Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn[edit]

6 month topic ban for Petergstrom for medicine and religion with a warning that it will be swiftly re-applied if the pattern of editing continues. The harassment allegations of Flyer22 Reborn by Peter are completely unsubstantiated but Flyer22 Reborn is reminded to read WP:ASPERSIONS and reminded that being right does not remove the need to provide evidence. Peter is also cautioned to take care not to give the appearance of harassing Flyer22 Reborn, if someone says they find your interaction with them problematic, stop it or change it. Peter is also strongly encouraged not to cast aspersions, or make assumptions about someone's mental state.--5 albert square (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

The user User:Flyer22 Reborn has been harassing me for quite a while, accusing me of sockpuppetry with zero evidence for it, harassment for removal of outdated primary sourced material here, and most recently the accusation that I followed flyer onto the Human brain article(which is actually beyond crazy to me....really? I see an article with a high importance rating that obviously seems very bad, and I got to edit it...and all of a sudden I did something wrong) here. This is getting to be problematic, and seems to me like WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Furthermore Flyer22's harassment would not be an issue if it were not for his/her/it's attitude and demeanor, which is quite disturbing. Petergstrom (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please not that I notified Flyer here, and he/she/it removed it. The proper procedure has been followed.Petergstrom (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Update. This edit demonstrates an edit based solely of vindictive anger...why remove well sourced material that was missing from this article. The content is necessary and relevant function of the brain, and for no reason it was removed. No doubt some silly claim will be thrown of POV pushing

You are a reckless, POV-pushing editor.

Petergstrom (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
You should both use the article's talk page, for a start. El_C 22:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Two editors agreed that the function section was terrible, and she just flat out ignored that. That is actually pretty good evidence of vindictive harassment behaviorPetergstrom (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Happened to spot the ongoing edit war at human brain during change patrol, and a request for the page to be protected is pending. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
From my standpoint, it looks like a content dispute that became heated. One article talk page at a time: present your positions on the material. Myself, I'm willing to offer my opinion. El_C 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes the content dispute is relevant, but what I am tying to solve here is the history of harassment.Petergstrom (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it rising to that level. You carry the burden of proof to display a history of harassment. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
And, more or less as per WP:BURDEN, it is your obligation and no one else's to provide the evidence to support your contentions. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Petergstrom's accusations of harassment are unfounded. After indicating that Petergstrom is a sock because his edits are very similar to a previous editor, I left the matter alone because I do not yet have enough evidence to prove my case. As many editors on this site know, I do not make a sock accusation unless I am certain that the editor is a sock. And I'm usually correct about sock matters. After that, Petergstrom started popping up at articles that I significantly edit. The first one was the Psychopathy article, where Petergstrom engaged in reckless removals and falsely asserted that the topic is WP:Fringe. See here and keep scrolling down for what I mean. His fighting with Penbat was ridiculous, and Literaturegeek had to come in to point out how Petergstrom was wrong. After that, Petergstrom popped up at the Vegetarianism article, another article that I significantly edit, and he started making problematic edits to that article as well. He had also made a very poor edit to the Veganism article, which is yet another article that I edit. See here. It took Alexbrn weighing in on the matter. After that, Petergstrom showed up at the Insomnia article. While I do not heavily edit the Insomnia article, it is on my watchlist and I saw that Petergstrom has made reckless edits there, removing important material. I noted the WP:Preserve policy to him. See here. He indicated that he would continue to violate that policy. Jytdog helped with what Petergstrom recklessly removed. In that same discussion, I noted that I am working on the Human brain article, despite thinking to myself that Petergstrom might follow me to that article and edit recklessly there as well. And sure enough, he did. So I left a note on his talk page about WP:Hounding, stating that I would bring the matter here to WP:ANI if he continued to follow me. That's when he started making silly claims about how no one here cares about me, that I'm going crazy, and that he would bring the matter to WP:ANI too. See here. And so here we are.

Petergstrom has repeatedly made asinine edits to our medical articles, as currently seen on his talk page, and I do not believe he understands our sourcing policies well enough to be editing at all. Like Alexbrn stated, there are WP:Competence issues regarding this editor.

On a side note: I have dealt with many stalkers before, and some have been dealt with here at WP:ANI. So I know what I am talking about when it comes to stalking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 reborn overestimates her importance. Firstly, the psychopathy edits were justified, and many stand even now. The removal of primary material, duplicated content and the things still stands. Secondly, the veganism and vegetarian article edits were not poor, in fact we came to a conclusion that inconsistent policies were being applied, probably driven by WP:ADVOCACY. Third, the insomnia edits were justified, and Jytdog did not add any of the poor material back-material removed from the pathophysiology section, such as science daily, and multi decade old partially relevant primary studies. He added menstrual cycle risk factors as a cause. Lastly, Flyer22 overestimates his/her/it's importance. Just because some people edit similar articles, it does not indicate stalking or harassment. His/Her/Its behavior indicates stalking and harassment. Quite frankly the whole thing seems really ridiculous to me. The pure mental gymnastic being don't on Flyer22's part. It is like Flyer is the center of the whole dang universe. To the point where a multi week old remark made by Flyer, a remark which I barely skimmed over, is believed by flyer to be influencing heavily my editing now. It is just plain not true. A top importance article, on a wikiproject that I frequently edit, that is low quality is something I want to edit, regardless of who edits it. Petergstrom (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Overestimates my importance? Nah, I don't think so. But if anyone thoroughly examines what I've pointed to regarding you, they should see that you continuously engage reckless behavior, especially by disregarding the WP:Preserve policy. It's easy to see that you take removal of primary sources to the extreme. You also edit in ways that are clearly POV-motivated. Your WP:Edit warring and trying to WP:OWN articles is also tiresome. There is no advocacy going on at the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, unless it's your advocacy. The Veganism article was mostly written by SlimVirgin, and she knows what she's doing. As for following me, do not insult my or others' intelligence by stating that you are randomly appearing at articles that I significantly edit. We both know that it's not true. The Human brain matter was certainly no coincidence. You were bitter that I highlighted your poor editing. You clearly stalked me to the Human brain article.
So I am stating it right now: If I see you pop up at yet another article that I significantly edit (like the Vagina article, for example), I will be starting a thread here specifically about your WP:Hounding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
And given how we feel about each other, there is no logical reason for you to show up and start editing an article that I told you that am I working on. Unless, of course, that reason is to cause me distress (which WP:Hounding forbids). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Show me some talk page discussion where changes are explained, or when they are not. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Nothing? That's the thing about posting here (if you're lucky enough to get someone to listen), you have to do the legwork, or it doesn't work for neither of you. El_C 23:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
El_C, I pointed to talk page discussions above. In the Psychopathy discussions, for example, there are invalid claims of WP:Fringe. In the Vegetarianism discussion, there is indication that Petergstrom does not have a good grasp on sourcing issues. In that discussion, I also pointed to where he had misrepresented a source at the Veganism article. At the Insomnia talk page, I pointed out that he had recklessly removed relevant material. Jytdog restored some of it with better sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I've already commented at Talk:Psychopathy, Talk:Vegetarianism and Talk:Human brain. El_C 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Petergstom, stop calling Flyer22 "he/she/it". I shouldn't have to explain why calling a person "it" is demeaning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
So far as I can see, he only did that in the first post, and has since then been correctly referring to her as "she". John Carter (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Still quite inappropriate and ideally would be struck. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It was done in this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit. Some of these were additions to existing edits, but I don't care that much. Changing your post so that it adds "it" as a pronoun to refer to someone is pretty obnoxious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree that that is needlessly inflammatory. If there's doubt, use s/he. El_C 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I personally prefer they. It's more formal when in doubt. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows users to report their gender in their preferences. A editor's gender is available by using (or simply checking in preview) the {{gender}} template and is shown on hover with Navigastion Popups. The fact that Flyer22 has declared her gendrer this way and mentions it in her user space ("I am female and was born in Florida.") makes Petergstrom's "he/she/it" jab that much more grating. Rebbing 01:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, they. You ask for evidence of harassment, and I gave it in the first post, if that is not sufficient "legwork" I am compiling more. The psychopathy discussion of fringe, was not supported by recent secondary sources, so yes it was an incorrect claim. The edits, however, were good. The removal of outdated crappy sources, and duplicates, were justified and still stand today. The veganism article, nothing was misrepresented. That would imply malicious and intentionally manipulating something to support a point-which was not done. I used "vegan population" instead of "vegan population in hong kong and india"(or some region like that). The rest of the dozens of edits were totally justified and still stand. The insomnia article is a different matter. Jytdog added NOTHING back with better sourcing, he wrote something COMPLETELY NEW. Not in the pathophysiology section, where I removed piles of garbage-in the CAUSE section, where he added a sentence that menopause may be associated with insomnia. Now onto the WP:OWN. If Flyers statement above on the vagina wikipedia page is anything, it is evidence of s/he attempting to WP:OWN a page. Flyer22 still has this mentality that everything I do is dictated by her actions-that is plain wrong. S/he needs to understand, that his/her impact on my life in nearly zero. Until today, I barely gave him/her a thought(except for the sock puppet accusation, which was quite rude). The bottomline is, that the following
  1. sock puppetry accusations-WP:NPA Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.
  2. unnecessary removal-Unnecessary to remove a multi decade old, primary source? WP:MEDRS
  3. incredibly self centered behavior-Borderline fanaticism, WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN
  4. removal of relevant well sourced material-Vindictive behavior, WP:CIVIL
Are behaviors that don't seem to follow wiki policy on behavior. Together the accusations constitute some form of harassment, Petergstrom (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The only NPA mention is 1st link, which doesn't work for me. El_C 01:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem with you removing material is that you never keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind. Often, what you remove can be easily supported by tertiary and/or secondary sources. When you remove content like that, valuable content is lost. It is not the usual case that editors go searching through an article's edit history to see what was removed. Therefore, valuable content is commonly lost with removals like yours. I explained this to you at the Insomnia talk page.
You did misrepresent data at the Veganism article. Whether or not the misrepresentation was intentional, I explained how you did so at the Vegetarianism talk page.
I am not trying to WP:OWN any articles. I am trying to keep you from editing them recklessly. And I do not like to be followed to articles by editors who currently have a tempestuous relationship with me. See the distress part of WP:Hounding. I wanted to edit the Human brain article in peace. It is clearly a main article that I am focusing on. And yet you somehow thought it would be good to focus on it too? It makes no sense for you to pop up at the Vagina article either, especially since that article is put together quite well and will be nominated for WP:GA status soon enough. The only reason you would have for popping up at that article is because I pointed it out above and made it clear to you that I would not tolerate you following me to articles I am significantly working on.
I wish that I didn't have to continuously deal with people stalking me, especially after they've felt disgruntled because of some argument. But it is something I often have to deal with because of my stance on following rules like WP:NPOV accurately, and because the articles I edit tend to be contentious, and because I have busted so many socks. Yes, quite a few socks stalk me, whether as IPs or as new accounts. This is not paranoia on my part, as such stalkers or socks tend to claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The Editor Interaction Analyser is very useful here. Here you can see that the two editors have mutually edited 29 articles, and in practically all - 26 - cases Flyer22 Reborn has edited the article first. These include some very obscure articles. I can only assume from this data that Petergstrom (who let's not forget has only 1,495 articlespace edits in total) is indeed stalking Flyer22 Reborn to articles she has edited, and this needs to stop - NOW. Therefore (a) I suggest a one-way interaction ban (i.e. that Petergstrom cannot edit articles that Flyer22 Reborn has edited, including talk pages), and (b) Petergstrom may be subject to immediate blocking by any administrator if he should again follow her to an unrelated article. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sweet, sweet legwork. I'm referring to Black Kite, with whom I tend to agree. 26 of 29 is, indeed, quite a disconcerting ratio(!). El_C 00:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow that is just ridiculous. I have edited hundreds of articles in neuroscience, psychology, and popular media. I like the walking dead. I like game of thrones. I'm interested in psychology, and neuroscience-particularly in the influence that prenatal hormones has on gendered behavior. I have edited many many articles in neuroscience and psychiatry area, particularly mood disorders, monoamines, and there is bound to be overlap, given the extent to which she edits. The fact that we have edited the same 29 articles(many of which he/she made only one or two edits a long time ago, that I would not have known about, and don't care about) does not indicate stalking. The fact that he/she has been on WP for years before me is also an explanation. An editor, who hangs out around a lot of the science/social science articles, and over a couple of years has made over a hundred thousand edits, is bound to have overlap with an editor with 1400 edits highly focused on the science/social science section. Petergstrom (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That is indeed a possibility (if it had not been, an administrator may have blocked you already). I am simply pointing out that following Flyer22 Reborn to any further pages that you have not previously edited may be looked upon very dimly indeed. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
(multiple e-c) I kind of have to agree with Petergstrom about the nature of the "interactions" here. It looks to me at least 13 of the articles listed are ones where the time difference between the two editors is over a year. If he were really stalking Flyer22Reborn, it would be really easy to spend a lot less work checking her edit history and making staling edits to articles she had edited more recently. Having said that, Petergstrom, you've already been advised about using "he/she" and told that Flyer is, in fact, a female. Try not to fall into the same problem so frequently, OK? I imagine Lassie got really fed up with that blasted Timmy brat for falling in the well as often as he apparently did, too, and repeating that mistake doesn't help your cause at all. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a fair point. If the edits were months or years ago and then you show up recently, that can make sense. The question, then, is how closely to the actual edits overlap. El_C 01:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Am I stalking Jytdog (talk · contribs) here? Perhaps I am notoriously stalking Doc James (talk · contribs) too? If this tool is at all EVEN AN INDICATOR of harassment behavior, then I have literally stalked every prominent WP editor in the sciences area of WP, to an even more severe extent than my terribly atrocious stalking of flyer22 reborn. Ridiculous. I am really disappointed in WP right now. If this is what passes as "legwork".....this is sad. If you take note of this, and don't even comment on the actual evidence I presented, I have no idea what this board is forPetergstrom (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
We are still investigating. Best keep it relaxed as you can and avoid characterizations like "poor poor flyer22 reborn." El_C 01:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Keep in mind that Petergstrom is showing up to articles that I significantly edit as well. Does the combination of editing the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles really seem like a coincidence? The focus on these articles came after my objections to Petergstrom's editing. And this is especially the case for the Human brain article. And now Petergstrom is citing me not wanting him to follow me to articles, including the Vagina article, as some indication of WP:OWN. I've noted above the issues with following an editor you have a tempestuous relationship with to articles. And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also made it clear that I've been through this many times.

If Petergstrom shows up at more articles I significantly edit (like the Vagina article), including articles that I have brought to WP:GA status, will that be a coincidence too? I think not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How soon after the dispute started picking up momentum did he show up at those articles? El_C 01:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
He waits a bit, like a week or two or so. I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me. But the following is clear to me either way. After I addressed him on his talk page about editing with a previous account, I knew that it would not be long before he started showing up to articles I have a significant interest in. After I pointed out that I was working on the Human brain article, I knew it would not be long before he started editing it. The predictability was easy because I've been through this type of thing countless times before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's be careful about basing conclusions about this editor's conduct upon what you have experienced with entirely different persons. Unless the person you suspect Petergstrom of being a sock of is one of those stalkers, your previous experiences really have no useful predictive power for this individual, and it's unfair to saddle him with a presumption of bad faith on that basis alone.
That said, there's some pretty compelling evidence here, considering his showing up at articles you have edited consistently after you have. But it's still all a little circumstantial; all of the articles I've seen mentioned here are pretty major articles and the fact that you edited them first could simply be a product of you having been on the project much longer. I come from a biopsychology background myself, for example and have edited most of those articles myself, if memory serves. So we need to parse this a little more cleanly. You say that Petergstrom has shown up on more than one occasion at certain articles about a week or two after engaging with you elsewhere. How many of these instances involve him undoing your work or otherwise putting himself in a position to engage with you directly, and has there even been a time where he was doing so on multiple articles concurrently? I'm highly suspicious here and I'm looking for the smoking gun that will let me support a 1-way IBAN, but I just need a little more. Snow let's rap 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: Are you actually taking Flyer22's allegations(with no actual evidence) seriously, while blatantly ignoring the harassment she has posed, with her sock puppet allegation, and now this allegation? A user, with 240,000 edits, in the english wiki of 2 million articles, is going to have edited some major pages before a newer editor with 1400 edits, concentrated in the biopsychology, neuroscience, health area etc etc. I don't know how many times I have to say this:'I do not care about what flyer22 edits, or what she thinks, but I do care about being harassed. The only time where I have given her a second of thought, is due to her ridiculous allegations, which quite frankly, are annoying as hell. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions.Petergstrom (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think anyone questions necessarily the problematic nature of some of the more recent edits, Flyer22Reborn, just indicating that some of the "interactions" with over a year lag time between them might not necessarily count for much. And I think that if there were broadened interactions hereafter, that would definitely be very credible evidence. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, John Carter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this statement "And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval." is an attempt at being obnoxious, and not a reflection of your own thought process-something that would be very, very, very disturbing. The edits to the human brain article occurred after I went to the article in hopes of finding a quality, complete section, discussing the functions of the brain. I hoped to find the immediate functions, as well as from an evolutionary perspective. Instead I found the current sad section. The edits to the vegan and vegetarian articles were both after googling them to fact check a meme I was(no kidding) curious about. This is really getting to a ridiculous point. Flyer22 needs to reign in her behavior, which I clearly demonstrated above violates multiple wiki policies. Petergstrom (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, speaking strictly for myself, I don't find much obnoxious in the comment at all. It would certainly be not unreasonable for a comparatively new editor (you've been here since October?) to try to edit in such a way as to generate negative reaction if such was required from senior editors. Kind of an informal "mentoring," maybe. There might be better ways to do it, admittedly, but I think I have seen a few other editors here do the same sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I began editing the vegan article on the 16th of january, long after the (regrettable) first encounter I had with Flyer22 on the psychopathy article at the beginning of december, after joining in late october, after spending most of november hanging around the PED/Adaptogen/MDD/CFS area. Petergstrom (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Your explanations are the similar to others claiming that they weren't stalking. In a short of amount of time, you showed up at the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles. No matter what you state, that is not a coincidence. And if you show up at more, I will have even more evidence of your stalking. As for my supposed violations, you do not understand the rules well; so I don't put much stock into your assertions of having violated the rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You're only three days apart with the first one though; as for the second, that was quite a bit of (seemingly-pertinent) content you removed with your first edit... El_C 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
El_C, your reply is meant for Petergstrom, right? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
If you cant accept the fact that psychopathy, edits, along with ASPD edits were due to the fact that I am interested in psychiatry(as evidenced by my hundreds of edits in that area), and that the veganism/vegetarian edits(to the cardiovascular effects of the diets nonetheless...hmmmmm what does that sound like? Stalking or perhaps the editing of an editor interested in that area of science....hmmmmm) were due to the finding of very biased statements of benefits, then I would have doubts about your WP:COMPETENCE, in particular the way you place such an importance of yourself in other peoples decision making----you have to understand that you aren't that important. I literally never gave you a second thought, after skimming over whatever you said to me. Petergstrom (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The title of this thread is "Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn", and yet, so far, what this thread shows is stalking by you. It has yet to show that I have been stalking or harassing you. So your understanding of the WP:Competence essay is also flawed. Follow me to more articles I am working on, and there will be a thread here on you in the future. Mostly likely, the near future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't make me refer both of you to WP:DR, because I would do it. I am that bleeping crazy! El_C 02:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
El_C, conflict resolution relies on the flexibility of the persons involved in the conflict-if Flyer22's self importance refuses to be flexible, no amount of conflict resolution would help. Petergstrom (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
But it's fast becoming your only hope. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
No it has not shown any "stalking by me", it has shown nothing. I have, however, demonstrated the violating of multiple wiki policies by you. Petergstrom (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me give a more in depth example. Sepi333 and I edit the same obscure pages-due to overlapping interests, such as Dopaminergic pathways, motivation, Reward system etc etc. However, given that he has a healthy ego, he understands that this is not "stalking", but is rather an overlap of interests. However, he does throw out accusations of sock puppetry ("because he is frequently right" hurr durr durr), or stalking, because he has a healthy sense of ego. Petergstrom (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
What does any of this has to do with it fast becoming your only hope. You've been repeatedly asked to indent correctly here. El_C 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread. Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.
And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here. Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't even know how to feel...if anyone wants to know what its like to be laughing, disgusted and annoyed at the same time...hmu. Let's break this down
  • Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread.
  • Clear from what? Clear from the mental gymnastics done by you, and your grandiose ego that just needs a stalker to feel good?
  • Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.
  • I wasn't aware it was over, but if it is, it seems that you might stop harassing me now
  • And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here.
  • You are not wrong, you don't explicitly say it. However your behavior, does as I have pointed out many times.
  • Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too.
  • This is not the self importance I am talking about. You are overestimating your impact on others. Way. Too. Much.
  • I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me
  • This screams to me the words "delusional", "obsessive", "paranoid", "grandiose". If you think anyone actually cares THAT much about you, your edits, and what you think of them, that is disturbing. No after I first interacted with you, I did not spend 6 hours straight thinking about you, reading your edit history, compiling a profile, in my room in my basement with tin foil over the windows, and a triple padlocked steel door. No, I did not spend the next week sitting in that room, with a whiteboard, and yarn linking edits and wikipages, thinking about the most effective strategy for subverting, and obfuscating. I did not set up thousands of dollars of computers, calculating my sinister plot, waiting to strike-waiting for the moment when....wait for it....I COULD DISRUPT SOME RANDOM EDITORS WIKIEDITING *maniacal laughter ensues*. Hell, I didn't even give you a second thought after skimming over whatever it was you wrote.Petergstrom (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
And yet more nonsense and personal attacks from you. Stating that you should accept that others find me important to this site is because of your constant need to state how unimportant you find me to be. Your talk page response about the hounding matter and your above commentary shows just how obsessed you are with stating how unimportant I supposedly am. And such comments could be categorized as coming from a place of insecurity or inferiority regarding your own edits. Some might even state that they come from a place of jealousy. And if they understand psychology like I do, they just might be right. Your comments also indicate that you are indeed the past editor I believe you to be. No matter. I've stated what I need to state. You have been warned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Trolling and harassment (both of which Flyer22 has been a victim of) of editors doesn't take hours to plan, it takes minutes. Less if you've done it before. --NeilN talk to me 02:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It cannot be that easy to do what you do. All I want, is for your behavior to stop. For your reckless accusations to stop. For you to understand that, no, I don't care about you, BUT I DO CARE ABOUT BEING HARASSED.' Petergstrom (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: That is not what she indicated when she said "he waits in order to diver attention from having followed me". The belief that someone, a troll nonetheless, would take a week to avoid detection in their trolling, is crazy.Petergstrom (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I can quite emphatically state that that notion is not "crazy". --NeilN talk to me 02:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
So you are telling me, NeilN, that you have met people...real human beings...that seriously have nothing better in their lives to do, than to single out a random editor of wikipedia pages, and to make disruptive edits to the pages, but doing so very slowly, and very secretively in an attempt to troll/stalk/harass them. That is sad. I enjoy editing wikipedia. I enjoy editing pages I have interest in. My edit history is evidence that I am here to edit, and until today, none of my editing was AT ALL influenced by Flyer22. However, her accusations of me being a sockpupper(unsubstantiated, which I have brought up many times, but has been ignored) as well as the unsubstantiated claims that I follow Flyer to articles, are annoying, and need to stop. If the admins agree that accusations of sock puppetry and harassment by flyer are ok, then until the annoyance outweighs the good of WP, I can just ignore it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I have witnessed the behavior you're describing more than once. I've even seen someone put significant effort into making a credible back-story so he could say wide-eyed: "But I'm obviously not a troll! Just look at my {comments,posts,edits}! I can't believe anyone would actually have nothing better to do with his life than to scheme against someone on the Internet!" Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Rebbing:, Really?? this was just a "backstory", so that I could get to my real intent of trolling? I read hundreds of papers so that I could "troll"? Really??? Really???? I cant even believe wikipedia right now. This is actually one of the saddest things...a website I had so much respect for....Really???? Really? There is not a a single SHRED, of evidence that suggests I give two damns about what Flyer edits or thinks. But I give real, tangible, credible evidence of harassment and it gets blown off? Really? I can't even express who ridiculous the whole thing is getting.Petergstrom (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You misread my comment: I did not say you were a troll or that your contribution history was a sham. I merely voiced my observation—in rebuttal to your skepticism—that many have gone to extraordinary lengths to exact petty revenge. Please stifle your outrage; it is not adding any light to this situation. Rebbing 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
As can I. It doesn't even take any effort: one could flip through an editor's week-old contributions, watchlist an article with the intent of editing it the next time it pops up, or bookmark the page in a date folder. Trolls are anything but lazy. Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Not an admin, although I've played with one on tv. One of the most main points between Wikipedia editors is to help make everyone's experience enjoyable, and not to try to make it less enjoyable. The recent edit, screaming the words, is pretty offensive, and probably should be walked back. Flyer22 Reborn is important to the site, and in some areas, very important. This is fact, not her boasting. So please, Petergrstrom, maybe rethink the pressure of defending your case if it goes into name calling to that extent. Wikipedia is a polite place, although I have been impolite to a couple of grandiose self-important complete azzwipe editors fine gentlemen of the realm. Let's make everyone's experience here a little better and wind-down some of this stuff before it flips into the really nasty get-up-and-go. Peace, love, and singing stuff about cats or sunrise's or something. Randy Kryn 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well in one of my first encounters with a fine gentle(wo)man of the realm, I had to bold the point because nobody seemed to get it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Best we tone down the accusatory language and just see what can be worked out one article talk page at a time. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the behaviour of either editor here has been stellar in any sense of the word. The "policy violations" are numerous on both sides; the multiple accusations of sockpuppetry but no diffs (not here at least) to link Petergstrom to any other editor by Flyer22reborn (ASPERSIONS) and the near-constant accusations of quite serious behavioural (not bad behaviour, but, the issues of self-aggrandizement, delusions, etc) problems from Petergstrom (NPA, CIVIL). This is cause enough for civility blocks to be handed out, though if I'm being direct, I am far more concerned with the near abusive nature of some of Peter's comments than I am with Flyer's sockpuppetry accusations. No more "you're mental" style comments, Peter, you've made quite enough of them. I am mildly surprised you haven't received at least a warning for them. The stalking claims, Flyer, are both difficult to prove and evidence is circumstantial at best; Peter makes a good point regarding the editor interaction anaylzer, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. You need to look at the pages concerned, the times of editing, a log of the page history, and individual edits themselves. The individual edit themselves are the best indicator for stalking because they alone form the basis of a pattern. The return claims of harassment by Peter are relatively unsubstantiated beyond referring to the concurrent stalking claim by Flyer. Other than that, I see zero harassment going in the direction of Peter. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions, there is a simple solution for this, just go do something productive and forget Flyer22 until or unless further issues arise. This thread is rapidly generating more heat than light. There is, however, no simple resolution for any competency issues that may exist and I profer no opinion on that point because ·I have limited competency myself on the topic areas of medicine, the human body and its functions, and psychology. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I just want to point out that Flyer22 Reborn has indeed been very accurate in their detection of sockpuppetry. No one is perfect, of course, but Flyer22 has an extremely good batting average. I think that they perhaps might have waited to make an accusation until they had more evidence, but, given their record, their suspicions should afforded some weight, given the behavior of Petergstrom as described in this thread, especially the Editor Interaction Analyser data pointed out by Black Kite. [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
So I've read above Beyond My Ken. My personal stance on an issue such as this is; if you don't have evidence, don't make accusations. I personally don't afford 'suspicions' any weight without a reason to do so. That reason doesn't have to be proof of sockpuppetry per se, but, it does have to be something more than a flat accusation. I agree, however, on the topic of Peter's behaviour being uncollaborative and uncivil. As for the EIA, as I said above, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. If a new editor and an old editor hold similar interests and edit within the same topic area they will overlap. Yes, there is a significant amount of overlap and yes, Flyer has been first to edit 26/29 pages. Of those however only 10 have less than one months time separating her and his edit, and of those all three of the pages he was first to edit are included; Gender inequality, gender inequality in the U.S. and Antisocial personality disorder. Now, basically that means that he's followed her to 7 out of 10 pages, and she's followed him to the other 3 - note; I do not mean followed as in stalked, but, as in came there after. So either he's seeking out pages she hasn't edited in months by going through her contributions history, or, alternatively, he's just happened across them at a later date. I'm going to AGF and say he's not sitting around wading through Flyer's contributions for hours just to make her miserable. If this is actually what's happening, then that's simply pitiful ... I have other adjectives for it as well, but, NPA/CIVIL. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Addendum; I should add, that the EIA is useful in stalking/hounding cases for raising red flags and directing a person where to look and perhaps identify obvious patterns. In this instance, however, I've found nothing unusual even outside of the medicine/human anatomy/human pyschology topic areas. I should also add that this has also come to my mind as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, without addressing everything that you have stated since I feel that I have stated enough in this thread (both above and below), I am taking the time to note that it is usually the case that I do have evidence, but it may be that the evidence is not strong enough. WP:CheckUser wouldn't work in this case since the previous account is stale. It is not unusual for me to wait until I have more evidence. Like many editors have done, including administrators, I gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. When he denied it and started focusing on my block log (mischaracterizing it), I moved on, knowing full well that he would likely start to appear at articles that I significantly edit because of that sockpuppet inquiry on his talk page. I know that you likely feel that I should not have addressed the sock matter at all, but there have been cases where addressing a sock about his or her previous account resulted in the sock acknowledging that they are a sock. This includes cases I've been involved in. And I reiterate that I have been stalked a number of times before, and the stalking patterns are generally the same. They are the same so often that I currently make it clear on my user page that I won't even list my WP:GAs and WP:FAs there on my user page. When it comes to the Gender inequality and Antisocial personality disorder articles, I edited those first, as seen here and here. I did not significantly edit them, but they remained on my watchlist. I know that you state that you do not see a stalking pattern, and I accept that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
To shorten that - you had no evidence, you accused someone of being a sock without evidence, you accused them of stalking despite the fact they have a fairly small defined area of editing which overlaps yours (which could be seen *at the time* you accused them of being a sock) and think that because they eventually show up at an article (within their area of editing) you edited sometime in the past its evidence they are a sock/stalking you? This is not a case of 'not having enough evidence' this is a case of you being so far from being in possession of anything resembling evidence that its laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
And that is an inaccurate characterization, for reasons I and others in this thread have made clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... EIA must have gotten those two wrong in this case. I wonder why it lists Petergstrom as the first editor when it obviously has you editing it years ago... probably the timeline of the latest edits but it's still wrong. My apologies there Flyer22 Reborn, it would have done me well to dig that bit deeper. I looked at the thread on Peter's page where you; gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. I'm not going to harp on this because I've never had wikistalkers that harrassed me or been in any particularly difficult disputes, but, your approach is ... not one I'd recommend to anyone. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to follow up on my comment above: many people who edit Wikipedia for a long time develop a nose for sockpuppetry. Some have OK noses, some have good noses, and some have very good noses. Flyer22's nose for sockpuppetry happens to be very, very good. That doesn't mean that she is correct in this case - everyone is human, everyone makes mistakes - but it does mean that admins should (and some do) pay some attention when she voices a suspicion. I'd very much like to see the CU policy loosened up somewhat, so that editors with a good track record regarding sniffing out socks are given enough credence to allow a CU scan to be done (even without a named puppetmaster) without the "no fishing expeditions" rule being trotted out. If the editor starts being wrong a lot, that credence can be lost, but in the meantime we'll have retired some socks. Further, I think an exception should be made for CUing editors who exhibit general sock-like behavior, something that many users can detect. All of that can be done totally within WMF policies - it's the en.wiki community which has chosen to fetter CUs, not the Foundation, which is ironic since, as the biggest and most read of all the WMF encyclopedias, we're the one which needs the tools to crack down on socking, while other wikis are the ones with the more liberal rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe summarizing this will help. I come to the board, asking for help, due to harassment from Flyer22 Reborn. I notified her on her talk page, and provided evidence. I used he/she/it, and was reprimanded. She responded with allegations that I have been maliciously planning, and subverting attention in order to troll her. I state that that is ridiculously self centered, paranoid, and ridiculous. She accuses me of following her to the following articles
These articles receive thousands of views a day, and are relevant in the health and neuroscience area, that I have been editing significantly in since I started. We first encountered each other in the psychopathy article talk page-I removed poorly sourced material, and then asked about changing the article to reflect its fringe status, however I realized I did not have a quality secondary source, and that it would be OR, so I backed off. I continued to edit in areas related to neuroscience, psychology, etc etc. For some reason, Flyer22 accuses me of sock puppetry, a serious, rude and unsubstantiated claim. I move on. In my editing of fibromyalgia, the creation of functional somatic syndrome page, and edits to he biology of depression, I came across a link to insomnia. I had quite a bit of research, so I checked the insomnia page, and saw that the pathophysiology section was poorly outdated. I updated it. I saw something claiming major benefits from vegetarian diets, so I went to check if it was true, on the WP article I saw some pretty crazy claims too. So I did some research, found secondary sources, published recently in quality journals, and updated the article to reflect current consensus. While browsing in neuroscience, I find the human brain page to be terribly deficient in the "functions" section. I edit it. And then I get accused of following Flyer22 to articles. Her behavioral pattern of seeing malicious intent in everyday goings on is ridiculous, and even more so is the audacity she has to threaten someone with it. What is even worse, is that instead of finding an objective admin board, objective like I experienced with the fantastic editors(mostly) in the medicine section, I find Dark Kite showing "fantastic legwork", showing how Flyer22, with 240,000 edits, and I with 1500 overlap on some articles in my region of interest. Woah. Crazy? Not really. It is not even INDICATIVE of me giving two damns about what she edits(which I demonstrated by showing my overlap with other prolific editors in that area). However, nobody takes seriously the harassment posed by her, but they do take seriously her crazy claims, not based in reality. Summarized.Petergstrom (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time the OP familiarize himself with the First Rule of Holes? John from Idegon (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Newcomer User:Soli58 has arrived on the scene (Contribs). El_C 04:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
{@El C: So is that it? Is this report done? So the harassment by Flyer22 I should just ignore? That can be done. And is there a consensus about Flyer22's allegations(with zero evidence)?Petergstrom (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You failed to respond when I asked you about your non-working claimed-NPA link — and that question remains unanswered. No, you've failed to establish a clear pattern of harassment to my satisfaction. El_C 05:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh my god. I thought that it didn't work as in it was insufficient evidence! All this time??? Oh my god. I will fix it. Wow.Petergstrom (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
here it should work now. Now what about the counter allegations?Petergstrom (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
What is the personal attack? Asking if you're a sock? It's not the most goodfaith-assuming question, but I don't know if that rises to that level. El_C 05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • i've been pinged a few times and have been thinking. Thoughts:
    • if you look at Petergstrom's first edits from Oct 2016, they are not really a newbie's. (see here). and they were warned about edit warning almost right of the gate.
    • I encountered Petergstrom first at articles about health (their articles in that arena have been about neuro and psych topics) and their edits on each article have been extensive (big flurries of rewriting) and generally poor in sourcing and summarizing. Clearly has a strong interest in neuro/psych so I (and others) put a bunch of time into trying to teach them how to edit correctly on health topics... and at the rate they were editing this was essential. (you can see the dialogue in this old version of their talk page) Their initial responses were dismissive like this:: The content was sourced!! What are you talking about? and this: I did read it. I am not ignoring it, the sources are totally valid, stop reverting the edits.. And kept insisting that their extensive use of old/primary sources was fine. (diff, diff) They finally kinda sorta got it. Kinda. I have remained cautiously hopeful they would turn out to be solid members of the community.
    • Around that time they did some aggressive and badly reasoned editing at Performance-enhancing substance as you can see from its history -- aggressive reverts. There was an equally aggressive advocate on the other side who self-destructed finally. I happened to agree (mostly) with the direction Petergstrom wanted the article to go, but the behavior and reasoning were bad and aggressive (you can see that on the article talk page too) and got them their first block for edit warring.
    • their editing at MDMA and its talk page was so aggressive and unreasonable that I brought them to EWN, leading to a block: case is here. If you review their comments in that case, you can see that they misrepresented their own edits (and behavior) at that board, which was doubly troubling.
    • as is evident in the history of the Chronic pain article here, as recently as a couple of days ago they added a slew of COPYVIO content that had to be revdelled.
And their aggressive effort to prosecute this ANI and ignoring of feedback they are getting, is par for their WP history to date, and not promising. I am not too hopeful about their long term prospects to be productive. Which is what led me to post here.
All that said, I can't support Flyer's claim of stalking. Petergstrom has been editing religion and neuro/psych pretty consistently from the beginning and edits to the Brain article do not seem stalkerish to me.
Flyer tends to be accurate about socking but i have no real comments on that issue other than my initial one above, and that based on their behavior i wouldn't be surprised if it were true.
Petergstrom fwiw I recommend you walk away from this ANI case - you are not going to get the satisfaction you want - and instead concentrate on building high quality content (great MEDRS sources, summarized and not copied, accurately) and working better with others. Your hands are way too dirty for this case to get any traction. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yea sounds fine to me. I will ignore Flyer22 for now.Petergstrom (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Great. please keep in mind the " and working better with others" part of what i wrote :) Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I am currently focusing on patrolling and editing article content, and am no longer interested in this thread, but I wanted to go ahead and note that I did not state that Petergstrom followed me to the Insomnia article, which is an article I had only edited a few times. I mentioned the Insomnia article to explain why I view Petergstrom's style of editing to be problematic and my belief that he followed me to the Human brain article. I specifically mentioned the Human brain article on the Insomnia talk page when criticizing Petergstrom's deletion style. I did not mention it as an example of a good or great article. I mentioned that it is an article I am working on, and an example of an article that no one should hastily take a hacksaw to. It needs to be edited with care. I mentioned this despite knowing the likelihood that Petergstrom would follow me there. There are few Wikipedia articles of significant interest to me that I can edit without worrying about a lot of conflict. Editing that article was something that gave me peace because there were no big disputes going on there and I knew that I could focus on bringing the article to WP:GA level, like I had been meaning to do. The article is currently full-protected, and I hope to edit it with little conflict in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
One more thing: When it comes to considering whether or not I am being stalked, I do carefully examine the matter; I don't solely base it on past experiences. The past experiences do, however, significantly aid my deductions. I have an overlap with Doc James and Jytdog too, but Doc James rarely gets involved with articles like Vegetarianism or Veganism, or sexual and gender topics, and Jytdog is editing some of the articles that I edit because either I asked him to or he saw past stalking matters related to me and decided to get involved. In addition to the aforementioned articles I noted that I significantly edit, I just noticed that Petergstrom has also recently focused on the Gender article. I have significant history with that article, and with other gender topics. Having some overlap with me is understandable, but when it's articles that I significantly edit, and across a number of different fields, I think I have a valid reason to be concerned. History shows that I do. I take being hounded very seriously and will not hesitate to bring the matter to WP:ANI if I feel that I have compelling evidence of being hounded. All that stated, I am looking to resolve the Human brain article dispute and will try not to inflame matters involving Petergstrom in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I too do not want to escalate things anymore. I dont think there is anything more that I can say, other than I truly do not care about what you edit, and have no intent to hound or harass. Buuuuuuut.....all the stuff is in one field-gender is relavent in neuroscience and psychology. But that is beside the point. Bottom line is, I truly have never had, and never will have the desire to hound anyone. Petergstrom (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Experience shows that mature people who are interested in collaboration and the development of the encyclopedia are able to make complaints without the level of indignation seen in this case. If you are really interested in building content it might be an idea to focus on that, while engaging in any discussions on article talk pages in a constructive manner. And stop posting here unless it is to post new evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I would like to concur with others that User:Petergstrom's edits in the areas of medicine and religion have been extremely problematic. One can see that User:Petergstrom edits with an agenda, promoting a non-neutral point of view; for exaxmple, he attempted to add information to our articles about Jesus and Moses, saying that they both had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). On our article about Religiosity and intelligence, User:Petergstrom has inappropriately censored content that he just didn't like, possibly because it called into question his own POV--what's more troublesome is that he tried to conceal the nature of his edit by using a benign edit summary. This is part of a deeper problem concerning User:Petergstrom and their editing behaviour. At this time, a topic ban on articles relating to medicine and religion, broadly construed, is warranted.--Jobas (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this particular situation but I should probably mention that the last time that I saw Flyer22 get accused of "Wikihounding with false sock puppetry accusations", her sock accusations were very much correct. DarkKnight2149 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 by this you mean that Flyer's accusations were correct, no that the accusations against Flyer were. I'm asking because it's not 100% clear to me which one you mean. I'm guessing the former since you've linked an LTA case in which Flyer was significantly involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Mr rnddude I meant that the accusations that Flyer made were true, not the accusations against her. Sorry about the unintentional ambiguity in my statement. DarkKnight2149 02:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Still no response from User:Soli58. El_C 23:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for User:Petergstrom on articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed[edit]

