is a honeypot for ideologues even without this. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Ideologues on both both sides. I'd like you to take a look at Jobrot's history and the history of the present conflict before coming to a conclusion. I know people don't have the time to do this, but this is how bias grows, by refusing to consider the possibility that the status quo is wrong. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTTHEM. Oh, and law of holes. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This road has been trodden before by SecondDark, Kaffeburk, Achinoam, Ideloctober and various IP users. There's a reason decisions go against people who approach the article from a political perspective and violate WP:consensus. It isn't due to a conspiracy, admins being brainwashed, or other editors being rabid left-wing shills: It's due to the fact that The Frankfurt School were interested in analyzing Culture; not in taking it over. They'd seen the rise of Nazism in their own country; a force they had to flee from. They were anti-fascists more than anything else; not communists and not plotting the downfall of America - in fact members wrote AGAINST Soviet Marxism, they even helped determine the protocols at the Nuremberg Trials and worked for the OSS during the war. They even advised the US government during the Cold War. Their aim wasn't to take over or destroy; their aim was to teach what they'd learned from having to flee fascism; in order to IMPROVE democracy, not destroy it. Blaming modern progressive politics on The Frankfurt School makes no more sense than blaming it on Hitler. The whole world has changed since then - especially since the fall of the USSR. Politics needs to move on too. --Jobrot (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment It's nearing 3:30AM in India and I have to sleep. Will revisit this in about 18 hours. Hope admins take their time before coming to a decision. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I support a page ban. At this point the editor isn't listening. They've had enough ROPE and seem to be talking them selves into a page ban. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is my edit history: [39]. Do you see anything there that supports a ban? Or, does every single person who opposes Jobrot's stranglehold on the article (the guy has more edits [40] on the article than the next three editors combined, all of whom are inactive since forever) get banned even if reliable sources are used to provide a balance to the slanted claims? They way things stand at present, unless ten people gang up together (an unlikely event) to form a consensus in the opposite direction, Jobrot's version of events will be the de facto Wikipedia version as he seems to be omnipresent on Wikipedia. Anyone going against the status quo will be crushed by the consensus of 2 editors and 4 voters, reliable sources be damned. Last Contrarian (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, your edit history is why people are going for a page/topic ban instead of a block: you do have a lot of good edits to stuff relating to India and Indian entertainment, but your foray into American politics has been problematic. In fact, the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic, combined with the drastic increase in loquaciousness, almost looks like a WP:COMPROMISED account. Were it not for this and this, I'd've called for a block on those grounds instead of explaining this. Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, which means you should stay away from contentious topics until you've learned to do so. You say you've been here "without ever encountering an admin" like that's a bad thing. That means you haven't engaged the community here, and it shows. While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month -- and that's in total, not taking into account that you've barely interacted with the community at all before this. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Every major article I have involved myself in is due to a singular interest in the subject matter. The articles on Satya (film), Chanakya (TV series) and Anurag Kashyap needed a lot of improvement. The one on the Tata Tapes controversy didn't exist till I created it.
While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month I guess you are used to articles and editors for which sources are available quite easily. The articles I worked on are India-specific and the number of easily accessible digital sources on the subject matter and time period (1980s-1990s) are very few. The only way you could perhaps make them better is by visiting newspaper morgues in some of the major Indian cities.
rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Not sudden at all. Here's my user page from 2008: [41]:
  • atheist
  • libertarian
  • interested in politics
  • believes in logic
  • is opposed to online censorship
So my "suddenly" visiting the Cultural Marxism page should make sense given the context.
drastic increase in loquaciousness On Wikipedia, sure. Doesn't mean this is the only handle I use on the internet. Further, technical subjects or subjects with some basis to them don't require long-winded discussions. Only politics and philosophy do.
Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, Consensus and collaboration work when the differences between editors are such that an agreement is possible. In case of controversial topics, they might work if others are willing to at least listen to you. I don't see it happening when it comes to this topic. When I raise a question regarding sentence construction, propositional logic and citations, and the only replies I get are those influenced by previous controversies or those simply voting for a position, what are the chances that a consensus based on substantive discussion would be arrived at?
In this instance, it's very easy to change the lede by using WP:INTEXT. But some editors seem to believe that the conspiracy theoretic position is so common, that in-text attribution is something that should be absolutely avoided. Last Contrarian (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:INTEXT argues against you; sighting this as an example of what not to do: "Charles Darwin says that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars." - that's EXACTLY what you attempted with the lead: "Cultural Marxism in mainstream parlance is considered a conspiracy theory; but <insert name here> doesn't think it is!" WP:GEVAL WP:DEADHORSE WP:LISTEN WP:CONSENSUS. --Jobrot (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if you misread my comments unintentionally or on purpose. This is what I said FOUR days back (see the talkpage):

What does "common usage" mean in this context? Who, exactly, "commonly refers" to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory? If it's the SPLC, then reword the sentence so that it states so explicitly. If it is left-wing academics, X, Y & Z who research right-wing movements, then use their names there. What we have here is the use of weasel words ( to make a claim appear larger than it actually is.

If I had done that myself, you would have still called it disruptive editing—or by claiming that WP:INTEXT is not necessary as the conspiracy theoretic view is universal—because you don't want the section's basic claim to change. I began adding Gottfried's claims BECAUSE the entire section is based on left-wing name-calling with right-wing primary sources only being used for WP:SYNTHESIS.
Your verbose comments don't lead anywhere, and are often designed to tire the reader, or worse, change the focus away from a particular topic. Your actions seem to be designed to push away editors who don't share your bias or world view. This makes it impossible for anyone to significantly edit the article without being obstructed by you. Anyone who doesn't enter the fray with preconceived notions will find the state of the article and your behavior unacceptable to say the very least. Here's User:N-HH (see talk page) who thinks the section suffers from lack of balance and misdirected emphasis. saying he's unwilling to enter the trenches:

The term goes beyond the Frankfurt School, and beyond the modern "conspiracy theory", so it shouldn't be a subsection on this page, or be focused on modern politics wherever it is. It's connected to this page, to US Culture war and to Critical theory, and there are overlaps, but is a discrete and substantive topic in its own right; a disambiguation page might help, but I think it needs more than that. That said, I don't have the time to invest in what would no doubt be an extended rerun of old debates which would probably end anyway with this unhappy compromise outcome all over again, or something similar. Plus this has slightly gone beyond the RfC ambit, so I'll leave it there.

