Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

Incivility at Talk: Ajax (play)[edit]

Persistent incivility by User:DionysosProteus at Talk:Ajax (play) § Sophocles' or Sophocles's?, in the form of: refusing to give details[1][2][3] about sources that the user claimed to possess[4], and which would help substantiate the user's claims, even after several requests[5][6][7]; responding to requests with ridicule ("these idiocies",[8] "this idiotic behaviour" and "nonsense"[9]); and various forms of condescension ("Try not to be stupid about it",[10] "use your head",[11] "get a grip"[12]).

After a message was left at user's talk page pointing to Wikipedia's civility policy and emphasizing the need to cooperate with other editors[13] (later amended[14]), user wrote a rambling message on the article talk page where the dispute originated, dismissive of the concerns I raised there, in which I personally was accused of various forms of impropriety ("you have belabored so preposterously", "little indication that you have any real interest in improving the article") as well as having my mental state questioned ("you were confused").[15] Further edits on user's talk page included personal taunting in an edit summary ("what is wrong with you?"[16]) and the inability or refusal to "get the point" about fragmented talk page discussions,[17] after a message was posted there pointing to the relevant section of the talk page guidelines.[18]Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reading the conversation you are rather pedantic. That's not really an excuse though I do understand their response to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Essentially you sealioned someone over a basic (as in, taught in secondary/high school) grammar issue which is already covered by the MOS. That someone was incivil to you is a result of you not dropping the stick and backing away from the horse... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you'd better check your definition of sealioning. As the talk page shows, I was the one who started the thread by asking for information. The user in question responded with a vague statement about what's "standard in most literature", apparently[19][20] using a duplicate account. When pressed for details, the user provided a link that didn't actually substantiate the claim. When this was challenged, the user got irritable and very quickly moved to condescension and insults. Also, what MOS says was made clear early in the discussion – this was a question about verifiability as much as punctuation. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You asked a question and I answered it. I wasn't aware I was signed in on that account at the time. You persisted, so I provided a link that answered exactly what you'd asked (the very first result of the search demonstrates it) and I invited you to do the work of satisying your curiousity about the absolutely minor and inconsequential point yourself, having seen how you'd wasted other editors' time previously. You insisted I do the searching for you. I wasn't prepared to do so, for the same reason. Verifiability doesn't apply for such an issue since no source is likely to be found for the question you were raising (it being so inconsequential). As explained on the talk page. At increasing length. As per your behaviour with the other unfortunate editors of that page. I suggest you review your posts to that page for the last couple of months and reassess the manner in which you attempt to resolve problems identified. It's not the responsibility of other editors to explain things to you that you can so easily confirm for yourself.  • DP •  {huh?} 04:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  • Actually, it's not necessary for both sides to walk away. But whichever one does walk away, allowing the other side to have its way on this meaningless question, will be the better editor -- and others will know it. EEng 05:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Please, let’s not pretend that this is a single incident that stands alone — it is a larger problem. (As has been indicated above in this discussion.) Coconutporkpie has opened multiple discussions on the Ajax (play) talk page alone. They are equally a waste of time. Then he discusses related issues on other talk pages elsewhere on Wikipedia, similarly wasting other editor’s time in the midsts of long grindingly inane discussions. (An example is buried somewhere in a discussion on Template talk:According to whom. DP at one point (earlier on the Ajax page) stepped in and helped to resolve one of these inane things, and deserves credit. You can’t really fault an editor for answering a question on a talk page, and then another, and another, but at a certain point you begin to realize you have been drawn in, and you are trapped into being impolite yourself by ignoring him — and then he hounds you with accusations for ignoring him. (As he did to me earlier on the Ajax (play) talk page.) He is devoted to wasting the time of many editors who are, after all, volunteers and could be doing other things. He is a form of troll known as a sea lion. Many editors, myself included, are guilty of taking the bait. Clockchime (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Clockchime, but I'm not buying your speculation that this is an attempt at trolling and deliberate disruption. Looking at both the Ajax talk discussions and the additional template discussion you provide above, they look like fairly garden variety content disputes to me. That is, they (unfortunately) seem fairly reflective of how such disagreements often play out these days between parties who are certain that their approach is best and fight tooth-and-nail over ever little particular, rather than looking for reasonable compromise approaches that might serve the project and the content best. CPP is certainly opinionated, and if there is anything that discussion you linked proves, it's that he certainly seems to have a selective valuation of WP:Civility, based on whether he wants to apply it to his own behaviour or that of his "opposition", but I see absolutely nothing to suggest that he is arguing those points out of any other purpose than to see things done his way. Indeed, that seems to be the very heart of the disagreement here. So, though his behaviour is arguably problematic, you're going to have to present much more explicit evidence of trolling than that he seems to be acting in an obtuse manner to you; otherwise these observations just looks like a refusal to WP:AGF.
I'm not saying you and others aren't right to be frustrated here (I reserve comment on that, beyond what I've observed above), but trolling is bad-faith behaviour on an entirely different level, and those kinds of accusations need to be substantiated by more than "He's got it so wrong and has missed the point so many times, he must be playing with us". People make bad calls and fail to accept consensus all day every day across this project, while still mostly operating in good faith and from a perspective that their approach would benefit the encyclopedia. I respectfully suggest that all evidence here seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you seem to feel that you see; that is to say, CPP is not someone who is here to deliberately derail the project for kicks, but rather someone who feels very passionately about improving it, but fails to see when it is time to let go of their idiosyncratic approaches. Snow let's rap 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding due diligence, what MoS actually says, and which I referenced with a link early in the discussion,[21] is that there were two possible style alternatives. My comments on Talk: Ajax (play) were directed at establishing which of the two alternatives was favored by the majority of sources. I don't see it as redundant to ask an editor to justify their statements, when each of their comments contains new, unverified assertions.[22][23][24][25]
According to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, RFC and third opinion are for content disputes. There was no more content dispute in this case, because several sources in the article turned out to support the existing wording, as I mentioned on the article talk page[26] (I found none that used the alternative). This was after I had already been insulted several times. I brought the issue to this page because of a user's incivility, not to continue a dispute over content.
Vague accusations such as "fails to see when it is time to let go of their idiosyncratic approaches" and "seems to have a selective valuation of WP:Civility" are of course easy to make and impossible to refute, since they are directed at deal with assumptions about a person's mental state, rather than the evidence of their actions. Also, inventing nicknames or abbreviations for other users ("Coconut", "CPP") strikes me as a very passive-aggressive form of belittling or condescension, which itself is considered to be uncivil. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The answer to your question as to which of the two MoS possibilities was answered in the first and the second (and every subsequent) message. You misrepresent the issue -- it is not nor never was a question of 'most sources'. As the MoS makes clear, it's the way it's usually said out loud. Hence, "Sophocles' tragedy," but "Faustus's damnation." The problem that I and other editors have identified with your manner is that having had the question answered for you, given sources supporting it, you insisted on dragging out a completely minor and inconsequential point long after it had been addressed to the fullest extent imaginable. A simple google books search answered it immediately. You did a similar thing over the all-too-easily-fixed issue of an "immature" work in the wording of the same article. All it took was the smallest active edit and the tinest amount of searching through/for the sources. I wasn't involved in that discussion at all. I encountered it and saw how ridiculous it was. I committed hours of time to improving the article, checking sources, cleaning up citation style, etc., precisely to bring those interminable and pointless dilations on the talk page to a ineluctable conclusion. One day later, you were at it again, about a point with even less merit.  • DP •  {huh?} 02:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"You misrepresent the issue – it is not nor never was a question of 'most sources'" – in fact it was User:DoctorMabuse/User:DionysosProteus who stated that the disputed material was "standard in most literature".[27] But in any case giving due weight requires articles to account for how material is presented by the majority of reliable sources (also covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability). I was not very clear in articulating this on the article talk page, but I think the policy is clear enough on its own. In asking for more complete verification, I was following recommended practice per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: "The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources [...] Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It may be the opinion of some users that the topic in question is "a completely minor and inconsequential point" and without "merit", but the fact is that different people edit Wikipedia for different reasons. Some people are interested in basic copyediting, which includes punctuation. Others are less interested in these things, but such differences of Interest or opinion should not be an excuse for incivility. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow, you do realize that I was the only editor involved in this discussion who was defending you to some extent and making an effort to point out that your dispute with Dionysos seemed to have been a two-way street? For no other reason than because I wanted to make sure unfair assumptions about your "mental state" state were not made, I just went to considerable lengths to challenge the emerging view that you are just here to troll the community. And rather than view those efforts as the only thing standing between you and the big ol' WP:BOOMERANG about to smack you in the forehead, you chose to try to parse my comments to find excuses to see insults that were never there.
I'm not going to engage with you on the content issue, because this is not the place for that discussion, but I'll say as much as this; I agree with everyone else here (and everyone on that talk page), that you've got the wrong of the policy argument and that it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. But then again, frankly at this point I'm beginning to re-assess my perspective now and question whether everyone else who has brought their experience with you here was right and you are in fact just here to stir things up. It seems to be either that or that you are possessed of such a WP:Battleground mentality that you can't even see the level of disruption you cause by blowing up an entire talk page over a few apostrophes. I'm also not going to get drawn in to discussing your one-sided perspective on editor behaviour, except to say that your pretext that you opened this thread because of you are not being treated in a civil fashion is hard to take seriously when you will happily call your opposition's posts "incoherent rambling" when your own ire is raised. I stand by my observations as an uninvolved party here, except to say that I am no longer 100% certain that the other contributors here were not right all along, regarding the good faith/bad faith interpretation of your behaviour. Snow let's rap 02:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Tu quoque – but "Wow, you do realize that I was the only editor involved in this discussion who was defending you to some extent [...]?" I can do without that sort of defending, thank you very much. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Friend, I am happy to let you have it that way, where that is concerned. Good luck. Snow let's rap 04:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Recommend this be closed before the OP gets hit with a boomerang for this massive waste of time. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Coconutporkpie, I'm afraid that you can't cherry-pick the guidelines to evade the most obvious point, which is that you received an answer, sourced, and many, many subsequent explanations for the standard usage, and still you insisted on wasting our time, as you had done with others before, and there seems to be no sign that you are prepared to amend this behaviour. Your attempts to imply I was acting as a sockpuppet are part of the same pattern. It is unsurprising, then, to see you bandy around "Tu quoque" -- it's the catchphrase of a fool. Thomas Greene, however, at least had the virtue of being entertaining.  • DP •  {huh?} 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School section "Cultural Marxism"[edit]

Hi, I'm just looking to get Last Contrarian banned from further editing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section of The Frankfurt School page. Having called an RfC on removing 'conspiracy theory' from the lead Last Contrarian soon found out there was a unanimous uninvolved editorial WP:consensus against their personal viewpoint that Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory. Regardless of this fact they've continued to edit war (barely avoiding 3RR) [28], [29], [30], [31], and they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits against consensus. Something must be done, and administrative action would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment
1. It seems you read my mind. I was just about to report you. You accuse me of a possible 3RR violation. I suspected a WP:TAGTEAM ( [32] [33] [34] [35]) between you and User:Ian.thomson yesterday but didn't report it because I forced myself to assume WP:GOODFAITH.
2. People are free to look at the discussion and RfC over at Talk:Frankfurt School. The page is absolutely plastered with long-winded comments by Jobrot which fail to address my original question.
3. Jobrot consistently reverted the NPOV template on flimsy reasons and by claiming a fictitious three editor consensus when most comments on the RfC there were votes without any substantive discussion.
4. Looks like Jobrot believes he owns the article, and content added using reliable sources that do not support his bias look like disruptive editing to him.
5. It looks like this issue was not urgent enough to be reported. Jobrot spent a better part of half an hour [36] leaving replies to comments not addressed to him before deciding to revert my reliably sourced "disruptive edit."
6. This is what Jobrot considers to be a disruptive edit: [37]. Well-sourced quotes and statements backed by reliable sources. Last Contrarian (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This is pretty common for the article: someone comes in, claims that we're relying too much on "leftist" sources that that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, further evidence is provided that it is a conspiracy theory, those sources are rejected as "leftist," and no counter sources are ever provided to show that anyone outside of the far-right regards it as a reality. However, it's usually new and/or anon editors who don't know how (or don't care) to nominally go through process. We have an editor going through the process, consensus isn't going his way, but there's one editor who is continually countering his arguments so that must be the problem. Seriously, though, is Jobrot handling things perfectly? No. But is he the one ignoring consensus here? Not that I'm seeing...
@Last Contrarian: I've only ever encountered Jobrot on this site, I've only ever really crossed paths with him at The Frankfurt School article and talk page, and his talk page isn't even on my watchlist -- so accusations of tag teaming would indeed go against WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Does the absence of a consensus mean I stay away from the article altogether (Barring substantive discussion from commenting editors, I still consider it to be a majority vote)? Have I added any batshit crazy stuff to the section to your knowledge?
Once the NPOV tag was reverted by Jobrot's and your actions, I continued discussions on the talk page. After discovering a WP:RS source (Gottfried) who had an opinion on the theory, I first added him to the discussion and then decided to improve the article by adding his views on the matter. If this is what you guys consider disruptive editing, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that you assert ownership over the section and only certain wording and certain kinds of sources are allowed. And anyone displeasing you guys will be sent to the principal's office. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
--
I still consider the lede to be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. I didn't touch it though, when I edited the section. My plan was to eventually involve some unbiased editors. When three different sources (one of them an admin) have noticed biased editing on the article over the last two years, who am I to claim otherwise:


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


(edit conflict)Several mainstream sources were provided on the talk page that referred to the idea as a conspiracy theory. You didn't accept them. You were asked for counter sources that demonstrate that any moderates or leftists regard it as a reality. You've previously refused to even acknowledge the request beyond claiming that it's "proving a negative", but I will note that you have just now cited a Slate article written by someone who has WP:HOUNDed Arbcom, called an admin a "capo" on Twitter, and generally not behaved reasonably toward anyone affiliated with this site over something a single (and now topic-banned) editor did years ago. You have instead called for treating something that only the fringe right regards as reality as equally plausible as the mainstream assessment of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not a Wikipedia scholar. I don't spend my days and nights following news about who attack Wikipedia and for what reason. That the "Cultural Marxism" article has seen heavily biased editing is a known thing. The New York Times may not care enough to write articles about it, but the fact than we are here (and someone like me who has spent 8 years on wikipedia without ever encountering an admin) is here and the pages and pages of debate pretty much proves it.
You keep bringing up WP:GEVAL as if it means something in this context. When you label a political belief a conspiracy theory, you need to provide evidence from sources other than their opponents. The section is a case of WP:NPOV violation and the lede is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS based on the views of purely left-wing sources. Left-wing academics and left-wing op-ed writers for left-wing newspapers might believe Cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't become one simply on their say so. There are right-wing sources that use the phrase in a non-ironic fasion all the time. There is an exceedingly well-known philosopher like Gottfried who has written a book on the Frankfurt school and who actually claims that Lind does not believe in the conspiracy theory but Jobrot is trying to have him excluded using WP:DUE in spite of him being a WP:RS. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
As shown 2 comments above, WP:FRINGE requires independent reliable sources; I'd hardly call an article from The American Conservative in which the author specifically says he's friends with William S. Lind and is specifically attacking Wikipedia (albeit a 2 year old article on the topic that no longer exists); independent. Apart from that, you should be using Gottfried's book, but even then he is WP:UNDUE and including him in the lead violates WP:CITELEAD (as stated above WP:LISTEN).
There's no reason to include Gottfried's minority opinion, and nowhere in the article does it claim that Lind says Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory; it in fact says he's a proponent of the theory. And as I've stated on the talk page Lind repeatedly talks of unmasking the hidden agenda of the left to reveal old Karl Marx himself. Proponents of the moon landing hoax or NWO conspiracy theory ALSO don't state that they're conspiracy theorists. So no; WP:UNDUE opinions will not be included in the lead, and you WILL respect the consensus of your fellow editors. --Jobrot (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
For people who would not bother to wade through the wall of text, this is what Paul Gottfried says [38]:

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

So, Gottfried is not claiming that Lind is not a conspiracy theorist, only that Lind does not believe that a conspiracy exists, which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is claiming. Quoting Gottfried weakens the current lead paragraph. Perhaps that's why Jobrot doesn't want it there. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Gottfried also states in his book: "Nothing intrinsically Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society." going on to say; "The mistake of those who see one position segueing into another is to confuse contents with personalities." [39] and I wouldn't put that in there either (unless I'm pushed to cover his viewpoint fully). But I wouldn't put it in of my own accord because it's WP:UNDUE and in the case of your quote (due to where it appears and what else is said in that article) it's not an independent reliable source (as explained above and below) - we've already covered this on the talk page. Maybe you should WP:LISTEN to what people are actually saying rather than just making up the reasons they're saying it in your head. --Jobrot (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