  • Support As mentioned by multiple editors above, User:Petergstrom has failed to adhere to WP:NPOV in the areas of medicine and religion, which is demonstrated by edits such as attempting to add false information to articles about historical religious figures, e.g. stating that Jesus and Moses had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). He has also censored information that might not support his personal POV, e.g. recent diff), he also ignored the Pew research source and decide to put a POV on atheism (see here recent diff). These issues, coupled with User:Petergstrom's hounding of User:Flyer22 Reborn warrant a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed.--Jobas (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Jobas, the religion additions were when I first started--one source was not enough for what I wrote. They additions weren't "false". Secondly, the recent edits on the religion and intelligence articles are actually being pushed in the direction I was attempting to push it in before your edit war( relavent info, quality sourcing).Petergstrom (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This user's edit history is very troublesome. Mistercontributer (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that religion needs to be included here, but I've been watching the medicine issues from afar for a while, and I'm leaning towards supporting a topic ban there. I'd like to hear from a few more editors before making up my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Seeing that Petergstrom does seem to be seeking to do better, perhaps through mentoring, and that the SPI appears to have come up negative (alleged master and sock on different continents), I am now leaning oppose to a topic ban, with a strict understanding that WP:ROPE now applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Checking back and viewing subsequent comments and events, I'm going back to my original inclination, and I support topic bans in both topic areas. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for medicine only. I don't think we have a demonstration of contentious editing in on religion. I'm troubled by what I have read in this thread. The indignation and battle ground mentality exhibited by the OP is not encouraging.--Adam in MO Talk 04:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Adam in MO this user's editing in on religion is very troublesome as well, (see /w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=747047573 Example 1, Example 2), (Example 3). Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I have viewed those links and I don't think that Peter is at the level of a topic ban yet. Bad edits don't warrant a topic ban. Bad edits and battle ground behavior certainly do. Do you have any evidence of the latter?--Adam in MO Talk 16:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Adam in MO I think it's bad edits and battle ground behavior, for example see here in Jesus article: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and the user demonstrates here that they are aware of the consequences of edit warring. anther example is Ignatius of Loyola article, see here (1), (2), (3). also here in Moses article (1), (2), (3). It's just some examples.--Jobas (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
JobasThose are misguided edits from a new users. No one has presented any indication that the contentious editing is ongoing. Thanks for your input. I respectfully disagree.--Adam in MO Talk 22:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Adam in MO, no problems, Thanks and Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I would like to point out that, although early on I pretty much interpreted the policies in a way the community did not generally interpret them, I have actually made some pretty decent contributions in the neuro/psych area. I understand the my lack of desire to engage with other editors has been troublesome, but I am curious as to whether my past behavior is really indicative of a future where the pros are outweighed by the cons. Petergstrom (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for ban on religion and likely medicine. Unfortunately, I had to intervene as a mediator on a few recent edit wars on the Religiosity and Intelligence page and was a bit disturbed by some of the recent edits the editor used such as [2] when some compromise would have been the better choice during the edit war. I also found troubling that after being warned about violating the 3RR, the user deleted that information from their talk page [3]. Also, when discussing a source on atheism and religion if it was acceptable, the language seemed quite aggressive and dismissive to others when it could have been charitable including remarks telling other editors that they should not edit religious pages [4] because of them identifying with religion was POV pushing and conflict of interest on religious pages. On the 3RR noticeborad one of the edits even said "Thats 3RR, there is obviously a COI, given you user page. I don't want to have to talk this to admin board" [5], as reported by another editor User:Renzoy16. No editor should ever say to another editor those kinds of things. For medicine, it seems that the editor has been blocked twice for edit warring there too despite being on Wikipedia for only a few months. Perhaps this can be remedied if the behavior changes significantly, but it need not get this hot over religion topics.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - for all the troubling history, some of which I agree is extremely troubling, the editor in question hasn't even been here a full six months yet, at least under this name. If someone were willing to mentor him as per WP:MENTOR, it might be possible that his conduct might improve. Having said that, there does seem to be a very real issue of perhaps excessively high self-opinion regarding this editor, and if that were true it might well be that mentoring might be ineffective. John Carter (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
A CU was just performed and confirmed that I am unrelated to any of the accounts I was accused of operating. The behavioral "evidence" is weak at best.Petergstrom (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
"The behavioral evidence is weak at best" You don't talk like a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
And it is also, I think, hard to imagine a relatively new user so frequently expressing outrage regarding the conduct of others, as Petergstrom has repeatedly done here. Most newer editors I've encountered are much less familiar with all the details of our policies and guidelines, and on that basis have been much less likely to indulge in such expressions of outrage. And I think most newbies would be a lot less likely to use the abbreviation "CU' as Peter does above as opposed the full term. Most wouldn't be as familiar with the abbreviations, although a person with a history of sockpuppetry would probably know it all too well. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I just came from viewing the CU page...that was how Jytdog abbreviated it, so that is how I abbreviate it....I can't believe I thought this would clear things up. Looks like no amount of evidence can change the preconceived opinions you guys have. I'm so done. Whatever.Petergstrom (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Petergstrom: you will notice that I have actually indicated that I thought mentoring you might be useful as an alternative to sanctions. And thereafter you, on no basis whatsoever so far as I can see, accuse me of having preconceived notions. Your comment, if anything, demonstrates your own biases and apparent unwillingness to deal with criticism. While I thank you for your clarification, I also believe it reasonable to note that what may well be one of your most substantial problems, an unfortunately high opinion of yourself and your regularly making at best unwarranted incivil comments to others, seems to be continuing unabated, and that cannot reflect well for you. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@John Carter: I am willing to be mentored. I am willing to work better with editors. But I currently don't see that happening right now, if, with very very limited evidence, the accusations of sock puppetry continue-with the constant threat of a ban looming, it is hard to work effectively. Petergstrom (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure I see "accusations of sockpuppetry." I see a statement from her that she might be collecting evidence for a sockpuppet investigation, which is rather a different matter entirely. There isn't a great deal anyone can do about editors doing such off-wiki - trust me on this as someone who has repeatedly been advised of collection of information against him by others. ;) On that basis, the "constant threat of a ban looming" also seems to be at least a bit of an overstatement. The best way to minimize any such risks might be to try to focus at least in the short term on some non-controversial articles and/or make a point of proposing changes on talk pages and getting support there before making them. There are a lot of WP:GNOME-like tasks which one could easily do to help make him more familiar with a broader range of content and other pages, which also might give that person a better grasp of "standard procedures" of a sort. And there are, presumably, a massive number of articles on books or authors in almost all topics which meet notability requirements but don't exist yet. Any such actions might be useful and probably less likely to lead to controversy. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Bearing in mind that "CU is not magic pixie dust", I simply don't believe this is a new editor, which is the only argument that seemed acceptable to me for not imposing a topic ban. Given that, a topic ban is quite a reasonable sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I actually see two proposed topic bans here, medicine and religion. Could you be a bit more specific about which proposal(s) you are supporting? John Carter (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, I see one topic ban in the proposal, "a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed." Now some people may object to one part of it or the other, and if I had wanted to do so, I would have, but my !vote was on the proposal as originally stated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right, and my apologies. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban - (conditional) *If* Petergstrom was sincere when he said "I am willing to be mentored. I am willing to work better with editors., and *if* both sockpuppet investigations are closed without showing abusive socking (it now appears that will be the result), and *if* a volunteer can be found to mentor him on behavioral and interaction issues raised above, then a ban should be postponed. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Tryptofish, Xenophrenic, and anyone else reading, the Petergstrom account being in a different continent does not mean that he is not Pass a Method. Keep in mind that Pass a Method was last identified in a sock investigation in 2014 and that it is now 2017. Because of statements by Pass a Method in the past, I considered that he had moved, which is why I noted that Petergstrom might be interested in having a CheckUser confirm that he is no longer in the United Kingdom. Sock investigations are not solely based on the CheckUser data; they are also based on the behavioral data. Sometimes solely on the behavioral data. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive for an example of a case where the CheckUser data was put ahead of the behavioral data and I then had to compile more behavioral data just to get the sock blocked. All that stated, if you believe that Petergstrom can be reformed, and it seems that you do, I hope that you are right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Flyer22 – I hear you. I don't feel like I have really made up my mind about this, but I tend to think that this is a matter of WP:ROPE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: I subsequently changed my mind, see above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support limited-time topic bans while noting that I am WP:Involved with the blocked user whose sock Petergstorm is accused of being. I'm not convinced Flyer22 got the right master, but the user's claims to be a newbie haven't convinced me either. I support the medical topic ban based on Jytdog's report of interactions above, and the religion topic ban based on this edit war in which the user uses a tabloid source to add a new section immediately after the Lead retroactively diagnosing a Catholic saint with a psychotic disorder. (The material could have been appropriate with secondary sourcing further down in the article, but not in it's own "Mental health" section without lots of high quality sources.) Also per similar bizarre edit wars on Jesus [6] and Moses [7] ~Awilley (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment While User:Petergstrom is facing a topic ban on articles related to medicine and religion, broadly construed, he just continued edit warring on one of the same articles that brought him here! I think this demonstrates that he is unwilling to change and seek guidance. I therefore support a topic ban (and probably a block) because I think it's necessary for him to slow down.--Jobas (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to show the complete list of recent aggressive edits that were made by User:Petergstrom on the Religiosity and intelligence page [8] (from February 2 2017 mainly and up to February 14 2017) . On February 2 2017, User:Petergstrom disregarded the warnings, by at least 2 editors, that he had violated the 3RR. When User:Renzoy16 made the following edit summary "Removed information is relevant; User:Petergstrom has crossed WP:3RR" User:Petergstrom reverted with the following edit summary "I took it to talk, nobody cares. In actuality you have crossed 3RR" and continued to revert despite being notified by User:Renzoy16 and User:Jobas already.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support my impression from what I find in this huge time-sink/thread is that this editor's behavior, if permitted to continue unchecked, will lead to more huge time-sink/threads on this page. I'm seeing far too much WP:IDHT and POV-pushing, and far too little respect for the viewpoints of others. Lepricavark (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support based on recent history of remarkably unilateral changes to the Religiosity and intelligence page, a pattern of behavior which I seem to remember was also characteristic of PaM. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.png Note: Further to Flyer's response to the Oppose (Conditional) above. this also appears to be a case where CU was taken over Behavioural.
  • Support: Alongside the note above, Peter's response about taking it to talk and nobody caring? Rubbish. Why's he getting reverted if it's the case that nobody cares? Besides, why can't you move onto something else related to the topic while you wait for responses, I know pages that can take months for replies and don't complain! I think a Boomerang is in order. MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 19:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a limited-time topic ban. Peter's edits on religious topics show a tendency to make edits which are problematic for several reasons - WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:LAWYER, particularly. Working and playing well with others are core values for wikipedia editors. Giving Peter some time to think about why he's not allowed to edit in those topics is a good thing, he'll have the whole rest of wikipedia to hone his getting along with others skills. I am not persuaded by the analysis of edits presented to support the sockpuppetry accusation, but I don't need to be to support this sanction. Peter, please take advantage of the fact you're still editing at all to consider why we're doing this. Nothing personal, just WP:drop the stick, for your own sake. loupgarous (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments: It looks to me like this ANI filing by Petergstrom was a preemptive strike, because he has clearly been stalking Flyer22 and was about to be reported at ANI for it. There is zero evidence that Flyer has harassed Petergstrom, and there is abundant evidence the other way around, and there is also substantial behavioral evidence that Petergstrom may be a sockpuppet. That said, I don't know what the correct sanction should be. At this point, it does not seem like Petergstrom is an asset to the encyclopedia.

    I will proffer some advice to Flyer22: Bad things happen when content discussions occur on usertalk pages. Stay off of usertalk pages, and in the future things like this (retaliatory stalking) will not occur. (And don't ever accuse someone of being a sockpuppet: File an SPI, or not; otherwise keep your mouth shut.) All content disputes should only ever be discussed and resolved on article-talk or project-talk. It's that simple.

    That said, I think a fairly lengthy or indefinite block for Petergstrom for disruption may be more (or equally as) appropriate than a topic ban at this point. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC); edited 01:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban on both subjects. Medicine and religion are two serious fields and vandalism should be taken very seriously, especially there. Unfortunately we seem to be giving too much leeway for an editor who has not demonstrated that they deserve an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. I don't see their use here after all this drama. I would also promote a lengthy block as an appropriate response to this behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support both topic bans for six months (or indefinitely, appealable in six months). User has made too many sweeping unexplained or inadequately explained changes to articles in both of these areas even after this topic ban was proposed. Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I want to say that I acknowledge that my aggressive edit behavior has been a problem. I am working on improving my interaction with other editors here. I realize that I put myself in this mess, as I being an aggressive editor was the reason I was accused of being a sock. I hope that my recent(week or so) editing history reflects this change. Petergstrom (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban of either temporary or indefinite nature. There seems to be a core deficit in this user's understanding of WP:WEIGHT that is particularly problematic in light of the major scientific and religious articles they often choose to contribute to, and this issue is further exacerbated by proclivity to edit warring and general inability to approach the consensus process and outcomes in the right way. There's also hints of WP:IDHT, although if we credit the the post by Peter immediately above as representative of his mindset, this may be changing for the better. Still, I think removal from these topic areas, giving him time to internalize some critical policies in other areas, is in order; afterwards, he will be better prepared to contribute constructively in those areas, it is to be hoped--whether that means appealing an indefinite TBAN or just waiting out the temporary one. Snow let's rap 22:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation[edit]

For those wondering why I have called Petergstrom a sock or what evidence I have, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I must give you props for the compilation of information on all of this. I am sure it took lots of time to collect. I also looked at Jytdog's comments on another sockpuppet investigation. I agree with Jytdog that the initial edits show some familiarity with how Wikipedia is used. Also the familiarity with some WP policy, including sort of frequent use of noticeborads - which most Wikipedians never really use, strikes me as not dealing with a someone new to wikipiedia. The edits mentioned by Flyer22 Reborn do show some similarity in style to some other past accounts such as the outlining style and similar interests in medicine and religion. I am inclining to agree that some sort of sockpuppetry may be at play. Normally, new editors learn some lesson after being blocked, but the recurrent blocking and alerting that has occurred from other editors seems to show experience with the process and also how to make a defense for it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Behavioral data (analysis of the putative sock's edits) in this case strike me as equivocal, and don't establish or exclude sockpuppetry. That user might be a former user other than Petergstrom. If the CheckUser contradicts the behavioral data, WP:ROPE is indicated, not sockpuppetry sanctions. I'd hate the project to rely on subjective impressions over less equivocal evidence such as CheckUser when imposing sanctions of any sort against anyone. That's what the analysis of the behavioral evidence in this case looks like to me. loupgarous (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I second everything said by loupgarous, behavioural evidence is always 'balance of probability', in this case I am only persuaded of 'possibility' (on the strength of what has been presented to date).Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, with regard to the comments of both. I've been following this matter since it surfaced here, but mostly reserving comment until I could see whether more substantial evidence may arise, but at this point it is pretty clear that we do not have enough information to make the community comfortable on acting on Flyer's suspicions. The SPI checkuser shows that Petergstrom edits from an entirely different continent than the user Flyer22 Reborn has accused them of being a sock of, and does not use a proxy. Flyer's theory that they could have moved to another continent and resumed editing since, while inside the realm of possibility, is a rather large presumption to make on the basis of some behavioural correlations, most of them superficial; even with a number of them, its all circumstantial and open enough to interpretation that I don't see it as possible that the community would sanction a user on those suspicions alone. In fact, I dare say it is only the degree of respect that Flyer commands in the community that has kept this thread afloat despite the lack of more concrete evidence. I'm no more comfortable about saying that her suspicions are groundless (especially in light of the kind of disruption/harassment previously threatened by the suggested sockmaster), but I'm not going to support any sanction for socking on the basis of what I've seen here and at the SPI.
I'd add also, for Flyer's benefit, that if she is correct in her assessment, she might reconsider her approach here. If this really is a user who threatened to come back and pull her chain/generally troll the project, then the depth of her reaction is certainly precisely the response such an obsessive/socially broken person would be here to elicit. If this really is Pass A Method, then every diff and every line in those voluminous comparative posts of Flyer's is a victory, because this is all a game to them anyway; they are here to bait one person in particular, and every moment spent responding to that bait provokes a gleeful response in such an easily amused troll lamebrain. And I'm not saying that Flyer should ignore the matter altogether--clearly that is not a pragmatic option either, especially in light of this thread. But I do think that, if she is absolutely convinced this is a sock of her old troll nemesis, she should consider what is to be gained by such a heavy response to them. If she is correct, then she is rewarding them with exactly what they want, and even if she succeeds in unmasking them, it will only lead to a pause while this user reconsiders their tactics and comes back again; indeed, it's clear from PAM's previous comments that the challenge of having to do so is part of their petty little thrill in this area. WP:DENY is the best tactic in these circumstances, in light of the fact that the topic ban proposed above is likely to succeed. Snow let's rap 18:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for a close, please[edit]

I've brought this back from being bot-archived because there are propsoals here that need admin eyes and an admin's closure. Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: The sock case is also marked as closed (also see here). I've heard everyone out and appreciate their time on attempting to resolve these issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


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

OVERLINKING and redirect problems[edit]

Fmadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Fmadd is a (relatively) new user on Wikipedia, but has already created quite a big stir. In the past two weeks alone they have created over 250 redirects and DAB pages (and a total of 942 redirs since joining). While clearly they are not all bad, the majority are somewhat nonsensical (such as thermomagnetic, Scattering_event, and a couple of not-actually-DAB pages that have already been deleted). From looking down their creation list, it almost appears as if they say "I don't know what this means", put a wikilink, and then attempts to shoehorn in a redirect to something that is vaguely related.