That's on you, and editors like you who are unable to tolerate an NPOV tag on an obviously controversial section. Last Contrarian (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I've already explained multiple times that it's a) a conspiracy theory to relevant sources cited in the section, b) a theory about a conspiracy to the paleoconservative minority viewpoint, c) that the sighted source for the statement is talking about the mainstream/common usage as being a conspiracy theory and d) that there are multiple examples of it being talked about as a conspiracy theory in the mainstream media:
 The Guardian [42], Al Jazeera [43], Salon [44], Fair Observer [45], The New Matilda [46], ArtNet [47], Buzzfeed [48], The Huffington Post [49].
These reoccurring discussions you wish to have will always illicit this same response from me, each and every time, and User:N-HH was saying there wasn't enough left-wing ACADEMIC coverage of the original meaning; the polar opposite of your claim that there isn't enough paleoconservative coverage (even though it already makes up a substantial chunk of the current section); and User:N-HH was quickly able to understand that the section was specifically for the conspiracy theory version of the term (as is explained on the talk page) and to ascertain that I wasn't there to push a political agenda. Unlike yourself versus those horrible rabid left-wing editors. You're grasping at straws here and showing off your failure to WP:LISTEN. --Jobrot (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Topic/Page ban. Topic ban from Cultural Marxism would be the easiest to manage. I find specific page bans tend to lead to the editor having the same dispute about markedly similar content on a different page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ban Jobrot already and topic-ban Ian Thompson and JzG from American Politics for defending him. He does act like he owns the page, he cannot tell the difference between the 1) school of Cultural Marxism 2) tactic commonly known as Cultural Marxism and 3) allegations about the use of the tactic, he judges the reliability of sources by whether they support what he wants the page to say, he takes a battleground stance against anyone who disagrees with him, he refuses to listen, he has never had consensus, he has his pet admins ban dissenters to maintain a false illusion of consensus, and now he shows off the severed heads of banned users to threaten another editor. Jobrot is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. How much more of this is Wikipedia going to take? (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd tag you as an SPA, but it seems more obvious that you're a sock of some editor who didn't get his way. Also, pretending for a moment you're not just WP:HOUNDing Jobrot over some past grievance, recommending that two administrators who've each been here a decade be topic banned from the very broad field of American politics would require some serious evidence of serious misbehavior all around that field. Assuming you're not just trolling or socking around some sort of ban yourself, either you're totally unaware of process here or you're throwing a politically motivated tantrum. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose page ban User:Last Contrarian is a long-standing Wiki editor since 2008. He arrived at the Cultural Marxism just a few days ago, made obviously good faith edits, and appropriately withdrew to an RFC when it became clear that his edits were opposed by two editors. Jobrot is too quick to declare consensus on that RFC, it's only been open three days. There is also an interesting discussion developing at Fringe theories noticeboard. Jobrot argues for guilt by association: i.e. other editors have 'been down this path' (whatever that means), therefore Lost Contrarian must be stopped now? Doesn't make sense. Nothing about his behavior would merit any sort of ban. Also oppose any boomerang, Jobrot's expertise is much appreciated. JerryRussell (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your support re: a boomerang. On that note; I hadn't seen the discussion on the fringe theories board (so thank you for bringing it to my attention) and I've actually now gone to the user page of the one descenting opinion and tried to clarify Marcuses meaning in Repressive Tolerance; as I believe their personal opinion of what he was saying is most certainly a misreading of his actual statements.
As for User:Last Contrarian "withdrawing" to an RfC; expanding to an RfC would be more accurate; and given that they're now repeating the discussion here, and continue to repeat their arguments only to find the same counter-points; I'd hardly say they're a bastion of self-control or having a good editorial nature. Especially considering their numerous violations of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:GOODFAITH on top of the standard failure to WP:LISTEN. As I stated earlier; something must be done. Otherwise this repetitive discussion (which he's now continuing directly above us with me pasting the mainstream media links I already have for the third time now) will simply never ever end. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM, editors have to be WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia on WP:CONSENSUS and not to WP:SOAPBOX without evidence or the capacity to WP:LISTEN to others; as I believe is the case with Last Contrarian. --Jobrot (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Topic ban from Cultural Marxism. Being competent and experienced means you have the common sense to read the archives on controversial articles and to be in dialogue with the work the community has already done; this exact point has been gone over zillions of times in that article already. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Editor behaviour is not the primary issue here, the odd set-up of the content is (there was a brief bit of edit-warring, but that seems to be done now). Criticism of this user on the basis that lots of people have gone down "this road" before rather suggests there is a problem with it, doesn't it? As I noted on the talk page after seeing this thread here, it's frankly bizarre that there is no standalone page for a widely referenced concept such as "Cultural Marxism". That would focus on the original, primary use – and the one most commonly encountered in academic and book sources – to describe a trend in Marxist studies to focus on cultural issues as much as economic ones (in part associated with the Frankurt school, but not exclusively so) but also note the modern use of it as a pejorative in some US right-wing circles. I struggle to understand why the original article on the concept was deleted, and why anyone searching for the term on WP (whether they wish to understand more about arcane mid-20th century Marxist theories or uncover more about the pernicious influence of political correctness) instead now ends up on a subsection of the Frankfurt School page debating alleged conspiracy theories. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support page ban. Editor behaviour is most definitely the issue in this case (that's why we're here). Anyone whose seen how often things need to be repeated to Last Contrarian (WP:LISTEN), or noticed their violations of the strong WP:CONSENSUS to refer to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory (reflecting the sources used and mainstream media coverage discussed on the talk page), or who has noted Last Contrarian's description of rabid left wing editors for anyone who disagrees with them in violation of WP:GOODFAITH, or their specific desire to have the audience come away with a positive interpretation of the conspiracy theory (violating WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL) can clearly see that behaviour is most definitely the issue here. User:N-HH as I stated to you on the talk page; you're welcome to pursue the recreation of the previous page (which had all of 3 sources using the term explicitly) by the usual means but this is not the place to do so. Finally I'd like to note that Culture War topics, as well as Conspiracy Theories attract a higher amount of disruptive editing; this case is no exception; and is most definitely a behavior problem of an editor who is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. --Jobrot (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
...and you should really read WP:NOTGETTINGIT, as it describes this situation perfectly. Hence the blow out of text here and on the talk page; which prior to Last Contrarian's involvement had become relatively sedate and inactive (a 3 month period of relative quiet on the matter dating back to the last Split Proposal in May). --Jobrot (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't deny there might be an issue with editor behaviour, I just said it's not the primary one. The point is any such problems often relate to underlying content problems, especially when that content is an unhappy compromise which people are nonetheless overly invested in, having been immersed in the debate for so long. We're now stuck at "This is what one or two of us have agreed, and we spent ages doing it, so that's that" rather than asking what actually has been agreed and whether it's the right decision (and relying on WP:NOTGETTINGIT to rebut questions can compound this kind of problem). There's also the problem, which afflicts most of WP's politics pages, that people seem more interested in scoring political points than presenting information. Here, we have people who want the page (or rather the section, currently) to go into great detail about how "godless Marxists are taking over" and others, who may indeed currently represent the consensus view, who want it to say "this is all a nutty right-wing conspiracy theory". Some of us just want a clear page explaining Marxist cultural theories and the subsequent polemical use of the term, without judgment and without the topic being buried in modern-day, real-world culture wars. But that's not for ANI of course. N-HH talk/edits 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
To clarify; on the talk page currently there is (by my count) an 8 vs 2 consensus in favor of the current section title and lead, and only Last Contrarian is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. That's why I'm here. --Jobrot (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, there's no law against questioning a dubious position that happens to be held by eight random, anonymous WP contributors even if it does amount to a temporary consensus (and let's not forget that the consensus for about eight years previously was to have a separate Cultural Marxism page of the sort I would favour, until all this oddness started a couple of years ago). As I've said, I think the current structure and content is terrible, even if maybe for different reasons to Last Contrarian. Anyway, just as ANI is not the venue for my opinions above about broader problems with WP politics pages, nor should it be a place to get a longstanding editor barred from a page for being on the "wrong" side of a content dispute, absent genuine disruption, abuse or continued edit-warring. N-HH talk/edits 12:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
ANI is the venue to have administrative experts decide on these matters; and I've highlighted the genuine disruptions, bad behavior and violations of policy above. FYI the oddness started around the time that GamerGate (its self a topic that's attracted a large amount of ArbCom sanctions) brought the Culture War to the AfD as "Cultural Marxism" was a favoured explanation of theirs for why feminism had brainwashed society into allowing women to comment on video games. Don't mistake the popularity of the topic outside of Wikipedia for something caused by Wikipedians; if a topic gets attention in the public - it will get attention on Wikipedia. But thank you for clarifying "the law" and that you're "just asking questions". Albeit in the wrong venue as you keep saying; perhaps you should find the right venue. --Jobrot (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you may be missing N-HH's central point here which, if I am reading him correctly, is that we should not put the cart before the horse here. Having looked at the section, the talk page discussion and the history a bit here, I'm inclined to agree that LC may very well be WP:NOTHERE (he's certainly at the least inclined to view both the sources and the editorial decisions of those who oppose his approach through a highly politicized lens). But there are larger issues here, issues which must be resolved on the talk page or other content-oriented areas ultimately, but which are difficult to disentangle from the issues being examined here. To second N-HH's observations and to just be blunt, that section is absolutely awful. The first paragraph is just atrocious, frankly--it's a dense mat of nearly un-parseable academese that is virtually useless to our average reader and seems like it is lifted from someone's (poorly written) personal essay for an undergrad sociology course, in blatant violation of WP:NOTJARGON/WP:NOTESSAY, MOS:JARGON, and just the basic principle of encyclopedic tone. The language then becomes more plain as the section proceeds, but degenerates into a poorly organized and confused narrative of events and perspectives that have impacted the reception of the term.
Now, I don't know how the apparently long-standing independent article looked, but I'm inclined to agree with N-HH on another point--given the breadth of the topic, the multiple over-lapping definitions and usages, and the fact that is not, in even the remotest sense, particular to the Frankfurt School alone in it's relevance, there really should be an independent article. And any content on the subject absolutely must be written in plain, encyclopedic language, not the kind of obtuse sociological idiolect/argot that dominates the early part of the section and reduces it (for all intents and purposes of readers not steeped in that academic culture and its many idioms and idiosyncrasies) to near gibberish. Whatever consensus the regular editors of that article come to regarding what the weight of reliable sources say about the topic--valid cultural term or hyperbolic ultra-con rhetoric, it has to be presented in a better way than it is now. So sure, we could just address the strong and/or outright disruptive outlook of one editor and the potentially polemic nature of the content he wants to add. But what's the point in sorting that out if we are still left with a chunk of prose that still falls well below our quality standards, and is shoe-horned into another article in such a manner as to almost certainly guarantee further arguments on the topic? Snow let's rap 23:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If you have looked at the talk page you might note that I've already had this discussion with User:N-HH there, in which I've referred them to previous discussions involving editors sympathetic to your cause; I would suggest that gives you both ample opportunity to collaborate on a draft or other means of achieving your goal should you wish to do so. But as I've stated above (and perhaps you've missed my point here) this is not the venue for that discussion. --Jobrot (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If we have the time for that. Not everyone does, and as noted it will probably all end up buried anyway under renewed spats involving people obsessed with what they read last week online and wanting to use WP to carry on those fights rather than wanting to understand, let alone explain factually and soberly, the actual history and context of a term and topic. Anyway, I acknowledged that much of this has got beyond the remit of ANI and relates to pretty much insoluble problems with WP, which no venue exists for. Given that, and given that I was also simply trying to point out what ANI is here for and what you or anyone else is likely to get help with, I don't quite see the need for some of the snarkier comments in your previous post. N-HH talk/edits 09:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It's frustrating to see everyone agreeing that this isn't the appropriate place for this discussion; only to continue the discussion regardless (albeit whilst reminding everyone this isn't the right place). I've made my purpose here clear, and I don't desire to use this ANI as a WP:FORUM. My understanding is that the appropriate place for such discussions would be on talk:Frankfurt School, within a Wikipedia talk:Deletion review or by following the advice given at WP:SALT (ie. speaking to an appropriate admin). But to continue to comment with the protective caveat of "I know this isn't the right place but..." is inappropriate, and as we all agree; falls outside of the scope of this discussion. Frankly the repetition did get to me; so I apologize for any snarkiness in my previous comments. I probably don't need to repeat this again, but just to be absolutely clear; this isn't the right venue and my issue here is with Last Contrarian's behavior, attitude and policy violations on talk:Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, but the point of my acknowledging the discussion had gone off on a bit of a tangent (while nonetheless providing some context to the problem) was precisely to put an end to it, not to be cover for continuing it regardless or to elicit yet more responses in turn. And it takes two to continue a discussion of course. Anyway, any admin reviewing this can probably stop half-way down this thread, review your evidence against LC and make a decision either way about what to do with them. They don't seem to have edited for a few days now anyway. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Jobrot, just because the content issues are ultimately likely to be addressed in talk space does not mean that some discussion of those issues is not necessary for establishing and considering the relevant behavioural issues here--please keep that in mind. Nobody is suggesting ironing the content issues out here, longform, not that I've seen anyway. Nor is anyone suggesting creating a consensus to supplant that generated on the talk page. There's nothing "inappropriate" in the least in referencing the content dispute here to understand the matter better, or even to provide insight that may help the parties sort their differences or consider a compromise solution that will stand them in better and more productive relation to eachother. This just isn't the place where the ultimate consensus needs to be formed and confirmed. But I think everyone presently participating in the discussion is experienced enough to understand that nuance. Snow let's rap 04:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a classic attempt to WP:POV_RAILROAD a non-disruptive editor for having the "wrong" ideas. There is at this time no behavioral issue for an administrator to act upon. Jobrot and I had a nice conversation about the Frankfurt school on my talk page recently, so I'm disappointed to see this personalization of a disagreement with another editor on the same topic. One might begin to think that summarizing the reliable sources is taking a back seat in favor of trying to evangelize to editors about the merits of the Frankfurt school. Rhoark (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, thanks for this very perceptive comment. I hadn't seen WP:POV_RAILROAD before, and it seems very apropos. I was rather stunned above when, in response to my defense of Last Contrarian, Jobrot piled on with more unmerited accusations of bad faith against LC, and then he went to your talk page to have that 'nice conversation' with you!! I stand by my point, though, that Wiki needs Jobrot's obvious expertise. The essay on POV_RAILROAD pointed to another essay I hadn't seen, as the best answer to a railroad: WP:WIKILOVE, "a term that refers to a general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding among wikiusers.... if we concentrate on achieving a neutral point of view even when it is difficult, and if we try to actually understand what the other side has to say, then we can reach the state of "WikiLove". JerryRussell (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - On the Frankfurt School talk page Last Contrarian has accused editors of blindly supporting me, and has accused me of making content-less and unmerited replies and of having extreme bias for not supporting the conspiracy theory viewpoint, they've also suggested I was one of the rabid left-wing editors conducting rabid left-wing activity by preventing them from being able to resurrect the article (even though that was an administrative action I'm not capable of), as well as having blamed the current section on stupid editors. All of this is on the talk page should you wish to search it, and is on top of our discussions having been extremely repetitive (due to WP:LISTEN issues). That should go some way to explaining why I'm making the above request for administrative action, and why I'm able to be WP:CIVIL with other editors (as all Wikipedians should be). Even within this AN/I Last Contrarian has accused me of the egregious crime of spending the better part of half an hour [55] leaving replies to comments not addressed to me. I hope this clears up who here is employing the bullying tactics mentioned in WP:POV_RAILROAD, and illustrates that Last Contrarian is not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia based on WP:CONSENSUS or WP:GOODFAITH. --Jobrot (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jobrot, of course you're right that LC's comments were not perfectly WP:CIVIL. I hope he'll reconsider and apologize. But, his point was logically valid about mainstream right-wing views of CM, and I had to do quite a bit of searching before coming down on the other side of that question. You could easily make a case that there are enough mainstream mentions of CM in a favorable context, to justify his view. I thought the discussion was not so much repetitive, as it was a continuing exploration of the issue. And, a lack of optimum civility is not evidence of lack of good faith, or lack of willingness to respect consensus. You also mentioned that although LC has been around Wiki a long time, he hasn't done so much editing around highly controversial topics. So, perhaps 'keep experienced editors' and 'don't bite the newbies' would both apply?
I'm not that much of an old hand around here, either. This is the first time I've participated in one of these ANI discussions. What sort of ban would be typical? Are we talking about just a few days, a month, a year, forever? JerryRussell (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Personally I'd say their attitude towards other users is endemic of having bad faith, and that their stated desire to give the audience a positive interpretation of the conspiracy theory version of Cultural Marxism is WP:NPOV and seeks to go against WP:CONSENSUS. Given they only sporadically edit wikipedia (with 1 and 2 year gaps in their history); I'd say a page ban would probably benefit the community without hindering Last Contrarian's efforts elsewhere. The duration is at the discretion of the admins, I just feel it's necessary due to the volume and spread of their comments and actions (with Last Contrarian having made derogatory comments to all editors and not just myself). --Jobrot (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds of unsourced edits to TV subject articles

All the additions may or may not be factually correct, but of this we're quite sure: nothing has been sourced. This may require a backhoe to clean out all the trivia and unreferenced tidbits. 2601:188:1:AEA0:D501:5048:8A42:6CE2 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I dunno. People write a lot of stuff here that's not sourced. Tagging is an option, or looking up the sources yourself (if you have the time and inclination) is another. A quick check of this person's contributions looks like typical newbie stuff -- material which is not ref'd but is otherwise an improvement and most likely accurate. I'm not sure that hitting this person with a big honking "go away" template, rather than engaging her as one human being to another, is called for here. At any rate maybe you've scared her off so "problem" solved perhaps. Herostratus (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Battles in Székely Land

I'm closing this thread on the basis that: a. these are content discussions which should be occurring on the article talk page, not via edit summaries, on user talk pages, or here; b. no new thread has been created on the article page for over a year, demonstrating that neither side has attempted to address these issues on the article talk page; and c. no attempt to use an appropriate form of dispute resolution has apparently been attempted. I recommend both involved parties get a clue and stop the obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and borderline edit warring before it gets both of them on the wrong side of some sanction or other. Sooner rather than later, an admin will decide you have had enough WP:ROPE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

To start off, I'm an uninvolved editor who happened across this edit war in progress. The article in question is Székely Land, and the involved parties are User:Biruitorul and User:KIENGIR.