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

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

Well I support a page ban. At this point the editor isn't listening. They've had enough ROPE and seem to be talking them selves into a page ban. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is my edit history: [40]. Do you see anything there that supports a ban? Or, does every single person who opposes Jobrot's stranglehold on the article (the guy has more edits [41] on the article than the next three editors combined, all of whom are inactive since forever) get banned even if reliable sources are used to provide a balance to the slanted claims? They way things stand at present, unless ten people gang up together (an unlikely event) to form a consensus in the opposite direction, Jobrot's version of events will be the de facto Wikipedia version as he seems to be omnipresent on Wikipedia. Anyone going against the status quo will be crushed by the consensus of 2 editors and 4 voters, reliable sources be damned. Last Contrarian (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, your edit history is why people are going for a page/topic ban instead of a block: you do have a lot of good edits to stuff relating to India and Indian entertainment, but your foray into American politics has been problematic. In fact, the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic, combined with the drastic increase in loquaciousness, almost looks like a WP:COMPROMISED account. Were it not for this and this, I'd've called for a block on those grounds instead of explaining this. Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, which means you should stay away from contentious topics until you've learned to do so. You say you've been here "without ever encountering an admin" like that's a bad thing. That means you haven't engaged the community here, and it shows. While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month -- and that's in total, not taking into account that you've barely interacted with the community at all before this. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Every major article I have involved myself in is due to a singular interest in the subject matter. The articles on Satya (film), Chanakya (TV series) and Anurag Kashyap needed a lot of improvement. The one on the Tata Tapes controversy didn't exist till I created it.
While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month I guess you are used to articles and editors for which sources are available quite easily. The articles I worked on are India-specific and the number of easily accessible digital sources on the subject matter and time period (1980s-1990s) are very few. The only way you could perhaps make them better is by visiting newspaper morgues in some of the major Indian cities.
rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Not sudden at all. Here's my user page from 2008: [42]:
  • atheist
  • libertarian
  • interested in politics
  • believes in logic
  • is opposed to online censorship
So my "suddenly" visiting the Cultural Marxism page should make sense given the context.
drastic increase in loquaciousness On Wikipedia, sure. Doesn't mean this is the only handle I use on the internet. Further, technical subjects or subjects with some basis to them don't require long-winded discussions. Only politics and philosophy do.
Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, Consensus and collaboration work when the differences between editors are such that an agreement is possible. In case of controversial topics, they might work if others are willing to at least listen to you. I don't see it happening when it comes to this topic. When I raise a question regarding sentence construction, propositional logic and citations, and the only replies I get are those influenced by previous controversies or those simply voting for a position, what are the chances that a consensus based on substantive discussion would be arrived at?
In this instance, it's very easy to change the lede by using WP:INTEXT. But some editors seem to believe that the conspiracy theoretic position is so common, that in-text attribution is something that should be absolutely avoided. Last Contrarian (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:INTEXT argues against you; sighting this as an example of what not to do: "Charles Darwin says that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars." - that's EXACTLY what you attempted with the lead: "Cultural Marxism in mainstream parlance is considered a conspiracy theory; but <insert name here> doesn't think it is!" WP:GEVAL WP:DEADHORSE WP:LISTEN WP:CONSENSUS. --Jobrot (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if you misread my comments unintentionally or on purpose. This is what I said FOUR days back (see the talkpage):

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

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

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

That's on you, and editors like you who are unable to tolerate an NPOV tag on an obviously controversial section. Last Contrarian (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I've already explained multiple times that it's a) a conspiracy theory to relevant sources cited in the section, b) a theory about a conspiracy to the paleoconservative minority viewpoint, c) that the sighted source for the statement is talking about the mainstream/common usage as being a conspiracy theory and d) that there are multiple examples of it being talked about as a conspiracy theory in the mainstream media:
 The Guardian [43], Al Jazeera [44], Salon [45], Fair Observer [46], The New Matilda [47], ArtNet [48], Buzzfeed [49], The Huffington Post [50].
These reoccurring discussions you wish to have will always illicit this same response from me, each and every time, and User:N-HH was saying there wasn't enough left-wing ACADEMIC coverage of the original meaning; the polar opposite of your claim that there isn't enough paleoconservative coverage (even though it already makes up a substantial chunk of the current section); and User:N-HH was quickly able to understand that the section was specifically for the conspiracy theory version of the term (as is explained on the talk page) and to ascertain that I wasn't there to push a political agenda. Unlike yourself versus those horrible rabid left-wing editors. You're grasping at straws here and showing off your failure to WP:LISTEN. --Jobrot (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Topic/Page ban. Topic ban from Cultural Marxism would be the easiest to manage. I find specific page bans tend to lead to the editor having the same dispute about markedly similar content on a different page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ban Jobrot already and topic-ban Ian Thompson and JzG from American Politics for defending him. He does act like he owns the page, he cannot tell the difference between the 1) school of Cultural Marxism 2) tactic commonly known as Cultural Marxism and 3) allegations about the use of the tactic, he judges the reliability of sources by whether they support what he wants the page to say, he takes a battleground stance against anyone who disagrees with him, he refuses to listen, he has never had consensus, he has his pet admins ban dissenters to maintain a false illusion of consensus, and now he shows off the severed heads of banned users to threaten another editor. Jobrot is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. How much more of this is Wikipedia going to take? 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Rhoark, thanks for this very perceptive comment. I hadn't seen WP:POV_RAILROAD before, and it seems very apropos. I was rather stunned above when, in response to my defense of Last Contrarian, Jobrot piled on with more unmerited accusations of bad faith against LC, and then he went to your talk page to have that 'nice conversation' with you!! I stand by my point, though, that Wiki needs Jobrot's obvious expertise. The essay on POV_RAILROAD pointed to another essay I hadn't seen, as the best answer to a railroad: WP:WIKILOVE, "a term that refers to a general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding among wikiusers.... if we concentrate on achieving a neutral point of view even when it is difficult, and if we try to actually understand what the other side has to say, then we can reach the state of "WikiLove". JerryRussell (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - On the Frankfurt School talk page Last Contrarian has accused editors of blindly supporting me, and has accused me of making content-less and unmerited replies and of having extreme bias for not supporting the conspiracy theory viewpoint, they've also suggested I was one of the rabid left-wing editors conducting rabid left-wing activity by preventing them from being able to resurrect the article (even though that was an administrative action I'm not capable of), as well as having blamed the current section on stupid editors. All of this is on the talk page should you wish to search it, and is on top of our discussions having been extremely repetitive (due to WP:LISTEN issues). That should go some way to explaining why I'm making the above request for administrative action, and why I'm able to be WP:CIVIL with other editors (as all Wikipedians should be). Even within this AN/I Last Contrarian has accused me of the egregious crime of spending the better part of half an hour [55] leaving replies to comments not addressed to me. I hope this clears up who here is employing the bullying tactics mentioned in WP:POV_RAILROAD, and illustrates that Last Contrarian is not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia based on WP:CONSENSUS or WP:GOODFAITH. --Jobrot (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jobrot, of course you're right that LC's comments were not perfectly WP:CIVIL. I hope he'll reconsider and apologize. But, his point was logically valid about mainstream right-wing views of CM, and I had to do quite a bit of searching before coming down on the other side of that question. You could easily make a case that there are enough mainstream mentions of CM in a favorable context, to justify his view. I thought the discussion was not so much repetitive, as it was a continuing exploration of the issue. And, a lack of optimum civility is not evidence of lack of good faith, or lack of willingness to respect consensus. You also mentioned that although LC has been around Wiki a long time, he hasn't done so much editing around highly controversial topics. So, perhaps 'keep experienced editors' and 'don't bite the newbies' would both apply?
I'm not that much of an old hand around here, either. This is the first time I've participated in one of these ANI discussions. What sort of ban would be typical? Are we talking about just a few days, a month, a year, forever? JerryRussell (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Personally I'd say their attitude towards other users is endemic of having bad faith, and that their stated desire to give the audience a positive interpretation of the conspiracy theory version of Cultural Marxism is WP:NPOV and seeks to go against WP:CONSENSUS. Given they only sporadically edit wikipedia (with 1 and 2 year gaps in their history); I'd say a page ban would probably benefit the community without hindering Last Contrarian's efforts elsewhere. The duration is at the discretion of the admins, I just feel it's necessary due to the volume and spread of their comments and actions (with Last Contrarian having made derogatory comments to all editors and not just myself). --Jobrot (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Findings: (1) This is a content dispute. (2) The RfC was only started on 16 August, only two days prior to the filing of this ANI. (3) Edit-warring is dealt with at WP:ANEW, not at ANI. Please let the RfC run its full 30 days, and then have an uninvolved admin close it. Simple. Now can an admin close this thread before it grows another 60,000 bytes? -- Softlavender (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The consensus here (Guy, Cameron11598, Only in death does duty end, Jytdog and myself all supporting a page ban) goes against your "findings"; also I put in a request for admin closure days ago (on the required noticeboard). Replying to this thread after 2 days of quiet is not likely to make it shorter or quieter. --Jobrot (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
To repeat, the RfC was opened 16 August, and needs to run the full 30 days. It's not a clear-cut issue and there should not be an assessment or declaration of "consensus" until that 30-day period is complete. An ANI should not have been opened while an RfC is running, much less after it has only been open 2 days. If anyone is edit-warring on the article, that should be dealt with at WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
30 days is the maximum default time frame for an RfC due to bot-intervention; it's not a required time frame (see WP:RFCEND). Anyone (admin or user) can close the RfC (due to overwhelming consensus in favor of keep) and then an admin can close the ANI. --Jobrot (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: RfCs usually run for 30 days. There's no need to hurry. Wait for people to weigh in. All other drama is beside the point. While the RfC is going on, the article must stay in the prior stable version: edit-warring isn't permitted. WP:EW noticeboard handles requests which fall short of violating WP:3RR as well. Kingsindian   02:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikihounding/harassment by User:Drmargi[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Support I thought we were done with that edit from a month ago; I issued a friendly clarification to the originating editor, asked the other editor why, didn't get a response and moved on, but RA is still harassing Drmargi about this? Meanwhile, the edit made to Shaunae Miller is clearly just two people trying to work out the wording and not even anywhere near the neighborhood of vandalism. I have people following my edits (based on topic areas and the like) and sometimes they run into conflicts with me but I'm not going to fly off because of that; RunnyAmiga needs to learn to work with others here and learn to realize that they must do so. Going through some of their edits there's no indication they know how to use rollback, and going by the responses on their user talk page they really need to build up their composure; responding to anyone like this, even someone likely trolling until the block applied is completely uncalled for. Nate (chatter) 11:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support: I agree with those comments above, but I don't think that the admins can rekove RunnyAmiga's rollback rights, I think that he needs attending at WP:CVUA to understand what vandalism is, and when to use rollback. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 17:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: (edit conflict) I know that NeilN, but just in my own opinion. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 18:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Allow the editor to process what vandalism is and isn't, issue a warning regarding rollback misuse and go forward from there. If they didn't get the message after acknowledging the warning and this discussion, then rollback should be removed - but not before. -- WV 18:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support There is nothing punitive about removing Rollback in this instance; it is a privilege, not a right. This editor has been registered since May, has yet to contribute original content, and is a self-appointed hall monitor and fixer. He is sarcastic and demeaning with other editors as is readily apparent when scanning his edit summaries. He's proven he does not have the appropriate understanding of EnWP policy, given the repeated issues with abuse of vandalism. He has also demonstrated a tendency toward drama, a failure to WP:AGF (he's literally declared me his mortal enemy for a very mundane revert and post on his talk page!) and a battleground approach to editing. Mentoring is all well and good when an editor is receptive, but we've seen rollback rights removed for far, far less. Until he demonstrates the temperament needed to work in an open, collaborative environment, his user rights should be very limited and highly scrutinized, particularly given his declaration that he wants to collect the icons on his user page. Troubling... --Drmargi (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Drmargi: We all know that rollback as a privilege here, but first time misuse of rollback should been a warning and a reminider of WP:NOTVAND. Second offense, that's all rollback rights revoked. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 22:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal of rollback. The user has abandoned this thread and hasn't given the slightest indication that they understand what vandalism is or what they did wrong with rollback. I don't know who granted the rollback rights, but granting it to someone with such a low edit count was a mistake in the first place, in my opinion. Rollback is for experienced trusted users who know what they are doing. Remove the right and let the user learn about Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. Let them humbly learn from experienced editors instead of thinking they know everything. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to AGF and make one last attempt to get RunnyAmiga to tell me why I shouldn't remove rollback. I've looked over his edit history and I see some improvement – at least he's undoing some edits rather than simply hitting the rollback button – but I want a clear articulation from him about what is and isn't vandalism, with some examples from his edit history. Otherwise, and particularly if he doesn't participate here further (in a thread he started), I'll remove it, as I have not been assured he will use it correctly once the spotlight is dimmed. Alerting Widr since he granted the privilege. Katietalk 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've given RunnyAmiga more than 24 hours since this warning, during which he has been editing and ignoring this thread. Since he has not responded, I have removed rollback from his account. If he demonstrates clear understanding of WP:VANDAL, an administrator can restore it. I doubt that administrator will be me, but you never know. Katietalk 00:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
OK thanks Katie. Are we done here (or is there some further sort of "boomerang" sanction)? If so, I think someone can close this thread. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe[edit]

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

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

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

On July 4 2016, TTT added a requested comments from other editors for this discussion on the History and geography project [51] the only editor to respond User:Skyring who created an WP:RFC Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such? Skyring then completely rebuffed TTTs position. TTT did not listen.

TTT then began to forum shop for the first time at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities [52] Which resulted in only one referenced being added to the article. And, that reference completely refuted his position. [53] TTT did not listen.

Then he forum shopped for the second time at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [54] TTT was again rebuffed. [55] TTT did not listen.

He then began to edit the article again to match his POV. However, none of his edits to the article included the info discussed on the talk page (that the "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first assault rifle) and were unreferenced, TTT also removed references that were added to the article as a result of his forum shopping at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. [56] As a result these edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. TTT did not listen.

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

TTT then started to add random tags to the assault rifle article. Which were again reverted. And, he forum shopped for the forth time at the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [57] Where User:Scoobydunk told him..."Whatever you do, don't edit war to get the tag put in." And, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris told him..."Most of the time it means that you should accept that you are wrong, and should retire with grace. See WP:1AM (which has nothing to do with late-night hours)." Again TTT did not listen.

TTT continued to add random tags to the article which were reverted by myself and other editors. User:Skyring then filed an complaint at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Which resulted in TTT being blocked for two weeks. [58] Once again TTT did not listen.

In fact during discussions on User talk:TeeTylerToe regarding the block not only did TTT continue his tenacious editing he again refuse to listen, resulting in a lost of his talk page access. He also, admitted that he was trying to trick his fellow editors into and edit war. To quote the discussion..."@Boing! said Zebedee: Not only was TeeTylerToe edit warring...If you read in between the lines of his own statements, he was trying to trick is fellow Users into an edit war. And, then claim that, "I wasn't edit warring, I was just adding tags to the article. Its those meat puppets that are edit warring by removing the tags." This behavior is intolerable on Wiki and I recommend a permanent block.--RAF910 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)...Thanks for explaining that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)" [59] Again TTT did not listen.

TTT then manage to get User:Huon to lift the block. However, Huon maintained a two week topic ban on the assault rifle page. [60] TTT continued his tenacious editing and spent that two weeks accusing his fellow editors of wrongdoing, socking, meat puppetry, etc. Until Huon had enough and told him ..."I see no point in continuing this discussion. If you do not want to take my advice and drop the stick, bring it up at WP:AN and see what the wider community thinks of this issue. If I see another post like the above on my talk page without evidence in the forms of diffs backing it up, I'll re-block you for personal attacks. Huon (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)" This time TTT listened, for a very short time.

After his two week topic ban was lifted. TTT return to tenacious editing this time on the StG 44 page where he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle and again made unreferenced edits to that article. Those edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. On that article talk page discussion once again he accused and tried to trick a fellow editor into an edit war. Another editor told him..."Very well colleague, I will cut to the chase. You have just come off a two week block for tendentious editing on this very subject. Now you are straight back. The issue here is not how this bloody chunk of metal was used, but your behaviour pattern. Drop it. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)" [61] This time he listened perhaps realizing that he could not win this fight, so soon off a two week block.

TTT then move on to the Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16 where he again tried add unreferenced info claiming that the StG 44 was not the first assault rifle, which I again reverted. [62] Then he did it again [63] Also see talk page [64] Then he tried something different. He took an existing reference in the article and cherry picked a quote out of that reference. He then altered the quote to fit his needs. He also took another reference and took a quote from that article that repeated info that was already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. I was then forced to revert his edit add the full quote to the article once again refuting his position. [65]

TTT has now moved onto the Colt AR-15 where he insists that the Colt AR-15 has select fire versions. Which any knowledgeable person knows is not true. Where he claims that the Colt AR-15 is "A minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem." Even tough it was the first and only AR-type rifle for decades. And, by his own admission he was completely unaware that the Colt AR-15, Sporter, and SP-1 are the same semi-automatic rifle. [66] Also, he is again forum shopping this time on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team trying to get a consensus delete the article altogether or combine it with the M16 rifle page instead of the articles talk page where he knows he will lose. title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&action=history He clearly believes that the ArmaLite AR-15, the Colt AR-15 and the M16 rifle are the same and again refuses to listen.