I was going to drop this and walk away, but after seeing three subsequent similar posts at the user's page I feel obligated to bring it up here. In the last two months there have been 5 threads on their talk page regarding overlinking and a half-dozen notices left for pages listed for deletion. They have displayed a rather alarming NOTLISTENING attitude, brushing off attempts at correction to things like "Wikipedia should be a...resource for AI training", "the more links the better", and finishing it all up with "I am utterly amazed that this is controversial" (hint: when a dozen different editors say it's problematic, it might just be problematic). A similar discussion at WT:PHYS has also been started, with similar results. Minutes after I nominated Organic dye for deletion (it had zero incoming links) they created 50 incoming links in a clearly POINTY response. Similarly, they brushed off being told that linking to dab pages like stellar explosion was not overly helpful.

Fmadd is clearly not getting the point, which is why we're here. The overlinking needs to stop, and the wanton creation of barely-usable redirects needs to stop. While we shouldn't just delete every redirect they've created, there are a bunch of them that could use some serious scrutiny and a ton of overlinking that needs to be looked at. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have had conversations as well. To be fair: Fmadd is a relatively new user and has not yet fully grasped that Wikipedia is a community project that works by consensus. He thinks Wikipedia should operate the way he wants it to, not the way it does. I do not believe any sanction is warranted at the present time, but what is required is someone with a bit more clout than us humble users to firmly explain how things work around here. With any luck, that should solve the problem. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that being relatively new is a good reason to avoid sanctions here. 10 months isn't that new, especially with 10,000 edits (I've been on here for a little over 10 months and 11,000 edits, and I understand consensus, it's a fairly easy thing to understand). 1/3 of his edits were in the past month, but you should have a general idea on how Wikipedia works with that number of edits. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit bothered by the fact that although User:Fmadd has commented on their talk page about the discussion here, and has been very busy editing, they haven't responded here. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought this was a discussion between admins. Fmadd (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
All this fretting about over-linking, when it turns out there's already a script that can change the colour of links (e.g. .. controversial pages can be marked and they no longer 'compete for the users attention'). I said I was amazed it was contraversial, because I can imagine there are technical solutions. With whats there now you can indeed de-highlight 'contraversial' articles. I bet the script or server side software could be further modified to mark certain types of page 'trivial' within a domain (hence blanked out by default) (e.g. all physics articles dont highlight trivial physics terms, all ) etc. I got the impression this is more about a 'priestly cult' mindset. It's only by arguing I managed to discover the highlighting script (several days in, he knew about it all along..) Fmadd (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmadd/linkclassifier.css there's an example, I was able to modify that link-highlighter script to display 'articles marked for deletion' blanked out. Fmadd (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Fmadd, has made other kinds of problematic edits as well, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#User:Fmadd and destruction of article leads. Paul August 17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems like there might be some competency issues lurking about. If someone informs you that you are causing a problem, it's not a normal response to search for a technical solution that allows you to continue to cause the problem it's meant to solve. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
lol. as I thought, priestly cult mentality. Instead of improving a system, some people prefer to nit-pick, criticise others and so on. Thats why it was only many days into the discussion that someone finally told me there *is* actually already a way to colour code links by category. It would be easy to have a category of 'exploratory links', invisible by default, which are only visible if a user goes out of their way to highlight them with a custom colour scheme. Thats the first step, but imagine if wikipedia had a concept of 'prerequisites', where you could flag content according to what knowledge is pre-requisite, and dynamically blank content depending on what a user has clarified they already know. Fmadd (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Fmadd, you're missing the forest for the trees. We're telling you that per the Manual of Style, the overlinking guidelines, and (based on other conversations) SURPRISE and LEAD conventions, you should not be creating all of these redirects, and you are saying we need to start colour-coding our links better. In other words, you're missing the bloody point. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
missing the point... there's already a facility for colour coding. My intuition was, "it is surprising that we fret about overlinking". There must be a way to improve the system such that contributing information is never a problem. Fmadd (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
No Primefac, I think you're the one missing the point. If we wrote a script that flipped all our articles around for us, then we could write everything backwards, and it would automatically fix it. But instead you want to be close minded and demand that we conform to your cult of directionality. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
nice straw man there. I'm talking about colour coding (which already exists) not writing articles backwards. Fmadd (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You sure are. TimothyJosephWood 19:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Fmadd, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the central point here, which has nothing whatsoever to do with color coding. The concern is that redirects you are creating should not exist at all and you are adding unnecessary links in articles. You may be surprised that this is a real concern, but it is, and brushing it off by suggesting the rest of us use a script or whatever to mitigate it is not the correct response. You don't have to agree with the concern, but you are expected to respect the established policy and consensus on this issue. If you'd like to change the overlinking policy you are welcome to try, but unless and until such an effort is succesful you should abide by it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Fmadd, I agree with Beeblebrox. I'm going to ask you to stop adding links and creating redirects against current policy. You are very welcome to argue for changes in those policies, and to propose changes to the software to allow multi coloured links to facilitate those changes. But until you achieve a consensus that those policies should change, you must comply with them. Deliberately editing in contravention of policies just because you don't agree with them is disruptive. If you continue to do so, you will blocked from editing Wikipedia. WJBscribe (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I also think Fmadd just needs to slow it way down in general. They are editing so fast it is impossible to conceive that they are really thinking things through. I see formatting errors and creation of double redirects in just their last few edits, with no sign that they are even aware of them. There's no rush, and it's always better to think about what you are doing before you do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: I rather fear that the double redirects are intentional, not accidental creations - see my comment below... WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I've left them a warning. Regardless of if they're right or wrong (though they're wrong) editing practices should be checked until a resolution is reached. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's another example of the sort of problem this is creating - see Remote_control_(general). This appears to have been created by Fmadd on the basis that it will one day be a page with content (despite the fact that the disambiguator "(general)" is not used). See incoming links: [9] Numerous articles have had their links changed to point to Remote_control_(general). In addition several redirects have been changed to point to that page, apparently to deliberately create double redirects. This seems to be part of a master plan to restructure our articles about Remote controls and related topics. But instead of getting consensus to change that structure first, Fmadd has created a "web of redirects" to accommodate his vision of how the articles should be structured. WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As a note, I reinstated the declined speedy and cleaned up that mess. Triple redirects! WTF. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A thought regarding this incredibly disruptive editing - their edits have to be undone individually; we can't just unlink all links to their silly redirects because they used to point to valid targets... what a friggin nightmare. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    I've read some (not all) of the discussions with Fmadd, and my take is that this is a user who not only doesn't get it, he doesn't want to get it. He's even trotted out that old saw, the cabal of admins, in the form of a "priestly cult". Frankly, I don't believe more argumentation with him is going to stop him doing what he intends to do, so I think it's time for admins to consider a sanction of some sort to stop him. My first choice would be an indef block that would not be lifted until he promised to undo the mess he made, but more kind-hearted souls might prefer a topic ban on creating redirects and making wikilinks - I just feel it's likely that he wouldn't follow it, and we'd be back at an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) see below. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Question 1: block or no?[edit]

Slight edit conflict with BMK above, but good timing I guess. First question is easy - if Fmadd refuses to accept the requests made here to alter their behaviour, do we block, or just impose a tban on creating redirects (i.e. a page-creation ban)? Primefac (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • tban on page creation. I think a while actually making productive edits will allow Fmadd to see why we do things the way we do. After six months or so they're welcome to request the return of their page-creation abilities. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Blocked per their replies here. If this discussion "destroyed their faith in humanity" Wikipedia probably isn't for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • support indef. This isn't going to go well. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Question 2: all those pesky redirects[edit]

Fmadd has made a pretty big mess. The question becomes what to do about their past editing history. I see two main options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talkcontribs) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Could whoever posted the above please sign their post? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Added {{Unsigned}}. ―Mandruss  06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (slap on the wrist)[edit]

Fmadd's past redirect actions are (mostly) overlooked. Interested parties are welcome to comb through them and RFD/delete/edit/restructure as desired, but no "official" action takes place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talkcontribs) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Added {{Unsigned}}. ―Mandruss  06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (more involved response)[edit]

Fmadd's edits are all looked over by some sort of task force. Unnecessary redirects (such as Particle physics experiment and India gained independence) are deleted and the pages that linked to them are reverted to their pre-redirect status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talkcontribs) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support and willing to help out. There are just too many ridiculous redirects to tie up at RFD. I think a well-documented task force page (similar to the SvG case) would allow for transparency and some measure of REFUND should a reasonable redirect be deleted. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is pretty much where we are at. Their stubborn refusal to even try and see the issue has now earned them a block, but there's still a mess to clean up. Beeblebrox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I will freely admit that I don't understand Fmadd's master plan, so I'd be useless in trying to help undo it - but let me ask this: is it not possible to simply run down his edits in the opposite order from which they were made, and arrive at a state before Fmass started his work? Yes, surely we would lose some edits which were actual improvements, but that seems like a small price to pay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Beyond My Ken, I wanted to propose a "nuclear" Proposal 3 wherein we do just that - roll back everything, delete everything, and pick up the pieces afterwards. I wasn't sure how well that would be taken, so I didn't propose it. I suppose the worst that can happen is it isn't acceptable, so I'll do so now. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    Added {{Unsigned}}. ―Mandruss  06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (nuclear option)[edit]

Roll back all edits, delete all pages. Small team to go through and undelete the few pages that might have been useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talkcontribs) 12:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I would support this if it was changed a little bit:
1. List all created pages in userspace
2. Roll back all edits that were not on pages this user created
3. Review all pages in the userspace
4. Delete all unapproved pages in the userspace
We did the same thing with wp:x1 (with the exception of number 2), and it worked well, I think the same approach will work here. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That would work. I've already started compiling a list at User:Primefac/Fmadd. I completely agree with rolling back all of their mainspace edits, since 99% of the time it appears all they were doing was creating a link to an odd redirect. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
In relation to point 2, I should note that Fmadd is sometimes correct that the links should be changed. The problem is that many did not need changing or, if they did, he often made the problem worse. We will lose some useful work if we mass revert his edits instead of reviewing each of them, but I estimate only about 10% based on what I've looked at in relation to Remote control. For example, there were some instances in which he changed articles that linked to that page when they would more naturally refer to Teleoperation (i.e. the process of controlling electronics from a distance, not the device that enables someone to do it). However, instead of linking directly to Teleoperation, he redirected Remote controlled to Teleoperation (which probably makes sense and shouldn't be reverted), and linked to that redirect (which doesn't). WJBscribe (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
WJBscribe, I concur that there is a small proportion of their edits that were actually useful, but given that I spent an hour untangling the "remote control" issue last night and ended up only keeping four edits out of about 100, I'd say in this case we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, if only for the sanity of those draining the tub. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Primfac, Gamebuster19901, and WJBscribe. This is the best option. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I support the nuclear option, given the downside seems so low. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd support this iff the percentage of good contributions reported above is accurate. @Primefac:, yow is the listing coming? Do you have something the community can look at? Tazerdadog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Tazerdadog, I've gotten User:Primefac/Fmadd into a reasonable shape. I've sorted the redirects by incoming link count, which will make proofing them a bit easier. I haven't sorted through their articles yet, but that's not quite as important. Primefac (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

After a spot-check of my own, I have to disagree with the assessment of Primefac and WJBScribe. I found that about 50% of the redirects were a net positive, especially with small tweaks applied. Therefore I have to Oppose this option. A more detailed review is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talkcontribs) 01:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, are you willing to support option 2? Primefac (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I support mass revert, unless somebody else wants to wade through it all in more detail. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Option 2, possibly combined with X3 is the appropriate response in my opinion. 50% is an unacceptable error rate, and based on my evaluation both a nuke and a slap on the wrist would have that error rate. I'd be willing to wade through a significant chunk of it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
My 10% figure above was stated to be based upon review of Remote control based redirects. If link changes/redirections in other topic areas show as much as 50% positive edits, then I agree that this calls for a more nuanced step-by-step review of the edits. Such an approach would also allow editors to correct occasions where Fmadd identified a problem but applied the wrong solution - the optimal result is neither a revert nor keep Fmadd's edits in those instances! WJBscribe (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    Added {{Unsigned}}. ―Mandruss  06:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on the above questions and proposals[edit]

Fmadd, I guess this is the part where I ask you if you're willing to take into consideration the views expressed in this discussion as well as on the various talk pages you've been involved with. To summarize a few of the points:

  • Decrease the number of redirects you create. Start discussions to see if they're necessary. Pipe otherwise.
  • Slow down on the editing. Thing don't need to happen immediately. Finding out an idea isn't the best after two days is a lot easier to deal with if you then don't have to go back and fix fifty pages afterwards.
  • Start discussions. Yes, I mentioned this above, but this goes for things like moving remote control unilaterally. Consider all page moves to be potentially contentious, and ask if it's a good idea first.

There are other points mentioned above, but these are the major ones. Does this sound reasonable? Primefac (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

well I can take a break from this, and amuse myself somewhere else for a while. I'm not going to stay focussed on making major changes if it takes several days of discussion.. I just wont bother. thats why I liked blasting my way through one issue at a time. If you dont like redirects then my workflow can't be used here. I might as well give up. Thanks for destroying what little faith in humanity I had.. they're just redirects.. and you have to get all "priestly-cult"/"control freak" over it. The point of redirects (or any other abstractions) is breaking problems down into smaller pieces, at which point solutions crystallise out more easily. Tension in "the plan" or ambiguity is just a sign of something else to fix. I've seen this situation many times before. Some people have more to gain from problems, than solutions. Fmadd (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that's enough. Deploying block hammer. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) If Fmadd hasn't been here before under another name, I'll eat my aussie hat. Flat Out (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
He seems fond of the "priestly cult" meme - anyone recall another editor using that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
"Easier to make mass changes and argue later" seems to be a hallmark, this is their work too Flat Out (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If Fmadd isn't already back as Special:Contributions/Ll928, I'll eat my non-Aussie hat (it's got fewer corks). Dukwon (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As much as I've been opposed to similar solutions in the past, I'm really leaning toward the nuclear option, at least on anything that's purely a redirect. Looking through several pages of their creations, they seems to be an attempt to...I guess...manually create a search function? Probably fully a quarter of them are created as questions e.g., "should X redirect to Y?" or "is A the proper term for B?" I'm just not seeing much in the way of harmful collateral damage that would in any way outweigh the inordinate amount of time it would take to sort through these individually. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
We could expand wp:x1 to include redirects created by this user. Just an idea I thought should be mentioned. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. The main question in my mind, and I really don't know precisely how this works with the admin bit, but if all article creations are nuke-able with the click of a button, is there anything worth saving in the ~9% of their article creations that are not redirects, which would justify having to tag and delete 950 redirects. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I won't support or oppose nuking everything outright without a review, but if it comes to it, I wouldn't get upset about it. I've added a different proposal under the Nuke proposal. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New Speedy Deletion Criteria in Response[edit]

Since there seems to be consensus at this time to revert these edits, and issues VERY similar to this have happened before (see wp:X1) I am proposing a new speedy deletion criteria.

X3: Pages created en-masse by a single user, where the community has established broad consensus that the pages are harmful to the encyclopedia, would create significant backlogs in their deletion discussion areas, and the reviewing admin believes that it will not survive a deletion discussion. Once the community establishes that the backlog is cleared, normal procedures resume.

It is similar to wp:x1, except it can be applied to more situations so we don't have to keep creating new X criteria. X1 would be merged into X3.

Deletion reasons made under this criteria should contain a link to the discussion where consensus was established, and say "TYPE OF PAGE" created by "USER", to distinguish what situation the pages were deleted in. A list of situations where this criteria has been used should be created.

Example of deletion message: "Redirects created by User:Example, see discussion. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 18:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that. I should have the full list of redirects soon, which would give an indication of how much this criteria would be needed. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This is more of a procedural point, but wouldn't this really be an expansion of X1 rather than the creation of a new criteria? TimothyJosephWood 18:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The reason why I made it an X3 is because some deletion reasons currently just say "X1", and you wouldn't know that it was a Neelix redirect if X1 was expanded. It would be better to retire X1 and continue removing Neelix redirects under X3. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 20:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Does R3 "implausible redirects" already cover the case where a redirect is a special case of an existing general article/redirect? e.g. 3D unit vector when there's already unit vector Dukwon (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Answer: No. R3 only covers redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. Because special cases are not typos nor misnomers, R3 does not apply in that case. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the creation of a X3 criteria for his redirects, and DAB pages. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment If community consensus is necessary for a case to be added to this, isn't it just as easy for the community to authorise an X number criterion at the same time? I don't think this happens often enough for us to worry about running out of numbers. I can see this being open to the usual misunderstanding that many speedy criteria are. I'm not against the expansion of CSD criteria, but I think that perhaps keeping a specific number attached to a particular disaster one might be easier in the long run than having a catch-all criterion. I may well be missing something. (I know I'm missing my tea, and might see things differently later...) Peridon (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It would take longer to get consensus for a new speedy deletion criteria than to get consensus for invoking an already existing one. A perfect example is this discussion. A discussion similar to this would have to take place every time. In the future, someone could just propose the use of X3 instead of creating a new X. We also wouldn't have to create new template every time, we could just use X3 with values. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose creating a new speedy criteria that could potentially apply to any user, but would support X3 being specifically in relation to contributions by Fmadd (talk · contribs). This situation is rare enough that we can afford to take the time to add to CSD on a user-by-user basis. WJBscribe (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose already covered by existing criteria. If a user were creating pages in specific contravention of a ban, WP:CSD#G5 is covered. WP:CSD#G6 is sort of the WP:IAR of deletion criteria as well, if you have a good specific rationale, which is likely to be uncontroversial, G6 should cover it. Especially if a community consensus has already determined that some large block of articles should be speedy deleted as part of a long discussion, then someone could just tag each one as {{db-g6|rationale = <link to original discussion>}} should suffice. I'm already troubled by the existence of the X category anyways, and I'd not like to see it grow. --Jayron32 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment G6 only covers technical deletions, and G5 wouldn't work in this case as the user was not banned at the time the pages were created. Also, X3 would probably prevent more X's being created. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ah...WP:BURO anyone? If the community assessment is that the stuff should be nuked, who gives two figs what bureaucratic code is applied to it, just go ahead and do it per WP:IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If the community decides a nuke is in order, then the pages should simply be nuked, and the edit summary should link back to this discussion. On the other hand, if the community decides a manual review of the edits is in order, a speedy criterion to keep everybody on the same page makes good sense. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Didn't we have that discussion already a few weeks back? The reason we use certain designations is that any user can see the designation in the logs and know why the deletion took place. The proposed X3 would mean people had to search for this discussion first. In this specific case, unlike the Neelix one, it would probably not be a terrible strain on WP:RFD if those redirects were listed there instead. We should take care not to create new speedy criteria unless it's really necessary. Alternatively, just nuke all the redirects he created, they are cheap and can be recreated easily. Regards SoWhy 21:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SoWhy. -- Tavix (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as an useful criterion for users that are not blocked but created redirects en masse, as nuking is only useful toward indefinitely blocked users with account creation blocked and autoblock enabled. Neelix is an example, but we need to stop users from creating redirects en masse using a new speedy deletion criterion, instead of creating a new one for each of those users. The name I propose for the criterion is R4, because I believe it will be permanent. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate global reverts[edit]

A great number of non-redirect contributions were just reverted out by Primefac, which does not seem supported by consensus above and is contrary to existing policy and precedent. For those arguing that nothing Fmadd did was not a redirect problem, you are very wrong, and this has been a grave error. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Last night I spent the better part of an hour undoing a mess they made with remote control - they moved it to another location, changed 100+ wikilinks to unnecessary redirects, and generally made a mess of things. In every instance I've looked, they've done this. In one instance they changed pair production into Electron–positron pair production, which is a redirect to pair production! I did not find any good reason not to nuke everything and sift through the ashes. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations, that's one of the ones that tipped me something was going on. That one appears to be connected to the problems called out above. Hoever, Pair-instability supernova didn't have anything I see as a problem, he added two perfectly good links (one via a redirect, but a link should have been there from that term, and the other one went straight in to the existing article). So, question: is my watchlist the only two articles with a 50% obvious error rate for a global revert, or was the global revert too aggressive?... Sample size small, but so far I am not impressed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • [10] in "Second processor" where Fmadd removed a redundant word. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • [11] in Zeus Web Server where he linked Static and Dynamic Web Pages (appropriate, good links) via redirects (inappropriate). Just reverting was wrong-o. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • ...annnd the same thing in Utopia Documents, a good link via a redirect that should have gone direct instead. And those three were just the last three things you reverted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Either fix the problems you see, or just file it under collateral damage and let's get out of the morass and back to editing an encyclopedia. I don't see this kind of nit-picking as being very useful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I also don't find the "problems" you're highlighting here as terribly significant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 5) Their astronomy work was... less bad than the other stuff. Since I checked them all earlier, I can tell you - every single DAB they created they went in and created 5-10 links to it, regardless of if it even made sense (which it didn't). I found a huge copy-paste page move (which I did fix, by the way) as well as a ridiculous number of anchors placed in the first sentence of the article. Half of their edit summaries were "I don't know what this links to, maybe we can fix it later?". I will not deny that I undoubtedly reverted some decent edits, but I know that I fixed more than I broke, and by a significant margin. If you want to crawl through every edit I made, feel free to make a list and post it on my page, but at that point it's just as easy for you to hit undo as it is for me. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delaunay triangulation which was the fifth most recent thing reverted. With all due respect Beyond my Ken and Primefac, this is not collateral damage. This is clear evidence that "nuke it all from orbit" was the wrong thing to do here. I would be perfectly happy to take some fraction of the 900-plus edits that were reverted and fix them, but the right approach is what we do with copyvios and list them all out and have people take chunks of them and review them. And given the error rate in the blanket reversion, I suggest we do so from a position of undoing all the reverts and then cleaning up the underlying edits, rather than having to back through the reverts the hard way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You've pointed out a few trivial errors: 4 out of 900-plus. That's hardly establishing a significant error rate. Also, I can;t believe you're using copyvio as an example of a procedure to follow: if you look at the copyvio area, you'll note that some of those have lingered there unchecked for a very long time, despite the hard work done by Brownhairedgirl and others. Here we have a case that's confined to a single editor, with what appears to be a fairly low error rate from nuking (or at least a significant error rate has yet to be established). Better, in my opinion, to nuke them all, and then fix the ones that didn't need nuking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • GWH: If you're pointing out these supposedly non-trivial errors here, why aren't you reverting them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Those were 5 errors in seven checks; the last 5 reverts Primefac made (time wise) and the two articles I had watchlisted. So my error rate is over 70% on that sample. 4 out of 5 on the last 5 reverts, which are random vs the ones I watchlist (which aren't randomly selected, they're both astronomy/physics related, which I will accept for the sake of argument may have been better done). Maybe we should check some other random set of them, pick somewhere for me to start in the 900 and how many you think is reasonable (5 more? 10?) I am perfectly happy to / will fix those 5 articles, but I want to start doing so after we determine what the global solution is. If we have to undo all 900 reverts I'd rather baseline that than patch a few of them and then have to untangle it after. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
      • 37, 194, 477, 635, 743. Take 5 edits starting at each of those numbers, examine them, and determine the error rate for those 25 edits. (Don't worry about precision in counting, the numbers are just pseudo-random starting points - any five starting points throughout the sample will do.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Going backwards from [12] as there have been updates since my last comments... (apologies, going to create list, then have to get on train, then will check when I get home, so need some time for the details...)
  • First group: [13] this was an inappropriate link, [14] complicated - old link to central processor unit, new link to category of families of CPUs that he created, right answer is probably a new article to explain what a central processor unit family is (the CPU article doesn't now) - neither Fmadd nor the revert actual best solution, [15] new link to redirect to category he created - not obviously wrong but revertable per discussion above, [16] one link replaced three; link to redirect to category (same as prior entry) that was less subject-appropriate than the original three, probably wrong of Fmadd [17]

two links - first: straightforwards, correct link. Second: created improper redirect, but a direct link to target was appropriate - right solution should have been to direct-link the second instead of via the redirect. Reverts respectively right, (neither), right per consensus, right, wrong/should have fixed instead for 2 halves Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Second group: [18] two links to one link via a redirect into the second link's article - neither way best, should probably be single link to anchor in Matrix (mathematics) where real and complex matricies are defined, [19] new link to the same topic problem as first entry second group - same solution, [20] same as first, second entries, [21] same as first, second, third entries, [22] ah, new problem. Link to redirect (consensus bad) that should have direct linked to a vanchor I believe was appropriate in Addressing mode which was reverted out as part of all of this, so is broken now. four (complicated, should go to vanchor that was never placed instead); fifth should have been direct linked to vanchor that should be replaced (how do we score *that*...?) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Third group: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]
  • Fourth group: (approx start) [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]
    • Plus next one: [33] just because I watchlist it, will not count for 25
  • Fifth group: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]
(bottom of list) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, five of Primefac's reverts of Fmadds edits show up on my watch list, all of which I checked, and only one of Fmadd's edits were, in my view, OK (which I restored). Paul August 02:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ll928[edit]

New user LL928 and Fmadd seem to overlap quite a bit. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. Clearly a sockpuppet. Blocked. WJBscribe (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

50504F[edit]

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... not a 100% match, but I think the early stuff was to get to autoconfirmed. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In a surprisingly display of good faith, I have unblocked them. Talk about being in the wrong place editing the wrong redirects at the wrong time.... Primefac (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Refocusing[edit]

There, at some point here, were definitely some coherent options that got muddled by formatting and a lot of other issues. There seemed to be some general support for mass reversion and deletion, which itself got muddled by bureaucratic issues about creating a new CSD criteria, which then got muddled by specific reversions. So I guess my question to those involved is: what are the options that are still on the table, can we condense those into a couple that have general consensus, and can we decide between them? TimothyJosephWood 22:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: can chime in here, but unless I'm counting wrong, it appears to me that all of Fmadd's edits have been nuked, pursuant to the consensus in the sections above this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I would be impressed to find that all 1k of them have been taken care of, but if that's the case, and everyone's fine with it, then I suppose we can close and move on with ourselves. TimothyJosephWood 23:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I definitely don't see the consensus to nuke in the sections above. I'm happy if they were all legitimately reviewed, but I doubt that is the case. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The consensus seems quite clear to me, and I applaud Primefac's decision to follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Like BMK I support blanket removal. Those complaining that the removals should not have occurred without weeks of argument are welcome to check all edits and reinstate those that are genuinely helpful to the encyclopedia. If Wikipedia ever grinds to a halt, it will be because of the navel gazing and pointless bickering that occurs when the community responds to inappropriate contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I reverted about 1700 of Fmadd's (current) edits, and I've been undone about 20 times. An error rate of <2% is perfectly acceptable to me. Due to some (understandable) hesitation (mostly by Tazerdadog) I have not nuked all of his redirects.
Given the apparently p<0.05 validity of their edits, my guess would be <5% of their redirects would be salvageable. I've taken a couple of days off to clear my head from the "nuke everything" blinders, and will be going through User:Primefac/Fmadd and seeing what could legitimately be kept. Hopefully I can get through this by the end of the week, and I'm thinking something like another week after that if there is no further input I'll delete what's in the "delete" pile. I'm pretty sure I started a talk page discussion and yall are welcome to join in. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, if Primefac is committed to sorting through the issue, especially if Tazerdadog is willing to act as a second opinion, which should and seems to be respected by PF, is there anything here left which requires administrator attention or broad community input? TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it would be beneficial to hear from @Georgewilliamherbert:, who objected most strongly (but politely) to the nuking, to see whether his examination of the 25 edits I suggested has changed his mind. Certainly, the complexity of what he has reported so far has not changed my mind that nuking was the right option, as opposed to having numerous editors dedicate large portions of their lives to undoing the cat's cradle Fmadd created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please ping me @Primefac: when you have the list of redirects to be deleted, and I'll check them over. I wish you hadn't done the mass rollback on Fmadd's edits, but I will acknowledge that consensus might not be with me on that point and it doesn't seem to be breaking the wiki. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, will do. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Tazerdadog, Primefac: I'm just gonna say, I think you guys may be in the wrong place, since this seems a heckuva lot like civil editors cooperating to work through a well reasoned compromise. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed at ANI. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll notify the media. EEng 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that I posted User talk:Primefac/Fmadd#Am I allowed to modify these redirects? about a few redirects in particular I thought were plausible or fixable. I am weakly in favor of keeping the ones I mentioned; because of that doubt, I have yet to update Primefac's list, but I will do so ASAP. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: @Primefac: TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible logged-out editing to evade topic ban[edit]

The following is suspicious, but I am not 100% sure that it passes the duck test.