It seems to have started with this edit, which seems to indicate that these editors have some sort of history (indeed, there is, and it isn't pretty). A quick look through the article history indicates escalating tensions and reverts without so much as an attempted discussion on the talk page (the closest thing to a resolution attempt is here, which seems to have been abandoned). Threats were made (not legal): [50], [51], and [52]. WP:AGF seems to have gone out the window, and a 3RR and NPA warnings to both involved here seems to have done nothing. Both editors have previously been blocked for edit-warring, and I feel that some stronger remedies may be in order now. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 05:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

First, let me correct you on your timeline. My last edit on the Székely Land page took place at 23:24 on 19 August; your warning arrived at 00:28 on 20 August. So, actually, I want to be clear I've backed off that page, in the interests of involved parties.
Second, perhaps I didn't approach this the right way, but KIENGIR does make personal attacks, and there should be some way to make him understand this is not acceptable. Given these attacks, plus a demonstrated failure to understand WP:RS, plus a likely agenda, plus lack of WP:COMPETENCE in the English language, I think it's perfectly fair to say that at some point in the future, say in six months' time, the community should once again look at his position here. (About that last point, not knowing English, check out his revamped article on the Ip massacre (which, by the way, I didn't touch). Whereas before we had a short, comprehensible article citing neo-fascist and national-communist sources, now we have an utterly incomprehensible mess that still manages to quote neo-fascist and national-communist sources. Not much of an improvement, if you ask me.)
Third, I'm not sure what I should have responded to that diatribe on my talk page. "I am heavy-weight expert professional in Hungary - Romania history affiliations"? OK, although as an aside, actual experts don't go around calling themselves experts. "Would you once try to forget here you are a Wikipedian and not Romanian, and would you a little bit ignore your Hungarophobia and interested in professional articles?" Obvious WP:NPA violation coupled with baseless allegations of "Hungarophobia". There really isn't much to respond to, especially as the comment relies on rhetoric rather than reliable sources.
Anyway, I have better things to do here than tangle with someone who can't grasp WP:RS, WP:NPOV and other basic policies - let others deal with him. I admit I wasn't always constructive on the page in question, and I apologize, but I'm ready to move on to more productive endeavors. - Biruitorul Talk 13:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear Dschslava,
thank you for your intervention, if I'd meet first with Biruitorul repeated revert, I'd notify an Administrator about the state of edit warring - I just recently cleared with one regarding an other issue in a certain frame what means repeatedly, Biruitorul now clearly crossed this line. Thank you also that you listed clearly Biruitorul's threats, if has to be also noted WP:AGF has been overriden strictly by Biruitorul, as he proved it also in the former ANI incident he rendered and failed, he did not learn anything from it, he also refused the communication then, there, like also when I started the WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS process in his talk page and asking him all the time for calm collaboration ang good faith. 3RR was not harmed in the corresponding article. Personal attacks I suffered, it can be read in the edit logs, however Biruitorul foxily tries to identify himself as a victim. I was even astonished why Helmut von Moltke warned me about this, well also in the former ANI incident a huge attempt has been revealed to coin other editors and Administrators.
Reaction to Biruitorul's post:
- I did not make personal attacks to you, you did continously in your former ANI report when you composed such a defamation campaign based on your distorted personal opinion and you repeated them like a robot without any attempt to communicate or understanding the failed approach of yours, as it has been noticed also by the Administrators. He you started with "obsession" and "revisionist agenda", although the first can be easily proved towards you, the second is a usual bluff since supporting the factual sourced approach towards event next to strictly POV edits by emotion has nothing to do with the latter. You do not hinder you ethnicity in your user page and what I have told was not an attack, another Romanian Wikipedian told me here not any ethnicity exists, everybody is a Wikipedian and I asked you to hold back your Romanian emotions and overexaggerated sensitivity - this is not an attack -, and unfortunately your edit's, edit logs and approach, moreover the total denial of communication and building WP:CONSENSUS unfortunately very much tending to a case of Hungarophobia. Everyone can check your manifestations the former ANI incident you rendered, how you dealt with Hungary related cases, full with accusations, bad faith that is the by-production of your mind.
Let's see one example:
-In the Northern Transylvania article, after adding an fact without any politics or emotion that incidents with the military happened before the massacres, you manifestated immediately:
" I reject blaming the victims of mass murder for being murdered" -> A result of your own negative -prejudicative manifestation towards me and Hungary related cases, although - you are a first level English speaker - not any root of such assertion existed or meant, moreover it is well-known in one case negligence caused the incident without any involvement of any ethnicity. You immediately, without any discussion or calm thinking you blamed and made a revert and if we check you edit logs and comments you are enthusiastically adding any material that would make appear Hungary or Hungarians in a negative manner, just see the recent case (even if your additions are sourced or true or not relevant or would not belong to the article). This combattant attitude has no benefit but better the good faith and mutual collaboration. Abouth "childish" and "securist", I have raised these in a question qualifying a certain planned behavior in the future, it is still not a personal attack in a way that you'd make it appear, since yes, I consider still these are holding if you think by cataloging anf filing secret service style reports and defamations and to render new ANI incidents reminds me the Communist times, and this is totally AGAINST the concept of Wikipedia and GOOD FAITH, where mutual collaboration leads to good articles with a truthful and objective content, not any pre-planned disruptive behavior, like you want to achieve a solution to REMOVE (" hopefully convince the community to topic-ban you ") the element that is disturbing you instead of face the facts and keep Wikipedia rules and struggle for objectivity and truthful content that you obviously denied in the Székely Land article. Wikipedia has it's own rules, if one is harmed, arbitration starts, we have to live with this, but to collect and catalogue files on a person with an aim to a desired ban does not fulfill any Wikipedia principle, on the contrary, such cases were in practise during the Communism. Moreover you advertize in your personal page that "This user seeks to promote peace and harmony among Central and Eastern European Wikipedians" and "This user utterly condemns the criminal regime that ruled Romania from 1947 to 1989." ---> Unfortunately we did not see these principles to be followed by you, I am deeply sorry!
- I understand WP:RS, maybe you have a problem since you just removed a bunch of them although they would balance you POV edit. If I have English mistakes, feel free to correct them, I don't think I am among the worse who are editing the English Wikipedia. Moreover the Ip massacre article was poorly written and constructed, also it contained heavier English mistakes, however, again anyone should feel free to correct linguistic mistakes. How you could tell dear hat it has no improvement???? You completely regard as a fool all Wikipedians? An article that does not mention precisely the events, preludes of such an important event of a high impact? However, you are again telling something that is not true, since I did not add any "neo-fascist" or "national-communist" sources, moreover I did not remove any former source
- Why you spare the ANI audience about the fact the "I am heavy-weight expert professional in Hungary - Romania history affiliations" quote was added to your page not by me, but an IP Address that started to provocate me and an other user with composed lies? In such a poor way you wish to evade that you AGAIN REFUSED ANY COMMUNICATION THAT FOR IN THE EARLIER ANI INCIDENT YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS?
-"There really isn't much to respond to, especially as the comment relies on rhetoric rather than reliable sources." -> ???? You just removed the second and third time RELIABLE SOURCES that was added by me, you don't feel ashamed you try to coin again editors, admins reading this ANI incident? Are you serious?
-"Anyway, I have better things to do here than tangle with someone who can't grasp WP:RS, WP:NPOV and other basic policies - let others deal with him. I admit I wasn't always constructive on the page in question, and I apologize, but I'm ready to move on to more productive endeavors" -> WP:RS is a phrase you repeat like "personal attack" or "revisionist agenda", the more you repeat the more you think it will be true....but please...WP:NPOV do not mention again, because if someobody struggles for this in this community, it is me and all of my edits are proving this and all of them I can PROUDLY defend. Unfortunately the conflict you rendered is mostly just and only because you don't want to follow WP:NPOV, and I explained it to you very carefully in your personal page by my resolution attempt. I have to tell you here then, we may reach CONSENSUS and all of your edits can remain in the Székely Land article if you also let mine. If you disagree, we have to remove both of our additions and try to build a new consensus and since the former content was an unreferenced content - thus it may be deleted - you have to see without building consensus YOU HAVE NO CHANCE. I am sorry you rejected my first consensus offer that was totally free of POV, POLITICS, or EMOTIONS.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC))
  • I have nothing to respond to this rambling screed other than reiterating my apologies for allowing things to get slightly out of hand, and my promise to avoid this user as much as possible in the future, given that constructive collaboration with him is at best a frustrating waste of time.
  • Actually, I will note just one thing: I'm hardly the only productive contributor he's antagonized. I urge interested parties to look at two talk pages - where I had zero involvement - and where he made it painfully clear he has no real grasp of WP:RS. These are Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) and Talk:László Bárdossy. At the latter page, the exasperation of the administrator (and prolific content contributor) engaged with this user even reached a similar "threat" to mine: "I am quite comfortable taking this to a community forum if necessary".
  • So I'm not the only one who's found it impossible to work with KIENGIR, but I will stay away, and let someone else deal with this festering problem. - Biruitorul Talk 00:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- you prove again everything that I've demonstrated here, instead of communicating, you are evading, because you also realized you have no chance, unfortunately facts are facts.
- You are again foxily deteriorating the attention by quoting solved earlier cases and discussions in the talk page has nothing to do with this, you cannot hide that you removed WP:RS with an disruptive aim, ignoring good faith and consensus building. The quote of the current Administrator "I am quite comfortable taking this to a community forum if necessary" was meant to make an open debate about the validity of possible territorial demands towards Croatia, it has nothing common with your negative aimed behavior, so you again mislead the community here - and anyway that case I had also right and I also demonstrated it with an RS! It is heavily funny you try even to make any comparison with an Administrator who has an ultimate good faith and collaborative effort - comparing to you - :)
- So, regardless how desperately you try to wash yourself out, you are the one who is REJECTING communication and REJECTS to follow Wikipedia guidelines, meanwhile you foxily try to avoid to face the problems your created with your behavior! I repeat, in Wikipedia not any activity may be hidden, so the Administrator's will notice again your continous misleading attempts on the subjects presented here, it has nothing to do with GOOD FAITH again!(KIENGIR (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

While I'm not really affected by this user's habitual abuse, even I have some limits. No, I did not "remove WP:RS with a disruptive aim", I removed a passage about the background to the Second Vienna Award inserted into an article on the Székely Land, a place where it was contextually irrelevant. I specifically directed the user to transfer it to the other article if he so wished.

His diversion about the "community forum" comment can easily be countered by quoting the full context of that comment: "No. That is not how we operate on en WP. We also do not ping people we think might agree with us. That is called canvassing, and is very poor Wikiquette. I am quite comfortable taking this to a community forum if necessary. Like I said, the obligation is on you, not me." That has to do with disruptive behavior and failure to grasp basic policies like WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, not the status of Croatia. - Biruitorul Talk 14:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, you may have valuable insight on this discussion, also, as I recall, you're quite well versed in the political history of the Balkan states and also WWII. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
KIENGIR and Biruitorul, if you would limit your statements to ~500 words and include a minimum of 3 good diffs, I do think that situation would be a lot easier for everyone. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 18:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I've more or less said what I have to say, but to recap: while my edits per se on the Székely Land page were constructive, my way of going about them and my edit summaries were sometimes not, and I acknowledge that lapse (and it is just a lapse - I've started around an article a day for the past month, many of them at quite high quality); I can't deal with a user who appears willfully unable to follow basic policies, and whose modus operandi involves unleashing torrents of largely meaningless verbiage, so moving forward, I will disengage, avoiding him and the pages he edits as much as possible; finally, his abiding problems should be addressed, but I'm not the one to try and do that. - Biruitorul Talk 19:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Dschslava, ok, I wil try. Just I urge you to see and also the Administrators who join how Biruitorul is again and again coining and try to mislead all the community, his persistent foxiness and modus operandum is again against Wikietiquette and good faith (and as he proves, he is continuing to tracking the users he did not like instaead of quality editing).
He misleads everybody since he willfully wanted just and only to appear a POV information that not equals with the legal background. He rejected the NPOV, political, emotional free consensus offer and he continously removed RS with the pretext that he again tries to sell. It was a willful provocation without any good faith because he does not like the sourced legal background information and it's content. This is not the way and it is disruptive! Moreover, he cannot wash himself more, since he initiated an edit warring and thus he violated the rules of Wikipedia, that's why we are here!
WP:V is a new invention of him that has not any connection to the subject, moreover he thinks if he cites some speacial details from an earlier case without seeing the whole he is willfully tries to manipulate the current incidents with other things that have no connection to the topic, this is a foxy diversion and misleading activity again. It is true the the Administrator wrote this on that talk page, BUT, Biruitorul foxily spares that this station was not right, since no canvassing happenned, since the editors who have been invited were one Croatian editor interested in history, and two other Hungarian editors that have adequate knowledge on the subject and for an objective opinion everyone was invited from the different sides, and this was also to told to the current Administrator and nothing happened since it was true.
Biruitorul, you are not even a little bit ashamed deep inside you about your continous actions how try to coin everybody? I think it is highly dangerous if you try to manipulate an Administrator's words like you tried to identify a possible discussion about a special historical POV as it would be such awful "threat"s you performed? You think Peacemaker67 does not know Wiki rules? You are playing va banque in a situation where there is no escape? You think they will not check everything we stated here and they won't find out who has right? I am quite peaceful and tolerant like always, but for continous misleading and coinage attempt in the ANI (!!!) regarding editors and Administrators would deserve a very severe punishment such an activity is deep below any tolerance!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC))
  • Comment: Dschslava: None of this belongs at ANI because these are all content disputes and you have not done even the least bit of article talkpage discussion [53]. Please go back and open discussions there. ANI is not the place to broker content disputes; the article talk page is. If you are unable to broker a consensus or resolution, then, for example, find out what each single issue is and open an WP:RFC on the most pressing one. Encourage the users and all of the editors on that article to utilize the various WP:DR measures. Bringing two editors here to hash it out is not the way to resolve problems; it only exacerbates them. We've already had one endless useless thread about this: [54]. Additionally, if edit-warring continues after user-talk warning, the place to report that is WP:ANEW, not here. I recommend that an administrator close this thread before we have an endless repeat performance of the thread from last month [55]. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be content disputes that were never discussed (I have asked Biruitorul four times to provide diffs of his attempts to discuss these issues with KIENGIR, and he has not)......Apply WP:BRD, WP:DR, and so on. Please go back to the drawing board and engage collaboratively with the editor, no matter what your personal opinion of his edits are. Focus on content, not editors. It does indeed seem that this thread was merely a reaction of an attempt of KIENGIR to communicate with you, but instead of engaging with him you filed this report. That does not appear to be a collaborative or fair action. -> Softlavender, your former statement also hold here, I initiated long before a conversation regarding this issue in his talk page, of course again no answer, instead of personal attacks, threats with reports, bad faith a non-collaborative actions. The continous evasion and misleading attempts should be measured, otherwise what is the guarantee it won't be happen again like already in two times? I have also a detailed list why his edits were not constructive and point by point why he failed to follow WP:NPOV - this would have been the current subject, instead of deterioration, but regarding you don't support this thread to be endless, I will post it in the article's talk page after this thread is adjourned.(KIENGIR (talk))
KIENGIR, do not ever discuss these issues on user-talk pages. Discuss only on article-talk. Please assure me that you have read and understood what I just said and that you will stay off the user's talk page. Keep all discussions on the article's talk page, and if there are problems always use some form of WP:DR. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, got it, always in the article's talk page. Regarding WP:DR, you may verify any time I followed according to the Wiki rules to my best knowledge, however from these arbitrations there is always anything new to be learned. I think if I'd reported the personal attacks immediately, the whole thing could not be escalated, but I was concentrating of communication and consensus building because I totally dislike to generate incidents.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC))
That's a good attitude. It's best to ignore personal attacks or personal comments, and focus only on content and on Wikipedia polices and guidelines. And when any issue cannot be satisfactorily resolved, go immediately to some form of dispute resolution (even if it's just getting a third opinion). You can also ask neutrally for input from the relevant WikiProjects (see any article's talk page banners for the relevant projects). And check out the WP:TEAHOUSE for general help and advice. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, OK, I learned from the case, I will twice as more watch my words the future, on the other hand, I will much more quickly ask for arbitration if any incident would occur. Only in one case I urged a Wikiproject, since the attempt to "alter history" was so enormous, that the weight implicated such involvement - here this should not be the case, since it is obvious. That case and it's full, satisfying resolution lasted at least 3 months (!), it was challenging, but definetly educative regarding WP:DR, WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks for your kind attention and struggle for peace!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC))

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

Wikihounding/harassment by User:Drmargi

I'd prefer to get this addressed in a visible way and I think this is the best place to do it.