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

TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits. He has generally annoys and vexes every editor that he has makes contact with. He likes writing walls text where he asks multiple repetitive questions for which the answers are obvious.[67] And, which make it difficult for other editors to understand what he is talking about.[68] He comments on talk pages frequently go off topic. He demands that others answer his questions which he has no intention of listening to, causing others to waste their time and effort.[69] He make no effort to gain real consensus, he simply bulldozers the conversation until other editors give up.[70] He accuses other of wrongdoing when they disagree with him.[71] He refuses to accept any reference but his own.[72] Yet, he rarely includes references with his own edits. He dares and tricks others into edit warring.[73] He is not here to help, he is here to push his POV at all costs.

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

WP:TLDR. Can you say in one paragraph, with five key diffs, what TTT has done, and what you think should be done about it? EEng 05:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you cite a case where one paragraph and five key diffs resulted in action? I don't recall seeing one, but I miss a lot on this page. ―Mandruss  05:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Are there anymore people that you think don't like TTT that you would like to invite to the conversation?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:COMPETENCE--Savonneux (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If the complainant's prose is as poor in articles as it is here, he ought not be editing either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed.--Savonneux (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If someone wants the cliff notes from an unbiased third party maybe ask huon for a quick summary, also, skyring, a member of that dispute was blocked subsequently for socking, although that does appear to have been unrelated. And on a side note, Is calling me "incompetent" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=735647383&oldid=735643460 a personal attack? I note raf910's comment "I believe TeeTylerToe is a troll." What about that?
The Assault Rifle article is, imo, a cesspit of pop history apocrypha, and the first Colt AR-15s sold were fully automatic and they were sold to the federation of Malay. I don't care if a strawberry danish was the first assault rifle, but I have 14 sources including an NRA journal (they're all just fart jokes /s) a published book, and popular mechanics that say that the 1917 winchester/burton was the first assault rifle. So... there's that. "he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle" I don't think I did that, but I have been trying to point out that the StG 44's primary mode of operation was semi-automatic. In effect, it was a semi-automatic rifle. German doctrine was to use the stg firing bursts only in emergencies. I of course have sources.
The AR-15 article was moved to "colt ar-15", and radically changed. What had been sort of a overview article for one of the most popular rifles in history was changed by raf910. Now it doesn't focus on any non-colt ar-15. It doesn't focus on any military colt AR-15. It doesn't focus on any law enforcement colt AR-15. It just focuses on the one ar-15 manufacturer's civilian sales who was AFAIK the only ar-15 manufacturer whose sales were so poor they drove the company to bankruptcy. So, as you can see in the talk page, I noted that with RAF910's changes, project assessments should be redone. the 1.0 editorial board should choose a different AR-15 article, I'd say the M-16 article as the armalite ar-15 article is a little threadbare atm. Also the firearms project should reassess, and it probably doesn't belong under military project anymore, although I suppose it could. I'm not trying to get the 1.0 editorial team to delete the article.
Roughly 5 million civilian AR-15s have been sold by pretty much anybody with a drill press. In the sea of the 5 million AR-15s sold by roughly 6 million different companies, colt's civilian product line is a drop in the bucket.
But yes. I did it in the solarium with the candlestick. And I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Paragraphs--Savonneux (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If you have a source which tells you it was first sold to the "Kingdom of Malay" you probably should throw in in the rubbish bin. There were things 100+ years ago which may sometimes be called Malay Kingdoms, but I don't think any of them are ever really called Kingdom of Malay. Malaya and Malaysia were/are constitutional monarchies, but they're not "Kingdom of Malay" any more than the United States of America is the "Republic of Americas". Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It might have been federation of Malay, as this was in 1959. Here's one reference.[1]TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

References

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

Oh, by all means, let's discount the actual complaint because we don't like the prose.
TeeTylerToe is a serial edit warrior with an extensive block log. I think he feels strongly about the articles in which he's interested but can't seem to collaborate. I don't think he's a troll necessarily; he just wants to push his changes because he's right and everyone else is wrong.
If he's causing problems again after Huon unblocked him, maybe it's time for a topic ban. Katietalk 13:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You were the one that blocked me? How exactly do you figure that I'm a "serial edit warrior"? What edit warring did I do from '13 through, say, june this year? Or before '12? I demonstrably can collaborate. It's overly simplistic and wrong to just label me as someone who thinks I'm always right and other people are always wrong.
  • I concur with KrakatoaKatie. The OP was a bit of an effort to get through, but it does outline a pattern of serious behavior including edit warring and refusal to listen to other people or back down once it's clear they are in the wrong. I'd support a topic ban from firearms, broadly construed. --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Do I have to go through all of that? I can go point by point if you like. From what I've seen, and as I tried to demonstrate it's quite divorced from reality. I mean, by the end it's gone completely off the rails. He accuses me of asking the wikipedia 1.0 editors to delete articles? "The AR-15 article was in, I think v0.8 and was reviewed for v1.0. Maybe change it to the m-16 article?" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&diff=prev&oldid=735435756 You tell me. How is that asking the 1.0 editors or whatever that group is to delete an article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 3? blocks in 800ish article space edits and back at ANI. Even if they are technically correct shows a lack of ability to interact constructively.--Savonneux (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
With short 4 year stretches with no incidents.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So is the problem narrowly focused to Assault Rifles or guns in general?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is far too big of a rap sheet and block log for someone who has only made less than 800 article-space edits. The amount of damage wreaked (including on his talk page after his many blocks), indicate to me this user lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia productively over time. Talk page iterations reveal a mind-numbing array of problems for such a low edit count: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. I'd send him back to indef-land. At the very least a very broad permanent topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you post diffs to make it clear what you're talking about? It looks like one of those is raising the dire, and ever-present threat of rhetorical questions that wikipedia has been facing for years that RAF910 brings up in this incident as well. Before now I didn't realize quite how serious the threat of posing rhetorical questions on wikipedia was. Also it seems like you're digging up stuff from 2012. I don't mind, because if that's the incident I remember from ~ 4 years ago it was a case of basically me saying "same to you." and at the time, as you can see, nothing came of it, for either side. Would you like me to just post a diff of every warning ever posted to my talk page?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agreed with Softlavender; they've had multiple chances. (non-admin) jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:GOODFAITHTeeTylerToe (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC); edited 10:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact--Savonneux (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • RAF910 needs to learn that it's a violation of WP:CANVASS to only inform editors who might agree with him. The ping list that started this thread didn't include many of those who've had interactions with TTT. Felsic2 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Most of his problems seem to ceter on the issue of the history of "Assault rifle" as a concept. Maybe the problem could be solved by a topic ban covering that article. Felsic2 (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It may be difficult to find any editor who has been able to work constructively with TTT. I was called to the Assault Rifle article by an RfC, as were many other editors, none of whom agreed with TTT's position. We are a society that works constructively, although recognising differences, and our procedures demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach. TTT doesn't play well with others; that's the guts of it, and his staunchly defended positions are fringe. His proposal that a massive First World War anti-aircraft gun was the first infantry assault rifle speaks for itself. Time for a topic ban, I think. --Pete (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since I've now been pinged twice, I suppose I have to say something. Well, FWIW, after an hour of checking this saga out, TTT's editing history, his contribs, his block log, and my earlier interventions, I regretfully come to the conclusion that no amount of advice is going to improve his collaborative skills. I recommend a 6-month block with TPA revoked, no UTRS appeals during this time, and to come back on a further 6-month probation with one single mishap causing an indef requring no ANI discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung, can you clarify? With or without TPA? Or is "with TPA" admin jargon meaning "TPA revoked"? A little confusing there. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant TPA revoked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec) Support as the block sounds nuanced enough to cover the issues, and a 6 month probabation is fair. There is no compromise with this editor, which make collaboration impossible at this stage in the editors development here. I think Kudpung means talk page revoked b.t.w. as the editor tends to use those forums as continuations of endless dreary pointless argumentation. Irondome (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I prefer to avoid ANI, but since I was pinged... my experience of working with TTT is that s/he is absolutely convinced of the correctness of whatever position s/he takes and is completely unmoved by contrary facts or arguments from Wikipedia policy. I have also noticed a tendency for her/him to simply drop lengthy copy-paste quotes from sources into arbitrary parts of articles (includingthe lede) without regard for whether the content of these quotes fits or the negative impact on readability. I have tried to compromise with TTT, most notably at StG-44, but s/he tends to respond to even the slightest disagreement with increasingly wordy and shrill talk page screeds. TTT is very difficult to work with, and I find myself avoiding pages where s/he is active. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Kudpung's suggestion of 6-month block with TPA revoked and no UTRS recourse followed by a 6-month probation in which any mishap would result in an automatic indef. Softlavender (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Makes sense. With a block log like that, something harsher is needed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there any scope or room for mentoring here? Irondome (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Already attempted, back in January 2013 with Hasteur: [79], as a condition of his unblock appeal here: [80]. Didn't take or we wouldn't be here again. In fact Huon told him after his unblock a month ago that his next block would be indefinite: [81] -- Softlavender (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC); edited 16:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I do not know if he or she is a POV pusher, I tried to work with him and he seemed to get it, but he did display a definite lack of knowledge about some very basic things concerning the Colt AR-15. He thought all pre-1986 rifles were select fire (they were not) and made the claim that Colt did not use the term AR-15 until recently when in fact the opposite was true (every Colt rifle of that type was marked AR-15 until around 2005 when it was replaced by the term M4 in order to circumvent state laws that banned the rifle by name as AR-15). I did not find the editor that difficult to work with, just not educated about the topic.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's a small point I'd like to clarify. Why does this: "His proposal that a massive First World War anti-aircraft gun was the first infantry assault rifle speaks for itself" trump 14 sources including an academic journal, a published book, and popular mechanics? Another thing I'm having trouble with is block policy. The letter of block policy, and the spirit of block policy both rule out both punitive blocks as well as "cooling off" blocks. Not to mention that this whole blocking because they were blocked before seems a little circular. And on that subject, glass houses. Starke? I quote a lot because, particularly on that page, some editors have trouble arguing against direct quotes from their own references. If there is any specific issues with my contributions or conduct I'd be perfectly happy to discuss it, although I can't say I'd be able to do the same if I were in other people's shoes. For some reason I don't think I'd get away with calling people trolls. And I have no trouble discussing and forming consensus with people like Herr Gruber, or Mike Searson, or countless others. People who don't counter 14 references with "but I think it looks too big" though can make forming consensus difficult. If nobody brings up anything specific I guess I can write a point by point response to raf910. And Softlavender, maybe don't take so many liberties? What Huon said was "the next block is likely to be indefinite." and the context was "If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself", so maybe let me know how that applies? Have I been accusing people in bad faith? Have I been forum shopping? Let me know.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is Huon's unblock statement, from 20 July 2016: "Following a discussion with TeeTylerToe on the #wikipedia-en-unblock I will unblock him per WP:ROPE, with a topic ban for the Assault rifle article and definitions of "assault rifle", including talk page discussions, for two weeks from now (by then the block would have run out anyway). I also strongly encourage TeeTylerToe to drop the stick, accept that there is no consensus for his proposed changes to that article, and find another topic entirely. If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself, the next block is likely to be indefinite.": [82]. How you have continued to cause problems since that 20 July unblock has been detailed in the OP. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
And for instance see the two relevant threads (#7 and #9) on Huon's talk page: [83]. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • RAF910, can you please fix your diffs in the last paragraph of your OP (the one beginning "TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits"?) All but two don't make any sense. Plus you need to link to diffs, not edit histories. Softlavender (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Re: Raf910's OP. At first glance the entire first paragraph is wrong. On para 2, the edits were thoroughly referenced and the edit summary pointed to the talk page for summary of changes. Para 3 is false. Para 4 is false. Para 5 is false. Para 6, I don't think any uninvolved editor commented on the npov board, or at least not through 21 july. Para 7 is false. Para 9 is false. Para 10 is false. Para 11 is false. I could argue para 12 is false. Para 13 is false. Para 14 is debatable. Para 15 is false. Para 16 is false. Para 17 is false. If you want to throw around 6 month or indef blocks, maybe put a little more time into the due diligence.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support block. TeeTylerToe is clearly suffering from competency issues. Huon's unblock warning spoke of an indefinite block if TTT went back to his/her bad habits; I think an indef block is justified here. -- llywrch (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly what behavior are you talking about specifically?TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Range block limitations[edit]

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

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

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

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

Okay. At the SPI archive you've given us:
  • 24.114.48.0/20 (range contributions for roughly the last 30 days here)
  • 24.114.64.0/20 (range contributiosns here)
That's 4096 addresses each. Personally, I have no problem with a short rangeblock if there's enough disruption. So: how much collateral damage is there? Are all the recent edits from the sockmaster? Make me a case kind of like you were doing an LTA. I see the Tesla edits, but what else does he target? Katietalk 23:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the links to the tool, I wasn't aware of it. It looks like your search is configured right but it's still catching edits from outside the ranges, and it will take me a bit of time to go through them anyway. I suppose if I'm going to analyze all these edits and list all the pages they've vandalized (it's much, much wider than just Tesla) then I might as well go ahead and create an LTA; I'll think about it, and the tool will help. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I figured it was a lot wider than that, and I know the guy has been giving everybody fits. I want to know his pattern to make sure I get a wide enough range without causing too much damage. There may be some, and if there is we'll just have to deal with it at UTRS and ACC. Let me know either here or on my talk page when you've got more info. :-) Katietalk 12:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk page abuse at cosmology related talk pages (revisited)[edit]

As promised here to KrakatoaKatie:

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

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

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

Tnguyen4321's vandalism[edit]

user:Tnguyen4321 is conducting vandalism (or at least disruptive editing) on the talk page of Battle of Ia Drang by reverting a well-ended RfC here.[84] Besides, he's also conducting intentional edit warring on the article.[85]. Dino nam (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You really must notify an editor when you report them. I have done it for you [86]. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not really a closure - but a comment. SQLQuery me! 02:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Happysquirrel: @SQL: Fixed. I hope no one minds. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Argh! Sorry about that and thanks Hijiri88. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. This is not vandalism. It is questionably disruptive talk page editing. WP:VANDALISM has a very specific meaning, and hardly ever occurs on talk pages.
  2. The RFC question was in violation of WP:RFC (it was the OP's opinion, not a neutrally worded question). The same OP had previously done the same thing one month earlier.[87] Dino nam should explain their actions.
  3. The RFC was very poorly formatted, with a bunch of extra sections added outside of the original RFC section when they should have been subsections. This makes me wonder whether AustralianRupert had actually noticed that the vast majority of the discussion was not where it should have been before analyzing what the consensus should be.
  4. If what Tnguyen says is right, and the closer actually had misinterpreted the consensus, then what should be done is described at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; reopening a closed RFC by replacing the template with a new date is not the right way to go.
  5. The fact that the original disruption here appears to have been caused by Dino nam's repeated biased RFC questions, and Dino nam has now opened an ANI thread accusing another user of "vandalism" when vandalism is clearly not what is happening here, and failed to inform the accused party, makes me wonder if a WP:BOOMERANG is in order.

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

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

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

You are starting to act like another user who recently got blocked for constantly citing policies and guidelines that he had apparently not understood. Vandalism must, by definition, be "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia"; if someone reverts an RFC close because they legitimately believe the closer made the wrong decision, that is not vandalism, even if it is disruptive. You are honing in on a minor technicality that in reverting the close, he also removed the closer's consensus statement that in a manner of speaking kinda-sorta qualifies as "other users' comments"; this is what is called wikilawyering. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you should probably revert your mentioning of another editor above. It is unfair, too say the least, as he cannot answer here, and it is also unhelpful, as everyone's case can be different. Drawing parallels like that is misleading. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 05:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Done and done. I thought the parallel was apt, and the case is not that much different, but I see your overall point. And I hope you don't mind my moving your comment to directly below the comment you were talking about. Your comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the proposed TBAN. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've protected the page for two weeks since there is definitely disruptive editing in the history page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I have to say I have real concerns about Tnguyen4321's edits here. Firstly, the editor attempts to close the RFC himself despite being involved [89] but then when I closed it they reverted citing no consensus [90]. That does not seem consistent with someone who is participating in an RFC in the spirit with which it is intended. I'm now involved so I will leave it up to others to make a decision. I wouldn't classify Tnguyen's edits as "vandalism", but frankly I feel that their edits here deserve closer scrutiny. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: You may be right, and I appreciate your drawing attention to Tnguyen's having previously tried to close the RFC himself; Dino nam should have done this earlier. However, given the bad RFC question (the second by the same user) I think it's unsurprising that no one was able to gauge a fair consensus and give a decent close until after the template had been removed by the bot. The biased question invalidated the RFC from the beginning, so it was at best a talk page section that should not be treated like a bona fide RFC, and at worst a form of canvassing and forum-shopping by Dino nam. Assuming the former, it's my impression that closing off an expired talk page section, as long as one is not trying to make one's own "consensus" statement, is usually considered acceptable even for involved users. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Tnguyen4321 did previously attempt to close off the RfC with his own consensus statement (which, BTW, struck me at the time as wikilawyering) [91]. I also don't see any vandalism here. Difficult editor to work with, based on my first encounters, but not a vandal. FactotEm (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Precisely. Tnguyen4321 had tried to close the RFC themselves which I reverted. Involved users should never close a contentious RFC. I then requested AustralianRupert (who was uninvolved) to close the discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN Dino nam from opening RFCs[edit]

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

User:Oranjelo100[edit]

Oranjelo100 has a very long history of poor quality disruptive edits, characterized by dozens of uncommented tiny edits on pages (such as here) producing often incoherent and incomprehensible results (such as here and here). The user seems to have a special interest in ethnic and racial matters, as the majority of their significant edits seem to be on pages related to these topics. His edits also often use very poor sources, such as weblogs, out-of-context self-hosted Google docs spreadsheets, Google-translated foreign new sites, etc...