On 18 September 2016 User:Jed Stuart was indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories.[39]

On 19 February 2017 User:2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA started posting to Talk:Electronic harassment, making the same basic point that Jed Stuart was making before the topic ban; that we should treat the opinions of those who believe that they are victims of electronic harassment with the same weight as the opinions of mental health professionals who believe that their experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis. Examples:[40][41][42][43]

So, do I hear a quack, or am I hearing quacking where there isn't any? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You know if you wore a tinfoil hat you wouldnt hear subliminal quacking.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Just took a look at their contributions. SPA-IP which exists only to push an agenda. Largely irrelevant as to the duck test, what they want is unlikely to happen. Continued pushing will probably end up with a block sooner rather than later. From the article talkpage history I suspect they are more likely related to Beautifulpeoplelikeyou who also had a bee in their bonnet about state terrorism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Bananas? 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I semi-protected the talk page due to obvious evasion of sanctions. A review of past talk page edits indicates that this will not be in any way detrimental, one month for now and we could make it indefinite without any obvious downside. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Owww 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That is not me. And that is not the point I was attempting to make. Typical mischaracterization of what I was attempting to say. I am reading that Talk page though and one day you may regret treating me with such belligerence. How many times have I been accused of doing that? I can't be bothered to find out.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
If you say that 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA is not you I will take your word for it. As for "belligerence", I would not be doing you any favors if I were to mislead you into thinking that there is the slightest hope that your theories will ever be included in any Wikipedia article without you first finding a reliable source as defined by WP:MEDRS to back them up. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I was not attempting to assert a personal theory. I was attempting to integrate information from the Washington Post into the article and also achieve a more NPOV than an article weighted 100% to not well researched psychiatric opinion in an environment in which many people think otherwise. I was banned from the article on the basis of your and others false accusations and am angry now that I was banned without being given the chance to refute all that.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Call it whatever you want. It is not going into any Wikipedia article without a WP:MEDRS-compliant source backing it up, which the Washington Post article[44] is not. You were topic banned indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories per this ANI discussion. To your credit, you have obeyed the topic ban, but the fact that you seem to have learned nothing from that ANI discussion tells me that the topic ban needs to stay in place. Of course you can appeal the ban (see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community) but any appeal will be rejected until you show some understanding of why so many people supported your topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not the IP was Jed, Jed's actions in this this thread are almost certainly not covered under BANEX. The most recent comment is a blatant attempt to justify the behaviour that led to the ban. @Jed Stuart: Just to be clear, you are allowed comment here to either deny or admit to having engaged in sockpuppetry to get around your TBAN. You are not allowed loudly proclaim that the ban was not justified to begin with and you never did anything wrong, unless you are specifically appealing the ban itself. This thread is not, at least right now, about appealing your ban; it is about whether you violated it by socking. You have denied this accusation. The community will decide whether your denial is credible. But if you continue to violate your ban by discussing it in a manner like above it will not matter whether you had already violated or not. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri makes a good point. Jed Stuart, I'm not going to ask for sanctions myself, but you should be aware that your last comment was a violation of your topic ban. Take this as a warning and try to abide by it. And please, please try to realize why you were topic banned. I would like nothing more than to be able to support you if/when you eventually appeal it, but it doesn't look like I can from your last comment.
(I can't believe I forgot to watchlist that page with my alt, so I've been unaware of it as I rarely use my main account these days.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC
@MjolnirPants: I don't know quite how it works, but I notice your alt acocunt has email enabled -- does this mean you use a different email with your alt account? My watchlist mostly functions to send me email notifications, so I tend to (fallaciously) assume that's how everyone else uses theirs. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I can get emails sent to either account, but I don't want email notifications of changes on my watchlist. I'm usually watching at least 1-3 wikispace pages in addition to 2 noticeboards, 2 project pages and 1 help desk page. I'd drown in emails if I did that, and I'm too lazy to set up something to handle them for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I wont let Guy Macon goad me into any more discussion of the EH article. How do we clear up whether I am socking or not? I know that people with a similar perspective to mine on that article do often attempt to win that way, but I dont think of doing that as it would be a difficult victory to hold and might even be bad for ones health.Jed Stuart (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jed Stuart: That's the spirit. And (although I don't necessarily agree that this was happening here), if you see someone apparently trying to goad you into violating your editing restriction, a good idea is to politely ask them to stop, and if they refuse then you can notify the admin who closed the ban discussion and ask them to intervene. (In theory, you should be able to open an ANI thread on them, but I tried this before -- it frequently doesn't work.) Obviously goading someone into violating their own editing restriction despite warnings to stop is a blockable offense. You're actually lucky in that you are only subject to a TBAN. With an IBAN it's much worse because even mentioning the username of the person you are banned from interacting is a clear violation that can get you immediately blocked, even if another user is disruptively bringing up their name in an unrelated dispute. In your case, simply saying I don't want to discuss that with you; it would probably be a violation of my editing restriction would likely do the trick, but if you were subject to an IBAN and you said the same thing ... don't ask. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88:I will try that it if it happens again. I prefer polite. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I apologize. I just wasn't thinking with my "I wouldn't be doing you any favors if..." comment, which was completely unfair given the topic ban forbidding a reply. I deserve a slap in the face with a wet trout for being such an idiot, and Jed Stuart should be held blameless. It was entirely my fault. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Would that some users clearly guilty of repeated and flagrant goading were as quick to admit being in the wrong. You are to be commended for your willing contrition, Guy. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: I am thinking about why I was banned, and am still concerned that it was based on untruths. I did however learn a lot about how corrupted Wikipedia is at that level. The comments by EdChem at my attempt to get a right of reply were most enlightening no fairness. I will appeal when fairness is valued again and there is less chance of getting a repeat of that Stalinist show trial. Bow to the God of Wikipedia. I still like it though.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Jed, you're really going to hurt yourself if you insist that Wikipedia is out to get you. In case you hadn't noticed, WP is made of all kinds. We have liberals and conservatives, social justice warriors and white nationalists, conspiracy theorists and sheeple, atheists and Christians and Jews and Muslims, lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Getting any sort of cabal or conspiracy together out of that hot mess is, even you have to admit, all but impossible. Even getting a group of like-minded individuals together on request is extraordinarily difficult here (and strongly discouraged as a rule). You're heading down a path I've seen a dozen or so editors take, and while each one had a different story of their trip down that path, each one has ended up in an indefinite ban. A well-earned indefinite ban, I might add. Please don't follow them. If you need to take a wikibreak, then do that. But don't shoot yourself in the foot by trying to put motivations on a gaggle of a few hundred nerds with strong opinions on everything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia is out to get me. I think I was treated unfairly by a small group of people, and wont be appealing until Wikipedia returns to valuing fairness at level. Simple thing really, many people have put energy into making it a fair and constructive place. It is truly amazing how much has been achieved. And I see many people though deeply saddened and some furious, not because it is out to get them, but because the good effort is being undermined by corruption of process, gaming the system, POV railroads etc, and I notice that many of those who have tried to change that drift towards something less user friendly have left. Not a conspiracy just a slide in the wrong direction. It will probably come good sooner or later. The momentum for that has been established.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser and Sir Joseph[edit]

Both users are aware of what the RFC and survey outcome were on this category, along with what it entails for the existing structure of related categories. However, both have persisted in edit warring (see 1 and 2), reverting and antagonizing users who restored the appropriate categories in accordance with the survey outcome (see 3 and 4), made blatantly dishonest claims in justifying their reverts (see 5, the opening survey statement, and its closure), and attempted to game the system to implement their preferred changes (see 5). Sir Joseph is, as of today, attempting to the restart the same discussion by phrasing it in a slightly different manner. This is disruptive editing and, at least to me, suggests that neither of these users should be editing on topics relating to Jewish descent or ethnic identity, as they are both clearly incapable of leaving their personal feelings out of it. I think a topic ban for both editors is an appropriate solution, but I'll leave that up to you.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Debresser&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sir+Joseph&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Musashiaharon#February_2017

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeffgr9#Please_stop

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=766856773#Category:People_of_Jewish_descent

Firstly, even if the RFC was closed correctly, consensus can change. In addition, the RFC was extremely poorly written and discussed, even among the people commenting there was confusion. There is absolutely no prohibition on me creating a new RFC with a clearer, concise and simpler question. This is a content dispute and you are trying to create a chilling atmosphere where if someone disagrees with you, you will take them to ANI. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
See above for the underlying WP:MEAT issue behind this post. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
First off, my post makes it pretty clear that this is a behavioral dispute, not a content one. Second, it was Debresser who worded the original RFC. That is something you need to take up with him. Although after reading over everything again, no one expressed confusion as to what we were discussing. This is a clear example of dishonesty on your part, and alongside your characterization of my post here as an insidious plot to silence dissent, only supports my view that you are unfit to edit in this area.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
[45] "One of the worst RFC's I've ever seen."
[46] "I do agree with you...." Sir Joseph (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll give you 105, although it is unclear if it was a reaction to Debresser's OP (again, take that up with him), or the overall long-windedness of the thread. Beyond that, the survey was very clear on what was being discussed, and everybody involved understood that. The issue is moot.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You are edit warring. The RFC was ONLY on the Category of Jewish Descent, not on anything else, since the Jewish Descent cat had Middle Eastern descent, asian descent. The RFC was not for any other categories. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
"Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose. Do not engage in threaded discussion, which can go above. The purpose of this section is to make it easier for the closer to assess what the !votes are without having to wade through a lot of back-and-forth." Did you even read the survey?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
And yet the RFC itself was worded as "I propose to reach a conclusion that there is no place for "Middle East" categories, and per the same token "West Asian" or "Asian" categories, on any of the "Jewish descent" categories. There is at present no conformity on this issue in all of the "Jewish descent" categories, and of the many "Jewish descent" categories, some have one or more of the above. This Rfc strives to reach a conclusion that would be binding for all of them, and in my opinion that conclusion should be that those categories are out of place on all "Jewish descent" categories. " Notice all the "DESCENT" categories? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The wording was "Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose." Nothing about descent. However an RFC with that sort of wording needs to be in a centralized location and advertised properly. I don't know how it was advertised but I don't think one category talk page is a centralized location. The outcome should not be used as consensus for other pages, especially with the close. --NeilN talk to me 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
NeilN see right above where the RFC was specifically for descent, which is why the whole RFC was confusing. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It was advertised pretty well. Even the editors who were active in previous discussions were notified.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant, it was not in a central location so it can't be applied to any other categories. And besides, I stand by my assertion that the RFC is a bad RFC. It should be overturned just for being malformed. The question of the RFC doesn't match the survey and discussions. It is very confusing indeed. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The survey was standalone (in fact, it was a reaction to the sheer long-windedness of the RFC) and the locus of discussion in the survey was abundantly clear. You can't overturn a survey decision because you believe there was widespread confusion (there wasn't) on the RFC, which as you admit, was separate.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


ANYWAY, this is getting off topic. This section is about Debresser and Sir Joseph's behavior, particularly whether they are capable of editing objectively on Jewish descent categories. Everything I've seen from them since the closure of the survey points towards the negative.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A request for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard was closed about a day ago as incompletely filed. It could also have been closed because the dispute is pending in another forum, this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, this should be discussed above. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Now moved to below. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To be quite honest, The Human Trumpet Solo, you're a highly inexperienced editor, you have only left about five edit summaries in your entire life, and you don't even know how to correctly post a WP:DIFF. This doesn't not inspire my confidence. It seems to me that this is entirely a content dispute, and no amount of wrangling on this noticeboard is going to change that. If people are edit-warring, warn them and report them at WP:ANEW, assuming that you have attempted discussion on article-talk first. If there are any further disagreements, let NeilN and/or Robert McClenon assist in forming a proper dispute resolution protocol in the proper venue(s) (which is not here). Please do not take up more time and space on this board. Softlavender (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am still concerned that potential issues of MEAT, SPA, and possible socking remain unaddressed in this dispute. This is the second (perhaps third) time I wrote this now. El_C 10:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:GoldenGuy23[edit]

GoldenGuy23 (talk · contribs) After been blocked for a week for adding unsourced or poorly sourced content last month, this editor continue adding these sources that are not reliable. Websites such as Discogs, YouTube and WhoSampled, these sources go against the guidelines WP:ALBUMAVOID. This editor has been edit warring with other editors as well, including me, Kellymoat, Dan56 and Walter Görlitz in the past, me and other editors trying to tell him that these sources are not reliable, and after we reverted these edits, he restored these bad sources back to articles. Here are the evidence below.

[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]

Yes, I know these edits are plowed up to one, but you can see my problem with this editor. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Recommend a block: It appears that User:GoldenGuy23 had some issues in the past recently, including addition poorly sourced content and/or edit warring, and it seems to have returned. A longer to indefinite block would just shut this user up for sure. SportsLair (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: I agreed, if this editor keeps adding content with bad sources and ignoring other editors or edit warring, might as well blocked him for a longer time. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • SportsLair, as long as you have a bolded comment that simply says "Block", I don't think anything is going to happen because to anyone skimming this page it looks like you are saying the user has already been blocked. I recommend that you unbold that and/or state that you recommend a block. Softlavender (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment His/her user page, User:GoldenGuy23, was apparently deleted on 2 April, 2016. Any idea why the user page of an active user was deleted? Dimadick (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The block notice explains that the page itself was created by another editor.

I'm going to ping SportsLair again: Could you please either unbold your comment or place the word "Recommend" inside the bolding, so admins can see that it was a recommendation and not a fait accompli? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Softlavender. I'm sure I'll understand your recommendation. I know it looks unstable, but something looks to be a total power surge here. SportsLair (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Scope of WP:NOTHERE?[edit]

Would the editing history of User:66.213.29.17 be considered WP:NOTHERE behavior? I am not making any accusations; I really don't know whether this is or is not within the scope of that often-treated-as-policy information page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of the questions posed by 66.213.29.17 (talk · contribs) are a bit odd, but I don't think they cross the line, at least not yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how NOTHERE could ever apply to the Reference Desks. Exceedingly few of the questions are related to article editing, ergo few of the questioners are here to build an encyclopedia. Whether the behavior is borderline trollish is another question. Three completely unrelated new questions on three desks within 25 minutes? Are the questions sincere or does the person simply enjoy triggering interminable RD debates for some reason? I'll keep my psych theories to myself. ―Mandruss  20:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it's the opposite. WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTFORUM applies to most of the reference desk most of the time. It's a bit like not being a nice guy while in prison. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The refdesk isn't really part of the encyclopedia, so, no, NOTHERE clearly does not apply, or we would have to block half the particpants there who don't do anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
May God save the project. I don't know how we'd make it without them. TimothyJosephWood 20:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The usual reason for blocking someone on the ref desk is "disruption" or "long term abuse". "Not here" is sometimes used, but it's a little slippery, as Beeblebrox suggests. The ref desk itself started as a spinoff from the help desk, and both of them (like this page too) are not articles, but not quite talk pages either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I contribute to the Reference desk using an internet cafe in west London. However, when I composed an edit this morning and pressed "save" I discovered the machine had been blocked - for a month. The block notice said the blocker was "Favonian" and the reason given was ban evasion, User:Vote (X) for Change. The last edit from the address had been at 09:17 and it was a correction of a punctuation error in a talkpage heading. "Favonian" had reverted the correction with this edit summary:

Don't refactor other editors' comment -- especially not when you're community banned.

This is nonsense - formatting corrections are made frequently and they are permitted by policy. On checking the block log I saw that this was the second block - the IP had previously been blocked by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" at 05:58 on Wednesday. The reason given here was long-term abuse: User:Vote (X) for Change. "Future Perfect at Sunrise" then deleted a clutch of reference desk answers claiming they were provided by "banned users".

I referred the matter to the management and they will happily confirm that the edits deleted by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" and the one deleted by "Favonian" were made by different people.

In addition, at the time this supposed ban evader "Vote (X) for Change" made the edit this morning I hadn't even left my house. I arrived at Finsbury Park station at 09:45 where the indicator board informed me that the 09:56 service to King's Cross was delayed and would leave at 10:05. Before leaving the train at Kings Cross the driver informed us that the delay was "caused by severe loss of power" (possibly connected to the fact that there is engineering work on the Cambridge line and trains are running no further than Welwyn Garden City). In any event, Finsbury Park is a very long way from west London. 81.147.142.155 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If you really want to contribute, you could request having your ban lifted. It seems you prefer to disrupt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the refdesks[edit]

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#Purposes of the desk the purpose of the refdesks is defined thusly:

"The reference desk process helps the growth and refinement of Wikipedia by identifying areas that may need improvement. If an article that could answer a question is lacking the relevant information, look for a way to work the information into the article. This provides a lasting value to the project."

Does asking question after question, mostly not questions about about any article and without very little indication that he/she actually reads the answers "helps the growth and refinement of Wikipedia by identifying areas that may need improvement"? Are the refdesks there to benefit the encyclopedia, or are they there to be an embedded social networking site? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is more appropriate for an RFC, not ANI, but I would say the short answer is that although it is possible and desirable that article improvements could come from refdesk questions, article improvement is obviously not the primary purpose of the refdesk in practice, regardless of what that page says. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could compel a questioner to acknowledge his previous question before asking another. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could require questioners to ask questions that are in any way relevant to the encyclopedia, and I would completely support an RfC proposal reining them in, and explicitly stating that NOTFORUM applies to Wikipedia, period. This is the second time this issue has come up here in the last month and frankly I think it's mostly just silly. I personally don't care how many people might get alienated by the reform, because if those people are not in any way contributing to the project, then their alienation isn't the project's concern. If they do contribute, and their questions are relevant, then it shouldn't terribly affect them anyway. TimothyJosephWood 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
No wonder this sounds so familiar. Has anything about the particular user come up on the ref desk talk page? Because that's where it belongs, at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking again through the list of questions from that user, some are a tad provocative, but nearly all of them, if not all (1) can be answered by appropriate references; and/or (2) explicitly or implicitly suggest where improvements might be possible in articles. Conceptually, that's not at odds with the stated goal of the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood, "This is the second time this issue has come up here in the last month" -- did it need to come up here, or did the reporter just overreact? As Bugs says, this one can be handled on the refdesk talkpage. The refdesk regulars usually deal such issues pretty well. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Need? If this editor had been doing this literally anywhere else on the project then decidedly yes, and they probably would have already been sanctioned for it. But for some reason we've decided that the ref desk is somewhere where it's appropriate to ask questions about how to contact an IMDB admin, or talk about how you love gems, and frankly, as long as we have vocal editors, and even administrators who engage in and encourage discussion entirely off the topic of building an encyclopedia, then we can't really expect anything to be done about it, and whether a user there gets blocked boils down to, as far as I can tell, personal opinion on whether they are trolling. For my own part, I think a standard of appropriateness that seems to boil down to "any question whatsoever that can in any way be responded to in a way that includes a wikilink", is a bar that is somewhat beneath the project. But hey, maybe one day I too will have a gratuitous question about my genitals, and there'd be no reason to cough up that co-pay when I know the ref desk is just a click away and happy to help. TimothyJosephWood 11:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not an administrator. Merely a wiki-peon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I stand corrected. I suppose I see you around here enough that I assumed. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 — refusal to respect a consensus[edit]

In the past few months, editors at 2017 World Rally Championship have been caught in a content dispute. Specifically, it focuses on the inclusion of content related to the WRC Trophy and whether it should be separated into its own article. After editors were unable to come to a consensus, I opened an RFC on the subject, in which editors were asked the following question:

"Should the WRC Trophy be split into a separate article?"

I included my position, as follows:

"We can reasonably create standalone articles for the WRC Trophy, rather than including the WRC Trophy articles within the primary season article."

User:MNSZ was the next to contribute, offering this:

"My point of view is that, in the main championship (lets say in this case the 2017 WRC, or the afore-mentioned 2015 WRC-2) should be a prose explaining that an "internal" cup is being held, with a link to the article."

User:Tvx1 also offered an opinion:

"It's no near notable enough to satisfy our notability guidelines to warrant a stand-alone article."

At this point, the RFC stalled and ultimately expired after thirty days with no further contributions. However, the subject came up again at WikiProject World Rally in a discussion with wider implications for articles within the scope of the WikiProject. MNSZ reaffirmed his support for a separate article, and User:Ivaneurope also contributed:

"IMO It's fine the way it is, but this proposal seems to be good."

Which I took to mean that Ivaneurope had no issue with the current form of the article, but would not oppose changes if they were a part of wider reforms.

With the RFC expiring, I reviewed all of the discussion and came to the conclusion that there was enough support for the WRC Trophy to be split into a separate article, even if the final form of that article had not been settled upon just yet. However, Tvx1 has since reverted those changes, claiming the following:

"There is no consensus for the split at all."

He has not provided any evidence for this claim, and has even gone so far as to claim that MNSZ and Ivaneurope are completely opposed to separating the WRC Trophy content into its own article, despite the content of the RFC. At this point, it should be noted that the editors in the discussion have gone to great lengths to suggest alternative solutions, most of which can be found at Talk:2017 World Rally Championship. Tvx1 has refused to co-operate, dismissing every single one immediately and further refusing to discuss them or how they could be improved or changed; instead, he has steadfastly refused to accept anything other than the current form of the article. It is quite clear that Tvx1 has no respect for a consensus that he personally disagrees with, and has moved to undermine it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify why I reverted. This was said by MNSZ in a discussion subsequent to the RFC:
"I was re-reading the Sporting Regulations and, in the Appendix XII (The WRC Trophy) says that "2.1.4 If fewer than 5 competitors have been classified at the end of the FIA WRC Trophy, the FIA reserves the right to suspend the Trophy.". Knowing this, I would not go for a full article as for now there could easily be no trophy at all. ... But going back to the WRC Trophy, I think that we can work in the sub-section option that was previously presented. It would be a "meet me half-way" kind of solution. If you all care to check my sandbox, I worked in this "sub-section". Please check not only that sub-section, but how I would work the "non-manufacturer" entries also. I think that it looks much more cleaner that way."
And Ivaneurope wrote the following in the same discussion on the talk page of the article in question:
"Drive DMACK Trophy does not exist anymore since M-Sport and DMACK supply with cars and tires to JWRC starting this season. Also WRC-2 and WRC-3 have the same calendar as the main category, while WRC-T entrants are just World Rally Car entries ineligible to score manufacturer points. Thus I don't see a need for separate WRC Trophy page."
Along with my contribution, than constitutes firm opposition to proposed split. As for the RFC, as both myself and Prisonermonkeys are involved in it, neither of us should search to make a review of it. A Request for closure has been posted yesterday and I think we should respect the process.Tvx1 21:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear....not the next instalment of "The battle of Prisonermonkeys vs Tvx1"... You guys seriously need to stop "point scoring" off each other by reporting each other for every little thing that happens to ANI/AN3. It's getting rather ridiculous and childish now and the worst that could happen is that you two will end up either being blocked or have an IBAN with each other. So drop the stick, stop fighting and work together for once! We're supposed to collaborate with others to help build an encyclopedia, not constantly point scoring off each other by reporting. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes I agree that being here about this minor issue is ridiculous and childish. As said in my reply, I think we should simply respect Wikipedia's processes.Tvx1 22:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

"As said in my reply, I think we should simply respect Wikipedia's processes"

Okay, then read WP:CRYSTAL. As I pointed out in the discussion, the wording of the regulations states that in the event that there are not enough WRC Trophy entries, the FIA may decide not to award it. So by continuing to include it, you're saying "this doesn't deserve a separate article because at some point in the future it might become irrelevant". It might become irrelevant. For now, the FIA is running it with the expectation that it will be awarded, but you're making decisions based on a highly specific set of circumstances that may never actually come to pass. That's CRYSTAL.

"Also WRC-2 and WRC-3 have the same calendar as the main category, while WRC-T entrants are just World Rally Car entries ineligible to score manufacturer points."

That's incorrect. WRC-T entrants are for specific models of WRC cars that are ineligible for points, not all WRC cars ineligible for points.

"But going back to the WRC Trophy, I think that we can work in the sub-section option that was previously presented."

The whole point of the discussion was to remove large tables that served little purpose. The proposed solution added more tables in, most of which simply repeated information in other tables. All of which I pointed out when discussing the proposal. Which is more than I can say for what you did, shooting half a dozen ideas down with no reason or explanation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, the quotes your replying to are not mine. Ping the users of questions if you want to engage their arguments. Secondly, this is not the place to discuss article content. It looks like your forumshopping here.Tvx1 00:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"Firstly, the quotes your replying to are not mine."
But you're using them to justify your decisions. When you quoted MNSZ, you were effectively saying "this content does not deserve its own article because of this speculation, but it does deserve to be included elsewhere despite the speculation". Ignoring for the moment that it's speculation, it's a paradox. If the regulation is so imperative as to threaten the Trophy, then all content should be removed until such time as it is awarded. But it's still speculation—the rule amounts to "if this happens, then that might happen". You're always removing speculation elsewhere, so why is it permitted here?
In the second example, where you quote Ivaneurope, the quote is factually incorrect. If you're then using that to justify an editing decision, it suggests that you don't understand the subject, so why are you making editing decisions about it?
'"It looks like your forumshopping here."
Not at all. This is about the way you ignored a consensus because you disagreed with it, then misrepresented things to suggest a completely different consensus had emerged. When MNSZ suggested that a separate article should be delayed because of the uncertainty in the regulations, I pointed out that it violated CRYSTAL. But you ignored that when you presented MNSZ's comment as evidence that you had a consensus.
You don't understand the subject matter. Certainly not as well as you think you do. You don't contribute to articles, but you insist that things need to be done a particular way based on the practices of editors of articles in another WikiProject, none of whom are involved in editing here. This is not about forum shopping—this is about you refusing to respect a consensus if you don't agree with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Interaction Ban Proposal[edit]

Since this childish dispute between the two has been going on long enough, I propose a two way Interaction ban between Prisonermonkeys and Tvx1 for six months. This is just getting petty now and hopefully a temporary interaction ban would finally stop this. After six months, we can review the situation. Alternatively, the IBAN could be extended to indefinite. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support temporary ban - as proposer. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Class455, I really really don't think it needs to come to this. This is simple disagreement over content and a constructive discussion has been held and we're simply awaiting its closure. If we respect Wikipedia's discussion processes I'm sure we'll have a solution sooner rather than later. Moreover, there's no disruption to articles. I have no personal dispute with Prisonermonkeys. Over our overlapping time here at Wikipedia we have agreed with each other just as much as we have disagreed. Also the discussion in question has not been solely between us two. At least four editors have contributed. Moreover, I doesn't take me for Prisonermonkeys to end up here. They have been embroiled in tedious discussion with other editors as well and even had a lunge at an administrator. I'm more than willing to collaborate, my history on Wikipedia will surely show this, and I'm sure this issue will get resolved sooner rather than later. I still think we should not have been here in the first place.Tvx1 14:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Tvx1. I understand, you are trying to collaborate and Prisonermonkeys isn't really helping, judging by the previous ANI discussions and warnings on his talk, but I can't stand however the fact you two are always taking each other to the Administrator's noticeboards and leaving each other warnings, over things over minor things such as this and alleged "edit warring", that's why I thought of an IBAN because this would be stopped. I was considering proposing that Prisonermonkeys only be banned from interacting with you but the recent report of Prisonermonkeys to AN3 which was declined made me think otherwise. I am also however open to modifying or withdrawing the proposal if you both agree to work together and stop taking each other to ANI/AN3 all the time unless there is a serious problem. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. I'm reluctant to go to the administrators noticeboards anyway. I think that the best report is no report. I'll only report something or someone when there is a serious problem. Like when I recently reported two users who were making a laughing stock out of WP:3RR. Admittedly, the edit warring report on Prisonermonkeys was borderline regarding seriousness. At the time they were edit-warring (at one point blanket reverting anyone editing the article in question) and there was no constructive discussion anymore. So after some reflection I decided to report. Should I have done so? Maybe so, maybe not. What I did learn is to reflect even more and more thoroughly whether or not to report. What I do regret is the amount of replies I made in that report. I only did so because of the continuous accusations of bad faith and personal attacks which were launched at me. In hindsight I should have backed out and let the administrators address the situation.Tvx1 17:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Class455

"Tvx1. I understand, you are trying to collaborate and Prisonermonkeys isn't really helping,"

I have to say that I disagree with this statement. If there is one thing that I have learned from working alongside Tvx1, it is that he knows Wikipedia policy and the FIA rulebook backwards. That's to his credit, but as I outlined above, he has misrepresented this situation. He quoted the opinions of editors he used to justify reverting those edits. One of those opinions put forward a proposal that did not work because of WP:CRYSTAL, while the other was based on information which was incorrect to the point where it would change the reader's understanding of the subject. Given what I know about him and his style of editing, I struggle to believe that he was unaware of either of these issues, much less both. In the RFC, editors were asked directly what they thought, but here Tvx1 has cherry-picked their views to justify his edits. If you read all of the discussions about what to do (and there are several in which various proposals are put forward), it is obvious that editors want to remove the content in question. Tvx1 is the only editor who provides any opposition, and never provides anything more than "no, I don't like it". The few arguments he provides are based on decisions made by other editors in other articles under the scope of other WikiProjects. When MNSZ put forward a proposal to keep the content in the article based on the Sporting Regulations, I at least took the time to provide a policy-based counter argument (namely CRYSTAL). Furthermore, you can hardly accuse me of not helping, given that I came up with half a dozen different solutions to the issue in response to the voices offered up by other editors, all of which were immediately dismissed by Tvx1.

That is why I came here—Tvx1 has clearly decided what he thinks that the article should be, and if a consensus is formed that he does not like, then he does not respect it. For him to then offer up a justification based on information that he knows is incorrect is an insult to everyone's intelligence. I would hardly call that collaborative. Nor is it the first time that he has done something like this: when racing team MRT collapsed ahead of the 2017 Formula One season, I suggested removing them from the driver table based on the dozens of reliable sources available. Tvx1 opposed it, and pointed out that when the team had previously been in danger of collapse, I had supported their continued inclusion in the table. This suggests that editors cannot change their opinions (despite persuasion being a key part of consensus-building), and that if they do, it counts against them in future discussions. How on earth is that collaborative? You've got one editor keeping a running tally of other editors' opinions and using it to try and negate their arguments elsewhere.