Last week, I removed a report from WP:AIV that I considered a blatantly bad-faith attack on a well-meaning user. This report was restored by a non-admin user, User:Drmargi, with whom I'd never interacted before; she showed up at my talk to scold me for what she perceived as a bad act on my part, instigating a contentious and unhelpful discussion that ended here with almost no substantial reaction from Drmargi regarding my concerns with her behavior.

A week later, she showed up completely out of the blue at Lisa Murkowski to restore an edit that another editor and I both agreed was bad. The IP editor's edit was imperfect, mine was imperfect, and we collaborated to re-word the sentence, which is now accurate. When I asked Drmargi why she just kept reverting me instead of, you know, working on smoothing out the content, I was ignored.

Just now, for the third time in just under two weeks, Drmargi showed up in an ongoing contentious dispute, completely out of the blue, to oppose me. In this case, she reinserted bright-line vandalism and she's been here long enough to know it: per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, it doesn't matter if the text I'm reinserting is patently false: if it's a good-faith edit, repeated reverts of it constitute vandalism. That she's attempting, for the third time in two weeks, to reinsert content that isn't accurate is the icing on the cake.

I've never started an interaction with this person. She's never started an interaction with me that wasn't confrontational, scolding, completely out-of-nowhere, and at a minimum somewhat wrongheaded. When I ask questions regarding my issues, she declines to explain how I'm wrong and just reverts me. She doesn't respond to anything I say regarding her behavior. What is the appropriate way to deal with this? I'm truly at a loss for how to react to someone who is clearly monitoring me, looking for opportunities to contentiously revert stuff. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This editor has a vivid imagination, a battleground approach to editing, and a tendency to exaggerate the actions of others. Moreover, his abuse of the term vandalism is becoming increasingly problematic (see User talk:KrakatoaKatie#Clarification and Shaunae Miller as two examples). He's going to attract the attention of other editors who are interested in the pages his patrols from what I'm guessing is the new edits list, particularly given his tendency assume the worst in other editors, throw around template warnings like Mardi Gras beads, and generally act like a Wikipedia hall monitor. He is currently at 4RR at Shaunae Miller, an article I was looking at this morning following the subject's race with Allyson Felix and the somewhat controversial outcome. He can flatter himself that I'm following him if he cares to, but frankly, it doesn't make it so. --Drmargi (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
"if it's a good-faith edit, repeated reverts of it constitute vandalism" - absolutely incorrect and you are dangerously close to being blocked. --NeilN talk to me 17:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: To be clear: this edit is not vandalism given its summary? You're looking at the contentious prose change, the blatantly dishonest edit summary, and that doesn't pass the definition of vandalism for you? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Contentious = not vandalism (actually, it matches the source headline). Edit summary = not vandalism (it's just a default mobile interface edit summary) --NeilN talk to me 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: I never said contentious edits constitute vandalism. Feel free to strike the implication that I did.
The edit summary was a falsehood that came after it was explained to SirBartleMerryworth why his previous edits weren't going to stand and why their summaries showed he was violating policy. You're taking AGF awfully far, given that the editor repeatedly (and, because of a bad lock on the page, successfully) inserted the false claim that Miller dove. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It is not vandalism. You need to learn what constitutes vandalism here and only call edits vandalism that meet that definition. -- GB fan 17:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@GB fan: You aren't the first to see the edit, see its contentious nature, see its blatantly false explanation, then, instead of reacting to my assertion that contentiously editing while using a false, insidious summary and refusing to discuss is vandalizing, just demand I learn what vandalism is. I haven't gotten a single person to react in any substantial way to this.
I'm asking again: The user is edit-warring. (So am I! I've explained how my edits are different! One example would be that I don't lie in my edit summaries!) The user re-inserted a contentious edit. The user declined, not for the first time, to discuss anything. The user used an edit summary that included a blatant falsehood. What are you thinking is going on here? He doesn't know what the word "typo" means? Why are we extending WP:AGF to a user who has spent days showing he's editing in bad faith? If you're going to respond to this, please do so with more than this sort of tossed-off response because it's not showing me how I'm wrong. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, let me be clear. The user was not editing in bad faith and their edits were not vandalism. Continuing to call them vandalism is going to get you blocked. Relying on the 3RR exemption for vandalism for that kind of edit is going to get you blocked. I'm saying this to you as an admin. --NeilN talk to me 17:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that your edits are not different. You both think you are improving the article and neither one of you is backing down or discussing it on the article talk page. The major concern here it's that you did not seen realize that the edits were not vandalism and continued to treat them as if they were. That is why you need to go back and learn what we call vandalism and then apply it. -- GB fan 19:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @NeilN: Don't worry. I can't go on forever and I promise I'm dropping the stick after this. My assertion was that if we were talking about one of the group of issues raised (inserting a contentious claim that three other editors tried to remove, refusing to discuss the claim, edit-warring, and explaining edits with bad summaries), it wouldn't be worth a big fight but combined, these issues constituted vandalism. Enough circumstantial evidence can get you a guilty verdict, etc., etc. I concede that my assertion was wrong. And while I know that I'm wrong, I still can't see how. Can you explain what I'm missing? What are you seeing that I don't see? I don't want to make the mistakes I've made today in the future. RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: What you're missing is WP:NOTVAND: "Disruptive editing or stubbornness", "Edit summary omission". Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia. Attempting to change content so it matches the source is far, far from that. --NeilN talk to me 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: Okay. I'll use this as a resource for how I should react to iffy editing from now on. Although I'm sincerely worried. Since we're talking about a combination of four distinct problems and NOTVAND doesn't address two, I can tell you that it won't be easy for me to let users ignore repeated efforts to discuss or lie in edit summaries. I hope my reactions to editors displaying behaviors like this doesn't end up getting me blocked but I have no issue with anybody monitoring me. (Well, except Drmargi. I kind of wish she'd leave me alone.) RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You're under no obligation to respond to other people's behaviour, good or bad, or refute lies. Check this out: User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian ValuesDiannaa (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
RunnyAmiga, NOTVAND provides you with a list of points to help you decide if an edit is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia. "A deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia" is the key. You are not a pre-programmed robot. You are capable of reason and making logical deductions. We get thousands of edits with no or incorrect edit summaries per day. Some are good, some are not so good, and some are outright vandalism. If you want to judge these edits you're going to have to engage the reasoning skills you possess and look at the edit. In this case, it should have taken you about five seconds to see the replacement word matched the word in the source link. --NeilN talk to me 20:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Is no one going to address the original problem being brought here or are we just going to get stuck on what is and isn't vandalism? RunnyAmga came here because they felt hounded by Drmargi. I'm not seeing that subject being broached. -- WV 19:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There's not much to the accusation, I think. And even if Drmargi looked at RunnyAmiga's edits in the future, I believe it would be justified to make sure RunnyAmiga isn't incorrectly calling valid edits vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 19:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand RunnyAmga's concerns - especially when it comes to Drmargi suddenly showing up out of the blue to revert or voice opposition for apparently no good reason. It's happened to me with the same editor and soon after disagreeing with them or calling them out on a behavior that was non-productive. I see a similarity and that's what brought me here to comment. -- WV 20:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN, Winkelvi, and Drmargi: It's not an issue that she appears out of nowhere. I do that all the time via, you guessed it, the recent changes page. (Also the pending changes page.) A bunch of people appeared out of nowhere in this very thread. The issue I had was that she appears out of nowhere specifically to confront me and undo my edits, doesn't walk back attacks she made (in, you guessed it, edit summaries) when I conclusively prove her wrong like at Lisa Murkowski, and categorically refuses to respond to anything I say, whether it's by reverting my attempts to discuss issues at her talk page or by just ignoring my entreaties to discuss things elsewhere. It's strange: her first reply in this thread, under my edit that started it, isn't a reply to me. It's a reply to the admins who hadn't even said anything yet.
I said on my talk that I encourage attempts to rein me in if anybody with more knowledge or experience than me thinks I'm getting out of line, but NeilN could have concluded my "accusation" didn't have much substance only by not reviewing the various times she's showed up out of the blue to confront. The Murkowski thing should have been the dealbreaker and I'm still owed an apology for how badly she behaved there. Instead, when I cooled off, re-worked the sentence with the third editor, and finalized the prose that solved every issue that all three of us had raised, she vanished. So yeah: if you have more knowledge than me about things, correct me when I'm wrong. That includes almost everybody in this thread but based on behavior and errors, it obviously excludes one person. And before anybody starts talking about years at Murkowski's page or whether I'm allowed to remove borderline-vandal reports at AIV, please know that this is regarding behavior, not content. It's interesting that she can repeatedly ignore at least a half dozen attempts to discuss and collaborate and fix things but when I mention that she does that, it's an "accusation" and "[t]here's not much to" it. RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You know, Winklevi, you have a habit of turning up any time something like this happens or when there's a contentious discussion that I'm party to, to grind some imaginary ax. Meanwhile, I prefer to avoid you like the plague. So, who's hounding whom? I'm done with this nonsense. --Drmargi (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's a problem: This is a rollbacker that apparently doesn't understand what rollback is for. RunnyAmiga was granted rollback less than a week ago and has used it multiple times in ways other than to revert clear vandalism. His contributions are littered with it. I believed I was clear on what vandalism is in that discussion on my talk page, but I guess I wasn't since Neil had to explain it again. I'd like to know why I shouldn't remove the rollback privilege right .now. Katietalk 21:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support revocation of Rollback due to repeated instances in which the user has demonstrated that they do not understand what the privilege is for. Good call, KrakatoaKatie. As far as I can see there is no real "hounding" issue here at all, so once the right is revoked per WP:BOOMERANG this thread can be closed. Zerotalk 09:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support giving people an opportunity to rectify errors. I also support young, ambitious editors like Patient Zero not jumping on noticeboard bandwagons as they pass by in order to lead a song of "punity". -- WV 16:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
My age does not in any way affect my judgement, Winkelvi. Besides, this is a preventative measure as it prevents further misuse of a tool. Zerotalk 16:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
As far as your age: If you say so. As far as your concept of Wiki-prevention: So can talking to someone and asking them to be more careful. As far as you missing the point, here's my final comment on it in this thread: I find your recent zeal to immediately take the extreme route with certain editors disturbing, to say the least. -- WV 16:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
And yet we both reached the same conclusion re Hawkeye75 Winkelvi. When Widr granted RunnyAmiga the privilege he clearly outlined the policy page on what it is not to be used for; that to me is enough with regards to an explanation of the tool. There is also enough evidence for me to decide that this user cannot be trusted. And no, I am not disturbed, although thank you for your concern. Zerotalk 16:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
"I am not disturbed, although thank you for your concern." I hope you will re-read what I wrote (a little slower this time and without defensive glasses on) and realize that isn't what I said at all. -- WV 16:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I've re-read your comment, and I do acknowledge I have mis-read it - if you are disturbed by my recent actions feel free to discuss them with me either on my talk page, or my email if you so wish. Admins, hat this exhange if needed. (Also, note I was mature enough to not make a joke about taking my actual glasses off in order to read that.) Zerotalk 17:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
"feel free to discuss them with me either on my talk page, or my email" I have discussed it with you at your talk page. More than once over the last couple of months. Apparently, to no avail. And no, I will not take this to email. I think at this point, transparency is needed. -- WV 17:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, Winkelvi, all I'm going to say is, I had it in my head you were willing to take the "agree to disagree" route. We discussed that on my talk page too. Zerotalk 17:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
On that issue, yes. But, as I stated above, I'm disturbed that you are continuing to take such a harsh approach with so many editors of late. Not just at noticeboards but at their talkpages, as well. That approach, in my opinion, does look like you go first for punitive over preventative. -- WV 17:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Might I ask how revocation of Rollback would be punitive given the circumstances? Also are you referring to the Michael Hardy case? Read into that a bit more if you wish to comment on that, please. That was an admin who failed WP:ADMINCOND and resorted to personal attacks on the ArbCom case. My comments there were in order. Zerotalk 17:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
"Might I ask how revocation of Rollback would be punitive given the circumstances?" Allow me to request you recall previous discussions you've read and have been a part of in the past where a black mark on someone's Wikipedia editing career was talked about and how it affects an editor and how other editors treat them going forward. Actions in Wikipedia are rarely just in the here-and-now, rather, said actions have long-lasting consequences. -- WV 17:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If I may, perhaps this discussion is one where you are both part right and also part wrong. Winklevi, you are absolutely right that punitive punishments will get us nowhere, that said, losing a minor privilege is not so much punitive here as preventative. If an editor misuses a tool that they were entrusted with, even after it is explained to them, then that begins to fall under the purview of WP:CIR. That said, Zero, other options do exist to just removing the rights, perhaps you could take a look at KTruckerGirl's comments, they suggest an equally effective remedy that cannot be considered punitive at all. Why remove the rollbacker rights when we can have the editor agree to suspend the use of the rollbacker rights until they go through CVUA? and if issues persist afterwards, well, at that point we are firmly grounded in WP:CIR and should remove the rights, should act is often much better than can act, not always, but, often. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support I thought we were done with that edit from a month ago; I issued a friendly clarification to the originating editor, asked the other editor why, didn't get a response and moved on, but RA is still harassing Drmargi about this? Meanwhile, the edit made to Shaunae Miller is clearly just two people trying to work out the wording and not even anywhere near the neighborhood of vandalism. I have people following my edits (based on topic areas and the like) and sometimes they run into conflicts with me but I'm not going to fly off because of that; RunnyAmiga needs to learn to work with others here and learn to realize that they must do so. Going through some of their edits there's no indication they know how to use rollback, and going by the responses on their user talk page they really need to build up their composure; responding to anyone like this, even someone likely trolling until the block applied is completely uncalled for. Nate (chatter) 11:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support: I agree with those comments above, but I don't think that the admins can rekove RunnyAmiga's rollback rights, I think that he needs attending at WP:CVUA to understand what vandalism is, and when to use rollback. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 17:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: (edit conflict) I know that NeilN, but just in my own opinion. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 18:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Allow the editor to process what vandalism is and isn't, issue a warning regarding rollback misuse and go forward from there. If they didn't get the message after acknowledging the warning and this discussion, then rollback should be removed - but not before. -- WV 18:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support There is nothing punitive about removing Rollback in this instance; it is a privilege, not a right. This editor has been registered since May, has yet to contribute original content, and is a self-appointed hall monitor and fixer. He is sarcastic and demeaning with other editors as is readily apparent when scanning his edit summaries. He's proven he does not have the appropriate understanding of EnWP policy, given the repeated issues with abuse of vandalism. He has also demonstrated a tendency toward drama, a failure to WP:AGF (he's literally declared me his mortal enemy for a very mundane revert and post on his talk page!) and a battleground approach to editing. Mentoring is all well and good when an editor is receptive, but we've seen rollback rights removed for far, far less. Until he demonstrates the temperament needed to work in an open, collaborative environment, his user rights should be very limited and highly scrutinized, particularly given his declaration that he wants to collect the icons on his user page. Troubling... --Drmargi (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Drmargi: We all know that rollback as a privilege here, but first time misuse of rollback should been a warning and a reminider of WP:NOTVAND. Second offense, that's all rollback rights revoked. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 22:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal of rollback. The user has abandoned this thread and hasn't given the slightest indication that they understand what vandalism is or what they did wrong with rollback. I don't know who granted the rollback rights, but granting it to someone with such a low edit count was a mistake in the first place, in my opinion. Rollback is for experienced trusted users who know what they are doing. Remove the right and let the user learn about Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. Let them humbly learn from experienced editors instead of thinking they know everything. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thejoebloggsblog edit warring