Other editors have tried to talk sense into Oranjelo100 numerous times (I mean dozens of times, always on the same issues) on his talk page, but their criticism seems to have been met with WP:IDHT because this pattern has been repeating itself for over three years. In 2013 there was an RfC related to this exact same issue, but RfCs probably aren't the right approach to this.

After his recent edits on Ethnic groups in Europe, which I reverted, I commented on his talk page telling him what the issues with the edit were and what he should do to fix them. He just dismissed most of my criticism and reverted my revert, and then moved his edit, which is a massive 4000-character 0-linebreak questionably sourced blurb, from the opening section of the article into a section of its own (along with half the original content of the opening section, presumably by mistake). Since it was at least not completely ruining the entire article anymore I left the issue at that, not wanting to engage in an edit war and to see if he'd carry out on his promises to fix it. However, when he did go back to the article, instead of fixing the blatant issues it had and make it readable, what he did was added a bloody 4chan link as a source.

I was in the process of improving it, as I said I'm still working on it. Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This issue should've been brought to ANI years ago, but somehow has flown under the radar for over three years. Considering how long this has been going on for and how many different editors have tried to reason with the user, I'm pretty sure nothing will change without a stern talking to from a higher authority.

-- turdastalk 13:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A block under WP:Competence is required is certainly something to consider. There was a a previous discussion at Talk:Racism in Poland#Numerous references for various incidents. it was suggested there by User:Poeticbent that Oranjelo100's fragmentary contributions are due to use of machine translation to make his comments: "A quick look at his contributions shows that Oranjelo100 does not edit in full sentences and relies on Google translate for everything." The user has been warned numerous times on his talk, but until yesterday had never used his own talk page. They seldom use any talk page. I suggest that, since this might be considered to be a pattern of disruption, we might allow notification of people who have left warnings for Oranjelo100 in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh dear. I just reverted on Ethnic groups; Turdas, you may need to have a look to see if I undid your work. Ed has a good point: poor writing, incommunicado--and then the 4chan link and other general problems... Drmies (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You should check the history of my commits again because the vast majority of my edits are unrelated to racism or any ethnic issues at all. These were hardly my most significant edits either so I don't see why you are suggesting I have some special interest in it. I just thought that it's a good idea to mention it because it does exist in Poland, nothing more and that article looked rather one sided to me but I didn't press the issue(also on Anti-Arabism page) page after my edits were reverted to avoid further conflict. I understand that is a very controversial and inflammatory topic especially for Poles. I was even accused of being an enemy of Poland by one user that's why I didn't respond then.Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand English and do not need to use Google Translate for it. My fragmentary contributions are mainly due to my computer being slow and freezing when the editing window is open for too long and I didn't know that you can be banned just for that, though I can try to limit that as much as I can. I wasn't very communicative because I'm rather shy and some users made in my opinion quite aggressive comments against me so I didn't want to exacerbate situation any further.Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That was a link to 4chan's archive not 4chan and I did that as it is convenient and easy for me to link images through it. After that I then found and linked a study with those images anyway but I didn't know that linking to 4chan's archive is considered as such a big infraction here, especially as those pictures were unrelated to 4chan in general.Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. WP:CIR applicable policies include virtually every category:
  1. Language difficulty
  2. Editing beyond their means
  3. Lack of technical expertise
  4. Grudges
  5. Inability to talk about incremental changes
The bottom line
(direct quote, could not say it better myself): At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to mischief or incompetence. There's no point trying to distinguish between fake or real incompetence—disruption is disruption, and it needs to be prevented. Poeticbent talk 17:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't hold any grudges but unfortunately it seems some people here apparently hold grudges against me. I am knowledgeable enough about topics I edited. However if you really think Wikipedia will be better without me and decide to ban me, then what can I say. I always tried to improve Wikipedia and the majority of my contributions are still in place, but if you feel they are worthless or just a disruption feel free to do what you want.Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The first time I have ever encountered you was after your edit on Ethnic groups in Europe two days ago, so I can assure you that if there are grudges involved, they would have to be very short-term ones. None of the editors who have previously left messages on your talk page have participated in this discussion. -- turdastalk 19:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


Excuse me for starting a new paragraph here, but the parts of this section above are turning into a real mess. My two cents on this matter are that Oranjelo100 has good intentions, but less in the way of competence. After I gave him feedback on his edits on the Ethnic groups in Europe page, I noticed he was actually in the process of fixing at least the line breaks in it when Drmies reverted it. There were still numerous issues with the edit, such as the poor use of sources (the first sentence had four citations after it, three of which were utterly frivolous; two 4chan /pol/ archive links and one imgur link) and generally poor language, but at least he did not ignore my criticism and made an effort to improve his contribution.

However, these are still clear CIR issues. The editor has been on Wikipedia for three years, and is still using user-generated content as sources, and writing simply unacceptably bad edits such as the aforementioned Ethnic groups in Europe one or this one on Racism in Poland. Not to mention their comments on this page here, which are haphazardly scattered around the section, and even abruptly inserted in the middle of other people's comments. If they haven't figured things out during the three years they've already spent here, can we really expect them to ever "get it"?

I'll leave any decisions to the admins, but I would prefer if what seems to happen to many other ANI issues doesn't happer here, and that the issue would be handled to its proper closure instead of being left up in the air until it gets automatically archived. -- turdastalk 15:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't fixed that upper comment in fear of being accused of making too many edits again, my bad but that's quite ruthless of you, mentioning that in this way. In regards to links and citations, I used that Imgur and that 4chan srchive links because it's convenient for me to link relevant images through it. I didn't know that it was such an offence, though now I see that was a mistake and I was planning to remove that links when Drmies reverted everything, as I found an article with the source of those images.

Wikipedia's rules are rather vague in general and it only says that links to things like blogs are generally unacceptable, and only in the case of living persons they are always unacceptable. In my opinion Eurogenes links are reliable as official researchers like Lazaridis used that data, and even in the case of lesser known blogs it should be permissible for PCA plots etc, because they use respected and readily available software. That's just my opinion tho. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Your comments here are a stark difference to your history. I'm not saying that as a bad thing, as they have changed at least my opinion on the matter slightly, and I'm sure some of the admins would agree as well. That doesn't unfortunately change any of the issues already pointed out here. As another editor so eloquently put it on your talk page:
"The onus is upon you, to stop writing broken English and generally unreadable prose, and stop citing non-WP:RSes. Stop citing weblogs, spreadsheets, and other random stuff. Stop making tons of little edits, incomplete edits, and edits without comprehensively justifying descriptions. Stop doing these things, ever, under any circumstances. This is all I've ever seen you do for years, and it's totally unencyclopedic."
If you can improve on all of the issues other editors have been bugging you about on your talk page for years, then I think you can still make a good editor. When an experienced editor tells you something, even if they seem harsh, it's usually a good idea to listen. Your talk page is littered with criticism, often good criticism with pointers on how to improve, dating all the way back to 2013. Some have been less than tactful, but you have to understand that Wikipedia has no shortage of disruptive editors. That is what you have come across as to those people, and they have better things to do than to coach people on the very basic fundamentals, especially when there's a good chance their coaching would fall on deaf ears.
If you wish to keep editing, please start by (re)familiarizing yourself with the basics. If you are in doubt about how to write, consult the Manual of Style. Familiarize yourself with what constitutes reliable sources, and if you're still in doubt, ask the reliable sources noticeboard. Learn to use the preview button when editing so that you can avoid making dozens of tiny edits; it's still alright to make multiple edits in succession, but when your consecutive edits fill up an entire page in the edit history you've gone way overboard. If your computer has issues freezing during editing, you should sort that out: the Wikipedia editor (especially the old wikitext one) is not very heavy at all and even my dad's 8-year-old Celeron laptop can run it with no problems. And most importantly, listen to what other editors tell you, and reply to them if you disagree. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and the only way it can work is by discussing issues with other editors.
I would also tell you to use common sense, but I'm aware that not all people are very good at that, and most people who are would probably already have figured out by themselves to use it.
-- turdastalk 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist request for Domenick Nati (again)[edit]

Back in April, I requested here on ANI that the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist have a rule added blocking articles about Domenick Nati being written, as User:JellyfishFilms has been an incredibly persistent sockpuppeteer who keeps recreating the article (see the SPI archive). At that time, the rule .*domenick.*?natt?i.* was added to the blacklist. However, JellyfishFilms has gotten around this block by using alternate spellings such as Domenic Nati, Dom Nati, and Dominic Nati. Thus, I'd like to request that the rule be tweaked to .*\bdom.*?\bnatt?i\b.*, which would cover all those names and hopefully any future variants (although I can't say I'll be surprised if he dodges this with yet another goofy misspelling of his name). I added the word boundaries (\b) to prevent this from being too overbearing (without them, it would block words like "domination").

Another measure that could be taken to stop this would be to add Domenick Nati's website, www.naticelebs.com, to the spam blacklist. I can't find it anywhere, but if there's any blacklist that exists for blocking specific text content from articles, that could also be useful, as the article has been word-for-word exactly the same every time the sockpuppeteer has re-created it. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Regex looks good to me, though the .*'s are a little greedy. \bdom.*?\bnatt?i\b will probably suffice, as it'll catch your above test cases (and a couple I've tested) -- samtar talk or stalk 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: Some of the past titles JellyfishFilms has used include Domenick Nati Jr and Domenick Nati II, so it'd probably be best to keep the .* on the end. I guess the one at the front could be removed for now, though I wouldn't be too surprised if we see a "Mr. Domenick Nati" article created after that. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I would urge you to make a spam blacklist request in the appropriate place as it will at least temporarily disrupt JellyfishFilms and the link is not in legitimate use on WP. I'll leave more expert people to discuss precise titleblacklist regexes. BethNaught (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#naticelebs.com -IagoQnsi (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Title blacklist adjusted. The website has been blacklisted. MER-C 05:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@MER-C: Thanks, but it looks like you removed the word boundaries (\b) from the regex. This makes the pattern really over-reaching -- currently, you cannot use the word "domination" in a page title. Could you please change it to .*\bdom.*?\bnatt?i\b.*? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Done. MER-C 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@MER-C: Hey uh, it looks like you only added one of the word boundaries instead of all three of them -- words like "domination" will still be blocked by that. Could you change it to exactly what I put in my previous note? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ownership behaviour at Amway[edit]

Dear administrators, I am asking you to ban the User:Rhode Island Red. This editor seems to be engaged in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and negative WP:POV pushing regarding the article about Amway (and other MLM companies). He constantly reverts all edits I make, trying to keep only the negative information about the company and holding back important information from the readers such as the most recent one, which was my addition of upcoming legislation in India to the paragraph about Amway cases in India which got reverted with an explanation that "It's out of context, having no connection with the rest of the details in that section regarding legal cases against Amway India" which is not true and I explained that on the Talk:Amway. I have provided more sources that refer to Amway cases, but each time I add something to balance the biased information in the article, it gets reverted by the very same user using apparently fabricated arguments. I have experienced this type of behaviour several months ago. I have also noticed that the very same user has a long history of this kind of behaviour in many articles about MLM companies on Wikipedia including for example USANA Health Sciences, Protandim, Juice Plus, MonaVie... to name a few. His edits are characteristic by adding only negative information and not allowing other editors to add anything positive. He had been notified by other editors in the past about his behaviour, including User:Lord Roem, User:Wikiwiserick, User:Leef5... According to User:TraceyR on Talk:Juice_Plus, he has been banned previously (verified here: User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red/Archive_1#You_are_now_blocked). But I can tell I can see no improvement in his behaviour over the years.--Historik75 (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Historik75 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RIR was blocked, not banned. That was also six years ago. You should also provide diffs of problematic behavior to support the claim that things haven't changed since then. clpo13(talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: This report originated here, until I closed it for being in the wrong place. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
You have not provided any evidence that RIR is being disruptive. To me this looks like a content dispute. You want to add content and RIR does not believe it belongs. Please read WP:BRD. You took the Bold action of adding new content that you feel improved the article. RIR then Reverted you with the opinion the content does not belong in the article. This should have initiated the Discuss portion of Bold Revert Discuss. Then when there is consensus to include the information it is readded. Instead you discuss and revert the removal at the same time. Two editors have removed the content saying it does not belong in the article and you are the only one arguing that it belongs. If you believe you need help resolving this content dispute, you can use one of the dispute resolution options that are available, if you do you will need to convince editors that the information belongs in the article. -- GB fan 19:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Linguist111, I've re-opened this thread since there are several other options beyond the mere two you posted, and you (WP:BOLDly) closed it before it had been open even six hours, and you are not (as you noted) an administrator, and nothing had been resolved or even discussed. The OP made claims that the problem existed across several articles and that the user in question had been warned by certain other editors, and that the issue is behavioral rather than strictly content related. Talk-page discussion was already proceeding, and DRN had already been initiated at least once for this article, in March. I think it will be instructional for the OP to let this thread run its course. The OP has been requested to show diffs. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Historik75, you absolutely need to provide WP:DIFFs of the problematic behaviors you claim in your OP, or else this thread is going nowhere. Also provide diffs of the warnings from other editors. Also, bear in mind the fact that as someone with a conflict of interest, and as a single-purpose account, your behavior will come under scrutiny here as well (so you may want to withdraw this ANI filing before proceeding further). Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Additional comments: I'm going to ping Collect, who appears to be a neutral occasional editor at that article (at least I see that he has participated on the talk page). I'm also going to mention that if it is eventually generally determined that this is indeed mainly a content dispute, that Historik75 should note that there are many options available at WP:DR (in other words, not just DRN). Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Softlavender, for providing me with details of what I exactly need to do. As I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not know all the rules and routines. I am just trying to use common sense and learn on the way. Right now I am busy and I will get to this discussion later. I will provide detailed information about the behaviour (diffs) of RIR in the next 24 hours. And yes, I have a conflict of interest and I am, for the present, an SPA (as virtually every newcomer I believe is), but I believe I have information that could improve the article. I am not trying to hide anything, I just want to present both sides of the stories, not just half-truths and twisted information. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No, "virtually every newcomer" is most decidedly not an SPA, especially not for 300+ edits across seven months. Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I don't have the exact statistics. What I'm trying to say is that RIR started the same way, editing only Juice Plus (MLM company) article for 10 months before he has moved to article about Oxidative stress (and I believe it was only because oxidative stress was mentioned on Juice Plus page). Every newcomer choses the first article he/she starts to edit. When he/she experiences the same kind of behaviour I have experienced (and this is I assume most of the time in the case of controversial topics), then it is only logical that he/she becomes discouraged (which makes him an SPA) and finally disappears. It happened to other users such as for example User:Icerat. I now have more duties but I will get back later and will provide the requested details. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
You're making nonsensical claims and conclusions based on two users' edit histories, apparently to deflect from your COI. Most new users do not have a COI and are not SPAs. I wouldn't continue in this vein if you want this ANI case to hold much water. Softlavender (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


Amway is a horrid article. It includes editorial opinions that it is a "religion" of some sort, and material unworthy of Wikipedia has repeatedly been added. Material about a non-notable living person is prominently used, etc. I recommend TNT on this article, that it might be created with some semblance of neutrality. It contains SYNTH galore. RIR has, indeed, over an extended period of time, been extremely interested in this article, and, IMO, has contributed to rancor in discussions. Historik75 is a newcomer to this cf, and seems to be trying to wage an uphill battle. Inshort, a vacation from this article would be wise for RIR, to say the least, and I would hope someone like Arthur Rubin or Newyorkbrad might be able to assemble some actually unconflicted editors to clean up this spelendid example of the Augean Stables. Collect (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So, Collect, instead of commenting on the issue at hand – which boils down to a content dispute (misdirected as a baseless WP:OWN complaint) from an SPA with an undisclosed COI – you opine that you don’t like the article and that because I have shown interest in it, I should take a vacation? That convoluted logic reminds me of the kind of editing disputes we had when locking horns over the Melaleuca article (an important detail which you inexplicably failed to mention). Not impressed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that Historik, while definitely an SPA, does not appear to be a "newcomer" at all based on their editing history -- i.e., from their first edit showing a fairly deep understanding of WP policy and procedure well beyond what would be expected of a true newcomer.[92] I ain't buying this "newcomer" angle. Seems a lot more like a WP:SOCK.[93] Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Have you raised your sockpuppet concerns at WP:SPI? This isn't the place to raise sockpuppet concerns. Unsupported allegations of sockpuppetry are a personal attack, and, in my view, one warranting a block. So take the sock concerns to SPI, or drop them, and stop using them as aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't intend it to be an aspersion. I felt that it was no less important than the concerns that others on this thread raised about WP:COI and WP:SPA with this user. Nonetheless, I will take up the issue at the noticeboard rather than continuing to mention it here. I ask you to show the same level of concern about Historik's personal attacks, like mis-characterizing the reversion of his edits by consensus as WP:OWN or when he digs through my edit history in an attempt to besmirch my reputation and makes a false claim that I was banned 6 years ago. These personal attacks offend me deeply. In fact, the entire basis of Historik's complaint has been nothing more than a content dispute masquerading as a series of personal attacks. Thanks in advance for providing equal protection. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I would point out that the place to voice accusations of socking is at WP:SPI and not here. In fact, one might be sanctioned for making such a deliberate accusation on this noticeboard in this manner. Collect (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I already obviously know where to raise concerns about socking, since it was me who filed the sock report that uncovered a disturbing pattern suggestive of sockpuppetry (although the outcome was ultimately inconclusive due to steps taken by the SPA accounts in question to mask their IP addresses). There is nothing unreasonable about casually mentioning WP:SOCK as I did, just as it wasn't unreasonable when other editors raised concerns on this thread about WP:SPA and WP:COI, especially in the midst of these wildly off-base accusations about WP:OWN flying around. Sanctions? That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say over such an innocuous remark -- it borders on concern trolling. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, where should I start?