If an IBAN is necessary, I would agree to it if it applies to the both of us and if Tvx1 agrees to an additional condition: that, in the interests of promoting harmony (and making observing the IBAN easier) we each nominate one or two articles that we want to focus our individual energies on, and the other agrees that they will not edit that article or talk page for the duration of the IBAN. For the record, I would nominate 2017 World Rally Championship and McLaren MCL32 as the two that I wish to focus on; in exchange, I would agree to stay out of 2017 Formula One season and/or any other article Tvx1 wished to nominate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think an interaction ban is needed. I certainly do not think a prohibition to edit certain articles completely on top of that is warranted. We can agree with each other. As proven by a new Formula One Wikiproject discussion started this morning. I also do not run to the administrators whenever we have a disagreement. I have reported Prisonermonkeys exactly once to any noticeboard within at least the last twelve months. In this case we should simply respect the procedures outlined for a RFC. It is not up to the involved editors to unilaterally declare a consensus and certainly to than make sweeping edits based on it without gauging the opinion of the RFC participants on whether the assessment is right. It is everyone's good right to disagree if the claimed consensus does not reflect the preference stated by the participating users. I merely compared the claimed consensus to the preferences stated, noticed that they were contradictory, made one revert and BOOM, we're at ANI. Not necessary at all. We could have simply had a constructive conversation with the participants after having waited until the RFC was closed by an uninvolved editor through the correct procedure. Instead unilaterally declaring other editors' preferences void is very disrespectful to them. I think they have a say in this as well.Tvx1 17:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
"I merely compared the claimed consensus to the preferences stated, noticed that they were contradictory, made one revert"
No, you cherry-picked which statements you wanted based on what was in line with your preferred version of the article. For example, MNSZ did not say that he had changed his mind. He said that he was considering an alternative based on a line in the regulations. That line said that if there are not enough entries by the end of the season, then the FIA may choose not to award the Trophy. It might be a regulation, but applying it in the article violates CRYSTAL twice—first because it will only happen under a specific set of circumstances (not enough entries) that have not come to pass, and secondly because even if those circumstances do not come about, the FIA can still choose to award the trophy. You're the one who always cracks down on CRYSTAL, but here we are with you ignoring it. The existence of that rule doesn't affect the suitability of keeping or splitting the content because the content will be deleted regardless of where it was posted if the trophy is not awarded.
That's why we're here—because I knew that you would do this. The opinions of the editors was quite clear, but they settled on a version that you disagreed with, so you picked and chose what evidence you wanted. Now you're trying to add the additional condition that everyone discusses it all over again once the RFC is closed down. Why don't you just respect the ideas put forward by other editors? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

User uploading copyrighted videos[edit]

Ju English (talk · contribs · uploads) has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted videos and other materials, either not licensing them or leaving out fair use rationales. The lack of use (not even in userspace) leads me to suspect WP:NOTREPOSITORY. In addition to the CSD warnings, I gave a sterner one this morning, and the user has continued to upload. — Train2104 (t • c) 17:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Another user: Arlindo gomes Arlindo (talk · contribs · uploads) — Train2104 (t • c) 06:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Possible block evasion - Junior De Almeida (talk · contribs · uploads) - see File:Seiren_-_primeiras_caricias.pdf — Train2104 (t • c) 15:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have blocked both Ju English and Junior De Almeida for socking per DUCK pending the conclusion of an SPI case. I am not sufficiently confident about Arlindo gomes Arlindo's possible relationship to the other two accounts to block them for socking. However, I have posted a level 4 warning, which I am guessing will be ignored, on their talk page. The next time they upload a non-free image I will block them. If you think this is the same person feel free to add them to the SPI investigation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't suspect the third account of sockpuppetry, it was just another video-uploader to be dealt with. Can you delete the uploads/userpages of the blocked users? — Train2104 (t • c) 17:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 week. The files appear to have already been tagged for deletion which works for me. Let the clock run. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Many IPs with KCBS-TV and Paul Magers[edit]

Recently, there was a brief edit warring with me and the adding of Paul Magers which is a KCBS anchor. Although he is an anchor for KCBS-TV, he does not have an article. Only names that do have articles can be put into the article! See the talk page on KCBS-TV for more information. This is a list of IPs that keep adding Paul Magers.

107.77.209.202, 73.94.201.224, 2605:e000:3d4b:b900:fdd0:844e:8f55:6117, 2601:601:8701:f3ae:d02f:118:ef5e:2e03

Not every TV station mentions main anchors. I may need to get a page-protection request. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You can add names that don't have articles, why not? This isn't RFPP, but if it was, your request would probably be declined. El_C 13:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Overturn Rfc restarted[edit]

(non-admin closure) RfC reclosed as no consensus by El C due to numerous improper !votes.

This discussion is getting endless, off-topic, and redundant, just like the previous one which was recently closed. As is permitted 30 days after the close of a previous RfC, if desired, please start a new, well-worded, and neutral RfC on the subject, and publicize it in centralized venues (without any WP:CANVASSING via usertalk, pinging, or mention off-wiki) to get a wide and fair input. If necessary, put the {{not a vote}} tag at the top of the RfC, and tag any SPAs or apparently canvassed !votes accordingly. Then have a neutral admin close the RfC after 30 days. Report any edit-warring at WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC) ; edited 12:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

After somebody closed the previous thread, a rather interesting way of dealing with off-topic comments, per the closing editor's comment[54] let's try it again. Recently an editor pointed out to me that a certain blog discussed a revert of mine, while specifically linking to my Wikipedia and Facebook profiles. The writer of that block called people to "create an account, learn the site’s rules, and push back vigorously against those who would defame or delegitimize the Jewish people on the world’s largest online encyclopedia". In the ensuing discussion he also said "I have already brought this matter to the attention of a number of Jewish and pro-Israel groups. I still have a few more to go, but needless to say this problem WILL be dealt with". After that article, which also linked to Category:Jews, we had various single purpose IP editors or editors who were inactive till recently, who have tried to change that category page.[55][56][57][58][59][60] Two editors tried to do the same on some other category and related pages. User:Jeffgr9: [61][62][63][64] I reverted him and warned him on his talkpage,[65] but he decided to edit war about it:[66][67][68][69] And User:The Human Trumpet Solo: [70][71][72][73][74] He also decided to edit war about it after he participated in the thread above and was aware of all warnings:[75][76][77][78][79]

Because of the obvious connection between the blog article and the edit on the category page and the related edits mentioned above, I decided to do some research. The Rfc on Category talk:People of Jewish descent, which is related to this issue, turns out to have been loaded with WP:MEAT: User:ChronoFrog is a blocked sock, User:Bubbecraft never edited after that discussion, User:Musashiaharon made only 8 edits between that discussion and this WP:ANI issue, User:2603:3024:1818:3B00:CCF9:AFE5:1187:21BE was a one-edit account, and User:PA Math Prof made no edits between that Rfc and this WP:ANI issue. My conclusion is that it is likely to the degree of certainty that the Rfc was decisively influenced by either socks or trumped up editors, probably in much the same way as the blog describes. The 5 editors I mentioned here all voted "keep", and should be disqualified. That would leave the Rfc with only 2 "keep"s against 7 "remove"s.

A few more points regarding the closure of that Rfc, which add to my opinion that it should be overturned: 1. The survey shows that opinions were evenly balanced, 7:7, so the closure should have been "No consensus for any changes, keep as is". 2. It was a first-time closure by a non-admin, User:Eggishorn. 3. The closing statement is internally inconsistent, claiming at the same time that the conclusion of the discussion was to keep the category and to maintain a consensus version, but failing to notice that the consensus version since 2013 had been to not to have the category. 4. In addition there is the WP:MEAT issue which I raised in this WP:ANI thread. 5. All of this is in addition to the fact that I think the closing editor was wrong to have ignored many of the Wikipedia policy and guidelines related issues I mentioned in the survey section of the Rfc, which I won't go into here, but I do want to stress that I really really think the closing editor made the wrong call, even without the WP:MEAT issue which obviously was impossible to be aware of at the time. Based on all the above, I think the Rfc should be overturned. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that concise explanation of the issue that got lost in the previous thread. I would like to hear from other experienced editors bearing in mind that we are NOT here to re-argue the RfC but are strictly considering the circumstances of the close including the possibility that the RfC may have been prejudiced by off-wiki WP:CANVASSING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I participated in the "Survey" that (I think) occurred after the close. In particular I remember that the closer gave a great deal of weight to cited sources which, as was outlined there, did not, in fact support the position claimed and I was quite confused with their reasoning considering the weight of other arguements. This was clearly not an RfC to cut one's teeth on and should have been left to a more experienced closer and when challenged it should probably have been reopened. The evidence of MEAT presented above is also a concern and, in my mind, further delegitimizes the result.

    I would suggest that someone uninvolved work with both "sides" to come up with a well formed RfC and run it again. The existing discussions are nothing consensus can be drawn from. I would also strongly suggest that as part of crafting the RfC that the excessively 'vocal' editors on each side each make a !vote statement and then retire to the sidelines - in particular avoid repeatedly responding to one another. We all know what these editors' opinions are on the issue and an RfC is to get new opinions. These editors are experts in the topic but the back and forth bludgeoning serves no good purpose.

    TL;DR I think the last RfC was flawed. A new, well formed and widely published RfC should be run. Jbh Talk 03:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser continues to violate WP:AGF and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, despite many, many sources proving him and those who joined him on the RfC and the survey opinions wrong (such editors include Sir Joseph and Bus stop—who have also both violated Wikipedia:Don't be rude, Wikipedia:Nothing is clear, and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT on here (in the above "Jewish Category" argument), and in other forums). Users User:Musashiaharon, User:Bubbecraft, User:PA Math Prof, and User:The Human Trumpet Solo have participated in more than several Jewish-related Wikipedia Talk page conversations and provided many valid sources during the survey and RfC in question. In addition, User:Eggishorn seems eminently qualified as a Wikipedia editor to make a decision as a third-party, given the number of edits they have made, and the range/scope of them. User:Debresser accuses me of edit warring, which I have not done; I cited my reasons for reverting each time and respected the WP:3RR; in fact, Debresser has violated the WP:3RR on multiple occasions on this and similar subjects.
In addition, the RfC decision to keep the category "Middle Eastern people of Asian descent"/"Asian people of Middle Eastern descent," for Jews—as is also for Arabs, [Arab/]Palestinians, Syrians, etc.—depended on the survey, which surely depended on the strengths of the arguments, not the number of people voting. It would seem that Debresser and/or Sir Joseph may be supplmentally violating of WP:CANVASSING and/or Wikipedia:Vote stacking and as User:The Human Trumpet Solo noted, WP:FORUMSHOP.
I understand that the topic of Jewish identity remains complex—as it does for any Ethnocultural/racial/Tribal group's identity—however, in this case, Jews are predominantly a Semitic (Afroasiatic, Southwest Asian/West Asian, "Middle Eastern," North-Northeast African (see also Dead Sea Transform), etc.) Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious Tribe and "People of Color" (see: Visible minority, which includes West Asians, [as of whom most Jews qualify]), Indigenous to Eretz Y'Israel (the Land of Israel, the region of Canaan). To deny Jews' Semitic/"Middle Eastern" origins would mean to deny Jews' heritage in general.
Furthermore, people tend to bring up new members of the Tribe, or "converts," during these conversations; my opinion is that such members are "adopted" and intersect their previous ethnic identity with that of Jews' Semitic identity; and their descendants will have increasingly Semitic Ethnocultural/sociopolitical status if they continue to practice Jewish/Semitic traditions/culture/language/philosophies/etc. and there are other Tribes in the world who practice this same "adoption" sentiment and whose ethnic identities do not always depend on blood quantum. Either way, the sentiment that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is still widely held in the Jewish community. That is one of the reasons why Jews refer to "converts" as Bat Sarah and Bar Avraham. In any respect, "converts" often follow the same geographic/sociopolitical pathways that ethnic Jews follow, and often have to face the same racism that ethnic Jews face for being Jews (a.k.a. Anti-Semitism; therefore, new members and their descendants carry a new Middle Eastern sociopolitical identity in addition to their previous genetic-ethnic identity.
The editors who do not want the categories added to People of Jewish descent, mentioned above, seem to want to ignore all the evidence provided by various editors because it does not match their world view, and have violated various Wikipedia rules to do so. Todah Rabah (Many Thanks). Jeffgr9 (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Jeffgr9 please be careful in your posts. The above comment comes very close to a personal attack. It would be helpful if everyone made an effort to assume good faith on everyone elses part. Further, as I noted in my above comment, we are NOT here to rehash the RfC. That is a rabbit hole down which we are not going. It can be done elsewhere if the RfC is overturned and a new one posted. Please confine your comments to the circumstances surrounding the close of the RfC. This goes for everyone else too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Ad Orientem, I appreciate the response. I did not mean what I said as a personal attack, just as what I have experienced on this forum and during previous encounters with all named editors (negative or positive). I also just wanted to explain my position and why the RfC does not need to be reopened. Finally, if the RfC were reopened—I would recommend it be dependent on a survey instead, as User:The Human Trumpet Solo suggested above, because then the strength of the arguments would matter more than just the number of votes needed to win, something I would also hope Zero might consider as well. Thank you very much, again. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Jeffgr9, thank you for your clarification. I appreciate it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, this isn't the forum. Indeed, on the face of it, a rather problematic RfC closure which raises additional questions. El_C 05:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
El_C What was problematic about the closure in your opinion? Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
There dosen't seem to have been consensus, and the appearance of users with very few edits is also a concern. El_C 06:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, El_C. I think the initial lack of consensus was the purpose of the survey, so that the strength of the arguments could be the main factor, as opposed to just a normal RfC. The strength of arguments for "keep" was found in favor over "remove." It also seems that there was only 1-2 confirmed users with few edits. Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's better to just reopen it, since so many are taking issue with the closure. El_C 11:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
El_C Only (literally) a few editors seem to take issue with the closure, and they were on the "remove" side. Jeffgr9 (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I took another look at the article which Debresser suggests influenced the survey. Given that the survey was closed on 2 January 2017, it's impossible that an article published 17 February 2017 could have affected it in any way. In any case, the survey was closed based on the arguments and the sources (or lack of sources) of each side, rather than on the tally of !votes.Musashiaharon (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Debresser was alleging that the cited off wiki CANVASSING directly influenced the RfC. He states that it motivated him to look into who was !voting and found evidence of WP:MEAT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Ad Orientem & Musashiaharon, I just looked at DeBresser's cited references for "single purpose" users, and it appears that three of the users he cited were not in fact "single purpose" users, but Musashiaharon and User:Bellezzasolo, as well as User:2601:84:4502:61ea:e492:db5f:b7aa:eb86, who made more than several edits prior to the category in question. And it also seems that Debresser's prior accusation of sockpuppetry against User:ChronoFrog does not hold because the same user revealed themselves to be User:2601:84:4502:61ea:e492:db5f:b7aa:eb86 on DeBresser's wall. So, what is Debresser's evidence of WP:MEAT, other than possibly two "single purpose" editors that he mentions (out of nine total editors mentioned in the above passage, seven of whom are neither "single purpose," nor sock puppets)? Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what can be mandated by this board, but I'd like to suggest: reopen the RfC with a strict total word limit for each contributor and administrator-only closing. Zerotalk 05:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

the IP user is me. I didnt have an account back then. I commented on the survey because it caught my attention. why am I being reported over this? P.s. sorry if my english is bad the IP user is me. I didnt have an account back then. I commented on the survey because it caught my attention. why am I being reported over this? P.s. sorry if my english is bad. Vaporwaveaesthetic (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Which IP user were you, Vaporwaveaesthetic? Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

176.251.119.35 is me - I failed to login. After User:Debresser reverted based on me being an IP, I realized my mistake. With the most recent changes, User:Sir Joseph reverted my addition of a commented out inclusion of the category in dispute to try and discourage further edit warring.Bellezzasolo (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I didn't revert because you edited as an IP, but okay. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it was premature to open a discussion about a new Rfc. In addition, I strongly feel there is no need for a new Rfc. After removing the WP:MEAT from the bones, the previous Rfc reached a clear conclusion of 7 against 2 editors to keep the status quo and not have the additional category. Even if some of the 5 editors would be considered legitimate, something I think would be a mistake, there is still a clear consensus against. That is in addition to all the other arguments. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Debresser, I just found out above only 1 editor has not been accounted for a later edit that you reverted for your claim of WP:MEAT (outside of the RfC/survey). That makes 8 out of 9 editors whom you mentioned in this thread who agree to "keep" the category/categories of Middle Eastern people of Asian descent/Asian people of Middle Eastern descent, and not to "remove" it/them. And please do not violate Wikipedia:Nothing is clear/Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in this forum. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I think it is very important we hear from the closing editor, User:Eggishorn. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is important to hear from User:Eggishorn. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see below, about 4 paragraphs (assuming no interposing edits) down. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Musashiaharon has posted on my talkpage,[80] and honestly admits that his point of view on this issue is politically influenced and determined. That is an additional argument to disqualify him from the old Rfc (and any future Rfc, which ceterum censeo is not needed). Debresser (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, your claim of "politically" influenced/determined against Musashiaharon's response on your talk page is not what Musashiaharon meant when they posted on your talk page—as evidenced by their response to your having expressed your above response to their response here. By continuously trying to invalidate multiple non-sock puppet, non-single-purpose editors' perspectives (which are, by the contrary, very valid) here, you seem to want to strongarm this discussion into a conclusion in your favor instead of listening to what the admins and other editors have to say. It makes the issue more about how you Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:Just drop it the survey's outcome and not about the actual issue. Again, I do not mean this as a personal attack, but as an observation from what is happening here and related forums. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Jeffgr9, please assume some good faith. I am seriously worried by the pattern of politically motivated edits, which is precisely what this post is about, if you paid attention to my first post. I raise this point for admins to express their opinion, while at the same time not hiding my own opinion. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Debresser, I believe you should assume good faith as well, instead of focusing on trying to invalidate other editors' perspectives in this forum; such perspectives may even conflict with your own, but they also may contain essential academic value to add to Wikipedia articles/categorizations/edits. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, Eggishorn has been conspicuously absent throughout this... El_C 18:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
In actuality, @Debresser:, I don't think my input is necessary or dispositive in any real sense. I closed the original RfC in policy, as endorsed by the only admin and uninvolved editors to participate in the AN thread. I remain confident that close accurately summarized that RfC as it was when I closed it. A raft of other issues have been raised, such as the above claims of canvassing and meatpuppeting, but these were not evident at that time or raised in the immediate aftermath and so I have no opinion on those later issues. Though there have been personal attacks on my honesty, my competence, and my overall integrity starting with that thread, I do not feel it would be productive to respond and so I haven't. There were no evidence or policy-based claims for one "side" of the debate when I closed the RfC and that hasn't changed. Any re-opening of that RfC or starting of a new RfC on the same subject is a discussion for others and I won't be involved.
As to my "conspicuous" absence, @El C: I didn't feel my presence was going to contribute anything and don't think that there is any requirement for it. I did participate in the initial challenge to the close where the argument was essentially that one group, [s]imply believ[ed] a closure is wrong, even where reasonable people would have closed a discussion differently which ...is not sufficient for requesting review. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. The question now, after the fact, is inferring the consensus: a re-closure, or a new RfC, may be in order. El_C 18:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
While not hiding that I am the first to hold that the close was indeed incorrect, and I can not understand how you can defend it still, I am mainly interested in knowing if you think that serious WP:MEAT concerns as the ones raised here would have been likely to change have changed your view of the Rfc, had you been aware of them at the time. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Debresser:, I believe I have said most of what needs to be said. The challenges of the close have mostly fallen into three categories: personal attacks or accusations of bias, complaints that I am not an admin, and arguments rehashing the original RfC. I don't see anything above that demands my input as a useful addition to the discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
As long as I use Wiki-accepted RS, my personal opinions should not matter. If personal opinions automatically disqualified editors as Debresser suggests, no Jew would be allowed to write about Judaism or Jews. Musashiaharon (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstand. Everybody has a POV and that is completely legitimate. What is not legitimate is letting that POV knowingly influence your editing. Something you admitted to. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The letter I wrote to Debresser was an attempt to arrive at a common understanding, and I was open to being convinced by him. But he betrayed my good faith and twisted it into a personal attack. It really pains me that a fellow Jew would do such a thing.
Debresser writes as if he is completely impartial, but his actions speak otherwise. Normally, an impartial editor would recognize that lots of RS is weightier than no RS, accept the survey closure, and move on to something else. Instead, he disruptively reverted edits complying with the closure, even posting a repressive warning on my talk page after a single such edit, and he opened up a review on the survey closure. After even that didn't yield his desired result, he forum shopped and opened the thread above, using the excuse of a blog article published after the survey closed to claim CANVASSING affected the survey, without any other real evidence. When due to lack of new content the above thread was closed, he himself opened up this thread. This whole saga is nearly half a year long. All these edits show that his opinions themselves are quite partial to a particular POV, and by his own arguments, he should be disqualified himself. In contrast, I never forum shopped, I never violated 3RR, and I never tried to deceive and intimidate others from editing, the way he and Sir Joseph did on my talk page. Given his and Sir Joseph's disruptive editing, I regret to request that they both be topic banned until they cool down. Musashiaharon (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Debresser, Musashiaharon did not violate POV, but your false analysis to try to discredit Musashiaharon for the sake of trying to "win" this ANI, however, does. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem I find this last comment to be out of line. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Case in point, Debresser, I did not mean what I said as a personal attack against you, but as an observation of what you are currently doing to Musashiaharon (based on how they expressed how they felt about what you did here on your talk page) and to other editors in this discussion, and now to me. I only want an honest, civil discussion between all perspectives involved, and I did not appreciate your trying to get rid of Musashiaharon's perspective from this discussion. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a waste of time. As the RFC was to remove cats that have been there for a long time, even if people wanted to disregard the better evidence-based arguments of the keep voters, the alternative is 'no consensus' which would result in... not having the cats removed as there is clearly no consensus to remove them. We dont re-run RFCs from the beginning just because one side doesnt like the result. Unless either side can magically drum up lots of editors who care about Jew-categorisation, or the remove faction can actually find an argument that doesnt revolve around attempting to disqualify the opposition, let this go already as it is only dragging out the same result. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
To the contrary: the category had been absent for over 3 years by the time the Rfc was closed! Debresser (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
In addition, I refuse to believe that you are willing to endorse a result that was obtained by drumming up editors to willingly influence its outcome. That is something Wikipedia should not allow. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9 has expressed a similar POV on my talkpage as Musashiaharon.[81] He is evidently emotional about this. The question is if where the fine line goes that divides between just having a POV or making edits and taking stances because of that POV. On the one hand we can't disqualify editors for having a POV, when however they admit that their edits are because of that POV, that is where IMHO the line should be drawn. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, I was civilly disagreeing with a statement you made to Musashiaharon on your talk page, and trying to inquire as to whether you understood the factual perspective that other editors may have regarding this issue. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
"He is evidently emotional"? Have you been reading a handbook on gaslighting or something? This went to an RFC. It was closed in line with policy and guidance. The RFC had a closure review where no one actually raised any legitimate argument for overturning it other than 'I dont agree with it'. If this is meant to be another close challenge, then you need to provide some evidence rather than just making personal jibes at other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, Debresser, given that every editor has some POV, the first step to writing objectively is to identify one's own POV, and make sure that this does not skew the final result. Thus I never used political or religious arguments in the survey; whenever I cited a religious source, it was always in the context of understanding the traditionally strong Jewish cultural ties to the Middle East, and that usage was justifiable WP:RS. This was only possible because I examined myself and carefully separated what was a valid argument on WP and what was not. RS is a valid argument; WP: IDONTLIKEIT is not. Musashiaharon (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
But if the true ratio of editors on both sides of the dispute was 7:2, then "closed in line with policy and guidance" amounts to an oversight. And must be reexamined. El_C 19:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
El_C, the ratio of editors, as I noted above, was not what Debresser claimed here. Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
If true, I'm making the point. El_C 20:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Not really sure where you are getting 7:2. There are at least 6 editors accounted for on the keep side, and if we are discounting blocked users, User:FoCuSandLeArN has also been blocked for paid editing. Hence the tally, if we cared, really stands at 6:6 after removing the banned users. However, in the survey itself, there is no sign of foul play, and the closers (who were extremely patient, despite the harassment from the remove side) judged by arguments and sources, not vote tallies, in accord with Wiki policy. Without any new arguments, there is no need to reopen, and this is just another case of forum shopping. Musashiaharon (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
If it's true that you yourself only "made only 8 edits between that discussion and this WP:ANI issue," then you can see where I'm starting to get 7:2. El_C 11:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus which would default to keeping the categories. It was a close RfC, and the arguments for keep are arguably better, but the meatpuppetry allegations are concerning if difficult to prove. Having editors who main editing history is only on/largely surrounding disputes surrounding controversies surrounding Jews/Jewish-related topics as an cursory glance at the contributions of the editors raised here is enough for me to think that the complaint might have some validity. It is not enough, however, for me to think that the RfC should be overturned to the opposite result. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, Thank you for your response as well. The allegations of WP:MEAT, however, do not seem to have a complete basis in fact, as I noted above. Only 1 editor out of 9 mentioned editors by Debresser, who made a revert after the RfC/survey decision was reached, has been unaccounted as of yet. The rest of the editors have been consistent contributors with no sockpuppetry. Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Wrong: "no consensus" would mean keep the way it was, and the extra category was absent for over 3 years. WP:BURDEN would lead to the same conclusion. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
One of the accounts accounted for by an IP is a CU blocked sock. There is also an account with both red user and talk page commenting here trying to help account for the IPs. Bellezzasolo has less than 200 edits, long absences between editing, and when they come back, they edit in discussions involving Jewish topics and their userpage. PA Math Prof also mainly edits in sprints surrounding controversial Jewish topics, and their edit before the comment on the RfC was to create a userpage, which is a common tactic for abusers of multiple accounts because they realize the anti-red-link bias that some on Wikipedia have. Bubbecraft's sole contribution before the RfC was to add claims about terrorism to a Palestinian human rights activist BLP as links that were reverted. After they commented on the RfC, they created a userpage very similar to PA Math Prof. Sorry, this accounting for accounts looks like it could easily be a case of off-wiki canvassing of meatpuppets or even socking. I'm more inclined now to even support overturning to the opposite consensus rather than no consensus. Also, Debresser is right, the burden does appear to be on those attempting to keep not those trying to remove. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, I would like to bring up some contrary points to your response:
ChronoFrog (the account to which I think you refer in the first line) may be "blocked," but not at the time of the RfC and Survey; that user also explained on Debresser's talk page the reason for their abandoning their username was to detract Anti-Semitic harassment by certain Wikipedia editors (Passage/Paragraph 8).
User:Bellezzasolo made significant edits, although that editor had less edits in quantity than that of more experienced editors; I think condemning Bellezzasolo for being new would violate Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.
I understand you may have experience with people who try to deceive others on Wikipedia for the purposes of trying to win arguments. However, there is no apparent evidence given here or otherwise linking User:PA Math Prof to any sockpuppets.
User:Bubbecraft provided significant sources and arguments during the RfC; but again, there is no evidence of meat puppetry in their instance. In fact, PA Math Prof started editing in 2015 and created their user page in October 2016, and thus appears to be a newer user than Bubbecraft, who started editing in 2013 and created their user page September 2016. I would not assume any relation at all, but rather, as both users became more active in 2016 during the RfC/survey period (a long time), they added to their profiles. They also have different occupations, personal interests, and narratives. To assume otherwise would be to not WP:AGF.
Finally, again, the original RfC was channeled into a survey, for which the arguments and evidence would be counted more than the number of editors who !voted, and that was how the RfC was decided (by a third party)—by the strength of the arguments, not the number of people voting. So, it seems the accusations of meatpuppetry only serve to confuse this forum from the facts presented in the actual RfC and survey.
Also, in any case, the "burden of evidence" was significantly provided, and that was what, again, caused the decision of the RfC/survey to be in favor of "keep." Thank you very much for your consideration. Jeffgr9 (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The main problem I have with this dispute being dragged out is that even if there was any sound evidence in support of Debresser's canvassing allegations, the keep side's arguments were still stronger overall (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). And contrary to Debresser's earlier claims, I did provide RS. Loads of it. The remove side provided nothing. I'd be open to revisiting the RFC if reasoned and well sourced counter arguments to the keep side's posts are presented, but so far I have not seen any of that: just a lot of kicking and screaming (and conspiracy theories).The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this should be taken into consideration as well.

Both users (Debresser and Sir Joseph) are aware of what the RFC and survey outcome were on this category, along with what it entails for the existing structure of related categories. However, both have persisted in edit warring (see 1 and 2), reverting and antagonizing users who restored the appropriate categories in accordance with the survey outcome (see 3 and 4), made blatantly dishonest claims in justifying their reverts (see 5, the opening survey statement, and its closure), and attempted to game the system to implement their preferred changes (see 5). Sir Joseph is, as of today, attempting to the restart the same discussion by phrasing it in a slightly different manner. This constitutes disruptive editing and, at least to me, suggests that neither of these users should be editing on topics relating to Jewish descent or ethnic identity, as they are both clearly incapable of leaving their personal feelings out of it. I think a topic ban for both editors is an appropriate solution, but I'll leave that up to you.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Debresser&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sir+Joseph&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Musashiaharon#February_2017

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeffgr9#Please_stop

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=766856773#Category:People_of_Jewish_descentThe Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That seems rather hasty. They might have gotten impatient, but we're not going to neglect the issues they've raised: possible MEAT, SPA, and Socking crucially involved. El_C 22:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
El_C, There does not seem to be any evidence of WP:MEAT. Jeffgr9 (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That's where my comment is: paint me confused. There seems to be strong evidence of SPAs being canvassed, however. El_C 11:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm taking the liberty of closing this thread, because it is developing the same problems as the other endless thread on the exact same topic. Any admin may overturn my close, but otherwise in my opinion the only obvious solution to this endless discussion is my advice in the close box. Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

7:3 ratio?[edit]

The Rfc on Category talk:People of Jewish descent, which is related to this issue, turns out to have been loaded with WP:MEAT: User:ChronoFrog (Contributions) is a blocked sock, User:Bubbecraft (Contributions) never edited after that discussion, User:Musashiaharon made only 8 edits between that discussion and this WP:ANI issue, User:2603:3024:1818:3B00:CCF9:AFE5:1187:21BE (Contributions) was a one-edit account, and User:PA Math Prof (Contributions) made no edits between that Rfc and this WP:ANI issue.