The OP (and hopefully other editors as well) appears to have taken on board the aim to converse collegially on article-talk pages, utilize WP:DR if/when necessary, and when it occurs report edit-warring at WP:ANEW rather than ANI. I'm therefore closing this as resolved.
(non-admin closure)
Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

There has been a long term problem with the user:Thejoebloggsblog with their editing behaviour in relation to Australian rules football and the Port Adelaide Football Club, the behaviour mainly consists of edit warring and they will revert to their preference and very rarely discuss the issue with other editors. The issue mainly stems from them trying to redefine the VFL/AFL league without any factual basis and other editors have tried to inform him about this, but it's always ignored. Because WP:AFL does not have a lot of active participants, his behaviour goes largely unnoticed or nothing is done about it, I can't speak for other editors, but I know I am growing very tired of trying to improve pages and getting reverted by Thejoebloggsblog and then either getting no response from trying to discuss it or a response where the discussion will not go anywhere and is partly antagonistic.

Behaviour at Australian Football League
23–26 August 2015

6 September 2015–trying to redefine VFL/AFL by separating premierships

23 September 2015–same as above

1 October 2015–same as above (note VFL changed name to AFL in 1990)

28 April–5 May 2016

  • Long string of edits separating VFL/AFL premierships starting from [68] reverted by Jevansen [69]
  • Another long string of edits, this time removing premierships again, reverted by Jevansen [70]
  • 2 edits separating VFL/AFL premierships [71], [72], both reverted by @The-Pope: [73]
  • Long string of edits separating VFL/AFL premierships, reverted by The-Pope [74]
  • The-Pope leaves message at Thejoebloggsblog's talk page (User talk:Thejoebloggsblog#VFL is not separate to AFL)
  • Thejoebloggsblog ignores and does another long string of edits separating VFL/AFL premierships, reverted by Jenks24 [75]
  • Revert by Thejoebloggsblog with unusual edit summary [76]
  • Revert by Jenks24 with link to WP:BRD [77]
  • Jenks begins discussion on talk page at (Talk:Australian Football League#Club Table)
  • Thejoebloggsblog does another long string of edits without proper discussion at talk page, reverted by Jenks24 [78]

There hasn't been any similar edits since this by Thejoebloggsblog, but I am referring to this behaviour as I have had some issues on List of Port Adelaide Football Club players recently where if the issue isn't resolved now, then there will most likely be a repeat of the long-term edit war at Australian Football League. List of Port Adelaide Football Club players was very long and large before I split the page [79], I saw a reasonable split as Port Adelaide competed in the SANFL until 1996 and the split page is at List of Port Adelaide Football Club players (before 1997) representing all those players, Port Adelaide then changed leagues and joined the Australian Football League in 1997 and List of Port Adelaide Football Club players is representative of that, all appropriate steps were taken in this split and there was a hatnote leading to the split page, there was no irrational removal of content. I did a more in depth explanation at Thejoebloggsblog's talk page (User talk:Thejoebloggsblog#List of Port Adelaide Football Club players) I understand it was very short and brash, but I have tried to be nice before and my explanations/requests go largely ignored, and I'm growing tired of it.

Thejoebloggsblog's has been reverting the edits without explanation [80], [81], [82], Jevansen agreed the split was reasonable [83], and Thejoebloggsblog reverted today [84]. Although it was not strictly within 24 hours, that is 4 reverts, and I have a strong suspicion that Thejoebloggsblog will wait a couple of days before reverting so he is not in direct violation of WP:3RR, however it's still edit warring without explanation.

Thejoebloggsblog is a supporter of Port Adelaide and I feel there are issues with WP:Ownership on his behalf where a part of my explanation was "please take into consideration that I am trying to improve the article and have it appropriately represented, and understand that you can't just have it the way you want it" and his response was "I want Port Adelaide players listed. Is that too much to ask?" I don't know if understands the process of a split, but there wasn't removal of Port Adelaide players as he alludes to, they are all at the split page.

I don't know what the solution is as I do acknowledge Thejoebloggsblog does do some good work on Wikipedia, but this behaviour has to stop, multiple people have tried to warn him about trying to redefine the leagues and editing/reverting without explanation but to little avail. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"The issue mainly stems from them trying to redefine the VFL/AFL league without any factual basis and other editors have tried to inform him about this, but it's always ignored." - Flickerd
'"please take into consideration that I am trying to improve the article and have it appropriately represented, and understand that you can't just have it the way you want it" - Flickerd
"I want Port Adelaide players listed. Is that too much to ask?" - My response (List of Port Adelaide Football Club players).
The Port Adelaide Football Club is an exception in the AFL as it did not originate in the VFL but carries 146 years of history. All other clubs that predate the AFL have all their senior players listed but because Port Adelaide played in the SANFL and not the VFL for some reason we are prevented from having our senior players listed on our own club page.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Further example of trying to redefine the league, VFL/AFL is the same league, all that happened was it was renamed, SANFL/AFL is not the same as VFL/AFL, so there isn't an exemption as was the case with the categories (User talk:Thejoebloggsblog#Port Adelaide players). The 12 clubs that competeted in the VFL prior to the rename did not have to change leagues, whereas Port Adelaide did. Flickerd (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
"All other clubs that predate the AFL have all their senior players listed". No they don't. The since-1990 AFL is exactly the same league as the pre-1990 VFL. There is no distinction in official AFL records. The List of Richmond Football Club players and List of Western Bulldogs players don't have their players who played for those clubs in the VFA before 1908 or 1924 respectively listed. They only have their VFL/AFL players listed. Overseas, major clubs often split their lists by appearances, such as List of Liverpool F.C. players and List of Liverpool F.C. players (1–24 appearances), which I personally don't like. Splitting by league/era is entirely acceptable and preferable in this case. The-Pope (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring aside, this looks a great deal like a content dispute that really needs some dispute resolution. Has this been tried? Also, all participants should be warned that continued edit warring is obviously unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that these appear to be content disputes and therefore belong on article talk pages and WP:DR rather than here at ANI. Not only that, I don't see even one single edit-warring warning on Thejoebloggsblog's talk page, nor has he ever been reported at WP:ANEW. In terms of mediating or commenting on this dispute(s), I'd like to invite Casliber in for comment, since I see he actually engaged civilly with Thejoebloggsblog on his talk page, rather than snarking at him and then running to ANI as the OP seems to have done. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, I have tried in the past to engage in conversation calmly on his talk page and other article talk pages and haven't had responses on multiple occasions, so I didn't just run to ANI, I was trying to find a solution as I didn't know what else to do and people have recommended going to dispute resolution, so that seems like the next step and will do so. Flickerd (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, content discussion belongs on article talk pages instead of user talk pages. If the other party does not engage, follow the steps in WP:DISCUSSFAIL. If the other party is edit warring, open a discussion on article talk, and if they edit war instead of discuss, then give them a user-talk warning (see WP:WARN and do Control+F edit war to find them), and if they persist in reverting after that, then report them at WP:ANEW, even if it's a slo-mo edit war. If there is discussion but there is no consensus or there is a deadlock, then utilize some form of WP:DR (and/or neutrally invite input from relevant WikiProjects). -- Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC); edited 19:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this response, I will try that process now, I understand that I was getting a bit impatient and was lumping all the problems into one rather than trying to discuss this in isolation. I am still learning about the processes at Wikipedia and was trying to find the appropriate process and solution to take and you have provided that, I was getting frustrated and needed clarity. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with preceding - many of the diffs are old. We need to discuss on article talk pages, be patient and alert at relevant noticeboards. There are alot of Aussie editors who will be familiar with the subject area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Chicbyaccident - continued non-collaboration

Welcome to ANI #6 for the same user. It appears that just as soon as the last ANI went without action and was archived, the user came back and made a series of edits] to a major article which were reverted wholesale because the changes needed to be discussed. As can be seen from the edit summary, the reverter requested discussion, and as usual, nothing happened. We literally just had a discussion about this here, and despite all the "I'm sorry for the inconvenience" garbage, nothing in the editor's behavior has changed. I don't know what the underlying problem is with the editor, but it's gone on long enough. The constant need for other editors to almost universally revert this user's edits means the editing behavior is basically indistinguishable from vandalism at this point. The editor has been warned, the editor has continued, and the editor needs to be indeffed. MSJapan (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a bold edit to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes - bold. Excuse me, I introduced that infobox to begin with. I have accounted for much its further growth until its current state. There is now a consensus for it. If you ask, most users would probably say that the article is better with it than it was without it. This is all quite illustrative and coherent with the pattern of your communication with at least me (others I don't know, since your interest in my edits aren't precisely passionately mutually reflected): Frankly, you don't give a damn about any positive contributions (i. e. the infobox et al), but pay unproportatione attention to minor details which you deem unconstructuve (i. e. proposed couple of edits on minor variables in said infobox). If it's tiring? Yes, sometimes. Chicbyaccident (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@MSJapan: Rereading your comments I have to say this ANI is utter nonsense and should be closed accordingly. If not closed it should remain open only to consider a boomerang against you. This is a bold edit that is being reverted. I do not see the fact that they did not discuss these changes before hand as a justification for this revert. I don't see the fact that they were reverted as a justification for banning them as everyone on wikipedia gets reverted. And your contention that there's an issue since they have not went to discuss on the talk page that revert is just pure bullshit. Maybe they are considering how to propose those minor changes. May they have opted not to pursue those changes. So what if they haven't. They don't have to.What they did not do is get into an edit war after that revert. There's no actual problem.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


TeeTylerToe is tenacious incompetent POV pusher who refuses to listen to anyone. Even after being block for two weeks. He also tries to trick other editors into edit wars. Which lead to him being blocked for two weeks for his edits on the Assault rifle & Talk:Assault rifle pages. During said period he repeatedly accused other editors of socking.

On July 2 2016. TTT began to add unreferenced edits for which he claimed that he had consensus to make on the Assault rifle page. However, his edits bared no similarity to the talk page discussion. And, were revert by myself and later other editors. TTT did not listen.