First, let me tell something about continuing personal attacks from RIR. I was labeled by him as a WP:SOCK here and elsewhere. This is simply not true. I don't know how to provide differential edit for archived page, but read the Ivanvector's conclusion here.[94] Despite the outcome, I am still accused of being WP:SOCK. It is sad that this type of behaviour on RIR's part still continues after more than 3 months from the day the investigation was closed. However, I am not surprised, because I have found that similar unfounded claims were made by RIR about other users too. Again, it is an archived page and I don't know how to provide differential edits, but you can read the paragraph. It seems to be RIR's way of trying to discredit editors and it continues to these days. Other editors had problems with RIR too in the past, which was the reason why he was blocked [95] (sorry for that ban accusation, I didn't know there is a difference between the two terms).

It is no wonder that User:Collect said what he said about the rancor in discussions and I agree with him.

Now about the Amway article. As User:Collect concludes, the article about Amway is everything but neutral, and I and User:Icerat agree with him which is apparent from RfC on Talk:Amway. The problem is that when we try to put information to balance the article, it is always reverted. Always. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is characterized by:

An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

RIR has been repeatedly reverting sourced statements that I and other editor put there not even trying to improve the text. Just reverted it using always the same claim: unjustified, irrelevant, whitewashing, etc. When asked to answer the question, he does not do so. Let me remind you that the whole debate started over this recommendation by User:Arthur Rubin here [96]:

I object to the (present) FTC finding that Amway is not a pyramid scheme being in the lead, because some other countries' judicial or administrative systems have found that Amway to be a pyramid scheme.

RIR immediately agreed with this unsourced statement and this resulted in the removal of FTC case from the leading paragraph keeping only the accusation and not the outcome. RIR simply didn't answer the question and pushed the POV to the lead. I repeatedly asked (the last time here: [97]) whether there is one court decision proving that Amway was a pyramid scheme to justify the overall tone of the first paragraph which only cites the charges and not the outcomes or the court decisions. No answer. When we started to have an NPOV dispute, RIR even removed the POV template from the page that I had put in [98]. The tag was re-added by another editor [99], but was again immediately removed again by RIR [100] and it stayed removed even when the NPOV dispute was running.

User:Robert McClenon then offered help with mediation. Unfortunately, it went nowhere, so the RfC was started. Again, no consensus was reached. But I suggest you read the whole RfC (yes, it's a little bit long, but worth it) to make a picture of what has happened to the Amway article and what I and other editors consider to be a negative POV pushing campaign.

I don't know what TNT means, but I assume it means something that the article should be completely overwritten. If this is the case, I strongly agree with User:Collect. I am not insisting that I must be the one who does this, but I am willing to provide the materials I have to anyone who is willing to do that. But IMO it should be someone who is not biased or who is at least willing to write unbiased article and who will present all the sides of the story.

This is the first time I am writing such statement, so if you find something is missing from my statement, please let me know. Contrary to what RIR says about me, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia. I really didn't expect that the first thing I would be doing here, is to study all the terms WP:IDONTKNOWWHAT that RIR and other editors use. But if there isn't any other way, I am willing to do that. The last thing - you have probably noticed that before from the way I am writing, but I am not a native speaker. So if you have problems with my English, I apologize. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Historik, the fact is that this is simply an editorial dispute over content and not even remotely an issue of WP:OWN. Several editors looked into the disputed edits and agreed that the content you were trying to insert did not improve the article, and they raised concerns about your conflict of interest. This includes Grayfell[101] and Richard Keatinge[102], and Lemongirl942 who said: “you seem to have a conflict of interest here and you are clearly not able to edit neutrally.”[103] Noq reverted your edit as well.[104] Softlavendar said: “You're making nonsensical claims and conclusions based on two users' edit histories, apparently to deflect from your COI.”[105] GBFan said: “Two editors have removed the content saying it does not belong in the article and you are the only one arguing that it belongs.”.[106]
So clearly, there is a consensus weighing against your edits and raising concerns about your COI, yet you persist in misrepresenting the situation as an issue of WP:OWN on my part when it is in fact an issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on yours. When you continue making this accusation when it is so wildly off-base it becomes a personal attack. As for your status as an WP:SPA, bringing that up is a legitimate concern in line with WP policy, as were the concerns raised about apparent sockpuppetry. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Since I was pinged, I will comment. The dispute over Amway has gone on a long time. A request was made by User:Historik75 in March 2016 for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is where I became involved. I soon concluded that there were issues about the wording of the lede paragraph, and no compromise. The next step was a Request for Comments. The Request for Comments was just as inconclusive as prior discussion, and was closed with No Consensus in May 2016. I tried to be neutral and will continue to try to be neutral. I agree that the article is a mess, as are many articles about contentious topics. The most common reason for messy articles on contentious topics is the repeated addition and removal of slanted content; I haven’t studied the history. Yes, TNT refers to a high explosive, sometimes used to demolish ugly buildings, and means to blow the article up and start it over. I wouldn’t recommend that an editor whose first language is not English take the lead in blowing up an article and starting it over. This dispute is fundamentally a content dispute. I would suggest either that the editors agree on who will take the lead on the article, or that the editors request formal mediation, in which case a reworking can be done with a neutral mediator. (I am not a member of the mediation committee and don’t do formal mediation.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Robert, I am totally OK with formal mediation if need be. It will allow us to bypass all petty squawking and focus dispassionately on content. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, just to clarify - I meant moderated dispute resolution when I said that you had helped with mediation. Still learning the terms used on Wikipedia. --Historik75 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
RIR, You constantly call me WP:SOCK even when the investigation was closed 3 months ago with no result that would support your opinion. Do you find it necessary to continue in these personal attacks? I remember that User:Icerat admitted that he stopped editing Wikipedia mainly because of you. If anybody can ping User:Icerat (don't know if and how I can ping him from here) I would be glad if shares his opinion here. The problem is much wider than just recent few edits. The problems arose in March and they continue to this day. You are not allowing anybody to edit the article unless they agree with your negative POV pushing campaign. However, when they do, then you quickly agree even with unsourced statements.[107] How you can agree with unsourced statement that Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme when there is not a single court decision which would prove that is really beyond me. Is this what you call a consensus? How many times I have challenged you to back it up with a source? The last time here.[108] No answer. Isn't this called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? And when I question the argument and put an NPOV template you simply remove it? Isn't that at least a sign that you are not so unbiased as you try to present yourself to be? This is not a content dispute, this is about your behaviour and as User:Collect says you "contributed to rancor in discussions" which is a statement I fully agree with. I don't know why you do it, but you do it. Again I repeat that I agree with both User:Collect and User:Robert McClenon that the article is a mess and from my point of view you have contributed to that more than anyone else with your one-sided view of the whole MLM industry. --Historik75 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not the article is a mess, as you allege, is irrelevant to your wild accusation of WP:OWN and inane request to have me banned, which was the sole basis of the ANI you filed. If we are going to reach a resolution, then the onus is on you to admit that the accusation was misplaced and that what we were really dealing was a refusal on your part to accept that the changes you proposed making were negated by consensus. If you can admit that, then we can move past the pettiness and discuss, in good faith, the larger issue of overall article quality, which is much broader than the narrow issue we were dealing with from the outset (i.e., your reverted edits on Amway India). Content disputes should not be personal, yet you made it so with your baseless accusation of WP:OWN. Recant and move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
RIR, you again completely fail to address the behavioural issues. Instead you focus on the last couple of edits. How can you talk about consensus? RfC was closed with no consensus at all. Yet, you pushed your unfounded and unsourced WP:POV version to Wikipedia and didn't provide a single document which would prove the edit was justified. You completely skipped all the points I made towards you, such as if you find it necessary to call me WP:SOCK, or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to answering my and Icerat's questions and your apparent unwillingness to let others edit the article unless they agree with your negative opinion (again, this is not a matter of recent edits only - it spans over a long period of time). It may seem funny to other editors that you call my request to be "inane" but it doesn't seem funny to me. After several months, my patience has come to an end when it comes to personal attacks made by you. Some may consider it a compliment to hear from you that from the first edit they "show a fairly deep understanding of WP policy and procedure well beyond what would be expected of a true newcomer", but not me. Just because I can read and understand a written text doesn't mean I have to be a WP:SOCK. I consider this as a personal attack because in other words you are saying that I lie about myself. Perhaps to block you from editing the article would solve the problem and will save much frustration to other editors. After reading some of the discussions between you and other editors, I can only tell that even though several years have passed since then, nothing has changed in the way how you interact with others. So, let others decide if a complete ban or at least a block is necessary, but in my opinion you deserve it.--Historik75 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive IP address on "List of natural horror films"[edit]

There is an IP address account on the article List of natural horror films, identified as 67.81.107.101, who recently has become rather disruptive. They have continually insisted that the article does not require citations of any kind, and the only information they have shown to back up this point is a consensus in the past that concluded that the article's sources should be removed (because they were all simply IMDb links at the time). More recently, this IP user has been removing the article's tag that notes its lack of clear inclusion criteria, which is a major problem with the page as a whole.

In both cases, this IP user and I have ventured dangerously far into edit-warring-territory, and the latter incident is ongoing. I wish to prevent such disruption from happening further, as the article's lack of inclusion criteria is a problem that the user continues to ignore and challenge without evidence. Furthermore, as seen here, the IP user told me, in regards to reliable sources, to "get them yourself", which I believe falls under WP:BURDEN. Thank you for reading, and though conflict is annoying, I hope something can be done to prevent disruption until that page is able to be properly managed. –Matthew - (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • You are required to notify the other editor of this discussion. I have done this for you. Katietalk 22:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    • My apologies; I didn't know that. –Matthew - (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to protect the page for 3 days to avoid him continuing to edit war and to give the discussion a chance to progress. A look shows that it is unsourced, so the tag is not unwarranted. I also need to note that unsourced does not automatically mean non-notable and in this situation there should be something to show that the list claim (ie, a natural based horror as the main antagonist) is legitimate. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like there needs to also be a discussion on the parameters of the page, as there are creatures listed that I personally would not put under the banner of "natural horror" based on description that was on the page. For example, I don't know that an extraterrestrial monster like the Cloverfield monster would count, given that it's from outer space and not from planet earth. There's also discussion on the article talk page that says that there are films on the list that are not categorized as horror, as they're considered to be action (or whatnot). Whether these films should be included - and what sourcing would be required to do this - should also be discussed. Honestly, that's sort of the reason why the page would need to be sourced. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing other editors' Talk comments[edit]

DHeyward has objected to my use of the words "conspiracy theory" and "hoax" to describe the conspiracy theory/hoax about Hillary Clinton's health (here) and has blanked that section. (according to him [109], because "we make our coverage of it pretty shitty when we label it a conspiracy theory"). Which I guess is an edit dispute; whatever. However, he's more recently taken to blanking my Talk page comments, specifically this RfC I just opened (original section: [110] / diff of blanking: [111]) to seek third-party input. Per WP:TPO, I think there's a fairly high bar to edit or delete another user's Talk comments and I'm not quite sure it has been met in this case. If it is, I'm hoping someone could notify me for my edification; if not, I'm hoping someone could notify DHeyward for his.
This may come down to a conflict of vision or perception of reality; looking at DHeyward's edit history he's advocated heavily that blogs like Breitbart, etc. are RS [112], [113] (and these outlets are largely behind pushing the Clinton health hoax), he's whitewashed Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to replace the RS-used term "militant" with "protester" [114], etc. I guess, in a way, I understand why he wants to edit / delete my Talk page comments, I just really wish he wouldn't. Doesn't seem chill, you know? LavaBaron (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Drmies Maybe? I don't think there's any active arbitration measures that have been violated here, but I could be mistaken? I was under the impression that there was a general proscription against editing others comments. If possible I'd like to avoid the intensity of Arbitration enforcement; just trying to find a quick solution to stop my comments from being edited and RfCs blanked. Once we start editing and deleting each others Talk comments it kinda grinds everything to a halt. LavaBaron (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a fairly high bar, and in this case much of it will stand or fall with the BLP argument that DHeyward invoked. But you were also pointing, or hinting at topics (including, obviously, the one in your first link) that fall under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Whether AE is more "intense" I cannot tell, and I'm about to sign off so I won't be digging into the argument DHeyward made for removing that RfC right now. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
[ec] Got it, thanks. Just to be clear and to keep this concise and focused, DHeyward's position appears to be that the content was a BLP violation of the tabloid TV doctor "Dr Drew" as, by putting Dr. Drew's conspiracy chatter about Clinton's health in an article titled "conspiracy theories" it "goes the extra mile to diparage him [Dr. Drew]" [115]. I think that's a real stretch as it sourced to RS [116] but, the content question aside, "Dr. Drew" was not actually mentioned in the active RfC he blanked. [117] This appears to be a rather transparent, though impressively bold, attempt to delete content that refutes the Alex Jones/Healther conspiracy theory and to stop the intervention of other editors by deleting RfCs before they're picked-up by the Feedback Request Service.
General note: Not sure if my comments here will be seen by anyone or if they'll be deleted / edited by DHeyward first, so please check the log before replying to verify accuracy. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • First let's clear up some of the aspersions. Above you accused me of "whitewashing" by using "protester" instead of "militant." The first source in the diff you provided is here. Did you read it? There is no whitewashing and "protester" is both used in RS's and neutral. Second, the drive-by accusation that I "advocated heavily" for categorically including Breitbart as a reliable source: that is false. Your diffs even show that the reference is to specific articles by specific people that are accurate and backed up by other sources. WP:RS has many facets and encourages all sources to be evaluated on a case by case basis. All sources have been inaccurate and unreliable for different topics and the purpose of WP:RS is to make sure we are using reliable sources for every claim. Third, your RfC was out of process. It was created after the same material was deleted in an AfD of an article you also created. Your circular argument that the BLP violating material should stay while the RfC is in place belies your intent to drag out process when the process had already determined it should be deleted (not merged). You were the only one that had participated in the RfC. End runs around AfD should be dealt with swiftly as we are not a bureaucracy. Fourth, you double down on BLP violations above with choice phrases such as "tabloid TV doctor" and then calling his views "conspiracy chatter." those opinions belong in your blog. As I said on the talk page, we normally wouldn't give voice to what Pinsky said since we are not news. Candidate health is a topic that comes up in every election. Heck, Bob Dole is still alive and the talk in 1996 was whether he'd survive the year. The problem with the "Conspiracy theories..." article is that it's a shit magnet and both campaigns exaggerate so we have one side that says any health concern is a whacky conspiracy theory and downplays every medical event and the other side says all health concerns are legitimate and likely. We can't solve it here and each side spins up a new expert every 24 hours. Candidate health is covered in the candidate bios (I re-wrote some of Clinton's since you seem to be digging). The topic cannot be covered, though, with such a presumptive title because it puts living people, including experts, into a BLP violating "conspiracy theorist" box just as you did above. You should probably sit out the rest of the election if this article (and the recent article you created that was deleted) is the type of content you plan on creating and developing. It's not encyclopedic. --DHeyward (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This is the correct page. The issue appears to concern a massive BLP violation disguised as a "conspiracy theory" which DHeyward removed. The removed section can be seen in this permalink. Unfortunately Sandstein closed the deletion discussion as "no consensus" and that decision could be defended at a review. However, the article was created to subvert this AfD on Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. The media has to feed the 24×7 news frenzy, and throw-away attacks are described in detail. However, Wikipedia should not contain such attacks except with an after-the-fact encyclopedic treatment based on secondary sources with an analysis of the long-term effects of the attacks. A discussion here needs to decide whether it's-in-the-news cancels normal BLP standards. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about editing my comments per WP:TPO - let's keep it focused there or this will get out of control. Editing other peoples comments is a fairly clear bright line, otherwise I would delete everything you just wrote (j/k).
On the larger issue, it's confusing because we have two opposing sides that are equally intent on deleting content: (a) people who think including any information about the anti-Clinton hoax violates Clinton's BLP, (b) people who think that including information that rebuts the anti-Clinton hoax violates the BLP of the conspiracy theorists. DHeyward appears to be in Group B and contends it violates Dr. Drew's BLP (see above) because it doesn't take Drew's conspiracy theory about Clinton seriously. That appears to be why he blanked the RfC which tries to get a consensus to include the mainstream view that rebuts the conspiracy theory. [see: [118]. This seems to be his M.O., similar to his previous attempts to whitewash the Malheur siege article [119] or to insert Breitbart [120] [121] as a source, etc. LavaBaron (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
So as DHeyward's co-editor on this article, do you also support Breitbart as RS? And a RfC can't violate a AfD, that doesn't make sense. As for me "claiming memory loss" I really hope you have a diff.
It's pretty simple, man: we don't modify other editors Talk page comments. That's a big no no. We also don't make false allegations about other editors like that they "claimed memory loss" [sic]. You two need to cool your jets or go back to Conservapedia. LavaBaron (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
In my comment above, I was referring to these two diffs that the OP edit warred over:
On inability to answer my question (reposted from Recent edit thread (edited for concision):
I've found the above exchange interesting. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you going to provide a diff to support your claim that I said I had "memory loss" [122] or are you just going to copy-paste random (and heavily edited, BTW - the hole you two are digging just keeps getting deeper) WP:WALLOFTEXT from other discussions to obfuscate your attack? Second request. (Also, per Bishonen's advice here [123]: don't copypaste text from elsewhere in Wikipedia, use links, to avoid bloating up the noticeboard.) LavaBaron (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Here's the diff: "Looks like a vaguely similar section...", and that's after five attempts to receive an answer from the OP and an intervention by other editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Here are some diffs of aspersions and personal attacks:
K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • LavaBaron has a most disconcerting habit of attributing disagreement with him to political motives -- e.g. here [124] where he called me a Trump supporter. What nonsense. (The ANEW outcome was No violation, for those who are wondering.) 06:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Article subject to enforcement restrictions e.g. 1RR?[edit]