That's the possible 7:2 7:3 ratio I'm referring to is based on (strikeout are my emphasis—contributions added by me). El_C 11:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion that is not really the fault of the closer, because no indication was provided that that had occurred. My detailed advice in the close of this thread will eliminate that problem in a new RfC. Softlavender (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that no fault should be attributed to the closer—my point is about it invalidating the closure. I agree with your own close and hope a new RfC will resolve this. El_C 12:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, to get a consensus here to overturn the closure of that RfC might take as much or more work than creating a new one that is devoid of SPAs and canvassed people. The discussion above to overturn it seemed to be getting nowhere because the editors who approve of the close were hijacking the discussion. So it seems a fresh RfC would be the answer, unless an admin (you?) wants to simply unilaterally step in and re-close the previous one (considering the improper !votes). I agree that an overturn would be simpler, but only if it were done via a quick admin action rather than an endless discussion about it. Softlavender (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair point, I have re-closed as no consensus. Thereby bringing this long, drawn-out saga to a resolution. El_C 12:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate revision deletion at Beating of Ken Tsang[edit]

On 24 February User:Diannaa, an administrator, amended some content at Beating of Ken Tsang that they alleged had been "copied" from the cited source. The content allegedly copied amounted to the phrases "Chinese state mouthpiece People's Daily" and "sentencing of the seven officers". The administrator then warned my on me talk page for copyright violations.

I explained on my talk page that I had accidentally reused the two phrases, but did not "copy" them – and considering that I have wrote most of the 24,000 byte article and the rest of it wasn't "copied", I do not consider this a blatant instance of copyright violation. Many other news sources refer to the People's Daily or its subsidiary Global Times as a "state mouthpiece" (i.e. BBC, Quartz). In Chinese the case is known as the "seven police officers case" (七警案) and the phrase "seven officers" is widely used in English media also.

Anyway, while I reject the accusation of "copying", I accepted the admin's edits. Then this morning I find that the admin has hidden 17 revisions of the page under the Wikipedia:RD1 criterion.

RD1 cannot apply in this instance. For one, it is not a "blatant" copyright violation. Secondly, the revision deletions remove "attribution to non-infringing contributors", meaning RD1 cannot be used in this case. Citobun (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can see the names of the editors just fine. Only the revision text was hidden, not the usernames, which if memory serves is the key point here. The text is definitively identical, so copyright concerns definitively exist. Whether a revision deletion for one small paragraph is called for I am not certain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Cliffmore might need a review[edit]

I'm loathe to "report" someone, but I've got a strange feeling by looking at their contribution history and think some eyes would help. What drew my attention was this edit. Please look at the images in question. This change is bordering troll territory.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur that there seems to be a pattern here. I'll leave the user (who recently blanked his or her talk page) a note. El_C 08:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
It was a rather rubbish choice of infobox image, but I've seen worse. How about Kay Burley? Cliffmore may have thought "This image of Madeleine Albright is better because it's more up to date", which is a common line of reasoning with infobox images. Overall, I don't think that the edits by Cliffmore were vandalism, although they may have been unhelpful.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
S/he is replacing official images with ones that are either unflattering or where the image is positioned to appear as if it's viewing the article. Subtle, I know. El_C 08:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Infobox images are a notorious trouble spot. I'm not a great fan of the official portrait of Hillary Clinton because of the wide eyes and forced grin, but this is how politicians often appear in their official photos. With a famous person, there will usually be many images to choose from on Commons, but the best policy is to ask on the talk page before changing the infobox image.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
That's what I told the user. He is to use talk pages from now on. El_C 09:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I can remember when we were having near daily revert wars over the infobox image in Michael Jackson. The more high profile the article, the more important it is to discuss a proposed change on the talk page and get a consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
This looks like a different type of situation, where the image selection is used as a provocation. El_C 09:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to help out and update more recent photos of people since all of the people in question have aged very much since their current photo was taken. Pretty obvious - not a troll. - Cliffmore
Please use article talk pages to propose changes to images from now on. El_C 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing behavioral problems by User:Kazaro[edit]

(non-admin closure) Filing premature. Admin left user a note.
Atsme📞📧 18:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I noticed since two days ago that User:Kazaro has been editing a bunch of GMA Network related articles and replacing the word "a" to "an" in the articles' introductory sentence. (Ex: "Encantadia is an Filipino fantasy television series by GMA Network." - see edit here). His reason was the words "Philippine" and "Filipino" sounded like a vowel and he even cited two US shows (The 100 (TV series) and The Fosters (2013 TV series)) that uses the word "an" to its introductory sentence. I have already talked to him through User:Oripaypaykim's talk page (see discussion here), since Oripaypaykim reverted Kazaro's edits and the latter posted a warning to the former, but he is keep on insisting that we should use the word "an" to those articles, even if it is grammatically incorrect (both verbal and written) and he cannot provide a proper source or an instance that the word "an" was used for "Philippine" or "Filipino". Kindly advise what should be the approach on this dispute. Kazaro will most likely engage in an edit war to revert back what he have edited. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't really list here preemptively to an edit war (anyway, for that there's AN3), but I left the user a note. El_C 09:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Constant misuse of WP:AIV and Twinkle by new editor[edit]

User:Vnonymous has demonstrated time[82] in[83] and time[84] again[85] that they do not understand correct procedure for warning users, when it's appropriate to use Twinkle warning templates, or using WP:AIV to report vandalism. Administrator intervention is needed, as the editor does not understand the responsibility involved with using tools such as Twinkle, as shown in unheeded warnings such as this[86]. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 09:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If he's filing inappropriate reports, maybe someone could point him toward the Counter-Vandalism Unit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with NinjaRobotPirate. Also, pointing the user to Wikipedia:Vandalism and helping to educate them on what is vandalism and what is not vandalism would be helpful as well. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah Except they are not responding to inquiries regarding their edits. Other editors have already tried. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the user is responding to messages and edits made on their talk page. I do see one message on the user's talk page here regarding a revert to vandalism that he didn't warn the editor for, but I don't see any others nor do I see any notices about bad reports left at AIV by the user. Am I missing something? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: I'd be willing to mentor the user in fighting vandalism, if they agree to be mentored. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
ThePlatypusofDoom - EXCELLENT!!! Right on, dude!!! This is the exact solution that we need here; it'll give mentoring to the user and help them to learn and become experienced, and it'll address the concerns reported here. Vnonymous, what do you think? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User:CEngelbrecht2[edit]

CEngelbrecht2 topic banned for 6 months by Bishonen as an arbtitration enforcement action. Blackmane (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

CEngelbrecht2 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting the Aquatic ape hypothesis, something that the general scientific community views with skepticism, but stop short of calling "fringe". The problem is that CEngelbrecht2 is extremely zealous in his belief in said hypothesis, and has been extremely uncivil and condescending towards editors skeptical of the hypothesis (diffs will be categorized and provided below) at Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis and the FT/N, usually comparing the other editors to geocentrists and himself and his fellow believers to Galileo Galilei.

He was warned by Bishonen (talk · contribs), but only replied by comparing himself to Giordano Bruno, a medieval advocate of the heliocentric universe who was executed for unrelated heresy, then went on to post a polemical rant on the fringe theories noticeboard. At this point,it seems more like he's just trolling rather than actually trying to be helpful.

Diffs:

Translated: "We need to challenge any source, that makes the peasantry realize, that the aquatic idea isn't unreasonable!"

It's really uncomfortable looking through Galileo's telescope, innit?

They were discussed, and a consensus was indeed reached. But that wasn't good enough, 'cause rules don't apply, if you suddenly feel like looking through Galileo's telescope.

The only issue is, that an actual encyclopedic article on this grossly misrepresented topic would force you to look through Galileo's telescope. And that makes you sociologically uncomfortable.

Take note of all of this nonsense, 'cause we're dab stab in the middle of a paradigm shift.

I can only see that one sin has been committed by the aquatic ideas to leave it so brutalized: That they're not wrong when expected to be. I can't put into words just how frustrating and depressing it is to observe that aspect of human psychology. I cannot see how we have moved a single step since the days of Copernicus.

I am requesting the community impose nothing less than a topic ban. While a block at this point would be preventative rather than punative, it would be pointless unless it was an indef. A temporary block, even if it lasted until the current fire dies down, wouldn't do because he'd likely just light it again the moment it expires.

That being said, I would also support any other sanctions against him, whether stronger or weaker.

74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Notified. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I can only see you demand, that I fall in line. (I don't understand how I notify the user.) CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to notify anybody, CEngelbrecht2; the notification requirement is only for when you create a new report on this board. IP, the Aquatic ape hypothesis is a fringe topic, and CEngelbrecht2 has been alerted to the arbcom sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe topics. Also I warned them sharply yesterday that they were getting close to a topic ban on account of their personal attacks, relentless repetitiousness, and nasty tone.[87] Any admin — me, for instance — can topic ban them if they don't clean up their act, so I don't see much need for a community topic ban at this juncture. The community bans are more cumbersome. CEngelbrecht2's contributions to Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis after my warning admittedly don't show great awareness of how close they are to a ban, but for my part I'm not ready to topic ban just yet. Of course anybody who wants to support the idea of a community ban is free to weigh in below. Bishonen | talk 15:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC).
What is it you expect of me? Applaud years of gross censorship and misrepresentation of a divisive topic? You want to ban me for keep speaking up about complete neglect of encyclopedic principles, just because a majority feels like it? That is Thrasymachus in a nutshell. How can I not see parables with the likes of Bruno? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
As a point of clarification, if you bring up the conduct of another editor in an existing discussion and that editor is not either already notified or an existing participant, it's generally accepted you should notify them. This doesn't apply here but I just want to explain that even if you aren't starting a new thread you need to consider notification requirements. Nil Einne (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Case in point: his two responses to this thread. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

When the response to David Attenborough for informing on the updates on all this was just a snorting "wishful thinking" and "he is irrelevant," I'm sorry, we can't trust the majority to be impartial. It's an academic scandal, that this is still to be treated as pseudoscience. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least they seem to confine their activities to the talk page for the time being, rather than POV'ing in the article; that's a plus. On the other hand, the grandstanding/persecution complex verbiage is at best annoying and at worst disruptive, and should stop. (That article is actually rather inclusive at the moment, and if anything needs a dose of further qualifiers, e.g. in the 'vernix' section - without a functional connection to adaptive features, the existence of a homoplasy proves exactly zip.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The suggested function of both human and harbour seal vernix in newborns is additional insulation in water to increase the chances of survival for the first few hours of the infant's life. In case you're wondering. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
There's no indication that it actually has this function, so a connection is lacking. Anyway, content issue - let's not discuss this here.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, no indication. 'Cause fat doesn't insulate in water. Nothing to note from the only other known species where newborns are covered in fat is harbour seals, an aquatic. Nothing to see here. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Were you born with flippers? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
'Cause we all know, that the aquatic ideas are arguing human beings being old mermaids. It's not a perfectly rational idea about us being old tropical beach apes, no, no. Animal Planet is all we need, don't have to read what's actually being suggested. It's so much easier to read a cartoon with Charles Darwin depicted as a chimp than to actually spell your way through On The Origin of Species. We know what this is all about, even though we don't. Let's just have a cheap laugh while fondling ourselves at better peoples' expense. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Enough. If you guys don't stop this off-topic bickering, I'm going to start thinking about taking admin action myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Topic banned. "Fondling ourselves at better peoples' expense"? That's it. Apparently my warning made no impression on CEngelbrecht2 at all. I've topic banned them for six months from Aquatic ape hypothesis and related pages, broadly construed. CEngelbrecht2, before you come back with a zinger about censorship, do please look up WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means. You're no longer allowed to discuss your favorite hypothesis on any page, including ANI and your own talkpage, other than to appeal the topic ban. You are of course allowed to do that, and the notice I have posted on your page tells you the ways and venues you can do it in. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

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

String of non-coincidental Boilerplate Recentist edits[edit]

Likely false alarm with respect to the original subjects of the thread. Quis separabit is formally warned about making POINTY edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Change Agent43, Dmoses816, and SpartanJoe are two of a group of editors who have been adding boilerplate text which violates, at minimum, both UNDUE and recentism. Appears to be part of a circular politically coordinated propaganda campaign, reporting campaigns of harassment by like minded individuals who have been targeting Republican congresspersons over the last few weeks and claiming the politicians are refusing to meet with their constituents at "town halls". Almost identical articles, edit summaries, references, etc. More usernames may be added. Unclear if any sockpuppetry going on. Dmoses816 warned by other editors regarding editwarring re same. Quis separabit? 16:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Specific articles, diffs and examples might be needed before an administrator will take action, in my experience at least, Rms. DarkKnight2149 16:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm taking a look, but yeah diffs and more specific evidence with links is generally expected at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem, @Darkknight2149 -- OK, done: see the following ([88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]). Quis separabit? 16:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the diffs. I also took a quick look at their contrib logs. I'm not convinced that this is socking, although it is possible. But it does smell like some kind of orchestrated campaign to insert political WP:POV material into articles. If I had to take a guess, I'd say it's more likely a case of WP:MEAT. I also agree that most of these edits are a breach of WP:DUE and RECENTISM. To my mind they certainly fail the ten year test. I'm going to kick this over to SPI and see what they have to say. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me. Both Change Agent43 and SpartanJoe created their accounts almost immediately after Dmoses816 was reverted and warned, in order to make the specific (and very similar) edits to similar articles. See [95], [96], [97]. DarkKnight2149 16:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
"almost immediately"? Dmoses816 edited Rodney Frelinghuysen on 13 February, bickered with Toddst1 about his edit on the same day (including some templates on Dmoses816's talk page), and hasn't been back to edit since. Change Agent43 and SpartanJoe both registered accounts (roughly 12 hours apart) on 24 February, and edited articles on three different politicians, none of them Frelinghuysen. It's difficult to see the point of created multiple sock accounts when there isn't a block to evade and neither sock is editing the original article.
Change Agent43 and SpartanJoe both edited the article on Mike Bishop (politician) (indeed, that was the only article SpartanJoe edited). The two added content regarding different protests, on different dates, citing different news sources. I still can't figure out a motivation for sock/meatpuppetry here, since Change Agent43's edits to Mike Bishop hadn't been reverted, and Change Agent43 hadn't received any talk page messages, at the time that SpartanJoe's account was created. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Read "almost immediately" as "only a matter of days". And regardless of whether Rms is right or wrong, I see where they are coming from with these accusations and they weren't editing in WP:BADFAITH, so I believe that sanctions against them would be unnecessary. This case has been brought to WP:SPI, so it might be time to carry this discussion over there. DarkKnight2149 17:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: Actually, I kind of fell down on the job here in that I didn't look at the complainant's edits until after the Checkuser result came in. Based on the edit that Rms125a/Quis made immediately after his posts here (the same type of edit he decries as recentist propaganda, but to a Democrat's article instead of a Republican's; see my comment below) I don't think the presumption of good faith remains appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Taking a quick peek at the contributions, I have to admit that I'm having a very difficult time substantiating Rms125a@hotmail.com's (Quis separabit's) assertion of a "coordinated propaganda campaign". That sort of over-the-top accusation is very inappropriate; making unsubstantiated accusations of that sort may lead to sanctions against the complaining editor.
Contrary to RMS125a/Quis' report, Change Agent43 (talk · contribs), Dmoses816 (talk · contribs), and SpartanJoe (talk · contribs) appear to be using entirely different references, edit summaries, and article text from each other.
  • Change Agent edited the articles on Fred Upton, Dean Heller, and Mike Bishop (politician). Some of the wording between the three edits was similar, presumably because the incidents discussed were also similar (see below). To call the diffs "boilerplate" is really a reach, however: [98], [99], [100].
  • Dmoses816 edited the article on Rodney Frelinghuysen.
  • SpartanJoe edited Mike Bishop (politician) about 12 hours after Change Agent43 did (no intervening edits) but there's no reason to believe that the two accounts are related, and there would have been no reason for there to be sock or meatpuppetry there.
All three editors added references to news stories about Republican politicians cancelling or avoiding "town hall" discussions with their constituents, presumably over fears of confrontation regarding President Trump's (mis)behavior and/or proposals to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) or cut back other social programs. The story itself (Republicans hiding from their constituents over unpopular policies/scandals) has received a fair bit of press in the last few weeks, so it seems relatively unsurprising that editors would independently be adding references to it. Whether mention of the town hall problem clears the hurdle of WP:DUE is a content dispute for the article talk pages, not (yet) a user conduct issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ...And the magic wiki pixie dust has come back as unlikely and/or unrelated for all three. Can we please not jump to 'grand political propaganda conspiracy' the next time a couple of different editors report something critical about Republicans? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected then. I can't speak for anyone else but, even though I believed that this was a sock or meat situation, I was always aware that there was a possibility of the otherwise. DarkKnight2149 18:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your investigating. I believed something untoward and synchronized was occurring so I reported it. I guess I was wrong. Sorry to have wasted your time. @Darkknight2149: sorry if I put you in a difficult situation. Quis separabit? 19:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
If you have concerns, there's no harm in asking for assistance, and there's no need to apologize for that.
There is harm in falsely accusing other editors of being part of a "circular politically coordinated propaganda campaign", engaged in "campaigns of harassment", when you have no meaningful evidence to support such an assertion. The mere existence of two or three editors who hold different political views from your own is not evidence of conspiracy. Where you ought to have made your apology is to the editors you smeared with a false accusation, and about whom you made a report containing a grossly misleading description of their edits.
Further, the type of edits that those other editors made and which you reverted – claiming that they represented undue WP:RECENTISM and propaganda – are on exactly the same type of claims (politicians avoiding their constituents at 'town hall' meetings) that you inserted into the article on Claire McCaskill (a Democratic senator): [101]. (For my fellow admins keeping score, Rms125a/Quis' Claire McCaskill edit came fourteen minutes after posting his complaint to start this thread, and was his very first edit after opening this discussion thanking us for investigating his complaint here.) So, are you just being WP:POINTy with your edit to McCaskill's article, or were you abusing AN/I and Wikipedia's dispute resolution process when you opened a spurious complaint against the other editors in order to punish them for their political views? (Okay, now you can apologize for wasting our time with your political gamesmanship.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC) (edited to correct timing of edits) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades I think your comment is a bit snippy. The report was made in good faith and should be treated as such. We looked into it and it appears to have been a false alarm. That's what we do here. And I find the outcome a pleasant change from the norm at ANI. No need to go snapping at people who see something suspicious and report it. It looked a little "too coincidental" to me as well. In any event I think we can wrap this up now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
My comment was indeed snippy. As an admin, I get snippy when experienced editors try to abuse our dispute-resolution process to win content disputes.
Rms125a/Quis has demonstrated that he was not acting in good faith. He was trying to use AN/I to punish political opponents; he saw fit to make exactly the same type of edit – "propaganda" and "harassment", remember? – on the biography of a politician on the other end of the political spectrum less than fifteen minutes after he thanked us for investigating here, under the vague edit summary of "Updated; rv deprecated external links".
While I'm not advocating for a block of Rms125a/Quis right now, I believe it is important that we very clearly convey to him that this sort of gamesmanship is inappropriate, and will result in sanctions if it recurs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
(ec) @Ad Orientem: Sorry to revert your close of this thread, but I do believe that Rms125a's conduct needs to be addressed. If you'd prefer to cut this into a separate section, fine. But it would be inappropriate for us not to take official notice of his behavior. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am glad you reverted the close of the thread as I was compiling my response, to wit:

  • @TenOfAllTrades Ad Orientem: "There is harm in falsely accusing other editors of being part of a "circular politically coordinated propaganda campaign", engaged in "campaigns of harassment —— I genuinely believed the editors in question were engaged in the conduct described in the first part of the above clause (quoting you). However, I never accused them of engaging in a "campaign of harassment" (i.e. towards me or towards anyone on Wikipedia) -- the campaigns of harassment were/are the subject of the news stories which they quoted. I never referred to any harassment on their part on Wikipedia so I believe you have conflated something. I don't consider that I am guilty of political gamesmanship (see below), but if you believe I am then yes I am sorry as evidently I failed in what I was trying to do (see below) and left myself open to an a negative impression of my character and my edits. As far as the McCaskill edit, I did decide that:
  • a) as the three had been exonerated then clearly referencing the town hall meetings was acceptable, thus──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── b) out of curiosity I wanted to see what the result would be of inserting, with only the name/party changed, the same type of story they had included/inserted (as a matter of "transparency" as one of them put it). I even provided the reflinks on all three editors' talk pages to the story re McCaskill, one of which I knew would be subject to rejection (Breitbart) as unreliable. I very much want(ed) to see what -- if any -- results this might bring and if they would seek to delete my McCaskill edit on the same UNDUE/RECENTISM grounds cited in removing their edits. This is why I limited myself only to McCaskill, the first name to pop up on a Google search of the issue, rather than seeking out other names of other politicians on the other side of the aisle avoiding the town halls.──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If this gambit was wrong, then I don't know what to say. Block me if you feel it appropriate. I just hope you understand what I am trying to express as it may seem convoluted. Quis separabit? 21:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) TenOfAllTrades This looks like a content dispute, in much the same vain as the three original subjects of this thread. I for one am not interested in trying to police editors with a political axe to grind. Unless it is exceptionally egregious that can be handled in the normal manner on article talk pages. If you have an issue with their edit I doubt that discussion belongs at ANI anymore than the probably WP:AGENDA oriented editing of the three editors mentioned at the top of this thread. The issue here was not a content dispute. It was the possibility of some kind of collusion including the possibility of sock/meat puppetry. That issue has been resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
RMS Wait. Are you saying you deliberately made dubious edits to an article in order to make some kind of point or political experiment? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: NO. The news regarding McCaskill has an immaculate source and I hope the text stands. It's just that one of the sources (Breitbart) is viewed by many but not all editors as unreliable. I watch-listed the article to see if the editors whom I reported would seek to delete that edit on the same grounds (RECENTISM/UNDUE) that I (and at least one other editor) had used to delete their dubious contributions. If this violates WP then I am ready to accept my punishment. Quis separabit? 21:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
That sounds POINTY to me. And to be clear, there is a very strong community consensus that Breitbart is not a reliable source and should not be cited in articles. I'm not going to sanction you, but I want to be clear that I find your judgment in this instance lacking. We don't use articles for experiments or to make points or to entrap other editors. Do you understand this? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
RMS I have addressed this subject formally on your talk page. I am going to close this thread now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Ehm...[edit]

Indefs all around. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Just received this on my talk page. Sounds like a pretty clear confirmation of my earlier assumption; WP:NOTHERE.[102] - LouisAragon (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

After a cursory review I think they are editing in good faith, just really badly. Language issues may have a bit to do with it. I've left them a message here but anything further along these lines would easily qualify as disruptive editing and need a mop to clean up. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Section title of FU (as opposed to F-Off) is a clear personal attack no matter how poor one's language—regardless, we likely have issues of sheer incompetence. El_C 06:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Add "idiots like you" to that as well. I don't think we should buy his seemingly feigned "problems" with the English language (regardless of the blunt personal attacks); he is ostensibly "capable" enough to copy-paste information word for word verbatim from this article, and drop it on this article in a newly created section, on no less than two ocassions. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
EDIT; there's clear IP socking by the person in question going on as well. Look how IP 94.102.184.35 beautifully added the very same edit summary and content on the very same article,[103] as user "Roman Sakhan" later would.[104] Then, IP 94.102.184.26 came in, same range/geolocation, supporting Roman Sakhans/94.102.184.35 edit. And to complete the circus act, another IP of the exact same range and exact same geolocation as all mentioned IPs (94.102.184.12), literally just came in as well to support Roman Sakhan/94.102.184.35/94.102.184.26. This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK as well, apart from the washlist of other issues. Now there simply can't be anymore doubt about it. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Everyone indefed. El_C 07:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Admin has brainfart; carnage ensues[edit]

This will be a massacre to remember. All joking aside, I don't see what result can come from this discussion, given Hoary's lengthy and seemingly innocent explanation. (non-admin closure) DarkKnight2149 22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Hoary has recently racked up an extraordinary list of non-judicial assassinations.

Having various more pressing engagements, I (Hoary) decided to ignore them and instead to look around the immense swamp of sketches in draftspace. Most of what I saw there was horrible, but some was promising (for example, Draft:Graeme Williams). Realizing that drafts that hadn't been tinkered with for half a year could be summarily zapped, I resolved to look at a lot of the older ones, tinker with those I thought I could productively tinker with, zap what I strongly thought that nobody would/could turn into decent articles, and ignore the remainder. Which led to a very unfamiliar and, I must admit, slightly pleasurable feeling: wielding not a janitorial mop but a janitorial machine gun.

User:Unscintillating was not amused, and put me right. (In case you're as ignorant of these matters as I was: only AfC submissions can be summarily executed after sleeping for six months.)

Duh! Well, I've gone through what I deleted, and undeleted almost all. Almost all of those I left deleted were AfC submissions; one was a childish hoax. I think and hope I've resuscitated all that I shouldn't have killed off, regardless of their quality (actual or potential).