TTT the started a disscussion on Talk:Assault rifle, the Assault rifle article is full of "False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias" Where he repeatedly claimed that "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first assault rifle. Not, the Sturmgewehr 44 that the article credits. His ideas were rejected by his fellow editors, as the article is full of reliable sources confirming that the Sturmgewehr 44 was the first assault rifle. TTT did not listen.

On July 4 2016, TTT added a requested comments from other editors for this discussion on the History and geography project [85] the only editor to respond User:Skyring who created an WP:RFC Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such? Skyring then completely rebuffed TTTs position. TTT did not listen.

TTT then began to forum shop for the first time at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities [86] Which resulted in only one referenced being added to the article. And, that reference completely refuted his position. [87] TTT did not listen.

Then he forum shopped for the second time at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [88] TTT was again rebuffed. [89] TTT did not listen.

He then began to edit the article again to match his POV. However, none of his edits to the article included the info discussed on the talk page (that the "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first assault rifle) and were unreferenced, TTT also removed references that were added to the article as a result of his forum shopping at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. [90] As a result these edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. TTT did not listen.

TTT then forum shopped for the third time when he created a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assault rifle page. This request was denied within 30 minutes. TTT did not listen.

TTT then started to add random tags to the assault rifle article. Which were again reverted. And, he forum shopped for the forth time at the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [91] Where User:Scoobydunk told him..."Whatever you do, don't edit war to get the tag put in." And, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris told him..."Most of the time it means that you should accept that you are wrong, and should retire with grace. See WP:1AM (which has nothing to do with late-night hours)." Again TTT did not listen.

TTT continued to add random tags to the article which were reverted by myself and other editors. User:Skyring then filed an complaint at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Which resulted in TTT being blocked for two weeks. [92] Once again TTT did not listen.

In fact during discussions on User talk:TeeTylerToe regarding the block not only did TTT continue his tenacious editing he again refuse to listen, resulting in a lost of his talk page access. He also, admitted that he was trying to trick his fellow editors into and edit war. To quote the discussion..."@Boing! said Zebedee: Not only was TeeTylerToe edit warring...If you read in between the lines of his own statements, he was trying to trick is fellow Users into an edit war. And, then claim that, "I wasn't edit warring, I was just adding tags to the article. Its those meat puppets that are edit warring by removing the tags." This behavior is intolerable on Wiki and I recommend a permanent block.--RAF910 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)...Thanks for explaining that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)" [93] Again TTT did not listen.

TTT then manage to get User:Huon to lift the block. However, Huon maintained a two week topic ban on the assault rifle page. [94] TTT continued his tenacious editing and spent that two weeks accusing his fellow editors of wrongdoing, socking, meat puppetry, etc. Until Huon had enough and told him ..."I see no point in continuing this discussion. If you do not want to take my advice and drop the stick, bring it up at WP:AN and see what the wider community thinks of this issue. If I see another post like the above on my talk page without evidence in the forms of diffs backing it up, I'll re-block you for personal attacks. Huon (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)" This time TTT listened, for a very short time.

After his two week topic ban was lifted. TTT return to tenacious editing this time on the StG 44 page where he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle and again made unreferenced edits to that article. Those edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. On that article talk page discussion once again he accused and tried to trick a fellow editor into an edit war. Another editor told him..."Very well colleague, I will cut to the chase. You have just come off a two week block for tendentious editing on this very subject. Now you are straight back. The issue here is not how this bloody chunk of metal was used, but your behaviour pattern. Drop it. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)" [95] This time he listened perhaps realizing that he could not win this fight, so soon off a two week block.

TTT then move on to the Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16 where he again tried add unreferenced info claiming that the StG 44 was not the first assault rifle, which I again reverted. [96] Then he did it again [97] Also see talk page [98] Then he tried something different. He took an existing reference in the article and cherry picked a quote out of that reference. He then altered the quote to fit his needs. He also took another reference and took a quote from that article that repeated info that was already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. I was then forced to revert his edit add the full quote to the article once again refuting his position. [99]

TTT has now moved onto the Colt AR-15 where he insists that the Colt AR-15 has select fire versions. Which any knowledgeable person knows is not true. Where he claims that the Colt AR-15 is "A minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem." Even tough it was the first and only AR-type rifle for decades. And, by his own admission he was completely unaware that the Colt AR-15, Sporter, and SP-1 are the same semi-automatic rifle. [100] Also, he is again forum shopping this time on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team trying to get a consensus delete the article altogether or combine it with the M16 rifle page instead of the articles talk page where he knows he will lose. title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&action=history He clearly believes that the ArmaLite AR-15, the Colt AR-15 and the M16 rifle are the same and again refuses to listen.

TTT has repeatedly shown a lack of basic firearms knowledge on almost every firearm page that he edits. Yet he refuses to listen to his fellow editor and continues to edit said pages. This forces knowledgeable editor to waste their time and efforts to correct his mistakes. Mistakes which he refuses to acknowledge and continues on the next article.

TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits. He has generally annoys and vexes every editor that he has makes contact with. He likes writing walls text where he asks multiple repetitive questions for which the answers are obvious.[101] And, which make it difficult for other editors to understand what he is talking about.[102] He comments on talk pages frequently go off topic. He demands that others answer his questions which he has no intention of listening to, causing others to waste their time and effort.[103] He make no effort to gain real consensus, he simply bulldozers the conversation until other editors give up.[104] He accuses other of wrongdoing when they disagree with him.[105] He refuses to accept any reference but his own.[106] Yet, he rarely includes references with his own edits. He dares and tricks others into edit warring.[107] He is not here to help, he is here to push his POV at all costs.

The following is a list of editors that have had to deal with TTT recently hopefully they will chime in....@Boing! said Zebedee: @Ohnoitsjamie: @Thomas.W: @Kudpung: @KrakatoaKatie: @Skyring: @Scoobydunk: @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: @TransporterMan: @OuroborosCobra: @Erpert: @BilCat: @Mike Searson: @Starke Hathaway: @Irondome: @Herr Gruber: @Huon: --RAF910 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Can you say in one paragraph, with five key diffs, what TTT has done, and what you think should be done about it? EEng 05:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you cite a case where one paragraph and five key diffs resulted in action? I don't recall seeing one, but I miss a lot on this page. ―Mandruss  05:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Are there anymore people that you think don't like TTT that you would like to invite to the conversation?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:COMPETENCE--Savonneux (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If the complainant's prose is as poor in articles as it is here, he ought not be editing either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed.--Savonneux (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If someone wants the cliff notes from an unbiased third party maybe ask huon for a quick summary, also, skyring, a member of that dispute was blocked subsequently for socking, although that does appear to have been unrelated. And on a side note, Is calling me "incompetent" a personal attack? I note raf910's comment "I believe TeeTylerToe is a troll." What about that?
The Assault Rifle article is, imo, a cesspit of pop history apocrypha, and the first Colt AR-15s sold were fully automatic and they were sold to the federation of Malay. I don't care if a strawberry danish was the first assault rifle, but I have 14 sources including an NRA journal (they're all just fart jokes /s) a published book, and popular mechanics that say that the 1917 winchester/burton was the first assault rifle. So... there's that. "he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle" I don't think I did that, but I have been trying to point out that the StG 44's primary mode of operation was semi-automatic. In effect, it was a semi-automatic rifle. German doctrine was to use the stg firing bursts only in emergencies. I of course have sources.
The AR-15 article was moved to "colt ar-15", and radically changed. What had been sort of a overview article for one of the most popular rifles in history was changed by raf910. Now it doesn't focus on any non-colt ar-15. It doesn't focus on any military colt AR-15. It doesn't focus on any law enforcement colt AR-15. It just focuses on the one ar-15 manufacturer's civilian sales who was AFAIK the only ar-15 manufacturer whose sales were so poor they drove the company to bankruptcy. So, as you can see in the talk page, I noted that with RAF910's changes, project assessments should be redone. the 1.0 editorial board should choose a different AR-15 article, I'd say the M-16 article as the armalite ar-15 article is a little threadbare atm. Also the firearms project should reassess, and it probably doesn't belong under military project anymore, although I suppose it could. I'm not trying to get the 1.0 editorial team to delete the article.
Roughly 5 million civilian AR-15s have been sold by pretty much anybody with a drill press. In the sea of the 5 million AR-15s sold by roughly 6 million different companies, colt's civilian product line is a drop in the bucket.
But yes. I did it in the solarium with the candlestick. And I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Paragraphs--Savonneux (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If you have a source which tells you it was first sold to the "Kingdom of Malay" you probably should throw in in the rubbish bin. There were things 100+ years ago which may sometimes be called Malay Kingdoms, but I don't think any of them are ever really called Kingdom of Malay. Malaya and Malaysia were/are constitutional monarchies, but they're not "Kingdom of Malay" any more than the United States of America is the "Republic of Americas". Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It might have been federation of Malay, as this was in 1959. Here's one reference.[1]TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


I admit that I'm not a good writer. I'm more of a just the facts guy. So, please forgive my lack of eloquence. TTTs comments above perfectly represent his editing style and what myself and other editors have been faced with.--RAF910 (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by all means, let's discount the actual complaint because we don't like the prose.
TeeTylerToe is a serial edit warrior with an extensive block log. I think he feels strongly about the articles in which he's interested but can't seem to collaborate. I don't think he's a troll necessarily; he just wants to push his changes because he's right and everyone else is wrong.
If he's causing problems again after Huon unblocked him, maybe it's time for a topic ban. Katietalk 13:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You were the one that blocked me? How exactly do you figure that I'm a "serial edit warrior"? What edit warring did I do from '13 through, say, june this year? Or before '12? I demonstrably can collaborate. It's overly simplistic and wrong to just label me as someone who thinks I'm always right and other people are always wrong.
  • I concur with KrakatoaKatie. The OP was a bit of an effort to get through, but it does outline a pattern of serious behavior including edit warring and refusal to listen to other people or back down once it's clear they are in the wrong. I'd support a topic ban from firearms, broadly construed. --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Do I have to go through all of that? I can go point by point if you like. From what I've seen, and as I tried to demonstrate it's quite divorced from reality. I mean, by the end it's gone completely off the rails. He accuses me of asking the wikipedia 1.0 editors to delete articles? "The AR-15 article was in, I think v0.8 and was reviewed for v1.0. Maybe change it to the m-16 article?" You tell me. How is that asking the 1.0 editors or whatever that group is to delete an article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 3? blocks in 800ish article space edits and back at ANI. Even if they are technically correct shows a lack of ability to interact constructively.--Savonneux (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
With short 4 year stretches with no incidents.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So is the problem narrowly focused to Assault Rifles or guns in general?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is far too big of a rap sheet and block log for someone who has only made less than 800 article-space edits. The amount of damage wreaked (including on his talk page after his many blocks), indicate to me this user lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia productively over time. I'd send him back to indef-land. At the very least a very broad permanent topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agreed with Softlavender; they've had multiple chances. (non-admin) jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:GOODFAITHTeeTylerToe (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeated COPYVIO edits over more than two years

Portlannd (talk · contribs) has not made a whole lot of substantial prose additions to the mainspace, but when he does they always seem to be copy-pasted from elsewhere. See here and here. Three articles he wrote were speedied in April 2014, January 2015 and June 2016 due to copyright concerns, and @Diannaa: was essentially ignored after telling him that Wikipedia additions need to be in the editor's own words. Additionally, some of the copy-pasted text was grammatically wrong, and if Portlannd was unable to recognize this and edit the text appropriately I wonder whether he is even capable of composing original prose in English or even understanding the repeated requests made on his talk page to stop copy-pasting other people's text. Almost all of his (very limited) non-mainspace edits have been in either Bosnian (I think?) or very poor (as in, possibly machine-translated) English.

I'm not sure how to deal with this. Those of his talk page edits that I have read make him look like a nationalist POV-pusher, but assuming this is just a misunderstanding then his minor formatting/infobox edits to the mainspace might be constructive. Maybe a TBAN on "mainspace edits consisting of full sentences as opposed to isolated words, to be repealed once he has indicated that he understands Wikipedia's copyright policies"? If the community decides that my assumption is wrong, then an indefinite block might be called for.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Changed my mind per other evidence below. Portlannd obviously knew what he was doing, and should be blocked until he demonstrates a willingness to refrain from plagiarism. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, Hijiri 88, don't you think your revert at Vukovar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a bad case of WP:PANIC? How far back did you revert? Just looking at that diff, it must be some 100-odd revisions, and you didn't even hint which part of the text was a copyvio, and in which revision it was introduced. And I can't find which Portlannd's revision could have introduced it, as the article history shows his typical pattern of image replacing, without edit summaries. Since the alleged source, [108], contains mostly pre-20th history of the city, the copyvio must have been restricted to its History section.
I happen to be acquainted with Portlannd's work, and he has only ever worked with photos on all articles I have on my watchlist. I find his photo work a tad overzealous and more galleristic than encyclopedic, but mostly harmless. No such user (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, found it. It was this long batch of edits from September 2015, introducing a lot of material nicked from Striking the above. We seem to have a problem... No such user (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@No such user: Sorry. Edit conflict. I know this no longer really applies specifically to you, as you have stricken the above, but I put a fair bit of work into gathering the exact pieces of text that were copy-pasted, and it's a good illustration, so I'm posting it anyway. You can ignore the first line below.
Can you point to a significant piece of prose that I reverted out that was not copy-pasted from the website I linked?
Text samples that were clearly COPYVIOS

The text

The Avars were present in wider surroundings of Vukovar for more than two centuries establishing the so-called Avar Khaganate in Baranja with Zmajevac, Osijek and Bijelo Brdo. The downfall of Khaganate, after 220 years of Avars' domination, happened when the Carolinian Empire's eastern border was set on the Danube River during the reign of Ludwig of Germany. The Germans and the Slavs probably colonized the Lower Pannonia after 846 when the prince Pribina, a Franconian vassal, got in possession of some hundred-serf villages beside the river Vuka.

was taken directly from the external site, which is dated 1999/2005.