Another editor has removed an AE header from the talk page of this article, on grounds that the template wasn't placed by an admin. That point is correct -- but it's not hard to see that the template (and especially the 1RR restriction) would in fact be appropriate there. Perhaps an admin would like to add it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed it not for rules stickler but because same editor (OP above) that created the page, also created the now deleted Clinton health page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor) and when that AfD was snowballing "delete," they created Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 and copied the soon to be deleted material to the new article. They put the DS template on the new page and then nominated the material that was already deleted in an AfD into an RfC. At best, those actions are out of process and removing the DS template and RfC solves it. At worst, it's an example of gaming the system to string out and delay AfD removal and article editing. Drmies restored the template which is fine but for AP2 housekeeping, I think it needs to be logged as a page level discretionary sanction at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#American politics 2 per the arbcom AP2 decision. --DHeyward (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate User page content[edit]

JGabbard (talk · contribs)

The extensive rant on this editor's user page, entitled Protesting abuses!, is probably inappropriate on Wikipedia per WP:USER. Admins probably want to have a look at this. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

He sounds like a refugee of the John Birch Society. But if you hadn't brought it here, would anyone even know or care about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
They listed Wikipedia but forgot to specifically mention admins. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Gosh, it's been years since I saw someone blathering about our precious bodily fluids. I'd almost forgotten that one. EEng 13:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"Let's make America great again" (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Well at least the Admins are having a look/laugh at it :>). That is what I asked for (I suppose). As you can see, although I have some years on Wikipedia, I am still "green" when it comes to some things. areas ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Based on this seems to be not a big deal, I have no problem in closing this thread as resolved. So, please do so. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Albuquerque, New Mexico[edit]

(non-admin closure) Everything has been fixed by JJMC89. Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 08:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

An IP 6 editor cut and paste moved the above named article to just Albuquerque and then redirected the former to the latter. Can someone with the appropriate rights please fix? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

2602:304:CF42:3320:F070:88:C951:720F (talk · contribs) is the IP that messed things up. MarnetteD|Talk 05:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Reverted by JJMC89; if the move is still needed nominate the redirect for speedy deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User keeps adding copyvio to Maulvi Ghulam Rasool Alampuri[edit]

Yesterday I ran across a page with a large obvious copyvio and I CSDed it because I thought it was new diff [125]. My bad obviously. I removed the CSD and restored it to the last version that seemed to be free of copyvios diff [126]. I didn't warn the person who added it at this time.

It popped up on my watchlist later as having had a large amount of text added diff[127]. So I again put it back to the last good version and palced a warning on the user's Syedtalhabinsaleem (talk · contribs) talk page diff [128].

They added the text back with an edit summary that said This information is not copyrighted .. this is verified and full comprehensive information by Maulvi Ghulam Rasool Alampuri Organization ..Dont Revert this page please ... you are doing wrong. Even though the page they are repeatedly C&Ping from clearly has a copyright notice at the bottom. http://alampuri-research.org/english/about_poet.php

Short verstion:

Removed, hidden and user warned that if they do it again they will be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent Behavior by Parsley Man[edit]

Issue resolved. --Neutralitytalk 03:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Recently, Parsley Man opened the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack seeking for it to be deleted. I !voted keep, and engaged in discussion, to be responded to multiple times in what I would consider an uncivil tone. I noticed that this diff [129] looked like a logged out IP address given that one of the two other edits the IP address had was also on a contentious AfD that Parsley Man was a part of in April [130], and reported it here at SPI. I notified him on his talk page of this and he admitted to the sock puppetry while accusing me of POV pushing [131]. After that he posted on my talk page saying "Hope your happy" [132] and then asking for me not to have him banned and to remove the SPI entry [133]. Additionally, he has changed his comments on the SPI investigation to remove the somewhat uncivil initial comment, and apologize and ask not to be banned again [134]

In addition to this, he has asked for the AfD to be closed, but went ahead and merged/redirected one of the pages involved in the AfD discussion to the other [135] [136]. While this had been mentioned as a possible outcome in the AfD, consensus was not clear on this, and not letting the AfD run its course to achieve consensus around the issue appears to be disruptive to me,

While I think Parsley Man is trying to do what is right after the SPI was opened, I think in general the edits are disruptive and slightly uncivil, and that it was worth bringing here to have uninvolved admins review it. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the sockpuppetry or other issues, but I noticed that what TonyBallioni calls "uncivil" (per his own initial response) appears to be this. That doesn't look especially uncivil to me, nor do any of the other "multiple times" that were taken as being uncivil. I'd hate to think what would happen if someone who thinks using the words "plagiarized", "superfluous" and "unacceptable" is a violation of WP:CIVIL tried wading into a legitimately controversial topic are like films based on American comic books or the Israel/Palestine dispute. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, and certainly agree that all the terms you used are acceptable. I wasn't talking about the plagiarism or other legitimate concerns about the article but rather the tone of being told "Please review" X twice in short responses. That came off as a condescending tone to me, with the implication being that because my views on wP:ONEEVENT were different than his, I hadn't read it. That along with being accused on POV pushing for asking what he later admitted was a sock to be looked into, and the use of ":P " and having a post on my talkpage that says "Happy now" "Hope you're happy" with a crying emoticon only, to me comes off as disrespectful and just further trying to escalate the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Meh. People say "please review X" to me all the time, and I usually take it as a sincere request that I review X. In fact, WP:AGF requires me to take it like that in most circumstances. And I don't see anything in the above-linked AFD to indicate that this is not one of those circumstances.
That said, double-dipping on logging out to "double-vote" in an AFD is a pretty serious offense. Since the damage is done and since PM has indicated that he will not do so again, I am not sure exactly how to deal with this. A final warning? "If you ever log out in order to cast two !votes in a discussion again, you will be site-banned"-kinda thing?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed on the AGF point. I typically try to do this, and where I have fallen short here, I apologize. The civility discussion was not my main concern here, as much as the behavior after he admitted to using the IP to double-vote. At the time, it seemed at best erratic, and looking back it still comes off to me in that way. Probably caused out of fear of being banned, which is not something I am advocating. The premature redirect and merge [137] [138], was my biggest concern and I wanted an admin who was not involved to review it so it didn't evolve into some version of an edit war. Someone elase has already reverted those edits. My suggestion would be a final warning type-thing that you suggested, and also a request/warning that there be no disruptive editting at the pages involved at this AfD until it is closed by an administrator. Again, thanks for your help and sorry for any AGF issues on my end. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I doesn't seem that PM had voted while logged in on either AfD where he voted as an IP. Given, on one he was the nom, but I don't believe there's anything preventing a nom from voting on their own submission, it's just redundant, and he should strike or sign his own comment to make it clear it is him. Seems like the most parsimonious answer is that they forgot to log in on a different device.TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, in the earlier AFD he was not the nominator, but cast two !votes, one[139] logged in and one[140] logged out. It seems pretty obvious that he intended to the same thing again, but was found out. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Missed it. Good catch. TimothyJosephWood 13:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note that I've closed the SPI with a one week block for Parsley Man.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Per PM's block and his interaction on his talk page seeming to be okay with cooling down, I'm fine with closing this. Like I said above, my main concern about opening it was that there was a premature redirect in merge befor AfD could play out, and since the issue seems to have been resolved, I don't think anything else is neccesary. Thanks to all for their help. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Free-for-all at Mannathoor Wilson[edit]

Resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Reopened, salt applied, re-resolved. Thanks due to Anna Frodesiak for the extra janitoring. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Mannathoor Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I am not sure if this is a BLP or ancient history. The (unsourced at the moment) article is being edited in rather rapid succession by a number of IPs and a few registered users. I have added a db-a7 and BLP unsourced which were quickly removed. I don't know if the article should be page protected or deleted. Not sure who to notify, if anyone. Jim1138 (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know what else to do but delete it as a test page. It didn't google, it was full of fiction. It looked like a hoax. Anyhow, it is gone now. I hope this is okay with everyone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Its back and in equally poor condition. May need salting. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Sufficient salt added. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Spreadofknowledge[edit]

Having originally intended to final-warn the editor, I went to their talkpage and found that had already occurred, and they had previously been blocked for 48h for similar issues. I have therefore blocked them for a week, with a reminder that further problems may result in increasing blocks. Black Kite (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Spreadofknowledge accused other editors of being racist. He has been warned and blocked for this previously. Given recent unsupported claims and his general editing history, I strongly believe this user is not here to help improve the encyclopedia but to push an agenda. Can an admin please take appropriate action? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Uncivil behavior by 23 editor[edit]

23 editor started a discussion ("Ethnicity") at Talk:Davor Štefanek not because of article content, i.e. as discussion title imples the ethnicity of Davor Štefanek, about what editor even openly stated "I couldn't care less what he is" (and showed no intention to discuss it), but to openly discriminate other editor. He, as an experienced editor, deliberately ignores the fact that the sources which were given as an example (about another personality) were unreliable and the case controversial (the topic is also discussed at Talk:Branimir Štulić), all in order, as he says, the article content is "not the point", but the "point is one user insists... simply because the assertions they support don't match their POV". My personal point of view and activity have nothing to do with following WP:NPOV principles. However, the user did not stop the discussion and continued to ignore the fact those sources were unreliable for the claims they made (neither he participated in the related discussion), and incomprehensibly interpreted my replies as "chauvinist babbling", and that my whole activity is based on my "own Croatian nationalist world view". He ends it with "pathetic", but I don't think it is more pathetic than such behavior by contributor with Veteran Editor II level. I reported 23 editor not because I want him to be blocked, but because I will not reply to his personal attack, and to be warned that such behavior is not supported on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What can I say? Double standards and lame excuses are nothing short of pathetic. Pointing out double standards and lame excuses is not, despite teetering on the edges of WP:CIV. I stand by that. 23 editor (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Whilst 23 editor is definitely skirting the edges of civility, I do need to ask, Crovata; on that talk page, why have you removed the sections sourced to the three sources mentioned? Why do you believe they are not reliable? Just saying "they are" is insufficient. I am unsurprised that you have received so much antagonism when you don't appear to have done that anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Black Kite there is no hypocrisy and excusing from my part - that are 23 editor's unjustified accusations, and instead to accept he was wrong or to move on, he called me a chauvinist. You don't understand the complex situation about the biography of Branimir Štulić, neither the political-nationalist pretentions about his ethnic-national origin or identity (and going into detail about that is not the point of the report), and 23 editor who generally edits Serbian or former-Yugoslavian articles should know that. I already explained, in the Serbian Glas Javnosti and Politika is claimed that it's "well-known that his father is a Serb from Niš, Dalmatian Zagora" (it's not a well-known fact, actually there only 2-3 sources to claim his Serbian ethnicity; his family is not from Dalmatian Zagora, neither in Dalmatian Zagora exist a settlement with that name), and that his father is a "Serb by origin from Nin near Zadar" (his family is from Nin, but father's ethnicity is unverified and non-factual information by the journalist with the only intention to reclaim Branimir's national identity, the news article is even pathetically titled "Kidnapping of Johnny"), as for the Croatian Index.hr (actually Bosnian-Herzegovinian Dnevni Avaz) it is claimed that allegedly told the journalist (but here can be seen that on the question "Do you write in Croatian language?" he replied "It is not Croatian language, it is literary Serbian language"). These claims like [141] ("I have not one Croatian blood cell nor am I a child Croatian-Serbian marriage") or Slobodna Dalmacija ("Croats do not exist at least 600 years") compared to the opposite claims (there is no need to source and cite everything here) where reliable sources confirm the genealogy of his family ("Croatian family Štulić lives in Nin for at least 500 years"), show his Yugoslavian-socialist point of view on ethnicity and nationality, rebellion against not what he is not (of Serbian origin, neither he or his cousins claimed any Serbian origin, actually noted there exist "strange statements, unverified information, all sorts of stupid caption" related to Branimir Štulić), but against what he is and where he comes from (the Croatian origin, Croatia), the history, the identity-crisis ("My family members are from Nin, Croats", "I am a Turk, and I am a Turk for myself, not for you, also I am a Macedonian", he is in Serbo-Croatian "anacionalan", meaning "nationally uncommitted"), to belong to nobody and nowhere, and so on. His father's ethnic origin, or Branimir's controversial (subjective) personal considerations, are out of scope for an encylopedic article on an artist. And like in the case of 23 editor's link, where IP said "content is dubious only for a Croat", the IP was warned by K.e.coffman that "calling out an editor's nationality in an edit summary is inappropriate", only that 23 editor is not an IP, but a Veteran Editor II level contributor who must know that. --Crovata (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much the same thing as here @Crovata: 141.138.54.39 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a summary of that case which is virtually the same. Removing valid sources and making personal attacks [142] [143]. Requesting CU with intent to fish for users with the same ISP [144]. Opposing the sources material with no basis in sources of his own, he simply claims the only posted source is wrong [145], funny for someone that has the following stated on his user page:"This user believes in using Reliable Sources.". His opinion must be more reliable that a published source. He and several other users exhibit the same disruptive behavior. I made a record of that here 141.138.54.39 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The only similarity with this case is the saying by 23 editor that ethnicity "it's irrelevant" or "The genealogical lineage is completely irrelevant" (which is generally not true), but that's a totally different article and talk page discussion, don't relate them.--Crovata (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
What about this "where you edit-warred with a host of IPs and sock-puppets pushing the opposite agenda" and this "Suzichi, don't resort to sockpuppets; I *will* report you".--141.138.54.39 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The only IPs involved were 178.222.51.163, 212.200.247.167, and 79.101.66.244 and they were from Belgrade, Serbia. Whether those IPs were sock-puppets it's his conclusion, but it is obviously not related with the case of Suzichi. Please, don't relate the cases.--Crovata (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The similarity is in the behavior. 89.164.174.221 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I collaborate with 23 editor on occasion, so I'm going to consider myself involved and won't close this thread. However, while the language cited is robust, it appears to be caused by understandable frustration, so I don't see any need for sanction on grounds of incivility. I recommend both parties compare and contrast reliable sources in the article rather than attempting to remove or discount a set of sources they don't agree with. The former method is what we do on en WP when reliable sources differ on an issue. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 why is the frustration "understandable" when openly was no 23 editor's intention to discuss both articles sources and content except to attack fellow editor? By what criteria his frustration is understandable? Your recommendation is something we already know, it's basic logic, but whether there is a will among the editors to do it? Did I continue to discuss the topic with 87.184.138.221 IP? I moved on. --Crovata (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to what Asdisis's IP sock would have you believe, the IP that edit-warred with Crovata at the Štulić article—causing both to violate 3RR—was entirely unrelated to myself. I don't edit from Europe (or, more precisely, Belgrade) but from North America. I would like to ask for administrative assistance in dealing with Asdisis, who, as evidenced by this AN/I thread, has clearly been stalking me.