Another admin may wish to take a look, in order to see if anything else I screwed up needs unscrewing. Anyway, you'll be happy to hear that I've quite sated my appetite for zapping moribund drafts. (I might continue looking for and improving the better ones, though.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

One question remains - Trout or stocks? Twitbookspacetube 12:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer an excruciatingly drawn-out ArbCom case followed by a desysop and a site-ban. Much more entertaining. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Tar and feather at the next Wikimeet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Give them the bureaucrat bit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Make them an Arb, the ensuing mails they'd have to respond to would be punishment enough. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Make them watch The Amazing Bulk. The ultimate punishment. DarkKnight2149 19:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Make him host the Oscars! --64.85.216.18 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (passing by) - I don't have anything to add, but that list... Someone is having a bad day. DarkKnight2149 17:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Block evasion Human like you at 213.74.186.109[edit]

Blocked and article semi-protected again. Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

(cc @Oshwah, Juliancolton, Ian.thomson, and Black Kite:) This is another block evasion of indef blocked user 'Human like you' [105] - reinstalling the same material in Salih Muslim Muhammad as 'Human like you' and their sock puppets, also the IP confirmed that they registered the account 'Human like you'. This IP has been used by the same user at least since Sep 2016. User 'Human like you' has used multiple sock puppets before (some are not listed via WP:DNFTT). The last block evasion at the same IP was discussed here. 217.83.248.75 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

A possible rangeblock?[edit]

I got the help I wanted and I'm able to deal with it now, thanks Black Kite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

There's a weird situation at Deepak that's been going on for about a month, with a number of IPs from the same two ranges making and reverting weird additions. The first one was this, and the most recent today was this, with lots more similar ones in between. The IPs so far have been:

Sometimes a 182 IP adds it and a 202 IP reverts, and vice versa. They have all had warnings and/or blocks but have ignored them. I've semi-protected the article for now, but I fear that might just send them to another one, so can anyone please work out if any range blocks might be appropriate? The 182 ones geolocate to Mumbai (ISP "Mahanagar Telephone Nigam"), and the 202 ones to other parts of Maharashtra (ISP "IT-Networking Department"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The rangeblock for the 202s are easy, 202.58.102.0/23 and there's no collateral there, but the 182s are more problematic (big ranges, and busy) and would probably have to be blocked individually. The 202 addresses have also been disruptive at Mohan (actor), although not for over a month now. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've blocked 202.58.102.0/23 for a month and I've unprotected the article again, and I'll block any 182 ones that show up individually (the latest 182 edit is five days old now). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that the IP, User:2405:204:18e:2853:5588:532b:a023:f394, that reverted the latest one also geolocates to Mumbai. V6 ones should be relatively easy to deal with, but I'll only block ones that make the additions and not the ones that revert them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User: 188.68.0.130[edit]

User 188.68.0.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is making numerous edits by adding, unsourced, same name edits to various organisations detail. This is clearly vandalism, which I have reverted and warned IP - but IP keeps re-inserting. Suggest a block and further warning. Thank you.David J Johnson (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support block: Accoding to the IP's contributions, it states clear that it is repeatedly posting unnecessary content, mostly on the TMX Group article. SportsLair (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

IP appears to be same person as 24.140.238.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), exactly same "edits" with same name wrongly inserted. David J Johnson (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
IP is now using 95.85.80.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for the same vandalism. David J Johnson (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
More ip reported: @37.200.67.62:. please protect all stock exchange articles as he use different ip to vandal. Matthew_hk tc 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Appears to have gone stale, report at WP:AN/I if vandalism starts again, if it is targeted at specific pages try WP:RPP. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Harrassment by user:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS[edit]

Admin intervention asked for and provided: 1. that warning by jps came out of the blue and is unwarranted. I suspect it's a cumulative kind of thing, jps having taken issue with some of Chris55's article edits and comments on the talk page; the matter of the ape ("it is very similar") does indeed smack of OR, but that doesn't warrant a "final warning". jps obviously could have chosen a more effective, diplomatic, and collegial way to express their concern. 2. there is no need for any admin action, besides, perhaps, a keen eye on the talk page and possibly involvement with an AE case. There is no harassment here; "feeling threatened" by an editor giving a warning is not harassment. Chris55 is also reminded of the basic truth that jps does not have administrative tools. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I am feeling threatened by this user who has given me a "final warning" of blocking for placing a picture on a page with this edit. Since the picture is very similar to a number of photos published in the scientific articles cited in that section I can only interpret his action as trying to enforce the removal of the photo (which he has done) by bullying. Chris55 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The user in question has been warned a number of times about their editing with respect to WP:ARBPSCI. Since this is a matter relevant to arbitration-imposed discretionary sanctions, the correct place to discuss this would be WP:AE. jps (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not sure posting a picture of an Ape wading on the article Aquatic ape hypothesis was a fantastic idea but it was in a section that discusses primate wading. As purely illustrative its not completely out of scope but it should obviously not be included as serious evidence supporting it (AAH). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
A gorilla wading on two legs using a stick to gauge water depth
  • I'm sorry, but what? Cue article saying: Most primates naturally walk on two feet when wading in deeper water...and cue image of A gorilla wading on two legs using a stick to gauge water depth which is almost verbatim from the image description from the Public Library of Science, This adult female gorilla in Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, northern Congo, uses a branch as a walking stick to gauge the water's depth So... exactly what part of this was original? Or are we just knee-jerk reverting and templating with a level four warning for an apparently on-topic image that apparently faithfully reproduces the information from the source? TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The original research bit is that the picture has nothing to do with proving/disproving the AAH. Its just a gorilla wading. Likewise the source of the picture is nothing to do with AAH. Its essentially using a picture of an ape in water to lend credence to the AAH. The 'not completely out of scope' bit I referred to earlier was that it is directly in a section about primates wading.. and the picture is indeed, a wading primate. Personally I wouldnt have used it, its the sort of lazy 'look here is a picture of someone/thing doing it! it must be true!' more suited to tabloids than an encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I gotta say that while I'm not expert on the evolutionary history of primates, to give someone a "final warning" for this, which is by no means OR in any sense of the term, is wrong. There may be other valid reasons to not include the image in the article, but this is WP:BRD stuff, not WP:AN/WP:BLOCK stuff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}
So is there an actual diff where the user claims this picture proves something, or is that just a blatant assumption of bad faith? TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
AGF is (justifiably in some cases) in short supply at the AAH article at the moment. There has been a recent influx of the lunatic fringe. (See Fringe noticeboard and elwsewhere). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
So I'm going to take that as a no, that there actually isn't a diff where the user claimed this picture proved something. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I've added no other content wrt that picture. I just happened across it on a Smithsonian site on the same subject giving credit to Wikicommons. Mentioning the stick was purely in the interests of accuracy but it's irrelevant in the context. Chris55 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a content dispute that should be discussed and resolved (via consensus) on the article's talk page (with an eye to WP:FRINGE, MOS:IMAGES, etc.). If necessary, also take it up on WP:FTN. The issue should not be resolved by posting ridiculous "final warning" templates on anyone's talk page. 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS, stop that nonsense or you yourself will be blocked from editing. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Softlavender, please do not ping me for your own jollies as you are not an admin. Thanks. jps (talk)
      • 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS Then take it from me, as I am an admin - stop that "final warning" nonsense and deal with what is simply a content issue by discussion on the relevant talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Noted. I will take all further matters to WP:AE. jps (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
          • I am not sure what in this discussion suggests to you that WP:AE would be an appropriate forum for this discussion. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
            • There is a long history on Aquatic ape hypothesis of adding original research and content that violates WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SOAP. Typically the best way to handle this kind of protracted content dispute which crosses many accounts and has a history that exhausts the good faith of many admins has been to ask for administrators to use discretionary sanction remedies at the affected pages since those admins active at WP:AE have more experience with dealing with these kinds of disputes. I note that the complainant has already been notified of this possibility by a different user: [106] which is why I thought a final warning was more appropriate. If I failed in that, I apologize, but clearly the other user and I are on the same page now. jps (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That you have the audacity to continue to argue that your original research is worthy of inclusion in an article under discretionary sanctions is amazing. If I see you continuing, I will be recommending some sort of remedy from WP:AE.[107] Yes, clearly on the same page of...threatening to take someone to AE over a picture. TimothyJosephWood 16:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't see any indication that you and Chris55 are "on the same page now" (if that were so he wouldn't have filed this ANI). I do not see any indication whatsoever of any attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. I do see that you escalated the confrontation on the user's talkpage after you issued the final warning: [108]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I would point out that an ip, possibly jps, has once again removed the picture after it became the subject of this complaint and was restored by an admin. Chris55 (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well as I have been mentioned.

I mentioned in my ANI that this user has a long history of abusing other users. This is not just about this one incident (and I note this is going the same way as the last ANI against this user "but this is only one incident, we cannot block for one incident". It is not about one incident, it is about a pattern on behavior going back years. So this user is not going to get any real meaningful sanction and will go away with this attitude expressed here "expect me to resist you in Fringe articles quite often. You're not the first editor who has insisted on such a philosophy, but I pride myself on surviving where many of the rest of them have left or been shown the door". He does not think the rules apply to him (that is clear form my interaction with him) and that he treats ANI's (and AE) as another tool in his pseudoscience. Frankly this is a joke now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose block[edit]

Clearly rejected. Seems that jps has been a bit of a m:DICK but understands it. A proposal for a restriction on user warnings might be more likely to fly. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I propose a block of no less than six months for 9SG.../jps.

  1. The user already has a block log as long as my arm, including I count four indeffs.
  2. It's been all of two weeks since they were last brought to ANI over the 14th stupidest edit war in recent memory.
  3. They are, as far as I can tell, reliably reported here almost monthly for something, usually some form of incivility.
  4. They clearly don't give a damn, and no one with a block log like that needs or deserves yet more final warnings, on top of the ones they've already ignored.

I struggle to find a user who's been given more WP:ROPE by the community, and I'm all ears if someone has a better example, but otherwise support as proposer. TimothyJosephWood 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, I assume this is for 9SG.../jps? Primefac (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Clarified. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whilst the "final warning" on Chris55's page is clearly excessive (and jps really needs not to do that again), I would have removed the image myself as it does veer towards WP:OR. As the image detail says, the image is there not to illustrate that an ape can happily wade in water, but that they can use a tool - a stick - to help themselves do so. Indeed, the detail points out that the ape was not happy wading in the water until she used the tool to test its depth. Use of the image without context does present itself to the reader as "Look, an ape wading in water, this backs up the hypothesis" - which it of course it doesn't. A warning (which has already been given) is enough here. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
How you get original research out of the image is beyond me, and as far as I can tell is basically the same thing as saying we should remove the image from Chiropractic#Treatments, because showing a chiropractor and a patient clearly somehow indicates that it is an effective medical treatment. TimothyJosephWood 16:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
"Indeed, the detail points out that the ape was not happy wading in the water until she used the tool to test its depth." That's not what the journal article says: the ape waded all the way up to her waist. Only then did she go back out to get a long stick to poke the area in front of her, to either test the firmness of the swamp floor or measure depth beyond that point [109]. Chris55 points out on his usertalk that "Similar drawings/photos are given in all the scientific papers cited (e.g. Niemitz, 2002, Niemtitz, 2010, Kuliukis 2011) but are copyright. That one happened already to be in WikiCommons." [110]. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Without context, the image is still useless. As would any image of a hominid in water. We know that hominids are not totally averse to water, that brings nothing new to this pseudoscientific theory. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That is... actually completely irrelevant, even if there wasn't an entire paragraph of context, which there is. TimothyJosephWood 18:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Except that paragraph, apart from one sentence (the one about bonobos), doesn't actually have any relevance to the image. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I do completely agree that if you ignore the parts about apes wading in water, the image of an ape wading in water is completely irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that's clever. Well done. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose jps overreacted badly with their final warning, Chris55 overreacted badly bringing it here, and this makes three for three bad overreactions. No blocks needed for anyone; this discussion stands as enough warning now as to the folly of overreacting.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This has been a long-running issue, across several of their line-noise account names (Just why does an editor have to keep renaming themselves to stop their username being obvious in history logs? Hmmm.). Also see what must be the 13th stupidest edit war, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_216#globalsecurity.org, why globalsecurity.org needs to be banned as a source because globalresearch.ca is a bad site. This editor's attitude to others here is just unworkable. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose six-month block, but ... jps clearly overreacted, and some sort of sanction might be warranted. As to the edit in question, in my view, in a section titled "Wading and bipedalism", it's appropriate to show an image of a wading biped, so I've just readded the image with a slightly different caption. To which edit, jps has responded on my talk page by suggesting that my edit was "pointy". Paul August 17:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • And he's right. I'd revert you myself, but I seriously can't be bothered with this nonsense. We have enough pseudo-scientific bollocks in Wikipedia already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: User has had 9 different usernames in 5 years. The last four have been 20-character random-character gibberish. I think this is both UAA territory and evasive, and I suggest a ban on usernames moves and a recommendation that he choose User:Jps and stick to it. I have no comment as yet on the block proposal, but the usernames alone are quite a red flag and problematic. Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:UNCONF this is not a block-on-sight username, you could try WP:RFC/N if you like. I've never heard of a restriction on renames before, and since they did them all properly all their contribs and their block are intact, so nothing is actually hidden, although their block log is an ungodly mess. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
K6ka said "this is likely the last time we'll be accepting another username change request from you" at the move request (permalink). That sounds reasonable to me. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think anything that jps has done here deserves an immediate long term block as response. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Black Kite, we certainly do have enough pseudo-scientific bullshite in Wikipedia already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not a triviality, its a long term patter of disruptive editing, but either way is fine with me. It's not like there won't be another ANI thread on him in a few weeks. TimothyJosephWood 18:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
If something is presented that deserves a long block, I'll totally agree with it. There simply isn't anything here, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
This user consistently removes content or makes changes to the AAH page without prior discussion on the Talk page. This involves content which has been on the page for years and was not previously contested by other anti-AAH wiki editors. I second the request to have him blocked please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talkcontribs) 18:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I hardly think you're an impartial judge of article editing on that topic. Your "anti-AAH" editors are more often than not trying to follow WP:FRINGE. --NeilN talk to me 19:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Well of course you would, being one of the proponents of this pseudoscience. I think we'll stick to the opinions of those who aren't involved in trying to insert this type of content into an encyclopedia. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. A warning template (more so a final warning) is clearly excessive and not very conducive to discussion. But if we issued six month blocks every time someone posted a warning template that someone objected to, we would rapidly find ourselves out of editors. Personally, I think warning templates for the most part are a bad idea. They are often interpreted as a threat, and sometimes they are merely an empty threat, as in this case, since there was nothing particularly sanctionable about the image in question. Warning templates in edge cases like this lead to conflict escalation rather than resolution. This is a content dispute. jps, don't add any more warning templates, unless you really think repeating the behavior could actually result in sanctions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • TBH, the purpose of the warning was supposed to be indicating that my next stop was/is going to be WP:AE. We don't have a template for that, I tried and failed to find the closest one. jps (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Although 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS seems to have taken the wrong tack here (and he's admitted the error right above this comment, and he's given a reasonable explanation for it), his efforts fall well short of anything that could be reasonably called harassment. Deli nk (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - To be clear, my proposal here came in the heels of Softlavender, please do not ping me for your own jollies as you are not an admin, which is about the variety of flippant dismissal I've come to expect. Since they've defaulted on one of their two perennial ways of avoiding sanctions, missing the point while apologizing, as we saw in December's episode, (the other of course being ignoring the thread completely as in January's episode), then nothing will surely happen and we can probably just close this and move on with our lives. TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Why bother, it will only be overturned like every other ban. Frankly this user is never going to be punished, and is going to only get worse as they come to think they are more important then anyone else. This kind of BS will drive users away, as JPs seems to be quite proud of having done in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposed editing restriction[edit]

I propose the following:

user:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS, aka jps (noting in passing his habit of changing username), is indefinitely banned from placing any warning above level 2 on a user talk page, and from placing more than one warning in respect of any user for any one content dispute, and from opening more than one noticeboard thread in respect of any single content dispute, with the sole exception of 3RR notifications at WP:ANEW.

I think that balances the obsessive behaviour leading to the issue with the need to protect the project by not placing excessive barriers to managing simple edit warring. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Could I request that I could also open WP:SPIs when I see suspicious behavior, or are those considered something different than a "noticeboard thread"? If I can file SPIs, I am happy to abide by this restriction whether this proposal passes or not. jps (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Excessive use of warning templates isn't the problem. Persistent, long-term incivility and battleground behavior is the problem, and a token sanction isn't the solution. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Well he is not going to get a block, so what other solution is there, apart from a slap on the wrist and a solemn promise to behave until the next ANI, when the whole process will be repeated, with the same exoneration's and promises to learn.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point in time. Either jps fixes the battleground behavior or gives us enough ROPE to actually do something. At the moment, though, we barely have enough to tie the knot. I do have a heavy metal ruler that yall can borrow in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Proposed editing restriction[edit]

A ban on posting any warnings. A ban on making any pseudoscience edits without first agreement on talk pages. A final final final warning on making PA's. A ban on any further user name changes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Just as a procedural note, that's four completely different things that you're asking for agreement on. Woe to the closing admin who has to decipher that all. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something, up till this point I have said there will be no agreement on action. This is my first proposal here. Could you please provide the diffs for me asking for agreement on anything else?Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You're asking for four different editing restrictions. Admin A likes options 1 and 3, admin B likes none of them, admin C likes all of them, and admin D thinks that 3 is a crock of shite but likes the rest. Which (if any) are put into place? I'm not saying you can't propose all four measures, I was just questioning the need to have such a different range of proposals in one motion. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I misunderstood. The problem is this user has been banned, they have been warned (Finally, at least three times) they have been given a gentle slap on the wrist. And seem to think that they will always "win". There needs to be a clear and unequivocal message that no they do not have special privileges that mean they can do what the hell they like. I am trying to craft a proposal that covers all their malafactions. The other proposal will not (and does not) do that. Frankly I have no idea what will really work beyond some kind of edit ban on topics and talk pages. This is an attempt to achieve something close to that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Slatersteven, this kind of gratuitous piling on, combined with some nonsense accusations, is seriously frowned upon by administrators and others. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)7
No. I'm not doing this song and dance where we try to craft out a restriction that requires its own table of contents, and try to haggle for the best sanction we can get. If the community doesn't support actual sanctions, then they don't. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I actually like the ban on further namechanges. The nature of the names, compounded by the changes, is just annoying, and if it's not designed to create awkwardness for people trying to ping you or find your page to post on, etc, jps (I actually can't be arsed to create a ping, arghh), then I wish you'd explain what it is designed for. I've read the explanation on your userpage and am unimpressed. ("I prefer to be judged on the quality of my contributions rather than the name of this account." Bah.) I'd actually welcome one more change, to a name that is possible to remember and spell, and then no more.
That said, I strongly oppose any kind of editing restriction. I completely agree with User:Black Kite's sentiment above: We have enough pseudo-scientific bollocks in Wikipedia already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality.. Or banned, or otherwise impeded. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC).

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

Rahul Dhanwani's behaviour[edit]

Blocked for a month. Previous block was 2 weeks, and next one will be indef. He'd previously been told that if he included the edit again without consensus he'd be blocked. Instead, he's started edit-warring on the talk page, despite the fact that consensus is totally against his proposed edit. I would say that WP:IDHT is relevant, but frankly it's heading more towards WP:NOTHERE. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Rahul Dhanwani wants/wanted to include a free kick stat in the Lionel Messi article here. After he got reverted by several users here, here, here and here he took it to the talk page right there. As you can see it was closed as not a single editor agreed with him. Now he started a new discussion right after the "old" one was closed here. He got reverted and talked to on his own talk page and per edit summary but he keeps on reverting at the talkpage (not the article so far). So, what do we do? He should WP:DROPTHESTICK... Kante4 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Springchickensoup disruptive and not engaging in consensus building[edit]

A range of problems are still apparent despite >3,500 edits over three months and lots of editors attempting to give feedback. All of this is pretty disruptive.

1. Deletion of article talk page content. Described simply as "edit"[111] [112] which Ghmyrtle picked up. Mass archiving of talk pages then followed at articles which didn't need archiving,[113] thus blanking talk pages; also directing the bot to wrong articles [114], [115]. Mutt Lunker questioned these actions [116] but had an inadequate response,[117] and they didn’t clear up the mess (deleting links to archives rather than restoring talk page material).[118])

2. Repeatedly using uninformative or false edit summaries. Advice given back in December [119] and again in February by MusikAnimal [120] but quick return to summaries like "edit" [121], [122] and "update".[123]

3 Not signing comments on talk pages (not including proper details or including the details of other editors), I raised with them in December [124] but it is still going on [125] [126], Springchickensoup even going back to remove their details [127] and responding with hostility, e.g. Talk:Dunoon. I raised this with this editor[128], so did PamD[129] and then me again.[130]

4. Edit warring rather than BRD. This was happening in December [131] but is still going on.[132]

5. Persistently adding inappropriate or non-existent categories. I raised this in December [133] then January [134] [135] but this has continued [136]

6. Failure to discuss. One instance of Mutt Lunker raising issues led to being taken to ANI in February Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#.28Moved from AN.29 - Inappropriate behaviour. Feedback given by Kendall-K1 was scorned [137] then an odd report filed at UfAA [138]. After offering advice J3Mrs was also rebuked.[139] Springchickensoup’s talk page's history has been blanked of criticisms several times, e.g. 23 Feb 2017[140], 5 Feb 2017[141], and 18 Dec 2016[142].

7. Repeatedly adding navboxes which do not relate to the page on which they are placed, e.g.[143], readded [144] and [145]

8. Unconstructive editing of infoboxes, such as distance of miles to two decimal places, or location by centimetre. Raised by Jellyman [146], PamD[147], Twiceuponatime[148] and others offered advice too[149]. Again the response was hostile and evasive.[150]

Some of this was also raised at WikiProject Scotland Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Enthusiastic.2C_prolific_editor.2C_but... but Springchickensoup hasn't posted there. In December I brought this to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Springchickensoup hoping for some engagement, but the response was unco-operative and included a groundless revenge complaint Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:drchriswilliams_Now_being_confrontational_and_warring.. It feels like we're running out of things to try. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I endorse Drchriswilliams's summary above. I had no dealings with Springchickensoup until earlier today, when I posted[151] on their talk page about problems with categories which I had encountered while working through Special:WantedCategories. Then something twigged with me that there might be more of a history, so I looked at the user talk page's history and saw lots of deleted content. That turned out to be mostly attempts by other editors to raise problems, and usually being dismissed quite rudely.
I noted that Chris had made the most recent attempts to engage, so I posted on Chris's talk[152] that it looked to me that there was some sort of there is some sort of NOTHERE/IDHT/COMPETENCE problem. I followed that up with a brief summary[153] of the issues I had seen. Congrats to Chris for doing the spade-work of putting this together.
I want to believe that this editor means well, but I see only occasional glimmers of an ability to work consensually, and that is a pre-requisite for editing here. There is a very big problem rate with these edits, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND hostility to other editors makes things uncomfortable as well as unfruitful for those who do try to engage.
AFAICS, this adds up to a huge net negative. Springchickensoup has already left behind a lot of messes for others to clean up, and unless some brakes are applied, the cleanup list is only going to grow.
At a minimum, I would suggest some community sanctions, such as: 1RR, requirement to use informative and honest edit summaries, civility warnings, and a requirement to use dispute resolution mechanisms. I wouldn't oppose a block, but am inclined to try a little WP:ROPE first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll note that I also concur with the above assessments. (Apologies if this repeats some of the points made in the post immediately above as they were evidently being drafted at the same time.) This new user is highly active and clearly has much enthusiasm for the project, but only if absolutely on their terms. The bulk of their considerable number of edits are poorly expressed and drafted, do not conform to MOS, are poorly organised, poorly sourced, non-notable or actively - if often unintentionally - highly disruptive. It is understandable that, as a new editor, their level of ability in editing is limited but they have shown utter contempt for any advice or constructive criticism offered to them by numerous other editors. As noted above, they routinely leave misleading edit summaries, have made significant attempts to obscure critical talk page threads and have brought two vexatious referrals here to ANI in regard to criticism of their editing. Their unwillingness to desist from disruptive patterns of editing, coupled with their huge edit rate has tied up much time and effort of other editors in checking, reverting and vainly attempting to provide feedback, advice and criticism. I fear there is still much of their work to be checked, amended, corrected or outrightly reverted or deleted. They may have made some positive contributions but overwhelmingly they are a significant drain on resources, due to their behaviour. This user's enthusiams could be an asset to the project but after several months without showing an iota of willingness to accept the good faith of others, the point has been reached where it has to be indicated that they can not expect to behave like this and be allowed to continue to participate here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been trying to help this editor on Dunoon for some time, tidying up, pointing out that section headings need proper formatting, and that we write in complete sentences, etc. I've now been included in their general vituperative remarks about destructive editors - ie those who apply Wikipedia norms instead of letting this editor do their own thing. It's getting tedious. Their editing is enthusiastic but unskilled, and they don't like getting advice or help. Mileages to London expressed to two decimal points - their response when I said that whole miles was enough precision was "As for being over-precise, again just nonsense, no distance on Wikipedia is precise as the points the measurements are taken from are not fixed point." which seems like WP:IDHT rather than an editor willing to listen to more experienced helpful editors. See also Talk:Dunoon#What.27s_missing for hostile response to a suggestion on how to improve the article. PamD 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Just worked out how I ever got involved: this version of Dunoon, 22 Nov 2016 after Springchickensoup had made a vast number of edits, must have shown up on my notifications as linking to a page I'd created, almost certainly a dab page: it's massively overlinked and looks quite spectacular if you've got dab page links showing in orange as per gadget! PamD 22:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have had little interaction with Springchickensoup but have found him confrontational and bizarre. He brought me to UAA with a charge I didn't understand, something about being dead or being three different people, and did not notify me of the discussion. Nothing came of that. None of my interaction with him amounts to anything deserving any kind of sanction, but together with all the stuff reported by Drchriswilliams, some of which I observed but did not participate in, is troubling. I can't really think of what a reasonable response might be. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiThugs on Ahmad Mohamad Clock Incident[edit]

(non-admin closure) OP blocked for 31 hrs. Kleuske (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

WikiThugs are trying to obstruct editing on that article, while concealing the fact of that obstruction. They are also repeatedly using their power to 'comment out' discussions that expose material they don't want to see discussed. They are also using threats of blocking to intimidate people who object to their malicious actions. If you want them informed, the staff will do that. I don't know how to. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The user in question is asking for a boomerang; they have repeatedly leveled unsupported speculative insinuations and outright accusations of criminality against a minor child, in the face of repeated warnings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have learned that "boomerang" has come to mean, effectively, on WP as "Retaliating against a person FOR THE SPECIFIC OFFENSE of complaining about other editors' behavior, regardless and without considering the actions of those other editors". That seems to be coming true here, too. And if "blocking" keeps an editor from continuing writing on the WP:ANI, that amounts to further malicious obstruction: What kind of insane system would not only block a person from editing an article, AND block him from editing a Talk page, and STILL AGAIN block him from engaging in a complaint process HE HAS NEVER MISUSED? 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
One of many possible examples: here the user describes the article subject (a child) and his family as "terrorist wannabes" - violating BLP, NOTFORUM, RS, SOAPBOX and half a dozen other policies and guidelines. Simply hatting and redacting has not worked, so it's time for this user to be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess you are pretending that there is some sharp and distinct line between discussing a subject, and discussing the article. I have repeatedly complained about misconduct BY YOU on that article. You ignore it, except you try to conceal it. And you are writing into your own words a misrepresentation of what I actually wrote. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
We tried to educate the user about our living persons policy (especially when involving a minor); about observing civility and avoiding personal attacks; about how Wikipedia is not a forum; on how neutrality relies on citing reliable sources and giving them their due weight. All for naught thus far. El_C 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
No, you didn't do that. Another editor merely referred to WP:BLP, but did not apply that policy SPECIFICALLY to the article in question, and not to my comments at all. As if you thought it was somehow self-evident, or that your buddies would back you up without further discussion. Well, maybe you were right in thinking that? Congrats for helping ruin WP. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I did do that. And didn't even mention original research... El_C 21:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The OP is clearly WP:NOTHERE and needs a block. IMO the talk page posts need looking at and possible R/D's - though it would take some sifting through. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked 31 hours for disruption. It's clear they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and almost anytime anyone starts with "Wiki bullying" almost out the gate, nothing good is going to come from it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Johnpacklambert[edit]

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs), who has a history of nominating articles for deletion without considering WP:BEFORE [154] [155] [156], has recently nominated a large number of sport-related articles in the same vein. The vast majority have been closed as Speedy Keep or Keep or on their way to it, due to the appropriate notability guidelines and/or GNG not being considered. Very basic research is able to prove the fallacy of his claims to players playing in non-notable leagues etc. [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] Requests for the editor to withdraw clearly improper nominations were ignored [169] [170] and attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page have been reverted as "rubbish" [171] [172]. Clearly the editor intends to continue this sort of disruptive behaviour and I would request some sort of warning be placed upon him to cease and desist. Not directly related to the issue of sports bio AFDs, but unfortunately has a track record of deleting any attempt to discuss his editing on his talk page rather than engaging in discussion which makes it difficult to address this without escalating the issue. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The user also has a habit of ignoring questions to him in the AFD discussions he's started (or participated in). Recent examples are [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180] and [181]. Similarrly, questions on his talk page about these nominations are also ignored - [182] and [183] Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I am also concerned about this user's AfD nominations and contributions, which have become increasingly spurious, and at times seems to lack any type of research or basic source searches to qualify deletion. In addition to the examples above, see this AfD discussion (full disclosure: I contributed to the discussion), where another user stated that the nominator and JPL "need remedial lessons in how to run a google search". The manner in which the user has been repeatedly asked to discuss valid concerns about their contributions on their talk page (diffs: [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192]), but simply deletes the posts using edit summaries such as "delete rubbish" (diffs: [193], [194], [195]) does not inspire confidence, and I view it as disrespectful and insulting to refer to valid concerns by multiple users as "rubbish". North America1000 22:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that present, ongoing discussions regarding this user are occurring at User talk:Magnolia677 § Topic from User talk:Johnpacklambert and User talk:PageantUpdater § JPL, again. North America1000 22:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's time some restrictions or sanctions were levied against JPL for his abuse of AfD. There are a number of disturbing things here:
    1. He's a volume editor, nominating articles faster than the community can assess or fix them,
    2. There are a disturbing number of "clear misses". I'm talking articles that almost no one in the community would ever consider deleting. Articles where a quick perusal of sources necessitates a keep vote.
    3. His editing patterns suggest contempt for certain vocations rather than actual adherence to GNG or to specific notability guidelines. Here, he announces disagreement with certain guidelines. If you're going to nominate articles at the clip he does, you need to understand and adhere to GNG and specific notability guidelines.
    4. There's pretty clearly IDHT when he ignores or deletes comments telling him to stand down.
    5. The last round of mass deletions resulted in a gentleman's agreement where he agreeing to not mass-nom in exchange for not being sanctioned. He's violated said agreement.
pbp 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ctl-Alt-Del. JPL has a habit of doing something like this periodically. It's tedious and timewasting, but the storm usually passes fairly soon, and then all goes quiet again for another 6 months or a year. So please can somebody within reach just reboot him in safe mode? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't always agree with JPL, but I don't think he needs to be sanctioned. I think he is a good faith editor who disagrees with some of the notability guidelines or tries to push the limits of them on cases where the community isn't willing to play ball. Let him know that the community asks that he refrain from mass nominations and be done with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hasn't that been done before? Part of the problem, is that the community has been trying to engage him, but he ignored comments/questions on AFD pages, and ignores question on his own talk page. When really pushed on his talk page, instead of engaging he blanks. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Which achieves precisely nothing. He's already been told that and yet he continues. The issue is not only with the mass deletions - if they were all or almost all spot on there wouldn't be a problem - but with the fact that he is clearly refusing to engage with notability criteria. So if we ignore it as you suggest, this will just happen again in a few months in relation to another topic. It's never ending. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Whst everyone is hinting at here and that Drmies has mentioned below if things don't change is a topic ban from AfD. That is a big deal because AfD is a core area of our project. JPL might need to take a break from it for a while, but I would much rather that be his call than a sanction. Based on the actions and some of the comments here I do think he needs to improve, but I don't think a topic ban in necessary yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • But that is exactly where we left things in September with the pageant ANI discussion, and six months later here we are again --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh flipping heck. I seem to remember a previous issue where JPL was nominating beauty pageant contestants and was at least having a 50/50 success rate. These footballer AfDs are failing badly; whether one believes they are notable or not, they pass our current requirements. Advice to JPL: just stop it, please. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There is precedent for the community telling even very experienced and large contributors to this project, that if they are not willing to abide by the policies and guidelines, then they can not continue to edit. Debresser (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • JPL usually brings a deletionist mindset to AfD, and his contributions (both noms and !votes) often come across as lazy. It's dangerous to the 'pedia when an editor habitually pushes for deletion without giving the article in question sufficient consideration. It's also troubling that JPL has demonstrated an unwillingness to engage with those who are concerned. Lepricavark (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I will try to respond better to comments in the future. However it is often hard to respond to comments when they are down right rude and combative. I am engaging with notability criteria, despite the false claims otherwise. There are huge long lists of what makes a footballer notable, so long lists that one line articles with one internal team source other survive. It is hard to be willing to engage when some of the posts are so insulting and rude.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • John Pack Lambert, your effort is appreciated, though I note that you take back what you gave immediately by blaming other editors. If that effort fails, however, do not be surprised to see a proposal for a topic ban from AfD participation, which I will support. That area is already contentious enough. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • If you appreciate my efforts then why would you ban me?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Please read more carefully: if that effort fails. There comes a time when effort isn't enough and we start talking competence. At the risk of sounding like a jerk, your comment below, where you indicated you looked at the guidelines after these nominations, is indicative of...well, you figure it out. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
          • It indicates human fraility. I not only read multiple times through the long list of professional leagues to make sure that Farukh Abitov had not played on any, I also read through the long descriptor of what qualified as an international competition to pass the notability guidelines. It does not come out and say "if the person has been on a national team they are notable", and the sourcing and information as I read it did not seem to indicate to me that they had played in any games that met the description given in the notability for football description. I will admit I was wrong in this determination. I am trying to be calm in my consideration of this issue. I am sorry for blanking my talk page with an overly quick caustic remark. However it seemed wiser at the time than getting into a discussion on my talk page that was likely to be even more heated. I would point readers to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalie Smith as an example of the very combative arguments sometimes thrown against legitimate and well reasoned attempts to nominate an article for deletion. The general tone of such make it often feel that the best course of action in creating an AfD is to create the AfD and never read it afterword. Especially when they result the way the one on Rosalie Smith did, which was in delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