The 150 years of Ottoman rule caused many changes in the Vukovar region. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent led his army armies attacking the former Hungarian-Croatian State, following the Danube and passing on his way Ilok, Vukovar and Osijek, to win the Battle of Mohács in 1525. Vukovar lost its strategic importance but remained as an important trade and craft center on a major traffic route. Vukovar had several town wards, a number of mosques and Turkish baths. At the end of the 17th century, the town's population numbered about 3,000 inhabitants. The indigenous Catholic Croatian and Hungarian population suffered greatly under Turkish rule.Vukovar was liberated in 1687.

is also clearly derived from (to the point of plagiarism, even if it is not strictly speaking a straight copy-paste job)

The 150 years of Ottoman rule caused many changes in the Vukovar region. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent lead Turkish armies attacking the former Hungarian-Croatian State following the Danube passing on his way Ilok, Vukovar and Osijek winning a great victory on the Field of Mohacs in 1525. Thus Vukovar lost its strategic importance but remained as an important trade and craft center on a major traffic route. Vukovar had several town wards, a number of mosques, Turkish baths, inns and schools for about 3,000 of its inhabitants before Turks withdraw. At the same time Ilok became an important Turkish administrative and military center that was predominantly inhabited by Moslems. The indigenous Catholic Croatian and Hungarian population suffered greatly under Turkish rule; the Franciscans had tried hard to keep the Catholics together. The Orthodox Vlachs came to this region in the wake of Turks as their auxiliary troops but remained here after Vukovar was liberated in 1687

I didn't notice it until I looked just now, but

Between 1941 and 1944, Vukovar was part of the Independent State of Croatia. During the Second World War and with the formation of Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in April 1941 Vukovar became the center of the large Vuka County. Jakob Ellicker, a lawyer, became the County's Zupan and Tomislav Bulat was appointed Bata factory manager trying hard to keep factory's production of shoes and other rubber products at a satisfactory level.

was taken directly from this 2008 webpage:

Between 1941 and 1944, Vukovar was part of the Independent State of Croatia,

combined with the same source as above

The population subsistence worsened during the Second World War and with the formation of Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in April 1941 Vukovar became the center of the large Vuka County. Jakob Ellicker, a lawyer, became the County's Zupan and Tomislav Bulat was appointed Bata factory manager trying hard to keep factory's production of shoes and other rubber products at a satisfactory level.

The text

Croats took over the City of Vukovar administration and in the towns Ilok and Sid but the conflicts continued between Croats and Serbs in Vukovar impairing peaceful life between them. In 1940 Gjuro Szentgyoergy, a Hungarian, was appointed as the mayor of Vukovar and with the help of well organized German minority he managed to increase the town's significance and merits. The port was revitalized for export of wheat, cattle, hemp and wood mainly to Germany.

is clearly copied from

Then the Croats took over the City of Vukovar administration and in the towns Ilok and Sid but the conflicts continued between Croats and Serbs in Vukovar impairing peaceful life between them. In 1940 Gjuro Szentgyoergy, a Hungarian, was appointed as the mayor of Vukovar and with the help of well organized German minority he managed to increase the town's significance and merits. The port was revitalized for export of wheat, cattle, hemp and wood mainly to Germany.

in the source. The following paragraph

The Ustasha authorities decided to expropriate all lands given to Serbian volunteers and settlers expelling all that came to the Vukovar region after 1918. Part of the Serb population rebelled against these stringent measures and several Serbs were executed after the murder of Otto Hoyer, who was a Ustasha commissioner, in Bobota on 25 June 1941. The Syrmian Front was opened in October 1944.

is clearly plagiarized from

The Ustasha authorities decided to expropriate all lands given to Serbian volunteers and settlers expelling all that came to the Vukovar region after 1918. Part of the Serb population rebelled against these stringent measures and several Serbs were executed after the murder of Otto Hoyer, who was a Ustasha commissioner, in Bobota on 25 June 1941. New officer's appointments did not improve the situation at all and the national and ethnic relations deteriorated in a surge of terrorism and indiscriminate killings. Armed guards controlled all people's movements around and in Vukovar and Borovo in order to keep the factory production going on.
The Srijem front-line opened in October 1944

I noticed the problem because I saw a whole bunch of rev-delled edits on the Serbia article, made by a user who had apparently been here too long to be continuing to make good-faith mistakes regarding copyright, and when I checked the user's other edits I noticed the only other recent substantial addition of text was apparently also copy-pasted.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Can I add, that, apparently as of 8 days ago (Kolovoz = August), Portlannd has been blocked from the hr. Wiki for a period of three months for "ignoriranje uputa: recidiv" or basically ignoring instructions and they have also been blocked from commons for a year for uploading copyrighted images despite warnings. It seems pertinent that this user has, even on the wiki for their own language, managed to receive a long (is 3 months a long block?) block for failure to listen and accept guidance. I'll check for block logs No blocks have ever been recorded against the editor on .sr, .sh and .bs wiki's. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed that he actually did fix some of the grammatical errors in the text he stole ("led his army armies" includes an accidental repetition, but is clearly superior to wrong-tense "lead Turkish armies"; the passive transitive "The Syrmian Front was opened" was a carefully constructed alteration of, although not necessarily superior to "The Srijem front-line opened"; he also fixed the most substantial grammatical error in "The population subsistence worsened during the Second World War and with the formation of Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in April 1941 Vukovar became the center of the large Vuka County." by removing the first four words). This inclines me to think that this user probably has good enough English to understand the repeated COPYVIO warnings, and is well aware of what he is doing. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I quickly scanned all of his contributions, checking only those with substantial text added. This is more or less the complete list of copyvios, which is reasonably short, thank God:
Unambiguous copyvios, only 3 articles

Vojvodina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zobnatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vukovar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I probably missed a few diffs, but not by much. The rest is mostly table, infobox and image work (and he received a fair amount of criticism on the number of images he adds to the articles). He is probably not beyond redemption, but some stern warnings would be in place, at minimum. No such user (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As copyright violation is such a serious matter, I have indefinitely blocked Portlannd until we can get a reasonable explanation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Please someone tell me if I have correctly translated "ignoriranje uputa: recidiv" as "recidivist instruction-ignoring". EEng 12:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Briefly checking his contributions on Serbian wiki: [119] nicked from [120], (16 February 2016). No such user (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Argument from authority

(non-admin closure) Considering, A) the crux of the presently raised tensions on the talk page in question is a dispute between users Chris Dubey and MjolnirPants, taken together with B) the fact that MjolnirPants has explicitly stated a considered decision to move on from working on that page in order to avoid the acrimony, I think we can close this discussion.

It is worth noting, however, that this is not the first time that ANI has been presented with a clash of perspectives concerning this article, this precise content dispute, and some of the same involved editors, so I would echo sentiments expressed bellow; for those who do remain on the page (or return to it in the future) please make your best effort at civil discussion and consider reasonable compromise solutions where possible. Without comment as to point being debated (or the arguments promoted by either side), I think it's worth remembering that the Wikipedian approach allows for (and sometimes require) that we represent a plurality of perspectives, where each is supported by some degree of weight in reliable sources--even where we personally question one or more of those perspectives.

In the meantime, I also echo the sentiment that some extra eyes on the talk page would be useful. Snow let's rap 02:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I want to note that the page for Talk:Argument from authority has been getting testy. I have just called out MjolnirPants for personal attacks, a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I would appreciate some editors looking at this. Chris Dubey (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Essentially this is an ongoing content dispute over the labelling of 'appeal to authority' as a logical fallacy (it isnt). Mjolnir's post here explains and links to the issues involved. A variety of strong reliable sources all clearly state unambiguously that an appeal to authority is sometimes a fallacious argument - usually where the authority is not an authority, or the claim is disputed by other authorities. An appeal to an authority where the claim is both uncontested and the authority in question is an expert in the subject is not a logical fallacy - it is a legitimate argument. Some of the prose of the current article (outside the lede) actually supports and explains this - in particular it makes clear two things - it has historically been been considered both a legitimate and illegitimate argument (due to the above) and that currently it is usually framed as 'argument from unqualified/unreliable authority'. Really the lede needs 5 minutes work and a bit of tweaking in the article to frame that it is not always a fallacy and job done. Sadly the people intent on keeping this listed as a logicial fallacy *always* have been vocal and unmoving on the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've just read the "debate". The perceived "personal attacks" are nothing more than an exasperated editor (MjolnirPants), tired of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. They are not directed at any other editor in particular and therefore not a personal attack. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG of Doom. Kleuske (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Chris Dubey (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Dubey: Two things:
  1. John Quiggin already explained this to you on the talk page.
  2. This is not the place to discuss content disputes.
  3. The page is not on my watchlist, and I meant what I said about being done with it. I really don't care what you do to the page, and my only regret is the moment of weakness that led me to look at the talk page to begin with. So go on back there and make it say whatever you want: those of us who have actually looked at what the reliable sources have to say will always know that it's inaccurate.
MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
1. He did? I saw he tried to explain something, but it didn't conclude anything regarding my actual meaning, and my original example that he worded into his own example still is not negated by his argument.
2. I'm not discussing content disputes. I repeat: Stop putting words in my mouth, stop misinterpreting me to fit your conceptions. Your accusations which I noted are evidence related to the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks.
3. Since I haven't actually made any edits to the article, you are forecasting my behavior before it occurs. Beware of Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Chris Dubey (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I recently posted here about an issue regarding what I perceived to be personal attacks (condescending language and accusations) on the talk page for Argument from authority. Yesterday, I did some searching for new sources for the article, found one I consider to be a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards, and did my best to cite it properly for the article. My edit was undone with little justification by User:Kleuske. I responded on the talk page just now.

This article has been contentious and I am further requesting that administrators keep an eye on it for misconduct. Thank you. Chris Dubey (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Can people please employ civility, collegial discourse, assumptions of good faith and mutual intelligence, and dispute resolution? You know, good old-fashioned Wikipedia values? -- Softlavender (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I am trying. I reverted in the spirit of WP:BRD since a rather obscure term (at best) was given WP:UNDUE weight and weighed in on the TP. Kleuske (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I am discussing the article now with Kleuske. The source (and citation) that had been removed had nothing to do with the obscure term, although apparently that had been removed too in the same revert. We are now discussing a different source that I added afterward to show the usage of the term. Chris Dubey (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we close this thread? I think everyone is in agreement that more admins at that page would be a good thing (preferably admins who have some experience with philosophy and logic), and this thread is turning into an extension of the article's talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Chris Dubey needs to observe WP:BRD and not edit war over the status quo ante when his BOLD changes are contested or reverted. He needs to get consensus first. Since he's already apparently scared away one knowledgeable editor (MjolnirPants), I think it's high time he stepped back before a WP:BOOMERANG ensues here on this ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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


Problem with user Otakrem who repeatedly ruined the work of others, added the template Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources where there are the authoritative sources in the section Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people page Tigrayans, I ask the restoration of the page and the user's warning not to vandalize--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

tell me Sennaitgebremariam I have not vandalised the Tigrayan articles' "Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people" Section. I have read the sources you provide and they do not make the claim that you made, therefore the entries could be deleted. So far I have given plenty of opportunities for you to provide reliable sources that back up your claim. I think I have been fair by not outright deleting it over and over again, because I did not want to participate in an Edit war of which you were warned for doing. Lets have the discussion moderated by an Administrator, because so far 3 wiki editors have disagreed with your edit. Fitrawri and EthiopianHabesha, and myself ofcourse.Otakrem (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
All I am going to say is that it is highly disruptive to add more than a few tags to a section. Instead, you should tag the entire section for review. Now, I am going to find how I can fix the tagging easily, without reverting to this or this revision. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 20:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello TheVoidwalker, is there a way to specify or atleast link to a talkpage discussion regarding the "Discuss" or "Disputed" tags? For example, the tag is disputing the "Aksumite kings" listed under the "Notable Tigrayans" and "Notable Tigrinyas"?Otakrem (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

But you're saying you will be reported using multiple accounts with a suspicious use of Sockpuppet--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Accusing a user of sockpuppetry is a serious accusation. One that I strongly suggest you support with diffs. However, I have currently removed the overuse of maintenance tags, and replaced them with an overall {{ref-improve}} tag, however, I am starting to think it would be best to tag the sections with {{disputed}}. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Starting to question if tell me Sennaitgebremariam has the English competency to edit here. --Tarage (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Range block limitations

Filipz123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filipz123/Archive

This user is a particularly persistent sockpuppet hoaxer and vandal who, since about mid-May, has been hopping about IPs which can be narrowed down to two consecutive /20 ranges. By my math a /20 is 4,094 addresses. Our contribs tool can only pull up edits for a /24, but of the several that I've checked, almost all recent edits are this user, or else just plain vandalism. While we can easily identify their edits and revert them, they have attacked a large number of articles (probably in the 1000s by this point), and in the time it takes to notify an admin to block an individual IP, they've moved on to another address and continued their vandalism. You can see from the SPI archive that they have only rarely edited from outside this range and/or attempted to create new accounts. The user behind the edits has also threatened me personally off-wiki, and I'm probably not the only one.