Crovata's troubling tendency to pick and choose between sources, deeming some reliable and others not, simply on the basis of how they conform to his own POV, especially in WP:BLP articles, should be subject to community scrutiny, my own remarks aside. If Crovata felt "discriminated" against (don't know why he would use that particular term, but OK), I apologize. But claiming to have your feelings hurt doesn't make one's own actions any less reprehensible. The fact is that Crovata deems both reliable Croatian and Serbian sources unreliable simply on the basis of the claim they make for an individual's ethnic background. If they claim a person has a Croat parent or is fully Croat, Crovata thinks this is by definition reliable. If they claim an individual has Serb ancestry or is fully Serb, Crovata feels the sources used to back this up are by definition unreliable. Those are the "double standards" and "lame excuses" that I was referring to, and I still wouldn't hesitate to describe them as such. 23 editor (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are being reported for such behavior and in this very own report you are repeating the very things you are being reported for? Strange thing to do. Bold, some may say, but it depends on which terms you are with admins. It's easy to attack an ip, but I didn't report you did I? I find your behavior generally disruptive because you think that your opinion is more important than sources and when someone questions that you personally attack him. I've tried to engage you in the discussion about sources in the talk page but you have just personally attacked me. I'm not interested in your personal attacks. If you don't want to discuss sources I will open a RfC. 89.164.174.221 (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, 23 editor, but as you continue to falsely accuse me I won't accept your apology. You crossed any measure of common sense. It is incredible that you're again openly lying - where is the evidence for my "troubling tendency... to conform own POV... on BLP articles"? It's incredible that you're still considering that, and not only that, but that mine edits were done because of Anti-Serb sentiment? Are you at all aware of what you say? Suddenly he became so interested about the proper "ethnical background", only that he finds it "irrelevant", and yet he continues to ignore the fact those claims are simply not true and never discussed both the information and sources "reliability", even "neutrality" - of course, how could I forget, because that is not even the "point" (his saying) of the whole talk page discussion - it is to discriminate other editor on the false grounds of "nationalism", "chauvinism" and "hypocrisy". You tried to make your intention to look like it's only about "reliable" sources, which you did not discuss, but you were a little too hasty and showed your transparent intentions.--Crovata (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: A number of the IPs that have appeared here and are active on the articles in question have subsequently been blocked. There are probably also socks at work. I would pretty much ignore any IPs without a reasonable editing history when closing this report. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What really puzzles me is why the Asdisis socks would swarm a random An/I? I made a two or three remarks at Talk:Novak Djokovic, sure, but nothing to make Asdisis have a vendetta against me. Curious. 23 editor (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

João Vale e Azevedo[edit]

Please check the ongoing disruptive editing on João Vale e Azevedo. Jose Enes (talk · contribs) is removing reliable sources, adding unsourced information, breaking references, and adding questionable sources. User is behaving like 95.93.220.31 (talk · contribs), who caused the article to be protected. SLBedit (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User insists in readding the same stuff over and over. I won't revert it again because I don't want to get blocked. SLBedit (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

IP madness at Katie and Orbie[edit]

The page Katie and Orbie has been semiprotected by Drmies and an IP block has been placed. -- Dane2007 talk 00:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

For some reason, a single user has been persistently editing disruptively on Katie and Orbie by adding disorganized information, claiming that his edits are "better," and that the article "doesn't need to be organized." The user in question has been using the following IP addresses:

  • 107.77.233.56
  • 107.77.234.167
  • 166.137.99.179
  • 107.77.235.215
  • 107.77.236.80
  • 107.77.233.27
  • 107.77.236.130
  • 107.77.236.109

At one point, the article was semi-protected to stop the socking/vandalism, but after the protection expired, the user continued to make the same reckless edits over and over again without discussing on the talk page. I made a request on the talk page for indefinite semi-protection, but to no avail. Some of the user's IPs were blocked, but he keeps coming back with more IPs.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Chris

  • I blocked an IP and, after looking at it again, semiprotected the article for three months. Those edits are terrible; I wouldn't call them vandalism, but they are certainly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control[edit]

The AFD close has been confirmed by multiple uninvolved people, the article has been userfied (although it's now at MFD, which strikes me as unnecessary right now), and (this is important and isn't given enough weight sometimes) there is no rational reason to spend this much time arguing a clearly correct decision over and over and over and over when the userfied article is still available to edit. Polythesis, I'll answer any questions you have about this - within reason! - on your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

In light of this thread, could someone uninvolved take a look at my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control—the article in question is now userified at User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control. If any admin genuinely feels that this was an inappropriate use of the snowball clause, I expressly consent for anyone to overturn my admin actions, either by re-opening the AFD, or moving the article back to mainspace and re-nominating it for a fresh AFD discussion. ‑ Iridescent 18:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I obviously am involved with this, as I nominated the article for deletion. My concern is mainly with the author of the page. Their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and constant mentions of censorship set off red flags to me. Additionally, I'm wondering if I haven't seen this type of behavior before from another, now blocked editor, but I could be mistaken. On the Draft talk page I did give a few recommendations, however I'm not sure if these were even considered. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a perfectly good close to me, and I would have done the same. There is absolutely no point wasting a large number of editor's time on arguing about the deletion of something that is obviously not a viable Wikipedia article. Also, we have been here before (and indeed to ArbCom) on the same subject in the Gun Control article. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
(From the talk page at AN)- I would like to be able to comment on this Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Relationship_between_Tyranny_and_Arms_Control I brought this incident up with the administrator who created the incident report, and he took the matter out of my hands by pre-emptively filing the incident report against himself, and now I can't even comment because the page is protected. Why is that? Polythesis (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Iridescent did not file the report against themselves; rather, they decided to ask fellow admins on their thoughts. The ANI page is not protected anymore. GABgab 19:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please respond to my completely legitimate concerns in a respectful and thoughtful way, Iridescent. Explain to me how you define "unanimous delete consensus". Does my opinion not count? How can it be either unanimous or consensus if the author of the article was opposed to the deletion? How were the editors who voted to delete the page selected to participate in the debate? Why were no editors who are in favor of the inclusionist philosophy allowed to express their views and cast their vote? Do you honestly think that there are not many other editors who would oppose the deletion if they were aware that it had been proposed and they had the opportunity to participate in the AfD debate? Thank you for posting the original article where I can edit it and reference it. I am grateful for that, but obviously I strongly disagree with your decision to delete the article (which I believe was unethical and contrary to your responsibilities as an administrator), as well as with the decision making process, with the jury selection, and with what seems to be an attempt to unjustifiably censor an article on one of the most popular webpage's on earth, which was created specifically to allow and facilitate the free flow of information and the collection and dissemination of all human knowledge, including knowledge and information related to the article I created, which was my first article by the way. This experience has been very disappointing for me, and it has dramatically changed my views of wikipedia in a very negative way. (And by the way, I am a very well educated and respected political scientist, a political writer and activist, and a military veteran who was responsible for health and safety for thousands of soldiers, not some crazy person conspiracy theorist as you have portrayed me in some of your previous comments.)Polythesis (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus does not require the article writer to agree, and it is based on which opinions are given on the AfD page, not which ones we would like to see. I agree that the consensus in that discussion was to delete the article. It seems like you mistook Wikipedia as a place to publish an essay about how arms control leads to tyranny - there is a difference between an essay and an encyclopedia article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And also please explain why the article was deleted. Some of these questions and comments were asked/posted on your talk page but were never answered, so they will be repeated here. You were extremely vague in your explanation of why you deleted the article, Iridescent. Simply saying that it does not conform to Wikipedia's standards is grossly insufficient. Because it was taking up too much time for you to refute the article's right to exist is not a viable reason for deleting it, especially since not one person during the discussion was able to explain why they thought it was not neutral, what about it was not neutral, or what other policies you think it violated, and since the sources provided prove that the article is not original research. If it was taking up so much time, then why not just stop trying to delete it unless you have a very good reason to delete it, which you do not. Why exactly do you think it should be deleted? How could anyone in the Wikipedia community possibly benefit by deleting this article?Polythesis (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

To answer your questions in order: (1) as a consensus that was unanimous (that the author of the article is against deletion goes without saying); (2) the participants aren't selected in any way; (3) "editors who are in favor of the inclusionist philosophy" is a misunderstanding, since this is not a question of "inclusionism" and "deletionism" and even the most die-hard believers in 'every topic is notable' wouldn't support keeping an article which violates core Wikipedia policies to the degree this did; (4) No, the only effect of keeping the debate open would be more delete votes. (And I entirely stand by "conspiracy theorist", given that this topic more so than almost any other will determine the survival of freedom of democracy, with the possible exception of the free flow of ideas and information, which is also threatened by your attempts to delete this article is a direct quote from you.) ‑ Iridescent 19:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The close was sound. If this is what ya'll have been dealing with, then my commiserations.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think it was an essay and not an encyclopedic article, talk? How were you selected/notified to participate in AfD debate? What is your definition of an essay versus an encyclopedia article? My definition and Wikipedia's definition is that it is an essay if it my personal opinion, as where it is an encyclopedic article if it is a statement of facts and the views of various experts as stated in reliable published articles. My article was the latter, an article, not an essay. There is a very real, objective, measurable relationship between arms control and tyranny, and that relationship has been known and written about by hundreds of philosophers, writers, politicians and human rights activists fur thousands of years, as is accurately stated in the first of the two sentence in the article. And yes, consensus does require the author of the article to agree. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what the word consensus means. If I don't agree, then we don't have consensus. According to Wikipedia policies, articles may not be deleted if the deletion would be controversial. If I object to the deletion, then it is controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talkcontribs) 19:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I can answer some of those questions Polythesis, they're more or less easily explained in some cases.
  • Q1:" Explain to me how you define "unanimous delete consensus". Does my opinion not count? How can it be either unanimous or consensus if the author of the article was opposed to the deletion?" <- it's not exactly unanimous, however, consensus is decided by considering the policy based merits of each individual vote. If there are five delete votes which explain themselves well, they will inevitably trump a single or couple keep votes.
  • Q2:"How were the editors who voted to delete the page selected to participate in the debate?" <- they weren't, the participants would have found the AfD discussion either through their watchlist, notifications for certain wikiprojects, WP:AfD, or other venue.
  • Q3:"Do you honestly think that there are not many other editors who would oppose the deletion if they were aware that it had been proposed and they had the opportunity to participate in the AfD debate?" <- I can only address part of this question, again, majority of experienced contributors are aware of AfD and how it works, a lack of votes can indicate disinterest (but many other possibilities exist).
There is no jury selection at AfD, I could pop onto the page and just vote on every single entry there, I highly recommend against this. "unjustifiably censor", I see this comment a lot, and, almost never used appropriately. "collection and dissemination of all human knowledge" <- nope, not at all. If it were for all human knowledge we'd have many billions of articles not millions, there are certain topics that are on Wikipedia and many, many, more that aren't and should not be (a general example would be non-notable people; if the .en Wiki's 5 million or so articles were all biographies how many billions do you think would still need to be written for those alive now and all those who have passed before). "This experience has been very disappointing for me", unfortunately, this sometimes happens, it's just one of the things you need to get used to. Opinions differ and thus, so do outcomes. There's nothing else here to respond to that I can see, hopefully that clarifies at least how the AfD process works. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Which policies are you claiming the article violated? If the participants in the debate are not chosen in any way, then how and why did these particular participants get involved in the debate, and why were just a few of the millions of people who find this topic notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia not represented in the debate, and why was the debate closed so quickly, before anyone other than me had an opportunity to argue in favor of not deleting the article? Was there some time limit that no one informed me of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talkcontribs) 19:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

People who didn't comment on an AfD simply didn't comment on an AfD. Everybody is free to comment as they care, and they need to be on Wikipedia. I care about such things as Coropuna and Cerro Blanco (volcano), but not everyone does, to take an example. Also, a lot of the sources you cite do not actually say that "arms control leads to tyranny" - using such sources to justify an article on the topic violates WP:SYNTH. And again, please consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The AfD close looks good to me - there was no way it was going to end up as anything other than a Delete if left open for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
If "millions of people find this topic notable" why have none of them come to support you? The delete was fine. --Tarage (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course I could be wrong, but I am not. Did you read the sources Jo-Jo Eumerus? Are you familiar with the subject of either arms control or tyranny? Are you familiar with the views of Aristotle, Hamilton and Stephen Halbrook on the relationship between tyranny and arms control? It does not sound like you are, yet you voted for deletion as if you knew that the sources did not discuss a topic which in fact they do discuss specifically. I am very, very familiar with these topics. I have written about these topics extensively, but I did not cite any of my own views because I know that would be against Wikipedia policies. The sources I referenced may say something like "arms were seized to establish tyranny" (Aristotle, paraphrased for expediency), or "private ownership of arms guarantees freedom" (Jefferson and Hamilton, also paraphrased) rather than the specific phrase "relationship between tyranny and arms control", but that does not mean that I synthesized different sources to reach that conclusion; those were the exact conclusions of the original sources, in slightly different wording, which is why they wrote the sources I cited. A source is not required to have the same wording as the title of the article for the article to not be considered original research; the requirement is that the sources reach the conclusion that the article is about even if the wording varies. If you were not familiar with the relationship between tyranny and arms control, if those topics are foreign to you and you have no interest in them or the sources, then I would suggest you recuse yourself from the debate, rather than voting to delete an article because you thought it was original research or synthesis, when in reality you were just not familiar with the topic or the sources, and that is why you thought it was original or synthesized, Jo-Jo Eumerus.Polythesis (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to know the answer to that question as well, Tarage . The only possible answer is that the AfD process is very flawed. The problem is that there is no jury selection. There should be. What it appears happened was that five users who were not familiar with the topic being discussed and perhaps not familiar with the policies that pertain to the AfD process randomly happened to involve themselves with the debate, perhaps because they were bored, or maybe because they wanted to increase their stats as an editor. When they should have carefully analyzed the policy, the arguments of the author, and the sources before reaching a conclusion, instead they voted to delete a very important article that had every right to exists, that was in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and that has an enormous bearing on the fate of human civilization and even the survival of wikipedia itself, without understanding what they were doing or the long term ramifications of their actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talkcontribs) 20:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you hope to accomplish by deleting my article Jo-Jo Eumerus, RickinBaltimore and Iridescent? I can list hundreds of reasons why you shouldn't and negative consequences if you do, some of them a matter of life and death. What benefit could there possibly be for deleting it though? Saving a few bytes of space on a server? Exerting power over a dedicated public servant by censoring his work? Entertainment? Why have you done this? I spent much of my day yesterday and today defending this article. I am prepared to spend the next year doing so, because I know how important this topic is, and I know millions of people could lose their freedom and their lives if I allow this topic to be censored. And just to clarify, the definition of censorship "the act of a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc."[1][2], which is exactly what you are doing, with the possible exception that your motives may differ, because rather than considering my work to be harmful to society, you merely consider it to be not "encyclopedic" enough, which is a made up word that essentially means that you want to delete my article for some reason that you have not really articulated, maybe because you are opposed to the discussion of the topic, or you have no interest in it, or because you like to delete other people's work just for the sake of deleting it, I don't know, because you never explained your intentions, other than citing policies that clearly do not apply to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talkcontribs) 20:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only who has had enough with these false accusations?! If you do so again, you will be warned about WP:NPA. No, I wasn't bored or wanted to raise my edit count. Okay?! I find that statement very insulting. Your article was deleted because it violated numerous policies. Deal with it. It has nothing to do with our acknowledgement of the subject. Policy always comes first, whether you like it or not. You have a battleground mentality and have no intention of dropping of the stick. I suggest you do so right now. You can get blocked for that. Since you are still adamant that it should belong on Wikipedia, I suggest that you work on the draft and work from there. Arguing will not get you anywhere. Enough is enough. And may please ask you to stop writing WP:TLDR comments? It's incredibly long and you're just repeating the same questions. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: The userspace draft has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control. --Finngall talk 20:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I tried, in a discussion here, to engage Polythesis regarding why they could not work on the draft. This approach was seconded by Toddst1. Polythesis refused to engage us in that discussion. I remain confused as to why Polythesis feels it necessary to argue so vociferously in favor of keeping a badly formed article when such effort could be better expended on developing a good, working draft. The AfD was appropriately closed per the snowball close in WP:SPEEDYCLOSE. I too would have recommended deleting, but was withholding commenting on the AfD pending Polythesis' response to my query, a response which never happened. Now, we have the creator of the article insisting we are all wrong, insisting the AfD process is badly broken, that the people voting to delete are not knowledgeable on the subject, the same people are not familiar with policies, were bored, wanted to increase their stats as an editor, the article is very important (indeed, apparently fundamental the very survival of freedom and democracy [146]), and now the survival of Wikipedia itself. Polythesis, if you are that concerned about the survival of Wikipedia, democracy, and freedom then I'm convinced you will throw your best work into the draft article. Stop attacking all of us and get to work. I look forward to the excellent encyclopedia draft you will produce. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Your first article as a primer. I invite questions from you on my talk page that you may have about creating the draft. However, further hyperbole is a non-starter, and criticizing the character of your fellow Wikipedians as you have already done is flat unacceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

− So you claim to be knowledgeable on this subject Hammersoft? Name for me one single democracy in history that was established without either arms of the threat of arms? Explain to me how this democracy came into being and how it was maintained without the ability to defend itself from tyranny? Criticizing character is necessary when it is lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talkcontribs) 20:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • This noticeboard is not a place to discuss the merits of an article draft and its content. This discussion is now closed. As I noted, I invite your non-hyperbolic, non-WP:NPA violating questions on my talk page. The issue here, of whether the AfD closure was proper, has closed with affirming the correct decision was made. No further commentary here is needed. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

References


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • FTR, OP blocked as an IP's SPA. EEng 01:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Single purpose account continually recreating deleted article[edit]

The page has been salted to prevent re-creation. The page went through a full AfD and a deletion review process that affirmed the deletion decision. Filmfan655321 is cautioned to refrain from attempting to re-create the article and is advised not to make further personal attacks (i.e., calling another editor a liar). Neutralitytalk 04:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The article Blake Fitzpatrick was deleted after an AfD discussion. The deletion review for that discussion ended with clear consensus to endorse the AfD result. Now the article's author User:Filmfan655321, a single purpose account whose contributions all revolve around this non-notable film maker, is continually re-creating the article. I'm therefore requesting that this article be deleted again under WP:CSD G4 to uphold the result of the deletion discussion, and that it be salted to put a stop to this ongoing disruption. Thanks. Reyk YO! 01:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Orangemike deleted and salted the article in question. Unless there's further disruption, it looks like we're done here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The Afd discussion did not end with a clear consensus. Reyk lied through the whole undelete procedure. I have also contributed to another page, so this is moot. Just Reyk lying again. Filmfan655321 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor[edit]

(non-admin closure) User since indef'd by Ultraexactzz RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

HypErionZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing articles with edits like this and this. Seems like the account was created to force vandalism past the page protection on this article. Eik Corell (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eik Corell: Did you make a mistake while providing links? The editor has not edited any of the Articles you have mentioned Bentogoa (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Here's a couple examples for different articles: [147], [148]. Honestly this looks more like a vandal-only account, especially given the language on the talk page. I've reported to AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
And they have since been blocked by UltraExactzz. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
139.0.120.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) changed the diffs I provided, no wonder you guys were confused. Eik Corell (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Tricky IP that one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Range block please[edit]

RANGE BLOCK:

Range blocked by Black Kite for 48 hours. (non-admin closure) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit warring IP at The Exodus is indefinitely blocked Til Eulenspiegel, a short range block of 71.246.144.* shouldn't have any collateral damage but I'm not sure how to do it. I need to learn! Doug Weller talk 11:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Done, 71.246.144.0/21 blocked for 48 hours, collateral looks OK. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite: thanks. Unfortunately when Til gets on roll he doesn't stop. The IPV6 editor there who first added the material was also his and is now at Tahunian where I've reverted an edit he made changing sourced text because he doesn't like the terminology. But he's using 2 IPV6 ranges and I looking at them there would be too much collateral damage. Anyway, he'd just find more. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I really love that movie, especially when her head spins around and the green vomit splashes on the priest. EEng 17:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Active RFC archived before end (or even closure) at Talk:Gustav Holst[edit]

(non-admin closure) (& (edit conflict)) Closed in good faith and now re-opened in the same good faith. No point in dragging any further, except a reminder to all that it should be a formal close by someone uninvolved, even if that does feel overly-bureaucratic sometimes. – SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I'm just going to skip the talk page step here given the names and the scope of this particular problem.