*PageantUpdater has also engaged in canvassing to try to get more participation in this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • CommentI am not the only person who was not fully aware that Kyrkystan's national team was playing at Tier-1 competition level. This caused a lot of discussion on my talk page back and forth. There is an extremely long and complex list of Fully Professional football leagues, and I have consistently tried to review it when making nominations for deletion. I have tried to find the least combative way to respond to comments left on my talk page. Sometimes that is just blanking them out, and letting the discussion on the article in question run its course without saying anything else there. It is very hard to patient and calmly read through multiple attacks on the level of time spent studying a matter. This is even more so the case when PageantUpdater speedy keep voted on some of my hockey nominations with a false assertion that a particular league gave automatic notability for playing, when I had read the explicit guidelines in the notability for hockeyplayers guidelines that explicitly list the leagues that grant such, and do not list that league at all. I will admit I should not have used the term rubbish, but I was frustrated with the harping on me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I am sorry for my mistakes. I now realize that playing on a national team is generally a sign of notability, although it is sometimes hard to tell if they were at the adult national team or a non-qualifying junior national team. I will seek to fully understand this question before acting in the future. Another issue that has come up relates to players in the Phillipine Basketball League. In those cases it is almost looking like it might be worth considering revising our guidelines since they do not include that league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope I am not coming off as a jerk with this comment as Johnpacklambert has a long and distinguished career here on Wikipedia, however if this editor is unfamiliar or feels confused over the rules of WP:NFOOTY or the notability requirements of other projects, then perhaps he shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion. AFD nominations such as these (see here 1, 2, 3,4) while possibly made in good faith aren't helpful to the project. My suggestion is that Johnpacklambert take a break from nominating articles for deletion and resume when he feels refreshed and feels s/he understands the guidelines better. Anyway that is only my opinion, hope it helps thank you. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I wish when I had first come on Wikipedia I had realized I could put spaces in my name. Even though the way my signature now appears it has spaces, people seem to ignore this. I know this is a minor quibble, but I am part of the group that think all Wikipedia users should have to sign in and use their real names, and the fact that I do not fully comport to this bothers me. I am not sure that saying anything of substance about the issues of the notability guidelines for footballers will be helpful. I have come to better understand the issue with national teams, and have withdrawn a nomination because of this added understanding. On the other hand there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Allen (2nd nomination) which shows that there are in fact articles on non-notable footballers that I am catching.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to know why, for the second time in less than a year, it's taken an ANI discussion to get John Pack Lambert to come to the table and discuss his AFD editing. It shouldn't have to come to this. The exact same thing happened with the previous lengthy pageant deletion ANI in September, where numerous editors requests on his talk page to discuss the issue were ignored and/or blanked and the matter thus had to be escalated. In my view his claim to now recognises his "human frailty" etc etc is disingenuous given he showed zero desire to consider the matter until I started this report and in fact described our complaints as "rubbish". There were plenty such opportunities, such as Rikster's request here on 23 February for John Pack Lambert to withdraw a nomination of an Olympian which was ignored. The sports notability guidelines are not rocket science either, being new to the subject I all but had them grasped straight away, except for a fail with WP:NHOCKEY where I later recognised and quickly corrected my error. I'm also not happy that I've been accused of once saying "I [he] should stop commenting on the internet and go wash toilets" by John Pack Lambert which is categorically false. I know that my language over the pageant article issue wasn't appropriate on many occasions but not once did I stoop that low. I am also consistently being called a "he" instead of a "she" which I somewhat understand given it's not obvious from my user page - but I have corrected him on this before. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought that perhaps this discussion was coming to a closure. But at the same time, I see that User:Johnpacklambert is continuing to contribute to AFD discussions, and has even started a new one, in the midst of this; not that anything at first blush seems in appropriate, but I'd have thought that at least stopping new AFDs until people can catch up would have been appropriate, recalling WP:NORUSH. I also noticed commentary he made about this ANI [196], [197] referring to it as "an attack" and an "attempt at revenge for my success in getting so many Miss America contestant articles deleted". I can tell you, that if someone else didn't start this ANI, I was about to myself, and it's neither an attack, nor have I ever edited or even read a beauty contest wiki page; I'm concerned that you see this as some kind of vendetta, when there were several people who shared the concern, some of which have not encountered you before. At the same time, you've justified not contributing to AFD discussions you've started because is it "hard to respond to comments when they are down right rude and combative". And yet, I provided a list of explicit request from you for comment, none of which were rude or combative. You haven't indicated why you didn't respond to them. The list was [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205] and [206]. Also, questions on your talk page about these nominations are also ignored - [207] and [208]. Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I hadn't seen those diffs [209], [210] previously: more than anything I think this proves that he believes his behaviour has been innocent. I'm not quite sure what all the other posters who commented on his AFDs were supposed to be attacking him in vengeance for but I can assure you, other than establishing a pattern of editing the other AFDs were far from my mind, I've long since given that up as a lost cause for all but a few articles. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh and I find it amusing that I was accused of WP:CANVASSING (later struck out). All I did was notify some of the editors involved in the AFDs with "Given your comments you may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johnpacklambert in regards to his sports-related AFDs"... I'm not sure how much more neutral one can get. On the other hand, JPL alerted three editors by calling this disturbing, an act of revenge and an attack. I'd like to ask you which is more disturbing? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
And intimidation as well. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I keep trying to be calm about this, but PageantUpdater is the guy who once said I should get off the inerenet and go wash toilets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I never said anything of the sort and I find that accusation utterly disgusting. I challenge you to prove it and if you are unable to I believe you should be banned for making such an egregious accusation. And how many times do I need to tell you that I am a she not a he? Why do you persist in calling me a guy? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Not very far above she denied that she had ever said that, and tried to offer some evidence.[211] Do you have evidence she said that? She also objected to your mischaracterizing her gender. This goes to the root of the problem I think - you are not paying attention (assuming you are not doing it deliberately). Nfitz (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
A quick search [212] indicates that you (JPL) were the only one to have ever said this in the history of the project. Nfitz (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I never said the comment was a direct quote. I should have been clear it was a paraphrase. That being said, since it was not said by PageantUpdater, it does not really matter. However it was a paraphrase, of a comment that meant the same thing but used other words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I am sorry. I confused this editor with someone else. That was a mistake. However I had done that confusion some time ago, and it colored my perception of the attacks that were being thrown at me. With the notion in the back of my mind that she was the one who made that comment, which I sincerely apologize for suggesting she made, it caused frustration that caused me to know it was best not to respond to a comment from her. I also did not see the statement on the person being a she. I wish I was better at saying things right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Back in the August nomination also brought by PageantUpdater she said "I will be the first to admit I haven't always handled myself very well in this situation - I've said some things that weren't overly polite". So she herself admits being rude to me. The attempt to characterize nominating a few footballers for deletion because I failed to understand fully what was and was not a Top Tier international participation by the football teams involved as being the same as the issues involved in discussions over the nominations of beauty pageant contestants is just plain inaccurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. Sorry, JPL, but the issue kinda is the same. In both cases, you nominated a whole lot of articles for deletion in a very short amount of time, and many of them were "clear misses", articles that would never have been AfDed if you took a few minutes to read them and a few more to read policy and guidelines. You've essentially admitted that you nominated a bunch of footballers before fully reading and understanding the footballers' notability guideline. That's bad. Very bad.
    2. PageantUpdater (or anybody else) saying something you don't like doesn't excuse your actions. Especially when you often give worse than you get. Witness your struck-through comments above.
pbp 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Nothing I have said above is meant to say that I was wise or prudent or acted in the best way in my nomination of the articles of footballers for deletion. I see now that the bar for international play and national team membership is lower than I thought at first. I am not sure there is anything I can do to help this situation. I really hate my inability to show sincerity in typing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As I have already mentioned above, here. You still clearly fail to understand what the issue is. It's not so narrow as you failing to understand what is and isn't a Tier 1 football competition, it's that you took on a subject matter you were not familiar with and went on a nominating spree without doing appropriate research to see if your nominations were valid. I'm a football fan and even I didn't know what a Tier 1 competition was, but it was pretty easy to find out. Going beyond that one specific AFD though, there are at least ten other examples of you nominating articles which quite clearly meet the notability standards, and that even when numerous editors tried to get you to slow down and reconsider your nominations you refused to withdraw the nominations or address the editors' concerns and continued on regardless. You have a pattern of being quick to judgement, as evidenced by the accusation you made about me which was clearly false, and which I had already told you was false - and I daresay by your bringing up my comment about my behaviour as if it is some sort of new thing to sting me with, when I myself had already admitted it openly here. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not simply the notability of international players that was off. JPL's nomination of Juan Pablo Andrade showed a complete lack of research into the subject as there were two English language sources already listed in the article that showed he had played numerous times in a fully professional league to pass notability guidelines. Kosack (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I haven't had any knowledge of or interaction with John Pack Lambert prior to the three articles on basketball players that he recently nominated, but after learning of his long history of noncompliance and his overriding unwillingness to adjust his editing behavior – or even to take meaningful responsibility for why he is the subject of an ANI, as seen in these very comments – I agree with several users above that we've reached the point where some sort of sanction that restricts his access to the AfD process is necessary. The repeated recidivism and dismissal of other editors' legitimate complaints about his anti-collaborative editing posture are very troubling. This is far from being merely a recent problem. João Do Rio (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have admitted I was wrong in some instances. I have said I will try to do much better in the future. I will point out that nominating an article for AfD is inherently a collaborative process. It brings the most scutiny to the article. There are other avenues to seek deletion that are much less collaborative. This is not to say my acrions in doing so we always fully thought out. It is to say that calling such nominations a non-collaborative effort is higgly questionable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it's so much that the nomination isn't collaborative, but your lack of participation in the AFD, even when pinged, that is non-collaborative. Nfitz (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also non-collaborative is dismissing concerns about AfDs as rubbish. pbp 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user:184.145.42.19[edit]

Move along, folks. IP has stopped edit warring and has thus staved off a block. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

At the article Bar Keepers Friend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the IP user 184.145.42.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is engaging in disruptive behavior. Their initial edit added an {{advert}} tag and blanked the external link section (EL section is composed of an official link and two news articles that could be incorporated into the article). When that was reverted, they then did wholesale blanking of content, including well sourced material.[213][214] Their argument on their talk-page that the official link is promotional - as well as stating "Feel free to report me or whatever"[215].

I suspect this will eventually reach 3RR teritory; but given the user's responses to comments on their talk page as well as prior behavior by this same IP- I chose to report it here now to see if someone else can get through to the user before blocks are necessary. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

IP has been notified ... and while typing the above, the IP blanked the same content again.[216] --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"Blanking"...is that what it's called when you remove unreliable sources from an article, and then have to remove the content that relies upon said sources? I implore anyone to see the diff and decide for themselves. Also, please note that I informed Barek of my intention to nominate the article for deletion, and asked them to be more careful in reverting numerous edits in one fell swoop because they disagreed with one or two.184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, the article is never going to be deleted at AfD, and you're removing material that ... well, some of it is clearly sourced and some of it is not so great, but you're removing it without a rationale, so I've reverted you, and you're at 3RR now, so leave it for discussion please. Black Kite (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, there's certainly some poor-quality content that should be cleaned-up. But that didn't justify blanking large sections. On the IPs talk page, they didn't seem interested in discussion - although in hindsight I should have pointed them towards WP:BRD. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you for taking the time to respond to this report. The underlying issue at-hand here is the fact that you're making repeated reversions to the article and in a back-and-fourth fashion with others. This is called edit warring, which is not allowed. Instead, editors are expected to engage in proper dispute resolution and discuss the issue on the article's talk page and come to a consensus. This is what you need to do... you need to discuss this dispute here and come to an agreement. In the meantime, please do not make further reversions to the article. Doing so is disruptive, and you can be blocked for this... which is something I'd really rather not do to you... okay? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you can just have a look at the article itself? Specifically, with regard to notability and verifiability of sources. I read the previous RfD summary, which was closed by an account found to be (if I've followed the thread correctly) a prolific sock puppet. I'm trying to make Wikipedia better, while others seem more interested in preserving the status quo. Further, Barek was only too happy to revert numerous edits in a go, while specifying they only had a problem with one or two. It's also interesting to me that Barek preferred to assume I would 3RR rather than assume good faith. Might that be because of the nature of their reverts???184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you're trying to improve Wikipedia and make good choices and decisions (this is why nobody is blocking you), and that you're frustrated over this situation. If you start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the concerns you have with the sources cited in the disputed content and why you believe they're unreliable, and ask everyone involved to weigh in - the best decision regarding what to do (if applicable) will be reached and as a group of people working together. Remember: We're all here to improve Wikipedia just like you are. We need to collaborate, interact, discuss, and behave towards others knowing that we're all on the same team and wearing the same jerseys. If we fail to do this, coming to a decision that best reflects the content of the article to readers will be much harder, which is one of the main principles in which Wikipedia operates and grows :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
How is the sock-puppetry of the closer relevant? Would any editor have closed that AFD differently, based on the discussion? Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
In this context, the closer of the previous AFD doesn't change the fact that consensus was a clear keep. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Below is a facsimile of my reply to Nfitz from my talk page, for context.
"For one, the user that closed the case last time was found to be a prolific sock puppet (20+ accounts, by their own admission). For another, the sources were a mishmash of the company's own website and "business-friendly" local media. Finally, if anecdotal evidence matters (it shouldn't, but did seem to in the previous AFD, so...), I've heard of every single other cleaner mentioned in the article...but not the one in the namespace. Please don't assume status quo is status correct. Like, did you look at the article? The AFD? Any references? The relevant WP policies??? I've spent the last hour and change doing exactly that, and I implore anyone who cares about keeping WP free of promotional material to do likewise. I, an inexperienced manual editor who has to flail around to get even basic things done, should not have to lead experienced editors (and admins!) around by the nose to prove my case. It's all there in black and white. Does anyone care to look?"
After that, Nfitz more or less accuses me of being a sock puppet and said I "just want to argue" [217]. Thankfully, Jbh did care to look at the article, and came to the same (painfully obvious, IMO) conclusion. I hope this puts to rest the spurious allegations levelled against me.184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've warned the user for edit warring on Bar Keepers Friend. If the reverting continues, I'm comfortable with blocking the IP for edit warring and knowing that the user was warned first and allowed an opportunity to correct the behavior. I'm going to hold off in the meantime and keep an eye on the user's contributions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that the article has been at AFD before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend. This was a unanimous well-attended keep. There's no reason to think the outcome would be any different now, AFAIK. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Sent to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend (2nd nomination). The previous AFD had one good source and the rest was based on the age of the product/patent. I did a quick search and did not find anything other than how to articles and articles that looked like PR/product placement. As it stands the article is nothing but an advertisement for this product. Jbh Talk 02:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much! It means a lot to me, given how other editors have deigned to treat the matter without actually considering edits and intent. I cannot believe Bar Keepers Friend wasn't deleted the first time around, and though I certainly don't speak for User:Eric Corbett (the former "Malleus Fatuorum" from the edit history, who proposed deletion within a month of the article's creation in 2009), I suspect that ed. might have been similarly incredulous at their deletion tag being unceremoniously removed without discussion. Cheers.184.145.42.19 (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Continued Edit Warring by User:Xenophrenic after Expiration of Block[edit]

User:Xenophrenic, after being blocked, barely escaping a topic ban at ANI and having a second ANI report opened about him, has continued to edit war on articles related to the topic that got him banned. User:Fram, the administrator who blocked User:Xenophrenic, told User:Xenoprenic to "leave this category and anything related to it alone". User:Xenophrenic's contributions reveal that he has not only ignored this administrative injunction, but has flagrantly disobeyed it. At this time, I would recommend that we proceed with a topic ban on all articles related to atheism and religion, broadly construed, so that User:Xenophrenic does not waste the time and energy of any more of Wikipedia's constructive users.

User:Xenophrenic has been notified of this report on his Talk page.--Jobas (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jobas: Diffs please. Claiming with a link to an archived thread that's quite long but shows fairly limited support for a TBAN that the user "barely escaped" a TBAN, and claiming with no diffs that the user is edit-warring, is not helpful. Nor is showing a diff of an admin who blocked the user encouraging them to edit other areas (contrary to what you appear to believe, admins are not allowed unilaterally impose topic bans on editors, so the advice is not binding). Their block expired a week ago, and they have made a bunch of edits since then. I'm seeing a fair few article edits (including some reverts) and some talk page edits. The reverts are mostly one per article, it would seem, which makes the edit-warring claim somewhat questionable. Apologies if I am reading this wrong, but if you don't provide evidence it's not my fault if I go looking for evidence for you and can't find it wihout excessive effort. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:EW, says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so"
While User:Xenophrenic emptied a Category:Persecution by atheists of all of the articles therein As stated by the administrator User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Xenophrenic emptied a category of all of the articles therein and then nominated it for deletion. User:BrownHairedGirl (in addition to User:Marcocapelle) admonished User:Xenophrenic that this was very inappropriate and asked him to rollback his unsettling edits (User:Xenophrenic did not comply with this request), again before his last block he emptied the category without to discussing it; the CfD ended in "no consensus" and User:Xenophrenic was in the process of being topic banned for his actions. His edit summary stated: rvt insertion of unsourced, so I reverted some his edit pending the current discussion initiated by User:John Carter that covers keeping or deleting all categories relevant to religious/atheistic persecution.
Now after a week of being blocked he keeping making the same edit on articles related to the topic that got him banned without to discussing it, as you can see here, here, here, here, here, here. What I suggested in Marcocapelle talk page was: "There is a current discussion about rename and purge initiated by User:John Carter that covers the renominate all categories relevant to religious/atheistic persecution. it would be prudent if Xenophrenic participated in the discussion created by User:John Carter instead of keeping edit warning", So instead of keeping removing the category and edit warning or revert, I guess he should participated in the discussion created by User:John Carter and wait till we got clear consensus, but the problem he ignore to wait the result of the current debate and take unilateral side. Thanks and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jobas: Those edits all come from different articles. Even if they are all reverts (and they don't appear to be) they can only be edit-warring if he made reverts to the same articles previously. Reverting new edits once is perfectly in line with WP:BRD. And pointing out where other users disagreed with his edits previously also is not evidence of his disruption. You should stop acting like having x number of users disagreeing with someone makes them "wrong" or counts as a de facto TBAN -- for all the evidence you have provided, the two users you have named who disagree with Xenophrenic are tag-teaming with each other and with you, and are just as worthy of a TBAN as Xenophrenic. Above you say the same edit on articles related to the topic that got him banned -- you really need to familiarize yourself with the difference between a block and a ban before proposing bans. And the longer you refuse to provide evidence of disruption, the less likely I or other users will be to support any proposal you make. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jobas: By the way -- you may not be aware, but I am subject to an IBAN with one of the users you mentioned in the above post. If you could verify what I am referring to here and refrain from bringing them up in your responses to me, it would be appreciated. As I stated in another thread currently visible on this page, I have little patience for users who try to goad others into violating their own restrictions. I am assuming good faith at the moment (with regard to this issue -- it's becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith with regard to whether Xeno has been edit-warring), but if you continue writing like you did above after I have requested you stop I will be forced to ask someone else to request you stop. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Some advice needed. Fact is that the CfD discussion was closed as 'no consensus' implying the content of the page was restored to status quo ex ante. Fact is that the restore has now been unilaterally reverted, obviously by means of 1 revert per article. Now what? Should User:Jobas revert these changes and wait until User:Xenophrenic re-reverts them for the second time so that there is evidence of an edit war? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle: "No consensus" means just that -- no consensus. Making edits that run contrary to what some users said in a no-consensus discussion is not edit-warring. Refusing to discuss said edits and continuing to revert regardless would be edit-warring, but all I'm seeing here is one user with a seriously flawed understanding of TBANs trying to propose sanctions on a user for violating a hypothetical TBAN that they are not currently subject to, and making non-EW edits that he doesn't like. It's becoming increasingly difficult to believe that Xeno could be the cause of whatever problem might exist here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for User:Xenophrenic on articles relating to Religion and Atheism, Broadly Construed[edit]

  • Support: Despite being blocked and almost topic banned in his recent ANI discussion, User:Xenophrenic has once again proven himself incapable of learning from his mistakes and seems to be wasting the precious time of constructive editors on this encyclopedia. He blatantly ignored the order of an administrator and continues to edit war on the same things that got him censured in the first place.--Jobas (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jobas: Just to be clear what I meant by my most important point above and below: admins aren't allowed impose "orders" without prior community consensus, and ignoring/"violating" such "orders" is not sanctionable. To demonstrate how silly this is, I would ask why, if you think Xenophrenic already was subject to a TBAN, you would be proposing the same TBAN again. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I do not see any evidence above. Fram may have provided advice, but there is no requirement that such advice be followed, and certainly no requirement that it be followed "broadly construed" and indefinitely. Is all the indignation concerned with keeping Category:Persecution by atheists on articles like Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Lithuania? That kind of tagging-by-category is a very grubby form of POV pushing—does anyone really imagine that the Head Office of Atheists decreed that a particular religion be persecuted? Funny how the article does not mention anything to do with atheism that I can see. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending some evidence in support of the claims being being made. I find it difficult to believe that an editor who has only made one revert per page over the course of a week has been "edit-warring", and the lack of evidence (combined with an apparent lack of understanding of how TBANs work -- admins can only unilaterally impose bans when discretionary sanctions are in play, and even then only when the subject has been clearly warned that discretionary sanctions may be applied) makes me very suspicious. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

How much harassment is OK?[edit]

Harassment is never OK, and let me just point out that this is where it seems to start. In other words: IP, I think we've had enough snark out of you. Plus what Hijiri88 said, which I won't have to copy since he already said it. And Andy Dingley. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Nfitz just will not stop. Of 11 additions (so far) to [an AFD page], five (arguably six) have been personal attacks. I'm not even gonna bother with diffs. It's all on the page.

Is this de rigueur? Do very experienced editors ever actually get taken to task for "wikihounding" a newer IP editor? Or should I just eat it and pretend it's chocolate cake?184.145.42.19 (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, I admit 1 or 2 may have veered into rudeness, after having suffered the same, and that shouldn't happen. However, for the most part, this seems to be retaliation by this frequently blocked user for my participation in the just-closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by user:184.145.42.19 case, just above. As far as I can tell, this user considers any disagreement with his overbearing and overstated positions as a personal attack. A quick review of his talk page edits, show case after case of unnecessary sarcasm and aggression. Examples are: [218], [219], [220], [221] and my personal favourites [222] and [223]. Perhaps I should just ignore it - but the combination of such rudeness and arrogrance I find intolerable in a group project like this. I mean, really, who tells other editors to fuck off and calls them motherfuckers? Indeed, how much harassment is OK? Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Your off-topic, ad hominem points-scoring is hardly worth a reply. I've done my time, so to speak, and now you're the one calling names. And you admitted it. I'll let the record speak for itself.184.145.42.19 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, putting aside the small matter of my feelings, is it usual to pollute a WP project page with such...let's call it frivolity? Kinda screws up the whole thing in terms of readability.184.145.42.19 (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Is it usual to reply endlessly on an AFD to everyone you disagree with? Which so far would be everyone else who has offered an opinion on whether the article should stay or go. The only opinion that hasn't been commented on is your own. Just state your opinion, and wait for a week. If you've got a valid point, such as an inappropriate reference - sure. But to criticize someone reappearing to the debate after an absence of 5 years - really? Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
If you're the snark police, you should do a better job policing yourself.184.145.42.19 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I see no such harassment from Nfitz, and even where they admitted they may have veered a little on the rude side, that still doesn't constitute as harassment. On the other hand, I see plenty of uncivil behavior from the IP here, and I would propose quite a lengthy block for them based on their block history—three blocks within the space of two days back in January, even managing to have both email and talk page access revoked—and that they clearly haven't learned their lesson. This report is purely out of retaliation because of a personal beef they have with Nfitz. Amaury (talk | contribs) 09:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see any unacceptable rudeness from either party, let alone harassment.
    However, I do see two editors winding each up as they WP:BLUDGEON the AFD. Each of them has already made their case, so they should both now step back and let other editors have their say.
    And WP:TROUT the IP for an unfounded complaint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Nfitz (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @184.145.42.19: Please read WP:BLUDGEON, stop replying to every comment you disagree with, and stop accusing other users of "personal attacks" and "harassment" just for pointing out that you are doing so and that it is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Wait ... this is the same IP that, two sections above and four hours before opening this thread stopped edit warring and [...] thus staved off a block? @Drmies: Can you tell them to stop bludgeoning, making bogus accusations of personal attacks and opening frivolous ANI threads like you and a few others already told him earlier today to stop edit-warting? Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I was uninvolved in the previous edit-warring at Bar Keepers Friend, and only came into the ANI discussion above to point out the previous AFD, that the close was good, and the obvious futility of resubmitting it. Nfitz (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Mark Linton and copyright violations[edit]

Mark Linton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an experienced user specializing on articles in wrestling. Today, I discovered Souled Out (1997), created by him, clearly copied verbatim from elsewhere (Google gives enough hits). I speedy deleted the article and posted a notice at the talk page of the user. In the meanwhile I noticed that I was the fourth user warning him about copyright violation, and his reply to the previousl three users was always that he needs time to expand the article. I figured out that he possibly copies the text from elsewhere in Wikipedia, and left another notice explaining him that the attribution is necessary even in this case. In the meanwhile, he recreated the article verbatim, which I speedy deleted. He went to my talk page and left the same notice about necessity to expand the article. I asked him where the text is coming from, to which he did not reply. In the meanwhile, he recreated the article for the third time, still without an attribution. I am hesitant to delete it again or to block the user for copyright violations, since he clearly means well, but does not seem to get the point. May be someone can try explaining the point to him more efficiently. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We had some more exchange at my talk page which unfortunately did not help me to convince the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I've posted some more information on this topic on his talk page. Hope that helps. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from new user Scrape2000[edit]

ROPE, schmope. Blocked indef, garden variety VOA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Scrape2000 (talk · contribs) is currently making a nuisance of him/herself. Batternut (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE is getting close. They've a warning and nothing since, so let WP:ROPE take its course. WP:AIV should be adequate. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing/harassment by User:MatthewTardiff[edit]

USER BLOCKED:

User blocked indef by Someguy1221 (non-admin closure). Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

This user constantly reverts correctly sourced edits out of spite because he doesn't like them, as well as grammar/spelling edits made by myself and others simply because he doesn't like the person who made the edit. Not only that, but just yesterday I saw him threaten somebody and claim that his family has "connections to the FBI and the CIA" and that his family "could have somebody's computer seized immediately", simply because someone posted on his talk page asking about why he continually reverted somebody's edits. He quickly deleted it afterwards, but it's still visible on the edit history of his talk page. Myself and others have constantly asked him to stop his disruptive edits but all he does is say "he's still learning Wikipedia" or threaten the user in question. Thanks. --TDOldSpice (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2017 (GMT)

Doxxing threat right here: [224]. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
WOW. Ok, Matt can have his editing privileges back when he can adequately explain that edit. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Ongoing IP inserting unsourced claims despite challenges[edit]

(non-admin closure) Blocked for a month. Kleuske (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

180.145.138.96 (talk · contribs) is constantly inserting the same unsourced claims into the same articles (Doraemon (2005 anime) and Doraemon the Movie 2017: Great Adventure in the Antarctic Kachi Kochi despite constant reverts and challenges and having previously been given a 72 hour ban for doing so. The includes in sections tagged for requiring more references for existing content. The IP has changed within a range previously (possibly too large for blocking) but here we have a pattern of edits all under this individual IP Trying to get temporary protection has been problematic because it's been turned down before for not enough incidents despite there being a clear pattern after previous protection expired. It's also quite clear that this hasn't stopped them from just trying again later.SephyTheThird (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month. Apparently they did not take the hint from the last block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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