My question for this board is: at what point does preventing ongoing disruption from an identifiable IP range outweigh the possibility of cutting off potential constructive contributions from that range? Are two /20 blocks too many addresses? And if not, how long are we willing to block such a range for?

As a side note, an edit filter was created to catch this user's edits, but I don't believe it has been turned on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. At the SPI archive you've given us:
  • (range contributions for roughly the last 30 days here)
  • (range contributiosns here)
That's 4096 addresses each. Personally, I have no problem with a short rangeblock if there's enough disruption. So: how much collateral damage is there? Are all the recent edits from the sockmaster? Make me a case kind of like you were doing an LTA. I see the Tesla edits, but what else does he target? Katietalk 23:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the links to the tool, I wasn't aware of it. It looks like your search is configured right but it's still catching edits from outside the ranges, and it will take me a bit of time to go through them anyway. I suppose if I'm going to analyze all these edits and list all the pages they've vandalized (it's much, much wider than just Tesla) then I might as well go ahead and create an LTA; I'll think about it, and the tool will help. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I figured it was a lot wider than that, and I know the guy has been giving everybody fits. I want to know his pattern to make sure I get a wide enough range without causing too much damage. There may be some, and if there is we'll just have to deal with it at UTRS and ACC. Let me know either here or on my talk page when you've got more info. :-) Katietalk 12:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


Just a quick note, User:Ambidibody is ("was" since I locked the account) User:Sad9721 who is User:Mediolanum and all those IPs infesting Italy-related topics, for example Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ @MorbidEntree, TechnicianGB, Bishonen, and Paine Ellsworth: --Vituzzu (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I suspected of him at 1st instance. In the description of his editions (for example in List of European countries by average wage) is writing in capital letters and very similar that was doing the banned user Sad9721, which appears to be a sock puppet of this user too. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand, Vituzzu. Locked the account? Ambidibody isn't blocked, and you're not an admin. Anyway, after checking the Mediolanum SPI and this, I've pinged the editor known as User:JamesBWatson. Bishonen | talk 08:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC). Adding: Oh, sorry! I see Ambidibody is globally locked. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC).
Yep Bishonen, in our weird jargon block is the local stuff, while lock is the global one, from a technical point of view the main difference is the second one cannot (still) trigger autoblocks. Anyway he's back as Special:Contributions/, User:Curiatii and User:Trinacriacricket. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP vandalism by SPAs: Wikipedia Sovereign

Blocked by Bishonen. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

As expected, we've recently had substantial vandalism by what appear to be both Trump and Clinton supporters at Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. The most recent one is a newly minted SPA, Wikipedia Sovereign, who has been making massive insertions of content making the affirmative claim that Trump is the supernatural reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.[121] (While the nature of this article makes it reasonable to include similar information if there is a popular theory Trump is the supernatural reincarnation of Hitler or whomever, if sourced to RS, we obviously can't present this as a statement of fact, nor can we do it sans sources.) The Wikipedia Sovereign SPA has also repeatedly inserted the following -

  • "An extraordinary interdisciplinary consensus of psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, clinical social workers, psychiatric nurses, neurologists, therapists, psychometricians, and other mental health professionals have expressed their worries that, in their professional opinion, Trump suffers from a serious, disabling mental illness-- of an order of magnitutde greater than the usual low-level mental disturbance required to enter politics" [122]
  • "Critics of the theory point to two salient differences between the two men. First, Hitler was a much better speaker and rhetorician than Trump, who speaks and writes at a level that would be considered average were he still in the 5th grade, possessing a rudimentary vocabulary of no more than 1000words, primarily adjectives like "terriffic!" And "disgraceful!", which Trump is wont to employ as full sentences. Secondly, Hitler was a military veteran before seeking office, having served in the Austrian army in WWI; by contrast Trump was a draft dodger ..." [123]

- all of which, again, are unsourced (he's tacked on a random collection of websites as raw links, though, as an apparent effort to make these appear sourced).

Notecardforfree and myself have attempted to revert these edits, however, as this is under 1RR restriction there's not much more that can be done. It's received the usual warnings from Johnuniq, myself, and others on its talk page.Wikipedia Sovereign is not the only SPA that has become active on this article, he/she is just the subject of this specific notice (WikiSovereign is actually almost certainly a sock of a specific established editor but there's a weeks-long backlog at SPI at the moment so that's a dead-end). I'll file reports on all the others that exist, or will soon come into existence, as time permits. LavaBaron (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If these are BLP violations, and they seem to be just that, then I doubt 1RR restrictions apply. And I doubt they apply to blatant vandalism either. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:3RRNO, exemptions are made for clear vandalism and/or BLP violations. Blackmane (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
While true, I don't really have any incentive to risk that this could be interpreted as something other than vandalism. The axe of justice on WP is swift and without mercy, so better safe than sorry. LavaBaron (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Because it isnt vandalism. Vandalism is the intentional defacement of an article. The editor is adding material that they think is relevant. While it is arguable that claiming Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler is a conspiracy theory or just plan crazy, when you start an article named 'Conspiracy theories of the 2016 election' dont be surprised when it attracts all sorts of cranks looking to put their own crazy crap in there. Currently at AFD if anyone feels the urge to get rid of this rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Topic banned. I've topic banned Wikipedia Sovereign indefinitely from all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Bishonen | talk 08:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC).
    • Blocked. That was overly hasty, as they were only recently alerted to the discretionary sanctions. On second thoughts, I have instead blocked them for 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC).

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


Devilfan30 blocked indef by Fuzheado (non-admin closure) Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 18:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

During a period of almost three months (June-August) user:Devilfan30 has been warned 3 times (cf. User talk page at 13:14, 20 August 2016) after disruptive editing (Wikipedia:Disruptive editing):

  • editing did not appear constructive
  • copyright violation
  • engaged in an edit war
  • added defamatory content to Wikipedia

The last incident (20 August 2016) regarding the article Barack Obama caused attention outside Wikipedia, which is likely to damage the reputation of Wikipedia: Hey Yahoo, Barack Obama Is Not the Founder of ISIS. --ThT (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI, if you are proposing a community ban, that generally belongs at AN not ANI (as they are currently indef blocked) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked by Fuzheado, just shortly before this report, so ThT may well not have known about it when they typed it up. Indef is surely good enough. I know some people like the "community ban" better in general, and sometimes there's a point to it, but in a case like this it would IMO amount to using up editors' time for little benefit. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC).

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

Talk page abuse at cosmology related talk pages (revisited)

As promised here to KrakatoaKatie:

Talk page abuse at cosmology related talk pages by IP-hopper:

- DVdm (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • All from an ISP in Greece. Can't do anything about the older, stale ones; he obviously switched IP addresses after August 7. If the new one continues, we can block the 2A02:587:4103:d00::/64, and that may be how we have to do this, blocking /64s from time to time. Good work. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrakatoaKatie (talkcontribs) 20:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Tnguyen4321's vandalism

user:Tnguyen4321 is conducting vandalism (or at least disruptive editing) on the talk page of Battle of Ia Drang by reverting a well-ended RfC here.[124] Besides, he's also conducting intentional edit warring on the article.[125]. Dino nam (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You really must notify an editor when you report them. I have done it for you [126]. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not really a closure - but a comment. SQLQuery me! 02:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Happysquirrel: @SQL: Fixed. I hope no one minds. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. This is not vandalism. It is questionably disruptive talk page editing. WP:VANDALISM has a very specific meaning, and hardly ever occurs on talk pages.
  2. The RFC question was in violation of WP:RFC (it was the OP's opinion, not a neutrally worded question). The same OP had previously done the same thing one month earlier.[127] Dino nam should explain their actions.
  3. The RFC was very poorly formatted, with a bunch of extra sections added outside of the original RFC section when they should have been subsections. This makes me wonder whether AustralianRupert had actually noticed that the vast majority of the discussion was not where it should have been before analyzing what the consensus should be.
  4. If what Tnguyen says is right, and the closer actually had misinterpreted the consensus, then what should be done is described at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; reopening a closed RFC by replacing the template with a new date is not the right way to go.
  5. The fact that the original disruption here appears to have been caused by Dino nam's repeated biased RFC questions, and Dino nam has now opened an ANI thread accusing another user of "vandalism" when vandalism is clearly not what is happening here, and failed to inform the accused party, makes me wonder if a WP:BOOMERANG is in order.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree that some words might have been fixed with that RfC. Thanks for elaborating my mistakes with it; many other admins haven't done that.
  • I must also remind you that all of the relevant sections you're talking about are created by user:Tnguyen4321 himself (e.g this section [128]).
  • According to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE:"For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard." Therefore, user:Tnguyen4321 still failed to follow the procedures; instead he conducted disruptive editing and this should be stopped.
  • Sorry for forgeting to remind the user about the issue on this noticeboard, but I have clearly stated in my allegation above that there is possibility that this could be disruptive editing instead of vandalism. Therefore, your boomerang accusation is not quite appropriate. Dino nam (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not an admin, but if no one else told you that both of your RFC questions were in violation, then they may also be at fault. However, the onus is on you to make sure you have read and understood WP:RFC before you open your first RFC, and let alone your second.
  • Again, I agree that Tnguyen's actions were not in line with CLOSECHALLENGE: I clearly read that page before you did, and you only noticed it when I pointed it out to you. However, your actions have been at least as out of line in this case, going back at least two months -- Tnguyen's not acting in accord with CLOSECHALLENGE is, as far as I can see, a minor infraction by comparison.
  • My BOOMERANG proposal is based on your repeated disruptive abuse of the RFC process, and has very little to do with your failing to properly notify Tnguyen. The main concern about your failure to notify Tnguyen is that, like with your repeated RFC mess-ups and your repeated misrepresentations of the policies and guidelines you are quoting, you appear to have either not read or not understood the guidelines for using this noticeboard before using it. This kind of behaviour is understandable from a new editor (which arguably covers Tnguyen, whose first edit was last year), but you have been here since 2011.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I also add some info for you to consider about talk page vandalism on WP:VANDAL: "Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve." As the actions of User:AustralianRupert and other users can no way be described as vandalism, internal spam, harassment or personal attacks, the action of Tnguyen4321 (reverting the RfC closure without going through the legitimate procedures) soundly fits the definition of "illegitimately deleting or editing". Dino nam (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You are starting to act like another user who recently got blocked for constantly citing policies and guidelines that he had apparently not understood. Vandalism must, by definition, be "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia"; if someone reverts an RFC close because they legitimately believe the closer made the wrong decision, that is not vandalism, even if it is disruptive. You are honing in on a minor technicality that in reverting the close, he also removed the closer's consensus statement that in a manner of speaking kinda-sorta qualifies as "other users' comments"; this is what is called wikilawyering. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you should probably revert your mentioning of another editor above. It is unfair, too say the least, as he cannot answer here, and it is also unhelpful, as everyone's case can be different. Drawing parallels like that is misleading. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 05:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Done and done. I thought the parallel was apt, and the case is not that much different, but I see your overall point. And I hope you don't mind my moving your comment to directly below the comment you were talking about. Your comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the proposed TBAN. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've protected the page for two weeks since there is definitely disruptive editing in the history page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I have to say I have real concerns about Tnguyen4321's edits here. Firstly, the editor attempts to close the RFC himself despite being involved [129] but then when I closed it they reverted citing no consensus [130]. That does not seem consistent with someone who is participating in an RFC in the spirit with which it is intended. I'm now involved so I will leave it up to others to make a decision. I wouldn't classify Tnguyen's edits as "vandalism", but frankly I feel that their edits here deserve closer scrutiny. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN Dino nam from opening RFCs

The OP opened an RFC with a biased question accusing another user of OR and misrepresenting sources, and then when it was closed in a way they didn't like went on to open another RFC with another biased question. Whether Tnguyen is out of line as well can be decided above, but that Dino nam should not open any more RFCs is pretty obvious. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC) makes death threats towards my children

Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

IP last night threatened on my talk page to burn my children.

diff 1 diff 2

The wording is: "gonna burn your children soon. wait till december; dont thank me for this gift. Liqa Maddiq".

Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

They are already blocked, please follow up with WMF.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
note for the record: The WMF Emergency team did indeed get this report and a reviewing. Jalexander--WMF 07:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Threats to User:NgYShung

Resolved by Katie. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Countyjail is making a "charges" threat (sort of legal threat, idk) to me (User:NgYShung) for creating a WP:FUTURE and non-notable movie that seemed coined: Chubby 2.0. I tagged the article for WP:A11 because I cannot find the article anywhere from Google (and yet he called this "vandalism"). The user also created some inappropriate articles which were got deleted. Regards, NgYShung huh? 10:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Pages deleted, blocked as NOTHERE. At least one was a blatant hoax. I think he was referring to AIV in his message to you instead of a legal threat, but it doesn't matter now anyway. Katietalk 10:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

A user talk page is salted preventing the posting of warnings

Talkpage doesn't seem to be protected, but the warnings issue has been rendered moot by the indef block. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Please see Special:Contributions/Vashikaranlovemarriagespecialists this user is a currently active vandal, but because the user talk page is salted I cannot give the required warnings - or even notify the user of this post. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That account is already blocked. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It might be now, but it was not when the complaint was filed. --Elektrik Fanne 10:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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