User:Brianboulton archived an active RFC (about infoboxes) prior to the RFC ending (much less having been closed) at Talk:Gustav Holst. I reverted his removal. I have since been reverted by User:Cassianto.

Regardless of how those discussions should be summarized, closed, whatnot, I don't think either of those two users (who are both involved and at least one of which has strong opinions on the RFC matter) should be archiving these sections of that talk page, and especially given the contentiousness of the topic matter.

I will notify both users shortly. --Izno (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin/editor unarchive it and close the discussion formally, its been open since the 30th July and has not had substantial comment for the last 8 days. Brianbolton has archived it claiming 'no consensus' which given he actively participated in the discussion is problematic. Things to watch out for: There are related help and guidance pages for when hidden comments should/shoudnt be used which need to be taken into account. So a straight vote 'no consensus' result would not be fine. Any result needs to mention the related documentation. (I would do it myself except I commented in another venue regarding the same issue) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And a huge, smelly trout to Izno for making a non-issue into an issue and wasting even more editor time.--Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
(twice edit-conflicted): The last thing we need is a further bone of contention and acrimony on the Holst talkpage. Rather than taking the ANI route, I think this can be resolved informally. I archived discussions which I considered were inactive as they had been dormant for some time. However, I accept that in view of their contentious nature, it is reasonable that closure should be on the decision of an uninvolved editor or administrator. I acted in good faith, as I assume did Izno and User:Cassianto, but in the circumstances I will restore the discussions to the talkpage, and will seek closure advice from an uninvolved editor. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
If it was just a discussion that might have worked. However once a discussion has been set up as formal RFC with support/opposes etc, it generally needs to run the full length of time and be closed formally by an uninvolved party. Since there has been no real additions in the last 8 days, closing early is not an issue, but it does need a formal close by someone uninvolved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Izno was uninvolved and could've archived it. But they chose not to, for whatever reason. Clearly, they enjoy the dramah and thought there were at least a few more weeks worth of entertainment left to be had. CassiantoTalk 14:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat on my talk page[edit]

(non-admin closure) Editor blocked by Widr indefinitely for making legal threats. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

See here: [149]. User has been notified. I'm sure this is a kid who is upset I tagged their page for deletion, but per WP:NLT bringing it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickinBaltimore (talkcontribs)

Added unsigned tag RickinBaltimore, hope you don't mind. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Baseless accusations, personal attacks and edit-warring by User:Mozad655[edit]

BLOCKED:

Both Skyline12399 and Mozad655 were blocked for 72 hours for WP:1RR violation of WP:GS/SCW @ Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map by NeilN (non-admin closure) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

This user has indulged in multiple violations, so I thought it will be better to report it here. On User:Mehmedsons's talk page he baselessly blames Mehmedsons for being biased towards the PKK because after he edited to show multiple settlements under SDF control on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. PKK is a Kurdish militant organisation and Turkey which is helping the FSA sees the Kurdish YPG which dominates the SDF as an affiliate of PKK. Here's the diff of Mozad655's comment where he attacks Mehmedsons: [150]

Not only that, he also baselessly alleged me to be biased in favour of the PKK. This happened when I tried to question him about his claims for Amarinah and not properly sourcing his edits as he never provided a link to the map he used as source in his edits on the module. In addition he baselessly alleges I'm trying to find a pretext for personally attacking him even though I never personally attacked him once. Here's the diff for his comment where he attacked me: [151]

His above comments also indicate that he himself has a possible bias against SDF/YPG. Not only that while he chides Mehmedsons, he himself admits his usage of map as sources was wrong as the module prohibits it.

The user has also edit-warred with multiple users regarding multiple edits on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, despite the module clearly limiting reverts to one revert per day. Not just he break the sanction of 1 revert per day, he also clearly violated 3RR. Here are diffs of all his reverts on the module in less than a day:

This person doesn't seem to be here to make Wikipedia better as he has violated multiple rules. I request the administrators to block him. Thank you. Newsboy39 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what he is talking about. I was having a conversation with User:Mehmedsons on that users' private talk page. Out of nowhere this random guy who I had never spoken to before jumps in uninvited and starts arguing with me long after my discussion with User:Mehmedsons had ended and we had gone our ways. I find it very strange that he would interfere in a conversation that doesn't concern him and was already over.
I'll adress the points he made:
1) It was my impression that User:Mehmedsons's edits were biased because he used a map to edit pro-SDF gains while ignoring that very same map in towns that were shown as under OPP. I believe I had more than enough reason to think he was biased and I told him that quite frankly without any cursing or personal attacks. Why this second user then jumps in and interferes in a conversation he was not part of is unknown to me. I can only assume that it is because he himself is also biased and is defending his fellow pro-PKK editor. Otherwise why would he interfere in a closed conversation that he was not part of anyways on a private talk page of another user?
2) I did provide a link to the map he mentions above. A link that I copied directly from the adress bar of the twitter page belonging to the neutral map-maker. I specifically referred to the latest map on that persons twitter page. There was no direct adress for the map itself as adress bar does not change when you open an image on twitter. At least not on my monitor.
3) As can be seen on User:Mehmedsons's talk page, above user clearly wanted confrontation critisizing every word I wrote, like when I was explaining that the conversation no longer mattered because I had been informed by respected users on my own talk page that maps were not allowed as source (much of the discussion was based on a map), hence why my initial conversation with User:Mehmedsons had ended before this guy jumped in to escalate and restart. This constant criticism of everything and anything I said I interpreted as a personal attack on me, not on what I said but me personally, as I was referring to rules that were clear and out of discussion and that I myself had been informed of around the same time (see my talk page). Yet user would still try to argue.
4) As for my edits. I am not aware of making multiple reverts in the period of 24 hours. I always try to avoid that. It is possible that I may have edited something someone else before prior to my arrival had changed hours before my arrival and without me being aware of such previous edits. I don't know if this counts as reverting others people's edits. I won't bother look in to the above persons history for breakage of rules as I am not interested in personal attacks and don't really care if he is around or not.
Conclusion: Bottom line is that my intial discussion with User:Mehmedsons was over by the time above user arrived out of nowhere and restarted a conversation that he was not part of to begin with. I tried to end the conversation like I had with the first one, and consistently asked him to stop arguing as there was no point to it any longer. By then I had been informed by respected users that maps were not allowed anyways as source for edits. But this guy wanted to even argue over that. It is my impression that he is trying to get rid of objective editors so he can make pro-PKK edits without anyone checking up on it. I have been around for years and asking someone to be banned for a simple discussion with another user is just nonsence. Mozad655 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll address all your claims, here's the actual reasons truth:
1) You cannot simply call someone biased to SDF because you think they showed some territories under SDF control. That is assuming bad faith. There might be conflicting reports and you might think it is not true. But you had absolutely no reason for saying they are "pro-PKK" simply over a disagreement. You had absolutely no evidence, simply saying they showed some territories under a faction isn't an evidence.
2) You didn't copy a link to the map you were claiming about. All you did was provide a link to the Twitter profile which you claimed had the map "Yusuf Bayk under SDF - acc. to latest map from https://twitter.com/ArtRosinski". In actual you can find a different adress bar for posts. How do you think people source Twitter posts directly? They post the direct link to that post. And how are we supposed to know what latest map are you talking about? Posts can keep changing, so can the "latest maps" change. Alternatively you could have just opened the image in a new tab and copied its link. Your edits were unsourced, but this is about your behavior.
3) In actual, it was you who started showing a confrontational attitude. I never tried to have any confrontation with you. All I did was tried to find out out whether your claims were right or wrong and you didn't properly source your edits. Reliablity in an article has to be maintained. And how did you respond? You said I'm biased in favour of my "PKK-buddies". Now even if you think I was being confrontational, how come you are baselessly accusing me of bias? Gain you are assuming bad faith over shortcomings of your own edits.
4) Not only that you claimed I was tryibg to find a "pretext for personally attacking you". However, I never even attacked you once. It was you who started personally attacking me ust because I questioned and raised serious doubts about your claims and edits. Again you've shown presumption of bad faiths. I told you not to attack other editors yet you do it again. This shows that you do not care about Wikipedia's rules which your comments seriously breach.
5) You claim you are not aware of making multiple reverts in a period of 24 hours. However I have posted differences which clearly show you reverting atleast 6 times in less than 24 hours. Your claim is not even possible.
6) Why do you keep saying "pro-PKK" especially? PKK is seen as a terrorist group by some and Turkey is seen as an affiliate by Turkey. Your choice clarly indicates you are biased. You do not say "pro-SDF", "pro-Kurd" or "pro-YPG"
7) The reality is that you didn't bother to claim maps can't be used as sources until I was discussing with you. Here's your last comment directed to Mehmedsons: [158]. Here you accuse him of bad faith just like you did me without any real evidence. And you accuse me here as well.
Not only that you falsely, baselessly and ridiculously claim I'm trying to get rid of objective editors. That is another assumption of bad faith and a personal attack. You have violated Wikipedia's policies many times within 2 days. It is clear that it is you who did not like others making edits other than what you believe in, and started edit-warring, personally attacking and falsely accusing others. A person like you who so blatantly violates the rules and attacks others must be blocked. I request the administrators to block him. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Newsboy39 and Mozad655: As an outside third party, I don't see any clear cut policy violation here, although it is definitely worth both users to review WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Additionally, over the content dispute, I'd suggest using dispute resolution. -- Dane2007 talk 21:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Newsboy39 I'm sorry you still don't understand my point of view. I'm not going to argue with you again. I've read everything you wrote and its my impression that you have a very distorted perception of both the initial conversation (which you weren't part of) and the second (which you started long after initial had ended). Frankly I don't always understand what you write. Maybe some language problems on your part or maybe I'm not expressing myself clear enough in my responses. Still disappointed though that you would react by attempting to get another user blocked for a simple discussion covering a few lines. Decision has been made. I will move on and so should you. I'm out. Mozad655 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Mozad, I have every right to question your claims and so dies everyone else. It's me who doesn't understand how you claim others are "pro-PKK" and blame othets. Besides your discussion with Mehmedsons was very uncivil. As I already proved, your last message was a personal attack on him. Instead of blaming others and being uncivil, you should have either tried to address any problems others had pounted out. Your have attacked me multiple times. I don't see how there is any reason you can continue editing here. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Dane2007 I was never uncivil to him and even Mozad655 accepted he was wrong when questioned about some of his claims. In all my comments I was always well-behaved towards him and assumed good faith. However he didn't like me questioning what he claimed. Claiming that I was uninvited or anything else doesn't excuse him. I do not see how someone who has edit-warred, made personal attacks and baselessly accused others of bad faith should continue here. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Newsboy39: You're correct, you weren't uncivil to him. The reason I stated you should review both policies is because WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are closely related and might help you understand why I am saying I don't see the clear cut policy violation. The diff you cited for the personal attack was definitely firm and potentially uncivil, but in this case it was not a personal attack. As you stated, all editors are invited and encouraged to participate in the encyclopedia, so claiming you are uninvited is irrelevant in his argument against you. -- Dane2007 talk 21:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Outside party comment After going through the linked edits and talk pages and reading above I agree with Dane2007 100℅ but I couldn't help but notice that Newsboy had been warned [here] for violating 1RR and his responses to the warning editor [here] were very uncivil and confrontational. Now they are here making similar claims against another editor that they themselves are guilty of. But just my opinion on the matter. As for this ANI, never throw a stone in a glass house. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 21:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing Since being warned about 1RR by EkoGraf, I haven't violated it neither anyone accused me of it. And I only made 2 reverts. From thereon out, I have always tried to discuss something wrong in others' edits, however Mozad655 got angry about this. He seems to have known it all along and claims he didn't make multiple reverts in a day, even though he made 6 of them. Another thing is I wasn't being "uncivil" to EkoGraf, I truly did feel he was threarning me. But we solved the situation amicably and in a civil manner on Battle of Sirte (2016). And all of it was days ago. No such attempt made by Mozad655, only false accusations of bias and personal attacks. I don't think trying to find faults in both over one reason or another will do any good. Newsboy39 (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh no please do not mistake my statement,I never said you had done it since, But it had been done. There was nothing threatening about those warnings, typical warnings I've issued many myself, I've seen alot worse. But I digress, Back to the matter at hand, I just checked the refrences again to make sure I didn't miss something. I see 1 revert and the rest are just edits. As Dane said above you both should review both policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as I see no clear cut policy violation either.Chris"WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 22:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
WarMachineWildThing I understand what you're saying completely. I and EkoGraf had our disagreements many times, but never once I made any baseless allegations against him or accuse him of bias. And in the end we did manage to put our disagreements aside and solve the issue amicably on Talk:Battle of Sirte (2016). I do believe that Mozad655's actions are far more serious than anything I might have done some days ago. Problem with Mozad655 is instead of showing improvement, he blames others. I seriously doubt he should continue here. Newsboy39 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Dane2007 WarMachineWildThing I've checked WarMachineWildThing's claim and properly investigated all the diffs, however most of the diffs are still reverts. It might not be clearly visible, but I checked the previous edits for verification that they are reverts. In his edits Mozad655 has changed content back to as it was before others made an edit on it. Here are the reverts:
Mozad655 has made 5 reverts in one day. He should be blocked immediately. Newsboy39 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It would also appear that Skyline12399 in addition to Mozad655 has also violated WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR. I have issued single-issue warnings to both users and notated the sanction violation. Any determination regarding blocking must be handled by an administrator. -- Dane2007 talk 00:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Both blocked for 72 hours. --NeilN talk to me 00:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat against User:NgYShung and User:Anna Frodesiak[edit]

Prior to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive931#Threats to User:NgYShung. User:81.174.178.207, probably also User:Countyjail make legal threat saying to report user to police if any information was known. The diffs are on User:NgYShung userpage, on User:Countyjail talk page and on commons User:NgYShung talk page. NgYShung huh? 01:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked. --NeilN talk to me 01:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It's things like this that have me tempted to publish a collection of badly formed legal threats from Wikipedia. But that might put me on "the wanted list of worldwide countries" as well! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Urgent block needed to stop WP:SPA page mover[edit]

LibertyUA (talk · contribs) is moving Belarus region and town articles faster than I can restore them to WP:BELARUSIANNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME. I've tried to make contact with the user but, as can be seen by their response on their talk page, they're not exactly WP:HERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Notified him of the discussion and reverted a personal attack. Katietalk 02:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Well that's a clear cut case of NOTHERE. so I've blocked the account. Now for the phun part, repairing all that move related damage :/ (not it) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by LackofMeNecktar[edit]

BLOCKED:

(non-admin closure) LackofMeNecktar blocked indefinitely by NeilN --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

LackofMeNecktar has made numerous disruptive and/or unconstructive edits recently, including impersonating an administrator, [159] and creating a hoax article (The Greeny Channel) from which he then removed the speedy template. There are other relatively minor unconstructive edits in his history (e.g. this one), all of which I think amounts to sufficient reason for an indef block. However, I welcome not just admins actually blocking him, but also other opinions as to whether this is the best way to handle this situation. Everymorning (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't do much when given responses like this. Blocked indefinitely. --NeilN talk to me 03:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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